1. Home
  2. News and Insights
  3. Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: A Year In Review

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: A Year In Review

Publications

January 2024

By: Allison N. Douglis, Rachael Goldman, Julie Ann Shepard

Artificial intelligence raises various novel legal questions about data privacy, bias in outputs, cybersecurity, and ethics, among other topics. In 2023, however, intellectual property concerns associated with artificial intelligence took center stage. In the last year, at least twelve lawsuits have been brought against generative AI companies raising copyright infringement and related claims.

Almost all of these are putative class actions brought by authors or visual artists, seeking money damages on behalf of some defined class of people whose copyrighted works were used to train the defendant’s AI model.1 In addition, some companies (most notably Getty Images, The New York Times, and a set of music publishers) have filed non-class-action lawsuits based purely on the use of their own copyrighted works to train AI models.2

While the parties and legal theories are often similar, plaintiffs have had varying degrees of success. For instance, in an earlier-filed case involving the alleged use of Westlaw content to train a legal AI tool, the district court issued a decision in September that allowed Thomson Reuters’ copyright claims to proceed to trial and held that the defendant’s fair use defense was more appropriate for a jury.3 By contrast, courts have so far been more skeptical of certain claims in the more recently filed class action lawsuits against generative AI companies. For instance, multiple courts have rejected the theory that an AI model trained on copyrighted works is an infringing derivative work, or that anything created with that model is an infringing derivative work, even if the outputs of that model are not “substantially similar” to the works used as training data. Even in these cases, however, defendants’ motions to dismiss in these cases have often not challenged the plaintiffs’ infringement allegations that their works were copied without authorization to be used as training data.4 This is likely because defendants recognize that this implicates questions about fair use that courts typically are unwilling to resolve early in a case by way of a motion-to-dismiss.

The facts on which complaints are based have also varied in interesting ways. A recently amended complaint in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., for example, includes Discord chat logs from a Meta-affiliated researcher stating that he had discussed with Meta’s legal department whether use of certain ebook files to train AI would be “legally okay” and the legal department had raised concerns about certain uses5 . The plaintiffs rely on that allegation to argue that Meta engaged in willful infringement. Different plaintiffs have also had different degrees of success in arguing that AI tools have generated “substantially similar” outputs, with some able to point to specific examples of AI tools appearing to copy from their copyrighted works6 . Future court decisions may focus on these differences in allegations.

While this wave of litigation is only the beginning as AI becomes more prominent, these cases may shape the U.S. legal landscape that will govern AI in a variety of areas.

This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。

[1] See Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-201 (N.D. Cal.); Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-3223 (N.D. Cal.); Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-3416 (N.D. Cal.); Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-3417 (N.D. Cal.); Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-4625 (N.D. Cal.); Chabon v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-4663 (N.D. Cal.); Authors Guild v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-8292 (S.D.N.Y.); Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-9152 (S.D.N.Y.); Sancton v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-10211 (S.D.N.Y.).

[2] See N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.); Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., No. 23-cv-135 (D. Del.); Concord Music Grp. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 23-cv-1092 (M.D. Tenn.).

[3] See Thomson Reuters Enter. Centre GmbH v. Ross Intell. Inc., No. 20-cv-613, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 6210901 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2023).

[4] See Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-3417, 2023 WL 8039640, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023); Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-201, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 7132064, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2023).

[5] Am. Compl. ¶¶ 55–63, Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 323-cv-3417 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2023), ECF No. 64.

[6] Compl. ¶¶ 66–69, Concord Music Grp., Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 23-cv-1092 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2023), ECF No. 1.

Footnotes

[1] See Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-201 (N.D. Cal.); Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-3223 (N.D. Cal.); Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-3416 (N.D. Cal.); Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-3417 (N.D. Cal.); Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-4625 (N.D. Cal.); Chabon v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-4663 (N.D. Cal.); Authors Guild v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-8292 (S.D.N.Y.); Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-9152 (S.D.N.Y.); Sancton v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-10211 (S.D.N.Y.).

[2] See N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.); Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., No. 23-cv-135 (D. Del.); Concord Music Grp. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 23-cv-1092 (M.D. Tenn.).

[3] See Thomson Reuters Enter. Centre GmbH v. Ross Intell. Inc., No. 20-cv-613, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 6210901 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2023).

[4] See Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-3417, 2023 WL 8039640, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023); Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-201, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 7132064, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2023).

[5] Am. Compl. ¶¶ 55–63, Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 323-cv-3417 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2023), ECF No. 64.

[6] Compl. ¶¶ 66–69, Concord Music Grp., Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 23-cv-1092 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2023), ECF No. 1.

Related Articles

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

Stay Informed

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: A Year In Review

Publications

January 2024

By: Allison N. Douglis, Rachael Goldman, Julie Ann Shepard

Artificial intelligence raises various novel legal questions about data privacy, bias in outputs, cybersecurity, and ethics, among other topics. In 2023, however, intellectual property concerns associated with artificial intelligence took center stage. In the last year, at least twelve lawsuits have been brought against generative AI companies raising copyright infringement and related claims.

