Chris Cooke: SoundExchange boss says all EU countries must change copyright rules so European radio royalties flow to American performers #IRespectMusic

Ireland Leads the Way: A Step Toward Fair Radio Royalties for American Artists in Europe

For years, American artists have been told that the global royalty system is just “complicated”—a patchwork of treaties, local rules, and reciprocal deals that somehow always seem to leave U.S. performers on the short end of the stick. But as this new report highlighted by CMU makes clear, what’s really at issue isn’t complexity. It’s discrimination dressed up as policy.

At the center of the debate is a simple principle: national treatment—the idea that countries should pay foreign creators the same royalties they pay their own. That principle is already embedded in international law and reinforced by recent European court decisions. And yet, across much of Europe, American performers still don’t get paid when their recordings are played on terrestrial radio, even while European artists are paid at home and abroad.

Now, SoundExchange is turning up the pressure, arguing that every EU member state must finally align its laws with that principle and unlock hundreds of millions in unpaid royalties.

This is exactly what our friend Blake Morgan and the #IRespectMusic campaign have been fighting for over the past decade—fair pay for performers wherever their music is used. And it’s another reminder that we join with the MusicFirst Coalition in demanding that the U.S. should lead by example: passing the American Music Fairness Act would strengthen hand of America’s creators globally and help ensure U.S. artists are paid both at home and abroad.

This isn’t just a technical copyright dispute. It’s a global trade and fairness issue—one that goes directly to how countries value music as an export, and whether creators are treated as partners in that economy or just inputs to be exploited.

Read Chris Cooke’s excellent explainer in Complete Music Update

The boss of US collecting society SoundExchange has welcomed a change to Irish copyright law which means radio royalties collected in Ireland can now flow to American performers when their music gets airplay in the country. Even though no radio royalties flow in the other direction to European performers, because radio stations in the US don’t have to pay any money to any artists or labels. 

That change to Irish law was the result of a ruling in the European Union courts which, SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe insists, also obligates other EU countries to implement similar changes, so that more radio royalties flow to the US. “Implementation isn’t optional – it’s a legal obligation”, Huppe says, adding, “creators everywhere deserve to be paid when their music is used, no matter their nationality”. 

by Trichordist

California Takes a Step Toward Ending Speculative Ticketing

One of the most frustrating tricks in the ticket resale business is something called speculative ticketing. That’s when someone lists a ticket for sale before they actually have the ticket. We’ve discussed the problem many times, but Kid Rock brought it to a head recently during a hearing on Capitol Hill.

If you haven’t run across spec ticking before, here it is: The seller is essentially betting they will be able to obtain the ticket later. If they succeed, they deliver the ticket to the buyer. If they don’t, the buyer often ends up with a refund—or a replacement ticket of uncertain quality—instead of the seat they thought they purchased.

For fans and artists, the bigger problem is what speculative listings do to the market before the onsale even begins.

When fans check resale marketplaces and see hundreds of tickets already listed—often at inflated prices—it creates the impression that tickets are already scarce or sold out. That perception alone can push fans to panic-buy at higher prices, even when the actual ticket inventory hasn’t even been released yet.

In other words, speculative listings can make the market look hotter and tighter than it really is.

Ironically, most of the major resale platforms already say this practice is prohibited on their service. Their terms of service typically ban selling tickets that the seller does not actually possess.

Yet those same marketplaces often display large numbers of listings that appear to be exactly that: tickets offered for sale before the seller could reasonably have them in hand.

California is now attempting to address this problem directly. A new proposal would make it clear that selling tickets you do not possess—or do not have the legal right to sell—is a deceptive practice under consumer protection law. It would also allow state and local authorities to enforce those rules, rather than leaving fans to fight the battle on their own.

That proposal is California Assembly Bill 1349 (AB 1349).

AB 1349 aims to close the gap between what resale platforms claim to prohibit and what actually happens in the marketplace. The basic principle is simple: if a ticket is listed for sale, it should be a real ticket controlled by the seller, not a speculative promise that may or may not be fulfilled later.

The bill will not fix every problem in the ticketing ecosystem. But it represents an important step toward restoring a basic level of honesty to the resale market. After all, if the platforms themselves say you shouldn’t sell a ticket you don’t have, putting that rule into law should not be controversial.

