diff --git a/TAXONOMY.md b/TAXONOMY.md
index ab38cf1b..26c36793 100644
--- a/TAXONOMY.md
+++ b/TAXONOMY.md
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ The taxonomy gives OIR a stable map for organizing knowledge pages, source recor
- `sanctions`
- `computer-crime`
- `copyright`
+- `artificial-intelligence`
- `safe-harbor`
- `intermediary-liability`
- `surveillance`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..6ca15afb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+title: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Northern District of California summary-judgment order holding that training Anthropic’s Claude models on purchased books was fair use, while pirated library copies were not excused as fair use.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge William Alsup)
+- Publication date: 2025-06-23
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.434709/gov.uscourts.cand.434709.231.0_4.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the fair-use summary-judgment order in No. C 24-05417 WHA. Primary authority for the court’s split holding on training copies versus pirated library copies. District-court authority; not an appellate holding. Later settlement approval is a separate source.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a576b7b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL
+title: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Northern District of California order granting final approval of a $1.5 billion class settlement covering Anthropic’s past acquisition and copying of listed pirated books.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
+- Publication date: 2026-07-20
+- Source type: District court order and judgment (PDF)
+- URL: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28503369/anthropic-settlement-final-approval.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+DocumentCloud reproduction of Dkt. 680 in No. 4:24-cv-05417-AMO. Primary court order for settlement terms as the court described them. Settlement approval is not a merits holding on fair use; the June 2025 fair-use order remains the source for that analysis.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3e452154
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+id: SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET
+title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: CourtListener docket for the music-publisher lyric-copyright action against Anthropic, including the original Tennessee filing date reflected on the transferred complaint.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener / PACER)
+- Publication date: 2024-06-26
+- Source type: Public docket
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68889092/concord-music-group-inc-v-anthropic-pbc/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP for No. 5:24-cv-03811. The transferred complaint docket text records an original Middle District of Tennessee filing dated October 18, 2023. Reliable for case number, transfer posture, and later docket events as of the access date. A related later action, No. 5:26-cv-00880, is a separate docket.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..627de60d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+id: SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Northern District of California order allowing music publishers’ amended claims for secondary copyright infringement and DMCA CMI removal against Anthropic to proceed.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Eumi K. Lee)
+- Publication date: 2025-10-06
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.431519/gov.uscourts.cand.431519.461.0_2.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the October 6, 2025 order in No. 24-cv-03811-EKL. Primary authority for pleading-stage holdings on the first amended complaint. The order recites alleged facts from the FAC and prior procedural history (including the March 26, 2025 dismissal with leave to amend). It is not a fair-use merits ruling.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..58e7d651
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT
+title: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Wrongful-death and product-liability complaint alleging that a Character.AI chatbot contributed to the death of a 14-year-old user.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - first-amendment
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Megan Garcia (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2024-10-22
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581.1.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.). Primary source for original claims and parties. Allegations are unverified. Later amended complaints and the May 2025 motion-to-dismiss order control for operative theories. This page concerns a minor’s death; do not reproduce alleged chatbot transcripts or methods of harm.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..49887811
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+id: SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+title: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Middle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - first-amendment
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Judge Anne C. Conway)
+- Publication date: 2025-05-20
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581.115.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of Dkt. 115. Primary authority for pleading-stage holdings, including that the court was not prepared to treat Character.AI outputs as protected speech at that stage and that the app could be a “product” insofar as claims targeted design defects rather than ideas or expressions. Not a merits finding of liability. Entered on the docket May 21, 2025.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
+- `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..16f566bb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+id: SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+title: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Landgericht München I, 42. Zivilkammer
+- Publication date: 2025-11-11
+- Source type: Official first-instance judgment (HTML report)
+- URL: https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-GRURRS-B-2025-N-30204
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official Bavarian judicial-decision report of the November 11, 2025 Endurteil. Primary authority for the tenor (injunction, information, and damages) and the court’s holdings on memorization, reproduction under § 16 UrhG / Art. 2 InfoSoc Directive, and the limits of § 44b UrhG. The report lists an appellate caption OLG München 6 U 3662/25 e; the judgment is first-instance and not treated here as final EU or German law.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..57f04aa7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+id: SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025
+title: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Landgericht München I (Pressesprecherin Cornelia Kallert)
+- Publication date: 2025-11-11
+- Source type: Official court press release
+- URL: https://www.bayern.verfassungsgerichtshof.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2025/11.php
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official press summary issued the day of judgment. Useful for a concise statement of holdings and for the explicit statement that the judgment is not legally binding (nicht rechtskräftig). The full Endurteil is the controlling primary source for operative language.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..53501001
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+title: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Northern District of California order granting Meta summary judgment on fair use for copying thirteen authors’ books as Llama training data on the record presented.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Vince Chhabria)
+- Publication date: 2025-06-25
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv03417/415175/598/0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Justia reproduction of Dkt. 598 in No. 3:23-cv-03417-VC. Primary district-court authority. The opinion is fact-specific to these plaintiffs’ market-harm showing and leaves torrenting/distribution claims for later proceedings. Not an appellate holding.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-KADREY-V-META`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5fae420e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026
+title: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Southern District of New York order dismissing with prejudice news plaintiffs’ material-contribution contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft after Cox.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
+- Publication date: 2026-08-06
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396.1662.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of an August 6, 2026 order in the consolidated publisher litigation. Primary source for dismissal with prejudice of material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement, and for denial of leave to amend specified Microsoft theories. Direct-infringement and other remaining claims are not resolved by this order.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..96574076
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT
+title: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Complaint alleging that Microsoft and OpenAI copied New York Times works to train large language models and that model outputs reproduced Times content.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: The New York Times Company (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2023-12-27
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24241000/2023-12-27-nyt-dkt-1-complaint.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+DocumentCloud copy of the original complaint in No. 1:23-cv-11195. Primary source for what the Times alleged at filing, not for the truth of disputed facts. Later amended pleadings and judicial orders control for claims that survived motions to dismiss.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5377531f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+title: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Southern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft while dismissing specified DMCA and hot-news claims.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Sidney H. Stein)
+- Publication date: 2025-04-04
+- Source type: District court opinion (PDF)
+- URL: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/yf%2023cv11195%20OpenAI%20MTD%20opinion%20april%204%202025.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official S.D.N.Y. opinion PDF covering Nos. 23-cv-11195, 24-cv-3285, and 24-cv-4872. Primary authority for pleading-stage rulings. Not a merits determination of fair use. Later 2026 pleadings rulings on contributory-infringement theories are a separate source.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9c463a62
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+id: SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT
+title: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Second Sony-affiliated complaint against Udio asserting 30,117 additional sound recordings after leave to expand the 2024 action was denied.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Sony Music Entertainment et al. (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2026-07-20
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.668696/gov.uscourts.nysd.668696.1.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the complaint in No. 1:26-cv-6120 (S.D.N.Y.). Primary for Sony’s 2026 allegations and for its description of the June 29, 2026 leave-to-amend ruling in No. 1:24-cv-04777. The quoted leave-to-amend order is not attached here; treat those quotations as plaintiff-reported unless independently verified from the 2024 docket.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7aeff90e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+title: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Complaint seeking a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are not protected by copyright.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Spyder Games LLC and Speedy Simulator Gaming, LLC (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2025-11-26
+- Source type: District court complaint
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71968381/1/spyder-games-llc-v-mementum-lab/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener reproduction of ECF No. 1 in No. 5:25-cv-10248 (N.D. Cal.). Primary source for the original declaratory-relief theory and parties. Allegations about game popularity, ownership assignments from TikTok creators, and the amount of money demanded are unverified complaint statements. Later counterclaims and scheduling orders are documented on the docket source.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7f3c7c60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+id: SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET
+title: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: CourtListener docket record for the Steal a Brainrot copyright and trademark dispute in the Northern District of California.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener / PACER)
+- Publication date: 2025-11-26
+- Source type: Public docket
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71968381/spyder-games-llc-v-mementum-lab/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP. Reliable for case number, filing date, assigned judge, nature of suit, and docket-entry descriptions as of the access date (last known filing listed as July 31, 2026). Docket text is not a substitute for reading later pleadings in full. Cause of action is listed as 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (trademark) with nature of suit 820 (copyright).
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..0ed85866
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+id: SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+title: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: D.C. Circuit opinion affirming refusal to register a copyright in an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
+- Publication date: 2025-03-18
+- Source type: Appellate court opinion (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40231/gov.uscourts.cadc.40231.01208720945.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the D.C. Circuit opinion in No. 23-5233. Primary appellate authority for the statutory human-authorship requirement as applied to a work the applicant identified as autonomously generated by AI. The court did not decide whether the Constitution independently requires human authorship, and it treated as waived Thaler’s later argument that he was the human author by directing the system.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..fbfb9fb8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+title: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: District of Delaware memorandum opinion rejecting Ross Intelligence’s fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation)
+- Publication date: 2025-02-11
+- Source type: District court memorandum opinion (PDF)
+- URL: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/20-613_5.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official District of Delaware opinion PDF. Primary authority for the court’s revised fair-use analysis. The court expressly limited the holding to non-generative AI. District-court authority; later appellate status requires separate verification.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..46ae1722
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Suno’s answer admitting that its model was built from tens of millions of recordings and asserting fair use, copyright misuse, and other defenses.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Suno, Inc. (defendant filing)
+- Publication date: 2024-08-01
+- Source type: District court answer (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.272063/gov.uscourts.mad.272063.28.0_1.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of Suno’s answer in No. 1:24-cv-11611-FDS. Primary source for Suno’s admissions and affirmative defenses, including the fair-use defense. Admissions are evidence of what Suno pleaded; they are not a judicial finding.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..96f74f79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+id: SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Major-label complaint alleging that Suno copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service and seeking damages and injunctive relief.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2024-06-24
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.272063/gov.uscourts.mad.272063.1.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 1:24-cv-11611 (D. Mass.). Primary source for what the label plaintiffs alleged at filing, not for the truth of disputed facts. Later stipulations and orders control for which plaintiffs remain in the case.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..af701467
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+id: SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Rule 41 stipulation dismissing Warner-affiliated plaintiffs’ claims against Suno with prejudice while leaving UMG and Sony claims unaffected.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Parties in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation)
+- Publication date: 2025-12-09
+- Source type: District court stipulation (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.272063/gov.uscourts.mad.272063.174.1.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the signed stipulation in No. 1:24-cv-11611-FDS. Primary for the fact and scope of the Warner plaintiffs’ exit. The stipulation does not disclose settlement terms. A later docket order entered the stipulation on January 28, 2026; that minute order is not reproduced in this PDF.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cb937f7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+id: SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Major-label complaint alleging that Uncharted Labs (Udio) copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2024-06-24
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.623701/gov.uscourts.nysd.623701.9.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the operative complaint filed June 25, 2024 (after a June 24 deficient first attempt) in No. 1:24-cv-04777 (S.D.N.Y.). Primary source for the original allegations, not for later dismissals or the 2026 Sony follow-on action.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..00c3b9a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+id: SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: CourtListener docket for the original major-label copyright action against Udio, including later stipulations dismissing UMG and Warner claims.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener / PACER)
+- Publication date: 2024-06-24
+- Source type: Public docket
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68878697/umg-recordings-inc-v-uncharted-labs-inc/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP. Reliable for case number, filing date, assigned judge (Alvin K. Hellerstein), and docket-entry descriptions, including the November 5, 2025 stipulation dismissing UMG and Capitol claims without prejudice and the November 25, 2025 stipulation dismissing Warner-affiliated claims without prejudice. Docket text is not a substitute for reading later pleadings in the related 2026 Sony action.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md
index 39b6ad45..ad2fb108 100644
--- a/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md
@@ -33,3 +33,7 @@ Cornell LII is a high-confidence legal reference. For formal citation or final p
- `STAT-USC-107`
- `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`
- `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- `CASE-KADREY-V-META`
+- `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3bd5fd26
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+id: SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+title: U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Copyright Office report concluding that existing U.S. law can resolve AI copyrightability questions and that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States Copyright Office
+- Publication date: 2025-01-29
+- Source type: Official agency report
+- URL: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official Register of Copyrights report. Policy analysis and registration-practice conclusions, not binding judicial precedent. Part 3 (training) was later issued in pre-publication form; this source is used only for Part 2 copyrightability conclusions reviewed on access.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`
diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2e7dfd32
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+title: Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: U.S. Copyright Office statement of policy on examining and registering works that contain AI-generated material, effective March 16, 2023.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress
+- Publication date: 2023-03-16
+- Source type: Federal Register statement of policy (37 C.F.R. Part 202)
+- URL: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official Copyright Office policy statement published at 88 Fed. Reg. 16190. Agency guidance on registration practice, not a judicial holding. The Office later issued a January 2025 copyrightability report that elaborates the same human-authorship framework.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`
diff --git a/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md b/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..efc86e2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+id: SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024
+title: Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Official Oxford University Press announcement selecting “brain rot” as Oxford Word of the Year 2024 and publishing the press’s definition of the term.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Oxford University Press
+- Publication date: 2024
+- Source type: Official publisher announcement
+- URL: https://corp.oup.com/news/brain-rot-named-oxford-word-of-the-year-2024/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official Oxford University Press Word of the Year announcement. Primary source for OUP’s 2024 selection and definition. Lexicographic, not a medical or legal finding. Does not address the later “Italian brainrot” meme-character copyright litigation.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`
diff --git a/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md b/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md
index 6ca10200..d9430754 100644
--- a/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md
+++ b/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md
@@ -32,3 +32,4 @@ Official biography maintained by EFF. Primary source for Walsh's role and practi
## Used For
- `PERSON-KIT-WALSH`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
diff --git a/generated/bibliography.json b/generated/bibliography.json
index f4921be1..07e7ab55 100644
--- a/generated/bibliography.json
+++ b/generated/bibliography.json
@@ -262,6 +262,84 @@
"`ORG-TELEGRAM`"
]
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge William Alsup)",
+ "publication date": "2025-06-23",
+ "source type": "District court order (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.434709/gov.uscourts.cand.434709.231.0_4.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Northern District of California summary-judgment order holding that training Anthropic\u2019s Claude models on purchased books was fair use, while pirated library copies were not excused as fair use.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California",
+ "publication date": "2026-07-20",
+ "source type": "District court order and judgment (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28503369/anthropic-settlement-final-approval.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Northern District of California order granting final approval of a $1.5 billion class settlement covering Anthropic\u2019s past acquisition and copying of listed pirated books.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ ]
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
@@ -1570,6 +1648,84 @@
"`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`"
]
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener / PACER)",
+ "publication date": "2024-06-26",
+ "source type": "Public docket",
+ "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68889092/concord-music-group-inc-v-anthropic-pbc/"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "CourtListener docket for the music-publisher lyric-copyright action against Anthropic, including the original Tennessee filing date reflected on the transferred complaint.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Eumi K. Lee)",
+ "publication date": "2025-10-06",
+ "source type": "District court order (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.431519/gov.uscourts.cand.431519.461.0_2.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Northern District of California order allowing music publishers\u2019 amended claims for secondary copyright infringement and DMCA CMI removal against Anthropic to proceed.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ ]
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
@@ -2680,6 +2836,163 @@
"`ORG-FSF`"
]
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "Megan Garcia (plaintiff filing)",
+ "publication date": "2024-10-22",
+ "source type": "District court complaint (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581.1.0.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Wrongful-death and product-liability complaint alleging that a Character.AI chatbot contributed to the death of a 14-year-old user.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "first-amendment",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Judge Anne C. Conway)",
+ "publication date": "2025-05-20",
+ "source type": "District court order (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581.115.0.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Middle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "first-amendment",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`",
+ "`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, 42. Zivilkammer",
+ "publication date": "2025-11-11",
+ "source type": "Official first-instance judgment (HTML report)",
+ "url": "https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-GRURRS-B-2025-N-30204"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "LG M\u00fcnchen I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 \u2013 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I (Pressesprecherin Cornelia Kallert)",
+ "publication date": "2025-11-11",
+ "source type": "Official court press release",
+ "url": "https://www.bayern.verfassungsgerichtshof.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2025/11.php"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`"
+ ]
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
@@ -3467,6 +3780,45 @@
"Distributed systems"
]
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Vince Chhabria)",
+ "publication date": "2025-06-25",
+ "source type": "District court order (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv03417/415175/598/0.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Northern District of California order granting Meta summary judgment on fair use for copying thirteen authors\u2019 books as Llama training data on the record presented.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-KADREY-V-META`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ ]
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
@@ -4181,84 +4533,201 @@
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
- "access date": "2026-07-23",
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
"archive url": "None recorded",
- "author or issuing body": "U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control",
- "publication date": "2022-11-08",
- "source type": "Official OFAC FAQ",
- "url": "https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/1076"
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Southern District of New York",
+ "publication date": "2026-08-06",
+ "source type": "District court order (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396.1662.0.pdf"
},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076",
+ "id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md",
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md",
"relationships": [],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md",
"sources": [],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "OFAC FAQ describing Tornado Cash designation history, SDN identifiers, and guidance on open-source code interactions.",
+ "summary": "Southern District of New York order dismissing with prejudice news plaintiffs\u2019 material-contribution contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft after Cox.",
"tags": [
"source",
- "sanctions",
- "open-source-software"
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
],
- "title": "OFAC FAQ 1076 \u2014 Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation",
+ "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)",
"type": "source",
"used_for": [
- "`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`",
- "`CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY`",
- "`TECH-TORNADO-CASH`"
+ "`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
]
},
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
- "access date": "2026-07-23",
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
"archive url": "None recorded",
- "author or issuing body": "U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control",
- "publication date": "2025-03-21",
- "source type": "Official OFAC recent-actions notice",
- "url": "https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20250321"
+ "author or issuing body": "The New York Times Company (plaintiff filing)",
+ "publication date": "2023-12-27",
+ "source type": "District court complaint (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24241000/2023-12-27-nyt-dkt-1-complaint.pdf"
},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321",
+ "id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md",
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md",
"relationships": [],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md",
"sources": [],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "OFAC recent-actions notice documenting removal of Tornado Cash SDN list entries on March 21, 2025.",
+ "summary": "Complaint alleging that Microsoft and OpenAI copied New York Times works to train large language models and that model outputs reproduced Times content.",
"tags": [
"source",
- "sanctions"
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
],
- "title": "OFAC Recent Actions \u2014 Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)",
+ "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)",
"type": "source",
"used_for": [
- "`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`",
- "`CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY`"
+ "`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
]
},
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
- "access date": "2026-06-17",
- "author or issuing body": "Project origin material",
- "publication date": "Unknown",
- "repository file": "`OIR Bootstrap Prompt.txt`",
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Sidney H. Stein)",
+ "publication date": "2025-04-04",
+ "source type": "District court opinion (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/yf%2023cv11195%20OpenAI%20MTD%20opinion%20april%204%202025.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Southern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft while dismissing specified DMCA and hot-news claims.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-07-23",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control",
+ "publication date": "2022-11-08",
+ "source type": "Official OFAC FAQ",
+ "url": "https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/1076"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "OFAC FAQ describing Tornado Cash designation history, SDN identifiers, and guidance on open-source code interactions.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "sanctions",
+ "open-source-software"
+ ],
+ "title": "OFAC FAQ 1076 \u2014 Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`",
+ "`CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY`",
+ "`TECH-TORNADO-CASH`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-07-23",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control",
+ "publication date": "2025-03-21",
+ "source type": "Official OFAC recent-actions notice",
+ "url": "https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20250321"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "OFAC recent-actions notice documenting removal of Tornado Cash SDN list entries on March 21, 2025.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "sanctions"
+ ],
+ "title": "OFAC Recent Actions \u2014 Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`",
+ "`CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-06-17",
+ "author or issuing body": "Project origin material",
+ "publication date": "Unknown",
+ "repository file": "`OIR Bootstrap Prompt.txt`",
"source type": "Internal project prompt"
},
"charge_date": null,
@@ -4476,6 +4945,42 @@
"`ORG-OSI`"
]
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "Oxford University Press",
+ "publication date": "2024",
+ "source type": "Official publisher announcement",
+ "url": "https://corp.oup.com/news/brain-rot-named-oxford-word-of-the-year-2024/"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Official Oxford University Press announcement selecting \u201cbrain rot\u201d as Oxford Word of the Year 2024 and publishing the press\u2019s definition of the term.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "Oxford University Press \u2014 \u2018Brain rot\u2019 named Oxford Word of the Year 2024",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`"
+ ]
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
@@ -5875,6 +6380,121 @@
"X3DH key agreement"
]
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "Sony Music Entertainment et al. (plaintiff filing)",
+ "publication date": "2026-07-20",
+ "source type": "District court complaint (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.668696/gov.uscourts.nysd.668696.1.0.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Second Sony-affiliated complaint against Udio asserting 30,117 additional sound recordings after leave to expand the 2024 action was denied.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "Spyder Games LLC and Speedy Simulator Gaming, LLC (plaintiff filing)",
+ "publication date": "2025-11-26",
+ "source type": "District court complaint",
+ "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71968381/1/spyder-games-llc-v-mementum-lab/"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Complaint seeking a declaration that AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are not protected by copyright.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`",
+ "`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener / PACER)",
+ "publication date": "2025-11-26",
+ "source type": "Public docket",
+ "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71968381/spyder-games-llc-v-mementum-lab/"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "CourtListener docket record for the Steal a Brainrot copyright and trademark dispute in the Northern District of California.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`",
+ "`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`"
+ ]
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
@@ -6063,6 +6683,85 @@
"`PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV`"
]
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit",
+ "publication date": "2025-03-18",
+ "source type": "Appellate court opinion (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40231/gov.uscourts.cadc.40231.01208720945.0.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "D.C. Circuit opinion affirming refusal to register a copyright in an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`",
+ "`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation)",
+ "publication date": "2025-02-11",
+ "source type": "District court memorandum opinion (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/20-613_5.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "District of Delaware memorandum opinion rejecting Ross Intelligence\u2019s fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ ]
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
@@ -6603,6 +7302,201 @@
"`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`"
]
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "Suno, Inc. (defendant filing)",
+ "publication date": "2024-08-01",
+ "source type": "District court answer (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.272063/gov.uscourts.mad.272063.28.0_1.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Suno\u2019s answer admitting that its model was built from tens of millions of recordings and asserting fair use, copyright misuse, and other defenses.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing)",
+ "publication date": "2024-06-24",
+ "source type": "District court complaint (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.272063/gov.uscourts.mad.272063.1.0.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Major-label complaint alleging that Suno copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service and seeking damages and injunctive relief.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "Parties in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation)",
+ "publication date": "2025-12-09",
+ "source type": "District court stipulation (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.272063/gov.uscourts.mad.272063.174.1.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Rule 41 stipulation dismissing Warner-affiliated plaintiffs\u2019 claims against Suno with prejudice while leaving UMG and Sony claims unaffected.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs\u2019 stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing)",
+ "publication date": "2024-06-24",
+ "source type": "District court complaint (PDF)",
+ "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.623701/gov.uscourts.nysd.623701.9.0.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Major-label complaint alleging that Uncharted Labs (Udio) copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener / PACER)",
+ "publication date": "2024-06-24",
+ "source type": "Public docket",
+ "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68878697/umg-recordings-inc-v-uncharted-labs-inc/"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "CourtListener docket for the original major-label copyright action against Udio, including later stipulations dismissing UMG and Warner claims.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`"
+ ]
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
@@ -6751,7 +7645,11 @@
"used_for": [
"`STAT-USC-107`",
"`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`",
- "`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`"
+ "`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`",
+ "`CASE-KADREY-V-META`",
+ "`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`"
]
},
{
@@ -6943,6 +7841,83 @@
"`CASE-US-V-TUNICK`"
]
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States Copyright Office",
+ "publication date": "2025-01-29",
+ "source type": "Official agency report",
+ "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Copyright Office report concluding that existing U.S. law can resolve AI copyrightability questions and that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 \u2014 Copyrightability (January 2025)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`",
+ "`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {
+ "access date": "2026-08-22",
+ "archive url": "None recorded",
+ "author or issuing body": "United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress",
+ "publication date": "2023-03-16",
+ "source type": "Federal Register statement of policy (37 C.F.R. Part 202)",
+ "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf"
+ },
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md",
+ "relationships": [],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md",
+ "sources": [],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "U.S. Copyright Office statement of policy on examining and registering works that contain AI-generated material, effective March 16, 2023.",
+ "tags": [
+ "source",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence"
+ ],
+ "title": "Copyright Registration Guidance \u2014 Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)",
+ "type": "source",
+ "used_for": [
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`",
+ "`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`",
+ "`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`",
+ "`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`"
+ ]
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {
@@ -7134,7 +8109,8 @@
"title": "Kit Walsh EFF Staff Biography",
"type": "source",
"used_for": [
- "`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`"
+ "`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`",
+ "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`"
]
},
{
diff --git a/generated/citations.json b/generated/citations.json
index 2e1101b9..dbf39bf6 100644
--- a/generated/citations.json
+++ b/generated/citations.json
@@ -251,6 +251,88 @@
}
]
},
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "source_title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "source_title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
{
"source_id": "SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026",
"source_title": "BBC News \u2014 Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism",
@@ -1444,6 +1526,99 @@
}
]
},
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET",
+ "source_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "source_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
{
"source_id": "SRC-COOLEY-TECH",
"source_title": "Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page",
@@ -2230,6 +2405,208 @@
}
]
},
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT",
+ "source_title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "record_title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025",
+ "source_title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "record_title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "record_title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "record_title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "record_title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "record_title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "record_title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "record_title": "First Amendment",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "record_title": "First Amendment",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "source_title": "LG M\u00fcnchen I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 \u2013 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)",
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)",
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)",
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)",
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025",
+ "source_title": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
{
"source_id": "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT",
"source_title": "GNUnet About Page",
@@ -2890,6 +3267,67 @@
}
]
},
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "source_title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "record_title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "record_title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "record_title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "record_title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
{
"source_id": "SRC-KAHN-CNRI",
"source_title": "Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography",
@@ -3417,17 +3855,113 @@
]
},
{
- "source_id": "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076",
- "source_title": "OFAC FAQ 1076 \u2014 Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation",
+ "source_id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026",
+ "source_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)",
"usages": [
{
- "record_id": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
- "record_title": "Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)",
+ "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)",
"usage": "page_source"
},
{
- "record_id": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
- "record_title": "Tornado Cash Sanctions and Developer Prosecutions",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT",
+ "source_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "source_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)",
+ "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)",
+ "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)",
+ "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076",
+ "source_title": "OFAC FAQ 1076 \u2014 Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "record_title": "Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "record_title": "Tornado Cash Sanctions and Developer Prosecutions",
"usage": "page_source"
}
]
@@ -3515,6 +4049,25 @@
}
]
},
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024",
+ "source_title": "Oxford University Press \u2014 \u2018Brain rot\u2019 named Oxford Word of the Year 2024",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "record_title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "record_title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
{
"source_id": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO",
"source_title": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (GovInfo)",
@@ -4517,6 +5070,144 @@
}
]
},
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT",
+ "source_title": "Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "source_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "record_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "record_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "record_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "record_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "record_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "record_title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "record_title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET",
+ "source_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "record_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "record_title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
{
"source_id": "SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO",
"source_title": "Mitch Stoltz EFF Staff Biography",
@@ -4664,6 +5355,162 @@
}
]
},
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "source_title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "record_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "record_title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "record_title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter",
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "record_title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter",
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "record_title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter",
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "record_title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter",
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "record_title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "record_title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "source_title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "record_title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "record_title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "record_title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "record_title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
{
"source_id": "SRC-TIEN-EFF",
"source_title": "Lee Tien EFF Staff Biography",
@@ -5111,6 +5958,266 @@
}
]
},
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER",
+ "source_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "source_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL",
+ "source_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs\u2019 stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "source_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET",
+ "source_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
{
"source_id": "SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII",
"source_title": "U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Cornell LII)",
@@ -5198,6 +6305,37 @@
"source_id": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII",
"source_title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107",
"usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "record_title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "record_title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
{
"record_id": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
"record_title": "Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.",
@@ -5219,6 +6357,29 @@
"subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
"usage": "relationship_source"
},
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "record_title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "record_title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.",
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "record_title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
{
"record_id": "STAT-USC-107",
"record_title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107",
@@ -5232,6 +6393,14 @@
"subject": "STAT-USC-107",
"usage": "relationship_source"
},
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "record_title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107",
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
{
"object": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
"predicate": "related_to",
@@ -5240,6 +6409,24 @@
"subject": "STAT-USC-107",
"usage": "relationship_source"
},
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
{
"record_id": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
"record_title": "Fair Use and Video",
@@ -5260,6 +6447,14 @@
"record_title": "Fair Use and Video",
"subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
"usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
+ "record_title": "Fair Use and Video",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
}
]
},
@@ -5565,6 +6760,90 @@
}
]
},
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "source_title": "U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 \u2014 Copyrightability (January 2025)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "record_title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "record_title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "source_id": "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023",
+ "source_title": "Copyright Registration Guidance \u2014 Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)",
+ "usages": [
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "record_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "record_title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "record_title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "record_title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "record_title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
{
"source_id": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO",
"source_title": "Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (GovInfo)",
@@ -5831,6 +7110,27 @@
"record_title": "Kit Walsh",
"subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH",
"usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH",
+ "record_title": "Kit Walsh",
+ "subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "usage": "page_source"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "usage": "relationship_source"
}
]
},
diff --git a/generated/glossary.json b/generated/glossary.json
index 5f2e2a6c..bebe20a2 100644
--- a/generated/glossary.json
+++ b/generated/glossary.json
@@ -1,6 +1,71 @@
{
"description": "Generated glossary-style index of non-source knowledge records.",
"records": [
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": "2025-06-23",
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.",
+ "tags": [
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "type": "case",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
@@ -404,6 +469,208 @@
"type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": "2025-10-06",
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.",
+ "tags": [
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "type": "case",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": "2025-05-20",
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.",
+ "tags": [
+ "case",
+ "first-amendment",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "intermediary-liability"
+ ],
+ "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.",
+ "type": "case",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": "2025-11-11",
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.",
+ "tags": [
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)",
+ "type": "case",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
@@ -516,6 +783,70 @@
"type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": "2025-06-25",
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors\u2019 books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.",
+ "tags": [
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.",
+ "type": "case",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
@@ -660,60 +991,117 @@
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": "2017-06-19",
+ "decision_date": "2025-04-04",
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC",
+ "id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII"
- ],
- "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA",
+ "object": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"
+ "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"
+ "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII"
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"
+ "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII",
- "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA",
- "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), held unanimously that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media websites violated the First Amendment, establishing that the internet and social media are protected spaces for the exercise of free speech rights.",
+ "summary": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.",
"tags": [
- "first-amendment",
- "internet-governance",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)",
+ "type": "case",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": "2017-06-19",
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII",
+ "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA",
+ "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), held unanimously that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media websites violated the First Amendment, establishing that the internet and social media are protected spaces for the exercise of free speech rights.",
+ "tags": [
+ "first-amendment",
+ "internet-governance",
"digital-rights"
],
"title": "Packingham v. North Carolina",
@@ -869,54 +1257,73 @@
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": "2001",
+ "decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-CORLEY-LII",
+ "object": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), upheld a DMCA anti-circumvention injunction against distribution of DeCSS code while acknowledging that computer code is speech entitled to First Amendment scrutiny, applying intermediate scrutiny to content-neutral regulation of code's functional aspects.",
+ "summary": "Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.",
"tags": [
- "first-amendment",
+ "case",
"copyright",
- "speech-and-code",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
"digital-rights"
],
- "title": "Universal City Studios v. Corley",
+ "title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
"type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -924,57 +1331,64 @@
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": "2025-07-30",
+ "decision_date": "2025-03-18",
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
+ "id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
+ "object": "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill, co-founders of Samourai Wallet, pled guilty in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds and were sentenced to five and four years in prison.",
+ "summary": "Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.",
"tags": [
"case",
- "computer-crime",
- "open-source-risk",
- "developer-rights",
- "privacy",
- "case-studies"
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
],
- "title": "United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet)",
+ "title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter",
"type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -982,119 +1396,137 @@
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": "2001-12-13",
+ "decision_date": "2025-02-11",
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV",
- "indictment_date": "2001-08-28",
- "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001",
+ "object": "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001"
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001"
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE"
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001",
- "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001",
- "SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE"
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Dmitry Sklyarov and Elcomsoft Co. Ltd. were indicted in 2001 under the DMCA for trafficking in ebook circumvention software; Sklyarov entered a deferred-prosecution agreement, and DOJ described the matter as the first DMCA criminal case.",
+ "summary": "Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.",
"tags": [
"case",
"copyright",
- "open-source-risk",
- "developer-rights",
- "speech-and-code",
- "case-studies"
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
],
- "title": "United States v. Sklyarov / Elcomsoft",
+ "title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.",
"type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
{
- "arrest_date": "2023-08-23",
+ "arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": "2025-08",
+ "decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
- "indictment_date": "2023-08-23",
- "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-STORM.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT",
+ "object": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-STORM.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT",
- "SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025",
- "SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023",
- "SRC-FBI-SEMENOV"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "United States v. Storm, No. 1:23-cr-00430 (S.D.N.Y.), is the federal criminal prosecution of Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm; in August 2025 he was convicted of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business.",
+ "summary": "Pending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.",
"tags": [
"case",
- "computer-crime",
- "sanctions",
- "tornado-cash",
- "case-studies",
- "developer-rights",
- "open-source-risk"
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
],
- "title": "United States v. Storm",
+ "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
"type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -1105,76 +1537,70 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
- "indictment_date": "2025-11-13",
- "last_verified": "2026-07-30",
+ "id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
- "offense_date": "2025-01-24",
- "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-TUNICK.md",
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025",
+ "object": "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"
},
{
- "object": "STAT-18-USC-2232",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"
},
{
- "object": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT",
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026"
+ "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-TUNICK.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025",
- "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026",
- "SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET",
- "SRC-USC-18-2232-LII",
- "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026",
- "SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026",
- "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "United States v. Tunick, No. 1:25-cr-00499 (N.D. Ga.), is a pending federal prosecution charging Samuel Tunick under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232(a) for allegedly deleting digital contents of a Google Pixel phone during a January 24, 2025 CBP secondary inspection at Atlanta\u2019s airport; public reporting links the wipe to GrapheneOS duress credentials.",
+ "summary": "Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.",
"tags": [
"case",
- "privacy",
- "border-search",
- "open-source-software",
- "fourth-amendment",
- "digital-rights",
- "case-studies"
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights"
],
- "title": "United States v. Tunick",
+ "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
"type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -1182,71 +1608,54 @@
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": "2021",
+ "decision_date": "2001",
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "id": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
- ],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO"
- ],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO",
+ "object": "SRC-CORLEY-LII",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
},
{
- "object": "STAT-CFAA-1030",
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
+ "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD",
+ "object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
+ "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII",
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO",
- "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021), interpreted the CFAA phrase exceeds authorized access narrowly in a gates-up-or-down case about database access.",
+ "summary": "Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), upheld a DMCA anti-circumvention injunction against distribution of DeCSS code while acknowledging that computer code is speech entitled to First Amendment scrutiny, applying intermediate scrutiny to content-neutral regulation of code's functional aspects.",
"tags": [
- "computer-crime",
- "technology-law",
+ "first-amendment",
+ "copyright",
+ "speech-and-code",
"digital-rights"
],
- "title": "Van Buren v. United States",
+ "title": "Universal City Studios v. Corley",
"type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -1254,70 +1663,57 @@
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": "2024-11-26",
+ "decision_date": "2025-07-30",
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY",
+ "id": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-07-23",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
+ "object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
- ],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY"
- },
- {
- "object": "STAT-IEEPA",
- "predicate": "interprets",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
- "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII"
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
},
{
- "object": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
- "SRC-TREASURY-TC-AUG-2022",
- "SRC-TREASURY-TC-NOV-2022",
- "SRC-TREASURY-TC-DELIST-2025",
- "SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321",
- "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII"
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024), held that Tornado Cash immutable smart contracts are not \u201cproperty\u201d under IEEPA and that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority by blocking them.",
+ "summary": "Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill, co-founders of Samourai Wallet, pled guilty in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds and were sentenced to five and four years in prison.",
"tags": [
"case",
- "sanctions",
- "open-source-software",
- "censorship-resistance",
- "tornado-cash",
+ "computer-crime",
+ "open-source-risk",
+ "developer-rights",
+ "privacy",
"case-studies"
],
- "title": "Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury",
+ "title": "United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet)",
"type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -1325,124 +1721,120 @@
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": null,
+ "decision_date": "2001-12-13",
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "EVENT-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008",
- "indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-29",
- "legislative_override_date": "2008-07-10",
+ "id": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV",
+ "indictment_date": "2001-08-28",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/EVENT-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS",
+ "object": "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS"
+ "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008"
+ "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS",
- "SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008"
+ "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001",
+ "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001",
+ "SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "On July 10, 2008, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 became law, including protections shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits over assistance to government surveillance \u2014 a classic legislative override that ended the practical force of pending carrier suits.",
+ "summary": "Dmitry Sklyarov and Elcomsoft Co. Ltd. were indicted in 2001 under the DMCA for trafficking in ebook circumvention software; Sklyarov entered a deferred-prosecution agreement, and DOJ described the matter as the first DMCA criminal case.",
"tags": [
- "historical-event",
- "surveillance",
