Federal Court Rules Work Generated By Artificial Intelligence Alone Is Not Eligible For Copyright Protection

The Board dismissed this petition for cancellation of Roman Atwood's registration for the mark SMILE MORE for various goods (stickers, backpacks, shirts) and for retail store service featuring clothing, denying petitioner's claim that the term fails to function as a mark.

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.

On Oct. 7, 2026, at 18:00 UTC, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will publish every new generic top-level domain (gTLD) application proceeding in the 2026 new gTLD Round, including who applied...

The U.S. Copyright Office recently released a report on the human authorship requirement for materials to qualify for copyright protection.

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.

In recent video game news, gaming giant Nintendo filed and settled a lawsuit against the developers of the popular Nintendo Switch emulator, Yuzu.

The Ninth Circuit held that GitHub Copilot's AI-generated code did not violate DMCA's copyright management information (CMI) removal provisions, even when output resembled source code, because the system generated new works through probabilistic patterns rather than retrieving and stripping information from existing copies. This decision establishes a critical distinction between AI systems that learn and generate versus those that retrieve and reproduce, with significant implications for how courts evaluat

On 30 September 2026, the SEC proposed rule amendments advancing Chairman Paul S. Atkins’ “responsible retailization” of private markets, expanding retail access to private-market strategies while adding key investor safeguards.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued a proposed enforcement policy statement targeting businesses that use consumer personal data to set individualized prices. While acknowledging it cannot prohibit all personalized pricing, the FTC warns that companies may violate federal law if they fail to clearly disclose their use of personal data in pricing decisions.

Texas Senate Bill 140 (SB 140) took effect 1 September 2025, and applies to conduct occurring on or after that date. The bill amended Section 302 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code to extend registration and disclosure requirements to text messages by expanding the definition of “Telephone solicitation,” which previously applied only to a “telephone call,” to include certain transmissions of text or graphic messages and images. In addition, SB 140 added a definition of “Telephone call” that incorporates the definition found in Section 304, which includes certain text or graphic messages and images, but excludes certain agreed-to transmissions.

The SEC and CFTC have issued coordinated regulatory relief measures that significantly advance crypto-based trading infrastructure in US markets, bypassing Congressional gridlock on the CLARITY Act. These orders establish new frameworks for tokenized securities venues and passive software providers, potentially reshaping how digital assets are traded and accessed in regulated markets.

The European Commission has issued guidelines on transparency obligations under Article 50 of the EU AI Act, clarifying how providers and deployers must inform individuals when they interact with AI systems or are exposed to AI-generated content. These non-binding guidelines address a wide range of AI applications, from chatbots to deepfake technologies, and establish four main transparency scenarios with specific disclosure requirements that businesses must now prepare to implement.

Venezuela's post-Maduro reopening is creating unprecedented opportunities for foreign investors across energy, mining, telecommunications, and infrastructure sectors. With expanding OFAC sanctions relief, landmark legislative reforms, and major US companies nearing multibillion-dollar deals, the country presents investment prospects not seen in a generation—though success requires disciplined navigation of corruption, security, and regulatory risks.

The European Union's new Consumer Rights Directive amendment introduces a mandatory "withdrawal button" for online merchants, fundamentally changing how consumers exercise their 14-day right of withdrawal from distance contracts. This requirement, effective June 19, 2026, applies to any trader—including US-based companies—actively selling to EU consumers, creating new compliance obligations around button placement, design standards, data collection, and confirmation processes. Understanding whic

The Council of the European Union adopted a regulation on the reduction of methane emissions in the energy sector (Regulation).

The United States and Saudi Arabia have signed a landmark nuclear cooperation agreement under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, establishing the legal framework for decades of civilian nuclear partnership. This agreement resolves years of debate over nonproliferation conditions and positions US companies to participate in Saudi Arabia's ambitious civil nuclear program. The deal carries significant implications for US engagement in the Middle East, international nuclear commerce, and the global competiti

China's stock exchanges have implemented three major trading rule changes effective July 6, 2026, designed to enhance market quality and align practices with international standards. The reforms expand after-hours trading, modify public fund pricing mechanisms, and adjust price limits for risk-warning stocks. How will these structural changes impact institutional investors, ETF efficiency, and overall market participation in China's evolving capital markets?