Copyright

Subscribe to Copyright via RSS

The following is part of our annual publication Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2026. Explore all topics or download the PDF.

Overview of AI Copyright Litigation

In 2026, we can expect important developments in the legal landscape of generative AI and copyright. Dozens of copyright infringement lawsuits targeting the training and development of AI models—capable of generating text, images, video, music and more—are advancing toward dispositive rulings. The central issue remains whether training AI models using unlicensed copyrighted works is infringing or instead constitutes fair use under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Courts consider four factors in determining whether a particular use is fair: (1) the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The thrust of this inquiry is whether the use is transformative—serving a different purpose or function from the original work—or merely usurps the market for the original by reproducing its protected expression. As courts establish legal frameworks for AI training and protection of AI-generated outputs, companies and boards should closely monitor developments to fully understand the risks and opportunities of AI implementation.

On November 4, 2025, the UK High Court handed down judgment in Getty Images v. Stability AI,[1] a case emphasized for its significance to content creators and the AI industry and “the balance to be struck between the two warring factions”.[2] Despite significant public interest in the lawsuit, the issues that remained before the court on the “diminished”[3] case were limited (after Getty abandoned its primary infringement claims during trial). The judgment dismisses Getty’s remaining claims of secondary copyright infringement. While some claims of trademark infringement asserted by Getty were upheld, Justice Joanna Smith DBE acknowledged the findings were “extremely limited in scope”.[4]

This is the final part of our four-part series on the EUIPO study on GenAI and copyright. Read parts 1, 2, and 3.

The EUIPO study provides detailed insights into the evolving relationship between GenAI and copyright law, highlighting both the complex challenges and emerging solutions in this rapidly developing field. As discussed in the previous parts of this series, the study addresses crucial issues at both the training (input) and deployment (output) stages of GenAI systems.

This is the third part of our four-part series on the EUIPO study on GenAI and copyright. Read parts 1, 2, and 4.

This third part of the four-part series offers four key takeaways on GenAI output, highlighting critical issues around retrieval augmented generation (RAG), transparency solutions, copyright retention concerns and emerging technical remedies.

This is the second part of our four-part series on the EUIPO study on GenAI and copyright. Read parts 1, 3, and 4.

In this second part of our four-part series exploring the EUIPO study on GenAI and copyright, we set out our key takeaways regarding GenAI inputs, including findings on the evolving interpretation of the legal text and data mining (TDM) rights reservation regime and existing opt-out measures.

This week, a federal court in Tennessee transferred to California a lawsuit brought by several large music publishers against a California-based AI company, Anthropic PBC. Plaintiffs in Concord Music Group et al. v. Anthropic PBC[1] allege that Anthropic infringed the music publishers’ copyrights by improperly using copyrighted song lyrics to train Claude, its generative AI model.  The music publishers asserted not only direct copyright infringement based on this training, but also contributory and vicarious infringement based on user-prompted outputs and violation of Section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for allegedly removing plaintiffs’ copyright management information from copies of the lyrics.  On November 16, 2023, the music publishers also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would require Anthropic to implement effective “guardrails” in its Claude AI models to prevent outputs that infringe plaintiffs’ copyrighted lyrics and preclude Anthropic from creating or using unauthorized copies of those lyrics to train future AI models. 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Hearst Newspapers, LLC v. Martinelli, declining to determine whether the “discovery rule” applies in Copyright Act infringement cases and under what circumstances.  As a result, most circuits will continue to apply the rule to determine when an infringement claim accrues for purposes of applying the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations.

Last week, a divided Supreme Court held in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. et al. v. Nealy et al. that a copyright plaintiff who timely files an infringement lawsuit based on the “discovery rule” may recover damages for infringements that occurred outside the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations period.[1]  A claim generally accrues when an infringing act occurs, but many circuits apply a “discovery rule,” pursuant to which a claim accrues when a plaintiff has (or with reasonable diligence should have) discovered the infringement, which could be many years later.  Courts applying this rule have recently disagreed on how far back damages are available, with the Second Circuit holding that a copyright claimant may recover only three years’ of damages, even if the suit was otherwise timely under the discovery rule.  The Supreme Court rejected that conclusion, holding that “no such limit on damages exists” in the Copyright Act, which “entitles a copyright owner to recover damages for any timely claim” no matter when the infringement occurred.