- "digital-rights",
+ "case",
+ "copyright",
+ "open-source-risk",
+ "developer-rights",
+ "speech-and-code",
"case-studies"
],
- "title": "FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Telecom Immunity / Legislative Override)",
- "type": "historical_event",
+ "title": "United States v. Sklyarov / Elcomsoft",
+ "type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
{
- "arrest_date": null,
+ "arrest_date": "2023-08-23",
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
- "charge_date": "2026-07-29",
- "decision_date": null,
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": "2025-08",
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026",
- "indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-29",
+ "id": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
+ "indictment_date": "2023-08-23",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-STORM.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026",
+ "object": "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
- ],
- "subject": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026"
- },
- {
- "object": "PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
- ],
- "subject": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026"
- },
- {
- "object": "ORG-TELEGRAM",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
+ "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
+ "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
+ "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "object": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
+ "SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-STORM.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026",
- "SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026",
- "SRC-MEDUZA-DUROV-FSB-2026"
+ "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT",
+ "SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025",
+ "SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023",
+ "SRC-FBI-SEMENOV"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "On July 29, 2026, Russia's FSB charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorist activity, alleging Telegram failed to remove channels used to coordinate attacks and sabotage, and placed him on an international wanted list.",
+ "summary": "United States v. Storm, No. 1:23-cr-00430 (S.D.N.Y.), is the federal criminal prosecution of Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm; in August 2025 he was convicted of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business.",
"tags": [
- "historical-event",
- "intermediary-liability",
- "secure-messaging",
- "encryption-law",
- "digital-rights",
- "censorship-resistance",
- "case-studies"
+ "case",
+ "computer-crime",
+ "sanctions",
+ "tornado-cash",
+ "case-studies",
+ "developer-rights",
+ "open-source-risk"
],
- "title": "Russia FSB Charges Against Pavel Durov / Telegram (July 2026)",
- "type": "historical_event",
+ "title": "United States v. Storm",
+ "type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -1451,178 +1843,221 @@
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
- "event_date": "2022-05-06",
- "id": "EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022",
- "indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "indictment_date": "2025-11-13",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-30",
"legislative_override_date": null,
- "offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022.md",
+ "offense_date": "2025-01-24",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-TUNICK.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022",
+ "object": "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022"
+ "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022"
+ "object": "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "STAT-18-USC-2232",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022"
+ "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
},
{
- "object": "STAT-IEEPA",
+ "object": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022"
+ "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022"
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-TUNICK.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022"
+ "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025",
+ "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026",
+ "SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-USC-18-2232-LII",
+ "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026",
+ "SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026",
+ "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "On May 6, 2022, OFAC designated virtual currency mixer Blender.io under E.O. 13694 \u2014 Treasury\u2019s first sanctions action against a virtual currency mixer \u2014 citing laundering of proceeds linked to DPRK cyber activity.",
+ "summary": "United States v. Tunick, No. 1:25-cr-00499 (N.D. Ga.), is a pending federal prosecution charging Samuel Tunick under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232(a) for allegedly deleting digital contents of a Google Pixel phone during a January 24, 2025 CBP secondary inspection at Atlanta\u2019s airport; public reporting links the wipe to GrapheneOS duress credentials.",
"tags": [
- "historical-event",
- "sanctions",
+ "case",
+ "privacy",
+ "border-search",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "fourth-amendment",
"digital-rights",
- "case-studies",
- "open-source-risk"
+ "case-studies"
],
- "title": "OFAC Designation of Blender.io (May 6, 2022)",
- "type": "historical_event",
+ "title": "United States v. Tunick",
+ "type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": null,
+ "decision_date": "2021",
"enactment_date": null,
- "event_date": "1996-01",
- "id": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION",
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996",
+ "object": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION"
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
},
{
- "object": "PERSON-PHIL-ZIMMERMANN",
- "predicate": "related_to",
+ "object": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO",
+ "predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION"
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "object": "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-CFAA-1030",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION"
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ",
+ "object": "TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
],
- "subject": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION"
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996",
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED",
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII",
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO",
+ "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "U.S. authorities investigated Phil Zimmermann for years over distribution of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encryption software; the Northern District of California U.S. Attorney declined prosecution and closed the investigation in January 1996.",
+ "summary": "Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021), interpreted the CFAA phrase exceeds authorized access narrowly in a gates-up-or-down case about database access.",
"tags": [
- "historical-event",
- "cryptography",
- "export-control",
- "open-source-risk",
- "developer-rights",
- "speech-and-code",
- "case-studies"
+ "computer-crime",
+ "technology-law",
+ "digital-rights"
],
- "title": "U.S. Criminal Investigation of Phil Zimmermann / PGP (Closed 1996)",
- "type": "historical_event",
+ "title": "Van Buren v. United States",
+ "type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": null,
+ "decision_date": "2024-11-26",
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-ACLU",
+ "id": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-ACLU.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-ACLU-CONTACT",
+ "object": "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ACLU-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
],
- "subject": "ORG-ACLU"
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-ACLU-HISTORY",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "STAT-IEEPA",
+ "predicate": "interprets",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ACLU-HISTORY"
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
+ "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII"
],
- "subject": "ORG-ACLU"
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-ACLU.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ACLU-CONTACT",
- "SRC-ACLU-HISTORY"
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
+ "SRC-TREASURY-TC-AUG-2022",
+ "SRC-TREASURY-TC-NOV-2022",
+ "SRC-TREASURY-TC-DELIST-2025",
+ "SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321",
+ "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. civil liberties organization documented in OIR from official ACLU pages.",
+ "summary": "Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024), held that Tornado Cash immutable smart contracts are not \u201cproperty\u201d under IEEPA and that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority by blocking them.",
"tags": [
- "organization",
- "civil-liberties",
- "digital-rights",
- "outreach"
+ "case",
+ "sanctions",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "censorship-resistance",
+ "tornado-cash",
+ "case-studies"
],
- "title": "American Civil Liberties Union",
- "type": "organization",
+ "title": "Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury",
+ "type": "case",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -1632,105 +2067,121 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-AGORA",
+ "id": "EVENT-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-07-29",
- "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "legislative_override_date": "2008-07-10",
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-AGORA.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/EVENT-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV",
+ "object": "SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-AGORA"
- },
- {
- "object": "PERSON-PAVEL-CHIKOV",
- "predicate": "affiliated_with",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV"
+ "SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS"
],
- "subject": "ORG-AGORA"
+ "subject": "EVENT-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008"
},
{
- "notes": "Connection is via reported Telegram representation by Chikov; not a claim that Agora is Telegram's standing corporate counsel.",
- "object": "ORG-TELEGRAM",
- "predicate": "related_to",
+ "object": "SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008",
+ "predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018"
+ "SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008"
],
- "subject": "ORG-AGORA"
+ "subject": "EVENT-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-AGORA.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV",
- "SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018"
+ "SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS",
+ "SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Agora is a Russian human rights lawyers' group associated with Pavel Chikov; OIR documents it because its lawyers, including Chikov, have been reported as representing Telegram in Russian encryption-access and blocking litigation.",
+ "summary": "On July 10, 2008, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 became law, including protections shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits over assistance to government surveillance \u2014 a classic legislative override that ended the practical force of pending carrier suits.",
"tags": [
- "organization",
- "civil-society",
+ "historical-event",
+ "surveillance",
"digital-rights",
- "attorney",
- "encryption-law"
+ "case-studies"
],
- "title": "Agora (human rights lawyers' group)",
- "type": "organization",
+ "title": "FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Telecom Immunity / Legislative Override)",
+ "type": "historical_event",
"used_for": []
},
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
- "charge_date": null,
+ "charge_date": "2026-07-29",
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-CDT",
+ "id": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-29",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-CDT.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-CDT-ABOUT",
+ "object": "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CDT-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
],
- "subject": "ORG-CDT"
+ "subject": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-CDT-WHO",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CDT-WHO"
+ "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
],
- "subject": "ORG-CDT"
- }
+ "subject": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "ORG-TELEGRAM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
+ ],
+ "subject": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
+ ],
+ "subject": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
+ ],
+ "subject": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026"
+ }
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-CDT.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CDT-ABOUT",
- "SRC-CDT-WHO"
+ "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026",
+ "SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026",
+ "SRC-MEDUZA-DUROV-FSB-2026"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "The Center for Democracy and Technology is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that works to promote democratic values by shaping technology policy and architecture, with a focus on the rights of the individual.",
+ "summary": "On July 29, 2026, Russia's FSB charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorist activity, alleging Telegram failed to remove channels used to coordinate attacks and sabotage, and placed him on an international wanted list.",
"tags": [
- "organization",
+ "historical-event",
+ "intermediary-liability",
+ "secure-messaging",
+ "encryption-law",
"digital-rights",
- "privacy",
- "internet-governance",
- "civil-society",
- "outreach"
+ "censorship-resistance",
+ "case-studies"
],
- "title": "Center for Democracy and Technology",
- "type": "organization",
+ "title": "Russia FSB Charges Against Pavel Durov / Telegram (July 2026)",
+ "type": "historical_event",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -1739,80 +2190,62 @@
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
- "event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "event_date": "2022-05-06",
+ "id": "EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-18",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-CFA-HOME",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-CFA-HOME"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-CFA-JOIN",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-CFA-JOIN"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-CFA-RELAUNCH-CNN",
+ "object": "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CFA-RELAUNCH-CNN"
+ "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022"
],
- "subject": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
+ "subject": "EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CFA-HOME"
+ "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022"
],
- "subject": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
+ "subject": "EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022"
},
{
- "object": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
- "predicate": "affiliated_with",
+ "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CFA-HOME",
- "SRC-CFA-RELAUNCH-CNN"
+ "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022"
],
- "subject": "PERSON-JANE-FONDA"
+ "subject": "EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022"
},
{
- "object": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
- "predicate": "affiliated_with",
+ "object": "STAT-IEEPA",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CFA-RELAUNCH-CNN"
+ "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022"
],
- "subject": "PERSON-HENRY-FONDA"
+ "subject": "EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-OFAC-BLENDER-2022.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CFA-HOME",
- "SRC-CFA-JOIN",
- "SRC-CFA-RELAUNCH-CNN"
+ "SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "The Committee for the First Amendment is an entertainment-industry coalition that opposes government censorship and intimidation of artists, journalists, and other speakers, originally formed during the McCarthy era and relaunched in 2025.",
+ "summary": "On May 6, 2022, OFAC designated virtual currency mixer Blender.io under E.O. 13694 \u2014 Treasury\u2019s first sanctions action against a virtual currency mixer \u2014 citing laundering of proceeds linked to DPRK cyber activity.",
"tags": [
- "organization",
- "first-amendment",
- "civil-society",
- "outreach"
+ "historical-event",
+ "sanctions",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "case-studies",
+ "open-source-risk"
],
- "title": "Committee for the First Amendment",
- "type": "organization",
+ "title": "OFAC Designation of Blender.io (May 6, 2022)",
+ "type": "historical_event",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -1821,37 +2254,66 @@
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
- "event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-COOLEY",
+ "event_date": "1996-01",
+ "id": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-COOLEY.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-COOLEY-TECH",
+ "object": "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-COOLEY-TECH"
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"
],
- "subject": "ORG-COOLEY"
+ "subject": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "PERSON-PHIL-ZIMMERMANN",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"
+ ],
+ "subject": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"
+ ],
+ "subject": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"
+ ],
+ "subject": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-COOLEY.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-COOLEY-TECH"
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996",
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED",
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Cooley is a global law firm that is the",
+ "summary": "U.S. authorities investigated Phil Zimmermann for years over distribution of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encryption software; the Northern District of California U.S. Attorney declined prosecution and closed the investigation in January 1996.",
"tags": [
- "organization",
- "open-source-software",
- "digital-rights",
- "outreach"
+ "historical-event",
+ "cryptography",
+ "export-control",
+ "open-source-risk",
+ "developer-rights",
+ "speech-and-code",
+ "case-studies"
],
- "title": "Cooley",
- "type": "organization",
+ "title": "U.S. Criminal Investigation of Phil Zimmermann / PGP (Closed 1996)",
+ "type": "historical_event",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -1861,44 +2323,44 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-EFF",
+ "id": "ORG-ACLU",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-EFF.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-ACLU.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-EFF-CONTACT",
+ "object": "SRC-ACLU-CONTACT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-EFF-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-ACLU-CONTACT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-EFF"
+ "subject": "ORG-ACLU"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-EFF-ABOUT",
+ "object": "SRC-ACLU-HISTORY",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-EFF-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-ACLU-HISTORY"
],
- "subject": "ORG-EFF"
+ "subject": "ORG-ACLU"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-EFF.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-ACLU.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-EFF-CONTACT",
- "SRC-EFF-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-ACLU-CONTACT",
+ "SRC-ACLU-HISTORY"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Electronic Frontier Foundation is a U.S. nonprofit organization that, according to its official pages, defends civil liberties in the digital world.",
+ "summary": "American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. civil liberties organization documented in OIR from official ACLU pages.",
"tags": [
"organization",
+ "civil-liberties",
"digital-rights",
- "civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Electronic Frontier Foundation",
+ "title": "American Civil Liberties Union",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -1909,45 +2371,54 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-EPIC",
+ "id": "ORG-AGORA",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-29",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-EPIC.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-AGORA.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-EPIC-ABOUT",
+ "object": "SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-EPIC-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV"
],
- "subject": "ORG-EPIC"
+ "subject": "ORG-AGORA"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-EPIC-CONTACT",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "PERSON-PAVEL-CHIKOV",
+ "predicate": "affiliated_with",
"sources": [
- "SRC-EPIC-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV"
],
- "subject": "ORG-EPIC"
+ "subject": "ORG-AGORA"
+ },
+ {
+ "notes": "Connection is via reported Telegram representation by Chikov; not a claim that Agora is Telegram's standing corporate counsel.",
+ "object": "ORG-TELEGRAM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-AGORA"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-EPIC.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-AGORA.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-EPIC-ABOUT",
- "SRC-EPIC-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV",
+ "SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "EPIC is a U.S. nonprofit research and advocacy center founded in 1994 to protect privacy, freedom of expression, and democratic values in the information age through litigation, research, and policy work.",
+ "summary": "Agora is a Russian human rights lawyers' group associated with Pavel Chikov; OIR documents it because its lawyers, including Chikov, have been reported as representing Telegram in Russian encryption-access and blocking litigation.",
"tags": [
"organization",
- "privacy",
- "digital-rights",
"civil-society",
- "outreach"
- ],
- "title": "Electronic Privacy Information Center",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "attorney",
+ "encryption-law"
+ ],
+ "title": "Agora (human rights lawyers' group)",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -1958,44 +2429,46 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-FENWICK",
+ "id": "ORG-CDT",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-07-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-FENWICK.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-CDT.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-FENWICK-TECH",
+ "object": "SRC-CDT-ABOUT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FENWICK-TECH"
+ "SRC-CDT-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-FENWICK"
+ "subject": "ORG-CDT"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-FENWICK-HISTORY",
+ "object": "SRC-CDT-WHO",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FENWICK-HISTORY"
+ "SRC-CDT-WHO"
],
- "subject": "ORG-FENWICK"
+ "subject": "ORG-CDT"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-FENWICK.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-CDT.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FENWICK-TECH",
- "SRC-FENWICK-HISTORY"
+ "SRC-CDT-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-CDT-WHO"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Fenwick & West is a Silicon Valley law firm founded in 1972 that provides comprehensive technology legal services including copyright, open source, patent, and trademark, representing 1,500+ VC-backed companies.",
+ "summary": "The Center for Democracy and Technology is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that works to promote democratic values by shaping technology policy and architecture, with a focus on the rights of the individual.",
"tags": [
"organization",
- "open-source-software",
"digital-rights",
+ "privacy",
+ "internet-governance",
+ "civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Fenwick & West",
+ "title": "Center for Democracy and Technology",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2006,61 +2479,78 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-FIRE",
+ "id": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-31",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-18",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-FIRE.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-FIRE-MISSION",
+ "object": "SRC-CFA-HOME",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FIRE-MISSION"
+ "SRC-CFA-HOME"
],
- "subject": "ORG-FIRE"
+ "subject": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-FIRE-SUBMIT-CASE",
+ "object": "SRC-CFA-JOIN",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FIRE-SUBMIT-CASE"
+ "SRC-CFA-JOIN"
],
- "subject": "ORG-FIRE"
+ "subject": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-FIRE-PRABHAKAR-CASE",
+ "object": "SRC-CFA-RELAUNCH-CNN",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FIRE-PRABHAKAR-CASE"
+ "SRC-CFA-RELAUNCH-CNN"
],
- "subject": "ORG-FIRE"
+ "subject": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
},
{
"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FIRE-MISSION"
+ "SRC-CFA-HOME"
],
- "subject": "ORG-FIRE"
+ "subject": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "affiliated_with",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CFA-HOME",
+ "SRC-CFA-RELAUNCH-CNN"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-JANE-FONDA"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "affiliated_with",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CFA-RELAUNCH-CNN"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-HENRY-FONDA"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-FIRE.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FIRE-MISSION",
- "SRC-FIRE-SUBMIT-CASE",
- "SRC-FIRE-PRABHAKAR-CASE"
+ "SRC-CFA-HOME",
+ "SRC-CFA-JOIN",
+ "SRC-CFA-RELAUNCH-CNN"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "FIRE is a U.S. 501(c)(3) nonprofit that defends free speech and free thought through campus advocacy, litigation, policy reform, and public education; founded in 1999 and renamed in 2022 when it expanded beyond higher education.",
+ "summary": "The Committee for the First Amendment is an entertainment-industry coalition that opposes government censorship and intimidation of artists, journalists, and other speakers, originally formed during the McCarthy era and relaunched in 2025.",
"tags": [
"organization",
"first-amendment",
"civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression",
+ "title": "Committee for the First Amendment",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2071,45 +2561,35 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-FSF",
+ "id": "ORG-COOLEY",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-06-25",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-FSF.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-COOLEY.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-FSF-ABOUT",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-FSF-ABOUT"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-FSF"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-FSF-PRESS",
+ "object": "SRC-COOLEY-TECH",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FSF-PRESS"
+ "SRC-COOLEY-TECH"
],
- "subject": "ORG-FSF"
+ "subject": "ORG-COOLEY"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-FSF.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-COOLEY.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-FSF-ABOUT",
- "SRC-FSF-PRESS"
+ "SRC-COOLEY-TECH"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 1985 with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom and defend the rights of all software users.",
+ "summary": "Cooley is a global law firm that is the",
"tags": [
"organization",
"open-source-software",
"digital-rights",
- "civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Free Software Foundation",
+ "title": "Cooley",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2120,35 +2600,44 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH",
+ "id": "ORG-EFF",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-EFF.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US",
+ "object": "SRC-EFF-CONTACT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US"
+ "SRC-EFF-CONTACT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH"
+ "subject": "ORG-EFF"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-EFF-ABOUT",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-EFF-ABOUT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-EFF"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-EFF.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US"
+ "SRC-EFF-CONTACT",
+ "SRC-EFF-ABOUT"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "The Institute for Free Speech is a U.S. nonprofit that litigates and advocates to protect First Amendment rights to speak, publish, assemble, and petition government, with a focus on political speech and campaign finance law.",
+ "summary": "Electronic Frontier Foundation is a U.S. nonprofit organization that, according to its official pages, defends civil liberties in the digital world.",
"tags": [
"organization",
- "first-amendment",
+ "digital-rights",
"civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Institute for Free Speech",
+ "title": "Electronic Frontier Foundation",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2159,52 +2648,45 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE",
+ "id": "ORG-EPIC",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-EPIC.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-IJ-ABOUT",
+ "object": "SRC-EPIC-ABOUT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IJ-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-EPIC-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE"
+ "subject": "ORG-EPIC"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "object": "SRC-EPIC-CONTACT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE"
- },
- {
- "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
+ "SRC-EPIC-CONTACT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE"
+ "subject": "ORG-EPIC"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-EPIC.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IJ-ABOUT",
- "SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
+ "SRC-EPIC-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-EPIC-CONTACT"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit public interest law firm whose mission is to end widespread abuses of government power and secure constitutional rights, with First Amendment free speech litigation as a central focus.",
+ "summary": "EPIC is a U.S. nonprofit research and advocacy center founded in 1994 to protect privacy, freedom of expression, and democratic values in the information age through litigation, research, and policy work.",
"tags": [
"organization",
- "first-amendment",
+ "privacy",
+ "digital-rights",
"civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Institute for Justice",
+ "title": "Electronic Privacy Information Center",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2215,53 +2697,44 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "id": "ORG-FENWICK",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-07-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-FENWICK.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT",
+ "object": "SRC-FENWICK-TECH",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-FENWICK-TECH"
],
- "subject": "ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
+ "subject": "ORG-FENWICK"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT",
+ "object": "SRC-FENWICK-HISTORY",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
- },
- {
- "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-FENWICK-HISTORY"
],
- "subject": "ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
+ "subject": "ORG-FENWICK"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-FENWICK.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT",
- "SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-FENWICK-TECH",
+ "SRC-FENWICK-HISTORY"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University defends the freedoms of speech and the press in the digital age through strategic litigation, research, and public education.",
+ "summary": "Fenwick & West is a Silicon Valley law firm founded in 1972 that provides comprehensive technology legal services including copyright, open source, patent, and trademark, representing 1,500+ VC-backed companies.",
"tags": [
"organization",
- "first-amendment",
+ "open-source-software",
"digital-rights",
- "civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Knight First Amendment Institute",
+ "title": "Fenwick & West",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2272,44 +2745,61 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-OSI",
+ "id": "ORG-FIRE",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-31",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-OSI.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-FIRE.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-OSI-ABOUT",
+ "object": "SRC-FIRE-MISSION",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-OSI-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-FIRE-MISSION"
],
- "subject": "ORG-OSI"
+ "subject": "ORG-FIRE"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-OSI-HISTORY",
+ "object": "SRC-FIRE-SUBMIT-CASE",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-OSI-HISTORY"
+ "SRC-FIRE-SUBMIT-CASE"
],
- "subject": "ORG-OSI"
- }
- ],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-OSI.md",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-OSI-ABOUT",
- "SRC-OSI-HISTORY"
- ],
- "status": "draft",
- "summary": "The Open Source Initiative is a non-profit corporation with global scope formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of open source software.",
- "tags": [
- "organization",
- "open-source-software",
+ "subject": "ORG-FIRE"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-FIRE-PRABHAKAR-CASE",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-FIRE-PRABHAKAR-CASE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-FIRE"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-FIRE-MISSION"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-FIRE"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-FIRE.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-FIRE-MISSION",
+ "SRC-FIRE-SUBMIT-CASE",
+ "SRC-FIRE-PRABHAKAR-CASE"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "FIRE is a U.S. 501(c)(3) nonprofit that defends free speech and free thought through campus advocacy, litigation, policy reform, and public education; founded in 1999 and renamed in 2022 when it expanded beyond higher education.",
+ "tags": [
+ "organization",
+ "first-amendment",
"civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Open Source Initiative",
+ "title": "Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2320,35 +2810,45 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-PERKINS-COIE",
+ "id": "ORG-FSF",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-06-25",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-PERKINS-COIE.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-FSF.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH",
+ "object": "SRC-FSF-ABOUT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH"
+ "SRC-FSF-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-PERKINS-COIE"
+ "subject": "ORG-FSF"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-FSF-PRESS",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-FSF-PRESS"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-FSF"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-PERKINS-COIE.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-FSF.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH"
+ "SRC-FSF-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-FSF-PRESS"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Perkins Coie is a law firm with over 1,200 attorneys named 2026 \"Law Firm of the Year\" in Technology Law by Best Lawyers, with a Technology Transactions & Privacy practice advising emerging and established technology companies.",
+ "summary": "The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 1985 with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom and defend the rights of all software users.",
"tags": [
"organization",
"open-source-software",
"digital-rights",
+ "civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Perkins Coie",
+ "title": "Free Software Foundation",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2359,45 +2859,35 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE",
+ "id": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-07-04",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-ABOUT",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-ABOUT"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-CONTACT",
+ "object": "SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US"
],
- "subject": "ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE"
+ "subject": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-ABOUT",
- "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Public Knowledge is a U.S. nonprofit that promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works through copyright, telecommunications, and internet policy advocacy.",
+ "summary": "The Institute for Free Speech is a U.S. nonprofit that litigates and advocates to protect First Amendment rights to speak, publish, assemble, and petition government, with a focus on political speech and campaign finance law.",
"tags": [
"organization",
- "digital-rights",
- "internet-governance",
+ "first-amendment",
"civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Public Knowledge",
+ "title": "Institute for Free Speech",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2408,45 +2898,52 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-RCFP",
+ "id": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-RCFP.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-RCFP-WHAT-WE-DO",
+ "object": "SRC-IJ-ABOUT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RCFP-WHAT-WE-DO"
+ "SRC-IJ-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-RCFP"
+ "subject": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-RCFP-CONTACT",
+ "object": "SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RCFP-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-RCFP"
+ "subject": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-RCFP.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RCFP-WHAT-WE-DO",
- "SRC-RCFP-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-IJ-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is a U.S. nonprofit that provides pro bono legal services to protect First Amendment freedoms and the newsgathering rights of journalists.",
+ "summary": "The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit public interest law firm whose mission is to end widespread abuses of government power and secure constitutional rights, with First Amendment free speech litigation as a central focus.",
"tags": [
"organization",
"first-amendment",
- "digital-rights",
"civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press",
+ "title": "Institute for Justice",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2457,62 +2954,53 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-SFLC",
+ "id": "ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-07-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-SFLC.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT",
+ "object": "SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-SFLC"
+ "subject": "ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-SFLC-CONTACT",
+ "object": "SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SFLC-CONTACT"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-SFLC"
- },
- {
- "object": "ORG-FSF",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-SFLC"
+ "subject": "ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
},
{
- "object": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY",
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT",
- "SRC-SFC-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-SFLC"
+ "subject": "ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SFLC.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT",
- "SRC-SFLC-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "The Software Freedom Law Center provides pro bono legal representation and related services to not-for-profit developers of free and open source software.",
+ "summary": "The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University defends the freedoms of speech and the press in the digital age through strategic litigation, research, and public education.",
"tags": [
"organization",
- "open-source-software",
+ "first-amendment",
"digital-rights",
"civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Software Freedom Law Center",
+ "title": "Knight First Amendment Institute",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2523,61 +3011,44 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-SIGNAL",
+ "id": "ORG-OSI",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-OSI.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-SIGNAL-HOME",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-SIGNAL-HOME"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-SIGNAL"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-SIGNAL-DOCS",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-SIGNAL-DOCS"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-SIGNAL"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH",
+ "object": "SRC-OSI-ABOUT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH"
+ "SRC-OSI-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-SIGNAL"
+ "subject": "ORG-OSI"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET",
+ "object": "SRC-OSI-HISTORY",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET"
+ "SRC-OSI-HISTORY"
],
- "subject": "ORG-SIGNAL"
+ "subject": "ORG-OSI"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-OSI.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SIGNAL-HOME",
- "SRC-SIGNAL-DOCS",
- "SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH",
- "SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET"
+ "SRC-OSI-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-OSI-HISTORY"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Signal is documented in OIR from its official website as a nonprofit-associated private messaging service.",
+ "summary": "The Open Source Initiative is a non-profit corporation with global scope formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of open source software.",
"tags": [
"organization",
- "privacy",
- "secure-messaging"
+ "open-source-software",
+ "civil-society",
+ "outreach"
],
- "title": "Signal",
+ "title": "Open Source Initiative",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2588,72 +3059,35 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY",
+ "id": "ORG-PERKINS-COIE",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-PERKINS-COIE.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-SFC-ABOUT",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-SFC-ABOUT"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-SFC-HOME",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-SFC-HOME"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-SFC-APPLY",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-SFC-APPLY"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-SFC-PROJECTS",
+ "object": "SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SFC-PROJECTS"
+ "SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH"
],
- "subject": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY"
- },
- {
- "object": "ORG-SFLC",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-SFC-ABOUT",
- "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY"
+ "subject": "ORG-PERKINS-COIE"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-PERKINS-COIE.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SFC-ABOUT",
- "SRC-SFC-HOME",
- "SRC-SFC-APPLY",
- "SRC-SFC-PROJECTS"
+ "SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Software Freedom Conservancy is a U.S. nonprofit organization that provides infrastructure and legal support for free and open source software projects and promotes the right to repair, improve, and reinstall software.",
+ "summary": "Perkins Coie is a law firm with over 1,200 attorneys named 2026 \"Law Firm of the Year\" in Technology Law by Best Lawyers, with a Technology Transactions & Privacy practice advising emerging and established technology companies.",
"tags": [
"organization",
"open-source-software",
"digital-rights",
- "civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Software Freedom Conservancy",
+ "title": "Perkins Coie",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2664,81 +3098,45 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-TELEGRAM",
+ "id": "ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-29",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-TELEGRAM.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS",
+ "object": "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-ABOUT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS"
+ "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
+ "subject": "ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ",
+ "object": "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-CONTACT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
- },
- {
- "object": "PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV",
- "predicate": "affiliated_with",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
- },
- {
- "object": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
- },
- {
- "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
- },
- {
- "notes": "RFE/RL identified Chikov as representing Telegram in the 2018 Russian blocking litigation; scope and duration beyond that episode need corroboration.",
- "object": "PERSON-PAVEL-CHIKOV",
- "predicate": "represented_by",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018"
+ "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-CONTACT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
+ "subject": "ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-TELEGRAM.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS",
- "SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ",
- "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026",
- "SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018"
+ "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE-CONTACT"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Telegram is a Dubai-based messaging platform founded by Pavel Durov; OIR documents it as a secure-messaging company facing repeated government pressure over moderation, encryption access, and alleged facilitation of unlawful activity.",
+ "summary": "Public Knowledge is a U.S. nonprofit that promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works through copyright, telecommunications, and internet policy advocacy.",
"tags": [
"organization",
- "privacy",
- "secure-messaging",
- "encryption-law",
- "intermediary-liability",
- "digital-rights"
+ "digital-rights",
+ "internet-governance",
+ "civil-society",
+ "outreach"
],
- "title": "Telegram",
+ "title": "Public Knowledge",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2749,52 +3147,45 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-TOR-PROJECT",
+ "id": "ORG-RCFP",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-TOR-PROJECT.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-RCFP.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT",
+ "object": "SRC-RCFP-WHAT-WE-DO",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT"
+ "SRC-RCFP-WHAT-WE-DO"
],
- "subject": "ORG-TOR-PROJECT"
+ "subject": "ORG-RCFP"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-HISTORY",
+ "object": "SRC-RCFP-CONTACT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-HISTORY"
- ],
- "subject": "ORG-TOR-PROJECT"
- },
- {
- "object": "TOPIC-ONION-ROUTING",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-HISTORY"
+ "SRC-RCFP-CONTACT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-TOR-PROJECT"
+ "subject": "ORG-RCFP"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-TOR-PROJECT.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-RCFP.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT",
- "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-HISTORY"
+ "SRC-RCFP-WHAT-WE-DO",
+ "SRC-RCFP-CONTACT"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Tor Project is a nonprofit organization documented in OIR from official Tor Project pages about privacy and onion routing technology.",
+ "summary": "The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is a U.S. nonprofit that provides pro bono legal services to protect First Amendment freedoms and the newsgathering rights of journalists.",
"tags": [
"organization",
- "privacy",
- "open-source-software",
+ "first-amendment",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Tor Project",
+ "title": "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2805,44 +3196,62 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "ORG-WILSON-SONSINI",
+ "id": "ORG-SFLC",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-WILSON-SONSINI.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-SFLC.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE",
+ "object": "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE"
+ "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-WILSON-SONSINI"
+ "subject": "ORG-SFLC"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET",
+ "object": "SRC-SFLC-CONTACT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET"
+ "SRC-SFLC-CONTACT"
],
- "subject": "ORG-WILSON-SONSINI"
+ "subject": "ORG-SFLC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "ORG-FSF",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-SFLC"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-SFC-ABOUT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-SFLC"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-WILSON-SONSINI.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SFLC.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE",
- "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET"
+ "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-SFLC-CONTACT"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is the premier provider of legal services to technology companies, representing more than 350 public and private software companies and more venture-backed software companies than any other U.S. law firm.",
+ "summary": "The Software Freedom Law Center provides pro bono legal representation and related services to not-for-profit developers of free and open source software.",
"tags": [
"organization",
"open-source-software",
"digital-rights",
+ "civil-society",
"outreach"
],
- "title": "Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati",
+ "title": "Software Freedom Law Center",
"type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -2853,35 +3262,62 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "PERSON-AARON-WILLIAMSON",
+ "id": "ORG-SIGNAL",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-AARON-WILLIAMSON.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-WILLIAMSON-LEGAL",
+ "object": "SRC-SIGNAL-HOME",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-WILLIAMSON-LEGAL"
+ "SRC-SIGNAL-HOME"
],
- "subject": "PERSON-AARON-WILLIAMSON"
+ "subject": "ORG-SIGNAL"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-SIGNAL-DOCS",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SIGNAL-DOCS"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-SIGNAL"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-SIGNAL"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-SIGNAL"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-AARON-WILLIAMSON.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-WILLIAMSON-LEGAL"
+ "SRC-SIGNAL-HOME",
+ "SRC-SIGNAL-DOCS",
+ "SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH",
+ "SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Aaron Williamson is principal attorney at Williamson Legal, PLLC, advising clients on open source software, technology transactions, CFAA and DMCA liability, and nonprofit governance.",
+ "summary": "Signal is documented in OIR from its official website as a nonprofit-associated private messaging service.",
"tags": [
- "attorney",
- "open-source-software",
- "digital-rights"
+ "organization",
+ "privacy",
+ "secure-messaging"
],
- "title": "Aaron Williamson",
- "type": "attorney",
+ "title": "Signal",
+ "type": "organization",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -2891,28 +3327,331 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "PERSON-ALAN-KAY",
+ "id": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-ALAN-KAY.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-KAY-CHM",
+ "object": "SRC-SFC-ABOUT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-KAY-CHM"
+ "SRC-SFC-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "PERSON-ALAN-KAY"
- }
- ],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-ALAN-KAY.md",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-KAY-CHM"
- ],
- "status": "draft",
- "summary": "Alan Kay is a Turing Award-winning computer scientist who pioneered object-oriented programming, led development of Smalltalk, and helped define the personal computing and graphical user interface paradigms at Xerox PARC and ARPA.",
+ "subject": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-SFC-HOME",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SFC-HOME"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-SFC-APPLY",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SFC-APPLY"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-SFC-PROJECTS",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SFC-PROJECTS"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "ORG-SFLC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SFC-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-SFLC-ABOUT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SOFTWARE-FREEDOM-CONSERVANCY.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SFC-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-SFC-HOME",
+ "SRC-SFC-APPLY",
+ "SRC-SFC-PROJECTS"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Software Freedom Conservancy is a U.S. nonprofit organization that provides infrastructure and legal support for free and open source software projects and promotes the right to repair, improve, and reinstall software.",
+ "tags": [
+ "organization",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "civil-society",
+ "outreach"
+ ],
+ "title": "Software Freedom Conservancy",
+ "type": "organization",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "ORG-TELEGRAM",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-29",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-TELEGRAM.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV",
+ "predicate": "affiliated_with",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
+ },
+ {
+ "notes": "RFE/RL identified Chikov as representing Telegram in the 2018 Russian blocking litigation; scope and duration beyond that episode need corroboration.",
+ "object": "PERSON-PAVEL-CHIKOV",
+ "predicate": "represented_by",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-TELEGRAM"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-TELEGRAM.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS",
+ "SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ",
+ "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026",
+ "SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Telegram is a Dubai-based messaging platform founded by Pavel Durov; OIR documents it as a secure-messaging company facing repeated government pressure over moderation, encryption access, and alleged facilitation of unlawful activity.",
+ "tags": [
+ "organization",
+ "privacy",
+ "secure-messaging",
+ "encryption-law",
+ "intermediary-liability",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "Telegram",
+ "type": "organization",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "ORG-TOR-PROJECT",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-19",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-TOR-PROJECT.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-TOR-PROJECT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-HISTORY",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-HISTORY"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-TOR-PROJECT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-ONION-ROUTING",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-HISTORY"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-TOR-PROJECT"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-TOR-PROJECT.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT",
+ "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-HISTORY"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Tor Project is a nonprofit organization documented in OIR from official Tor Project pages about privacy and onion routing technology.",
+ "tags": [
+ "organization",
+ "privacy",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "outreach"
+ ],
+ "title": "Tor Project",
+ "type": "organization",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "ORG-WILSON-SONSINI",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/organizations/ORG-WILSON-SONSINI.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-WILSON-SONSINI"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET"
+ ],
+ "subject": "ORG-WILSON-SONSINI"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-WILSON-SONSINI.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE",
+ "SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is the premier provider of legal services to technology companies, representing more than 350 public and private software companies and more venture-backed software companies than any other U.S. law firm.",
+ "tags": [
+ "organization",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "outreach"
+ ],
+ "title": "Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati",
+ "type": "organization",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "PERSON-AARON-WILLIAMSON",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-AARON-WILLIAMSON.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-WILLIAMSON-LEGAL",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-WILLIAMSON-LEGAL"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-AARON-WILLIAMSON"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-AARON-WILLIAMSON.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-WILLIAMSON-LEGAL"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Aaron Williamson is principal attorney at Williamson Legal, PLLC, advising clients on open source software, technology transactions, CFAA and DMCA liability, and nonprofit governance.",
+ "tags": [
+ "attorney",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "Aaron Williamson",
+ "type": "attorney",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "PERSON-ALAN-KAY",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-ALAN-KAY.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-KAY-CHM",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KAY-CHM"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-ALAN-KAY"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-ALAN-KAY.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KAY-CHM"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Alan Kay is a Turing Award-winning computer scientist who pioneered object-oriented programming, led development of Smalltalk, and helped define the personal computing and graphical user interface paradigms at Xerox PARC and ARPA.",
"tags": [
"person",
"open-source-software",
@@ -4039,6 +4778,14 @@
"SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"
],
"subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH"
}
],
"source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md",
@@ -5017,8 +5764,242 @@
"internet-architecture",
"open-source-software"
],
- "title": "Thomas Haigh",
- "type": "person",
+ "title": "Thomas Haigh",
+ "type": "person",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "PERSON-THOMAS-MASSIE",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-THOMAS-MASSIE.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-THOMAS-MASSIE"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-THOMAS-MASSIE.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Thomas Massie is a U.S. Representative from Kentucky who has led bipartisan House amendments to block government-mandated encryption backdoors and limit surveillance cooperation that weakens security standards.",
+ "tags": [
+ "person",
+ "internet-governance",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "privacy",
+ "surveillance"
+ ],
+ "title": "Thomas Massie",
+ "type": "person",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, founded the W3C, and holds faculty appointments at MIT and Oxford; he is a leading voice on open web standards, data sovereignty, and decentralized architectures such as Solid.",
+ "tags": [
+ "person",
+ "internet-architecture",
+ "internet-governance",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "privacy"
+ ],
+ "title": "Tim Berners-Lee",
+ "type": "person",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "PERSON-VINT-CERF",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-VINT-CERF.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-CERF-GOOGLE",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CERF-GOOGLE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-VINT-CERF"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-VINT-CERF.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CERF-GOOGLE"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Vint Cerf is a computer scientist widely recognized as a co-designer of TCP/IP, a former ICANN chairman and Internet Society founding president, and Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who frequently speaks on internet architecture, governance, and policy.",
+ "tags": [
+ "person",
+ "internet-architecture",
+ "internet-governance",
+ "digital-rights"
+ ],
+ "title": "Vint Cerf",
+ "type": "person",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Whitfield Diffie is a cryptographer and Turing Award laureate who co-invented public-key cryptography and has advocated for the legal right to use strong encryption.",
+ "tags": [
+ "person",
+ "cryptography",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "privacy"
+ ],
+ "title": "Whitfield Diffie",
+ "type": "person",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "PERSON-ZOE-LOFGREN",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-ZOE-LOFGREN.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-LOFGREN-AARONS-LAW",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-LOFGREN-AARONS-LAW"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-ZOE-LOFGREN"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-ZOE-LOFGREN.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-LOFGREN-AARONS-LAW"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Zoe Lofgren is a U.S. Representative from California who introduced Aaron's Law to reform the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, working to distinguish common internet activity from harmful attacks and prevent prosecutorial overreach.",
+ "tags": [
+ "person",
+ "internet-governance",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "computer-crime"
+ ],
+ "title": "Zoe Lofgren",
+ "type": "person",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "PROTOCOL-DNS",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-17",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-DNS.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-RFC-1034",
+ "predicate": "standardizes",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-RFC-1034"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PROTOCOL-DNS"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-DNS.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-RFC-1034"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Domain Name System (DNS) concepts and facilities are described in RFC 1034.",
+ "tags": [
+ "internet-architecture",
+ "network-protocols"
+ ],
+ "title": "Domain Name System",
+ "type": "protocol",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5028,37 +6009,34 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "PERSON-THOMAS-MASSIE",
+ "id": "PROTOCOL-TCP",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-17",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-THOMAS-MASSIE.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-TCP.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "SRC-RFC-9293",
+ "predicate": "standardizes",
"sources": [
- "SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT"
+ "SRC-RFC-9293"
],
- "subject": "PERSON-THOMAS-MASSIE"
+ "subject": "PROTOCOL-TCP"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-THOMAS-MASSIE.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-TCP.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT"
+ "SRC-RFC-9293"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Thomas Massie is a U.S. Representative from Kentucky who has led bipartisan House amendments to block government-mandated encryption backdoors and limit surveillance cooperation that weakens security standards.",
+ "summary": "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is an internet transport protocol specified by RFC 9293.",
"tags": [
- "person",
- "internet-governance",
- "digital-rights",
- "privacy",
- "surveillance"
+ "internet-architecture",
+ "network-protocols"
],
- "title": "Thomas Massie",
- "type": "person",
+ "title": "Transmission Control Protocol",
+ "type": "protocol",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5068,37 +6046,35 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE",
+ "id": "PROTOCOL-TLS-13",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-17",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-TLS-13.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "SRC-RFC-8446",
+ "predicate": "standardizes",
"sources": [
- "SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C"
+ "SRC-RFC-8446"
],
- "subject": "PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE"
+ "subject": "PROTOCOL-TLS-13"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-TLS-13.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C"
+ "SRC-RFC-8446"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, founded the W3C, and holds faculty appointments at MIT and Oxford; he is a leading voice on open web standards, data sovereignty, and decentralized architectures such as Solid.",
+ "summary": "Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 is specified by RFC 8446.",
"tags": [
- "person",
