The dispute between Apple and Optis Wireless Technology is headed for its third trial after an appeals court threw out a 2021 jury verdict due to faulty jury instructions, Reuters reports. The case is based on Optis’ accusation that Apple infringed on its patents for LTE standard-essential technology. The damages award has already been retried once after a judge said the jury that awarded $506 million to Optis hadn’t considered the reasonableness of the amount.
Copyright
Information wants to be free, the saying goes, but information also wants to be expensive. But which parts end up being free and which parts end up being expensive can get pretty complicated. With so much content flooding through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and the rest of the online platforms, tracking down who owns what (and how much it’s worth) has turned into one of the central questions of the internet. The answer to that question is copyright — specifically, who holds it and why, as mediated by automated systems like Content ID and a seemingly unending fight between platforms and content companies. This is where we navigate those issues, inside and outside the big platforms, the good systems and bad systems alike. If you’ve ever wondered how much a tweet is worth or why your sing-along YouTube videos keep getting taken down, this is the place to find out.


Astute AI copyright observer Michael Weinberg raises some good questions about the Common Pile, an AI training dataset billed as being composed of only “openly licensed text”:
On one hand, this is an interesting effort to build a new type of training dataset that illustrates how even the “easy” parts of this process are actually hard. On the other hand, I worry that some people read “openly licensed training dataset” as the equivalent of (or very close to) “LLM free of copyright issues.”
[michaelweinberg.org]

The head of the AI video platform on Hollywood, copyright, and the future of filmmaking.
Shira Perlmutter, who may or may not be the head of the Copyright Office depending on how deranged the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive power becomes, has now sued the Trump administration, including Perlmutter’s supposed replacement Paul Perkins “in his capacity as the person claiming to be the Register of Copyrights.”
[courtlistener.com]

Ripping off content to train AI wasn’t going to fly with either MAGA populists or MAGA media.


But the folks behind the mid-2000s anti-piracy campaign that once compared pirating software to stealing a car might have, reports Torrent Freak. A social media investigation suggests the campaign used a knockoff of a commercial font. Its creator, Just Van Rossum, told the outlet:
“I knew my font was used for the campaign and that a pirated clone named XBand-Rough existed. I did not know that the campaign used XBand-Rough and not FF Confidential, though. So this fact is new to me, and I find it hilarious,”
[torrentfreak.com]
Former Gizmodo EIC Dan Ackerman’s lawsuit alleging that Apple, the Tetris company, screenwriter Noah Pink and others ripped off his 2016 book, The Tetris Effect: The Game That Hypnotized the World, for their 2023 Apple TV Plus movie has been dismissed. Reuters reports Ackerman’s lawyer said he will appeal the decision.
In her ruling, Judge Katherine Failla writes:
Ultimately, the Court finds that Defendants’ Film is not substantially similar to Plaintiff’s Book and that Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants misappropriated the way he selected, coordinated, and arranged the facts in his Book.
Where the Book’s tone is informative, the Film’s is suspenseful and dramatic, at times deviating from the true facts underlying the story and going so far as to invent an entire KGB subplot, which takes up significant screen time, to create that theatrical effect.
The Wall Street Journal reports that The Verge’s parent company, Vox Media, and other publishers like Conde Nast, Forbes Media, and Politico filed a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit (pdf) against the enterprise AI company Cohere. They say evidence shows Cohere uses unlicensed copies of content to directly compete with publishers, and they list 4,000 specific examples of “verbatim regurgitations and substitutional summaries of news content.”
On the Decoder podcast, we recently discussed similar media lawsuits against AI firms and spoke to Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez last summer.
[wsj.com]


Kate Knibbs of Wired recaps a hearing today for The New York Times’ very expensive lawsuit against OpenAI. The takeaway: everyone seems confused. Expect a decision on whether to dismiss the case “in due course.”
Microsoft is still asking a judge in its AI copyright tussle to produce discovery on how New York Times reporters use chatbots, and it introduced an interesting 2023 Slack chat in a memorandum: apparently the Times product team told developers to avoid using other LLMs because it was rolling out its own. It’s not clear if this would become one of the tools the company has since announced.
A design has been removed from Teepublic because of a copyright complaint from UnitedHealth, Gizmodo reports. The design is a drawing of Luigi Mangione in a heart, and doesn’t involve any UnitedHealth logos.
The attorneys for WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg make that very clear in a legal response to WP Engine’s lawsuit. The response also blames WP Engine for relying on WordPress.org, “a website owned and run by Defendant Matt Mullenweg individually:”
WP Engine, a private equity-backed company, made the unilateral decision, at its own risk, to build a multi-billion dollar business around Mr. Mullenweg’s website. In doing so, WP Engine gambled for the sake of profit that Mr. Mullenweg would continue to maintain open access to his website for free. That was their choice.
At Wired, Kate Knibbs visits the Internet Archive’s San Francisco headquarters and speaks with its founder, Brewster Kahle, about the Archive’s past, present, and its uncertain future, as it faces copyright lawsuits from print and music publishers.
Go read this, and then listen to Mark Graham, director of the Archive’s Wayback Machine, on Decoder earlier this month.



Anthropic’s new chief product officer on the promise and limits of chatbots like Claude and what’s next for generative AI.

Why is OpenAI paying publishers if it already took their work?
Colorado tech law professor Blake Reid has a good Bluesky thread (note: requires login) on the complicated gamesmanship behind AI content deals and copyright law. His conclusion:
At the end of the day, copyright just doesn’t give a lot of people positively and negatively impacted by copyright a seat at the table. And these deals are a powerful reminder of that.


The internet service provider filed a petition with the highest court in its case with Sony Music and other labels, framing it as a fight for internet access. A jury sided with the labels in 2019, finding Cox liable for piracy infringement for failing to remove bad actors from its services, but an appeals court denied the $1 billion damages award.
[Newsroom | About Us | Cox Communications]
Responding to the RIAA’s copyright lawsuit, AI songmaker sites defended their models as being like kids learning rock and roll or tools enabling creativity. Country artist Tift Merritt had a different take after being shown a song AI music generator Udio spat out when prompted to mimic her style:
... the “imitation” Udio created “doesn’t make the cut for any album of mine.”
“This is a great demonstration of the extent to which this technology is not transformative at all ... It’s stealing.”
I had similar thoughts back in March.


