Almost all of these are putative class actions brought by authors or visual artists, seeking money damages on behalf of some defined class of people whose copyrighted works were used to train the defendant’s AI model.1 In addition, some companies (most notably Getty Images, The New York Times, and a set of music publishers) have filed non-class-action lawsuits based purely on the use of their own copyrighted works to train AI models.2

While the parties and legal theories are often similar, plaintiffs have had varying degrees of success. For instance, in an earlier-filed case involving the alleged use of Westlaw content to train a legal AI tool, the district court issued a decision in September that allowed Thomson Reuters’ copyright claims to proceed to trial and held that the defendant’s fair use defense was more appropriate for a jury.3 By contrast, courts have so far been more skeptical of certain claims in the more recently filed class action lawsuits against generative AI companies. For instance, multiple courts have rejected the theory that an AI model trained on copyrighted works is an infringing derivative work, or that anything created with that model is an infringing derivative work, even if the outputs of that model are not “substantially similar” to the works used as training data. Even in these cases, however, defendants’ motions to dismiss in these cases have often not challenged the plaintiffs’ infringement allegations that their works were copied without authorization to be used as training data.4 This is likely because defendants recognize that this implicates questions about fair use that courts typically are unwilling to resolve early in a case by way of a motion-to-dismiss.

The facts on which complaints are based have also varied in interesting ways. A recently amended complaint in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., for example, includes Discord chat logs from a Meta-affiliated researcher stating that he had discussed with Meta’s legal department whether use of certain ebook files to train AI would be “legally okay” and the legal department had raised concerns about certain uses5 . The plaintiffs rely on that allegation to argue that Meta engaged in willful infringement. Different plaintiffs have also had different degrees of success in arguing that AI tools have generated “substantially similar” outputs, with some able to point to specific examples of AI tools appearing to copy from their copyrighted works6 . Future court decisions may focus on these differences in allegations.

While this wave of litigation is only the beginning as AI becomes more prominent, these cases may shape the U.S. legal landscape that will govern AI in a variety of areas.

This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。

[1] See Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-201 (N.D. Cal.); Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-3223 (N.D. Cal.); Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-3416 (N.D. Cal.); Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-3417 (N.D. Cal.); Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-4625 (N.D. Cal.); Chabon v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-4663 (N.D. Cal.); Authors Guild v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-8292 (S.D.N.Y.); Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-9152 (S.D.N.Y.); Sancton v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-10211 (S.D.N.Y.).

[2] See N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.); Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., No. 23-cv-135 (D. Del.); Concord Music Grp. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 23-cv-1092 (M.D. Tenn.).

[3] See Thomson Reuters Enter. Centre GmbH v. Ross Intell. Inc., No. 20-cv-613, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 6210901 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2023).

[4] See Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-3417, 2023 WL 8039640, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023); Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-201, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 7132064, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2023).

[5] Am. Compl. ¶¶ 55–63, Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 323-cv-3417 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2023), ECF No. 64.

[6] Compl. ¶¶ 66–69, Concord Music Grp., Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 23-cv-1092 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2023), ECF No. 1.

Footnotes

[1] See Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-201 (N.D. Cal.); Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-3223 (N.D. Cal.); Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-3416 (N.D. Cal.); Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-3417 (N.D. Cal.); Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-4625 (N.D. Cal.); Chabon v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-4663 (N.D. Cal.); Authors Guild v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-8292 (S.D.N.Y.); Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-9152 (S.D.N.Y.); Sancton v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 23-cv-10211 (S.D.N.Y.).

[2] See N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.); Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., No. 23-cv-135 (D. Del.); Concord Music Grp. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 23-cv-1092 (M.D. Tenn.).

[3] See Thomson Reuters Enter. Centre GmbH v. Ross Intell. Inc., No. 20-cv-613, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 6210901 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2023).

[4] See Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-3417, 2023 WL 8039640, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023); Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-201, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 7132064, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2023).

[5] Am. Compl. ¶¶ 55–63, Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 323-cv-3417 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2023), ECF No. 64.

[6] Compl. ¶¶ 66–69, Concord Music Grp., Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 23-cv-1092 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2023), ECF No. 1.

Related Articles

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

Stay Informed

News and Insights

Event

Associate Steven Arango to Speak at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair

On September 18, Associate Steven Arango will speak on a panel at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair (VLCF), the only legal career fair in the United States dedicated to veterans, active-duty service members, and military spouses.

September 18, 2026

News

Partner Ashley Callen Named Fall 2026 Fellow at the Georgetown University Institute of Politics and Public Service

Partner Ashley Callen, Co-Chair of the firm's Congressional Investigations Practice, has been named a Fall 2026 Fellow at the Georgetown University Institute of Politics and Public Service at the McCourt School of Public Policy. 

August 20, 2026

Publications

In American Banker, Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Weighs in on OCC's Handling of Fintech Bank Charter Applications

Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon spoke with American Banker about how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is approaching bank charter applications from fintechs, amid a growing wave of companies seeking charters from federal regulators.

August 18, 2026

Recognition

Crain's Chicago Business Names Three Jenner & Block Partners to 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law List

Crain's Chicago Business recognized Jenner & Block Partners Annie Kastanek, Wade Thomson, and Andrew Vail among its 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law. The list spotlights firm leaders and practice heads whose work shapes business, civic life, and the courts throughout the region.