- "internet-architecture",
- "internet-governance",
- "open-source-software",
- "privacy"
+ "cryptography",
+ "privacy",
+ "secure-messaging"
],
- "title": "Tim Berners-Lee",
- "type": "person",
+ "title": "Transport Layer Security 1.3",
+ "type": "protocol",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5108,36 +6084,45 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "PERSON-VINT-CERF",
+ "id": "STAT-18-USC-2232",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-27",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-VINT-CERF.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-18-USC-2232.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-CERF-GOOGLE",
+ "object": "SRC-USC-18-2232-LII",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CERF-GOOGLE"
+ "SRC-USC-18-2232-LII"
],
- "subject": "PERSON-VINT-CERF"
+ "subject": "STAT-18-USC-2232"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-18-USC-2232"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-VINT-CERF.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-18-USC-2232.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CERF-GOOGLE"
+ "SRC-USC-18-2232-LII",
+ "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Vint Cerf is a computer scientist widely recognized as a co-designer of TCP/IP, a former ICANN chairman and Internet Society founding president, and Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who frequently speaks on internet architecture, governance, and policy.",
+ "summary": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232 criminalizes knowingly destroying, damaging, or otherwise acting to prevent or impair the government\u2019s lawful authority to take property into custody during a search or seizure, with subsection (a) authorizing up to five years\u2019 imprisonment.",
"tags": [
- "person",
- "internet-architecture",
- "internet-governance",
+ "statute",
+ "privacy",
+ "border-search",
"digital-rights"
],
- "title": "Vint Cerf",
- "type": "person",
+ "title": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232 \u2014 Destruction or Removal of Property to Prevent Seizure",
+ "type": "statute",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5145,38 +6130,56 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": "2025-10-13",
"event_date": null,
- "id": "PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE",
+ "id": "STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-04",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-08",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC",
+ "object": "SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC"
+ "SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE"
],
- "subject": "PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE"
+ "subject": "STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC"
+ "SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE",
+ "SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Whitfield Diffie is a cryptographer and Turing Award laureate who co-invented public-key cryptography and has advocated for the legal right to use strong encryption.",
+ "summary": "California\u2019s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043; Civ. Code Title 1.81.9) requires operating system providers to collect age at account setup and send age-bracket signals to apps, and requires developers to request those signals; effective January 1, 2026 and operative January 1, 2027.",
"tags": [
- "person",
- "cryptography",
+ "age-verification",
+ "privacy",
"digital-rights",
- "privacy"
+ "public-policy",
+ "internet-governance"
],
- "title": "Whitfield Diffie",
- "type": "person",
+ "title": "California Digital Age Assurance Act (Civ. Code \u00a7\u00a7 1798.500\u20131798.505)",
+ "type": "statute",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5184,38 +6187,63 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": "1984",
"event_date": null,
- "id": "PERSON-ZOE-LOFGREN",
+ "id": "STAT-CFAA-1030",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-06-25",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-ZOE-LOFGREN.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-CFAA-1030.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-LOFGREN-AARONS-LAW",
+ "object": "SRC-USC-18-1030-LII",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LOFGREN-AARONS-LAW"
+ "SRC-USC-18-1030-LII"
],
- "subject": "PERSON-ZOE-LOFGREN"
+ "subject": "STAT-CFAA-1030"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-CFAA-1030"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-CFAA-1030"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-CFAA-1030"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-ZOE-LOFGREN.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-CFAA-1030.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LOFGREN-AARONS-LAW"
+ "SRC-USC-18-1030-LII",
+ "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO",
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Zoe Lofgren is a U.S. Representative from California who introduced Aaron's Law to reform the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, working to distinguish common internet activity from harmful attacks and prevent prosecutorial overreach.",
+ "summary": "The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1030, is the primary U.S. federal anti-hacking statute, originally enacted in 1984 and substantially amended in 1986, 1994, 1996, 2001, 2002, and 2008, which criminalizes unauthorized access to computers and has been widely criticized for vagueness and prosecutorial overreach.",
"tags": [
- "person",
- "internet-governance",
+ "computer-crime",
"digital-rights",
- "computer-crime"
+ "internet-governance"
],
- "title": "Zoe Lofgren",
- "type": "person",
+ "title": "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1030)",
+ "type": "statute",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5223,36 +6251,89 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": "1998",
"event_date": null,
- "id": "PROTOCOL-DNS",
+ "id": "STAT-DMCA-512",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-17",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-DNS.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-DMCA-512.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-RFC-1034",
- "predicate": "standardizes",
+ "object": "SRC-USC-17-512-LII",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-512-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-SAFE-HARBOR",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-512-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-512-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RFC-1034"
+ "SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"
],
- "subject": "PROTOCOL-DNS"
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-DNS.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-DMCA-512.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RFC-1034"
+ "SRC-USC-17-512-LII",
+ "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO",
+ "SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA",
+ "SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX",
+ "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Domain Name System (DNS) concepts and facilities are described in RFC 1034.",
+ "summary": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512 is a United States copyright statute commonly associated with online service provider safe harbor provisions.",
"tags": [
- "internet-architecture",
- "network-protocols"
+ "copyright",
+ "safe-harbor",
+ "intermediary-liability"
],
- "title": "Domain Name System",
- "type": "protocol",
+ "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512",
+ "type": "statute",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5260,74 +6341,54 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": "1977",
"event_date": null,
- "id": "PROTOCOL-TCP",
+ "id": "STAT-IEEPA",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-17",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-TCP.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-IEEPA.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-RFC-9293",
- "predicate": "standardizes",
+ "object": "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII",
+ "predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RFC-9293"
+ "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII"
],
- "subject": "PROTOCOL-TCP"
- }
- ],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-TCP.md",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-RFC-9293"
- ],
- "status": "draft",
- "summary": "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is an internet transport protocol specified by RFC 9293.",
- "tags": [
- "internet-architecture",
- "network-protocols"
- ],
- "title": "Transmission Control Protocol",
- "type": "protocol",
- "used_for": []
- },
- {
- "arrest_date": null,
- "bibliographic_metadata": {},
- "charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": null,
- "event_date": null,
- "id": "PROTOCOL-TLS-13",
- "indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-17",
- "legislative_override_date": null,
- "offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-TLS-13.md",
- "relationships": [
+ "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
+ },
{
- "object": "SRC-RFC-8446",
- "predicate": "standardizes",
+ "object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RFC-8446"
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
],
- "subject": "PROTOCOL-TLS-13"
+ "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-TLS-13.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-IEEPA.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-RFC-8446"
+ "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII",
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 is specified by RFC 8446.",
+ "summary": "The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1701\u20131708, authorizes the President to regulate transactions and block property in which foreign countries or nationals have interests during declared national emergencies; OFAC administers related sanctions programs.",
"tags": [
- "cryptography",
- "privacy",
- "secure-messaging"
+ "statute",
+ "sanctions",
+ "digital-rights"
],
- "title": "Transport Layer Security 1.3",
- "type": "protocol",
+ "title": "International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1701\u20131708)",
+ "type": "statute",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5335,46 +6396,54 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": "1996",
"event_date": null,
- "id": "STAT-18-USC-2232",
+ "id": "STAT-SECTION-230",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-27",
+ "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-18-USC-2232.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-SECTION-230.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-USC-18-2232-LII",
+ "object": "SRC-SECTION-230-LII",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-18-2232-LII"
+ "SRC-SECTION-230-LII"
],
- "subject": "STAT-18-USC-2232"
+ "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "object": "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
+ "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"
],
- "subject": "STAT-18-USC-2232"
+ "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-18-USC-2232.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-SECTION-230.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-18-2232-LII",
- "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
+ "SRC-SECTION-230-LII",
+ "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232 criminalizes knowingly destroying, damaging, or otherwise acting to prevent or impair the government\u2019s lawful authority to take property into custody during a search or seizure, with subsection (a) authorizing up to five years\u2019 imprisonment.",
+ "summary": "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230), enacted in 1996, provides that internet platforms shall not be treated as publishers of user-generated content and protects good-faith content moderation, forming the legal foundation for the modern internet.",
"tags": [
- "statute",
- "privacy",
- "border-search",
- "digital-rights"
+ "internet-governance",
+ "intermediary-liability",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "first-amendment"
],
- "title": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232 \u2014 Destruction or Removal of Property to Prevent Seizure",
+ "title": "Section 230 (47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230)",
"type": "statute",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -5383,55 +6452,56 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": "2025-10-13",
+ "enactment_date": "2025",
"event_date": null,
- "id": "STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT",
+ "id": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-08-08",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE",
+ "object": "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE"
+ "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"
],
- "subject": "STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT"
+ "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS"
+ "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"
],
- "subject": "STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT"
+ "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
},
{
"object": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE"
+ "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"
],
- "subject": "STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT"
+ "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE",
- "SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS"
+ "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED",
+ "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER",
+ "SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "California\u2019s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043; Civ. Code Title 1.81.9) requires operating system providers to collect age at account setup and send age-bracket signals to apps, and requires developers to request those signals; effective January 1, 2026 and operative January 1, 2027.",
+ "summary": "Texas SB 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, adds Business & Commerce Code Chapter 121 requiring app stores to verify user age categories, obtain parental consent for minor downloads and purchases, and requiring developers to age-rate apps; takes effect January 1, 2026 and has been the subject of active First Amendment litigation.",
"tags": [
"age-verification",
- "privacy",
+ "first-amendment",
"digital-rights",
"public-policy",
"internet-governance"
],
- "title": "California Digital Age Assurance Act (Civ. Code \u00a7\u00a7 1798.500\u20131798.505)",
+ "title": "Texas App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420 / Bus. & Com. Code ch. 121)",
"type": "statute",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -5440,62 +6510,77 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": "1984",
+ "enactment_date": "1976",
"event_date": null,
- "id": "STAT-CFAA-1030",
+ "id": "STAT-USC-107",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-CFAA-1030.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-USC-18-1030-LII",
+ "object": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-18-1030-LII"
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
],
- "subject": "STAT-CFAA-1030"
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO",
+ "object": "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO"
],
- "subject": "STAT-CFAA-1030"
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD",
+ "object": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
],
- "subject": "STAT-CFAA-1030"
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
+ "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"
],
- "subject": "STAT-CFAA-1030"
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-CFAA-1030.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-18-1030-LII",
- "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO",
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO",
+ "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1030, is the primary U.S. federal anti-hacking statute, originally enacted in 1984 and substantially amended in 1986, 1994, 1996, 2001, 2002, and 2008, which criminalizes unauthorized access to computers and has been widely criticized for vagueness and prosecutorial overreach.",
+ "summary": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107 is the U.S. fair use statute, limiting copyright owners' exclusive rights for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.",
"tags": [
- "computer-crime",
- "digital-rights",
- "internet-governance"
+ "copyright",
+ "digital-rights"
],
- "title": "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1030)",
+ "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107",
"type": "statute",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -5504,89 +6589,66 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": "1998",
+ "enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "id": "TECH-GNUNET",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-08",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-DMCA-512.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-USC-17-512-LII",
+ "object": "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-512-LII"
+ "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT"
],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO",
+ "object": "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"
- ],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
- },
- {
- "object": "TOPIC-SAFE-HARBOR",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-512-LII"
- ],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
- },
- {
- "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"
- ],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
- },
- {
- "object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-512-LII"
+ "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
+ "object": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"
+ "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL",
+ "object": "TECH-HYPHANET",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-DMCA-512.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-512-LII",
- "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO",
- "SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA",
- "SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX",
- "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"
+ "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT",
+ "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512 is a United States copyright statute commonly associated with online service provider safe harbor provisions.",
+ "summary": "GNUnet is a Free Software framework for secure, decentralized, privacy-preserving networking that treats keyword spam and untrusted participants as core design problems rather than afterthoughts.",
"tags": [
- "copyright",
- "safe-harbor",
- "intermediary-liability"
+ "technology",
+ "privacy",
+ "censorship-resistance",
+ "peer-to-peer-networking",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "content-moderation",
+ "case-studies"
],
- "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512",
- "type": "statute",
+ "title": "GNUnet",
+ "type": "technology",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5594,54 +6656,51 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": "1977",
+ "enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "STAT-IEEPA",
+ "id": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-27",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-IEEPA.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-GRAPHENEOS.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII",
+ "object": "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII"
- ],
- "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
- },
- {
- "object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY",
- "predicate": "related_to",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES"
],
- "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
+ "subject": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026"
],
- "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
+ "subject": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-IEEPA.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GRAPHENEOS.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII",
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES",
+ "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026",
+ "SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026",
+ "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1701\u20131708, authorizes the President to regulate transactions and block property in which foreign countries or nationals have interests during declared national emergencies; OFAC administers related sanctions programs.",
+ "summary": "GrapheneOS is a privacy- and security-focused open-source mobile operating system for Google Pixel devices that documents an optional duress PIN/password which irreversibly wipes the device when entered.",
"tags": [
- "statute",
- "sanctions",
- "digital-rights"
+ "technology",
+ "privacy",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "cryptography",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "border-search"
],
- "title": "International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1701\u20131708)",
- "type": "statute",
+ "title": "GrapheneOS",
+ "type": "technology",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5649,55 +6708,84 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": "1996",
+ "enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "STAT-SECTION-230",
+ "id": "TECH-HYPHANET",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-06-25",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-08",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-SECTION-230.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-HYPHANET.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-SECTION-230-LII",
+ "object": "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SECTION-230-LII"
+ "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME"
],
- "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
+ "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF",
+ "object": "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"
+ "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999"
],
- "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
+ "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU",
+ "object": "PERSON-IAN-CLARKE",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"
+ "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999",
+ "SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001",
+ "SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME"
],
- "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
+ "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README",
+ "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-SECTION-230.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-HYPHANET.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SECTION-230-LII",
- "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"
+ "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME",
+ "SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME",
+ "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999",
+ "SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README",
+ "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018",
+ "SRC-GUARDIAN-FREENET-DARK-SIDE-2009",
+ "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005",
+ "SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001",
+ "SRC-FREENET-HISTORY"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230), enacted in 1996, provides that internet platforms shall not be treated as publishers of user-generated content and protects good-faith content moderation, forming the legal foundation for the modern internet.",
+ "summary": "Hyphanet is the continuation of the original Freenet peer-to-peer network for anonymous, censorship-resistant publishing; it later added Web of Trust spam-resistance after unmoderated forums were disrupted by spam.",
"tags": [
- "internet-governance",
- "intermediary-liability",
- "digital-rights",
- "first-amendment"
+ "technology",
+ "privacy",
+ "censorship-resistance",
+ "peer-to-peer-networking",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "content-moderation",
+ "case-studies"
],
- "title": "Section 230 (47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230)",
- "type": "statute",
+ "title": "Hyphanet (formerly Freenet)",
+ "type": "technology",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5705,57 +6793,76 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": "2025",
+ "enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY",
+ "id": "TECH-PGP",
"indictment_date": null,
"last_verified": "2026-08-08",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-PGP.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED",
+ "object": "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
],
- "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
+ "subject": "TECH-PGP"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420",
+ "object": "PERSON-PHIL-ZIMMERMANN",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
],
- "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
+ "subject": "TECH-PGP"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION",
+ "object": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"
],
- "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
+ "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-PGP"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-PGP.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED",
- "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER",
- "SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER"
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO",
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996",
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Texas SB 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, adds Business & Commerce Code Chapter 121 requiring app stores to verify user age categories, obtain parental consent for minor downloads and purchases, and requiring developers to age-rate apps; takes effect January 1, 2026 and has been the subject of active First Amendment litigation.",
+ "summary": "Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) is public-key encryption software created by Phil Zimmermann and published in 1991; its distribution triggered a multi-year U.S. criminal export investigation that closed without prosecution in 1996.",
"tags": [
- "age-verification",
- "first-amendment",
- "digital-rights",
- "public-policy",
- "internet-governance"
+ "technology",
+ "cryptography",
+ "privacy",
+ "open-source-software",
+ "export-control",
+ "speech-and-code",
+ "case-studies",
+ "digital-rights"
],
- "title": "Texas App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420 / Bus. & Com. Code ch. 121)",
- "type": "statute",
+ "title": "Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)",
+ "type": "technology",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5763,70 +6870,67 @@
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
"charge_date": null,
"decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": "1976",
+ "enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "id": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-19",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-08",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
- ],
- "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO",
+ "object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
+ "object": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
+ "object": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-107-LII",
- "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO",
- "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107 is the U.S. fair use statute, limiting copyright owners' exclusive rights for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.",
+ "summary": "Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy wallet whose co-founders pled guilty in 2025 in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds; government announcements describe mixer features including Whirlpool.",
"tags": [
- "copyright",
+ "technology",
+ "privacy",
+ "privacy-preserving-systems",
+ "open-source-risk",
+ "developer-rights",
+ "case-studies",
+ "computer-crime",
"digital-rights"
],
- "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107",
- "type": "statute",
+ "title": "Samourai Wallet",
+ "type": "technology",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5836,63 +6940,55 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "id": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-08-08",
+ "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT",
- "predicate": "cites",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT"
- ],
- "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
- },
- {
- "object": "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005",
+ "object": "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION",
+ "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
},
{
- "object": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT",
- "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
+ "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076",
+ "SRC-TREASURY-TC-AUG-2022"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "GNUnet is a Free Software framework for secure, decentralized, privacy-preserving networking that treats keyword spam and untrusted participants as core design problems rather than afterthoughts.",
+ "summary": "Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and shuffles cryptocurrency deposits so withdrawals can be made to different addresses, reducing on-chain linkability between deposit and withdrawal.",
"tags": [
"technology",
- "privacy",
+ "privacy-preserving-systems",
"censorship-resistance",
- "peer-to-peer-networking",
"open-source-software",
- "content-moderation",
+ "tornado-cash",
"case-studies"
],
- "title": "GNUnet",
+ "title": "Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)",
"type": "technology",
"used_for": []
},
@@ -5903,49 +6999,178 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS",
+ "id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-27",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-GRAPHENEOS.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES",
+ "object": "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES"
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GRAPHENEOS.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES",
- "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026",
- "SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026",
- "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII",
+ "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "GrapheneOS is a privacy- and security-focused open-source mobile operating system for Google Pixel devices that documents an optional duress PIN/password which irreversibly wipes the device when entered.",
+ "summary": "U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.",
"tags": [
- "technology",
- "privacy",
- "open-source-software",
- "cryptography",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
"digital-rights",
- "border-search"
+ "case-studies"
],
- "title": "GrapheneOS",
- "type": "technology",
+ "title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "type": "topic",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -5955,159 +7180,172 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-08-08",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-HYPHANET.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME"
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"
],
- "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "object": "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999"
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "object": "PERSON-IAN-CLARKE",
+ "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999",
- "SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001",
- "SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME"
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION",
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README",
- "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "object": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "object": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
- }
- ],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-HYPHANET.md",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME",
- "SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME",
- "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999",
- "SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README",
- "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018",
- "SRC-GUARDIAN-FREENET-DARK-SIDE-2009",
- "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005",
- "SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001",
- "SRC-FREENET-HISTORY"
- ],
- "status": "draft",
- "summary": "Hyphanet is the continuation of the original Freenet peer-to-peer network for anonymous, censorship-resistant publishing; it later added Web of Trust spam-resistance after unmoderated forums were disrupted by spam.",
- "tags": [
- "technology",
- "privacy",
- "censorship-resistance",
- "peer-to-peer-networking",
- "open-source-software",
- "content-moderation",
- "case-studies"
- ],
- "title": "Hyphanet (formerly Freenet)",
- "type": "technology",
- "used_for": []
- },
- {
- "arrest_date": null,
- "bibliographic_metadata": {},
- "charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": null,
- "event_date": null,
- "id": "TECH-PGP",
- "indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-08-08",
- "legislative_override_date": null,
- "offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-PGP.md",
- "relationships": [
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
+ },
{
- "object": "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "object": "PERSON-PHIL-ZIMMERMANN",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "object": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION",
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
+ },
+ {
+ "notes": "Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil product liability, not a criminal developer prosecution.",
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-PGP.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO",
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996",
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) is public-key encryption software created by Phil Zimmermann and published in 1991; its distribution triggered a multi-year U.S. criminal export investigation that closed without prosecution in 1996.",
+ "summary": "Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.",
"tags": [
- "technology",
- "cryptography",
- "privacy",
- "open-source-software",
- "export-control",
- "speech-and-code",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "copyright",
+ "first-amendment",
+ "digital-rights",
"case-studies",
- "digital-rights"
+ "intermediary-liability"
],
- "title": "Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)",
- "type": "technology",
+ "title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "type": "topic",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -6117,124 +7355,93 @@
"decision_date": null,
"enactment_date": null,
"event_date": null,
- "id": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
+ "id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-08-08",
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
"legislative_override_date": null,
"offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET.md",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md",
"relationships": [
{
- "object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "object": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
- }
- ],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET.md",
- "sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025"
- ],
- "status": "draft",
- "summary": "Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy wallet whose co-founders pled guilty in 2025 in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds; government announcements describe mixer features including Whirlpool.",
- "tags": [
- "technology",
- "privacy",
- "privacy-preserving-systems",
- "open-source-risk",
- "developer-rights",
- "case-studies",
- "computer-crime",
- "digital-rights"
- ],
- "title": "Samourai Wallet",
- "type": "technology",
- "used_for": []
- },
- {
- "arrest_date": null,
- "bibliographic_metadata": {},
- "charge_date": null,
- "decision_date": null,
- "enactment_date": null,
- "event_date": null,
- "id": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
- "indictment_date": null,
- "last_verified": "2026-07-23",
- "legislative_override_date": null,
- "offense_date": null,
- "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md",
- "relationships": [
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
+ },
{
- "object": "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY",
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER"
],
- "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
}
],
- "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
- "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076",
- "SRC-TREASURY-TC-AUG-2022"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
],
"status": "draft",
- "summary": "Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and shuffles cryptocurrency deposits so withdrawals can be made to different addresses, reducing on-chain linkability between deposit and withdrawal.",
+ "summary": "Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.",
"tags": [
- "technology",
- "privacy-preserving-systems",
- "censorship-resistance",
- "open-source-software",
- "tornado-cash",
+ "copyright",
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "digital-rights",
"case-studies"
],
- "title": "Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)",
- "type": "technology",
+ "title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "type": "topic",
"used_for": []
},
{
@@ -6311,6 +7518,74 @@
"type": "topic",
"used_for": []
},
+ {
+ "arrest_date": null,
+ "bibliographic_metadata": {},
+ "charge_date": null,
+ "decision_date": null,
+ "enactment_date": null,
+ "event_date": null,
+ "id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "indictment_date": null,
+ "last_verified": "2026-08-22",
+ "legislative_override_date": null,
+ "offense_date": null,
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md",
+ "relationships": [
+ {
+ "object": "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"
+ }
+ ],
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Documents the 2024 lexical sense of \u201cbrain rot\u201d and the later copyright fight over AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.",
+ "tags": [
+ "artificial-intelligence",
+ "copyright",
+ "digital-rights",
+ "case-studies"
+ ],
+ "title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "type": "topic",
+ "used_for": []
+ },
{
"arrest_date": null,
"bibliographic_metadata": {},
@@ -7039,6 +8314,14 @@
"SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"
],
"subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"
}
],
"source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md",
@@ -7111,13 +8394,22 @@
"SRC-FIRE-MISSION"
],
"subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
+ },
+ {
+ "object": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
}
],
"source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md",
"sources": [
"SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII",
"SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA",
- "SRC-FIRE-MISSION"
+ "SRC-FIRE-MISSION",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
],
"status": "draft",
"summary": "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses religion, expression, assembly, and petition rights.",
diff --git a/generated/handbook.json b/generated/handbook.json
index 947c02bc..9d24beae 100644
--- a/generated/handbook.json
+++ b/generated/handbook.json
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
{
"description": "Generated linear handbook prototype from knowledge metadata.",
- "record_count": 128,
+ "record_count": 143,
"records": [
{
"id": "PERSON-AARON-WILLIAMSON",
@@ -228,6 +228,20 @@
"title": "Pavel Chikov",
"type": "attorney"
},
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.",
+ "title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
{
"id": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ",
"path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md",
@@ -313,6 +327,46 @@
"title": "Coin Center v. Yellen",
"type": "case"
},
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.",
+ "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.",
+ "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.",
+ "title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
{
"id": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
"path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md",
@@ -338,6 +392,19 @@
"title": "Junger v. Daley",
"type": "case"
},
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors\u2019 books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.",
+ "title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
{
"id": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
"path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md",
@@ -366,6 +433,20 @@
"title": "Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)",
"type": "case"
},
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.",
+ "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
{
"id": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC",
"path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md",
@@ -407,6 +488,78 @@
"title": "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union",
"type": "case"
},
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.",
+ "title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.",
+ "title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.",
+ "title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Pending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.",
+ "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.",
+ "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)",
+ "type": "case"
+ },
{
"id": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
"path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md",
@@ -1490,6 +1643,78 @@
"title": "Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)",
"type": "technology"
},
+ {
+ "id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII",
+ "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.",
+ "title": "Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "type": "topic"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.",
+ "title": "AI Litigation Landscape",
+ "type": "topic"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.",
+ "title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI",
+ "type": "topic"
+ },
{
"id": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION",
"path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md",
@@ -1511,6 +1736,23 @@
"title": "App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws",
"type": "topic"
},
+ {
+ "id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md",
+ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"
+ ],
+ "status": "draft",
+ "summary": "Documents the 2024 lexical sense of \u201cbrain rot\u201d and the later copyright fight over AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.",
+ "title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters",
+ "type": "topic"
+ },
{
"id": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
"path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md",
@@ -1657,7 +1899,8 @@
"sources": [
"SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII",
"SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA",
- "SRC-FIRE-MISSION"
+ "SRC-FIRE-MISSION",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
],
"status": "draft",
"summary": "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses religion, expression, assembly, and petition rights.",
diff --git a/generated/relationships.json b/generated/relationships.json
index 2c740229..89ebf230 100644
--- a/generated/relationships.json
+++ b/generated/relationships.json
@@ -1,6 +1,46 @@
{
"description": "Generated relationship graph edge index.",
"edges": [
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
{
"declared_in": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ",
"notes": null,
@@ -253,6 +293,136 @@
],
"subject": "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN"
},
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"
+ },
{
"declared_in": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
"notes": null,
@@ -313,6 +483,46 @@
],
"subject": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY"
},
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"
+ },
{
"declared_in": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
"notes": null,
@@ -403,6 +613,36 @@
],
"subject": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV"
},
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"
+ },
{
"declared_in": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC",
"notes": null,
@@ -544,217 +784,447 @@
"subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-CORLEY-LII",
+ "object": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"
],
- "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
+ "object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
+ "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
- "predicate": "related_to",
+ "object": "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
+ "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT",
+ "object": "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT"
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV",
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023"
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT"
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026",
+ "object": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
"notes": null,
- "object": "STAT-18-USC-2232",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS",
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO",
+ "object": "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
"predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"notes": null,
- "object": "STAT-CFAA-1030",
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
+ "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"
},
{
- "declared_in": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-CORLEY-LII",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CORLEY-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-STORM",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-STORM"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "STAT-18-USC-2232",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "STAT-CFAA-1030",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US",
"notes": null,
"object": "TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD",
"predicate": "related_to",
@@ -2154,6 +2624,16 @@
],
"subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH"
},
+ {
+ "declared_in": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH"
+ },
{
"declared_in": "PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN",
"notes": null,
@@ -2776,427 +3256,837 @@
"subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "declared_in": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-512-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-SAFE-HARBOR",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-512-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-IEEPA",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-IEEPA",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-IEEPA",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-SECTION-230",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-SECTION-230",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-SECTION-230-LII",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SECTION-230-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-SECTION-230",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "PERSON-IAN-CLARKE",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999",
+ "SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001",
+ "SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README",
+ "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-PGP",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-PGP",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-PGP",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "PERSON-PHIL-ZIMMERMANN",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-PGP",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-PGP",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
+ "object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "declared_in": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL",
+ "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE",
- "predicate": "related_to",
+ "object": "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "predicate": "cites",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-512-LII"
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY",
+ "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"
],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-DMCA-512",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-SAFE-HARBOR",
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-512-LII"
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-DMCA-512"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-IEEPA",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII"
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-IEEPA",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY",
+ "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-IEEPA",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"
],
- "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-SECTION-230",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-SECTION-230",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-SECTION-230-LII",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SECTION-230-LII"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-SECTION-230",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU",
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
],
- "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO"
+ "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"
],
- "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
"SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
],
- "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
+ "object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "STAT-USC-107"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT"
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "object": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION",
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES"
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK",
+ "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026"
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME"
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
],
- "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "PERSON-IAN-CLARKE",
+ "object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999",
- "SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001",
- "SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME"
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TECH-GNUNET",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-HYPHANET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README",
- "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-PGP",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-PGP",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-PGP",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "PERSON-PHIL-ZIMMERMANN",
+ "object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-PGP",
- "notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "notes": "Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil product liability, not a criminal developer prosecution.",
+ "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-PGP",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION",
+ "object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-PGP"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
+ "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"
],
- "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY",
+ "object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
- "predicate": "cites",
+ "object": "STAT-USC-107",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER"
],
- "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
- "declared_in": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"notes": null,
- "object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
"predicate": "related_to",
"sources": [
- "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"
],
- "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"
+ "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"
},
{
"declared_in": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION",
@@ -3238,6 +4128,46 @@
],
"subject": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION"
},
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024",
+ "predicate": "cites",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"
+ },
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"
+ },
{
"declared_in": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
"notes": null,
@@ -3780,6 +4710,16 @@
],
"subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"
},
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"
+ },
{
"declared_in": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO",
"notes": null,
@@ -3800,6 +4740,16 @@
],
"subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
},
+ {
+ "declared_in": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
+ "notes": null,
+ "object": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "predicate": "related_to",
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"
+ },
{
"declared_in": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT",
"notes": null,
diff --git a/generated/retrieval.json b/generated/retrieval.json
index 620123c5..6b90ea85 100644
--- a/generated/retrieval.json
+++ b/generated/retrieval.json
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
{
"description": "Generated AI retrieval dataset manifest.",
"jsonl_path": "generated/retrieval.jsonl",
- "record_count": 335,
+ "record_count": 375,
"schema_version": 1
}
diff --git a/generated/retrieval.jsonl b/generated/retrieval.jsonl
index 18984269..28f2c77e 100644
--- a/generated/retrieval.jsonl
+++ b/generated/retrieval.jsonl
@@ -1,16 +1,27 @@
+{"id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC\nBartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ"}, {"object": "SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF"], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ"}, {"object": "SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF-25", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF-25"], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA", "SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF", "SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF-25"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), held that software source code is protected speech under the First Amendment and that government regulations preventing its publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "cryptography", "speech-and-code", "export-control", "digital-rights"], "text": "Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice\nBernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), held that software source code is protected speech under the First Amendment and that government regulations preventing its publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint.\nfirst-amendment cryptography speech-and-code export-control digital-rights", "title": "Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII"], "subject": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS"}, {"object": "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII"], "subject": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md", "sources": ["SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII", "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011), held that video games qualify for First Amendment protection and struck down a California law restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "digital-rights"], "text": "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.\nBrown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011), held that video games qualify for First Amendment protection and struck down a California law restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.\nfirst-amendment digital-rights", "title": "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US", "last_verified": "2026-07-30", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CARPENTER-V-US.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-CARPENTER-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US"}, {"object": "SRC-CARPENTER-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CARPENTER-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US"}, {"object": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII", "SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CARPENTER-V-US.md", "sources": ["SRC-CARPENTER-LII", "SRC-CARPENTER-GOVINFO", "SRC-CHATRIE-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), held that the Government's acquisition of historical cell-site location records was a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant supported by probable cause in ordinary circumstances.", "tags": ["fourth-amendment", "privacy", "digital-rights", "surveillance"], "text": "Carpenter v. United States\nCarpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), held that the Government's acquisition of historical cell-site location records was a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant supported by probable cause in ordinary circumstances.\nfourth-amendment privacy digital-rights surveillance", "title": "Carpenter v. United States", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}, {"object": "SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}, {"object": "SRC-CCIA-SB2420-LITIGATION-PAGE", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-SB2420-LITIGATION-PAGE"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}, {"object": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}, {"object": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-SB2420-LITIGATION-PAGE"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER", "SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER", "SRC-CCIA-SB2420-LITIGATION-PAGE", "SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026", "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Federal challenge to Texas SB 2420 in which the Western District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction (Dec. 23, 2025), the Fifth Circuit stayed that injunction pending appeal (June 4, 2026), and the Supreme Court denied an emergency application to vacate the stay (July 2026), leaving the App Store Accountability Act enforceable while the appeal continues.", "tags": ["age-verification", "first-amendment", "digital-rights", "public-policy", "internet-governance"], "text": "CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)\nFederal challenge to Texas SB 2420 in which the Western District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction (Dec. 23, 2025), the Fifth Circuit stayed that injunction pending appeal (June 4, 2026), and the Supreme Court denied an emergency application to vacate the stay (July 2026), leaving the App Store Accountability Act enforceable while the appeal continues.\nage-verification first-amendment digital-rights public-policy internet-governance", "title": "CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US", "last_verified": "2026-07-30", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CHATRIE-V-US.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-CHATRIE-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US"}, {"object": "SRC-CHATRIE-SCOTUS-PDF", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-SCOTUS-PDF"], "subject": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US"}, {"object": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII", "SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CHATRIE-V-US.md", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII", "SRC-CHATRIE-SCOTUS-PDF", "SRC-HILL-MARLOW-REVERSE-WARRANTS-2026", "SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (June 29, 2026), held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they acquire an individual\u2019s Google Location History data through a geofence warrant process, vacated the Fourth Circuit, and remanded warrant particularity/probable-cause questions.", "tags": ["fourth-amendment", "privacy", "digital-rights", "surveillance", "case-studies"], "text": "Chatrie v. United States\nChatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (June 29, 2026), held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they acquire an individual\u2019s Google Location History data through a geofence warrant process, vacated the Fourth Circuit, and remanded warrant particularity/probable-cause questions.\nfourth-amendment privacy digital-rights surveillance case-studies", "title": "Chatrie v. United States", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023"], "subject": "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN"}, {"object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023"], "subject": "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN"}, {"object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023"], "subject": "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md", "sources": ["SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023", "SRC-TREASURY-TC-AUG-2022"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023), granted summary judgment to Treasury on OFAC\u2019s Tornado Cash designation, treating Tornado Cash as an association with an interest in the designated smart-contract tool.", "tags": ["case", "sanctions", "tornado-cash", "case-studies", "open-source-software"], "text": "Coin Center v. Yellen\nCoin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023), granted summary judgment to Treasury on OFAC\u2019s Tornado Cash designation, treating Tornado Cash as an association with an interest in the designated smart-contract tool.\ncase sanctions tornado-cash case-studies open-source-software", "title": "Coin Center v. Yellen", "type": "case"}
+{"id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC\nPending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", "type": "case"}
+{"id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"}, {"object": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"}, {"object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT", "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.", "tags": ["case", "first-amendment", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights", "intermediary-liability"], "text": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.\nGarcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.\ncase first-amendment artificial-intelligence digital-rights intermediary-liability", "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.", "type": "case"}
+{"id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)\nFirst-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision that Google's copying of approximately 11,500 lines of Java API declaring code for use in Android constituted fair use under copyright law.", "tags": ["copyright", "speech-and-code", "digital-rights", "open-source-software"], "text": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.\nGoogle LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision that Google's copying of approximately 11,500 lines of Java API declaring code for use in Android constituted fair use under copyright law.\ncopyright speech-and-code digital-rights open-source-software", "title": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-JUNGER-CMU", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU"], "subject": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY"}, {"object": "SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO"], "subject": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU"], "subject": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU"], "subject": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU", "SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is protected by the First Amendment because of its expressiveness in conveying ideas, reversing the district court's contrary finding on encryption source code and export restrictions.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "cryptography", "speech-and-code", "export-control", "digital-rights"], "text": "Junger v. Daley\nJunger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is protected by the First Amendment because of its expressiveness in conveying ideas, reversing the district court's contrary finding on encryption source code and export restrictions.\nfirst-amendment cryptography speech-and-code export-control digital-rights", "title": "Junger v. Daley", "type": "case"}
+{"id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"}, {"object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors\u2019 books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.\nKadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors\u2019 books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}, {"object": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}, {"object": "STAT-DMCA-512", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), held that copyright holders must consider fair use in good faith before sending DMCA takedown notifications under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(c).", "tags": ["copyright", "digital-rights", "safe-harbor"], "text": "Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.\nLenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), held that copyright holders must consider fair use in good faith before sending DMCA takedown notifications under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(c).\ncopyright digital-rights safe-harbor", "title": "Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-PERTSEV-ECLI-2024", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-PERTSEV-ECLI-2024"], "subject": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV"}, {"object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-PERTSEV-ECLI-2024"], "subject": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV"}, {"object": "CASE-US-V-STORM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023"], "subject": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md", "sources": ["SRC-PERTSEV-ECLI-2024", "SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024", "SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023"], "status": "draft", "summary": "East Brabant District Court judgment ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 (May 14, 2024) convicted a Tornado Cash developer of money laundering and imposed a 64-month prison sentence; English judiciary news identifies the defendant as Alexey Pertsev.", "tags": ["case", "computer-crime", "privacy", "tornado-cash", "case-studies", "developer-rights", "open-source-risk"], "text": "Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)\nEast Brabant District Court judgment ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 (May 14, 2024) convicted a Tornado Cash developer of money laundering and imposed a 64-month prison sentence; English judiciary news identifies the defendant as Alexey Pertsev.\ncase computer-crime privacy tornado-cash case-studies developer-rights open-source-risk", "title": "Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)", "type": "case"}
