Blogs
October 1, 2026

Top Noteworthy Copyright Stories from September 2026

by Rachel Kim

September 2026 was marked by a great flurry of copyright-related activities in Congress ahead of the mid-term elections recess, including significant movements on copyright-related legislation, including twobills in the House and Senate that would establish judicial procedures for copyright owners to combat foreign digital piracy. But there were major developments in the courts as well with noteworthy filings and revelations in the ongoing news publishers’ and authors’ AI copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI and the Third Circuit affirming a decision in favor of a copyright owner (and against fair use) in a non-generative AI lawsuit. Here is an overview of key pieces of copyright news from September and a few events to look forward to in October.

LOC and USCO Hold Public CPMC Meeting: On September 11, the Library of Congress (LOC) and U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) held a public meeting of the Copyright Public Modernization Committee (CPMC) showcasing developments and timelines of the modernization of the copyright registration system. LOC and USCO staff announced that they will open a limited testing program of the new Enterprise Copyright System (ECS) Registration in December 2026 to CPMC members or their delegates to test the Standard Application and electronic deposit functions. In late 2027, the ECS Registration system will be made available for the general public to set up user accounts, and select users will be allowed to submit Standard Applications and will receive official registration certificates through the new system. LOC and USCO plan to make ECS fully available to the public in 2028. The next round of testing on Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) will be conducted at the beginning of 2027. T

USCO Hosts Event Celebrating 50 Year Anniversary of the Copyright Act: On September 23, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) held an event titled The Copyright Act Turns 50: An Inside View from the Copyright Office, which featured speakers who shared their stories and insights on the development, passage, implementation, and shaping of the 1976 Copyright Act. The event also highlighted how well the Act has withstood various challenges brought on by changes to the creative marketplace and new technologies, as well as the incredible work and dedication of U.S. Copyright Office leadership and its staff in ensuring the proper administration and functioning of the Act. The Copyright Alliance published a blog summarizing the event.

Three New AI Copyright Infringement Cases Filed in September

  • On September 4, The Seattle Times and Newsday filed a complaint in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against OpenAI and Microsoft over the unlicensed use of the publishers’ news articles to train ChatGPT, Copilot, and Bing Chat products, in addition to making copies of the articles for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) processes. The complaint includes claims of direct copyright infringement, secondary copyright infringement, removal or alteration of Copyright Management Information (CMI), distribution of works with removed CMI, and trademark dilution.
  • On September 16, a group of regional and local news publishers, including the Times Publishing Company, Alternative Newsweekly Foundation, and Austin Chronicle Corp., filed a complaint against Microsoft and OpenAI over the unauthorized use of publishers’ news articles to train ChatGPT models. The complaint includes claims of copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and removal of Copyright Management Information (CMI).
  • On September 18, Universal Music Group (UMG) and Sony Music Entertainment filed a complaint against Suno over the unlicensed use of plaintiffs’ sound recordings to train Suno’s AI music models including its v6 model. In August, the plaintiffs attempted to add more than 60,000 works to the lawsuit, but the court denied that motion and indicated that the plaintiffs should file a parallel lawsuit to litigate claims regarding those additional works. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs’ works were not only unlawfully used to train earlier models, but the outputs from those models were also then used to develop the v6 model. The complaint argues that “[t]raining a ‘new’ model on the outputs of an infringing model does not eliminate the infringement; it launders it.” The complaint includes claims of direct copyright infringement and circumvention of Technological Protection Measures (TPM).

DOJ Files SOI Supporting OpenAI; Argues AI Training on Written Works Is Fair Use: On September 1, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest (SOI) in In re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, a multidistrict AI copyright infringement litigation centralized in the Southern District of New York, which involves over a dozen cases brought by news publishers and authors of literary works against OpenAI. The DOJ SOI begins by highlighting the President’s Executive Order to prioritize U.S. AI global leadership and proffers various policy arguments explaining why licensing of copyrighted works is harmful to the AI and newspaper industries and would hamper the Constitutional mandate of promoting “the Progress of Science and Useful Arts.” DOJ further argues that the unauthorized use of copyrighted works to train OpenAI’s large language models (LLMs) is a fair use, stating that “[c]onstraining LLM development under a misunderstanding of fair use doctrine would thwart such creative and scientific progress while hindering American prosperity and economic mobility,” and that hampering AI development threatens national security interests. DOJ also argues that an “erroneous fair use ruling” would be anticompetitive and only favor large technology companies with capital. Contrary to typical Department of Justice (DOJ) practice, neither the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) nor the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) were consulted on this brief before it was filed.

