A Lego copyright fight over a jacket worn on ‘Queer Eye’ is headed toward trial; Boston.com, October 1, 2026

Beth Treffeisen, Boston.com; A Lego copyright fight over a jacket worn on ‘Queer Eye’ is headed toward trial

"Concannon learned about the minifigure in September 2021. His lawyers wrote in court documents that he said he was initially “happy” to see the jacket featured in the set. He later realized, his lawyers wrote, that a “major company had misappropriated his art without credit or compensation.”

In an Instagram post, Concannon said he reached out to Lego asking for a free set.

“It was sad on the release date to be told ‘we can’t send you a box, but you can buy one,’” Concannon’s post read. “I used to really like legos. Now = intellectual property theft.”

Lego argued that Concannon had given Porowski an implied license to use the jacket as part of his likeness, which Porowski could then license to Lego. The company also argued that its version was sufficiently transformed to qualify as fair use."

How ‘learnrights’ would compensate creators for AI model training; MIT Sloan, May 12, 2026

 Brian Eastwood, MIT Sloan; How ‘learnrights’ would compensate creators for AI model training

"Human content creators are protected by copyright law, in part to ensure that they’re fairly compensated for their work. 

But whether these laws allow artificial intelligence models to learn from human-created content is up for debate — both in court and on Capitol Hill. Encyclopedia Britannica’s lawsuit against OpenAI, for example, is one of the latest allegations of misuse of reference materials. Meanwhile, the U.S. Copyright Office has not made a binding determination about whether using copyrighted works to train AI models is fair use.  

To deal with these issues, in 2023 MIT Sloan School of Management professor Thomas Malone proposed “learnright” laws that would give copyright holders the exclusive right to license their content to AI companies for model training. 

“Copyright law wasn’t designed for a world with generative AI, and without something like learnright laws, the incentives for people to create new content are likely to be greatly reduced,” said Malone, who is also the director of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. 

In a more recent article, Malone and co-authors Frank Pasquale of Cornell Law School and Andrew Ting of George Washington University Law School outlined the argument for learnrights and described how they could work legally, economically, and practically...

Malone and his co-authors presented three arguments that support compensating copyright holders whose work is used to train generative AI. 

If AI models produce high-quality content quickly and cheaply without compensating the original creators of this content, that will decrease creators’ motivation to produce new content and thus reduce the volume of original work available to further improve AI models. “It would be unwise to risk such a decline in incentives for human expression,” the researchers write.

The researchers find it “troubling” that for-profit AI companies cry foul when others use their intellectual property — as was the case when U.S.-based AI firms accused China’s DeepSeek of stealing from them — given that the same companies use copyrighted content without compensating its creators. 

Properly acknowledging how other works influenced one’s own is the right thing to do and the foundation of a thoughtful creative process, the researchers write. Conversely, uncredited and uncompensated use of others’ work falls short of ethical standards and undermines what IP protection is supposed to mean."

The Copyright Act in the age of AI; Politico, April 6, 2026

 AARON MAK , Politico; The Copyright Act in the age of AI

"The Copyright Act is reaching a major milestone this year, yet some legal scholars aren’t sure how well it will hold up in the age of artificial intelligence.

Stanford University held a summit on Friday to celebrate (and fret about) the 1976 act, which is the foundation of modern copyright law, as the 50th anniversary of its signing approaches in October. Academics advanced a number of proposals to update and reinterpret American copyright law, though several also warned against stretching it too far. The consensus: AI will reshape copyright whether we like it or not, and that it’s time to grapple with the implications."

(Podcast) The Briefing: What Is Fair Use and Why Does It Matter? (Featured); JDSupra, December 5, 2025

 Richard Buckley, Jr. and Scott Hervey, JDSupra ; (Podcast) The Briefing: What Is Fair Use and Why Does It Matter? (Featured)

"Creators, beware: just because it’s online doesn’t mean it’s fair game. In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley break down one of the most misunderstood areas of copyright law—fair use.