+{"id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)\nPending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII"], "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"}, {"object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"}, {"object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII"], "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md", "sources": ["SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII", "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA", "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), held unanimously that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media websites violated the First Amendment, establishing that the internet and social media are protected spaces for the exercise of free speech rights.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "internet-governance", "digital-rights"], "text": "Packingham v. North Carolina\nPackingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), held unanimously that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media websites violated the First Amendment, establishing that the internet and social media are protected spaces for the exercise of free speech rights.\nfirst-amendment internet-governance digital-rights", "title": "Packingham v. North Carolina", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL"}, {"object": "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL"}, {"object": "STAT-DMCA-512", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL"}, {"object": "TOPIC-SAFE-HARBOR", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL"}, {"object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL.md", "sources": ["SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA", "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), is an appellate decision addressing DMCA \u00a7 512 safe harbor requirements for online service providers.", "tags": ["copyright", "safe-harbor", "intermediary-liability", "digital-rights"], "text": "Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC\nPerfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), is an appellate decision addressing DMCA \u00a7 512 safe harbor requirements for online service providers.\ncopyright safe-harbor intermediary-liability digital-rights", "title": "Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"}, {"object": "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC"], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"}, {"object": "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC"], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC"], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-GOVINFO", "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC", "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain Communications Decency Act provisions restricting indecent and patently offensive Internet speech violated the First Amendment.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "internet-governance", "digital-rights", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union\nReno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain Communications Decency Act provisions restricting indecent and patently offensive Internet speech violated the First Amendment.\nfirst-amendment internet-governance digital-rights speech-and-code", "title": "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union", "type": "case"}
+{"id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"}, {"object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"}, {"object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"], "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET", "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab\nPending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab", "type": "case"}
+{"id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"}, {"object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"}, {"object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023", "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Thaler v. Perlmutter\nThaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "type": "case"}
+{"id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"}, {"object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.\nThomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.", "type": "case"}
+{"id": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER"], "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.\nPending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.", "type": "case"}
+{"id": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET", "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)\nSouthern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-CORLEY-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CORLEY-LII"], "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CORLEY-LII"], "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CORLEY-LII"], "subject": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md", "sources": ["SRC-CORLEY-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), upheld a DMCA anti-circumvention injunction against distribution of DeCSS code while acknowledging that computer code is speech entitled to First Amendment scrutiny, applying intermediate scrutiny to content-neutral regulation of code's functional aspects.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "copyright", "speech-and-code", "digital-rights"], "text": "Universal City Studios v. Corley\nUniversal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), upheld a DMCA anti-circumvention injunction against distribution of DeCSS code while acknowledging that computer code is speech entitled to First Amendment scrutiny, applying intermediate scrutiny to content-neutral regulation of code's functional aspects.\nfirst-amendment copyright speech-and-code digital-rights", "title": "Universal City Studios v. Corley", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"}, {"object": "CASE-US-V-STORM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025", "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill, co-founders of Samourai Wallet, pled guilty in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds and were sentenced to five and four years in prison.", "tags": ["case", "computer-crime", "open-source-risk", "developer-rights", "privacy", "case-studies"], "text": "United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet)\nKeonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill, co-founders of Samourai Wallet, pled guilty in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds and were sentenced to five and four years in prison.\ncase computer-crime open-source-risk developer-rights privacy case-studies", "title": "United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet)", "type": "case"}
{"id": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001"], "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001"], "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"}, {"object": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE"], "subject": "CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV.md", "sources": ["SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001", "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001", "SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Dmitry Sklyarov and Elcomsoft Co. Ltd. were indicted in 2001 under the DMCA for trafficking in ebook circumvention software; Sklyarov entered a deferred-prosecution agreement, and DOJ described the matter as the first DMCA criminal case.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "open-source-risk", "developer-rights", "speech-and-code", "case-studies"], "text": "United States v. Sklyarov / Elcomsoft\nDmitry Sklyarov and Elcomsoft Co. Ltd. were indicted in 2001 under the DMCA for trafficking in ebook circumvention software; Sklyarov entered a deferred-prosecution agreement, and DOJ described the matter as the first DMCA criminal case.\ncase copyright open-source-risk developer-rights speech-and-code case-studies", "title": "United States v. Sklyarov / Elcomsoft", "type": "case"}
@@ -68,7 +79,7 @@
{"id": "PERSON-JENNIFER-GRANICK", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-JENNIFER-GRANICK.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO"], "subject": "PERSON-JENNIFER-GRANICK"}, {"object": "ORG-ACLU", "predicate": "affiliated_with", "sources": ["SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO"], "subject": "PERSON-JENNIFER-GRANICK"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-JENNIFER-GRANICK.md", "sources": ["SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Jennifer Granick is the surveillance and cybersecurity counsel with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, who litigates, speaks, and writes about privacy, security, technology, and constitutional rights.", "tags": ["attorney", "privacy", "surveillance", "fourth-amendment", "digital-rights"], "text": "Jennifer Granick\nJennifer Granick is the surveillance and cybersecurity counsel with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, who litigates, speaks, and writes about privacy, security, technology, and constitutional rights.\nattorney privacy surveillance fourth-amendment digital-rights", "title": "Jennifer Granick", "type": "attorney"}
{"id": "PERSON-JONATHAN-ZITTRAIN", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-JONATHAN-ZITTRAIN.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-ZITTRAIN-HLS", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-ZITTRAIN-HLS"], "subject": "PERSON-JONATHAN-ZITTRAIN"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-JONATHAN-ZITTRAIN.md", "sources": ["SRC-ZITTRAIN-HLS"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Jonathan Zittrain is the George Bemis Professor of International Law at Harvard Law School, co-founder of the Berkman Klein Center, and a professor of computer science who is a leading public voice on internet law, platform governance, and digital technology policy.", "tags": ["person", "digital-rights", "internet-governance", "privacy"], "text": "Jonathan Zittrain\nJonathan Zittrain is the George Bemis Professor of International Law at Harvard Law School, co-founder of the Berkman Klein Center, and a professor of computer science who is a leading public voice on internet law, platform governance, and digital technology policy.\nperson digital-rights internet-governance privacy", "title": "Jonathan Zittrain", "type": "person"}
{"id": "PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-FALLOW-KNIGHT", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-FALLOW-KNIGHT"], "subject": "PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW"}, {"object": "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII"], "subject": "PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW"}, {"object": "ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "affiliated_with", "sources": ["SRC-FALLOW-KNIGHT"], "subject": "PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW"}, {"object": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-FALLOW-KNIGHT", "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII"], "subject": "PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW.md", "sources": ["SRC-FALLOW-KNIGHT", "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Katie Fallow is deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, where she litigates free speech and press issues in digital spaces including government use of social media.", "tags": ["attorney", "first-amendment", "digital-rights"], "text": "Katie Fallow\nKatie Fallow is deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, where she litigates free speech and press issues in digital spaces including government use of social media.\nattorney first-amendment digital-rights", "title": "Katie Fallow", "type": "attorney"}
-{"id": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH"}, {"object": "ORG-EFF", "predicate": "affiliated_with", "sources": ["SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md", "sources": ["SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Kit Walsh is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Director of Artificial Intelligence and Access to Knowledge Legal Projects, working on free speech, net neutrality, copyright, coders' rights, and freedom of expression.", "tags": ["attorney", "digital-rights", "speech-and-code", "copyright", "first-amendment"], "text": "Kit Walsh\nKit Walsh is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Director of Artificial Intelligence and Access to Knowledge Legal Projects, working on free speech, net neutrality, copyright, coders' rights, and freedom of expression.\nattorney digital-rights speech-and-code copyright first-amendment", "title": "Kit Walsh", "type": "attorney"}
+{"id": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH"}, {"object": "ORG-EFF", "predicate": "affiliated_with", "sources": ["SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "subject": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md", "sources": ["SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Kit Walsh is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Director of Artificial Intelligence and Access to Knowledge Legal Projects, working on free speech, net neutrality, copyright, coders' rights, and freedom of expression.", "tags": ["attorney", "digital-rights", "speech-and-code", "copyright", "first-amendment"], "text": "Kit Walsh\nKit Walsh is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Director of Artificial Intelligence and Access to Knowledge Legal Projects, working on free speech, net neutrality, copyright, coders' rights, and freedom of expression.\nattorney digital-rights speech-and-code copyright first-amendment", "title": "Kit Walsh", "type": "attorney"}
{"id": "PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO"], "subject": "PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN"}, {"object": "SRC-WEINSTEIN-NNSQUAD", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-WEINSTEIN-NNSQUAD"], "subject": "PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN.md", "sources": ["SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO", "SRC-WEINSTEIN-NNSQUAD"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Lauren Weinstein is an internet pioneer who was present at ARPANET's first site at UCLA, founder of People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR), the Network Neutrality Squad (NNSquad), and the PRIVACY Forum, and a leading voice for net neutrality, internet freedom, and privacy rights.", "tags": ["person", "internet-governance", "privacy", "digital-rights", "censorship-resistance"], "text": "Lauren Weinstein\nLauren Weinstein is an internet pioneer who was present at ARPANET's first site at UCLA, founder of People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR), the Network Neutrality Squad (NNSquad), and the PRIVACY Forum, and a leading voice for net neutrality, internet freedom, and privacy rights.\nperson internet-governance privacy digital-rights censorship-resistance", "title": "Lauren Weinstein", "type": "person"}
{"id": "PERSON-LAWRENCE-LESSIG", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-LAWRENCE-LESSIG.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-LESSIG-HARVARD", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-LESSIG-HARVARD"], "subject": "PERSON-LAWRENCE-LESSIG"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-LAWRENCE-LESSIG.md", "sources": ["SRC-LESSIG-HARVARD"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, founder of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, and author of foundational works on internet law and free culture including Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace and Free Culture.", "tags": ["person", "internet-governance", "open-source-software", "digital-rights", "copyright"], "text": "Lawrence Lessig\nLawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, founder of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, and author of foundational works on internet law and free culture including Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace and Free Culture.\nperson internet-governance open-source-software digital-rights copyright", "title": "Lawrence Lessig", "type": "person"}
{"id": "PERSON-LEE-TIEN", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "knowledge/people/PERSON-LEE-TIEN.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-TIEN-EFF", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-TIEN-EFF"], "subject": "PERSON-LEE-TIEN"}, {"object": "ORG-EFF", "predicate": "affiliated_with", "sources": ["SRC-TIEN-EFF"], "subject": "PERSON-LEE-TIEN"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-LEE-TIEN.md", "sources": ["SRC-TIEN-EFF"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Lee Tien is Legislative Director and Adams Chair for Internet Rights at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, leading EFF's legislative advocacy on privacy, surveillance, and internet policy.", "tags": ["attorney", "privacy", "digital-rights", "internet-governance"], "text": "Lee Tien\nLee Tien is Legislative Director and Adams Chair for Internet Rights at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, leading EFF's legislative advocacy on privacy, surveillance, and internet policy.\nattorney privacy digital-rights internet-governance", "title": "Lee Tien", "type": "attorney"}
@@ -103,6 +114,8 @@
{"id": "SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official Alabama enrolled HB 161 text requiring app-store age verification and parental consent frameworks, effective January 1, 2027, with Attorney General rulemaking.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "age-verification", "public-policy"], "text": "Alabama HB 161 Enrolled \u2014 App Store Accountability Act\nOfficial Alabama enrolled HB 161 text requiring app-store age verification and parental consent frameworks, effective January 1, 2027, with Attorney General rulemaking.\nsource statute age-verification public-policy\n`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`", "title": "Alabama HB 161 Enrolled \u2014 App Store Accountability Act", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Law-firm client alert describing CCIA\u2019s February 2026 First Amendment challenge to Utah\u2019s App Store Accountability Act and voluntary dismissal on April 21, 2026 after HB 498 delayed obligations to May 6, 2027 and removed AG enforcement.", "tags": ["source", "case", "age-verification", "first-amendment"], "text": "Alston & Bird \u2014 Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026)\nLaw-firm client alert describing CCIA\u2019s February 2026 First Amendment challenge to Utah\u2019s App Store Accountability Act and voluntary dismissal on April 21, 2026 after HB 498 delayed obligations to May 6, 2027 and removed AG enforcement.\nsource case age-verification first-amendment\n`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`", "title": "Alston & Bird \u2014 Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026", "last_verified": "2026-07-29", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Associated Press report that Russia's FSB charged Pavel Durov with aiding terrorism, alleged Telegram failed to remove channels used for sabotage and terrorism, and placed him on international wanted lists.", "tags": ["source", "intermediary-liability", "digital-rights", "secure-messaging", "historical-event"], "text": "AP News \u2014 Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism\nAssociated Press report that Russia's FSB charged Pavel Durov with aiding terrorism, alleged Telegram failed to remove channels used for sabotage and terrorism, and placed him on international wanted lists.\nsource intermediary-liability digital-rights secure-messaging historical-event\n`EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026` `PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV` `ORG-TELEGRAM`", "title": "AP News \u2014 Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California summary-judgment order holding that training Anthropic\u2019s Claude models on purchased books was fair use, while pirated library copies were not excused as fair use.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)\nNorthern District of California summary-judgment order holding that training Anthropic\u2019s Claude models on purchased books was fair use, while pirated library copies were not excused as fair use.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California order granting final approval of a $1.5 billion class settlement covering Anthropic\u2019s past acquisition and copying of listed pirated books.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)\nNorthern District of California order granting final approval of a $1.5 billion class settlement covering Anthropic\u2019s past acquisition and copying of listed pirated books.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026", "last_verified": "2026-07-29", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "BBC report that Russia's FSB charged Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorism over alleged Ukrainian recruitment and coordination on Telegram, and that an international arrest warrant was issued.", "tags": ["source", "intermediary-liability", "digital-rights", "secure-messaging", "historical-event"], "text": "BBC News \u2014 Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism\nBBC report that Russia's FSB charged Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorism over alleged Ukrainian recruitment and coordination on Telegram, and that an international arrest warrant was issued.\nsource intermediary-liability digital-rights secure-messaging historical-event\n`EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026` `PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV`", "title": "BBC News \u2014 Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official W3C biography for Sir Tim Berners-Lee describing his invention of the World Wide Web and academic appointments at MIT and Oxford.", "tags": ["source", "person", "internet-architecture"], "text": "Tim Berners-Lee W3C Biography\nOfficial W3C biography for Sir Tim Berners-Lee describing his invention of the World Wide Web and academic appointments at MIT and Oxford.\nsource person internet-architecture\n`PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE`", "title": "Tim Berners-Lee W3C Biography", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "EFF case page documenting the history and significance of Bernstein v. DOJ.", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "cryptography"], "text": "Bernstein v. US Dept. of Justice EFF Case Page\nEFF case page documenting the history and significance of Bernstein v. DOJ.\nsource case first-amendment cryptography\n`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`", "title": "Bernstein v. US Dept. of Justice EFF Case Page", "type": "source"}
@@ -138,6 +151,8 @@
{"id": "SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "EFF press release announcing Cindy Cohn's departure as Executive Director after 25 years with the organization.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "digital-rights"], "text": "EFF Press Release - Cindy Cohn Stepping Down\nEFF press release announcing Cindy Cohn's departure as Executive Director after 25 years with the organization.\nsource attorney digital-rights\n`PERSON-CINDY-COHN`", "title": "EFF Press Release - Cindy Cohn Stepping Down", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "FOSS Force article reporting Cindy Cohn's plan to return to courtroom litigation after departing as EFF Executive Director.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "digital-rights"], "text": "FOSS Force - Cohn Returns to the Courtroom\nFOSS Force article reporting Cindy Cohn's plan to return to courtroom litigation after departing as EFF Executive Director.\nsource attorney digital-rights\n`PERSON-CINDY-COHN`", "title": "FOSS Force - Cohn Returns to the Courtroom", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of Florida summary-judgment opinion upholding OFAC\u2019s Tornado Cash designation.", "tags": ["source", "case", "sanctions"], "text": "Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)\nNorthern District of Florida summary-judgment opinion upholding OFAC\u2019s Tornado Cash designation.\nsource case sanctions\n`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN` `TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`", "title": "Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "CourtListener docket for the music-publisher lyric-copyright action against Anthropic, including the original Tennessee filing date reflected on the transferred complaint.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)\nCourtListener docket for the music-publisher lyric-copyright action against Anthropic, including the original Tennessee filing date reflected on the transferred complaint.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California order allowing music publishers\u2019 amended claims for secondary copyright infringement and DMCA CMI removal against Anthropic to proceed.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)\nNorthern District of California order allowing music publishers\u2019 amended claims for secondary copyright infringement and DMCA CMI removal against Anthropic to proceed.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-COOLEY-TECH", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official Cooley LLP practice page describing the firm's technology industry representation.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "open-source-software", "outreach"], "text": "Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page\nOfficial Cooley LLP practice page describing the firm's technology industry representation.\nsource organization open-source-software outreach\n`ORG-COOLEY` `CONTACT-COOLEY`", "title": "Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "U.S. Copyright Office index page for Section 512 of the Copyright Act, including safe harbor and notice-and-takedown guidance.", "tags": ["source", "copyright", "safe-harbor"], "text": "U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Resources\nU.S. Copyright Office index page for Section 512 of the Copyright Act, including safe harbor and notice-and-takedown guidance.\nsource copyright safe-harbor\n`TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE` `STAT-DMCA-512`", "title": "U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Resources", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-CORLEY-LII", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CORLEY-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CORLEY-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Text of the Second Circuit opinion in Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Universal City Studios v. Corley Opinion Text (Open Casebook)\nText of the Second Circuit opinion in Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).\nsource case copyright speech-and-code\n`CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY`", "title": "Universal City Studios v. Corley Opinion Text (Open Casebook)", "type": "source"}
@@ -168,6 +183,10 @@
{"id": "SRC-FREENET-HISTORY", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-FREENET-HISTORY.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FREENET-HISTORY.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official Freenet history page describing Ian Clarke's 1999 Edinburgh origins, the Locutus rebrand to Freenet in 2023, and the spin-off of the original codebase as Hyphanet.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "privacy", "censorship-resistance", "peer-to-peer-networking", "open-source-software"], "text": "Freenet History Page\nOfficial Freenet history page describing Ian Clarke's 1999 Edinburgh origins, the Locutus rebrand to Freenet in 2023, and the spin-off of the original codebase as Hyphanet.\nsource organization privacy censorship-resistance peer-to-peer-networking open-source-software\n`PERSON-IAN-CLARKE` `TECH-HYPHANET`", "title": "Freenet History Page", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-FSF-ABOUT", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-FSF-ABOUT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FSF-ABOUT.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official about page of the Free Software Foundation describing its worldwide mission.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "open-source-software"], "text": "Free Software Foundation About Page\nOfficial about page of the Free Software Foundation describing its worldwide mission.\nsource organization open-source-software\n`ORG-FSF`", "title": "Free Software Foundation About Page", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-FSF-PRESS", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-FSF-PRESS.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FSF-PRESS.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official press page of the Free Software Foundation with founding date and mission summary.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "open-source-software"], "text": "Free Software Foundation Press Information\nOfficial press page of the Free Software Foundation with founding date and mission summary.\nsource organization open-source-software\n`ORG-FSF`", "title": "Free Software Foundation Press Information", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Wrongful-death and product-liability complaint alleging that a Character.AI chatbot contributed to the death of a 14-year-old user.", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)\nWrongful-death and product-liability complaint alleging that a Character.AI chatbot contributed to the death of a 14-year-old user.\nsource case first-amendment artificial-intelligence digital-rights\n`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Middle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)\nMiddle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.\nsource case first-amendment artificial-intelligence digital-rights\n`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`", "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "LG M\u00fcnchen I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 \u2013 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)\nFirst-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "LG M\u00fcnchen I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 \u2013 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)\nOfficial court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official GNUnet about page describing the project as a Free Software stack for secure, decentralized, privacy-preserving networking and stating it remains early alpha despite its age.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "privacy", "censorship-resistance", "peer-to-peer-networking", "open-source-software"], "text": "GNUnet About Page\nOfficial GNUnet about page describing the project as a Free Software stack for secure, decentralized, privacy-preserving networking and stating it remains early alpha despite its age.\nsource organization privacy censorship-resistance peer-to-peer-networking open-source-software\n`TECH-GNUNET` `TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`", "title": "GNUnet About Page", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Justia reproduction of the Supreme Court opinion in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "speech-and-code", "open-source-software"], "text": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)\nJustia reproduction of the Supreme Court opinion in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.\nsource case copyright speech-and-code open-source-software\n`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`", "title": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official ACLU biography page for Jennifer Granick documenting her role as surveillance and cybersecurity counsel.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "privacy", "surveillance"], "text": "Jennifer Granick ACLU Staff Biography\nOfficial ACLU biography page for Jennifer Granick documenting her role as surveillance and cybersecurity counsel.\nsource attorney privacy surveillance\n`PERSON-JENNIFER-GRANICK`", "title": "Jennifer Granick ACLU Staff Biography", "type": "source"}
@@ -189,6 +208,7 @@
{"id": "SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "ACLU of Ohio case page documenting Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000).", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "cryptography", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page\nACLU of Ohio case page documenting Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000).\nsource case first-amendment cryptography speech-and-code\n`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`", "title": "Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-JUNGER-CMU", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-CMU.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-CMU.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Full text of the Sixth Circuit opinion in Junger v. Daley hosted by Carnegie Mellon University.", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "cryptography", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Junger v. Daley Opinion Text (CMU)\nFull text of the Sixth Circuit opinion in Junger v. Daley hosted by Carnegie Mellon University.\nsource case first-amendment cryptography speech-and-code\n`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`", "title": "Junger v. Daley Opinion Text (CMU)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER", "last_verified": "2026-06-17", "path": "bibliography/academic/SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Foundational 2002 conference paper by Petar Maymounkov and David Mazi\u00e8res describing the Kademlia distributed hash table.", "tags": ["source", "academic-paper", "peer-to-peer-networking", "distributed-systems", "distributed-hash-tables"], "text": "Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric\nFoundational 2002 conference paper by Petar Maymounkov and David Mazi\u00e8res describing the Kademlia distributed hash table.\nsource academic-paper peer-to-peer-networking distributed-systems distributed-hash-tables\nKademlia Distributed hash tables Peer-to-peer networking Distributed systems", "title": "Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California order granting Meta summary judgment on fair use for copying thirteen authors\u2019 books as Llama training data on the record presented.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)\nNorthern District of California order granting Meta summary judgment on fair use for copying thirteen authors\u2019 books as Llama training data on the record presented.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-KADREY-V-META` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-KAHN-CNRI", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-KAHN-CNRI.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAHN-CNRI.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official CNRI biography for Robert E. Kahn describing his co-invention of TCP/IP, DARPA Internet program leadership, and founding role at the Corporation for National Research Initiatives.", "tags": ["source", "person", "internet-architecture", "internet-governance"], "text": "Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography\nOfficial CNRI biography for Robert E. Kahn describing his co-invention of TCP/IP, DARPA Internet program leadership, and founding role at the Corporation for National Research Initiatives.\nsource person internet-architecture internet-governance\n`PERSON-ROBERT-KAHN`", "title": "Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-KAY-CHM", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-KAY-CHM.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAY-CHM.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Computer History Museum fellow profile for Alan Kay describing object-oriented programming, Smalltalk, and personal computing contributions.", "tags": ["source", "person", "open-source-software", "internet-architecture"], "text": "Alan Kay Computer History Museum Profile\nComputer History Museum fellow profile for Alan Kay describing object-oriented programming, Smalltalk, and personal computing contributions.\nsource person open-source-software internet-architecture\n`PERSON-ALAN-KAY`", "title": "Alan Kay Computer History Museum Profile", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Press release from Representative Ro Khanna's office announcing the Internet Bill of Rights principles endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee.", "tags": ["source", "person", "internet-governance", "digital-rights", "privacy"], "text": "Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee\nPress release from Representative Ro Khanna's office announcing the Internet Bill of Rights principles endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee.\nsource person internet-governance digital-rights privacy\n`PERSON-RO-KHANNA`", "title": "Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee", "type": "source"}
@@ -208,6 +228,9 @@
{"id": "SRC-MEEKER-ABOUT", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-MEEKER-ABOUT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MEEKER-ABOUT.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Heather Meeker about page documenting her open source licensing practice and background.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "open-source-software"], "text": "Heather Meeker About Page\nOfficial Heather Meeker about page documenting her open source licensing practice and background.\nsource attorney open-source-software\n`PERSON-HEATHER-MEEKER`", "title": "Heather Meeker About Page", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-MOGLEN-COLUMBIA", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-MOGLEN-COLUMBIA.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MOGLEN-COLUMBIA.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Columbia Law School faculty page for Eben Moglen.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "open-source-software"], "text": "Eben Moglen Columbia Law School Faculty Page\nOfficial Columbia Law School faculty page for Eben Moglen.\nsource attorney open-source-software\n`PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN`", "title": "Eben Moglen Columbia Law School Faculty Page", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-MOGLEN-DSI", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-MOGLEN-DSI.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MOGLEN-DSI.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Columbia Data Science Institute profile of Eben Moglen describing his work with FSF and SFLC.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "open-source-software"], "text": "Eben Moglen Columbia Data Science Institute Profile\nColumbia Data Science Institute profile of Eben Moglen describing his work with FSF and SFLC.\nsource attorney open-source-software\n`PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN`", "title": "Eben Moglen Columbia Data Science Institute Profile", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Southern District of New York order dismissing with prejudice news plaintiffs\u2019 material-contribution contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft after Cox.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)\nSouthern District of New York order dismissing with prejudice news plaintiffs\u2019 material-contribution contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft after Cox.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Complaint alleging that Microsoft and OpenAI copied New York Times works to train large language models and that model outputs reproduced Times content.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)\nComplaint alleging that Microsoft and OpenAI copied New York Times works to train large language models and that model outputs reproduced Times content.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Southern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft while dismissing specified DMCA and hot-news claims.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)\nSouthern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft while dismissing specified DMCA and hot-news claims.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "OFAC FAQ describing Tornado Cash designation history, SDN identifiers, and guidance on open-source code interactions.", "tags": ["source", "sanctions", "open-source-software"], "text": "OFAC FAQ 1076 \u2014 Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation\nOFAC FAQ describing Tornado Cash designation history, SDN identifiers, and guidance on open-source code interactions.\nsource sanctions open-source-software\n`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH` `CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY` `TECH-TORNADO-CASH`", "title": "OFAC FAQ 1076 \u2014 Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "OFAC recent-actions notice documenting removal of Tornado Cash SDN list entries on March 21, 2025.", "tags": ["source", "sanctions"], "text": "OFAC Recent Actions \u2014 Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)\nOFAC recent-actions notice documenting removal of Tornado Cash SDN list entries on March 21, 2025.\nsource sanctions\n`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH` `CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY`", "title": "OFAC Recent Actions \u2014 Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT", "last_verified": null, "path": "bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Internal bootstrap prompt defining the initial OIR mission, principles, repository layout, knowledge model, and workflow.", "tags": ["source", "imported-source", "project-governance"], "text": "OIR Bootstrap Prompt\nInternal bootstrap prompt defining the initial OIR mission, principles, repository layout, knowledge model, and workflow.\nsource imported-source project-governance\nRepository foundation Project charter alignment Initial data model and workflow conventions", "title": "OIR Bootstrap Prompt", "type": "source"}
@@ -216,6 +239,7 @@
{"id": "SRC-ORIN-KERR-GWU", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-ORIN-KERR-GWU.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-ORIN-KERR-GWU.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official George Washington University Law School faculty page for Orin Kerr, a leading scholar of computer crime law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.", "tags": ["source", "person", "digital-rights"], "text": "Orin Kerr George Washington University Law Faculty Page\nOfficial George Washington University Law School faculty page for Orin Kerr, a leading scholar of computer crime law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.\nsource person digital-rights\n`PERSON-ORIN-KERR`", "title": "Orin Kerr George Washington University Law Faculty Page", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-OSI-ABOUT", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-OSI-ABOUT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OSI-ABOUT.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official about page of the Open Source Initiative describing its mission and global scope.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "open-source-software"], "text": "Open Source Initiative About Page\nOfficial about page of the Open Source Initiative describing its mission and global scope.\nsource organization open-source-software\n`ORG-OSI`", "title": "Open Source Initiative About Page", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-OSI-HISTORY", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-OSI-HISTORY.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OSI-HISTORY.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official history page of the Open Source Initiative documenting its founding and development.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "open-source-software"], "text": "Open Source Initiative History Page\nOfficial history page of the Open Source Initiative documenting its founding and development.\nsource organization open-source-software\n`ORG-OSI`", "title": "Open Source Initiative History Page", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official Oxford University Press announcement selecting \u201cbrain rot\u201d as Oxford Word of the Year 2024 and publishing the press\u2019s definition of the term.", "tags": ["source", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Oxford University Press \u2014 \u2018Brain rot\u2019 named Oxford Word of the Year 2024\nOfficial Oxford University Press announcement selecting \u201cbrain rot\u201d as Oxford Word of the Year 2024 and publishing the press\u2019s definition of the term.\nsource artificial-intelligence digital-rights\n`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`", "title": "Oxford University Press \u2014 \u2018Brain rot\u2019 named Oxford Word of the Year 2024", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official GovInfo United States Reports record for Packingham v. North Carolina.", "tags": ["source", "case-law", "first-amendment", "internet-governance", "digital-rights"], "text": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (GovInfo)\nOfficial GovInfo United States Reports record for Packingham v. North Carolina.\nsource case-law first-amendment internet-governance digital-rights\n`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`", "title": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (GovInfo)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Justia reproduction of the Supreme Court opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina.", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "internet-governance", "digital-rights"], "text": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (Justia)\nJustia reproduction of the Supreme Court opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina.\nsource case first-amendment internet-governance digital-rights\n`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`", "title": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (Justia)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Cornell Legal Information Institute full text of Packingham v. North Carolina.", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "internet-governance", "digital-rights"], "text": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (Cornell LII)\nCornell Legal Information Institute full text of Packingham v. North Carolina.\nsource case first-amendment internet-governance digital-rights\n`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`", "title": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (Cornell LII)", "type": "source"}
@@ -253,11 +277,16 @@
{"id": "SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Signal specification for the Double Ratchet algorithm used to derive new message keys in secure messaging sessions.", "tags": ["source", "technical", "cryptography", "secure-messaging", "privacy"], "text": "The Double Ratchet Algorithm\nOfficial Signal specification for the Double Ratchet algorithm used to derive new message keys in secure messaging sessions.\nsource technical cryptography secure-messaging privacy\n`ORG-SIGNAL` Signal Protocol Secure messaging Double Ratchet algorithm", "title": "The Double Ratchet Algorithm", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-SIGNAL-HOME", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-SIGNAL-HOME.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-SIGNAL-HOME.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Signal website describing Signal's private messaging service, encryption, nonprofit status, and privacy positioning.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "privacy", "secure-messaging"], "text": "Signal Official Website\nOfficial Signal website describing Signal's private messaging service, encryption, nonprofit status, and privacy positioning.\nsource organization privacy secure-messaging\nSignal Secure messaging Privacy organizations", "title": "Signal Official Website", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Signal specification for the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol used in secure messaging.", "tags": ["source", "technical", "cryptography", "secure-messaging", "privacy"], "text": "The X3DH Key Agreement Protocol\nOfficial Signal specification for the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol used in secure messaging.\nsource technical cryptography secure-messaging privacy\n`ORG-SIGNAL` Signal Protocol Secure messaging X3DH key agreement", "title": "The X3DH Key Agreement Protocol", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Second Sony-affiliated complaint against Udio asserting 30,117 additional sound recordings after leave to expand the 2024 action was denied.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)\nSecond Sony-affiliated complaint against Udio asserting 30,117 additional sound recordings after leave to expand the 2024 action was denied.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Complaint seeking a declaration that AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are not protected by copyright.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)\nComplaint seeking a declaration that AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are not protected by copyright.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "CourtListener docket record for the Steal a Brainrot copyright and trademark dispute in the Northern District of California.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)\nCourtListener docket record for the Steal a Brainrot copyright and trademark dispute in the Northern District of California.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`", "title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official EFF biography page for Mitch Stoltz documenting his role as Senior Staff Attorney focusing on intellectual property and open source.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "open-source-software", "copyright"], "text": "Mitch Stoltz EFF Staff Biography\nOfficial EFF biography page for Mitch Stoltz documenting his role as Senior Staff Attorney focusing on intellectual property and open source.\nsource attorney open-source-software copyright\n`PERSON-MITCH-STOLTZ`", "title": "Mitch Stoltz EFF Staff Biography", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026", "last_verified": "2026-07-27", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "TechCrunch secondary report stating Tunick\u2019s attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on the phone and describing the prosecution under a property-destruction-to-prevent-seizure statute.", "tags": ["source", "case", "privacy", "open-source-software"], "text": "TechCrunch \u2014 DOJ Accuses American of Wiping Phone with Duress Password (July 24, 2026)\nTechCrunch secondary report stating Tunick\u2019s attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on the phone and describing the prosecution under a property-destruction-to-prevent-seizure statute.\nsource case privacy open-source-software\n`CASE-US-V-TUNICK` `TECH-GRAPHENEOS`", "title": "TechCrunch \u2014 DOJ Accuses American of Wiping Phone with Duress Password (July 24, 2026)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026", "last_verified": "2026-07-30", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "TechSpot secondary report on United States v. Tunick, covering the alleged GrapheneOS-related phone wipe during an Atlanta airport CBP search, suppression-hearing testimony, and expert commentary on prosecuting wipe features under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232(a).", "tags": ["source", "case", "privacy", "open-source-software", "border-search", "fourth-amendment"], "text": "TechSpot \u2014 Prosecutors Charge Atlanta Man After GrapheneOS Phone Wipe (2026)\nTechSpot secondary report on United States v. Tunick, covering the alleged GrapheneOS-related phone wipe during an Atlanta airport CBP search, suppression-hearing testimony, and expert commentary on prosecuting wipe features under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232(a).\nsource case privacy open-source-software border-search fourth-amendment\n`CASE-US-V-TUNICK` `TECH-GRAPHENEOS`", "title": "TechSpot \u2014 Prosecutors Charge Atlanta Man After GrapheneOS Phone Wipe (2026)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ", "last_verified": "2026-07-29", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official Telegram FAQ describing the messaging service and stating that the development team is based in Dubai.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "privacy", "secure-messaging"], "text": "Telegram FAQ\nOfficial Telegram FAQ describing the messaging service and stating that the development team is based in Dubai.\nsource organization privacy secure-messaging\n`ORG-TELEGRAM`", "title": "Telegram FAQ", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS", "last_verified": "2026-07-29", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official Telegram press page describing the messaging service, Dubai base, and Pavel Durov's role as founder, owner, and CEO.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "privacy", "secure-messaging"], "text": "Telegram Press Info\nOfficial Telegram press page describing the messaging service, Dubai base, and Pavel Durov's role as founder, owner, and CEO.\nsource organization privacy secure-messaging\n`ORG-TELEGRAM` `PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV`", "title": "Telegram Press Info", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "D.C. Circuit opinion affirming refusal to register a copyright in an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)\nD.C. Circuit opinion affirming refusal to register a copyright in an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`", "title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "District of Delaware memorandum opinion rejecting Ross Intelligence\u2019s fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)\nDistrict of Delaware memorandum opinion rejecting Ross Intelligence\u2019s fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-TIEN-EFF", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-TIEN-EFF.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-TIEN-EFF.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official EFF staff profile for Lee Tien, Legislative Director and Adams Chair for Internet Rights.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "privacy", "digital-rights"], "text": "Lee Tien EFF Staff Biography\nOfficial EFF staff profile for Lee Tien, Legislative Director and Adams Chair for Internet Rights.\nsource attorney privacy digital-rights\n`PERSON-LEE-TIEN`", "title": "Lee Tien EFF Staff Biography", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/academic/SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Canonical Tor design paper by Dingledine, Mathewson, and Syverson describing the second-generation onion routing network.", "tags": ["source", "academic", "privacy", "onion-routing", "open-source-software"], "text": "Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router\nCanonical Tor design paper by Dingledine, Mathewson, and Syverson describing the second-generation onion routing network.\nsource academic privacy onion-routing open-source-software\n`TOPIC-ONION-ROUTING` `ORG-TOR-PROJECT` Onion routing Tor network design", "title": "Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT", "last_verified": "2026-06-17", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Tor Project contact page with support, community, security issue, organization, donor, and mailing contact paths.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "privacy", "open-source-software", "outreach"], "text": "Tor Project Contact Page\nOfficial Tor Project contact page with support, community, security issue, organization, donor, and mailing contact paths.\nsource organization privacy open-source-software outreach\nTor Project Privacy organizations Open source organizations Outreach contact verification", "title": "Tor Project Contact Page", "type": "source"}
@@ -272,20 +301,27 @@
{"id": "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026", "last_verified": "2026-07-27", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Defense motion to suppress statements and evidence in United States v. Tunick, alleging Miranda, counsel, and Fourth Amendment violations during a CBP secondary inspection at Atlanta airport.", "tags": ["source", "case", "privacy", "border-search", "fourth-amendment"], "text": "United States v. Tunick \u2014 Motion to Suppress (Mar. 17, 2026)\nDefense motion to suppress statements and evidence in United States v. Tunick, alleging Miranda, counsel, and Fourth Amendment violations during a CBP secondary inspection at Atlanta airport.\nsource case privacy border-search fourth-amendment\n`CASE-US-V-TUNICK`", "title": "United States v. Tunick \u2014 Motion to Suppress (Mar. 17, 2026)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official enrolled text of Texas Senate Bill 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, adding Business & Commerce Code Chapter 121 with age verification, parental consent, and developer age-rating duties, effective January 1, 2026.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "age-verification", "first-amendment", "public-policy"], "text": "Texas SB 2420 \u2014 App Store Accountability Act (Enrolled Text)\nOfficial enrolled text of Texas Senate Bill 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, adding Business & Commerce Code Chapter 121 with age verification, parental consent, and developer age-rating duties, effective January 1, 2026.\nsource statute age-verification first-amendment public-policy\n`STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY` `CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420` `TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`", "title": "Texas SB 2420 \u2014 App Store Accountability Act (Enrolled Text)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Texas Tribune report that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene against enforcement of Texas SB 2420 after the Fifth Circuit stayed a district-court injunction.", "tags": ["source", "case", "age-verification", "first-amendment"], "text": "Texas Tribune \u2014 Supreme Court Lets Texas App Age Verification Law Stay in Effect\nTexas Tribune report that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene against enforcement of Texas SB 2420 after the Fifth Circuit stayed a district-court injunction.\nsource case age-verification first-amendment\n`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420` `TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`", "title": "Texas Tribune \u2014 Supreme Court Lets Texas App Age Verification Law Stay in Effect", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Suno\u2019s answer admitting that its model was built from tens of millions of recordings and asserting fair use, copyright misuse, and other defenses.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)\nSuno\u2019s answer admitting that its model was built from tens of millions of recordings and asserting fair use, copyright misuse, and other defenses.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Major-label complaint alleging that Suno copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service and seeking damages and injunctive relief.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)\nMajor-label complaint alleging that Suno copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service and seeking damages and injunctive relief.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Rule 41 stipulation dismissing Warner-affiliated plaintiffs\u2019 claims against Suno with prejudice while leaving UMG and Sony claims unaffected.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs\u2019 stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)\nRule 41 stipulation dismissing Warner-affiliated plaintiffs\u2019 claims against Suno with prejudice while leaving UMG and Sony claims unaffected.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs\u2019 stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Major-label complaint alleging that Uncharted Labs (Udio) copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)\nMajor-label complaint alleging that Uncharted Labs (Udio) copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "CourtListener docket for the original major-label copyright action against Udio, including later stipulations dismissing UMG and Warner claims.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)\nCourtListener docket for the original major-label copyright action against Udio, including later stipulations dismissing UMG and Warner claims.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Cornell Legal Information Institute page for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.", "tags": ["source", "constitutional-law", "first-amendment", "digital-rights"], "text": "U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Cornell LII)\nCornell Legal Information Institute page for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.\nsource constitutional-law first-amendment digital-rights\nFirst Amendment Constitutional law seed topics Internet speech and expression topics", "title": "U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Cornell LII)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-IV-LII", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-IV-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-IV-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Cornell Legal Information Institute page for the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.", "tags": ["source", "constitutional-law", "fourth-amendment", "privacy", "digital-rights"], "text": "U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment (Cornell LII)\nCornell Legal Information Institute page for the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.\nsource constitutional-law fourth-amendment privacy digital-rights\n`TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT` Fourth Amendment Constitutional law seed topics Digital privacy topics", "title": "U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment (Cornell LII)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official GovInfo U.S. Code page for 17 U.S.C. section 107, the fair use limitation on exclusive copyright rights.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "copyright"], "text": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107 (GovInfo)\nOfficial GovInfo U.S. Code page for 17 U.S.C. section 107, the fair use limitation on exclusive copyright rights.\nsource statute copyright\n`STAT-USC-107` `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`", "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107 (GovInfo)", "type": "source"}
