AI Copyright Case Studies
Key lawsuits and legal decisions shaping the future of AI and copyright law
The Litigation Landscape
Over 30 active copyright infringement lawsuits have been filed against major AI companies. These cases are setting critical precedents that will determine how AI companies must compensate creators for using their work.
Major Court Decisions in 2025
Several landmark decisions in 2025 are shaping AI copyright law
Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence
Defendant: ROSS Intelligence
The Issue
Thomson Reuters sued ROSS for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing AI-driven legal research search engine.
The Decision
A Delaware federal court granted Thomson Reuters's partial motion for summary judgment on its direct infringement claim and rejected ROSS's fair use defense. This was the first major U.S. decision to reject an AI company's fair use argument.
Significance
This case established that using copyrighted material to train a competing AI product is not automatically protected by fair use. The decision marked a turning point in favor of copyright holders.
Bartz v. Anthropic (and Settlement)
Defendant: Anthropic AI
The Issue
Authors alleged that Anthropic used millions of digitized copyrighted books to train Claude without permission.
Court Decision (June 2025)
Judge William Alsup in San Francisco ruled that the firm's use of books was transformative, stating "The technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes." However, the court noted that using "pirated" copies prevents asserting a fair use defense.
The Settlement (August 2025)
Despite the court's fair use ruling, Anthropic agreed to a landmark $1.5 billion class-action settlement applying to approximately 500,000 works, compensating around $3,000 per work—the largest public copyright recovery in U.S. history.
Significance
While the court found training transformative, the massive settlement shows AI companies are willing to pay substantial compensation rather than risk further litigation. This case demonstrates that creators can achieve significant recoveries even when fair use arguments have some merit.
Kadrey v. Meta Platforms
Defendant: Meta (Facebook)
The Issue
Authors sued Meta for allegedly using pirated copies of their novels to train LLaMA (Meta's large language model).
The Decision
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled in favor of Meta, finding the training to be transformative fair use. The court held that authors failed to present evidence that Meta's use impacted the market for their original work.
Judge's Reasoning
While the court found training LLMs "highly transformative" (favoring fair use), Judge Chhabria acknowledged they could "significantly dilute the market for a plaintiff's works" (favoring infringement). Ultimately, the lack of proven market harm was determinative.
Significance
This case shows that proving market harm is crucial for creators. However, it's a district court decision and not binding on other courts—different judges could reach different conclusions on similar facts.
Ongoing High-Profile Cases
These cases are actively progressing through federal courts and will shape AI copyright law
The New York Times v. OpenAI & Microsoft
Filed: December 2023
Claims: The Times alleges that the companies used "millions" of its copyrighted articles to train their AI models without consent, asserting that Microsoft and OpenAI are building a "market substitute" for its news.
Recent Development: A judge denied OpenAI's motion to dismiss the NYT's copyright claims in April 2025, allowing the case to proceed.
Why It Matters: This is one of the highest-profile AI copyright cases, involving a major news organization. The outcome could significantly impact whether AI companies must license news content for training.
Getty Images v. Stability AI
Filed: February 2023
Claims: Getty Images accused Stability AI of infringing more than 12 million photographs in building Stable Diffusion, with claims of unlicensed scraping with intent to compete directly with Getty Images.
Current Status: Case is ongoing with discovery proceedings continuing through 2025.
Why It Matters: This case involves massive scale infringement claims against an image generation AI. It could establish important precedents about AI companies competing with their training data sources.
Andersen v. Stability AI, Midjourney & DeviantArt
Filed: January 2023
Plaintiffs: Sarah Andersen and several other artists
Claims: This landmark lawsuit from the Northern District of California concerns the copyright implications of AI-generated art. Artists claim their copyrighted works were used without permission to train AI image generators.
Why It Matters: This is one of the first cases brought by visual artists against AI art generators. It's setting precedents for how copyright law applies to image-generating AI systems.
Dow Jones v. Perplexity AI
Filed: 2024
Claims: Dow Jones alleges that plaintiffs' copyrighted works are accessed and copied as part of Perplexity's "retrieval-augmented generation" (RAG) database, with plaintiffs alleging that Perplexity's models repackage original copyrighted works into verbatim or near-verbatim summaries.
Why It Matters: This case addresses RAG systems specifically, which work differently than pure language models. It could establish different rules for different AI architectures.
Key Takeaways from AI Copyright Litigation
Momentum Favors Creators
While some early decisions favored AI companies on fair use grounds, recent developments—including the Thomson Reuters victory, the massive Anthropic settlement, and Copyright Office guidance—show growing recognition of creators' rights.
Courts Are Split
Different federal judges are reaching different conclusions on similar facts. This lack of uniformity means the issue will likely require appellate court resolution or even Supreme Court intervention.
Settlements Are Significant
The $1.5 billion Anthropic settlement averaging $3,000 per work shows that substantial compensation is possible. Even when facing favorable fair use rulings, AI companies may settle to avoid uncertainty and bad publicity.
Source of Training Data Matters
Multiple courts have indicated that using "pirated" or unlawfully obtained copies for training undermines or eliminates fair use defenses. Lawful acquisition appears to be a threshold requirement.
Class Actions Provide Leverage
Individual creators are joining together in class action lawsuits, creating collective bargaining power against well-funded AI companies. This strategy has proven effective in securing settlements.
More Decisions Expected
Numerous cases are pending with decisions expected throughout 2025 and 2026. The legal landscape will continue to evolve rapidly as these cases progress through the courts.
This Is a Rapidly Developing Area
These case studies reflect the state of litigation as of October 2025. New decisions are being issued regularly, and appeal courts have not yet weighed in on many key issues. The legal precedents established by these cases will shape AI copyright law for years to come.
If you believe your work was used without permission: The existence of these lawsuits and settlements demonstrates that legal options are available. Consult with an attorney who specializes in AI copyright issues to understand your rights and options.
Could You Have a Similar Case?
Connect with attorneys experienced in AI copyright litigation to explore your options