Copyrights

The Court held that intent is required and that mere awareness of infringement does not establish secondary liability.

The Court held that intent is required and that mere awareness of infringement does not establish secondary liability.

On Dec. 1, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cox Communications Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. The case turned on whether Internet Service Providers could be “contributorily liable for copyright infringement, when the provider knew that specific subscribers were using its service to flagrantly infringe and continued to supply those repeat infringers with service.”

Key insights from a panel discussion during this year’s South by Southwest conference in Austin, where speakers weighed the impact of a landmark music industry verdict and what comes next for a sector awash with artificial intelligence.

Adobe was hit with a class action lawsuit accusing the software company of illegally copying hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books, including titles scraped from pirate “shadow libraries,” in what the suit calls large scale, willful copyright infringement.

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.

Two federal courts recently issued rulings on notable issues impacting whether and how artists can terminate prior assignments of copyrights in their works.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently acknowledged criticisms of the “total concept and feel” test for substantial similarity in copyright infringement. This judicial recognition of mounting criticism of the influential test appears to invite a challenge to overrule it in favor of a new test.