-{"id": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Cornell Legal Information Institute page for 17 U.S.C. section 107, the U.S. fair use statute.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "copyright"], "text": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107\nCornell Legal Information Institute page for 17 U.S.C. section 107, the U.S. fair use statute.\nsource statute copyright\n`STAT-USC-107` `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO` `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`", "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Cornell Legal Information Institute page for 17 U.S.C. section 107, the U.S. fair use statute.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "copyright"], "text": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107\nCornell Legal Information Institute page for 17 U.S.C. section 107, the U.S. fair use statute.\nsource statute copyright\n`STAT-USC-107` `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO` `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` `CASE-KADREY-V-META` `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`", "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official GovInfo U.S. Code page for 17 U.S.C. section 512, the DMCA online service provider safe harbor provision.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "copyright", "safe-harbor"], "text": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512 (GovInfo)\nOfficial GovInfo U.S. Code page for 17 U.S.C. section 512, the DMCA online service provider safe harbor provision.\nsource statute copyright safe-harbor\n`STAT-DMCA-512` `TOPIC-SAFE-HARBOR` `TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY` `TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE` Copyright safe harbor Intermediary liability", "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512 (GovInfo)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-USC-17-512-LII", "last_verified": "2026-06-17", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-512-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-512-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Cornell Legal Information Institute page for 17 U.S.C. section 512, the copyright safe harbor statute.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "copyright", "safe-harbor"], "text": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512\nCornell Legal Information Institute page for 17 U.S.C. section 512, the copyright safe harbor statute.\nsource statute copyright safe-harbor\nCopyright Safe harbor Intermediary liability", "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official GovInfo U.S. Code page for 18 U.S.C. section 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provision.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "computer-crime"], "text": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1030 (GovInfo)\nOfficial GovInfo U.S. Code page for 18 U.S.C. section 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provision.\nsource statute computer-crime\n`STAT-CFAA-1030` `TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD` Computer crime Computer Fraud and Abuse Act", "title": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1030 (GovInfo)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-USC-18-1030-LII", "last_verified": "2026-06-17", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-1030-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-1030-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Cornell Legal Information Institute page for 18 U.S.C. section 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provision.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "computer-crime"], "text": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1030\nCornell Legal Information Institute page for 18 U.S.C. section 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provision.\nsource statute computer-crime\n`ORG-SIGNAL` `STAT-CFAA-1030` `TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD` Computer crime Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Technology law", "title": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1030", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-USC-18-2232-LII", "last_verified": "2026-07-27", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-2232-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-2232-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Cornell Legal Information Institute page for 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232, destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure.", "tags": ["source", "statute"], "text": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232 (Cornell LII)\nCornell Legal Information Institute page for 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232, destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure.\nsource statute\n`STAT-18-USC-2232` `CASE-US-V-TUNICK`", "title": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232 (Cornell LII)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Copyright Office report concluding that existing U.S. law can resolve AI copyrightability questions and that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable.", "tags": ["source", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 \u2014 Copyrightability (January 2025)\nCopyright Office report concluding that existing U.S. law can resolve AI copyrightability questions and that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable.\nsource copyright artificial-intelligence\n`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`", "title": "U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 \u2014 Copyrightability (January 2025)", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "U.S. Copyright Office statement of policy on examining and registering works that contain AI-generated material, effective March 16, 2023.", "tags": ["source", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Copyright Registration Guidance \u2014 Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)\nU.S. Copyright Office statement of policy on examining and registering works that contain AI-generated material, effective March 16, 2023.\nsource copyright artificial-intelligence\n`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`", "title": "Copyright Registration Guidance \u2014 Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official GovInfo United States Reports record for Van Buren v. United States.", "tags": ["source", "case-law", "computer-crime", "technology-law"], "text": "Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (GovInfo)\nOfficial GovInfo United States Reports record for Van Buren v. United States.\nsource case-law computer-crime technology-law\n`CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US` `TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD` `STAT-CFAA-1030` Computer Fraud and Abuse Act", "title": "Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (GovInfo)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Cornell Legal Information Institute page for the Supreme Court decision interpreting the CFAA phrase exceeds authorized access.", "tags": ["source", "case-law", "computer-crime", "technology-law"], "text": "Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (Cornell LII)\nCornell Legal Information Institute page for the Supreme Court decision interpreting the CFAA phrase exceeds authorized access.\nsource case-law computer-crime technology-law\n`CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US` `TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD` `STAT-CFAA-1030` Computer Fraud and Abuse Act", "title": "Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (Cornell LII)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Justia reproduction of the Fifth Circuit opinion holding that Tornado Cash immutable smart contracts are not IEEPA property.", "tags": ["source", "case", "sanctions", "open-source-software", "censorship-resistance"], "text": "Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024) (Justia)\nJustia reproduction of the Fifth Circuit opinion holding that Tornado Cash immutable smart contracts are not IEEPA property.\nsource case sanctions open-source-software censorship-resistance\n`CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY` `TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH` `TECH-TORNADO-CASH` `STAT-IEEPA`", "title": "Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024) (Justia)", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-VIXIE-IHOF", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-VIXIE-IHOF.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-VIXIE-IHOF.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Internet Hall of Fame inductee profile for Paul Vixie describing his DNS protocol work and BIND development.", "tags": ["source", "person", "internet-architecture", "network-protocols"], "text": "Paul Vixie Internet Hall of Fame Profile\nInternet Hall of Fame inductee profile for Paul Vixie describing his DNS protocol work and BIND development.\nsource person internet-architecture network-protocols\n`PERSON-PAUL-VIXIE`", "title": "Paul Vixie Internet Hall of Fame Profile", "type": "source"}
-{"id": "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official EFF biography page for Kit Walsh documenting her role as Senior Staff Attorney working on free speech and coders' rights.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "digital-rights", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Kit Walsh EFF Staff Biography\nOfficial EFF biography page for Kit Walsh documenting her role as Senior Staff Attorney working on free speech and coders' rights.\nsource attorney digital-rights speech-and-code\n`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`", "title": "Kit Walsh EFF Staff Biography", "type": "source"}
+{"id": "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official EFF biography page for Kit Walsh documenting her role as Senior Staff Attorney working on free speech and coders' rights.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "digital-rights", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Kit Walsh EFF Staff Biography\nOfficial EFF biography page for Kit Walsh documenting her role as Senior Staff Attorney working on free speech and coders' rights.\nsource attorney digital-rights speech-and-code\n`PERSON-KIT-WALSH` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "Kit Walsh EFF Staff Biography", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official biography page for Lauren Weinstein describing his work on ARPANET, PFIR, NNSquad, and the PRIVACY Forum.", "tags": ["source", "person", "internet-governance", "privacy"], "text": "Lauren Weinstein Biography Page\nOfficial biography page for Lauren Weinstein describing his work on ARPANET, PFIR, NNSquad, and the PRIVACY Forum.\nsource person internet-governance privacy\n`PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN`", "title": "Lauren Weinstein Biography Page", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-WEINSTEIN-NNSQUAD", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-WEINSTEIN-NNSQUAD.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WEINSTEIN-NNSQUAD.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Lauren Weinstein's announcement of the Network Neutrality Squad (NNSquad) as an open-membership effort to keep the internet fair and unhindered.", "tags": ["source", "person", "internet-governance", "digital-rights"], "text": "Network Neutrality Squad Announcement\nLauren Weinstein's announcement of the Network Neutrality Squad (NNSquad) as an open-membership effort to keep the internet fair and unhindered.\nsource person internet-governance digital-rights\n`PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN`", "title": "Network Neutrality Squad Announcement", "type": "source"}
{"id": "SRC-WESSLER-ACLU", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-WESSLER-ACLU.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WESSLER-ACLU.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official ACLU biography for Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "privacy", "surveillance"], "text": "Nathan Freed Wessler ACLU Staff Biography\nOfficial ACLU biography for Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.\nsource attorney privacy surveillance\n`PERSON-NATHAN-FREED-WESSLER`", "title": "Nathan Freed Wessler ACLU Staff Biography", "type": "source"}
@@ -310,14 +346,18 @@
{"id": "STAT-IEEPA", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-IEEPA.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII"], "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"}, {"object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"], "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"}, {"object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"], "subject": "STAT-IEEPA"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-IEEPA.md", "sources": ["SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII", "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"], "status": "draft", "summary": "The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1701\u20131708, authorizes the President to regulate transactions and block property in which foreign countries or nationals have interests during declared national emergencies; OFAC administers related sanctions programs.", "tags": ["statute", "sanctions", "digital-rights"], "text": "International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1701\u20131708)\nThe International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1701\u20131708, authorizes the President to regulate transactions and block property in which foreign countries or nationals have interests during declared national emergencies; OFAC administers related sanctions programs.\nstatute sanctions digital-rights", "title": "International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1701\u20131708)", "type": "statute"}
{"id": "STAT-SECTION-230", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-SECTION-230.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-SECTION-230-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-SECTION-230-LII"], "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"}, {"object": "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"], "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"}, {"object": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"], "subject": "STAT-SECTION-230"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-SECTION-230.md", "sources": ["SRC-SECTION-230-LII", "SRC-SECTION-230-EFF"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230), enacted in 1996, provides that internet platforms shall not be treated as publishers of user-generated content and protects good-faith content moderation, forming the legal foundation for the modern internet.", "tags": ["internet-governance", "intermediary-liability", "digital-rights", "first-amendment"], "text": "Section 230 (47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230)\nSection 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230), enacted in 1996, provides that internet platforms shall not be treated as publishers of user-generated content and protects good-faith content moderation, forming the legal foundation for the modern internet.\ninternet-governance intermediary-liability digital-rights first-amendment", "title": "Section 230 (47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230)", "type": "statute"}
{"id": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"], "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"}, {"object": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"], "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"], "subject": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY.md", "sources": ["SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED", "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER", "SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Texas SB 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, adds Business & Commerce Code Chapter 121 requiring app stores to verify user age categories, obtain parental consent for minor downloads and purchases, and requiring developers to age-rate apps; takes effect January 1, 2026 and has been the subject of active First Amendment litigation.", "tags": ["age-verification", "first-amendment", "digital-rights", "public-policy", "internet-governance"], "text": "Texas App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420 / Bus. & Com. Code ch. 121)\nTexas SB 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, adds Business & Commerce Code Chapter 121 requiring app stores to verify user age categories, obtain parental consent for minor downloads and purchases, and requiring developers to age-rate apps; takes effect January 1, 2026 and has been the subject of active First Amendment litigation.\nage-verification first-amendment digital-rights public-policy internet-governance", "title": "Texas App Store Accountability Act (SB 2420 / Bus. & Com. Code ch. 121)", "type": "statute"}
-{"id": "STAT-USC-107", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}, {"object": "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}, {"object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}, {"object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO", "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "status": "draft", "summary": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107 is the U.S. fair use statute, limiting copyright owners' exclusive rights for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.", "tags": ["copyright", "digital-rights"], "text": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107\n17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107 is the U.S. fair use statute, limiting copyright owners' exclusive rights for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.\ncopyright digital-rights", "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107", "type": "statute"}
+{"id": "STAT-USC-107", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}, {"object": "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}, {"object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}, {"object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "STAT-USC-107"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO", "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "status": "draft", "summary": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107 is the U.S. fair use statute, limiting copyright owners' exclusive rights for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.", "tags": ["copyright", "digital-rights"], "text": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107\n17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107 is the U.S. fair use statute, limiting copyright owners' exclusive rights for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.\ncopyright digital-rights", "title": "17 U.S.C. \u00a7 107", "type": "statute"}
{"id": "TECH-GNUNET", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT"], "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"}, {"object": "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"], "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"], "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"}, {"object": "TECH-HYPHANET", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"], "subject": "TECH-GNUNET"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md", "sources": ["SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT", "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"], "status": "draft", "summary": "GNUnet is a Free Software framework for secure, decentralized, privacy-preserving networking that treats keyword spam and untrusted participants as core design problems rather than afterthoughts.", "tags": ["technology", "privacy", "censorship-resistance", "peer-to-peer-networking", "open-source-software", "content-moderation", "case-studies"], "text": "GNUnet\nGNUnet is a Free Software framework for secure, decentralized, privacy-preserving networking that treats keyword spam and untrusted participants as core design problems rather than afterthoughts.\ntechnology privacy censorship-resistance peer-to-peer-networking open-source-software content-moderation case-studies", "title": "GNUnet", "type": "technology"}
{"id": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS", "last_verified": "2026-07-27", "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-GRAPHENEOS.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES"], "subject": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS"}, {"object": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026"], "subject": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GRAPHENEOS.md", "sources": ["SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES", "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026", "SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026", "SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "GrapheneOS is a privacy- and security-focused open-source mobile operating system for Google Pixel devices that documents an optional duress PIN/password which irreversibly wipes the device when entered.", "tags": ["technology", "privacy", "open-source-software", "cryptography", "digital-rights", "border-search"], "text": "GrapheneOS\nGrapheneOS is a privacy- and security-focused open-source mobile operating system for Google Pixel devices that documents an optional duress PIN/password which irreversibly wipes the device when entered.\ntechnology privacy open-source-software cryptography digital-rights border-search", "title": "GrapheneOS", "type": "technology"}
{"id": "TECH-HYPHANET", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-HYPHANET.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-HYPHANET-HOME"], "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"}, {"object": "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999"], "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"}, {"object": "PERSON-IAN-CLARKE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999", "SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001", "SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME"], "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README", "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018"], "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"}, {"object": "TECH-GNUNET", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"], "subject": "TECH-HYPHANET"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-HYPHANET.md", "sources": ["SRC-HYPHANET-HOME", "SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME", "SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999", "SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README", "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018", "SRC-GUARDIAN-FREENET-DARK-SIDE-2009", "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005", "SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001", "SRC-FREENET-HISTORY"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Hyphanet is the continuation of the original Freenet peer-to-peer network for anonymous, censorship-resistant publishing; it later added Web of Trust spam-resistance after unmoderated forums were disrupted by spam.", "tags": ["technology", "privacy", "censorship-resistance", "peer-to-peer-networking", "open-source-software", "content-moderation", "case-studies"], "text": "Hyphanet (formerly Freenet)\nHyphanet is the continuation of the original Freenet peer-to-peer network for anonymous, censorship-resistant publishing; it later added Web of Trust spam-resistance after unmoderated forums were disrupted by spam.\ntechnology privacy censorship-resistance peer-to-peer-networking open-source-software content-moderation case-studies", "title": "Hyphanet (formerly Freenet)", "type": "technology"}
{"id": "TECH-PGP", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-PGP.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"], "subject": "TECH-PGP"}, {"object": "PERSON-PHIL-ZIMMERMANN", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"], "subject": "TECH-PGP"}, {"object": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"], "subject": "TECH-PGP"}, {"object": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"], "subject": "TECH-PGP"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"], "subject": "TECH-PGP"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-PGP.md", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO", "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996", "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) is public-key encryption software created by Phil Zimmermann and published in 1991; its distribution triggered a multi-year U.S. criminal export investigation that closed without prosecution in 1996.", "tags": ["technology", "cryptography", "privacy", "open-source-software", "export-control", "speech-and-code", "case-studies", "digital-rights"], "text": "Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)\nPretty Good Privacy (PGP) is public-key encryption software created by Phil Zimmermann and published in 1991; its distribution triggered a multi-year U.S. criminal export investigation that closed without prosecution in 1996.\ntechnology cryptography privacy open-source-software export-control speech-and-code case-studies digital-rights", "title": "Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)", "type": "technology"}
{"id": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"}, {"object": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"}, {"object": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET.md", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025", "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy wallet whose co-founders pled guilty in 2025 in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds; government announcements describe mixer features including Whirlpool.", "tags": ["technology", "privacy", "privacy-preserving-systems", "open-source-risk", "developer-rights", "case-studies", "computer-crime", "digital-rights"], "text": "Samourai Wallet\nSamourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy wallet whose co-founders pled guilty in 2025 in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds; government announcements describe mixer features including Whirlpool.\ntechnology privacy privacy-preserving-systems open-source-risk developer-rights case-studies computer-crime digital-rights", "title": "Samourai Wallet", "type": "technology"}
{"id": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"}, {"object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"}, {"object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA", "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076", "SRC-TREASURY-TC-AUG-2022"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and shuffles cryptocurrency deposits so withdrawals can be made to different addresses, reducing on-chain linkability between deposit and withdrawal.", "tags": ["technology", "privacy-preserving-systems", "censorship-resistance", "open-source-software", "tornado-cash", "case-studies"], "text": "Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)\nTornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and shuffles cryptocurrency deposits so withdrawals can be made to different addresses, reducing on-chain linkability between deposit and withdrawal.\ntechnology privacy-preserving-systems censorship-resistance open-source-software tornado-cash case-studies", "title": "Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)", "type": "technology"}
+{"id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023", "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025", "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.", "tags": ["copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights", "case-studies"], "text": "Copyright and Generative AI\nU.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.\ncopyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights case-studies", "title": "Copyright and Generative AI", "type": "topic"}
+{"id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md", "relationships": [{"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"notes": "Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil product liability, not a criminal developer prosecution.", "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.", "tags": ["artificial-intelligence", "copyright", "first-amendment", "digital-rights", "case-studies", "intermediary-liability"], "text": "AI Litigation Landscape\nInventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.\nartificial-intelligence copyright first-amendment digital-rights case-studies intermediary-liability", "title": "AI Litigation Landscape", "type": "topic"}
+{"id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET", "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.", "tags": ["copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights", "case-studies"], "text": "Music Copyright and Generative AI\nMusic-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.\ncopyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights case-studies", "title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI", "type": "topic"}
{"id": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md", "relationships": [{"object": "STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE"], "subject": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION"}, {"object": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"], "subject": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION"}, {"object": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"], "subject": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"], "subject": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md", "sources": ["SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE", "SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS", "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED", "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER", "SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER", "SRC-CCIA-SB2420-LITIGATION-PAGE", "SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026", "SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA", "SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED", "SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Overview of U.S. state laws that pressure app stores and operating systems to verify or signal user age and to gate minors\u2019 app access\u2014covering California\u2019s OS age-bracket signaling act, Texas/Utah/Louisiana/Alabama App Store Accountability Acts, key implementation dates, and major litigation status.", "tags": ["age-verification", "first-amendment", "privacy", "digital-rights", "public-policy", "internet-governance"], "text": "App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws\nOverview of U.S. state laws that pressure app stores and operating systems to verify or signal user age and to gate minors\u2019 app access\u2014covering California\u2019s OS age-bracket signaling act, Texas/Utah/Louisiana/Alabama App Store Accountability Acts, key implementation dates, and major litigation status.\nage-verification first-amendment privacy digital-rights public-policy internet-governance", "title": "App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws", "type": "topic"}
+{"id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024"], "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"}, {"object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"}, {"object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"], "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md", "sources": ["SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET", "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023", "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Documents the 2024 lexical sense of \u201cbrain rot\u201d and the later copyright fight over AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.", "tags": ["artificial-intelligence", "copyright", "digital-rights", "case-studies"], "text": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters\nDocuments the 2024 lexical sense of \u201cbrain rot\u201d and the later copyright fight over AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.\nartificial-intelligence copyright digital-rights case-studies", "title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters", "type": "topic"}
{"id": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "last_verified": "2026-07-25", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "SRC-JUNGER-CMU", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "SRC-CORLEY-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CORLEY-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CORLEY-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII", "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-GOVINFO", "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC", "SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA", "SRC-JUNGER-CMU", "SRC-CORLEY-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "The code-as-speech doctrine concerns whether software source code receives First Amendment protection, tracing Bernstein, Junger, and Corley, and examining whether that protection could extend to open-source development practices.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "speech-and-code", "digital-rights", "constitutional-law", "open-source-software", "cryptography", "copyright"], "text": "Code as Speech\nThe code-as-speech doctrine concerns whether software source code receives First Amendment protection, tracing Bernstein, Junger, and Corley, and examining whether that protection could extend to open-source development practices.\nfirst-amendment speech-and-code digital-rights constitutional-law open-source-software cryptography copyright", "title": "Code as Speech", "type": "topic"}
{"id": "TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"], "subject": "TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD"}, {"object": "STAT-CFAA-1030", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO"], "subject": "TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD"}, {"object": "CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD.md", "sources": ["SRC-USC-18-1030-LII", "SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO", "SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Computer fraud and abuse in U.S. federal law commonly refers to criminal prohibitions on unauthorized access and related computer activity under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1030.", "tags": ["computer-crime", "technology-law", "digital-rights"], "text": "Computer Fraud and Abuse\nComputer fraud and abuse in U.S. federal law commonly refers to criminal prohibitions on unauthorized access and related computer activity under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1030.\ncomputer-crime technology-law digital-rights", "title": "Computer Fraud and Abuse", "type": "topic"}
{"id": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/technical/TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md", "relationships": [{"object": "TECH-HYPHANET", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README", "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018"], "subject": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION"}, {"object": "TECH-GNUNET", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005"], "subject": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION"}, {"object": "PERSON-IAN-CLARKE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GUARDIAN-FREENET-DARK-SIDE-2009"], "subject": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION"}, {"object": "SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README"], "subject": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION"}, {"object": "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018"], "subject": "TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md", "sources": ["SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README", "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018", "SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION", "SRC-GUARDIAN-FREENET-DARK-SIDE-2009", "SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005", "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT", "SRC-HYPHANET-HOME"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Case-study topic on how Freenet/Hyphanet and GNUnet confronted spam and abuse when central content moderation conflicted with censorship resistance, including Freenet forum collapse and later Web of Trust filtering.", "tags": ["censorship-resistance", "peer-to-peer-networking", "privacy", "content-moderation", "case-studies", "digital-rights", "distributed-systems"], "text": "Decentralized Moderation in Censorship-Resistant Networks\nCase-study topic on how Freenet/Hyphanet and GNUnet confronted spam and abuse when central content moderation conflicted with censorship resistance, including Freenet forum collapse and later Web of Trust filtering.\ncensorship-resistance peer-to-peer-networking privacy content-moderation case-studies digital-rights distributed-systems", "title": "Decentralized Moderation in Censorship-Resistant Networks", "type": "topic"}
@@ -325,8 +365,8 @@
{"id": "TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH.md", "relationships": [{"object": "CASE-US-V-TUNICK", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH"}, {"object": "TECH-GRAPHENEOS", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES", "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026"], "subject": "TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026"], "subject": "TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH"}, {"object": "STAT-18-USC-2232", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-18-2232-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH.md", "sources": ["SRC-TUNICK-INDICTMENT-2025", "SRC-USC-18-2232-LII", "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES", "SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026", "SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Topic on government search and seizure of digital devices\u2014especially at the border\u2014and privacy technologies such as duress wipes that can collide with obstruction or destruction-of-evidence statutes.", "tags": ["fourth-amendment", "border-search", "privacy", "digital-rights", "case-studies", "open-source-software"], "text": "Device Search, Seizure, and Anti-Forensics\nTopic on government search and seizure of digital devices\u2014especially at the border\u2014and privacy technologies such as duress wipes that can collide with obstruction or destruction-of-evidence statutes.\nfourth-amendment border-search privacy digital-rights case-studies open-source-software", "title": "Device Search, Seizure, and Anti-Forensics", "type": "topic"}
{"id": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-USC-17-512-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE"}, {"object": "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "subject": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE"}, {"object": "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE"}, {"object": "STAT-DMCA-512", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "subject": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE"}, {"object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE"}, {"object": "TOPIC-SAFE-HARBOR", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"], "subject": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE"}, {"object": "ORG-EFF", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "subject": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE.md", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-LII", "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO", "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP", "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9", "SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX"], "status": "draft", "summary": "U.S. DMCA notice-and-takedown and counter-notification procedure under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512, documented from statute and cited sources.", "tags": ["copyright", "safe-harbor", "digital-rights", "intermediary-liability"], "text": "DMCA Takedown and Counter-Notification\nU.S. DMCA notice-and-takedown and counter-notification procedure under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512, documented from statute and cited sources.\ncopyright safe-harbor digital-rights intermediary-liability", "title": "DMCA Takedown and Counter-Notification", "type": "topic"}
{"id": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION.md", "relationships": [{"object": "ORG-SIGNAL", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SIGNAL-HOME"], "subject": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION"}, {"object": "ORG-TELEGRAM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018"], "subject": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION"}, {"object": "TECH-PGP", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"], "subject": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"], "subject": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-WYDEN-EARN-IT"], "subject": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION.md", "sources": ["SRC-SIGNAL-HOME", "SRC-WYDEN-EARN-IT", "SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS", "SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT", "SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018", "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Topic on end-to-end encryption systems and government efforts to compel access, weaken standards, or condition intermediary protections in ways critics say undermine strong encryption.", "tags": ["cryptography", "encryption-law", "secure-messaging", "privacy", "surveillance", "digital-rights", "public-policy"], "text": "End-to-End Encryption and Compelled Access\nTopic on end-to-end encryption systems and government efforts to compel access, weaken standards, or condition intermediary protections in ways critics say undermine strong encryption.\ncryptography encryption-law secure-messaging privacy surveillance digital-rights public-policy", "title": "End-to-End Encryption and Compelled Access", "type": "topic"}
-{"id": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "ORG-EFF", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO", "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP", "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "status": "draft", "summary": "U.S. fair use law as it applies to video that incorporates copyrighted music, footage, clips, or other third-party material, documented from statute and cited sources.", "tags": ["copyright", "digital-rights"], "text": "Fair Use and Video\nU.S. fair use law as it applies to video that incorporates copyrighted music, footage, clips, or other third-party material, documented from statute and cited sources.\ncopyright digital-rights", "title": "Fair Use and Video", "type": "topic"}
-{"id": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "last_verified": "2026-07-31", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CFA-HOME"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "ORG-FIRE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-FIRE-MISSION"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII", "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA", "SRC-FIRE-MISSION"], "status": "draft", "summary": "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses religion, expression, assembly, and petition rights.", "tags": ["constitutional-law", "first-amendment", "digital-rights", "speech-and-code"], "text": "First Amendment\nThe First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses religion, expression, assembly, and petition rights.\nconstitutional-law first-amendment digital-rights speech-and-code", "title": "First Amendment", "type": "topic"}
+{"id": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "ORG-EFF", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO", "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP", "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "status": "draft", "summary": "U.S. fair use law as it applies to video that incorporates copyrighted music, footage, clips, or other third-party material, documented from statute and cited sources.", "tags": ["copyright", "digital-rights"], "text": "Fair Use and Video\nU.S. fair use law as it applies to video that incorporates copyrighted music, footage, clips, or other third-party material, documented from statute and cited sources.\ncopyright digital-rights", "title": "Fair Use and Video", "type": "topic"}
+{"id": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "last_verified": "2026-07-31", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CFA-HOME"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "ORG-FIRE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-FIRE-MISSION"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII", "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA", "SRC-FIRE-MISSION", "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses religion, expression, assembly, and petition rights.", "tags": ["constitutional-law", "first-amendment", "digital-rights", "speech-and-code"], "text": "First Amendment\nThe First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses religion, expression, assembly, and petition rights.\nconstitutional-law first-amendment digital-rights speech-and-code", "title": "First Amendment", "type": "topic"}
{"id": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT", "last_verified": "2026-07-30", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-IV-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-IV-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT"}, {"object": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT.md", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-IV-LII", "SRC-CARPENTER-LII", "SRC-CHATRIE-LII", "SRC-HILL-MARLOW-REVERSE-WARRANTS-2026"], "status": "draft", "summary": "The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits unreasonable searches and seizures and is a foundational source for privacy and surveillance law.", "tags": ["constitutional-law", "fourth-amendment", "privacy", "digital-rights", "surveillance"], "text": "Fourth Amendment\nThe Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits unreasonable searches and seizures and is a foundational source for privacy and surveillance law.\nconstitutional-law fourth-amendment privacy digital-rights surveillance", "title": "Fourth Amendment", "type": "topic"}
{"id": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY", "last_verified": "2026-07-29", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"], "subject": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-SAFE-HARBOR", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"], "subject": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY"}, {"object": "STAT-DMCA-512", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"], "subject": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY"}, {"object": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY"}, {"object": "EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"], "subject": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY"}, {"object": "ORG-TELEGRAM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"], "subject": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY.md", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO", "SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA", "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Intermediary liability concerns when online platforms, service providers, or other intermediaries may be held legally responsible for user or third-party content or conduct.", "tags": ["intermediary-liability", "copyright", "digital-rights", "safe-harbor"], "text": "Intermediary Liability\nIntermediary liability concerns when online platforms, service providers, or other intermediaries may be held legally responsible for user or third-party content or conduct.\nintermediary-liability copyright digital-rights safe-harbor", "title": "Intermediary Liability", "type": "topic"}
{"id": "TOPIC-KADEMLIA", "last_verified": "2026-06-17", "path": "knowledge/technical/TOPIC-KADEMLIA.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER"], "subject": "TOPIC-KADEMLIA"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-KADEMLIA.md", "sources": ["SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Kademlia is a peer-to-peer distributed hash table described in a 2002 paper by Petar Maymounkov and David Mazi\u00e8res.", "tags": ["peer-to-peer-networking", "distributed-systems", "distributed-hash-tables"], "text": "Kademlia\nKademlia is a peer-to-peer distributed hash table described in a 2002 paper by Petar Maymounkov and David Mazi\u00e8res.\npeer-to-peer-networking distributed-systems distributed-hash-tables", "title": "Kademlia", "type": "topic"}
diff --git a/generated/review-status.json b/generated/review-status.json
index 7729265c..f17a2714 100644
--- a/generated/review-status.json
+++ b/generated/review-status.json
@@ -1,19 +1,19 @@
{
"by_status": {
- "draft": 219,
+ "draft": 259,
"verified": 116
},
"by_type": {
"attorney": 18,
- "case": 20,
+ "case": 31,
"historical_event": 4,
"organization": 23,
"person": 30,
"protocol": 3,
- "source": 207,
+ "source": 232,
"statute": 8,
"technology": 6,
- "topic": 16
+ "topic": 20
},
"description": "Generated review status dashboard.",
"missing_last_verified": [
@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
"SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED",
"SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026",
"SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
"SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026",
"SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING",
"SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008",
@@ -39,6 +41,8 @@
"SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-BIO",
"SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001",
"SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
"SRC-COOLEY-TECH",
"SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET",
"SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001",
@@ -57,6 +61,10 @@
"SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS",
"SRC-FRANCE24-DUROV-KAMINSKI-2024",
"SRC-FREENET-HISTORY",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025",
"SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT",
"SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA",
"SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES",
@@ -68,6 +76,7 @@
"SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII",
"SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025",
"SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025",
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
"SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL",
"SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA",
"SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS",
@@ -76,11 +85,15 @@
"SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005",
"SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT",
"SRC-MEDUZA-DUROV-FSB-2026",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
"SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076",
"SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321",
"SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT",
"SRC-OIR-PROJECT-CHARTER-DOCX",
"SRC-OIR-ROADMAP-DOCX",
+ "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024",
"SRC-PAUL-FISA",
"SRC-PAUL-FOURTH-AMENDMENT",
"SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH",
@@ -88,10 +101,15 @@
"SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024",
"SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV",
"SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018",
+ "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET",
"SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026",
"SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026",
"SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ",
"SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS",
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
"SRC-TR-IAN-CLARKE",
"SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022",
"SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023",
@@ -102,7 +120,14 @@
"SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026",
"SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED",
"SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET",
"SRC-USC-18-2232-LII",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023",
"SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA",
"SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET",
"SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE",
@@ -113,19 +138,30 @@
"SRC-WYDEN-SECTION-230",
"SRC-WYDEN-USA-RIGHTS-ACT",
"SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996",
+ "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
"CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ",
"CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS",
"CASE-CARPENTER-V-US",
"CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420",
"CASE-CHATRIE-V-US",
"CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN",
+ "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
"CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE",
"CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY",
+ "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
"CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL",
"CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV",
+ "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
"CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC",
"CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL",
"CASE-RENO-V-ACLU",
+ "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM",
+ "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO",
+ "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO",
"CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY",
"CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ",
"CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV",
@@ -225,7 +261,11 @@
"TECH-PGP",
"TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET",
"TECH-TORNADO-CASH",
+ "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT",
+ "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION",
+ "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT",
"TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION",
+ "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT",
"TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH",
"TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD",
"TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION",
@@ -245,7 +285,7 @@
"schema_version": 1,
"totals": {
"missing_last_verified": 3,
- "needing_review": 219,
- "records": 335
+ "needing_review": 259,
+ "records": 375
}
}
diff --git a/generated/taxonomy-audit.json b/generated/taxonomy-audit.json
index bc7ba1d3..8dbf9e38 100644
--- a/generated/taxonomy-audit.json
+++ b/generated/taxonomy-audit.json
@@ -1,105 +1,106 @@
-{
- "generated_at": "2026-08-22T06:22:22.486197Z",
- "summary": {
- "declared_tags": 55,
- "used_tags": 57,
- "total_applications": 1493,
- "orphan_tags": 13,
- "undeclared_tags": 15,
- "similar_pairs": 0,
- "untagged_content": 0
- },
- "tag_usage": {
- "source": 208,
- "digital-rights": 169,
- "privacy": 114,
- "organization": 91,
- "open-source-software": 78,
- "first-amendment": 71,
- "person": 68,
- "outreach": 56,
- "internet-governance": 49,
- "case": 41,
- "attorney": 41,
- "cryptography": 33,
- "copyright": 32,
- "surveillance": 32,
- "censorship-resistance": 26,
- "case-studies": 23,
- "fourth-amendment": 23,
- "computer-crime": 23,
- "internet-architecture": 22,
- "speech-and-code": 21,
- "sanctions": 19,
- "civil-society": 19,
- "intermediary-liability": 18,
- "peer-to-peer-networking": 17,
- "statute": 16,
- "secure-messaging": 15,
- "open-source-risk": 14,
- "age-verification": 14,
- "case-law": 12,
- "public-policy": 10,
- "safe-harbor": 10,
- "historical-event": 9,
- "technology": 9,
- "developer-rights": 8,
- "border-search": 7,
- "encryption-law": 7,
- "network-protocols": 7,
- "tornado-cash": 6,
- "export-control": 6,
- "constitutional-law": 5,
- "distributed-systems": 5,
- "technology-law": 4,
- "content-moderation": 4,
- "privacy-preserving-systems": 3,
- "civil-liberties": 3,
- "researcher": 3,
- "technical": 3,
- "imported-source": 3,
- "project-governance": 3,
- "technical-standard": 3,
- "academic-paper": 3,
- "distributed-hash-tables": 2,
- "software-distribution": 1,
- "example-tag": 1,
- "commentary": 1,
- "academic": 1,
- "onion-routing": 1
- },
- "orphan_tags": [
- "axona",
- "consensus",
- "content-addressing",
- "court",
- "cryptographic-signatures",
- "due-process",
- "key-management",
- "paper",
- "prior-restraint",
- "protocol",
- "regulation",
- "routing",
- "software-publication"
- ],
- "undeclared_tags": [
- "academic",
- "academic-paper",
- "border-search",
- "case-law",
- "civil-liberties",
- "commentary",
- "example-tag",
- "imported-source",
- "onion-routing",
- "outreach",
- "person",
- "project-governance",
- "technical",
- "technical-standard",
- "technology-law"
- ],
- "similar_pairs": [],
- "untagged_content": []
+{
+ "generated_at": "2026-08-22T18:33:05.063315Z",
+ "summary": {
+ "declared_tags": 56,
+ "used_tags": 58,
+ "total_applications": 1655,
+ "orphan_tags": 13,
+ "undeclared_tags": 15,
+ "similar_pairs": 0,
+ "untagged_content": 0
+ },
+ "tag_usage": {
+ "source": 233,
+ "digital-rights": 187,
+ "privacy": 114,
+ "organization": 91,
+ "open-source-software": 78,
+ "first-amendment": 75,
+ "case": 74,
+ "copyright": 68,
+ "person": 68,
+ "outreach": 56,
+ "internet-governance": 49,
+ "attorney": 41,
+ "artificial-intelligence": 40,
+ "cryptography": 33,
+ "surveillance": 32,
+ "case-studies": 27,
+ "censorship-resistance": 26,
+ "fourth-amendment": 23,
+ "computer-crime": 23,
+ "internet-architecture": 22,
+ "speech-and-code": 21,
+ "intermediary-liability": 20,
+ "sanctions": 19,
+ "civil-society": 19,
+ "peer-to-peer-networking": 17,
+ "statute": 16,
+ "secure-messaging": 15,
+ "age-verification": 14,
+ "open-source-risk": 14,
+ "case-law": 12,
+ "public-policy": 10,
+ "safe-harbor": 10,
+ "historical-event": 9,
+ "technology": 9,
+ "developer-rights": 8,
+ "border-search": 7,
+ "encryption-law": 7,
+ "network-protocols": 7,
+ "export-control": 6,
+ "tornado-cash": 6,
+ "constitutional-law": 5,
+ "distributed-systems": 5,
+ "technology-law": 4,
+ "content-moderation": 4,
+ "privacy-preserving-systems": 3,
+ "civil-liberties": 3,
+ "researcher": 3,
+ "technical": 3,
+ "academic-paper": 3,
+ "imported-source": 3,
+ "project-governance": 3,
+ "technical-standard": 3,
+ "distributed-hash-tables": 2,
+ "software-distribution": 1,
+ "example-tag": 1,
+ "academic": 1,
+ "onion-routing": 1,
+ "commentary": 1
+ },
+ "orphan_tags": [
+ "axona",
+ "consensus",
+ "content-addressing",
+ "court",
+ "cryptographic-signatures",
+ "due-process",
+ "key-management",
+ "paper",
+ "prior-restraint",
+ "protocol",
+ "regulation",
+ "routing",
+ "software-publication"
+ ],
+ "undeclared_tags": [
+ "academic",
+ "academic-paper",
+ "border-search",
+ "case-law",
+ "civil-liberties",
+ "commentary",
+ "example-tag",
+ "imported-source",
+ "onion-routing",
+ "outreach",
+ "person",
+ "project-governance",
+ "technical",
+ "technical-standard",
+ "technology-law"
+ ],
+ "similar_pairs": [],
+ "untagged_content": []
}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/generated/timeline.json b/generated/timeline.json
index 5c00c4d7..912717a7 100644
--- a/generated/timeline.json
+++ b/generated/timeline.json
@@ -257,6 +257,54 @@
"record_title": "United States v. Tunick",
"record_type": "case"
},
+ {
+ "date": "2025-02-11",
+ "description": "Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.",
+ "event_type": "decision",
+ "record_id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS",
+ "record_title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.",
+ "record_type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "date": "2025-03-18",
+ "description": "Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.",
+ "event_type": "decision",
+ "record_id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER",
+ "record_title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter",
+ "record_type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "date": "2025-04-04",
+ "description": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.",
+ "event_type": "decision",
+ "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)",
+ "record_type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "date": "2025-05-20",
+ "description": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.",
+ "event_type": "decision",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES",
+ "record_title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.",
+ "record_type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "date": "2025-06-23",
+ "description": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.",
+ "event_type": "decision",
+ "record_id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "record_type": "case"
+ },
+ {
+ "date": "2025-06-25",
+ "description": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors\u2019 books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.",
+ "event_type": "decision",
+ "record_id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META",
+ "record_title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.",
+ "record_type": "case"
+ },
{
"date": "2025-07-30",
"description": "Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill, co-founders of Samourai Wallet, pled guilty in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds and were sentenced to five and four years in prison.",
@@ -273,6 +321,14 @@
"record_title": "United States v. Storm",
"record_type": "case"
},
+ {
+ "date": "2025-10-06",
+ "description": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.",
+ "event_type": "decision",
+ "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC",
+ "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC",
+ "record_type": "case"
+ },
{
"date": "2025-10-13",
"description": "California\u2019s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043; Civ. Code Title 1.81.9) requires operating system providers to collect age at account setup and send age-bracket signals to apps, and requires developers to request those signals; effective January 1, 2026 and operative January 1, 2027.",
@@ -281,6 +337,14 @@
"record_title": "California Digital Age Assurance Act (Civ. Code \u00a7\u00a7 1798.500\u20131798.505)",
"record_type": "statute"
},
+ {
+ "date": "2025-11-11",
+ "description": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.",
+ "event_type": "decision",
+ "record_id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI",
+ "record_title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)",
+ "record_type": "case"
+ },
{
"date": "2025-11-13",
"description": "United States v. Tunick, No. 1:25-cr-00499 (N.D. Ga.), is a pending federal prosecution charging Samuel Tunick under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2232(a) for allegedly deleting digital contents of a Google Pixel phone during a January 24, 2025 CBP secondary inspection at Atlanta\u2019s airport; public reporting links the wipe to GrapheneOS duress credentials.",
diff --git a/generated/used-for.json b/generated/used-for.json
index a916d1e8..be9d29c6 100644
--- a/generated/used-for.json
+++ b/generated/used-for.json
@@ -2,6 +2,14 @@
"description": "Generated index of Used For terms from source records.",
"schema_version": 1,
"terms": [
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`"
+ },
{
"sources": [
"SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF",
@@ -48,6 +56,27 @@
],
"term": "`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN`"
},
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`"
+ },
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`"
+ },
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`"
+ },
{
"sources": [
"SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"
@@ -61,6 +90,13 @@
],
"term": "`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`"
},
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-KADREY-V-META`"
+ },
{
"sources": [
"SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9",
@@ -76,6 +112,14 @@
],
"term": "`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV`"
},
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`"
+ },
{
"sources": [
"SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO",
@@ -98,6 +142,46 @@
],
"term": "`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU`"
},
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`"
+ },
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`"
+ },
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`"
+ },
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`"
+ },
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET"
+ ],
+ "term": "`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`"
+ },
{
"sources": [
"SRC-CORLEY-LII"
@@ -808,6 +892,62 @@
],
"term": "`TECH-TORNADO-CASH`"
},
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-USC-17-107-LII",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023",
+ "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"
+ ],
+ "term": "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`"
+ },
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"
+ ],
+ "term": "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`"
+ },
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025",
+ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025",
+ "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET"
+ ],
+ "term": "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`"
+ },
{
"sources": [
"SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED",
@@ -823,6 +963,17 @@
],
"term": "`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`"
},
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT",
+ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET",
+ "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025",
+ "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"
+ ],
+ "term": "`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`"
+ },
{
"sources": [
"SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO",
@@ -875,6 +1026,12 @@
],
"term": "`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`"
},
+ {
+ "sources": [
+ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"
+ ],
+ "term": "`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`"
+ },
{
"sources": [
"SRC-CARPENTER-GOVINFO",
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f613b6d2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+---
+id: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+title: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+ - subject: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-06-23"
+---
+
+# Bartz v. Anthropic PBC
+
+## Summary
+
+Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. C 24-05417 (N.D. Cal.), is an authors’ class action over Anthropic’s copying of books to assemble a library and train Claude. On June 23, 2025, Judge William Alsup held that training on the books was exceedingly transformative fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, and that converting purchased print copies into digital library copies was also fair use, but that creating a permanent general-purpose library from pirated copies was not excused as fair use. On July 20, 2026, the court granted final approval of a $1.5 billion settlement of claims about past pirated acquisition and copying of works on a defined Works List.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Named author plaintiffs include Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson, with affiliated corporate entities Bartz Inc. and MJ + KJ Inc.[^1]
+- Anthropic is described as an AI firm founded in January 2021 whose service Claude was first released publicly in March 2023.[^1]
+- The fair-use order states that Anthropic downloaded Books3, LibGen, and PiLiMi collections containing pirated books, amounting to over seven million copies, and also purchased millions of print books that were stripped and scanned into a digital library.[^1]
+- On summary judgment limited to fair use, the court held that using the books to train Claude and its precursors “was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107.”[^1]
+- The court held that digitizing purchased print copies for Anthropic’s central library was fair use because the digital copies replaced the purchased print copies without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies.[^1]
+- The court held that Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library and that creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing the piracy.[^1]
+- Authors did not allege in that motion practice that any LLM outputs infringed their works; the order addresses training copies and library copies.[^1]
+- On July 20, 2026, the court granted final approval of a non-reversionary $1.5 billion settlement covering beneficial or legal copyright owners of books on a Works List drawn from LibGen or PiLiMi versions Anthropic downloaded, limited to works with ISBN or ASIN and timely U.S. copyright registration.[^2]
+- The final-approval order states that the Works List contained 482,460 works, that about $3,000 per work was the estimated payment (four times the $750 ordinary statutory minimum), and that as of April 16, 2026, 440,490 works (91.3 percent) had been claimed.[^2]
+- The court described the release as covering past AI inputs (pirating and copying) up to the point of any AI output, and as not releasing claims about past AI outputs or claims about future conduct on or after August 25, 2025.[^2]
+- The settlement provides for destruction of class members’ pirated works; the order quotes Anthropic’s representation that neither the LibGen nor PiLiMi datasets were in the training corpus of any commercially released large language model.[^2]
+- The court awarded class counsel $101,561,111 in fees (nearly 6.8 percent of the fund plus interest), expense reimbursement, and $15,000 service awards to each of three class representatives.[^2]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE` — Order on Fair Use (June 23, 2025). Primary district-court authority.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL` — Final approval order (July 20, 2026). Primary court order on settlement terms.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+The case was among the first to split AI-training copying from the method of acquiring the training corpus. Judge Alsup’s order is frequently contrasted with [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), decided two days later, which granted fair use on a different market-harm record and criticized Bartz’s treatment of market dilution.[^1]
+
+The later settlement is a class compromise of the remaining piracy-library theory, not a stipulated holding that training is always fair use or always infringement.[^2]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Authority level: district-court summary-judgment order plus class-settlement approval. Not circuit precedent.
