Artwork created entirely by artificial intelligence without any human involvement does not qualify for copyright protection, lawyers for the U.S. Copyright Office told the U.S. Supreme Court in a filing in in late January.
A raft of Big Tech and artificial intelligence companies have been hit with class actions in California federal court for allegedly using pirated copyrighted books and YouTube videos to train their AI models without the authors’ and creators’ permission.
There are two key federally created entities whose mission it is to issue licenses and collect royalties on behalf of rights holders for digital transmissions of music: SoundExchange and the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC). This article reports on recent court rulings over whether the plaintiffs had viable causes of action related to SoundExchange and MLC royalty payments.
Early in Van Halen’s career, Neil Zlozower shot photos of the music group at Sunset Sound Studios with Eddie holding his famous "Frankenstein" guitar. Years later, Zlozower sued the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum, alleging copyright infringement after the institution included two of his Van Halen photos, unlicensed from and uncredited to Zlozower, in exhibits at the museum.
When can an artist using AI tools copyright their work? Earlier this year, the Copyright Office addressed the issue and rejected the proposition that only prompting an AI model can create a copyrightable work. But Copyright Office’s analysis missed that “randomness” for a computer means something entirely different than we generally think, ultimately underselling the amount of control someone can have over a model’s output.
The world’s largest music label, Universal Music Group, has announced it reached a settlement with artificial intelligence music platform Udio in a copyright infringement suit — a decision that attorneys specializing in AI, intellectual property and entertainment law say may prove precedential down the line as artists in both the entertainment and publishing industries continue to navigate the question of fair use in pending litigation against AI firms.
A computer scientist is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to extend copyright protection to works created entirely by artificial intelligence in one of the first cases to reach the justices about the revolutionary technology.
AI-assisted artwork poses a simple question: When can an artist using AI tools copyright their work? Early this year, the Copyright Office addressed this issue and rejected the proposition that only prompting an AI model can create a copyrightable work. But their analysis missed that “randomness” for a computer means something entirely different than we generally think, ultimately underselling the amount of control someone can have over the model’s output.
Copyright Law Year in Review, Dec. 11, 2025
A computer scientist is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to extend copyright protection to works created entirely by artificial intelligence in one of the first cases to reach the justices about the revolutionary technology.