For artists and fans alike, the idea behind AB 1349 comes down to something pretty straightforward:

You shouldn’t be able to sell a ticket you don’t actually own.

by Trichordist

Say No to Suno

Late last year, thieves disguised as construction workers broke into the Louvre during broad daylight, grabbed more than $100 million worth of crown jewels, and roared off on their motorbikes into the busy streets of Paris. While some of those thieves were later arrested, the jewelry they stole has yet to be recovered, and many fear those historic works of artistry have already been recut, reset, and resold.

Closer to home, but no less nefarious, is the brazen rip-off of artists enabled by irresponsible AI, whose profiteers are recutting, remixing, and reselling original works of artistry as something new.  The hijacking of the world’s entire treasure-trove of music floods platforms with AI slop and dilutes the royalty pools of legitimate artists from whose music this slop is derived. 

Meanwhile, those who are promoting this new business model are operating in broad daylight, too – minus the yellow safety vests.  That is AI music company Suno, the brazen “smash and grab” platform whose “Make it Music” ad campaign suggests that the most personal and meaningful forms of music can now be fabricated by their unauthorized AI platform machinery trained on human artists’ work. 

How significant is this activity?  Publicly revealed data says Suno is used to generate 7 million tracks a day, a massive quantity that suggests a dominant market share of AI tracks.  According to recent reports, Deezer “deems 85% of streams of fully AI-generated tracks [on its service] to be fraudulent,” and that such tracks include outputs from major generative models.  As JP Morgan’s analysts said, Deezer’s data “should be indicative of the broader market.”  Suno has yet to demonstrate persuasively that its platform does not, in practice, serve as a scalable input into streaming-fraud schemes — raising a serious concern that Suno has, in effect, become a fraud-fodder factory on an industrial scale.

In a February 2 LinkedIn post, Paul Sinclair, Suno’s Chief Music Officer, claims that his company’s platform is about “empowerment” that enables “billions of fans to create and play with music.”  He argues that closed systems are “walled gardens” that deny people access to the full joy of music.

Ironically, Sinclair’s choice of analogy undermines his own argument.  Ask yourself: just why are most gardens surrounded by fences or walls?  To keep out rabbits, deer, raccoons and wild pigs seeking a free lunch.  We cultivate, nurture and protect our gardens precisely because that makes them much more productive over the long run.

While Sinclair may be loath to admit it, AI is fundamentally different from past disruptive innovations in the music industry.  The phonograph, cassettes, CDs, MP3s, downloads, streaming – all these technologies were about the reproduction and distribution of creative work.  By contrast, irresponsible AI like Suno appropriates and plunders such creative work while undermining the commercial ecosystem for artists.

Think back to the days of Napster.  What brought the music industry back from the ruinous abyss of unfettered digital piracy?  It was the very “closed systems” that Sinclair derides as exclusionary.  At least streaming platforms maintain access controls and content management systems that enable creator compensation, even if the economic outcomes for many creators remain inadequate.  Should we be against Apple Music, Spotify, Deezer, YouTube Music, and Amazon Music?  What about Netflix, Disney+ and HBO, too, while we’re at it?

At its core, Sinclair’s argument is just a tired remix of the old trope that “information wants to be free.”  What that really means is: “We want your music for free.”

Artists need to understand Suno’s game.  They are not putting technology in the service of artists; they are putting artists in the service of their technology.  Every time artists’ creations are used by the platform, those creations have just unwittingly been contributed to the creation of endless derivatives of artists’ own work, not to mention AI slop, with limited or no remuneration back to the human creators.  Suno built its business on our backs, scraping the world’s cultural output without permission, then competing against the very works exploited.

It’s also important to keep in mind that using Suno to generate audio output calls into question the copyrightability of whatever Suno creates.  Most countries around the world including the US Copyright Office have been clear that generative AI outputs are largely ineligible for a copyright – meaning the economic value of the Suno creation lies solely with Suno, not with the artist using it.  The only ones gaining empowerment from Suno are Suno themselves.

Many in our community are embracing responsible AI as a tool for creation, and as a means for fans to explore and interact with our artistry.  That’s wonderful.  But it’s not the same as creating an environment where AI-generated works sourced from our music are mass distributed to dilute our royalties or, worse yet, reward those actively seeking to commit fraud.  Artists need to know the difference – all AI platforms are not the same, and Suno, which is being sued for copyright infringement, is not a platform artists should trust.

