u/TreviTyger

>51. Because the LAION datasets contained only URLs, anyone who

>wished to use the LAION datasets for AI training must first download, copy, and/or

>save the actual images from those URLs, as explained in the LAION-5B Paper.

>Information on LAION’s website further confirms that the images found at the

>URLs in the LAION-5B dataset must be downloaded from the URLs before the

>LAION datasets can be used to train AI models.5 Notably, the LAION-5B Paper

>explicitly states that LAION “do[es] not own the copyright of the images or text”

>and that the LAION-5B dataset “should only be used for academic research

>purposes.” See LAION-5B Paper at 3, 30.

Case 2:26-cv-07201 Document 1 Filed 07/02/26 Page 15 of 49 Page ID #:15

"shareholder derivative lawsuits under securities law that are based on the allegation that corporate officers or the board of directors approved copyright infringement, exposed the company to substantial risk of copyright liability, or made material misrepresentations about such conduct.

Adobe already faces 2 such lawsuits. Now Microsoft was just hit with another such lawsuit."

"In the footer of Qontour’s unauthorized site, they added a copyright notice acknowledging that they don’t own any of the rights to the material on the site, while also licensing all the user-submitted words into the public domain with a CC Zero license...

Needless to say, you can’t relicense content you don’t own." (Andy Baio)

"AI and Consent

It’s one thing for a fan to share or remix copyrighted material out of love for the source material, with no commercial motive. (“No copyright intended!”) It’s another for a marketing agency to take an entire living author’s book, replace its art with AI slop, add an AI word generator, monetize the traffic, promote it in their portfolio, and then outrank the official site everywhere." (Andy Baio)

https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/105475/thomson-reuters-enterprise-centre-gmbh-v-ross-intelligence-inc/?type=oa&type=oa&q=thomson+reuters&order_by=score+desc

Date Argued: June 11th, 2026

Duration: 52:34

Docket Number: 25-2153

I personally disagree that ToS allow the use of copyrighted works to be used by third parties for commercial products but I am happy to see this defense finally arrive in a court filling.

As an example, if you park your car (property) at a car park you agree to certain terms imposed by the car park owner to be able for them to function as a car park. However, if that car park firm was allowing Uber Drivers to make use of your car when you went shopping or whatever, then that would obviously be way beyond the terms a person would agree to in parking their car.

So I expect the judge to shoot down Google's ToS argument in flames.

"On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock sanctioned every lawyer of record in Withers v. City of Aberdeen after filings from both sides contained hallucinated legal citations. Two out-of-state lawyers admitted using AI without verifying the output.#

"After having his registration request rejected by the U.S. Copyright Office, the author of an image that combined a photograph with Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night is suing."

Interesting failed market harm defense - The photo at issue “could have been produced using artificial intelligence.”

A blogger was sued for copyright infringement after using a photo without permission or license. Part of the blogger's "fair use" defense against market harm was that they could have created the image using AI, and therefore such an image should not be protected(?)

Judge Brann rejects such an argument.

"Twenty-eight writers say class action treatment lets AI companies extinguish high-value copyright claims on the cheap in a new lawsuit accusing Anthropic of infringing their work." By Michael Gennaro

"For countless people, ChatGPT is a friend, confidante, or even romantic partner, to which they may divulge their innermost thoughts and feelings. And even if a consumer doesn’t have a close emotional relationship with the bot, they may still use it for assistance with business, physical health, finances, and legal advice. In other words, a scroll through — or algorithmic analysis of — someone’s chat queries may paint an exceptionally intimate, hyper-personalized portrait of them and their world, from their daily activities to their inner life.

And when you’re interacting with a chatbot that engages with you as if it’s another person, it can be easy to forget that it is, in fact, a product that’s siphoning up, storing, and sharing your personal information. (Though the recent — and reportedly quite lucrative — infusion of ads into ChatGPT might serve as a hint that your friendly chatbot is surveilling you.)"

By Maggie Harrison Dupré

"The Court finds that ⁠a right to fair compensation for publishers is consistent with EU law, ​provided that that remuneration constitutes consideration for authorising their publications to be used ​online," said the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

2. The Author created this artwork by taking an original photograph of a sunset over a building and then using an artificial intelligence application, the RAGHAV Artificial Painting App (“RAGHAV”), to convert his photograph into the Work.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73319170/1/suryast-us-enterprises-llc-v-perlmutter/

IMO - Putting one's own copyrighted work through AI Gen results in an "author-less" derivative work that cannot have a "point of attachment of copyright" to any author!! This is why copyright owners should NOT be using AI Gen as it could be seen as an "overt act" to abandon copyright in the derivative work.