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

Partner Karin Dryhurst to Speak at ABA In-House Counsel Session on Anti-Discrimination Laws

On July 14, Partner Karin Dryhurst will speak on a panel hosted by the American Bar Association Business Law Section’s In-House Counsel Committee titled "How to Handle Current Discrimination Risks Across Industries: What In-House Counsel Need to Know About the Evolving Landscape."

July 14, 2026

Publications

In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision

Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.

July 1, 2026

Event

Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference

On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.

July 1, 2026

Recognition

Chief Justice Roberts Appoints Partner Catherine Steege to Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. has appointed Partner Catherine Steege to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules. Cathy will serve a three-year term beginning October 1, 2026, on the committee that shapes and recommends changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure nationwide.

June 30, 2026

Event

CLE Relay 2026 — Session 4 — US Supreme Court Term in Review

Jenner & Block's appellate lawyers review the most consequential cases from the 2025–2026 Supreme Court term. This session covers high-profile decisions and pending matters addressing presidential power, agency independence, birthright citizenship, voting rights, and other significant constitutional and federal law questions before the Court.

June 30, 2026

Recognition

Associate Andrew Santana Recognized as “Most Promising Newcomer” at 2026 California Legal Awards

Associate Andrew Santana was selected as the "Most Promising Newcomer" at this year's California Legal Awards Ceremony in Los Angeles.

June 29, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Wins Landmark Supreme Court Victory in Chatrie v. United States

Jenner & Block Partner Adam Unikowsky has secured a landmark victory at the Supreme Court of the United States in Chatrie v. United States, with the Court holding by a 6-3 vote that accessing a person’s location data in the cloud is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant satisfying the Constitution’s probable cause and particularity requirements. The Court remanded the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the sp

June 29, 2026

Event

CLE Relay 2026 — Session 3 — AI Challenges and Opportunities in the Legal Space

As AI tools become embedded in business operations across sectors, the legal questions surrounding their use are growing more complex — and more consequential. Jenner & Block lawyers examine the latest developments in AI from a legal perspective, including cyber risk, content and intellectual property considerations, and strategies for advising clients on responsible adoption.

June 26, 2026

Client Alerts

Two New Executive Orders on Quantum Computing: Key Takeaways for Companies Operating in Quantum Information Science and Critical Infrastructure

On June 22, 2026, President Trump signed two Executive Orders establishing an updated comprehensive federal framework for quantum information science and technology. The first order focuses on security—requiring federal agencies and government contractors to upgrade their encryption systems to withstand attacks from future quantum computers, before those computers arrive. The second focuses on innovation—accelerating research, commercialization, and workforce development in quantum computing and

June 26, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Named to Public Interest Law Initiative’s 2026 Pro Bono Recognition Roster

For the 16th year, Jenner & Block has been recognized in Public Interest Law Initiative’s Pro Bono Recognition Roster (PILI).

June 25, 2026

Recognition

National Legal Aid & Defender Association Honors Jenner & Block with 2026 Beacon of Justice Award

Jenner & Block has been named a recipient of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association’s (NLADA) 2026 Beacon of Justice Award for the “firm’s commitment to advancing equal justice through innovative and impactful pro bono work.” This year’s recognition highlights law firms “addressing issues related to ‘Protecting Democracy and Civil Rights’ for work done in 2025.”

June 25, 2026

Publications

“Escape from Kabul,” American College of Trial Lawyers

In an article for the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) Summer 2026 Journal, Partner Terri Mascherin tells the story of an extraordinary rescue operation carried out by seven women judges to save their Afghan counterparts from the Taliban following the fall of Kabul in August 2021.

June 23, 2026

Publications

In Employee Relations Law Journal: What Happens When ERISA Disability Deadlines Slip

Partner Joseph Torres along with Associates Emma O'Connor and Christopher LeWarne, authored an article for the Employee Relations Law Journal analyzing a significant Fourth Circuit decision with substantial consequences for ERISA disability plan administrators.

June 23, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Honors 2026 Pro Bono Awards Recipients

Jenner & Block continued its longstanding tradition of recognizing exceptional pro bono service at the firm's 2026 Pro Bono Awards Ceremony, honoring lawyers and professional staff who exemplify the firm's core commitment of expanding access to justice through zealous advocacy. The recipients represent the breadth of Jenner's pro bono work across all offices and practice areas, demonstrating how dedicated legal service can make meaningful impact.

June 22, 2026

Publications

Partner Joseph Torres Named to Negocios Now's "Who's Who in Hispanic Business" as One of 50 Powerful Latino Lawyers

Partner Joseph Torres has been selected for Negocios Now's Who's Who in Hispanic Business special edition as one of 50 Powerful Latino Lawyers. Joseph will be recognized at Negocios Now's Gala event on July 23, 2026.

June 18, 2026

News

Brandon R. Thompson, Former FCC Enforcement Bureau Lawyer and Communications Transactions Counsel, Joins Jenner & Block's Communications, Internet, and Technology Practice in Washington, DC

WASHINGTON, DC – June 17, 2026: Jenner & Block is pleased to announce that Brandon R. Thompson has joined as a Special Counsel in its Washington, DC office as part of the firm’s Communications, Internet, and Technology (CIT) Practice. Brandon's background in corporate transactions, combined with his Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory experience, strengthens the firm's ability to advise clients navigating the intersection of communications law and commercial transactions.

06/17/2026

Event

CLE Relay 2026 — Session 2 — Energy for the New Data Age

The rapid expansion of AI data centers is reshaping energy markets and driving a new wave of complex legal and regulatory challenges. Jenner & Block lawyers examine the infrastructure powering the AI economy, including FERC interconnection reform, hyperscaler power procurement strategies, innovative deal structures and contracting models, risk allocation in long-term energy agreements, and the state and federal policy issues shaping energy strategy.

June 17, 2026

Publications

In Law360, Partner Samuel Feder Analyzes the Supreme Court's Ruling in FCC v. AT&T

Partner Sam Feder authored an article in Law360 examining the Supreme Court's June 4 decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc., which rejected AT&T's and Verizon's argument that the FCC's forfeiture process violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

June 16, 2026

Event

"Memory, Perception, and the Search for Truth in Executive Investigations" IFSEA Annual Conference 2026

London Partner Joanna Ludlam will participate as a panellist at the IFSEA Annual Conference 2026, taking place on Tuesday 16 June 2026 at Saddlers' Hall.

June 16, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block's Japan Practice Named Asian Legal Business’ Japan Practice Foreign Law Firm of the Year

Asian Legal Business (ALB) has named Jenner & Block's Japan Practice Foreign Law Firm of the Year in the 2026 Japan Law Awards.

June 15, 2026

View All News and Insights