A3P President Mike Davis Urges DOJ to Rescind SOI: President of the Article III Project (A3P) Mike Davis penned an opinion piece for Fox News, urging the Justice Department to rescind its “ill-advised” Statement of Interest (SOI) in favor of OpenAI in the consolidated multidistrict lawsuit against the AI company filed by news publishers, noting that the U.S. government’s position “would let Big Tech oligarchs scrape, copy, and commercialize every creative work in America without permission or payment.”

Parties File Opening Briefs in Summary Judgment Stage of ‘In re OpenAILitigation’: On September 4, Microsoft filed a motion for summary judgment in the plaintiffs’ consolidated cases and a memo in support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding plaintiffs’ contributory claim in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cox v. Sony. Microsoft filed a motion for summary judgment in the news plaintiffs’ cases, arguing that Copilot’s web grounding qualified for the fair use exception because only factual elements of the plaintiffs’ news works were used, that any copies were used in intermediate steps to generate responses, and that there was no demonstrable harm to plaintiffs’ traditional markets. OpenAI filed a memo in support of its motion for summary judgment against the Authors Guild, focusing on its fair use and “highly transformative use” arguments and claiming that its use had no substitutional impact on plaintiffs’ market. The news plaintiffs filed a combined summary judgment brief, arguing that the substitutive and commercial nature of the AI companies’ use and harm to plaintiffs’ licensing markets would weigh the fair use factors against the AI companies and that the AI companies were liable for the intentional removal of Copyright Management Information (CMI). The book authors also filed a summary judgment brief, drawing attention to the mass piracy that the defendants engaged in to gather copyrighted works for training.

News Publishers Respond to DOJ SOI: On September 28, plaintiff news publishers filed a response brief to the Statement of Interest (SOI) filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), asking the court to give the statement no weight because the DOJ failed to analyze the fair use factors by applying the facts of the current litigation, the DOJ’s statement is opposed to the views of the expert government organization, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO), the DOJ reportedly failed to contact anyrelevant agency before submitting the SOI, and that the statement is inconsistent with the U.S. Government’s own statements about supporting AI copyright licensing regimes. The brief additionally states: “[t]he DOJ’s policy pronouncements cannot override the court’s duty to apply statutory fair use factors as Congress enacted them.” On September 2, The New York Times (NYT) also issued a statement in response to the SOI where NYT spokesman Graham James stated, “The Administration is siding with a handful of trillion-dollar AI companies at the expense of the countless American creators whose work they stole. Both AI and creators can thrive—AI companies simply need to pay fairly for the content that makes their products possible, as copyright law requires. The Administration’s proposal to let companies take that content without permission or compensation would undermine the sustainability of the human-created content that a healthy society depends on, and which AI needs to function.”

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms District Court Holding in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Case: On September 29, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit came out with its decision in the non-generative AI case Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, affirming the district court’s summary judgment order in favor of Thomson Reuters. In 2020, Thomson Reuters had sued Ross Intelligence (Ross) for obtaining copyrighted legal content from a Westlaw subscriber to develop a competing product based on machine learning. In 2025, the district court had found that Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw headnotes are copyrightable and rejected Ross’ fair use defense, explaining that the use was commercial and not transformative (under factor 1) and that Ross’ use harmed the potential market for AI training data (under factor 4). In affirming the district court’s decision, the Third Circuit confirmed that copyrightability of Westlaw headnotes and found that while “the second factor weighs slightly in favor of fair use…the first, third, and fourth factors weigh against it.” The decision makes clear that “intermediate step” copying is not transformative when the purpose is to develop an AI platform that generates works that serve the same ultimate purpose as those used for training. Critically, the court’s market effect discussion confirms that not only must harm to the original market for the work be considered under the fourth fair use factor, but so too must harm to the value of the work and harm to potential derivative markets. The decision makes unequivocally clear that harm to a potential market for use of copyrighted works for AI training is cognizable, and simply because a copyright owner has not yet entered such a market does not diminish the harm caused by unauthorized training.

