Everybody’s Talking About AI: Takeaways from the February 20, 2026 Fordham Law Symposium; Lexology, February 26, 2026

 Seyfarth Shaw LLP - Owen Wolfe, Lexology; Everybody’s Talking About AI: Takeaways from the February 20, 2026 Fordham Law Symposium

"On February 20, 2026, Gadgets, Gigabytes and Goodwill Blog co-editor Owen Wolfe spoke at the Fordham School of Law as part of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal Symposium, The Meaning of Ownership: Rethinking Intellectual Property, Creativity, and Control in the Age of Innovation. Owen discussed how courts have so far applied the “fair use” doctrine to cases involving generative AI, distinguishing between use of copyrighted materials in gen AI training and gen AI outputs that are alleged to be substantially similar to the original works. He noted that the decisions to date have been mixed, with some courts finding that certain uses of copyrighted works for AI training are fair use, and other courts expressing skepticism about whether that is the correct result. Owen also surveyed arguments both for and against a finding of fair use, giving the audience food for thought about what courts might decide in the future and whether we might see an amendment to the Copyright Act down the road.

Owen’s talk followed one by Dr. Douglas Lind, a professor at Virginia Tech, who surveyed the history of copyright law in the United States. He focused on the law’s treatment of phonograph records and sound recordings when those new technologies first emerged. Dr. Lind noted that copyright law evolved, and the Copyright Act was eventually amended, to address those new technologies. Dr. Lind raised the question of whether the Copyright Act should be amended again to address gen AI."

Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works; IP Watchdog, November 3, 2025

 ROSE ESFANDIARI , IP Watchdog; Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works

"On Friday, October 31, Professors Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, Lawrence Lessig and a number of other professors and researchers filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, urging the Court to grant certiorari and recognize copyright protection for works generated by artificial intelligence (AI).

The brief argued that “excluding AI-generated works from copyright protection threatens the foundations of American creativity, innovation, and economic growth,” warning that the lower court’s interpretation, which requires human authorship, disregards the “spirit of the Copyright Act.”"

Think you actually own all those movies you’ve been buying digitally? Think again; The Guardian, August 27, 2025

 J Oliver Conroy, The Guardian; Think you actually own all those movies you’ve been buying digitally? Think again

[Kip Currier: This article underscores why the First Sale Doctrine (Section 109a) of the U.S. Copyright Statute is such a boon for consumers and public libraries: when you (or a library) buy a physical book, you actually do own that physical book (though the copyright to that book remains with the copyright holder, which is an important distinction to remember).

The First Sale Doctrine is what enables a library to purchase physical books and then lend them to as many borrowers as it wants. Not so for digital books, which are generally licensed by publishers to users and libraries who pay for licenses to those digital books.

The bottom line: You as a digital content licensee only retain access to the digital items you license, so long as the holder of that license -- the licensor -- says you may have access to its licensed content.

This distinction between physical and digital content has put great pressure on library budgets to provide users with access to electronic resources, while libraries face ever-increasing fees from licensors. This fiscally-fraught environment has been exacerbated by Trump 2.0's dismantling of IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services) grants that supported the licensing of ebooks and audiobooks by libraries. Some states have said "enough" and are attempting to rebalance what some see as an unequal power dynamic between publishers and libraries/users. See "Libraries Pay More for E-Books. Some States Want to Change That. Proposed legislation would pressure publishers to adjust borrowing limits and find other ways to widen access." New York Times (July 16, 2025)]

[Excerpt]

"Regardless of whether the lawsuit is ultimately successful, it speaks to a real problem in an age when people access films, television series, music and video games through fickle online platforms: impermanence. The advent of streaming promised a world of digital riches in which we could access libraries of our favorite content whenever we wanted. It hasn’t exactly worked out that way...

The problem is that you aren’t downloading the movie, to own and watch forever; you’re just getting access to it on Amazon’s servers – a right that only lasts as long as Amazon also has access to the film, which depends on capricious licensing agreements that vary from title to title. A month or five years from now, that license may expire – and the movie will disappear from your Amazon library. Yet the $14.99 you paid does not reappear in your pocket."

Murder (or not) at the Library of Congress?; Washington Post, 10/31/16

David Post, Washington Post; Murder (or not) at the Library of Congress? :

"In any complex organization, it’s crucial for senior management to be unified in their understanding of the organization’s mission and how that mission can best be accomplished. It seems fairly basic that any new leader is entitled to expect, at a minimum, that all of the members of her management team actually want to be part of the organization — that they see a future for themselves and their staffs in the organization. In the academic world, where I spend most of my time, everyone expects a new university president to make major, senior-level personnel changes when he or she takes the helm. Sometimes those changes come quickly — as when there is a sharp divergence of views on a matter central to the shape and identity of the institution. Sometimes they come more slowly, as time reveals more subtle conflicts or incongruities between a given administrator’s approach to his or her job and the new president’s vision for the future of the institution. Always, however, personnel changes come. They’re a normal and healthy part of institutional evolution, even if they produce some short-term disorientation.

We’ll likely never know the details of Pallante’s departure from her job. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that the logical explanation is probably the actual one."