Top Noteworthy Copyright Stories from June 2025
In June, courts were extremely busy with AI and copyright activities. Two judges issued mixed-bag decisions in AI copyright cases squarely addressing the issue of whether the unlicensed use of copyrighted works to train generative AI systems qualified for the fair use exception. Here is a quick snapshot of the top noteworthy copyright news stories from June 2025.
AI Activities in Late June
There was so much activity over the last two weeks of June alone that we summarized it in a separate blog posted last week. In the blog post we discuss the two big court decisions in AI-related copyright cases (Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta), big developments in two other cases (Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence and the Getty v. Stability AI UK case), some new class action suits filed, and a few other significant activities. We encourage you to check it out.
Update on Register Perlmutter Action for Wrongful Removal Against Administration
On June 10, Register Shira Perlmutter filed a memorandum in support of a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration for her removal as Register of Copyrights. The memo argues that Perlmutter is likely to succeed on the merits because (1) the Register can be appointed or removed only by the Librarian of Congress, and (2) Todd Blanche doesn’t lawfully hold the position of acting Librarian. It argues that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) does not allow Blanche to be appointed without the advice and consent of the Senate because the Library of Congress is not an “Executive agency” within the meaning of the FVRA. The memo also argues that Perlmutter has suffered irreparable harm and will continue to suffer harm absent judicial intervention, and that the equitable factors strongly favor a preliminary injunction because the public has a strong interest in a swift remedy of separation of powers violations that will allow the U.S. Copyright Office to carry out its duties. On June 24, the U.S. Government filed a memorandum in opposition to Register Perlmutter’s motion for preliminary injunction. The government argues that Todd Blanche was lawfully designated as Acting Librarian under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) because the Library and Copyright Office are Executive agencies under the definition of the FVRA. Alternatively, it argues that Blanche’s appointment is independently authorized by Article II of the Constitution under the “take care” clause. It also argues that the President has the authority to directly remove the Register as an inferior officer of the Library. The memo also argues that Perlmutter has failed to meet her burden to show irreparable harm because the Supreme Court’s Wilcox decision “strongly implied” that loss of a “statutory right to function” is not an irreparable injury.
Disney and Universal File Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Midjourney
On June 11, Disney and Universal filed a complaint against Midjourney in the Central District of California for direct and secondary copyright infringement related to the company’s AI image generating service. Calling Midjourney “the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism,” the complaint alleges that Midjourney ignored the plaintiffs’ demands to stop using their works or, at a minimum, adopt technical measures that would prevent the generation of infringing material. The complaint further alleges that Midjourney reproduces, publicly displays, and distributes copies and derivatives of characters from popular Marvel and Star Wars franchises, among others, and it provides visual evidence of dozens of instances of infringing output. While the complaint alleges that Midjourney is the direct copyright infringer of the works at issue, it also includes claims of secondary liability in the event that Midjourney argues that it is not the direct infringer.
ART Act Introduced
On June 17, Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Judy Chu (D-CA) introduced H.R. 4017 the American Royalties Too Act of 2025 (ART Act). The bill would amend Title 17 of the United States Code to enable visual artists to receive resale royalties in certain circumstances—ensuring they are compensated when their work is resold commercially. Some key provisions include: (i) a 5% royalty (up to $50,000) on resales of original works of visual art priced at $5,000 or more; (ii) transparent collection and distribution of royalties through authorized visual artists’ collecting societies; (iii) protections for heirs and successors to maintain royalty rights; (iv) enforcement measures, including legal remedies for unpaid royalties; (v) programs to support U.S. artists through unclaimed royalties. Several organizations voiced their support for the bill, including the Artists Rights Society, the Authors Guild, the Songwriters Guild of America, Society of Composers & Lyricists, and the American Society of Collective Rights Licensing Inc. (ASCRL).
Pro Codes Act Reintroduced
On June 23, Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Deborah Ross (D-NC) reintroduced H.R.4072, the Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act (Pro Codes Act). The bill would guarantee that safety codes and standards maintain their copyright protection while also ensuring public access to important federal rules and regulations.
New Class Action Authors AI Lawsuit Launched Against OpenAI and Microsoft
On June 30, authors Catherine Denial, Ian McDowell, and Steven Schwartz filed a complaint against OpenAI and Microsoft over the unlicensed use of plaintiffs’ books to train ChatGPT. The plaintiffs are bringing a class-action lawsuit and allege that OpenAI used pirated copies of books from datasets like the LibGen and BookCorpus datasets to train the AI model. The complaint includes claims of direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, circumvention of technological protection measure, removal of Copyright Management Information, and other state-related claims.
Supreme Court Grants Cox’s Petition, Denies Sony’s Petition
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court granted internet service provider (ISP) Cox Communication’s petition for certiorari challenging a Fourth Circuit decision that the company is contributory liable for the infringement of its subscribers. The Supreme Court will consider two questions presented in Cox’s petition, (1) did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for “materially contributing” to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it?, and (2) did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another’s direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)?
If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!