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Final Copyright-Related Claim in ‘Doe v. Github’ AI Case: On September 16, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc decision in Doe v. Github affirming the lower court’s dismissal of the final copyright-related claim in the case. The case is a class action lawsuit filed by programmers against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI over the unlicensed use of the programmers’ code to develop Microsoft Copilot AI. The Ninth Circuit had agreed to hear plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal on the lower court’s decision to dismiss the claims that defendants were liable for violating Section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) during the output stage as Copilot generated output removed or altered Copyright Management Information (CMI). The court found that while Section 1202(b) does not require literal identicality in the allegedly infringing copies of the underlying work to trigger Section 1202(b) liability, “material differences between the works may suggest that the defendant instead created a new, derivative work to which the plaintiff’s CMI was never attached and from which the defendant could not have “removed” or “altered” CMI.” The court concluded that the latter reasoning applied in this case, stating that while Copilot generated output that “in some cases [may] be substantially similar to existing code,” the AI model generated entirely new works instead of merely delivering preexisting copyrighted works akin to a search engine. The decision did not address 1202(b) violations that may occur at the training input stage.

Vetter Files Respondents’ Brief Opposing Record Labels’ SCOTUS Cert Petition: On September 14, Cyril Vetter and Vetter Communications Corporation filed a brief in opposition to the cert petition filed by a group of record labels in BMG Rights Management v. Vetter where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court opinion that termination rights under the U.S. Copyright Act will also re-capture foreign copyrights where the original grant of rights was for “worldwide” rights. The respondents’ brief argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should not grant the cert petition because there is no circuit split on the issue, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion adhered to Congressional intent that the termination right broadly cover all prior transfers of copyright ownership, and the case is a poor vehicle for the issue because even if the petitioners won the case, they could not exercise their newly acquired worldwide rights without consent from Vetter as the owner of the domestic rights.

District Court Stays Proceedings in Register Perlmutter’s Lawsuit: On September 18, the district court for the District of Columbia issued an order staying proceedings until December 18 in Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter’s lawsuit challenging her dismissal by the Trump Administration from the position. The court explained that it is staying the case in light of the House’s recent passage of H.R. 10204, the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act (which among other things would make the Register a presidentially appointed position) because it was “appropriate to stay the case for a short [period] to let the legislative process play out.” The case had recently been sent back to the district court after the Supreme Court denied the Trump Administration’s application to stay an injunction that has allowed Perlmutter to remain in her role as Register.

Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Tattoo Infringement Case: On September 29, the Ninth Circuit held oral arguments as part of an en banc rehearing in Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg. The copyright dispute involves Jeff Sedlik, a photographer who created an iconic portrait of Miles Davis and a tattoo artist known as Kat Von D who tattooed an image on a client’s arm that is alleged to have infringed Sedlik’s photograph and created several social media posts of the process. The eleven-judge panel focused its questions on the continued viability of the Ninth Circuit’s long-standing intrinsic/extrinsic substantial similarity test for copyright infringement.

Register Bill Reintroduced as H.R.10204 and Passed By the House: On September 1, Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA) introduced H.R.10204, the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act, a bill to revise the appointment and removal process for several legislative branch officers, including making the Register of Copyrights a Presidential appointee. H.R. 10204 is the same as the House-passed text of H.R. 6028 with two technical corrections, both in the Government Publishing Office (GPO) provisions. All language in the U.S. Copyright Office section is identical. On September 14, the House of Representatives passed the bill under suspension of the rules. The bill is now with the Senate Rules Committee for consideration.

Rep. Issa Introduces Site Blocking Bill: On September 14, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced H.R. 10364, the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA). The bill would add a new Chapter 16 to Title 17 to establish a system for copyright owners to petition federal courts to require service providers to block access to designated foreign piracy sites. There are several differences in the bill compared to the discussion draft circulated by Representative Issa earlier in the year, including that the small service provider exemption is changed from those with fewer than 50,000 users/year, or broadband ISPs with less than 1% market share, to providers with less than 100,000 monthly U.S. users/subscribers. The current bill also adds virtual private network (VPN) services to the definition of service providers.

Rep. Lofgren Introduces Site Blocking Bill: On September 24, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), joined by Representative Ben Cline (R-VA), introduced H.R. 10575, the Deterring Extraterritorial Foreign Exploitation of Networks Damaging Intellectual Property (DEFEND IP) Act. Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced S. 5529, the Senate version of this legislation. There are several differences between the DEFEND IP Act and the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) that was introduced by Representative Lofgren in late 2025. While both bills add a new Section 502A to the Copyright Act that would allow copyright owners to petition federal courts to issue blocking orders, the DEFEND IP Act broadens the scope of broadband service providers subject to those orders to cover providers with no fewer than 50,000 subscribers (as compared to more than 100,000). The bill also shortens the window for foreign piracy sites to contest designations (down from 30 days to 20), and it requires “reasonable effort” to provide notice to operators (instead of service in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). The DEFEND IP Act includes a carve out for virtual private network (VPN) services, as well as a new provision allowing a designated operator to post a bond in order to have an order rescinded. The legislation is endorsed by the following organizations: Copyright Alliance, Motion Picture Association (MPA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), Society of Composers & Lyricists (SCL), American Society of Collective Rights Licensing (ASCRL), Association of American Publishers (AAP), Recording Academy, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), Songwriters Guild of America (SGA), Songwriters of North America (SONA), Directors Guild of America (DGA), Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), CreativeFuture, Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP), Authors Guild, American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), and the Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA).