+
+The fair-use holding applies [17 U.S.C. § 107](STAT-USC-107.md) factor by factor to three uses: (1) training copies, (2) purchased-and-scanned library copies, and (3) pirated library copies.[^1] Training was treated as transformative because the models learned to generate new text rather than to provide the books to the public as books.[^1] Pirated acquisition for a retained general-purpose library was treated as a substitute for paid copies and therefore not transformative in the same way.[^1] Buying a copy later does not, the court noted, absolve liability for earlier theft, though it may affect statutory damages.[^1]
+
+The settlement’s narrow release is legally significant: output claims and post-August 25, 2025 conduct remain outside the class deal, and works not on the Works List are unaffected.[^2]
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` cites `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`.
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-KADREY-V-META`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`: Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025).
+2. `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`: Final approval order (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026).
+
+Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):
+
+- `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add the class-certification order and settlement agreement as dedicated sources.
+- Confirm Ninth Circuit Rule 23(f) petition disposition.
+- Document opt-out litigation, if any, with docket citations.
+- Obtain an official PACER/RECAP copy of Dkt. 680 in addition to the DocumentCloud file.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a515626a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+---
+id: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-10-06"
+---
+
+# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC
+
+## Summary
+
+Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.), is music-publisher litigation over song lyrics and Anthropic’s Claude models. After an initial dismissal of secondary-infringement and DMCA claims with leave to amend, Judge Eumi K. Lee on October 6, 2025 denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Direct infringement, contributory and vicarious infringement, and DMCA copyright-management-information claims therefore proceeded past that pleading stage. The case is about musical compositions (lyrics), not sound-recording masters.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- The action pending in the Northern District of California as No. 5:24-cv-03811 reflects a complaint originally filed October 18, 2023 in the Middle District of Tennessee and later transferred; the N.D. Cal. docket date is June 26, 2024.[^2]
+- Plaintiffs are eight music publishing companies: Concord Music Group, Inc., Capitol CMG, Inc., Universal Music Corp., Songs of Universal, Inc., Universal Music - MGB NA LLC, Polygram Publishing, Inc., Universal Music - Z Tunes LLC, and ABKCO Music, Inc.[^1]
+- The first amended complaint alleges that the publishers own or control exclusive rights in millions of musical compositions, including 500 works listed in Exhibit A, and that Anthropic used those lyrics to train Claude and that Claude outputs the lyrics to users.[^1]
+- Publishers allege that Anthropic curated training data from third-party datasets including Common Crawl and The Pile, and that it used the Newspaper algorithm in a way that removed copyright management information more effectively than available alternatives.[^1]
+- Claims in the FAC are (I) direct copyright infringement, (II) contributory infringement, (III) vicarious infringement, and (IV) removal or alteration of CMI under the DMCA.[^1]
+- On March 26, 2025, the court granted Anthropic’s first motion to dismiss the secondary-infringement and CMI claims, with leave to amend. Publishers filed the FAC on April 25, 2025. Anthropic moved again on May 9, 2025.[^1]
+- On October 6, 2025, the court denied the second motion to dismiss in full, holding that the FAC plausibly alleged contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and DMCA § 1202(b)(1) and (b)(3) claims, and ordered Anthropic to answer within 14 days after a ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.[^1]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025` — Order denying MTD (Oct. 6, 2025). Primary for parties, claims, procedural history, alleged FAC facts, and holdings.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET` — CourtListener docket for No. 5:24-cv-03811. Primary for original Tennessee filing date and transfer caption.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Concord is the leading U.S. publisher suit about lyrics in large language models, distinct from the label suits against [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings) and from [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (books and a pirated-library settlement). The October 2025 order is a pleading decision, not a fair-use holding.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: Rule 12(b)(6) order. The court accepted FAC allegations as true for that motion and did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md).[^1]
+
+Two points matter for the rest of the AI-copyright map. First, the works are short, highly memorable lyrics. Publishers allege regurgitation from simple prompts, which is closer to the output-substitution theory in [Times v. OpenAI](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) than to Bartz’s purchased-book training holding.[^1] Second, the court allowed DMCA CMI claims to proceed on allegations that Anthropic chose a stripping algorithm and distributed lyrics without CMI while concealing its own infringement, distinguishing Tremblay’s third-party-user framing.[^1]
+
+A related later action, Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:26-cv-00880 (N.D. Cal.), appears on CourtListener as filed January 28, 2026. This page does not treat that docket’s allegations as found facts.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` cites `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`.
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`: Order denying motion to dismiss FAC (Oct. 6, 2025).
+2. `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`: CourtListener docket for No. 5:24-cv-03811.
+3. `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add the original Tennessee complaint, the FAC, and any second amended complaint as operative-pleading sources.
+- Add the March 26, 2025 dismissal order and any preliminary-injunction ruling from primary PDFs.
+- Add No. 5:26-cv-00880 (and any BMG publisher action) from those complaints, not trackers.
+- Add Anthropic’s answer and any later merits order.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ec3b4cca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+---
+id: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+title: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - first-amendment
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+ - intermediary-liability
+sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-05-20"
+---
+
+# Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.
+
+## Summary
+
+Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a civil action arising from the death of a 14-year-old Character.AI user. On May 20, 2025, Judge Anne C. Conway dismissed intentional infliction of emotional distress and dismissed Alphabet Inc. without prejudice, but otherwise denied motions to dismiss, including product-liability and negligence theories, and declined at the pleading stage to hold that Character.AI outputs are protected First Amendment speech.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- The original complaint was filed October 22, 2024, in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, by Megan Garcia individually and as personal representative of the estate of S.R.S. III, against Character Technologies, Inc., Noam Shazeer, Daniel De Frietas Adiwarsana, Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., and unnamed defendants.[^1]
+- The complaint alleges wrongful death, strict product liability, negligence, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act violations, and related claims arising from the minor’s use of the Character.AI product.[^1]
+- Nature of suit on the public docket is personal-injury product liability; the cause is diversity product liability (28 U.S.C. § 1332).[^1]
+- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that the First Amendment precludes the claims and that Character.AI is not a product for product-liability purposes.[^2]
+- On May 20, 2025, the court dismissed claims against Alphabet Inc. without prejudice after plaintiff represented she wished to dismiss that defendant.[^2]
+- The court granted the remaining defendants’ motions without leave to amend as to the IIED claim and otherwise denied the motions as to remaining claims.[^2]
+- Personal-jurisdiction motions by the individual defendants were denied, with leave to refile a Rule 12(b)(2) motion after 90 days of jurisdictional discovery. Answers were due June 10, 2025.[^2]
+- The court held it was “not prepared to hold that the Character A.I. LLM’s output is speech at this stage,” stating defendants had not articulated why words strung together by an LLM are speech, and noting that Character.AI “is not a ‘person’ and is therefore not protected by the Bill of Rights.”[^2]
+- The court discussed [Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.](CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md) and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC as defendants’ analogies, but held the operative question is whether Character.AI’s output is expressive speech, not merely whether chatbots resemble games or social-media feeds.[^2]
+- The court held that Character.AI is a product for purposes of plaintiff’s product-liability claims “so far as Plaintiff’s claims arise from defects in the Character A.I. app rather than ideas or expressions within the app.”[^2]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT` — Original complaint (Oct. 22, 2024). Plaintiff allegations; this page does not reproduce alleged chatbot content or details of the death.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025` — Order on motions to dismiss (May 20, 2025). Primary district-court pleading-stage authority.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Garcia is among the first federal cases to test whether a companion chatbot is a “product” whose design can support wrongful-death liability, as distinct from a publisher of protected speech. The May 2025 order is a pleading-stage decision, not a finding that Character.AI caused the death or that chatbot outputs can never be speech.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: Middle District of Florida. Authority level: district-court order on motions to dismiss. Not circuit precedent. The order does not decide the merits.
+
+The First Amendment analysis is limited: defendants may assert users’ rights to receive speech, but at the 12(b)(6) stage they had not shown LLM output is speech.[^2] The product-liability analysis separates design choices (age checks, reporting tools, human-like mannerisms, inability to exclude indecent content) from the content of particular messages.[^2] That distinction is the holding most likely to be cited in later AI-harm suits.
+
+This page does not state that any defendant is liable. Later docket events, including any settlement, are research debt.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` cites `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`.
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` related_to `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`.
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` related_to `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`.
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` related_to `CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`.
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` related_to `TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT`: Original complaint (Oct. 22, 2024).
+2. `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`: Order on motions to dismiss (May 20, 2025).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add the second amended complaint as the later operative pleading.
+- Verify post-answer docket events (discovery, any settlement) from CourtListener rather than secondary trackers.
+- Confirm whether defendants raised 47 U.S.C. § 230 in later pleadings; the May 2025 order’s Section 230 treatment was not relied on in the verified facts above.
+- Add Moody v. NetChoice as a CASE page if OIR expands platform-speech coverage.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..1026c400
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+---
+id: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+title: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-11-11"
+---
+
+# GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)
+
+## Summary
+
+GEMA v. OpenAI, Az. 42 O 14139/24 (LG München I, Nov. 11, 2025), is a German first-instance copyright judgment for Germany’s musical collecting society against two OpenAI group companies. The 42nd Civil Chamber largely granted injunction, information, and damages claims over nine German song lyrics, holding that memorization in models 4 and 4o and output of those lyrics were unauthorized reproductions not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception. A personality-rights claim over misattributed altered lyrics was dismissed. The court’s press release states that the judgment is not final.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- On November 11, 2025, Landgericht München I entered judgment in 42 O 14139/24 on claims by GEMA against two OpenAI-group defendants concerning nine well-known German song lyrics, including “Atemlos” (Kristina Bach) and “Wie schön, dass du geboren bist” (Rolf Zuckowski).[^1][^2]
+- The court enjoined the defendants, on pain of a fine of up to €250,000 or imprisonment, from reproducing the lyrics in large language models without consent, as occurred in models 4 and 4o, and from making the lyrics available or reproducing them in chatbot outputs without consent.[^1]
+- The court also ordered the defendants to provide an organized accounting of the extent of those acts and resulting revenues (from specified start dates for each defendant) and addressed damages and pre-litigation costs in the tenor.[^1]
+- The official headnotes state that memorization can be found by comparing the original work with output from a simple prompt; that memorization in a language model is a reproduction under § 16 UrhG because the work is physically fixed and can be made indirectly perceptible; that fixation does not require identifying a discrete dataset if the work is present in model parameters; and that § 44b UrhG covers reproductions when compiling training material, not training that goes beyond preparing text-and-data mining.[^1]
+- The court held the model operators liable for infringing outputs because they exercise control (Tatherrschaft); users may assume control if they provoke outputs, but that is not so for simple prompts.[^1]
+- The chamber rejected the TDM exception for in-model reproductions: preparatory copies for analysis do not affect authors’ exploitation interests, but storing works in specified model parameters does. It also rejected an analogical extension of § 44b and rejected § 57 UrhG (insignificant accessory) because the training corpus is not itself a protected main work.[^2]
+- The chamber dismissed GEMA’s additional claim for violation of general personality rights based on incorrect attribution of altered lyrics.[^2]
+- The official press release states that the judgment is not legally binding (nicht rechtskräftig). The official decision report lists an appellate caption OLG München 6 U 3662/25 e.[^1][^2]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025` — Official Endurteil report (Nov. 11, 2025). Primary for tenor, headnotes, and appeal caption.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025` — Official court press release (Nov. 11, 2025). Primary for summary holdings, dismissed personality-rights claim, and non-final status.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+GEMA is a collecting society asserting lyrics, not record-label master rights. The theory—that a model that can emit lyrics on a simple prompt has reproduced those lyrics in its parameters—parallels the U.S. publisher allegations in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), but this is a first-instance merits judgment under the German Copyright Act and the InfoSoc and DSM Directives, not a U.S. fair-use case.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: Landgericht München I (first instance). Authority level: non-final German judgment. It does not bind U.S. courts and is not a Court of Justice of the European Union ruling.[^1][^2]
+
+The doctrinal move is to treat extractable memorization as “reproduction in any manner or form” under Art. 2 InfoSoc Directive / § 16 UrhG, including fixation as probability parameters.[^1][^2] The court then narrows commercial TDM (§ 44b UrhG / Art. 4 DSM Directive) to corpus-preparation copies, not lasting embodiment of works in a trained model.[^1] Operator liability for simple-prompt outputs follows from the court’s view that the model, not the user, generates the content.[^1]
+
+Comparative use: this is evidence of one EU member-state first-instance approach to lyrics and LLMs. It is not a statement of settled EU law, and it is not a holding about generative audio models such as [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) or [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md).
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` cites `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`.
+- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`: LG München I Endurteil, 42 O 14139/24 (Nov. 11, 2025).
+2. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`: LG München I Pressemitteilung 11/2025.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add any OLG München appellate judgment in 6 U 3662/25 e when issued.
+- Add GEMA’s complaint or a certified English translation only if an official or party-issued text is available.
+- Add GEMA v. Suno or other German music-AI judgments from official court texts, not trackers.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e369323a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+---
+id: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+title: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors’ books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+ - subject: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-06-25"
+---
+
+# Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
+
+## Summary
+
+Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), is a Northern District of California action by thirteen authors alleging that Meta downloaded their books from shadow libraries and used them to train Llama models. On June 25, 2025, Judge Vince Chhabria granted Meta’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on fair use as to that training copying, emphasizing the plaintiffs’ failure to present market-dilution evidence, while scheduling further proceedings on alleged unlawful distribution during torrenting.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Case No. 3:23-cv-03417-VC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Order dated June 25, 2025 (Dkt. 598).[^1]
+- Plaintiffs are thirteen authors, described by the court as mostly famous fiction writers, who sued Meta for downloading their books from online “shadow libraries” and using them to train Llama large language models.[^1]
+- The court stated that, in most cases, unauthorized copying of protected works to train generative AI “will likely” be illegal because of market-dilution risk, but that courts must decide on the evidence presented.[^1]
+- Plaintiffs’ two primary market theories on the fair-use motions were that Llama could reproduce small snippets and that training without permission diminished a market to license books as AI training data. The court called both “clear losers” on this record: Llama was not capable of generating enough text from the plaintiffs’ books to matter, and plaintiffs were not entitled to a licensing market for AI training data as such.[^1]
+- The court identified market dilution (flooding the market with competing AI-generated works) as the potentially winning theory, but held that plaintiffs barely addressed it and presented no meaningful evidence of it.[^1]
+- Because Meta’s use was highly transformative, the court held plaintiffs needed to win decisively on the fourth fair-use factor; absent dilution evidence, factor four favored Meta and Meta was entitled to summary judgment on fair use for using these plaintiffs’ books as LLM training data.[^1]
+- The court distinguished [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md), arguing that Judge Alsup underweighted market harm by analogizing AI training to teaching schoolchildren to write.[^1]
+- The order states that a separate ruling would grant Meta summary judgment on the DMCA claim, and set a July 11, 2025 conference on the claim that Meta unlawfully distributed the works during torrenting.[^1]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE` — Order on partial summary judgment (June 25, 2025). Primary district-court authority.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Kadrey and Bartz were decided in the same district two days apart and immediately framed a split in how Northern District judges weigh transformativeness against market harm for LLM training.[^1] Kadrey is not a holding that shadow-library downloading is always lawful; the court left distribution/torrenting issues open and repeatedly warned that other plaintiffs with a developed dilution record might win.[^1]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: N.D. Cal. Authority level: district-court partial summary judgment. Not circuit precedent.
+
+The opinion treats [17 U.S.C. § 107](STAT-USC-107.md) as fact-specific. Factor one favored Meta as highly transformative; factor four was treated as the most important and turned on the absence of dilution proof rather than on a categorical rule that training is fair use.[^1] The court rejected an argument that adverse copyright rulings would halt LLM development, stating that developers could license works or use public-domain materials.[^1]
+
+Software companies should not read Kadrey as a safe harbor for training on pirated books. The fair-use win is limited to copying these thirteen authors’ books as training data on this evidentiary record, with distribution claims reserved.[^1]
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-KADREY-V-META` cites `SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`.
+- `CASE-KADREY-V-META` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+- `CASE-KADREY-V-META` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-KADREY-V-META` related_to `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
+
+Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):
+
+- `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add a CourtListener/RECAP copy of Dkt. 598 in addition to the Justia PDF.
+- Document the later torrenting/distribution rulings and any appeal.
+- Identify the thirteen named plaintiffs from the complaint as a source-backed list.
+- Add the Copyright Office fair-use summary (788 F. Supp. 3d) as a secondary finding aid only.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d7679502
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+---
+id: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+title: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-04-04"
+---
+
+# The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)
+
+## Summary
+
+The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.), is lead publisher copyright litigation against OpenAI and Microsoft over alleged copying of news works to train GPT-based products and alleged output-stage substitution. On April 4, 2025, Judge Sidney H. Stein largely denied motions to dismiss copyright claims in the Times, Daily News, and Center for Investigative Reporting actions. On August 6, 2026, the court dismissed with prejudice the news plaintiffs’ material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- The Times filed its complaint on December 27, 2023, against Microsoft Corporation and multiple OpenAI entities, alleging claims including direct, vicarious, and contributory copyright infringement, DMCA § 1202 violations, and unfair competition by misappropriation.[^1][^2]
+- The complaint alleges that defendants used Times journalism to train GPT-based products including ChatGPT, ChatGPT Enterprise, Bing Chat, Azure OpenAI Service, and Microsoft 365 Copilot, and that outputs can reproduce Times content.[^1]
+- Related publisher actions captioned in the April 4, 2025 opinion include Daily News LP v. Microsoft Corp., No. 24-cv-3285, and Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, No. 24-cv-4872.[^2]
+- On April 4, 2025, the court held that claims of direct infringement occurring more than three years before filing were not time-barred on the pleadings, because OpenAI had not shown plaintiffs discovered or should have discovered the alleged infringement by the relevant 2020/2021 dates.[^2]
+- The court held that the publisher plaintiffs had plausibly alleged contributory copyright infringement at the pleading stage.[^2]
+- The court dismissed without prejudice specified DMCA § 1202 claims, including Microsoft’s § 1202(b)(1) claims in all three actions, OpenAI’s § 1202(b)(1) claim in the Times action, and defendants’ § 1202(b)(3) claims in all three actions, while allowing Daily News and CIR § 1202(b)(1) claims against OpenAI to proceed.[^2]
+- The court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege “hot news” misappropriation as to news content and the Times’s Wirecutter recommendations.[^2]
+- The court granted OpenAI’s motion to dismiss CIR’s direct-infringement claim insofar as it rested on ChatGPT/Copilot “abridgments” in Exhibit 11, holding those summaries were not substantially similar to CIR’s articles as a matter of law.[^2]
+- On August 6, 2026, the court dismissed with prejudice the news plaintiffs’ “material contribution” contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft premised on alleged direct infringement by end users, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cox, 146 S. Ct. 959 (2026). OpenAI’s Rule 12(c) motion was denied as moot as to those plaintiffs because they agreed to that dismissal.[^3]
+- The August 6, 2026 order also dismissed with prejudice trademark-dilution claims by the Times and Daily News, and denied the Times’s and Daily News’s motions for leave to amend to add new contributory theories against Microsoft.[^3]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT` — Original Times complaint (Dec. 27, 2023). Plaintiff allegations.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025` — Opinion (Apr. 4, 2025). Primary district-court pleading-stage authority.
+
+[^3]: `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026` — Order (Aug. 6, 2026). Primary district-court authority on later contributory-claim dismissal.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+The Times action is the highest-profile news-publisher suit in the generative-AI copyright wave. Unlike [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), which reached summary judgment on book-training fair use, this docket remained at pleadings and discovery as of the August 2026 order, with output substitution and training still live issues for remaining claims.[^2][^3]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York. Authority level: district-court pleading orders; no fair-use merits holding is recorded here.
+
+The April 2025 opinion is important for what it did not do: it refused to end the case on statute-of-limitations or contributory-infringement pleadings, while trimming DMCA CMI, hot-news, and some abridgment theories.[^2] Fair use remains a fact-intensive defense for later stages. The August 2026 order shows Supreme Court secondary-liability law (Cox) already reshaping AI cases: material-contribution theories tied to end-user outputs can fail even when direct-infringement claims against the model developer continue.[^3]
+
+This page does not treat the complaint’s exhibits of allegedly memorized articles as proven copying.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` cites `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`.
+- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`: Times complaint (Dec. 27, 2023).
+2. `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`: Opinion on motions to dismiss (Apr. 4, 2025).
+3. `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`: Order on Rule 12(c) contributory claims (Aug. 6, 2026).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add the first amended Times complaint (ECF 170) as the operative pleading source.
+- Document consolidation/MDL captioning (RECAP numbers differ across related dockets).
+- Add any summary-judgment or discovery orders on output logs after August 2026.
+- Create a dedicated CASE page for Cox v. Sony (146 S. Ct. 959 (2026)) if OIR takes on secondary copyright liability more broadly.
+- Getty Images v. Stability AI, Authors Guild/OpenAI book cases, and Disney/Midjourney remain separate research-debt case pages.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..38ef05b9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+---
+id: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+title: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+ - subject: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab
+
+## Summary
+
+Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, No. 5:25-cv-10248 (N.D. Cal.), is a pending declaratory-judgment action filed November 26, 2025. The original complaint asks the court to hold that AI-generated “brainrot” characters claimed by Mementum Lab, including Tung Tung Tung Sahur, are not protected by U.S. copyright and that their use in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot does not infringe.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- The complaint was filed November 26, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco / San Jose division, as No. 5:25-cv-10248.[^1][^2]
+- Plaintiffs are Spyder Games LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company, and Speedy Simulator Gaming, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company. Defendant is Mementum Lab, described as a French company.[^1]
+- The CourtListener docket lists Judge Noel Wise as assigned, refers Magistrate Judge Susan G. Van Keulen, codes the cause as 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (trademark) and the nature of suit as 820 (copyright), and lists a last known filing of July 31, 2026.[^2]
+- The complaint seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and a jury trial.[^1]
+- The complaint alleges that plaintiffs own Steal a Brainrot, a Roblox game that debuted in May 2025, and that they hold U.S. Copyright Registration PA0002544969 for the game.[^1]
+- The complaint alleges that “brainrots” in the game are inspired by humorous internet meme figures created using artificial intelligence programs, and that Mementum claims to own or control copyrights in more than a dozen such characters, including “Tung Tung Sahor” and “U Din Din Din Din Dun Ma Din Din Din Dun,” as well as “more than 50% of the entire ‘brainrot universe.’”[^1]
+- The complaint alleges that Mementum sent a cease-and-desist letter in early 2025 claiming that TikTok creator “Noxa” created “Tung Tung Tung Sahur” and assigned rights to Mementum, later claiming also to represent creator “Breno,” and that Mementum threatened a DMCA takedown and a copyright suit unless plaintiffs paid.[^1]
+- Plaintiffs deny that Mementum possesses valid, enforceable copyrights in the brainrots, including because, they allege, the brainrots were generated by AI without human authorship.[^1]
+- The complaint cites [Thaler v. Perlmutter](CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) and the Copyright Office’s March 2023 AI registration guidance as support for that authorship theory.[^1][^3][^4]
+- Docket entries include an amended counterclaim filed by Mementum on June 5, 2026, a Mementum motion to dismiss noticed for hearing September 16, 2026, and a Spyder motion to dismiss Mementum’s first amended counterclaims also noticed for September 16, 2026.[^2]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT` — Complaint, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff allegations except as to filing identifiers.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET` — CourtListener docket for No. 5:25-cv-10248. Procedural record as of 2026-08-22.
+
+[^3]: `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC` — Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Primary appellate authority cited in the complaint.
+
+[^4]: `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023` — 88 Fed. Reg. 16190. Agency guidance quoted in the complaint.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Steal a Brainrot is alleged to be a treasure-hunt game in which AI-inspired meme characters march on a red carpet and players steal them for virtual currency.[^1] The suit is one of the first U.S. federal cases to apply the post-Thaler human-authorship rule to viral, commercially valuable meme characters rather than to a registration application for a gallery image.
+
+No court has yet decided whether the characters at issue are uncopyrightable AI output, a human-authored compilation or derivative, or protectable as trademarks even if copyright fails.[^2]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Authority level: pending district-court civil action; no merits opinion is recorded here.
+
+The original complaint frames a binary: if the images were produced by AI that determined the expressive elements, Copyright Office guidance and Thaler say there is no copyright to enforce, so a threatened DMCA takedown would rest on a legally invalid claim.[^1][^3][^4] Thaler, however, involved an applicant who listed a machine as sole author and disclaimed human authorship; it does not automatically decide a later dispute in which a promoter alleges iterative prompting, naming, backstory, voice, or post-generation editing.[^3]
+
+Personal jurisdiction is pleaded under Rule 4(k)(2) on the theory that Mementum is a foreign defendant not subject to any state’s general jurisdiction and directed copyright threats and a threatened DMCA takedown at a U.S. game.[^1] Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (c)(3).[^1]
+
+Later docket activity shows the case expanded beyond the original copyright declaration: Mementum filed counterclaims and amended counterclaims, and both sides noticed motions for September 16, 2026.[^2] Those later pleadings should be read in full before describing trademark or European-law theories as facts.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` cites `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`.
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` related_to `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`.
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` related_to `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`.
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` related_to `TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`: Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025).
+2. `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`: CourtListener docket, No. 5:25-cv-10248.
+3. `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+4. `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`: Copyright Office AI registration guidance (2023).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add RECAP PDFs for Mementum’s counterclaims, any covenant not to sue, and the July 2026 scheduling / leave-to-amend orders.
+- Verify U.S. Copyright Registration PA0002544969 on copyright.gov.
+- Confirm the correct spelling and claimed creators of each disputed character from exhibit 1 to the complaint.
+- Record any ruling from the September 16, 2026 motion hearing when issued.
+- Avoid relying on trade-press articles as the sole source for later procedural developments.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7b9d441a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+---
+id: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+title: Thaler v. Perlmutter
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-03-18"
+---
+
+# Thaler v. Perlmutter
+
+## Summary
+
+Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), affirmed the Copyright Office’s refusal to register “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” an image Dr. Stephen Thaler attributed solely to a generative system he called the Creativity Machine. The D.C. Circuit held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires eligible works to be authored in the first instance by a human being.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Citation: Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025), later reported as 130 F.4th 1039. Appeal from D.D.C. No. 1:22-cv-01564.[^1]
+- Argued September 19, 2024; decided March 18, 2025. Opinion by Circuit Judge Millet, joined by Circuit Judge Wilkins and Senior Circuit Judge Rogers.[^1]
+- Thaler’s application listed the Creativity Machine as author, Thaler as copyright claimant, and described the work as “2-D artwork, Created autonomously by machine.”[^1]
+- The Copyright Office denied registration because a human being did not create the work; the Registration Program and Review Board affirmed on that ground.[^1]
+- The district court granted summary judgment for the Office, holding that “[h]uman authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright,” Thaler v. Perlmutter, 687 F. Supp. 3d 140, 146 (D.D.C. 2023).[^1]
+- The D.C. Circuit affirmed. It held that the Creativity Machine cannot be the recognized author of a copyrighted work because the Copyright Act requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being.[^1]
+- The court did not decide whether the Constitution independently requires human authorship. It treated as waived Thaler’s argument that he was the author by making and using the Creativity Machine, because that argument was not presented to the agency.[^1]
+- The court also rejected reliance on the work-made-for-hire provision as a way to vest authorship in a machine and then transfer it to Thaler on the application record.[^1]
+- The Copyright Office’s March 2023 registration guidance, issued while Thaler’s district-court case was pending, states that when AI determines the expressive elements of its output, that material is not the product of human authorship and is not protected by copyright.[^2]
+- The Office’s January 2025 copyrightability report reiterated that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable and that prompts alone do not provide sufficient control under current generally available technology.[^3]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC` — D.C. Circuit opinion. Primary authority.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023` — 88 Fed. Reg. 16190. Agency guidance.
+
+[^3]: `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025` — Copyright Office Part 2 report (Jan. 2025). Agency report.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+U.S. registration practice has long refused works that do not “owe their origin to a human agent,” a line the Office traces through its Compendium editions and through cases such as Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884), Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997), and Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).[^1][^2] Thaler presented that doctrine with a generative-AI system rather than a camera, a monkey, or an alleged spiritual author.
+
+The decision is the leading appellate statement that a non-human machine cannot be listed as author under the 1976 Act. Later disputes, including [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md), cite it when challenging copyright claims in AI-generated meme images. Those later cases may involve mixed human and machine contributions that Thaler’s waived-human-author record does not resolve.[^1]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, reviewing Copyright Office action under the APA. Authority level: binding in the D.C. Circuit; persuasive elsewhere.
+
+The opinion grounds the human-authorship requirement in statutory text and structure, including term-of-protection provisions that measure duration by a human author’s life, rather than in a constitutional holding.[^1] Because Thaler’s application and administrative appeals insisted the work was generated autonomously without human creative contribution, the court did not decide how much human prompting, selection, or editing would suffice for authorship.[^1] The Copyright Office’s later report fills that gap as agency analysis: assistive use of AI does not bar protection; human-perceptible expression, creative arrangement, and creative modification may be protected; prompt-only control, on current tools, does not.[^3]
+
+Thaler cites [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) for the incentive theory of copyright, not for a fair-use holding about AI training.[^1]
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` cites `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`.
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`.
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` related_to `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+2. `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`: Copyright Office AI registration guidance (2023).
+3. `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`: Copyright Office AI copyrightability report, Part 2 (2025).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add the D.D.C. summary-judgment opinion (687 F. Supp. 3d 140) as a dedicated source record.
+- Confirm Supreme Court certiorari status after the March 18, 2025 judgment and May 20, 2025 mandate.
+- Add the Copyright Office Review Board decision on “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” (Feb. 14, 2022) as a primary administrative source.
+- Document Zarya of the Dawn cancellation (human text, AI images) as a related registration example from the 2023 guidance footnotes.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..b3a560c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+id: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+title: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - subject: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+ - subject: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - subject: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-02-11"
+---
+
+# Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.
+
+## Summary
+
+Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025), is a copyright action over Ross’s use of Westlaw headnotes, via LegalEase “Bulk Memos,” to train a competing legal-research search engine. Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation, granted Thomson Reuters partial summary judgment on direct infringement of specified headnotes and rejected Ross’s fair-use defense, emphasizing that Ross’s tool was not generative AI and competed with Westlaw.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Plaintiffs Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH and West Publishing Corp. own Westlaw, including editorial headnotes and the Key Number System.[^1]
+- Ross built a legal-research search engine that uses artificial intelligence. After Thomson Reuters refused a license, Ross obtained roughly 25,000 Bulk Memos from LegalEase, compiled by lawyers using a guide that explained how to create questions using Westlaw headnotes.[^1]
+- In 2023 the court had largely denied summary judgment on infringement and fair use (694 F. Supp. 3d 467). In 2025 it revised that ruling under Rule 54(b).[^1]
+- The February 11, 2025 opinion granted most of Thomson Reuters’s motion for partial summary judgment on direct copyright infringement and related defenses, granted Thomson Reuters’s motion on fair use, and denied Ross’s fair-use and copyright summary-judgment motions.[^1]
+- The court held Ross’s use was commercial and not transformative because it lacked a further purpose or different character from Westlaw’s: Ross used headnotes as AI data to create a legal-research tool to compete with Westlaw.[^1]
+- The court stated it is undisputed that “Ross’s AI is not generative AI (AI that writes new content itself).” When a user enters a legal question, “Ross spits back relevant judicial opinions that have already been written.”[^1]
+- The court distinguished intermediate-copying software cases including [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md), on the ground that those cases involved copying necessary for competitors to innovate in computer programs, a factor the court found absent here.[^1]
+- Factor two (nature of the work) and factor three (amount) were treated as favoring Ross, but factor four (market effect) and factor one were treated as more important; weighing them, the court granted summary judgment for Thomson Reuters on fair use.[^1]
+- Remaining factual issues on liability for Appendix A headnotes included whether some copyrights had expired or were untimely created, a question left for the jury.[^1]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025` — Memorandum opinion (Feb. 11, 2025). Primary district-court authority.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Ross is an earlier AI-training copyright case that does not involve a chatbot that writes new prose. The court flagged that limitation expressly so later readers would not treat the opinion as a holding about generative models.[^1] Generative-training decisions such as [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) therefore address a different product, even though all three apply § 107.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: District of Delaware. Authority level: district-court summary judgment. Appellate status is research debt.
+
+The opinion is most useful as a contrast case: when an AI system is trained on copyrighted editorial content to power a substitute research product that returns existing opinions, the court found no transformative purpose and serious market harm.[^1] Companies building generative systems often argue the opposite—that training produces a new tool rather than a substitute database. Ross shows that labeling a product “AI” does not, by itself, establish fair use.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS` cites `SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`.
+- `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+- `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`: Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025).
+
+Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):
+
+- `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Record the 2023 opinion (694 F. Supp. 3d 467) as a dedicated source.
+- Verify Third Circuit appeal docket and any later opinion.
+- Add the complaint and Appendix A headnote list if needed for work-by-work claims.
+- Confirm trial or judgment outcome after the February 2025 liability rulings.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..8b2b9531
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+---
+id: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Pending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.
+
+## Summary
+
+UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-11611 (D. Mass.), is the major-label copyright action against the generative music service Suno. Universal, Sony, and Warner affiliates alleged that Suno copied their sound recordings to train a commercial music generator. Suno answered that any copying is fair use. Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later stipulated to dismissal of their claims with prejudice. As of the sources reviewed here, UMG and Sony claims remain, and no court has issued a fair-use merits ruling.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- On June 24, 2024, UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner-affiliated companies filed a copyright complaint against Suno, Inc. in the District of Massachusetts.[^1]
+- The complaint alleges that building Suno required copying and ingesting “decades worth of the world’s most popular sound recordings” so the model could generate outputs that imitate human recordings, and that Suno did so without authorization.[^1]
+- Plaintiffs assert two counts: direct infringement of post-1972 copyrighted sound recordings under 17 U.S.C. § 106, and direct infringement of pre-1972 recordings under the Music Modernization Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1401. They seek a willfulness declaration, an injunction, and statutory damages under § 504(c).[^1]
+- Exhibit A to the complaint is described as an illustrative, non-exhaustive list of works; plaintiffs state they intend to amend later to add additional recordings.[^1]
+- In its August 1, 2024 answer, Suno admits that constructing its model required showing the program “tens of millions of instances of different kinds of recordings” to derive statistical insights, and asserts that any copying of copyrightable expression is fair use in service of creating a new, non-infringing product.[^2]
+- Suno also pleads copyright misuse and unclean hands, de minimis copying, innocent infringement, and other affirmative defenses.[^2]
+- On December 9, 2025, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Atlantic Records Group LLC, Rhino Entertainment LLC, The All Blacks U.S.A., Inc., Warner Music International Services Limited, and Warner Records Inc. stipulated under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that their claims against Suno are dismissed with prejudice, and that claims of all other plaintiffs are unaffected.[^3]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT` — Original complaint (June 24, 2024). Plaintiff allegations except as to filing date, parties, and claims pleaded.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER` — Suno answer (Aug. 1, 2024). Defendant admissions and defenses.
+
+[^3]: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL` — Warner stipulation of dismissal (Dec. 9, 2025).
+
+## Historical Context
+
+The Suno and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) complaints were filed the same day and use parallel theories: unauthorized copying of master sound recordings to train a competing generative-music product.[^1] They sit beside publisher lyric suits such as [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and the German first-instance lyric judgment in [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md). Unlike [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), this docket had not reached a fair-use summary-judgment ruling in the sources reviewed here.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: District of Massachusetts. Authority level: complaint, answer, and a partial Rule 41 dismissal. No merits holding on [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) is recorded here.[^1][^2][^3]
+
+The live dispute is whether ingesting copyrighted sound recordings to train a commercial music generator is fair use. Suno’s answer frames the copies as unseen intermediate analysis of genre and style, which copyright does not protect, and cites Google v. Oracle and Authors Guild v. Google.[^2] The labels plead the opposite: wholesale commercial copying whose outputs occupy the same market as the recordings copied.[^1] That is a fact-intensive § 107 question. This page does not treat prompt-engineered “soundalike” exhibits as proven copying.
+
+The Warner stipulation ends those plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. It does not disclose terms and does not resolve UMG or Sony claims.[^3]
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` cites `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`: Original complaint (June 24, 2024).
+2. `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`: Suno answer (Aug. 1, 2024).
+3. `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`: Warner stipulation of dismissal (Dec. 9, 2025).
+4. `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add any later amended complaint, DMCA § 1201 stream-ripping claim if leave to amend is granted, and the January 28, 2026 order entering the Warner stipulation.
+- Add a fair-use or other merits order when one issues.
+- Do not treat press reports of licensing-partnership terms as facts unless a party filing or official release states them.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f79c6de4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+---
+id: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET
+ - SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)
+
+## Summary
+
+UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04777 (S.D.N.Y.), is the original major-label copyright action against the generative music service Udio. Universal, Sony, and Warner affiliates alleged unauthorized copying of sound recordings for training. UMG/Capitol and Warner later stipulated to dismissal of their claims without prejudice. Sony remained and, on July 20, 2026, filed a second action, No. 1:26-cv-6120, asserting 30,117 additional recordings. No fair-use merits ruling is recorded in the sources reviewed here.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- On June 24, 2024, UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, Arista Music, Arista Records LLC, and Warner-affiliated companies sued Uncharted Labs, Inc., d/b/a Udio.com, in the Southern District of New York. A corrected complaint was entered June 25, 2024. The case was assigned to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.[^1][^2]
+- The complaint alleges that Udio copied and ingested popular sound recordings to train a service that generates digital music files in seconds, without authorization, and that outputs will compete with the recordings used in training.[^1]
+- Plaintiffs plead two counts paralleling the Suno action: direct infringement of post-1972 sound recordings and direct infringement of pre-1972 recordings indexed under 17 U.S.C. § 1401. They seek a willfulness declaration, an injunction, and statutory damages.[^1]
+- On November 5, 2025, the court so-ordered a stipulation dismissing all claims by UMG Recordings, Inc. and Capitol Records, LLC against Udio without prejudice, stating that other plaintiffs’ claims were unaffected.[^2]
+- On November 25, 2025, the court so-ordered a stipulation dismissing all claims by Atlantic Recording Corporation, Rhino Entertainment Company, Warner Music Inc., Warner Music International Services Limited, Warner Records Inc., Warner Records LLC, and Warner Records/SIRE Ventures LLC without prejudice, again leaving other plaintiffs’ claims unaffected.[^2]
+- On July 20, 2026, Sony Music Entertainment and affiliated Sony labels filed Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-6120 (S.D.N.Y.), describing it as a second action after the original complaint identified only an illustrative fraction of copied recordings.[^3]
+- The 2026 complaint asserts 30,117 sound recordings, alleges that forensic analysis of Udio’s training data identified hundreds of thousands of Sony works, and alleges that Udio obtained many recordings by stream-ripping from YouTube in circumvention of technological protection measures. It also pleads Copyright Act, § 1401, and DMCA § 1201 claims.[^3]
+- The 2026 complaint states that plaintiffs sought leave to add those works in the original action and that on June 29, 2026 the court denied leave while saying plaintiffs could seek relief for all copyrighted works in another lawsuit.[^3]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT` — Original complaint (June 24/25, 2024). Plaintiff allegations except as to caption and claims pleaded.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET` — CourtListener docket for No. 1:24-cv-04777. Primary for filing dates and dismissal stipulations.
+
+[^3]: `SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT` — Second Sony complaint (July 20, 2026). Plaintiff allegations; the June 29, 2026 leave-to-amend ruling is quoted from that complaint.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+The Udio complaint was filed the same day as [UMG v. Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and uses the same master-recording theory.[^1] Partial dismissals later split the majors: UMG and Warner exited the original Udio docket without prejudice, while Sony continued and opened a second case on an expanded work list.[^2][^3] Those dismissals are not a fair-use ruling.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York. Authority level: complaint, docket stipulations, and a 2026 follow-on complaint. No judicial determination of [fair use](STAT-USC-107.md) is recorded here.[^1][^2][^3]
+
+Two features distinguish Udio from the book-training summary judgments. First, the works are sound recordings, including pre-1972 recordings asserted under § 1401, not literary works.[^1] Second, the 2026 pleading adds a DMCA circumvention theory (YouTube stream-ripping) to the training-copy claim.[^3] The November 2025 stipulations are without prejudice, so they do not finally adjudicate the dismissed labels’ rights.[^2]
+
+This page does not treat Audible Magic match counts or stream-ripping allegations as proven. The 30,117-work figure is the number Sony chose to plead, not a judicial finding of the training set’s size.[^3]
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` cites `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`: Original complaint (June 2024).
