The $1.5 Billion Reckoning: AI Copyright and the 2026 Regulatory Minefield; JD Supra, January 27, 2026

 Rob Robinson, JD Supra ; The $1.5 Billion Reckoning: AI Copyright and the 2026 Regulatory Minefield

"In the silent digital halls of early 2026, the era of “ask for forgiveness later” has finally hit a $1.5 billion brick wall. As legal frameworks in Brussels and New Delhi solidify, the wild west of AI training data is being partitioned into clearly marked zones of liability and license. For those who manage information, secure data, or navigate the murky waters of eDiscovery, this landscape is no longer a theoretical debate—it is an active regulatory battlefield where every byte of training data carries a price tag."

Here's who owns what when it comes to AI, creativity and intellectual property; World Economic Forum, October 10, 2025

 Seemantani Sharma, Co-Founder, Mabill Technologies | Intellectual Property & Innovation Expert, Mabill Technologies, World Economic Forum ; Here's who owns what when it comes to AI, creativity and intellectual property

"Rethinking ownership

The intersection of AI, consciousness and intellectual property requires us to rethink how ownership should evolve. Keeping intellectual property strictly human-centred safeguards accountability, moral agency and the recognition of human creativity. At the same time, acknowledging AI’s expanding role in production may call for new approaches in law. These could take the form of shared ownership models, new categories of liability or entirely new rights frameworks.

For now, the legal balance remains with humans. As long as AI lacks consciousness, it cannot be considered a rights-holder under existing intellectual property theories. Nonetheless, as machine intelligence advances, society faces a pivotal choice. Do we reinforce a human-centred system to protect dignity and creativity or do we adapt the law to reflect emerging realities of collaboration between humans and machines?

This is more than a legal debate. It is a test of how much we value human creativity in an age of intelligent machines. The decisions we take today will shape the future of intellectual property and the meaning of authorship, innovation and human identity itself."

AI Training Study to Come This Year, Copyright Office Says; Bloomberg Law, October 31, 2024

 Annelise Gilbert , Bloomberg Law; AI Training Study to Come This Year, Copyright Office Says

"The Copyright Office’s report on the legal implications of training artificial intelligence models on copyrighted works is still expected to publish by the end of 2024, the office’s director told lawmakers.

Director Shira Perlmutter on Wednesday said the office aims to complete the remaining two sections of its three-part AI report in the next two months—one on the copyrightability of generative AI output and the other about liability, licensing, and fair use in regards to AI training on protected works."

Greenville County Library System committee votes 5-1 to eliminate all displays. What to know.; Greenville News, October 13, 2023

 Savannah Moss, Greenville News; Greenville County Library System committee votes 5-1 to eliminate all displays. What to know.

"“I asked our library staff to research if there was another library system that had eliminated themed displays. They did not find any. In other words, we appear to be the first to eliminate theme displays,” Pinkston said. “Are we blazing a trail that others will soon follow? Or are we overreacting to a containable problem?”"

Ethics Webinar: When an Attorney or Expert Screws Up; American Bar Association (ABA), Thursday, January 24, 2019

AMBAR.ORG     |      CAREER CENTER     |      MEMBERSHIP     |      CALENDAR     |      CLE     |   PUBLISHING

Oops: What To Do When an Attorney or Expert Screws Up Webinar | January 24, 2019 1:00 PM — 2:00 PM ET 1.00 Ethics/Professionalism CLE Credit   LEARN MORE

This program will address the ethical rules governing attorneys when they make a mistake or discover that someone else has made a mistake. The program also provides:

Practical tips for identifying mistakes Strategies for addressing mistakes with clients Practical solutions for resolving mistakes and avoiding malpractice claims Adverse consequences of not addressing mistakes early Practical tips to comply with ethical obligations and avoid malpractice claims Sponsor(s): Section of Litigation; Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division; Senior Lawyers Division; Young Lawyers Division; Standing Committee on Paralegals; ABACLE Panelist(s): David Benkert (Ankura Consulting, Inc); Latoyia Watkins Pierce (AXA); Michael Leboff (Partner, Klein & Wilson); and Selena E. Molina (Associate, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP) (Moderator)

Research: A Strong Privacy Policy Can Save Your Company Millions; Harvard Business Review, February 15, 2018

Kelly D. Martin and 

Abhishek Borah and 

Robert W. Palmatier, 

Harvard Business Review; Research: A Strong Privacy Policy Can Save Your Company Millions

"Our research shows that data breaches sometimes harm a firm’s close rivals (due to spillover effects), but sometimes help them (due to competitive effects). What is more, we found that a good corporate privacy policy can shield firms from the financial harm posed by a data breach — by offering customers transparency and control over their personal information — while a flawed policy can exacerbate the problems caused by a breach. Together, this evidence is the first to show that a firm’s close rivals are directly, financially affected by its data breach and also to offer actionable solutions that could save some companies hundreds of millions of dollars.

Our research shows that sometimes a breach creates spillover, where investors perceive a guilt-by-association effect that harms the breached firm’s close rivals."

Hillary Clinton, Burns Strider, and the Fault Lines of #MeToo; The Atlantic, January 26, 2018

Megan Garber, The Atlantic; Hillary Clinton, Burns Strider, and the Fault Lines of #MeToo

"The Times story paints a picture of a Hillary Clinton who is, given her history, both a recipient of harassment and a passive enabler of it. A manager, in other words, like so many of the others who have been revealed in the journalism of the post-Weinstein months: one who learns of an accusation of harassment and addresses it by disrupting the life of the alleged victim, rather than the life of the alleged perpetrator. The boss who found enough evidence of Burns Strider’s wrongdoing to dock his pay and put him in counseling … but who kept him on staff—with all its many other young women—nonetheless. Here is Clinton serving, yet again, as a rich metaphor—this time, though, for complacency and complicity. For powerful people who are concerned, but not concerned enough.

And also: for managers who meet the humanity at the heart of harassment allegations with the clinical language of corporate callousness. It’s unsurprising, perhaps, but notable nonetheless that Clinton responded to the Times’ reporting with a statement that was many steps removed from Clinton, the person: It was written by Utrecht, Kleinfeld, Fiori, Partners, the law firm that had represented the campaign in 2008 (and that, the Times puts it, has “been involved on sexual harassment issues”). The statement was delivered, from there, through an unnamed Clinton spokesman. “To ensure a safe working environment,” it read, “the campaign had a process to address complaints of misconduct or harassment. When matters arose, they were reviewed in accordance with these policies, and appropriate action was taken. This complaint was no exception.”

So while it was Clinton, the manager, the Times report goes, who made the decision to keep Strider on her team, Clinton, the manager, is notably absent from today’s explanation of things. She has outsourced her own decision-making, it seems, to discussions of process and policies—the same anonymous structures that so many other managers have relied on for legal, and moral, insulation. What were the “processes” that kept Strider in his job and his accuser out of hers? You are not supposed to ask. “Processes” are meant to be the answers to their own questions. So are “policies.” Corporations-as-people, if you’d like, but the framework falls apart when organizations are able to deny that humanity as soon as it becomes a liability."