Commerce Secretary Urges Countries to Balance IP and AI Interests in Opening Remarks at G20 Summit: On September 2, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick made opening remarks at the G20 Summit, stating that IP rights foster and protect AI innovation and that it is possible to “protect intellectual property and promote AI innovation.” Contrary to popular reporting, Lutnick did not endorse the position that countries should view AI training on copyrighted works as categorically permissible nor state that fair use and fair dealing principles resolve the AI training and copyright issues. Secretary Lutnick’s comments closely align with the G20 Summit statement regarding Pillar 4, where the G20 countries “recognize the essential role that copyright protections play in safeguarding and supporting the creative works of authors, artists, innovators, and other rightsholders … and domestic and international legal frameworks and doctrines, such as prior and express consent and applicable limitations and exceptions to copyright, have played a critical role in balancing the interests of creators and innovators in some members’ jurisdictions, and that their application to AI-related activities remains appropriately resolved through each member’s established legal processes.”

SOCAN Sues Suno: On September 2, Canadian performing rights organization, the Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), sued Suno over the unlicensed use of its members’ works to train Suno’s AI music model. In conjunction with the lawsuit, SOCAN launched a webpage dedicated to information about the litigation.

Australian Government Reportedly Holds Consultations on Government-Led Licensing Regimes for AI Copyright Training and Use: In early September, the Australian Government held consultations with AI companies and rightsholders on various proposals to reform Australian copyright law for AI use. Two proposals are being considered including an extended collective licensing regime and an alternative proposal by the Attorney-General’s Department to require AI companies to strike deals with a minimum number of companies for a minimum period before receiving legal permission to train on any copyright protected material.

IPPI Webinar on the En Banc Rehearing in ‘Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg’: On October 7 from 1:30 to 3 p.m. ET, the IP Policy Institute (IPPI) will host a webinar on Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg with counsel and amici participating as speakers. They will share an analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s en banc rehearing of the case and discuss how the test for substantial similarity might change, examine the consequences of any changes for creators and litigants, and discuss how copyright infringement risks should be considered. The panelists include William Patry, counsel for plaintiff-appellent Jeff Sedlik and author of Patry on Copyright; Bruce Boyden, amicus in support of neither party; Jessica Silby, amicus supporting appellees and affirmance; and Eleanor Lackman, Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLC. The moderator will be Sandra Aistars, Counselor in Residence and Professor of Law at IPPI. More information is available on the event page.

Mondo NYC 2026: From October 13-16, Mondo NYC will host its music, arts, and technology conference in Brooklyn, NY. For the 11th year, the event will bring together music, tech, and business innovators to discuss what’s next for the music industry. The conference will feature more than 30 live artist showcase performances, numerous receptions, and 50+ panels with legal experts, including Rachel Kim, VP, Legal Policy & Copyright Counsel at the Copyright Alliance.

Kernochan Center Symposium on 50th Anniversary of the Copyright Act: From October 23-24, the Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts at Columbia Law School and the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology will co-host the Kernochan Center Annual Symposium: The 1976 Copyright Act to mark the 50th anniversary of the Copyright Act of 1976. The first event, which was held at Berkeley in April 2026, examined the origins of the Copyright Act, its central purposes, and the challenges technology has imposed on it. The second event will be held at Columbia Law School where participants will learn about how public and private institutions impacted the 1976 Act and examine the roles of the U.S. Copyright Office, Congress, the judiciary, and more in shaping this key legislation. Speakers for this event will include judges, current and former U.S. Registers of Copyrights, academics, and former Congressional staff. More information is available on the registration page.

To stay up to date with the latest news in artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright, sign up for our AI Copyright Alert. You can also visit our AI and Copyright hub for additional resources on federal court cases, current licensing, and more. Additionally, if you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Creator Membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

get blog updates