Responsible AI-generated music must evolve within a framework that respects and remunerates artists, enhances human creativity rather than supplants it, and empowers fans to engage with the music they love.  At the same time, AI services must preclude mass distribution of slop and prevent fraudsters from destroying the very ecosystem that has been built to reward and sustain artists and audiences alike.

All of us, including billions of music fans, share an urgent, deep and abiding interest in protecting and rewarding human genius, even as AI continues to change our industry and the world in unimaginable ways.  So in 2026, even as the Louvre continues to revamp its own approach to security, we in the arts must rise to confront those who would “smash-and-grab” our creativity for their own benefit.

Together, while embracing innovation, we must work to establish more effective safeguards – both legal and technological – that better promote and protect all creative artists, our intellectual property, and the spark of human genius.

Say no to Suno. Say yes to the beauty and bounty of the gardens that feed us all.

Signed: 

Ron Gubitz, Executive Director, Music Artist Coalition

Helienne Lindvall, Songwriter and President, European Composer and Songwriter Alliance

David C. Lowery, Artist and Editor The Trichordist

Tift Merritt artist, Practitioner in Residence, Duke University and Artist Rights Alliance Board Member

Blake Morgan, artist, producer, and President of ECR Music Group.

Abby North, President, North Music Group

Chris Castle, Artist Rights Institute

by Trichordist Editor

Synthetic Emotion from The Music Department: Suno’s Unsettling Ad Campaign and the Return of Orwell’s Machine-Made Culture from 1984

In George Orwell’s 1984, the “versificator” was a machine designed to produce poetry, songs, and sentimental verse synthetically, without human thought or feeling. Its purpose was not artistic expression but industrial-scale cultural production—filling the air with endless, disposable content to occupy attention and shape perception. Nearly a century later, the comparison to modern generative music systems such as Suno is difficult to ignore. While the technologies differ dramatically, the underlying question is strikingly similar: what happens when music is produced by machines at scale rather than by human experience?

Orwell’s versificator was built for scale, not meaning (reminding you of anyone?). It generated formulaic songs for the masses, optimized for emotional familiarity rather than originality. Suno, by contrast, uses sophisticated machine learning trained on vast corpora of human-created music to generate complete recordings on demand that would be the envy of Big Brother’s Music Department. Suno can reportedly generate millions of tracks per day, a level of output impossible in any human-centered musical economy. When music becomes infinitely reproducible, the limiting factor shifts from creation to distribution and attention—precisely the dynamic Orwell imagined.

Nothing captures the versificator analogy more vividly than Suno’s own dystopian-style “first kiss” advertisingcampaign. In one widely circulated spot, the product is promoted through a stylized, synthetic emotional narrative that emphasizes instant, machine-generated musical cliche creation untethered from human musicians, vocalists, or composers. The message is not about artistic struggle, collaboration, or lived expression—it is about mediocre frictionless production. The ad unintentionally echoes Orwell’s warning: when culture can be manufactured instantly, expression becomes simulation. And on top of it, those ads are just downright creepy.

The versificator also blurred authorship. In 1984, no individual poet existed behind the machine’s output; creativity was subsumed into a system. Suno raises a comparable question. If a system trained on thousands or millions of human performances produces a new track, where does authorship reside? With the user who typed a prompt? With the engineers who built the model? With the countless musicians whose expressive choices shaped the training data? Or nowhere at all? This diffusion of authorship challenges long-standing cultural and legal assumptions about what it means to “create” music.

Another parallel lies in standardization. The versificator produced content that was emotionally predictable—pleasant, familiar, subservient and safe. Generative music systems often display a similar gravitational pull toward stylistic averages embedded in their training data that has been averaged into pablum. The result can be competent, even polished output that nevertheless lacks the unpredictability, risk, and individual voice associated with human artistry. Orwell’s concern was not that machine-generated culture would be bad, but that it would be flattened—replacing lived expression with algorithmic imitation. Substitutional, not substantial.

There is also a structural similarity in scale and economics. The versificator’s value to The Party lay in its ability to replace human labor in cultural production and to force the creation of projects that humans would find too creepy. Suno and similar systems raise analogous questions for modern musicians, particularly session players and composers whose work historically formed the backbone of recorded music. When a single system can generate instrumental tracks, arrangements, and stylistic variations instantly, the economic pressure on human contributors becomes obvious. Orwell imagined machines replacing poets; today the substitution pressure may fall first on instrumental performance, arrangement, sound designer, and production roles.