+2. `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`: CourtListener docket for No. 1:24-cv-04777.
+3. `SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`: Sony follow-on complaint (July 20, 2026).
+4. `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add Udio’s answer in No. 1:24-cv-04777 as a primary source for any training-data admissions.
+- Add the June 29, 2026 leave-to-amend order from the original docket rather than Sony’s quotation of it.
+- Add any later scheduling, summary-judgment, or settlement filings in either Udio action.
+- Do not import press-reported royalty rates or equity terms without a party filing.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md b/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md
index 7e32f0c7..7a6d21ad 100644
--- a/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md
+++ b/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md
@@ -37,6 +37,11 @@ relationships:
object: CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE
sources:
- SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA
+ - subject: STAT-USC-107
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
last_verified: "2026-07-19"
enactment_date: "1976"
---
@@ -73,6 +78,7 @@ Legal analysis has not yet been drafted from primary case law. Future work shoul
- `STAT-USC-107` related_to `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`.
- `STAT-USC-107` related_to `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`.
- `STAT-USC-107` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`.
+- `STAT-USC-107` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
## Sources
@@ -83,5 +89,6 @@ Legal analysis has not yet been drafted from primary case law. Future work shoul
## Research Debt
- Add leading video and music fair use cases with primary sources (for example Campbell v. Acuff-Rose).
+- Compare statutory factors to generative-AI training decisions collected on [Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md).
- Summarize statutory history from official legislative materials.
- Draft legal analysis from primary case law rather than secondary guides.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c3b76835
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
+---
+id: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+title: Copyright and Generative AI
+type: topic
+status: draft
+summary: U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.
+tags:
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+ - case-studies
+sources:
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+ - SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO
+relationships:
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: PERSON-KIT-WALSH
+ sources:
+ - SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Copyright and Generative AI
+
+## Summary
+
+U.S. copyright law is being applied to generative AI along two tracks. Outputs: courts and the Copyright Office currently treat purely machine-determined expression as uncopyrightable. Inputs: district courts have split on whether copying works to train models is fair use, and they have distinguished pirated acquisition, competing non-generative tools, and news-output substitution.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Copyright protection under U.S. law for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research is limited by the four fair-use factors in [17 U.S.C. § 107](STAT-USC-107.md).[^1]
+- The Copyright Office’s March 16, 2023 registration guidance states that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity, that applicants must disclose more-than-de-minimis AI-generated content, and that when AI determines the expressive elements of an output, that material is not protected by copyright.[^2]
+- The same guidance states that humans may claim copyright in their own contributions, including creative selection, coordination, and arrangement of AI-generated material or sufficiently creative modifications, and that applicants should not list an AI system as author merely because they used it.[^2]
+- The Office’s January 2025 copyrightability report concluded that existing law can resolve AI copyrightability questions without legislative change; that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable; that prompts alone do not provide sufficient control on current generally available technology; and that the case has not been made for sui generis protection of AI-generated content.[^3]
+- In [Thaler v. Perlmutter](CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md), the D.C. Circuit held that the Copyright Act requires eligible works to be authored in the first instance by a human being and affirmed refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative system.[^4]
+- In [Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence](CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md), the District of Delaware rejected fair use for a competing non-generative legal-research AI trained on Westlaw headnotes.[^5]
+- In [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md), the Northern District of California held that training Claude on books was transformative fair use but that a permanent library of pirated copies was not excused as fair use; a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims received final approval on July 20, 2026.[^6][^7]
+- In [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), the Northern District of California granted Meta summary judgment on fair use for training Llama on thirteen authors’ books on that record, while warning that market-dilution evidence could change the result in other cases and leaving torrenting-distribution claims open.[^8]
+- In [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp.](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md), the Southern District of New York in April 2025 largely denied motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft; an August 2026 order later dismissed material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement.[^9]
+- In [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md), game studios seek a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters are not copyrightable. See [Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters](TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md).[^10]
+- Music-industry suits are collected in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): labels allege unlicensed copying of sound recordings to train [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md); publishers allege lyric copying in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md); and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) is a non-final German first-instance judgment that memorized lyrics in models 4 and 4o were unauthorized reproductions.[^11][^12][^13][^14]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-USC-17-107-LII` — 17 U.S.C. § 107. Primary statutory authority.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023` — 88 Fed. Reg. 16190. Agency guidance.
+
+[^3]: `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025` — Copyright Office Part 2 report (Jan. 2025). Agency report.
+
+[^4]: `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC` — 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Primary appellate authority.
+
+[^5]: `SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025` — D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025. District-court authority.
+
+[^6]: `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE` — N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025. District-court authority.
+
+[^7]: `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL` — N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026. Settlement approval order.
+
+[^8]: `SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE` — 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025). District-court authority.
+
+[^9]: `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025` — S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025. Pleading-stage authority.
+
+[^10]: `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT` — N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025. Pending case; plaintiff allegations.
+
+[^11]: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT` — D. Mass. June 24, 2024. Pending; plaintiff allegations.
+
+[^12]: `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT` — S.D.N.Y. June 2024. Pending; plaintiff allegations.
+
+[^13]: `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025` — N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025. Pleading-stage order.
+
+[^14]: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025` — LG München I Nov. 11, 2025. Non-final first-instance judgment.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Software copyright already had a fair-use landmark in [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md), which treated copying of Java API declaring code as transformative fair use. Generative-AI cases cite Google v. Oracle but present a different use: ingesting expressive works at scale to produce competing text, images, or music. No U.S. court of appeals had, as of the sources reviewed here, issued a merits holding that LLM training on copyrighted books is or is not fair use.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Three questions should be kept separate.
+
+**Authorship of outputs.** Thaler and Copyright Office practice answer the easy case: a work with no human author cannot be registered or owned as copyrighted expression.[^2][^3][^4] Mixed works remain a case-by-case inquiry. Spyder tests whether viral meme characters created with image generators fall on the uncopyrightable side of that line.[^10]
+
+**Copying for training (inputs).** Fair use under § 107 is fact-specific.[^1] Ross involved a substitute legal-research tool, not a generative writer.[^5] Bartz treated generative training as transformative but piracy-for-library as infringement.[^6] Kadrey treated generative training as fair use on a thin market-harm record while saying other records may come out the other way.[^8] Publisher cases such as the Times action add output-substitution and secondary-liability theories that book-training summary judgments did not decide.[^9] Music cases add a further split: sound-recording training claims against Suno and Udio remain without a U.S. fair-use holding, while GEMA is a non-final German holding that lyric memorization is reproduction outside the TDM exception.[^11][^12][^14]
+
+**Remedies and settlements.** Bartz’s $1.5 billion settlement prices past pirated acquisition for a defined class; it does not freeze the fair-use doctrine or release output claims.[^7]
+
+Non-copyright AI suits (chatbot product liability, defamation, privacy) are collected in [AI Litigation Landscape](TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md).
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` cites `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-KADREY-V-META`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `PERSON-KIT-WALSH`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+2. `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`: Copyright Office AI registration guidance (2023).
+3. `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`: Copyright Office AI copyrightability report, Part 2 (2025).
+4. `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+5. `SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`: Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. 2025).
+6. `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`: Bartz v. Anthropic, Order on Fair Use (2025).
+7. `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`: Bartz settlement final approval (2026).
+8. `SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`: Kadrey v. Meta (N.D. Cal. 2025).
+9. `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`: Times v. Microsoft/OpenAI MTD opinion (2025).
+10. `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`: Spyder Games v. Mementum complaint (2025).
+11. `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`: UMG v. Suno complaint (2024).
+12. `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`: UMG v. Udio complaint (2024).
+13. `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`: Concord v. Anthropic MTD denial (2025).
+14. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`: GEMA v. OpenAI, LG München I (2025).
+
+Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):
+
+- `SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`: Kit Walsh EFF biography (relationship only).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK High Court 2025 and N.D. Cal. U.S. action) with primary judgments.
+- Add Andersen v. Stability AI / artists’ class actions from complaints and orders.
+- Add Copyright Office Part 3 (training) when a final version is cited from copyright.gov rather than secondary summaries.
+- Document U.S. Copyright Office registration examples beyond Thaler (Zarya of the Dawn; later granted mixed-work registrations).
+- Music-generator and lyric cases now have dedicated pages; add later U.S. fair-use orders and any OLG München appeal in GEMA there.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..0655a46a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md
@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
+---
+id: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+title: AI Litigation Landscape
+type: topic
+status: draft
+summary: Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.
+tags:
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - copyright
+ - first-amendment
+ - digital-rights
+ - case-studies
+ - intermediary-liability
+sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+relationships:
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ notes: Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil product liability, not a criminal developer prosecution.
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# AI Litigation Landscape
+
+## Summary
+
+Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented here fall into four clusters: (1) copyright in training data and model outputs, including news, books, and music, (2) copyright and trademark claims over AI-generated viral characters, (3) product-liability and speech defenses when chatbot products are alleged to have harmed users, and (4) one comparative German first-instance lyric judgment. This page is an inventory, not a prediction of outcomes.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- [Thaler v. Perlmutter](CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) held that the Copyright Act requires human authorship and affirmed refusal to register a work attributed solely to a generative-AI system.[^1]
+- The Copyright Office’s January 2025 copyrightability report concluded that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable and that prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control on current generally available technology.[^2]
+- [Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence](CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected fair use for a non-generative legal-research AI trained on Westlaw headnotes to compete with Westlaw.[^3]
+- [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) held that training Claude on books was transformative fair use but that a pirated permanent library was not; a $1.5 billion class settlement of piracy claims was finally approved July 20, 2026.[^4][^5]
+- [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025) granted Meta fair-use summary judgment on Llama training as to thirteen authors on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.[^6]
+- [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp.](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) (S.D.N.Y.) survived most of an April 4, 2025 motion to dismiss; an August 6, 2026 order dismissed material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement.[^7][^8]
+- [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 26, 2025) seeks a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” characters used in Steal a Brainrot are not copyrightable. See [Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters](TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md).[^9]
+- [Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.](CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) allowed most wrongful-death and product-liability claims against a chatbot company and Google to proceed and declined, at the pleading stage, to treat LLM output as protected speech.[^10]
+- Music copyright dockets are inventoried in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [UMG v. Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [UMG v. Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings; partial dismissals; no U.S. fair-use holding), [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (lyrics; secondary and DMCA claims survive dismissal), and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) (non-final German first-instance lyric judgment).[^11][^12][^13][^14]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC` — 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+
+[^2]: `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025` — Copyright Office Part 2 report (Jan. 2025).
+
+[^3]: `SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025` — D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025.
+
+[^4]: `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE` — N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025.
+
+[^5]: `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL` — N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026.
+
+[^6]: `SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE` — 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
+
+[^7]: `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025` — S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025.
+
+[^8]: `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026` — S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026.
+
+[^9]: `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT` — N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025. Pending; allegations.
+
+[^10]: `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025` — M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025. Pleading-stage order.
+
+[^11]: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT` — D. Mass. June 24, 2024. Pending.
+
+[^12]: `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT` — S.D.N.Y. June 2024. Pending.
+
+[^13]: `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025` — N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025.
+
+[^14]: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025` — LG München I Nov. 11, 2025. Not final.
+
+## Case map
+
+| Cluster | Leading OIR page | What is actually decided (as of sources cited) |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Output authorship | [Thaler](CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) | Machine listed as sole author cannot register. |
+| Training vs piracy | [Bartz](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Training fair use; pirated library not; piracy claims settled. |
+| Training market harm | [Kadrey](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) | Fair use on this record; dilution theory undeveloped. |
+| Competing research AI | [Ross](CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) | Not fair use; tool was not generative. |
+| News outputs | [Times v. OpenAI](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) | Claims largely survive dismissal; some secondary theories dismissed. |
+| Meme-character ownership | [Spyder](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) | Pending declaration action. |
+| Music masters | [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) / [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) | Pending; partial dismissals; no U.S. fair-use holding. |
+| Music lyrics (U.S.) | [Concord](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Secondary and CMI claims survive 12(b)(6). |
+| Music lyrics (DE) | [GEMA](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) | First-instance liability; not final. |
+| Chatbot harm | [Garcia](CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) | Design-defect claims proceed; speech defense not established at 12(b)(6). |
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+These dockets are not one “AI law.” Copyright training cases apply [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) to copying that happens before a user sees an answer. Authorship cases ask who, if anyone, owns the answer or the image. Product-liability cases ask whether the software is a product whose design can be defective, which collides with [First Amendment](TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md) arguments that outputs are speech.[^10]
+
+For open-internet and software-freedom work, two tensions matter. First, a broad training-is-always-infringement rule would raise the cost of building models, including open-weight models; Bartz and Kadrey show district judges already disagree about how to weigh that against market harm.[^4][^6] Second, treating chatbot text as unprotected non-speech at the pleading stage, as in Garcia, could expand design-defect litigation against conversational software without a merits record on causation.[^10]
+
+Criminal and sanctions cases involving software authors remain on [Documented Proceedings Involving Software Authors and Operators](TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY.md); they are a different inventory.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-KADREY-V-META`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+2. `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`: Copyright Office AI copyrightability report, Part 2 (2025).
+3. `SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`: Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. 2025).
+4. `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`: Bartz fair-use order (2025).
+5. `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`: Bartz settlement final approval (2026).
+6. `SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`: Kadrey v. Meta (2025).
+7. `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`: Times MTD opinion (2025).
+8. `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`: Times Rule 12(c) order (2026).
+9. `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`: Spyder complaint (2025).
+10. `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`: Garcia MTD order (2025).
+11. `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`: UMG v. Suno complaint (2024).
+12. `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`: UMG v. Udio complaint (2024).
+13. `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`: Concord MTD denial (2025).
+14. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`: GEMA v. OpenAI (2025).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add Walters v. OpenAI (defamation / ChatGPT hallucinations) with a primary docket and any opinion.
+- Add Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK and U.S.) from judgments.
+- Add EU AI Act public-enforcement matters only with official documents.
+- Verify Garcia docket for any 2026 settlement or judgment before stating the case is resolved.
+- Defamation, biometric-privacy, and employment AI cases are not yet in this inventory.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7cb8fef8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+---
+id: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+title: Music Copyright and Generative AI
+type: topic
+status: draft
+summary: Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.
+tags:
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+ - case-studies
+sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET
+ - SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Music Copyright and Generative AI
+
+## Summary
+
+Generative-AI music disputes split along the same two copyright interests the industry has always separated: sound recordings (the recorded performance) and musical compositions (the song, including lyrics). U.S. major labels sued Suno and Udio over alleged unlicensed copying of masters. U.S. publishers sued Anthropic over lyrics in Claude. A German first-instance court held OpenAI liable for memorizing and outputting nine German lyrics. As of the sources reviewed here, no U.S. court had issued a fair-use merits ruling on training a generative music model.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- In [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md), Universal, Sony, and Warner affiliates alleged in June 2024 that Suno copied their sound recordings to train a commercial music generator. Suno admitted training on tens of millions of recordings and pleaded fair use. Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice; UMG and Sony claims remained.[^1][^2][^3]
+- In [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md), the same majors filed a parallel June 2024 sound-recording action against Udio in the Southern District of New York. UMG/Capitol and Warner later dismissed their claims without prejudice. Sony remained and in July 2026 filed a second action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.[^4][^5][^6]
+- Both original label complaints plead post-1972 infringement under the Copyright Act and pre-1972 infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 1401, and both treat Exhibit A as an illustrative work list.[^1][^4]
+- In [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), eight publishers allege that Anthropic used copyrighted lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics. On October 6, 2025, the Northern District of California denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the amended secondary-infringement and DMCA CMI claims.[^7]
+- In [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md), Landgericht München I on November 11, 2025 largely granted GEMA’s claims over nine German lyrics, holding that memorization in models 4 and 4o and output of those lyrics were unauthorized reproductions not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception. The court stated the judgment is not final.[^8][^9]
+- U.S. fair use is a four-factor, case-specific limitation in [17 U.S.C. § 107](STAT-USC-107.md). Suno’s answer invokes that defense; the label complaints argue it does not apply. No source cited on this page is a U.S. judicial determination of that question for a music generator.[^1][^2][^10]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT` — Suno complaint (June 24, 2024).
+
+[^2]: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER` — Suno answer (Aug. 1, 2024).
+
+[^3]: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL` — Warner stipulation (Dec. 9, 2025).
+
+[^4]: `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT` — Udio complaint (June 2024).
+
+[^5]: `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET` — Udio docket, including 2025 dismissals.
+
+[^6]: `SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT` — Sony follow-on complaint (July 20, 2026).
+
+[^7]: `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025` — Concord order denying MTD (Oct. 6, 2025).
+
+[^8]: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025` — LG München I judgment (Nov. 11, 2025).
+
+[^9]: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025` — Official press release (Nov. 11, 2025).
+
+[^10]: `SRC-USC-17-107-LII` — 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Recorded-music copyright already distinguished the composition from the fixed recording. Generative systems cut across that line. A text model that emits lyrics is a composition problem. An audio model that emits a new recording in the style of existing masters is a sound-recording problem, and sometimes also a composition problem if melody or lyrics are reproduced. The 2024 label complaints treat the second problem as mass infringement of § 106 and § 1401 rights.[^1][^4] The publisher and GEMA matters treat the first as unauthorized reproduction and making available of lyrics.[^7][^8]
+
+Book-training decisions such as [Bartz](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) are adjacent but not controlling here: different works, different outputs, and no music-generator fair-use holding.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Keep four questions separate.
+
+**Which exclusive right?** Labels plead reproduction of sound recordings used as training audio.[^1][^4] Publishers and GEMA plead reproduction and dissemination of lyrics.[^7][^8] A holding on one right does not decide the other.
+
+**Has a court decided training?** In the United States, as of these sources, no. Suno pleaded fair use; Concord survived a motion to dismiss on secondary and CMI theories without a § 107 ruling.[^2][^7] In Germany, LG München I did decide that extractable memorization of lyrics is a reproduction outside commercial TDM, but that judgment is not final and is not U.S. law.[^8][^9]
+
+**What do partial dismissals mean?** Warner’s Suno exit was with prejudice.[^3] UMG’s and Warner’s Udio exits were without prejudice.[^5] Neither set of stipulations states that training is lawful, and Sony’s 2026 Udio action shows the remaining label expanding the work list rather than abandoning the theory.[^6]
+
+**Outputs versus weights.** GEMA treats simple-prompt regurgitation as proof that the work is fixed in the model and as a separate communication to the public.[^8] U.S. label complaints also rely on generated “soundalikes,” but those exhibits remain allegations.[^1][^4]
+
+Broader authorship and book/news training issues stay on [Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md). The docket inventory is on [AI Litigation Landscape](TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md).
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`: Suno complaint (2024).
+2. `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`: Suno answer (2024).
+3. `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`: Warner Suno dismissal (2025).
+4. `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`: Udio complaint (2024).
+5. `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`: Udio docket and dismissals.
+6. `SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`: Sony second Udio complaint (2026).
+7. `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`: Concord MTD denial (2025).
+8. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`: Munich judgment (2025).
+9. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`: Munich press release (2025).
+10. `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add GEMA v. Suno or other official German audio-model judgments when the court text is available.
+- Add any BMG or other publisher complaints against Anthropic or OpenAI from those filings.
+- Add U.S. fair-use or § 1201 orders in the Suno and Udio dockets when they issue.
+- Do not use lawsuit-tracker royalty or equity figures as facts.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ebe1ab4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+---
+id: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+title: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters
+type: topic
+status: draft
+summary: Documents the 2024 lexical sense of “brain rot” and the later copyright fight over AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.
+tags:
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - copyright
+ - digital-rights
+ - case-studies
+sources:
+ - SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+relationships:
+ - subject: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024
+ sources:
+ - SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024
+ - subject: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters
+
+## Summary
+
+“Brain rot” entered mainstream English as Oxford University Press’s 2024 Word of the Year, describing concern about overconsumption of trivial online content. In 2025 the same slang attached to a wave of AI-generated absurdist meme characters (often called “Italian brainrot”) and to the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot. Whether those characters can be owned under U.S. copyright is the subject of pending Northern District of California litigation.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Oxford University Press selected “brain rot” as its Word of the Year for 2024 after a public vote involving more than 37,000 participants.[^1]
+- OUP defined “brain rot” as “the supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as the result of overconsumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging,” and also as “something characterized as likely to lead to such deterioration.”[^1]
+- OUP reported that usage frequency of the term increased 230% between 2023 and 2024, and that the first recorded use it identified was in Henry David Thoreau’s *Walden* (1854).[^1]
+- OUP associated the 2024 sense with low-quality social-media content and with online “brain rot language,” citing examples such as the *Skibidi Toilet* video series; the announcement does not address copyright ownership of later “Italian brainrot” characters.[^1]
+- In [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md), the complaint alleges that plaintiffs own the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot, that “brainrots” in the game are inspired by humorous internet meme figures created using artificial intelligence programs, and that defendant Mementum Lab claims copyright in those characters, including “Tung Tung Sahor” / “Tung Tung Tung Sahur.”[^2]
+- The Spyder complaint seeks a declaration that the disputed brainrots are not subject to copyright protection because they were generated by AI tools and lack the human authorship required by the Copyright Act.[^2]
+- The Spyder complaint cites [Thaler v. Perlmutter](CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) for the proposition that the Copyright Act requires work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, and quotes the Copyright Office’s March 2023 registration guidance that material whose expressive elements are determined by AI is not protected by copyright.[^2][^3][^4]
+- The Copyright Office’s January 2025 copyrightability report concluded that copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements, and that prompts alone do not provide sufficient control based on current generally available technology.[^5]
+- Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab was filed November 26, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as No. 5:25-cv-10248, assigned to Judge Noel Wise, with nature of suit listed as copyright.[^6]
+
+
+[^1]: `SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024` — Oxford University Press Word of the Year 2024 announcement. Official lexicographic source.
+
+[^2]: `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT` — Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025). Plaintiff allegations; not findings of fact.
+
+[^3]: `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC` — Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Primary appellate authority.
+
+[^4]: `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023` — 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023). Agency registration guidance.
+
+[^5]: `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025` — Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 (Jan. 2025). Agency report; not a judicial holding.
+
+[^6]: `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET` — CourtListener docket for No. 5:25-cv-10248. Procedural record.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+OUP presented the 2024 word as part of a longer cultural conversation about virtual life, following 2023’s “rizz.”[^1] By 2025, “brainrot” was also used as a label for a set of AI-generated animal-hybrid meme characters that spread on short-video platforms and were then licensed, copied, and merchandised. Steal a Brainrot, according to the Spyder complaint, debuted on Roblox in May 2025 as a treasure-hunt game in which players capture marching “brainrots.”[^2]
+
+The copyright dispute is not a medical claim about cognitive harm from scrolling. It asks whether an AI-generated viral character can be locked behind exclusive rights once a game or agency tries to monetize it. Plaintiffs in Spyder treat Thaler and Copyright Office guidance as answering that question “no” when the image is machine-determined; the defendant later asserted human creative contributions and trademark theories, which remain pending.[^2][^6]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction for the character-ownership fight is U.S. federal copyright (and, on the docket, trademark) law in the Northern District of California.[^6] Authority level for the human-authorship rule cited in the complaint is the D.C. Circuit’s statutory holding in Thaler, which is persuasive outside the D.C. Circuit and was applied on a record in which the applicant listed a machine as sole author.[^3] The Copyright Office’s 2023 guidance and 2025 report are agency views: they treat prompt-only generation as uncopyrightable while leaving room for copyright in human selection, arrangement, or modification of AI output.[^4][^5]
+
+Spyder’s complaint is a declaratory-judgment action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 seeking a ruling that Mementum has no valid copyright in specified brainrots and that plaintiffs’ game use does not infringe.[^2] No merits ruling on that question is recorded on this page. If a court finds sufficient human authorship in names, stories, iterative prompting, or post-generation edits, the Thaler “autonomous machine author” fact pattern would not control. Trademark claims, if they proceed, would raise a different question—source identification—rather than authorship of the image itself.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` cites `SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`.
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` related_to `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`.
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` related_to `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`.
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. `SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`: Oxford University Press Word of the Year 2024 announcement.
+2. `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab complaint.
+3. `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+4. `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`: Copyright Office AI registration guidance (2023).
+5. `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`: Copyright Office AI copyrightability report, Part 2 (2025).
+6. `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`: CourtListener docket, No. 5:25-cv-10248.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Obtain and summarize Mementum’s amended counterclaims and any covenant-not-to-sue filings from RECAP rather than secondary press.
+- Distinguish “Italian brainrot” character lore (creator-asserted names and stories) from prompt-only image generation with primary creator-side sources if those become part of a judicial record.
+- Document non-U.S. treatment of AI-generated meme characters (for example French or EU authorship rules) if Mementum continues to plead foreign rights.
+- Do not treat Oxford’s definition as a clinical finding; if a later page addresses cognitive-harm claims about short-form video, source those separately.
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md
index 32575b9c..ef53dc5b 100644
--- a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md
+++ b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md
@@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ relationships:
object: ORG-EFF
sources:
- SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP
+ - subject: TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
last_verified: "2026-07-19"
---
@@ -91,6 +96,7 @@ Analysis of platform copyright enforcement systems (for example automated matchi
- `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO` related_to `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`.
- `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO` related_to `TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE`.
- `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO` related_to `ORG-EFF`.
+- `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
## Sources
diff --git a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md
index 52b51ab3..536f5434 100644
--- a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md
+++ b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ sources:
- SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII
- SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA
- SRC-FIRE-MISSION
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
relationships:
- subject: TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT
predicate: cites
@@ -39,6 +40,11 @@ relationships:
object: ORG-FIRE
sources:
- SRC-FIRE-MISSION
+ - subject: TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
last_verified: "2026-07-31"
---
@@ -72,6 +78,7 @@ Legal analysis has not yet been drafted. Future work should distinguish constitu
- `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` related_to `TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH`.
- `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` related_to `ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT`.
- `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` related_to `ORG-FIRE`.
+- `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` related_to `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`.
## Sources
@@ -81,6 +88,7 @@ Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):
- `SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA`: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
- `SRC-FIRE-MISSION`: FIRE Mission Page.
+- `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`: Garcia v. Character Technologies order on motions to dismiss (May 20, 2025).
## Research Debt
diff --git a/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md b/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md
index db36723f..6c988b68 100644
--- a/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md
+++ b/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md
@@ -23,6 +23,11 @@ relationships:
object: ORG-EFF
sources:
- SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO
+ - subject: PERSON-KIT-WALSH
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO
last_verified: "2026-06-25"
---
@@ -52,6 +57,7 @@ Walsh's explicit focus on "coders' rights" and her work at the intersection of f
- `PERSON-KIT-WALSH` cites `SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`.
- `PERSON-KIT-WALSH` affiliated_with `ORG-EFF`.
+- `PERSON-KIT-WALSH` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
## Sources
@@ -60,7 +66,7 @@ Walsh's explicit focus on "coders' rights" and her work at the intersection of f
## Research Debt
- Document specific coders' rights cases handled.
-- Add details on AI and access to knowledge legal work.
+- Add details on AI and access to knowledge legal work; see [Copyright and Generative AI](../legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md).
- Document how software developers can engage with EFF on coders' rights issues.
- Corroborate self-reported biography or about-page claims with independent sources (institutional profile, court docket, case page, or reputable journalism).
- Add primary or secondary sources for major litigation and impact claims (dockets, case pages, official court records, or reputable journalism).
diff --git a/website/generated/bibliography.md b/website/generated/bibliography.md
index 9605af95..e32eb89b 100644
--- a/website/generated/bibliography.md
+++ b/website/generated/bibliography.md
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
This page is generated from bibliography metadata. Do not edit it manually.
-Record count: 207
+Record count: 232
## `SRC-ABBATE-VT`: Janet Abbate Virginia Tech Faculty Profile { #SRC-ABBATE-VT }
@@ -92,6 +92,34 @@ Associated Press report that Russia's FSB charged Pavel Durov with aiding terror
- [`TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY: Documented Proceedings Involving Software Authors and Operators`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY.md)
- [`TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY: Intermediary Liability`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY.md)
+## `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) { #SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Northern District of California summary-judgment order holding that training Anthropic’s Claude models on purchased books was fair use, while pirated library copies were not excused as fair use.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
+## `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) { #SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Northern District of California order granting final approval of a $1.5 billion class settlement covering Anthropic’s past acquisition and copying of listed pirated books.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
## `SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026`: BBC News — Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism { #SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026 }
- Type: `source`
@@ -537,6 +565,33 @@ Northern District of Florida summary-judgment opinion upholding OFAC’s Tornado
- [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN: Coin Center v. Yellen`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md)
- [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH: Tornado Cash Sanctions and Developer Prosecutions`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md)
+## `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811) { #SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+CourtListener docket for the music-publisher lyric-copyright action against Anthropic, including the original Tennessee filing date reflected on the transferred complaint.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
+## `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) { #SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Northern District of California order allowing music publishers’ amended claims for secondary copyright infringement and DMCA CMI removal against Anthropic to proceed.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
## `SRC-COOLEY-TECH`: Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page { #SRC-COOLEY-TECH }
- Type: `source`
@@ -913,6 +968,60 @@ Official press page of the Free Software Foundation with founding date and missi
### Cited By
- [`ORG-FSF: Free Software Foundation`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-FSF.md)
+## `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT`: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024) { #SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md)
+- Tags: source, case, first-amendment, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Wrongful-death and product-liability complaint alleging that a Character.AI chatbot contributed to the death of a 14-year-old user.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+
+## `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) { #SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025 }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+- Tags: source, case, first-amendment, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Middle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT: First Amendment`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md)
+
+## `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) { #SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+## `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI) { #SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025 }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
## `SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT`: GNUnet About Page { #SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT }
- Type: `source`
@@ -1183,6 +1292,20 @@ Foundational 2002 conference paper by Petar Maymounkov and David Mazières descr
### Cited By
- [`TOPIC-KADEMLIA: Kademlia`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-KADEMLIA.md)
+## `SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025) { #SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Northern District of California order granting Meta summary judgment on fair use for copying thirteen authors’ books as Llama training data on the record presented.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-KADREY-V-META: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
## `SRC-KAHN-CNRI`: Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography { #SRC-KAHN-CNRI }
- Type: `source`
@@ -1421,6 +1544,45 @@ Columbia Data Science Institute profile of Eben Moglen describing his work with
### Cited By
- [`PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN: Eben Moglen`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN.md)
+## `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026) { #SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026 }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Southern District of New York order dismissing with prejudice news plaintiffs’ material-contribution contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft after Cox.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
+## `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023) { #SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Complaint alleging that Microsoft and OpenAI copied New York Times works to train large language models and that model outputs reproduced Times content.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+
+## `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) { #SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025 }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Southern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft while dismissing specified DMCA and hot-news claims.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
## `SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076`: OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation { #SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076 }
- Type: `source`
@@ -1518,6 +1680,18 @@ Official history page of the Open Source Initiative documenting its founding and
### Cited By
- [`ORG-OSI: Open Source Initiative`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-OSI.md)
+## `SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`: Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024 { #SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024 }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md)
+- Tags: source, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Official Oxford University Press announcement selecting “brain rot” as Oxford Word of the Year 2024 and publishing the press’s definition of the term.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
## `SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO`: Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (GovInfo) { #SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO }
- Type: `source`
@@ -1979,6 +2153,47 @@ Official Signal specification for the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman key agreeme
### Cited By
- [`ORG-SIGNAL: Signal`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md)
+## `SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026) { #SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Second Sony-affiliated complaint against Udio asserting 30,117 additional sound recordings after leave to expand the 2024 action was denied.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+## `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) { #SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Complaint seeking a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are not protected by copyright.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
+## `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248) { #SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+CourtListener docket record for the Steal a Brainrot copyright and trademark dispute in the Northern District of California.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
## `SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO`: Mitch Stoltz EFF Staff Biography { #SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO }
- Type: `source`
@@ -2043,6 +2258,36 @@ Official Telegram press page describing the messaging service, Dubai base, and P
- [`ORG-TELEGRAM: Telegram`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-TELEGRAM.md)
- [`PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV: Pavel Durov`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV.md)
+## `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) { #SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+D.C. Circuit opinion affirming refusal to register a copyright in an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER: Thaler v. Perlmutter`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
+## `SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) { #SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025 }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+District of Delaware memorandum opinion rejecting Ross Intelligence’s fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
## `SRC-TIEN-EFF`: Lee Tien EFF Staff Biography { #SRC-TIEN-EFF }
- Type: `source`
@@ -2228,6 +2473,75 @@ Texas Tribune report that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene against e
- [`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420: CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md)
- [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION: App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md)
+## `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024) { #SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Suno’s answer admitting that its model was built from tens of millions of recordings and asserting fair use, copyright misuse, and other defenses.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+## `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) { #SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Major-label complaint alleging that Suno copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service and seeking damages and injunctive relief.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+## `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025) { #SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Rule 41 stipulation dismissing Warner-affiliated plaintiffs’ claims against Suno with prejudice while leaving UMG and Sony claims unaffected.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+## `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) { #SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Major-label complaint alleging that Uncharted Labs (Udio) copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+## `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777) { #SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md)
+- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+CourtListener docket for the original major-label copyright action against Udio, including later stipulations dismissing UMG and Warner claims.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
## `SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII`: U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Cornell LII) { #SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII }
- Type: `source`
@@ -2276,8 +2590,16 @@ Official GovInfo U.S. Code page for 17 U.S.C. section 107, the fair use limitati
Cornell Legal Information Institute page for 17 U.S.C. section 107, the U.S. fair use statute.
### Cited By
+- [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- [`CASE-KADREY-V-META: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
- [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md)
+- [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
- [`STAT-USC-107: 17 U.S.C. § 107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
- [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO: Fair Use and Video`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md)
## `SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO`: 17 U.S.C. § 512 (GovInfo) { #SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO }
@@ -2351,6 +2673,36 @@ Cornell Legal Information Institute page for 18 U.S.C. § 2232, destruction or r
- [`STAT-18-USC-2232: 18 U.S.C. § 2232 — Destruction or Removal of Property to Prevent Seizure`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-18-USC-2232.md)
- [`TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH: Device Search, Seizure, and Anti-Forensics`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH.md)
+## `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`: U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025) { #SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025 }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+- Tags: source, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+Copyright Office report concluding that existing U.S. law can resolve AI copyrightability questions and that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER: Thaler v. Perlmutter`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
+## `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`: Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023) { #SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023 }
+
+- Type: `source`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
+- Tags: source, copyright, artificial-intelligence
+
+U.S. Copyright Office statement of policy on examining and registering works that contain AI-generated material, effective March 16, 2023.
+
+### Cited By
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER: Thaler v. Perlmutter`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
## `SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO`: Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (GovInfo) { #SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO }
- Type: `source`
@@ -2416,6 +2768,7 @@ Official EFF biography page for Kit Walsh documenting her role as Senior Staff A
### Cited By
- [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH: Kit Walsh`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
## `SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO`: Lauren Weinstein Biography Page { #SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO }
diff --git a/website/generated/citations.md b/website/generated/citations.md
index 85f1a455..9cf103df 100644
--- a/website/generated/citations.md
+++ b/website/generated/citations.md
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
This page is generated from `sources` and relationship source metadata. Do not edit it manually.
-Source count: 207
+Source count: 232
## [`SRC-ABBATE-VT`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-ABBATE-VT.md): Janet Abbate Virginia Tech Faculty Profile
@@ -55,6 +55,23 @@ Source count: 207
- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY.md): [`TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY.md) `related_to` [`EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026.md)
- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY.md): [`TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY.md) `related_to` [`ORG-TELEGRAM`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-TELEGRAM.md)
+## [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md): Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
+## [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md): Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
## [`SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026.md): BBC News — Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism
- Page source in [`EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026.md)
@@ -305,6 +322,24 @@ Source count: 207
- Page source in [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md)
- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md): [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md) `related_to` [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md)
+## [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
+## [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
## [`SRC-COOLEY-TECH`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md): Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page
- Page source in [`ORG-COOLEY`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-COOLEY.md)
@@ -488,6 +523,44 @@ Source count: 207
- Page source in [`ORG-FSF`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-FSF.md)
- Relationship source in [`ORG-FSF`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-FSF.md): [`ORG-FSF`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-FSF.md) `cites` [`SRC-FSF-PRESS`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FSF-PRESS.md)
+## [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md): Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+
+## [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md): Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md): [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `cites` [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md): [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md): [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md): [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md): [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md): [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+
+## [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md): LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `cites` [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+
+## [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md): Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
## [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md): GNUnet About Page
- Page source in [`TECH-GNUNET`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md)
@@ -632,6 +705,17 @@ Source count: 207
- Page source in [`TOPIC-KADEMLIA`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-KADEMLIA.md)
- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-KADEMLIA`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-KADEMLIA.md): [`TOPIC-KADEMLIA`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-KADEMLIA.md) `cites` [`SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md)
+## [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md): Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md): [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) `cites` [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md): [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md): [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+
## [`SRC-KAHN-CNRI`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAHN-CNRI.md): Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography
- Page source in [`PERSON-ROBERT-KAHN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-ROBERT-KAHN.md)
@@ -751,6 +835,27 @@ Source count: 207
- Relationship source in [`PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN.md): [`PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN.md) `affiliated_with` [`ORG-SFLC`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SFLC.md)
- Relationship source in [`PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN.md): [`PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN.md) `cites` [`SRC-MOGLEN-DSI`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MOGLEN-DSI.md)
+## [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
+## [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+
+## [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `cites` [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+
## [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md): OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation
- Page source in [`TECH-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md)
@@ -787,6 +892,11 @@ Source count: 207
- Page source in [`ORG-OSI`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-OSI.md)
- Relationship source in [`ORG-OSI`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-OSI.md): [`ORG-OSI`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-OSI.md) `cites` [`SRC-OSI-HISTORY`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OSI-HISTORY.md)
+## [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md): Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024
+
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md): [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md) `cites` [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md)
+
## [`SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO.md): Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (GovInfo)
- Page source in [`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md)
@@ -1015,6 +1125,33 @@ Source count: 207
- Page source in [`ORG-SIGNAL`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md)
- Relationship source in [`ORG-SIGNAL`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md): [`ORG-SIGNAL`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md) `cites` [`SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md)
+## [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md): Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md): [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+## [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md): Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md): [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `cites` [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md): [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md): [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md): [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md): [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+
+## [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md): Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
## [`SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO.md): Mitch Stoltz EFF Staff Biography
- Page source in [`PERSON-MITCH-STOLTZ`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-MITCH-STOLTZ.md)
@@ -1048,6 +1185,33 @@ Source count: 207
- Page source in [`PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV.md)
- Relationship source in [`PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV.md): [`PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV.md) `affiliated_with` [`ORG-TELEGRAM`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-TELEGRAM.md)
+## [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md): Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Page source in [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md): [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) `cites` [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md): [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md): [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md): [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md): [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+
+## [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md): Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md): [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) `cites` [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md): [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md): [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+
## [`SRC-TIEN-EFF`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-TIEN-EFF.md): Lee Tien EFF Staff Biography
- Page source in [`PERSON-LEE-TIEN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-LEE-TIEN.md)
@@ -1147,6 +1311,55 @@ Source count: 207
- Page source in [`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md)
- Page source in [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md)
+## [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md): [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+
+## [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md): [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) `cites` [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md): [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md): [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md): [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
+## [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+## [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md): [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) `cites` [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md): [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md): [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md): [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+
+## [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
## [`SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII.md): U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Cornell LII)
- Page source in [`TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md)
@@ -1168,15 +1381,29 @@ Source count: 207
## [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md): 17 U.S.C. § 107
+- Page source in [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+- Page source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Page source in [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md): [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
- Page source in [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md)
- Relationship source in [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md): [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md) `cites` [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
- Relationship source in [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md): [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+- Page source in [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md): [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+- Page source in [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Page source in [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
- Page source in [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
- Relationship source in [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md): [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md) `cites` [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+- Relationship source in [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md): [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
- Relationship source in [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md): [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
- Page source in [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md)
- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md): [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md) `cites` [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md): [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md): [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
## [`SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO.md): 17 U.S.C. § 512 (GovInfo)
@@ -1233,6 +1460,24 @@ Source count: 207
- Page source in [`TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH.md)
- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH.md): [`TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH.md) `related_to` [`STAT-18-USC-2232`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-18-USC-2232.md)
+## [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md): U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `cites` [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
+## [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md): Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)
+
+- Page source in [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Relationship source in [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md): [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md): [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
## [`SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO.md): Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (GovInfo)
- Page source in [`CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US.md)
@@ -1281,6 +1526,9 @@ Source count: 207
- Page source in [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md)
- Relationship source in [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md): [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md) `affiliated_with` [`ORG-EFF`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-EFF.md)
- Relationship source in [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md): [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md) `cites` [`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md)
+- Relationship source in [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md): [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md)
## [`SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO.md): Lauren Weinstein Biography Page
diff --git a/website/generated/glossary.md b/website/generated/glossary.md
index e933963f..af68bee2 100644
--- a/website/generated/glossary.md
+++ b/website/generated/glossary.md
@@ -2,7 +2,16 @@
This page is generated from knowledge metadata. Do not edit it manually.