August 17, 2026

Event

Partner David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI

On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).

August 17, 2026

Recognition

Partner Neil Barofsky Named Finalist for Attorney of the Year by The American Lawyer 2026 Industry Awards 

Partner Neil Barofsky has been named a finalist for Attorney of the Year by The American Lawyer as part of its 2026 Industry Awards. The award recognizes lawyers whose work over the past year has had significant impact on their clients, the profession, or the public interest. Winners will be announced at the annual gala on November 12 in New York. 

August 17, 2026

Client Alerts

Are You Employing a North Korean IT Worker? What Companies Need to Know to Prepare for and Respond to this Threat

On July 31, 2026, the US Department of State and the FBI, joined by counterpart agencies in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, issued a joint alert on North Korean IT workers who use false identities to infiltrate companies and fund North Korea's weapons programs. It’s the latest in a now-familiar cadence of warnings issued roughly once a year since 2022. Since then, sanctions actions, DOJ indictments, “laptop farm

August 13, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Secures Precedential Third Circuit Ruling for Pro Bono Client in Prison Retaliation Case

A Jenner & Block team secured a precedential ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on behalf of pro bono client Brandon Timmons, an incarcerated person in a Pennsylvania state prison who alleged that a prison official retaliated against him for filing complaints against staff.

August 13, 2026

Recognition

Partner Lauren Hartz Recognized in Bloomberg Law's 2026 "They've Got Next" List

Partner Lauren Hartz was recognized in Bloomberg Law's They've Got Next: 40 Under 40 list for 2026. The annual report recognizes “next-generation lawyers” excelling in a profession being reshaped by AI and new avenues for leadership, service, and success. Lauren, who co-leads Jenner & Block's Education Practice, was recognized in the Education category.

August 13, 2026

Publications

Special Counsel Kimberly Cook Featured in FCBA Member Spotlight

The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) featured Kimberly Cook in its Member Spotlight series.

August 13, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Ranked #3 in The American Lawyer's A-List

Jenner & Block has ranked #3 in The American Lawyer's 2026 A-List — the firm’s highest placement yet among the top 20 elite firms recognized as "the best of the best."

August 12, 2026

Publications

Partner Jan Larson and Summer Associate Averi Suk Discuss California FAIR Plan's Expanding Role in Law360

Partner Jan Larson, Co-Chair of the firm’s Insurance Recovery and Counseling Practice, and Summer Associate Averi Suk co-authored an article for Law360 examining how a historic rate increase, a significant litigation outcome, and a new round of legislation are together reshaping the California FAIR Plan's role in the state's insurance market.

August 12, 2026

Event

Associate Tal Ratner Solovey to Speak on JFEDLA Legal and Tech Network AI Panel

Associate Tal Ratner Solovey will speak on a panel hosted by the Jewish Federation Los Angeles (JFEDLA) Legal and Tech Networks on August 10 in Century City.

August 10, 2026

Recognition

Three Jenner & Block Partners Named to Crain's New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law List

Crain's New York Business recognized Jenner & Block Partners Anthony Barkow, Alison Stein, and Damian Williams among its 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law.

August 10, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Earns Firm and Individual Rankings in Chambers Crisis & Risk Management Guide Debut

Jenner & Block earned a ranking in the USA – Nationwide category in its first year featured in the Chambers Crisis & Risk Management Guide. Global Crisis Management and Strategic Risk Practice Co-Chair Joanna Ludlam received an individual ranking in the UK-wide category.

August 7, 2026

Publications

In Law360, Trump Debarment Threat Calls for Targeted Defense Plan

Partners Ashley Callen and David Robbins authored an article for Law360 examining how entities should respond when suspension or debarment is threatened directly by the president, rather than initiated through the usual agency-driven process.

August 6, 2026

News

Partner Joanna Ludlam on the Broader Implications of the TikTok Data Privacy Ruling in City AM

Partner Joanna Ludlam was quoted in City AM on the Upper Tribunal's ruling upholding the ICO's £12.7 million fine against TikTok for unlawfully processing children's data.

August 6, 2026

Recognition

Partner John Storino Named President of the Chicago Inn of Court

Chicago Partner John Storino, Co-Chair of Jenner & Block's Law Firm and Professional Services Defense Practice, has been named President of the Chicago Inn of Court.

August 6, 2026

News

Partner Rachel Alpert Featured in Export Compliance Daily on Sanctions Risk and Sham Transactions

Partner Rachel Alpert, former Chief Counsel at the US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), was featured in Export Compliance Daily discussing how companies can identify sanctions risk hidden behind complex ownership structures and sham transactions.

August 6, 2026

Publications

Partner Lucy Blake Writes for The Times on Corporate Accountability Beyond Regulation

Partner Lucy Blake authored an article for The Times examining Canada's recent decision to wind down its corporate human rights watchdog, the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE). She explores what that move signals about the broader shift in how companies are being held accountable for forced labour and supply chain abuses.

August 4, 2026

View All News and Insights