Yet the comparison has limits, and those limits matter. The versificator was a tool of centralized control in a dystopian state, designed to narrow human thought. Suno operates in a pluralistic technological environment where many artists themselves experiment with AI as a creative instrument. Unlike Orwell’s machine, generative music systems can be used collaboratively, interactively, and sometimes in ways that expand rather than suppress creative exploration. The technology is not inherently dystopian; its impact depends on how institutions, markets, and creators choose to shape it.

A deeper difference lies in intention. Orwell’s versificator was never meant to create art; it was meant to simulate it. Modern generative music systems are often framed as tools that can assist, augment, or inspire human creativity. Some artists use AI to prototype ideas, explore unfamiliar styles, or generate textures that would be difficult to produce otherwise. In these contexts, the machine functions less like a replacement and more like a new instrument—one whose cultural role is still evolving.

Still, Orwell’s versificator is highly relevant to understanding Suno’s corporate direction. When cultural production becomes industrialized, quantity can overwhelm meaning. The risk is not merely that machine-generated music exists, but that its scale reshapes attention, value, and recognition. If millions of synthetic tracks flood listening environments as is happening with some large DSPs, the signal of individual human expression may become harder to perceive—even if human creativity continues to exist beneath the surface.

The comparison between Suno and the versificator symbolizes the moment when technology challenges the boundaries of authorship, creativity, and cultural labor. Orwell warned of a world where machines produced endless culture without human voice. Today’s question is subtler: can society integrate generative systems in ways that preserve the distinctiveness of human expression rather than dissolving it into algorithmic slop?

The answer will not come from technology alone. It will depend on choices—legal, cultural, and economic—about how machine-generated music is labeled, valued, and integrated into the broader creative ecosystem. Orwell imagined a future where the machine replaced the poet. The task now is to ensure that, even in an age of generative AI, the humans remains audible.

by Trichordist

Don’t Sell What You Don’t Have: Why AB 1349’s Crackdown on Speculative Event Tickets Matters to Touring Artists and Fans

Update: AB 1349 passed the California Assembly, on to the Senate.

I rely on ticket revenue to pay my band and crew, and I depend on trust—between me and my fans—for my career to work at all. That’s why I support California’s AB 1349. At its core, this bill confronts one of the most corrosive practices in touring: speculative ticketing.

Speculative ticketing isn’t normal resale. It’s when sellers list tickets they don’t actually own and may never acquire. These listings often appear at inflated prices on reseller markets before tickets even go on sale, with no guarantee the seller can deliver the seat. In other words, it’s selling a promise, not a ticket. Fans may think they bought a ticket, but what they’ve really bought is a gamble that the reseller can later obtain the seat—usually at a lower price—and flip it to them while the reseller marketplace looks the other way.

Here’s how it works in practice. A reseller posts a listing, sometimes even a specific section, row, and seat, before they possess anything. The marketplace presents that listing like real inventory: seat maps, countdown timers, “only a few left” banners. That creates artificial scarcity before a single legitimate ticket has even been sold. Once tickets go on sale, the reseller tries to “cover” the sale—buying tickets during the onsale (often using bots or multiple accounts), buying from other resellers who did secure inventory, or substituting some “comparable” seat if the promised one doesn’t exist at an arbitrage price. If they can source lower than what they sold to the fan, they pocket the difference.

When that gamble fails, the risk gets dumped on the fan. Prices jump. Inventory really sells out. The reseller can’t deliver. What follows is a last-minute cancellation, a refund that arrives too late to help, a downgrade to worse seats, or a customer-service maze between the seller and the platform. Fans blame artists even if the artists had nothing to do with the arbitrage. I’ve seen fans get priced out because listings appeared online that had nothing to do with the actual onsale.   The reseller and the marketplace profit themselves while the fan, artist and venue suffer.

AB 1349 draws a bright-line rule that should have existed years ago: if you don’t actually have the ticket—or a contractual right to sell it—you can’t list it. That single principle collapses the speculative model. You can’t post phantom seats or inflate prices using imaginary inventory. It doesn’t ban resale. It doesn’t cap prices. It does stop a major source of fraud.