In this featured episode, they cover:

- What makes a use “transformative”?

- Why credit alone doesn’t protect you

- How recent court rulings (Warhol v. Goldsmith) are changing the game

- Tips to stay on the right side of the law"

AI could never replace my authors. But, without regulation, it will ruin publishing as we know it; The Guardian, September 18, 2025

Jonny Geller, The Guardian ; AI could never replace my authors. But, without regulation, it will ruin publishing as we know it

[Kip Currier: This is a thought-provoking piece by literary agent Jonny Geller. He suggests an "artists’ rights charter for AI that protects two basic principles: permission and attribution". His charter idea conveys some aspects of the copyright area called "moral rights".

Moral rights provide copyright creators with a right of paternity (i.e. attribution) and a right of integrity. The latter can enable creators to exercise some levels of control over how their copyrighted works can be adapted. The moral right of integrity, for example, was an argument in cases involving whether black and white films (legally) could be or (ethically) should be colorized. (See Colors in Conflicts: Moral Rights and the Foreign Exploitation of Colorized U.S. Motion Pictures) Moral rights are not widespread in U.S. copyright law because of tensions between the moral right of integrity and the right of free expression/free speech under the U.S. Constitution (whose September 17, 1787 birthday was yesterday). The Visual Artists Rights Act (1990) is a narrow example of moral rights under U.S. copyright law.

To Geller's proposed Artists' Rights Charter for AI I'd suggest adding the word and concept of "Responsibilities". Compelling arguments can be made for providing authors with some rights regarding use of their copyrighted works as AI training data. And, commensurately, persuasive arguments can be made that authors have certain responsibilities if they use AI at any stage of their creative processes. Authors can and ethically should be transparent about how they have used AI, if applicable, in the creation stages of their writing.

Of course, how to operationalize that as an ethical standard is another matter entirely. But just because it may be challenging to initially develop some ethical language as guidance for authors and strive to instill it as a broad standard doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted or done.]

[Excerpt]

"The single biggest threat to the livelihood of authors and, by extension, to our culture, is not short attention spans. It is AI...

As a literary agent and CEO of one of the largest agencies in Europe, I think this is something everyone should care about – not because we fear progress, but because we want to protect it. If you take away the one thing that makes us truly human – our ability to think like humans, create stories and imagine new worlds – we will live in a diminished world.

AI that doesn’t replace the artist, or that will work with them transparently, is not all bad. An actor who is needed for reshoots on a movie may authorise use of the footage they have to complete a picture. This will save on costs, the environmental impact and time. A writer may wish to speed up their research and enhance their work by training their own models to ask the questions that a researcher would. The translation models available may enhance the range of offering of foreign books, adding to our culture.

All of this is worth discussing. But it has to be a discussion and be transparent to the end user. Up to now, work has simply been stolen and there are insufficient guardrails on the distributors, studios, publishers. As a literary agent, I have a more prosaic reason to get involved – I don’t think it is fair for someone’s work to be taken without their permission to create an inferior competitor.

What can we do? We could start with some basic principles for all to sign up to. An artists’ rights charter for AI that protects two basic principles: permission and attribution."

Opinion: Harvard’s Claudine Gay should resign; The Washington Post, December 23, 2023

 Ruth Marcus , The Washington Post; Opinion: Harvard’s Claudine Gay should resign

"Perhaps the most disturbing example is the least academic — Gay’s borrowing of words from another scholar, Jennifer L. Hochschild. In her acknowledgments for a 1996 book, Hochschild described a mentor who “showed me the importance of getting the data right and of following where they lead without fear or favor” and “drove me much harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”

Gay’s dissertation thanked her thesis adviser, who “reminded me of the importance of getting the data right and following where they lead without fear or favor,” and her family, “drove me harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”

Now, can I just say? Acknowledgments are the easiest, and most fun part, of writing a book, the place where you list your sources and allies and all the people who helped you get the manuscript over the finish line. Why not come up with your own thanks? What does it say about a person who chooses to appropriate another’s language for this most personal task."