The bill also tackles the deception that makes speculative ticketing profitable. Fake “sold out” claims, copycat websites that look like official artist or venue pages, and listings that bury or hide face value all push fans into rushed, fear-based decisions. AB 1349 requires transparency about whether a ticket is a resale, what the original face price was, and what seat is actually being offered. That information lets fans make rational choices—and it reduces the backlash that inevitably lands on performers and venues when fans feel tricked.

Bots and circumvention tools are another part of the speculative pipeline. Artists and venues spend time and money designing fair onsales, presales for fan clubs, and purchase limits meant to spread tickets across real people. Automated systems that evade those limits defeat the entire purpose, feeding inventory into speculative listings within seconds. AB 1349 doesn’t outlaw resale; it targets the deliberate technological abuse that turns live music into a high-speed extraction game.

I also support the bill’s enforcement structure. This isn’t about turning fans into litigants or flooding courts. It’s about giving public enforcers real tools to police a market that has repeatedly shown it won’t self-regulate.

AB 1349 won’t fix everything overnight. But by stopping people from selling what they don’t have, it moves ticketing back toward a system built on possession, truth, and accountability. If every state prohibited speculative ticketing, it would largely disappear because resale would finally be backed by real inventory. For fans who just want to see the music they love—that’s not radical. It’s essential.

[This post first appeared on Hypebot]

by Dr. David C Lowery

Stealing Isn’t Innovation!

Don’t let the so-called “AI czar” sell you the idea that changing the law to legalize taking artists’ work without consent is innovation. It isn’t.

Innovation creates new value. The AI boondoggle takes existing value from creators and communities and hands it to a small number of tech companies—without permission, without payment, and without accountability but with a nuclear reactor next to your house.

Artists aren’t raw material. They’re rights-holders under U.S. law. Rewriting those rights to subsidize AI business models isn’t progress—it’s a policy choice to reward theft at scale.

AI can thrive without gutting creative rights. But that requires consent, licensing, and fair compensation—not retroactive immunity dressed up as innovation.

Stealing isn’t innovation. It’s just stealing, with a press strategy.

Find out more at Stealing Isn’t Innovation and @human_artistry

by Trichordist

Victory in the Vetter v. Resnik Lawsuit: Artist Rights, Songwriter Advocacy, and the Power of Termination

At the center of Vetter v. Resnik are songwriters reclaiming what Congress promised them in a detailed and lengthy legislative negotiation over the 1976 revision to the Copyright Act—a meaningful second chance to terminate what the courts call “unremunerative transfers,” aka crappy deals. That principle comes into sharp focus through Cyril Vetter, whose perseverance brought this case to the Fifth Circuit, and Cyril’s attorney Tim Kappel, whose decades-long advocacy for songwriter rights helped frame the issues not as abstractions, but as lived realities.

Cyril won his case against his publisher at trial in a landmark judicial ruling by Chief Judge Shelly Dick. His publisher appealed Judge Dick’s ruling to the Fifth Circuit. As readers will remember, oral arguments in the case were earlier this year. A bunch of songwriter and author groups including the Artist Rights Institute filed “friend of the court” briefs in the case in favor of Cyril.

In a unanimous opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Judge Shelly Dick’s carefully reasoned trial-court ruling, holding that when an author terminates a worldwide grant, the recapture also worldwide. It is not artificially limited to U.S. territory only, which had been the industry practice. The court understood that anything less would hollow out Congress’s intent.

It is often said that the whole point of the termination law is to give authors (including songwriters) a “second bite at the apple”. Which is why the Artist Rights Institute wrote (and was quoted by the 5th Circuit) that limiting the reversion to US rights only is a “second bite at half the apple” which was the opposite of Congressional intent.

25-30108-2026-01-12Download



What made this 5th Circuit decision especially meaningful for the creative community is that the Fifth Circuit did not reach it in a vacuum. Writing for the panel, Judge Carl Stewart expressly quoted the Artist Rights Institute amicus brief, observing:

“Denying terminating authors the full return of a worldwide grant leaves them with only half of the apple—the opposite of congressional intent.”

That sentence—simple, vivid, and unmistakably human—captured what this case has always been about.

ARI.Amicus.Vetter.Final RDownload



The Artist Rights Institute’s amicus brief did not appear overnight. It grew out of a longstanding relationship between songwriter advocate Tim Kappel and Chris Castle, a collaboration shaped over many years by shared concern for how statutory rights actually function—or fail to function—for creators in the real world.

When the Vetter appeal crystallized the stakes, that history mattered. It allowed ARI to move quickly, confidently, and with credibility—translating dense statutory language into a narrative to help courts understand that termination rights are supposed to restore leverage, not preserve a publisher’s foreign control veto through technicalities.

Crucially, the brief was inspired and strengthened by the voices of songwriter advocates and heirs, including Abby North (heir of composer Alex North), Blake Morgan (godson of songwriter Lesley Gore), and Angela Rose White (heir of legendary music director David Rose) and of course David Lowery and Nikki Rowling. The involvement of these heirs ensured the court understood context—termination is not merely about renegotiating deals for living authors. It is often about families, estates, and heirs—people for whom Congress explicitly preserved termination rights as a matter of intergenerational fairness.

The Fifth Circuit’s opinion reflects that understanding. By rejecting a cramped territorial reading of termination, the court avoided a result that would have undermined heirs’ rights just as surely as authors’ rights.

Vetter v. Resnik represents a rare and welcome alignment: an author willing to press his statutory rights all the way, advocates who understood the lived experience behind those rights, a district judge who took Congress at its word, and an appellate court willing to say plainly that “half of the apple” is not enough.

For the Artist Rights Institute, it was an honor to participate—to stand alongside Cyril Vetter, Tim Kappel, and the community of songwriter advocates and heirs whose experiences shaped a brief that helped the court see the full picture.

And for artists, songwriters, and their families, the decision stands as a reminder that termination rights mean what Congress said they mean—a real chance to reclaim ownership, not an illusion bounded by geography.

by thetrichordist

@ArtistRights Institute Newsletter 01/05/26: Grok Can’t Control Itself, CRB V Starts, Data Center Rebellion, Sarah Wynn-Williams Senate Testimony, Copyright Review

Artist Rights Institute logo - Artist Rights Weekly newsletter

Phonorecords V Commencement Notice: Government setting song mechanical royalty rates

The Copyright Royalty Judges announce the commencement of a proceeding to determine reasonable rates and terms for making and distributing phonorecords for the period beginning January 1, 2028, and ending December 31, 2032. Parties wishing to participate in the rate determination proceeding must file their Petition to Participate and the accompanying $150 filing fee no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time on January 30, 2026. Deets here.

US Mechanical Rate Increase

Songwriters Will Get Paid More for Streaming Royalties Starting Today (Erinn Callahan/AmericanSongwriter)

CRB Sets 2026 Mechanical Rate at 13.1¢ (Chris Castle/MusicTechPolicy)

Spotify’s Hack by Anna’s Archive

No news. Biggest music hack in history still stolen.

MLC Redesignation

The MMA’s Unconstitutional Unclaimed Property Preemption: How Congress Handed Protections to Privatize Escheatment (Chris Castle/MusicTechPolicy)

Under the Radar: Data Center Grass Roots Rebellion

Data Center Rebellion (Chris Castle/MusicTechSolutions)

The Data Center Rebellion is Here and It’s Reshaping the Political Landscape (Washington Post)

Residents protest high-voltage power lines that could skirt Dinosaur Valley State Park (ALEJANDRA MARTINEZ AND PAUL COBLER/Texas Tribune)

US Communities Halt $64B Data Center Expansions Amid Backlash (Lucas Greene/WebProNews)

Big Tech’s fast-expanding plans for data centers are running into stiff community opposition (Marc Levy/Associated Press)

Data center ‘gold rush’ pits local officials’ hunt for new revenue against residents’ concerns (Alander Rocha/Georgia Record)

AI Policy

Meet the New AI Boss, Worse Than the Old Internet Boss (Chris Castle/MusicTechPolicy)

Deloitte’s AI Nightmare: Top Global Firm Caught Using AI-Fabricated Sources to Support its Policy Recommendations (Hugh Stephens/Hugh Stephens Blog)

Grok Can’t Stop AI Exploitation of Women

Facebook/Meta Whistleblower Testifies at US Senate

Copyright Case 2025 Review

Year in Review: The U.S. Copyright Office (George Thuronyi/Library of Congress)

Copyright Cases: 2025 Year in Review (Rachel Kim/Copyright Alliance)

AI copyright battles enter pivotal year as US courts weigh fair use (Blake Brittain/Reuters)

by Trichordist Editor