-Record count: 128
+Record count: 143
+
+## `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.
## `CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`: Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice { #CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ }
@@ -58,6 +67,33 @@ Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (June 29, 2026), held that police conduct a
Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023), granted summary judgment to Treasury on OFAC’s Tornado Cash designation, treating Tornado Cash as an association with an interest in the designated smart-contract tool.
+## `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.
+
+## `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. { #CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- Tags: case, first-amendment, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, intermediary-liability
+
+Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.
+
+## `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I) { #CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.
+
## `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. { #CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE }
- Type: `case`
@@ -76,6 +112,15 @@ Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision
Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is protected by the First Amendment because of its expressiveness in conveying ideas, reversing the district court's contrary finding on encryption source code and export restrictions.
+## `CASE-KADREY-V-META`: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. { #CASE-KADREY-V-META }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors’ books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.
+
## `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. { #CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL }
- Type: `case`
@@ -94,6 +139,15 @@ Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), held that copyrigh
East Brabant District Court judgment ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 (May 14, 2024) convicted a Tornado Cash developer of money laundering and imposed a 64-month prison sentence; English judiciary news identifies the defendant as Alexey Pertsev.
+## `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI) { #CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.
+
## `CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`: Packingham v. North Carolina { #CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC }
- Type: `case`
@@ -121,6 +175,51 @@ Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), is an appellate d
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain Communications Decency Act provisions restricting indecent and patently offensive Internet speech violated the First Amendment.
+## `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab { #CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.
+
+## `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`: Thaler v. Perlmutter { #CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+
+## `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. { #CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.
+
+## `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. { #CASE-UMG-V-SUNO }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.
+
+## `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio) { #CASE-UMG-V-UDIO }
+
+- Type: `case`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.
+
## `CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY`: Universal City Studios v. Corley { #CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY }
- Type: `case`
@@ -1012,6 +1111,33 @@ Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy wallet whose co-founders pled guilty in 20
Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and shuffles cryptocurrency deposits so withdrawals can be made to different addresses, reducing on-chain linkability between deposit and withdrawal.
+## `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`: Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT }
+
+- Type: `topic`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Tags: copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.
+
+## `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`: AI Litigation Landscape { #TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION }
+
+- Type: `topic`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Tags: artificial-intelligence, copyright, first-amendment, digital-rights, case-studies, intermediary-liability
+
+Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.
+
+## `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`: Music Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT }
+
+- Type: `topic`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Tags: copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.
+
## `TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`: App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws { #TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION }
- Type: `topic`
@@ -1021,6 +1147,15 @@ Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and s
Overview of U.S. state laws that pressure app stores and operating systems to verify or signal user age and to gate minors’ app access—covering California’s OS age-bracket signaling act, Texas/Utah/Louisiana/Alabama App Store Accountability Acts, key implementation dates, and major litigation status.
+## `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters { #TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT }
+
+- Type: `topic`
+- Status: `draft`
+- Path: [`knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Tags: artificial-intelligence, copyright, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+Documents the 2024 lexical sense of “brain rot” and the later copyright fight over AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.
+
## `TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH`: Code as Speech { #TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH }
- Type: `topic`
diff --git a/website/generated/handbook.md b/website/generated/handbook.md
index 13ea31df..5ad6c2ac 100644
--- a/website/generated/handbook.md
+++ b/website/generated/handbook.md
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
This page is generated from knowledge metadata. Do not edit it manually.
-**Release:** 0.1.0 (Unreleased) | **Generated:** 2026-08-08 | **Records:** 128 | **Sources referenced:** 204
+**Release:** 0.1.0 (Unreleased) | **Generated:** 2026-08-22 | **Records:** 143 | **Sources referenced:** 229
@@ -56,19 +56,30 @@ Knowledge records included in this handbook, grouped by type.
### Case
+- [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`)
- [Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice](#CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ) (`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`)
- [Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.](#CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS) (`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`)
- [Carpenter v. United States](#CASE-CARPENTER-V-US) (`CASE-CARPENTER-V-US`)
- [CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)](#CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420) (`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420`)
- [Chatrie v. United States](#CASE-CHATRIE-V-US) (`CASE-CHATRIE-V-US`)
- [Coin Center v. Yellen](#CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN) (`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN`)
+- [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`)
+- [Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.](#CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES) (`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`)
+- [GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)](#CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI) (`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`)
- [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](#CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE) (`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`)
- [Junger v. Daley](#CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY) (`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`)
+- [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](#CASE-KADREY-V-META) (`CASE-KADREY-V-META`)
- [Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.](#CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL) (`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`)
- [Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)](#CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV) (`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV`)
+- [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)](#CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI) (`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`)
- [Packingham v. North Carolina](#CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC) (`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`)
- [Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC](#CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL) (`CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL`)
- [Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union](#CASE-RENO-V-ACLU) (`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU`)
+- [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](#CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM) (`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`)
+- [Thaler v. Perlmutter](#CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER) (`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`)
+- [Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.](#CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS) (`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`)
+- [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.](#CASE-UMG-V-SUNO) (`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`)
+- [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)](#CASE-UMG-V-UDIO) (`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`)
- [Universal City Studios v. Corley](#CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY) (`CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY`)
- [United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet)](#CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ) (`CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ`)
- [United States v. Sklyarov / Elcomsoft](#CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV) (`CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV`)
@@ -171,7 +182,11 @@ Knowledge records included in this handbook, grouped by type.
### Topic
+- [Copyright and Generative AI](#TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT) (`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`)
+- [AI Litigation Landscape](#TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION) (`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`)
+- [Music Copyright and Generative AI](#TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT) (`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`)
- [App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws](#TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION) (`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`)
+- [Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters](#TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT) (`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`)
- [Code as Speech](#TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH) (`TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH`)
- [Computer Fraud and Abuse](#TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD) (`TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD`)
- [Decentralized Moderation in Censorship-Resistant Networks](#TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION) (`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`)
@@ -237,6 +252,15 @@ Aaron Williamson is principal attorney at Williamson Legal, PLLC, advising clien
Agora is a Russian human rights lawyers' group associated with Pavel Chikov; OIR documents it because its lawyers, including Chikov, have been reported as representing Telegram in Russian encryption-access and blocking litigation.
+### AI Litigation Landscape { #TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
+- **Type:** topic
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** artificial-intelligence, copyright, first-amendment, digital-rights, case-studies, intermediary-liability
+
+Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.
+
### Alan Kay { #PERSON-ALAN-KAY-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-ALAN-KAY`
@@ -282,6 +306,15 @@ Andrew Russell is Provost at SUNY Polytechnic Institute and historian of technol
Overview of U.S. state laws that pressure app stores and operating systems to verify or signal user age and to gate minors’ app access—covering California’s OS age-bracket signaling act, Texas/Utah/Louisiana/Alabama App Store Accountability Acts, key implementation dates, and major litigation status.
+### Bartz v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.
+
### Ben Wizner { #PERSON-BEN-WIZNER-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-BEN-WIZNER`
@@ -300,6 +333,15 @@ Ben Wizner is ACLU Deputy Legal Director and Director of its Center for Democrac
Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), held that software source code is protected speech under the First Amendment and that government regulations preventing its publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint.
+### Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters { #TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`
+- **Type:** topic
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** artificial-intelligence, copyright, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+Documents the 2024 lexical sense of “brain rot” and the later copyright fight over AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.
+
### Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. { #CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`
@@ -417,6 +459,15 @@ Computer fraud and abuse in U.S. federal law commonly refers to criminal prohibi
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, is the primary U.S. federal anti-hacking statute, originally enacted in 1984 and substantially amended in 1986, 1994, 1996, 2001, 2002, and 2008, which criminalizes unauthorized access to computers and has been widely criticized for vagueness and prosecutorial overreach.
+### Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.
+
### Cooley { #ORG-COOLEY-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `ORG-COOLEY`
@@ -426,6 +477,15 @@ The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, is the primary U.S.
Cooley is a global law firm that is the
+### Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- **Type:** topic
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.
+
### Cory Booker { #PERSON-CORY-BOOKER-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-CORY-BOOKER`
@@ -624,6 +684,24 @@ The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits unreasonable searches and s
The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 1985 with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom and defend the rights of all software users.
+### Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. { #CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, first-amendment, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, intermediary-liability
+
+Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.
+
+### GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I) { #CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.
+
### GNUnet { #TECH-GNUNET-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `TECH-GNUNET`
@@ -786,6 +864,15 @@ Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is
Kademlia is a peer-to-peer distributed hash table described in a 2002 paper by Petar Maymounkov and David Mazières.
+### Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. { #CASE-KADREY-V-META-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-KADREY-V-META`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors’ books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.
+
### Katie Fallow { #PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW`
@@ -876,6 +963,15 @@ Mike Lee is a U.S. Senator from Utah who opposes encryption backdoors, co-author
Mitch Stoltz is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who focuses on copyright, trademark, antitrust, telecommunications, and free speech, with particular work fighting the use of copyright as a tool for censorship and keeping the internet open for creativity and innovation.
+### Music Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
+- **Type:** topic
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.
+
### Nathan Freed Wessler { #PERSON-NATHAN-FREED-WESSLER-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-NATHAN-FREED-WESSLER`
@@ -1146,6 +1242,15 @@ Software Freedom Conservancy is a U.S. nonprofit organization that provides infr
The Software Freedom Law Center provides pro bono legal representation and related services to not-for-profit developers of free and open source software.
+### Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab { #CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.
+
### Telegram { #ORG-TELEGRAM-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `ORG-TELEGRAM`
@@ -1164,6 +1269,24 @@ Telegram is a Dubai-based messaging platform founded by Pavel Durov; OIR documen
Texas SB 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, adds Business & Commerce Code Chapter 121 requiring app stores to verify user age categories, obtain parental consent for minor downloads and purchases, and requiring developers to age-rate apps; takes effect January 1, 2026 and has been the subject of active First Amendment litigation.
+### Thaler v. Perlmutter { #CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+
+### The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI) { #CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.
+
### Thomas Haigh { #PERSON-THOMAS-HAIGH-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-THOMAS-HAIGH`
@@ -1182,6 +1305,15 @@ Thomas Haigh is a historian of computing at the University of Wisconsin–Milwau
Thomas Massie is a U.S. Representative from Kentucky who has led bipartisan House amendments to block government-mandated encryption backdoors and limit surveillance cooperation that weakens security standards.
+### Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. { #CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.
+
### Tim Berners-Lee { #PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE`
@@ -1245,6 +1377,24 @@ Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 is specified by RFC 8446.
U.S. authorities investigated Phil Zimmermann for years over distribution of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encryption software; the Northern District of California U.S. Attorney declined prosecution and closed the investigation in January 1996.
+### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. { #CASE-UMG-V-SUNO-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.
+
+### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio) { #CASE-UMG-V-UDIO-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.
+
### United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet) { #CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ`
@@ -1476,6 +1626,13 @@ Pavel Chikov is a Russian human rights lawyer identified as representing Telegra
### Case
+#### [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md): Bartz v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.
+
#### [`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md): Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice { #CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ }
- Status: `draft`
@@ -1518,6 +1675,27 @@ Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (June 29, 2026), held that police conduct a
Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023), granted summary judgment to Treasury on OFAC’s Tornado Cash designation, treating Tornado Cash as an association with an interest in the designated smart-contract tool.
+#### [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.
+
+#### [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md): Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. { #CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.
+
+#### [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md): GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I) { #CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md)
+
+First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.
+
#### [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md): Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. { #CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE }
- Status: `draft`
@@ -1532,6 +1710,13 @@ Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision
Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is protected by the First Amendment because of its expressiveness in conveying ideas, reversing the district court's contrary finding on encryption source code and export restrictions.
+#### [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md): Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. { #CASE-KADREY-V-META }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors’ books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.
+
#### [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md): Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. { #CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL }
- Status: `draft`
@@ -1546,6 +1731,13 @@ Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), held that copyrigh
East Brabant District Court judgment ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 (May 14, 2024) convicted a Tornado Cash developer of money laundering and imposed a 64-month prison sentence; English judiciary news identifies the defendant as Alexey Pertsev.
+#### [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI) { #CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md)
+
+Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.
+
#### [`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md): Packingham v. North Carolina { #CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC }
- Status: `draft`
@@ -1567,6 +1759,41 @@ Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), is an appellate d
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain Communications Decency Act provisions restricting indecent and patently offensive Internet speech violated the First Amendment.
+#### [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md): Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab { #CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
+
+Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.
+
+#### [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md): Thaler v. Perlmutter { #CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+
+Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+
+#### [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md): Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. { #CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.
+
+#### [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. { #CASE-UMG-V-SUNO }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+Pending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.
+
+#### [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio) { #CASE-UMG-V-UDIO }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.
+
#### [`CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md): Universal City Studios v. Corley { #CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY }
- Status: `draft`
@@ -2148,6 +2375,27 @@ Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and s
### Topic
+#### [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md), [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md), [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md), [`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md)
+
+U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.
+
+#### [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): AI Litigation Landscape { #TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md), [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md), [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+
+Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.
+
+#### [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): Music Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.
+
#### [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md): App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws { #TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION }
- Status: `draft`
@@ -2155,6 +2403,13 @@ Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and s
Overview of U.S. state laws that pressure app stores and operating systems to verify or signal user age and to gate minors’ app access—covering California’s OS age-bracket signaling act, Texas/Utah/Louisiana/Alabama App Store Accountability Acts, key implementation dates, and major litigation status.
+#### [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md): Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters { #TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT }
+
+- Status: `draft`
+- Sources: [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md), [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+
+Documents the 2024 lexical sense of “brain rot” and the later copyright fight over AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.
+
#### [`TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md): Code as Speech { #TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH }
- Status: `draft`
@@ -2214,7 +2469,7 @@ U.S. fair use law as it applies to video that incorporates copyrighted music, fo
#### [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md): First Amendment { #TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT }
- Status: `draft`
-- Sources: [`SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII.md), [`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA.md), [`SRC-FIRE-MISSION`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FIRE-MISSION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII.md), [`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA.md), [`SRC-FIRE-MISSION`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FIRE-MISSION.md), [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses religion, expression, assembly, and petition rights.
@@ -2271,6 +2526,8 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not
- [`SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md): Alabama HB 161 Enrolled — App Store Accountability Act (`draft`)
- [`SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md): Alston & Bird — Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md): AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md): Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md): Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026.md): BBC News — Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism (`draft`)
- [`SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C.md): Tim Berners-Lee W3C Biography (`verified`)
- [`SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF.md): Bernstein v. US Dept. of Justice EFF Case Page (`verified`)
@@ -2306,6 +2563,8 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not
- [`SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE.md): EFF Press Release - Cindy Cohn Stepping Down (`verified`)
- [`SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE.md): FOSS Force - Cohn Returns to the Courtroom (`verified`)
- [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md): Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-COOLEY-TECH`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md): Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page (`draft`)
- [`SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX.md): U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Resources (`verified`)
- [`SRC-CORLEY-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CORLEY-LII.md): Universal City Studios v. Corley Opinion Text (Open Casebook) (`verified`)
@@ -2336,6 +2595,10 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not
- [`SRC-FREENET-HISTORY`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FREENET-HISTORY.md): Freenet History Page (`draft`)
- [`SRC-FSF-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FSF-ABOUT.md): Free Software Foundation About Page (`verified`)
- [`SRC-FSF-PRESS`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FSF-PRESS.md): Free Software Foundation Press Information (`verified`)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md): Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md): Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md): LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md): Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md): GNUnet About Page (`draft`)
- [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md): Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO.md): Jennifer Granick ACLU Staff Biography (`verified`)
@@ -2357,6 +2620,7 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not
- [`SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md): Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page (`verified`)
- [`SRC-JUNGER-CMU`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-CMU.md): Junger v. Daley Opinion Text (CMU) (`verified`)
- [`SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md): Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric (`verified`)
+- [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md): Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-KAHN-CNRI`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAHN-CNRI.md): Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography (`verified`)
- [`SRC-KAY-CHM`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAY-CHM.md): Alan Kay Computer History Museum Profile (`verified`)
- [`SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md): Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee (`draft`)
@@ -2376,11 +2640,15 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not
- [`SRC-MEEKER-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MEEKER-ABOUT.md): Heather Meeker About Page (`verified`)
- [`SRC-MOGLEN-COLUMBIA`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MOGLEN-COLUMBIA.md): Eben Moglen Columbia Law School Faculty Page (`verified`)
- [`SRC-MOGLEN-DSI`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MOGLEN-DSI.md): Eben Moglen Columbia Data Science Institute Profile (`verified`)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md): OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation (`draft`)
- [`SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md): OFAC Recent Actions — Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-ORIN-KERR-GWU`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-ORIN-KERR-GWU.md): Orin Kerr George Washington University Law Faculty Page (`verified`)
- [`SRC-OSI-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OSI-ABOUT.md): Open Source Initiative About Page (`verified`)
- [`SRC-OSI-HISTORY`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OSI-HISTORY.md): Open Source Initiative History Page (`verified`)
+- [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md): Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024 (`draft`)
- [`SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO.md): Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (GovInfo) (`verified`)
- [`SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA.md): Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (Justia) (`verified`)
- [`SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII.md): Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (Cornell LII) (`verified`)
@@ -2418,11 +2686,16 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not
- [`SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET.md): The Double Ratchet Algorithm (`verified`)
- [`SRC-SIGNAL-HOME`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-SIGNAL-HOME.md): Signal Official Website (`verified`)
- [`SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md): The X3DH Key Agreement Protocol (`verified`)
+- [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md): Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md): Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md): Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO.md): Mitch Stoltz EFF Staff Biography (`verified`)
- [`SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026.md): TechCrunch — DOJ Accuses American of Wiping Phone with Duress Password (July 24, 2026) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026.md): TechSpot — Prosecutors Charge Atlanta Man After GrapheneOS Phone Wipe (2026) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ.md): Telegram FAQ (`draft`)
- [`SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS.md): Telegram Press Info (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md): Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md): Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-TIEN-EFF`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-TIEN-EFF.md): Lee Tien EFF Staff Biography (`verified`)
- [`SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER.md): Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router (`verified`)
- [`SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT.md): Tor Project Contact Page (`verified`)
@@ -2437,6 +2710,11 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not
- [`SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026.md): United States v. Tunick — Motion to Suppress (Mar. 17, 2026) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED.md): Texas SB 2420 — App Store Accountability Act (Enrolled Text) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026.md): Texas Tribune — Supreme Court Lets Texas App Age Verification Law Stay in Effect (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md): UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII.md): U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Cornell LII) (`verified`)
- [`SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-IV-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-IV-LII.md): U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment (Cornell LII) (`verified`)
- [`SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO.md): 17 U.S.C. § 107 (GovInfo) (`verified`)
@@ -2446,6 +2724,8 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not
- [`SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO.md): 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (GovInfo) (`verified`)
- [`SRC-USC-18-1030-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-1030-LII.md): 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (`verified`)
- [`SRC-USC-18-2232-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-2232-LII.md): 18 U.S.C. § 2232 (Cornell LII) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md): U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025) (`draft`)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md): Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023) (`draft`)
- [`SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO.md): Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (GovInfo) (`verified`)
- [`SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII.md): Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (Cornell LII) (`verified`)
- [`SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA.md): Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024) (Justia) (`draft`)
diff --git a/website/generated/print-handbook.md b/website/generated/print-handbook.md
index f67eea1f..5888e283 100644
--- a/website/generated/print-handbook.md
+++ b/website/generated/print-handbook.md
@@ -14,15 +14,15 @@
Generated
- 2026-08-08
+ 2026-08-22
Knowledge records
- 128
+ 143
Sources referenced
- 204
+ 229
Document type
@@ -89,19 +89,30 @@ Knowledge records included in this handbook, grouped by type.
### Case
+- [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`)
- [Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice](#CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ) (`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`)
- [Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.](#CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS) (`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`)
- [Carpenter v. United States](#CASE-CARPENTER-V-US) (`CASE-CARPENTER-V-US`)
- [CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)](#CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420) (`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420`)
- [Chatrie v. United States](#CASE-CHATRIE-V-US) (`CASE-CHATRIE-V-US`)
- [Coin Center v. Yellen](#CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN) (`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN`)
+- [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`)
+- [Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.](#CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES) (`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`)
+- [GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)](#CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI) (`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`)
- [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](#CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE) (`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`)
- [Junger v. Daley](#CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY) (`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`)
+- [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](#CASE-KADREY-V-META) (`CASE-KADREY-V-META`)
- [Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.](#CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL) (`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`)
- [Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)](#CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV) (`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV`)
+- [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)](#CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI) (`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`)
- [Packingham v. North Carolina](#CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC) (`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`)
- [Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC](#CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL) (`CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL`)
- [Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union](#CASE-RENO-V-ACLU) (`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU`)
+- [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](#CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM) (`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`)
+- [Thaler v. Perlmutter](#CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER) (`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`)
+- [Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.](#CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS) (`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`)
+- [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.](#CASE-UMG-V-SUNO) (`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`)
+- [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)](#CASE-UMG-V-UDIO) (`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`)
- [Universal City Studios v. Corley](#CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY) (`CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY`)
- [United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet)](#CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ) (`CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ`)
- [United States v. Sklyarov / Elcomsoft](#CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV) (`CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV`)
@@ -204,7 +215,11 @@ Knowledge records included in this handbook, grouped by type.
### Topic
+- [Copyright and Generative AI](#TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT) (`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`)
+- [AI Litigation Landscape](#TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION) (`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`)
+- [Music Copyright and Generative AI](#TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT) (`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`)
- [App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws](#TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION) (`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`)
+- [Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters](#TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT) (`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`)
- [Code as Speech](#TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH) (`TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH`)
- [Computer Fraud and Abuse](#TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD) (`TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD`)
- [Decentralized Moderation in Censorship-Resistant Networks](#TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION) (`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`)
@@ -270,6 +285,15 @@ Aaron Williamson is principal attorney at Williamson Legal, PLLC, advising clien
Agora is a Russian human rights lawyers' group associated with Pavel Chikov; OIR documents it because its lawyers, including Chikov, have been reported as representing Telegram in Russian encryption-access and blocking litigation.
+### AI Litigation Landscape { #TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
+- **Type:** topic
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** artificial-intelligence, copyright, first-amendment, digital-rights, case-studies, intermediary-liability
+
+Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.
+
### Alan Kay { #PERSON-ALAN-KAY-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-ALAN-KAY`
@@ -315,6 +339,15 @@ Andrew Russell is Provost at SUNY Polytechnic Institute and historian of technol
Overview of U.S. state laws that pressure app stores and operating systems to verify or signal user age and to gate minors’ app access—covering California’s OS age-bracket signaling act, Texas/Utah/Louisiana/Alabama App Store Accountability Acts, key implementation dates, and major litigation status.
+### Bartz v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.
+
### Ben Wizner { #PERSON-BEN-WIZNER-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-BEN-WIZNER`
@@ -333,6 +366,15 @@ Ben Wizner is ACLU Deputy Legal Director and Director of its Center for Democrac
Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), held that software source code is protected speech under the First Amendment and that government regulations preventing its publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint.
+### Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters { #TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`
+- **Type:** topic
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** artificial-intelligence, copyright, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+Documents the 2024 lexical sense of “brain rot” and the later copyright fight over AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.
+
### Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. { #CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`
@@ -450,6 +492,15 @@ Computer fraud and abuse in U.S. federal law commonly refers to criminal prohibi
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, is the primary U.S. federal anti-hacking statute, originally enacted in 1984 and substantially amended in 1986, 1994, 1996, 2001, 2002, and 2008, which criminalizes unauthorized access to computers and has been widely criticized for vagueness and prosecutorial overreach.
+### Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.
+
### Cooley { #ORG-COOLEY-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `ORG-COOLEY`
@@ -459,6 +510,15 @@ The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, is the primary U.S.
Cooley is a global law firm that is the
+### Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- **Type:** topic
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.
+
### Cory Booker { #PERSON-CORY-BOOKER-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-CORY-BOOKER`
@@ -657,6 +717,24 @@ The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits unreasonable searches and s
The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 1985 with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom and defend the rights of all software users.
+### Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. { #CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, first-amendment, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, intermediary-liability
+
+Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.
+
+### GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I) { #CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.
+
### GNUnet { #TECH-GNUNET-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `TECH-GNUNET`
@@ -819,6 +897,15 @@ Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is
Kademlia is a peer-to-peer distributed hash table described in a 2002 paper by Petar Maymounkov and David Mazières.
+### Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. { #CASE-KADREY-V-META-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-KADREY-V-META`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors’ books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.
+
### Katie Fallow { #PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-KATIE-FALLOW`
@@ -909,6 +996,15 @@ Mike Lee is a U.S. Senator from Utah who opposes encryption backdoors, co-author
Mitch Stoltz is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who focuses on copyright, trademark, antitrust, telecommunications, and free speech, with particular work fighting the use of copyright as a tool for censorship and keeping the internet open for creativity and innovation.
+### Music Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
+- **Type:** topic
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.
+
### Nathan Freed Wessler { #PERSON-NATHAN-FREED-WESSLER-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-NATHAN-FREED-WESSLER`
@@ -1179,6 +1275,15 @@ Software Freedom Conservancy is a U.S. nonprofit organization that provides infr
The Software Freedom Law Center provides pro bono legal representation and related services to not-for-profit developers of free and open source software.
+### Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab { #CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.
+
### Telegram { #ORG-TELEGRAM-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `ORG-TELEGRAM`
@@ -1197,6 +1302,24 @@ Telegram is a Dubai-based messaging platform founded by Pavel Durov; OIR documen
Texas SB 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, adds Business & Commerce Code Chapter 121 requiring app stores to verify user age categories, obtain parental consent for minor downloads and purchases, and requiring developers to age-rate apps; takes effect January 1, 2026 and has been the subject of active First Amendment litigation.
+### Thaler v. Perlmutter { #CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+
+### The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI) { #CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.
+
### Thomas Haigh { #PERSON-THOMAS-HAIGH-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-THOMAS-HAIGH`
@@ -1215,6 +1338,15 @@ Thomas Haigh is a historian of computing at the University of Wisconsin–Milwau
Thomas Massie is a U.S. Representative from Kentucky who has led bipartisan House amendments to block government-mandated encryption backdoors and limit surveillance cooperation that weakens security standards.
+### Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. { #CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.
+
### Tim Berners-Lee { #PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE`
@@ -1278,6 +1410,24 @@ Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 is specified by RFC 8446.
U.S. authorities investigated Phil Zimmermann for years over distribution of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encryption software; the Northern District of California U.S. Attorney declined prosecution and closed the investigation in January 1996.
+### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. { #CASE-UMG-V-SUNO-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.
+
+### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio) { #CASE-UMG-V-UDIO-glossary }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`
+- **Type:** case
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.
+
### United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet) { #CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ-glossary }
- **Record ID:** `CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ`
@@ -1581,6 +1731,17 @@ Pavel Chikov is a Russian human rights lawyer identified as representing Telegra
### Case
+#### Bartz v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`)
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.
+
+---
+
#### Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice { #CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ }
- **Record ID:** `CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`
@@ -1647,6 +1808,39 @@ Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023), granted summ
---
+#### Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`)
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.
+
+---
+
+#### Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. { #CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024) (`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT`), Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) (`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`)
+- **Tags:** case, first-amendment, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, intermediary-liability
+
+Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.
+
+---
+
+#### GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I) { #CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`), Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`)
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.
+
+---
+
#### Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. { #CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE }
- **Record ID:** `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`
@@ -1669,6 +1863,17 @@ Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is
---
+#### Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. { #CASE-KADREY-V-META }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-KADREY-V-META`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`)
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors’ books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.
+
+---
+
#### Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. { #CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL }
- **Record ID:** `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`
@@ -1691,6 +1896,17 @@ East Brabant District Court judgment ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 (May 14, 2024) conv
---
+#### The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI) { #CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`)
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.
+
+---
+
#### Packingham v. North Carolina { #CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC }
- **Record ID:** `CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`
@@ -1724,6 +1940,61 @@ Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain C
---
+#### Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab { #CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`), Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248) (`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`), Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`), Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023) (`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`)
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.
+
+---
+
+#### Thaler v. Perlmutter { #CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`), Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023) (`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`), U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025) (`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`)
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+
+---
+
+#### Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. { #CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) (`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`)
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.
+
+---
+
+#### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. { #CASE-UMG-V-SUNO }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`)
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Pending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.
+
+---
+
+#### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio) { #CASE-UMG-V-UDIO }
+
+- **Record ID:** `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`), Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`)
+- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights
+
+Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.
+
+---
+
#### Universal City Studios v. Corley { #CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY }
- **Record ID:** `CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY`
@@ -2629,6 +2900,39 @@ Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and s
### Topic
+#### Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023) (`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`), U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025) (`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`), Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`), Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) (`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`), Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`), Kit Walsh EFF Staff Biography (`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`)
+- **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.
+
+---
+
+#### AI Litigation Landscape { #TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`), Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) (`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`), Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`), Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) (`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`), U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025) (`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`)
+- **Tags:** artificial-intelligence, copyright, first-amendment, digital-rights, case-studies, intermediary-liability
+
+Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.
+
+---
+
+#### Music Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`), Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`), Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`)
+- **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.
+
+---
+
#### App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws { #TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION }
- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`
@@ -2640,6 +2944,17 @@ Overview of U.S. state laws that pressure app stores and operating systems to ve
---
+#### Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters { #TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT }
+
+- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`
+- **Status:** draft
+- **Sources:** Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024 (`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`), Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`), Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248) (`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`), Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`), Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023) (`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`), U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025) (`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`)
+- **Tags:** artificial-intelligence, copyright, digital-rights, case-studies
+
+Documents the 2024 lexical sense of “brain rot” and the later copyright fight over AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.
+
+---
+
#### Code as Speech { #TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH }
- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH`
@@ -2732,7 +3047,7 @@ U.S. fair use law as it applies to video that incorporates copyrighted music, fo
- **Record ID:** `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`
- **Status:** draft
-- **Sources:** U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Cornell LII) (`SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII`), Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA`), FIRE Mission Page (`SRC-FIRE-MISSION`)
+- **Sources:** U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Cornell LII) (`SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII`), Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA`), FIRE Mission Page (`SRC-FIRE-MISSION`), Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) (`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`)
- **Tags:** constitutional-law, first-amendment, digital-rights, speech-and-code
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses religion, expression, assembly, and petition rights.
@@ -2872,6 +3187,24 @@ Associated Press report that Russia's FSB charged Pavel Durov with aiding terror
---
+### Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Northern District of California summary-judgment order holding that training Anthropic’s Claude models on purchased books was fair use, while pirated library copies were not excused as fair use.
+
+---
+
+### Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Northern District of California order granting final approval of a $1.5 billion class settlement covering Anthropic’s past acquisition and copying of listed pirated books.
+
+---
+
### BBC News — Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism
- **Source ID:** `SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026`
@@ -3187,6 +3520,24 @@ Northern District of Florida summary-judgment opinion upholding OFAC’s Tornado
---
+### Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+CourtListener docket for the music-publisher lyric-copyright action against Anthropic, including the original Tennessee filing date reflected on the transferred complaint.
+
+---
+
+### Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Northern District of California order allowing music publishers’ amended claims for secondary copyright infringement and DMCA CMI removal against Anthropic to proceed.
+
+---
+
### Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page
- **Source ID:** `SRC-COOLEY-TECH`
@@ -3457,6 +3808,42 @@ Official press page of the Free Software Foundation with founding date and missi
---
+### Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Wrongful-death and product-liability complaint alleging that a Character.AI chatbot contributed to the death of a 14-year-old user.
+
+---
+
+### Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Middle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.
+
+---
+
+### LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.
+
+---
+
+### Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.
+
+---
+
### GNUnet About Page
- **Source ID:** `SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT`
@@ -3646,6 +4033,15 @@ Foundational 2002 conference paper by Petar Maymounkov and David Mazières descr
---
+### Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Northern District of California order granting Meta summary judgment on fair use for copying thirteen authors’ books as Llama training data on the record presented.
+
+---
+
### Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography
- **Source ID:** `SRC-KAHN-CNRI`
@@ -3817,6 +4213,33 @@ Columbia Data Science Institute profile of Eben Moglen describing his work with
---
+### The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Southern District of New York order dismissing with prejudice news plaintiffs’ material-contribution contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft after Cox.
+
+---
+
+### The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Complaint alleging that Microsoft and OpenAI copied New York Times works to train large language models and that model outputs reproduced Times content.
+
+---
+
+### The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Southern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft while dismissing specified DMCA and hot-news claims.
+
+---
+
### OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation
- **Source ID:** `SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076`
@@ -3862,6 +4285,15 @@ Official history page of the Open Source Initiative documenting its founding and
---
+### Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Official Oxford University Press announcement selecting “brain rot” as Oxford Word of the Year 2024 and publishing the press’s definition of the term.
+
+---
+
### Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (GovInfo)
- **Source ID:** `SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO`
@@ -4195,6 +4627,33 @@ Official Signal specification for the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman key agreeme
---
+### Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Second Sony-affiliated complaint against Udio asserting 30,117 additional sound recordings after leave to expand the 2024 action was denied.
+
+---
+
+### Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Complaint seeking a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are not protected by copyright.
+
+---
+
+### Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+CourtListener docket record for the Steal a Brainrot copyright and trademark dispute in the Northern District of California.
+
+---
+
### Mitch Stoltz EFF Staff Biography
- **Source ID:** `SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO`
@@ -4240,6 +4699,24 @@ Official Telegram press page describing the messaging service, Dubai base, and P
---
+### Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+D.C. Circuit opinion affirming refusal to register a copyright in an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+
+---
+
+### Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+District of Delaware memorandum opinion rejecting Ross Intelligence’s fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI.
+
+---
+
### Lee Tien EFF Staff Biography
- **Source ID:** `SRC-TIEN-EFF`
@@ -4366,6 +4843,51 @@ Texas Tribune report that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene against e
---
+### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Suno’s answer admitting that its model was built from tens of millions of recordings and asserting fair use, copyright misuse, and other defenses.
+
+---
+
+### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Major-label complaint alleging that Suno copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service and seeking damages and injunctive relief.
+
+---
+
+### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Rule 41 stipulation dismissing Warner-affiliated plaintiffs’ claims against Suno with prejudice while leaving UMG and Sony claims unaffected.
+
+---
+
+### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Major-label complaint alleging that Uncharted Labs (Udio) copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service.
+
+---
+
+### UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+CourtListener docket for the original major-label copyright action against Udio, including later stipulations dismissing UMG and Warner claims.
+
+---
+
### U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Cornell LII)
- **Source ID:** `SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII`
@@ -4447,6 +4969,24 @@ Cornell Legal Information Institute page for 18 U.S.C. § 2232, destruction or r
---
+### U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+Copyright Office report concluding that existing U.S. law can resolve AI copyrightability questions and that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable.
+
+---
+
+### Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)
+
+- **Source ID:** `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`
+- **Status:** draft
+
+U.S. Copyright Office statement of policy on examining and registering works that contain AI-generated material, effective March 16, 2023.
+
+---
+
### Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (GovInfo)
- **Source ID:** `SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO`
diff --git a/website/generated/relationship-graph.md b/website/generated/relationship-graph.md
index e09a1ce2..c93cc20f 100644
--- a/website/generated/relationship-graph.md
+++ b/website/generated/relationship-graph.md
@@ -37,10 +37,10 @@ Deep-link examples: `?focus=TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` or `?focus=TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDM
-Corpus edge count: 406 (full graph is not drawn by default)
+Corpus edge count: 501 (full graph is not drawn by default)
diff --git a/website/generated/relationships.md b/website/generated/relationships.md
index 65908ea8..4f0914c9 100644
--- a/website/generated/relationships.md
+++ b/website/generated/relationships.md
@@ -2,7 +2,27 @@
This page is generated from relationship metadata. Do not edit it manually.
-Edge count: 406
+Edge count: 501
+
+## [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+
+## [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+
+## [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+## [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
## [`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md) `cites` [`SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF.md)
@@ -129,6 +149,71 @@ Edge count: 406
- Declared in: [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md)
- Sources: [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md)
+## [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `cites` [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `cites` [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+
## [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) `cites` [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md)
- Declared in: [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md)
@@ -159,6 +244,26 @@ Edge count: 406
- Declared in: [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md)
- Sources: [`SRC-JUNGER-CMU`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-CMU.md)
+## [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) `cites` [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+
+## [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+
+## [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+## [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+
## [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md) `cites` [`SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9.md)
- Declared in: [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md)
@@ -204,6 +309,21 @@ Edge count: 406
- Declared in: [`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md)
- Sources: [`SRC-PERTSEV-ECLI-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PERTSEV-ECLI-2024.md)
+## [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `cites` [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+
## [`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md) `cites` [`SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO.md)
- Declared in: [`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md)
@@ -274,6 +394,121 @@ Edge count: 406
- Declared in: [`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md)
- Sources: [`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC.md)
+## [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `cites` [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
+
+## [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) `cites` [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+
+## [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+
+## [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+
+## [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+
+## [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) `cites` [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+## [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+
+## [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) `cites` [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md)
+
+## [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) `cites` [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
## [`CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md) `cites` [`SRC-CORLEY-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CORLEY-LII.md)
- Declared in: [`CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md)
@@ -1078,6 +1313,11 @@ RFE/RL identified Chikov as representing Telegram in the 2018 Russian blocking l
- Declared in: [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md)
- Sources: [`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md)
+## [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md)
+
## [`PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN.md) `cites` [`SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WEINSTEIN-BIO.md)
- Declared in: [`PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-LAUREN-WEINSTEIN.md)
@@ -1480,6 +1720,11 @@ France 24/AFP identified Kaminski as Durov's lawyer in the August 2024 French ch
- Declared in: [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
- Sources: [`SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9.md)
+## [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
## [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md)
- Declared in: [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
@@ -1600,6 +1845,208 @@ France 24/AFP identified Kaminski as Durov's lawyer in the August 2024 French ch
- Declared in: [`TECH-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md)
- Sources: [`SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA.md)
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `cites` [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil product liability, not a criminal developer prosecution.
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
## [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md)
- Declared in: [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md)
@@ -1620,6 +2067,26 @@ France 24/AFP identified Kaminski as Durov's lawyer in the August 2024 French ch
- Declared in: [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md)
- Sources: [`SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER.md)
+## [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md) `cites` [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+
+## [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
+
## [`TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md) `cites` [`SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA.md)
- Declared in: [`TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md)
@@ -1890,6 +2357,11 @@ France 24/AFP identified Kaminski as Durov's lawyer in the August 2024 French ch
- Declared in: [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md)
- Sources: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+## [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
## [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE.md)
- Declared in: [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md)
@@ -1900,6 +2372,11 @@ France 24/AFP identified Kaminski as Durov's lawyer in the August 2024 French ch
- Declared in: [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md)
- Sources: [`SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII.md)
+## [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+
+- Declared in: [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md)
+- Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
## [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md)
- Declared in: [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md)
diff --git a/website/generated/review-status.md b/website/generated/review-status.md
index 92c89545..991329ec 100644
--- a/website/generated/review-status.md
+++ b/website/generated/review-status.md
@@ -4,43 +4,54 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
## Totals
-- Records: 335
-- Records needing review: 219
+- Records: 375
+- Records needing review: 259
- Records missing `last_verified`: 3
## By Status
-- [`draft`](#draft-records): 219
+- [`draft`](#draft-records): 259
- [`verified`](#verified-records): 116
## By Type
- [`attorney`](#attorney-records): 18
-- [`case`](#case-records): 20
+- [`case`](#case-records): 31
- [`historical_event`](#historical-event-records): 4
- [`organization`](#organization-records): 23
- [`person`](#person-records): 30
- [`protocol`](#protocol-records): 3
-- [`source`](#source-records): 207
+- [`source`](#source-records): 232
- [`statute`](#statute-records): 8
- [`technology`](#technology-records): 6
-- [`topic`](#topic-records): 16
+- [`topic`](#topic-records): 20
## Records Needing Review
+- [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
- [`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ: Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md)
- [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md)
- [`CASE-CARPENTER-V-US: Carpenter v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CARPENTER-V-US.md)
- [`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420: CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md)
- [`CASE-CHATRIE-V-US: Chatrie v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CHATRIE-V-US.md)
- [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN: Coin Center v. Yellen`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md)
+- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
- [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md)
- [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY: Junger v. Daley`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md)
+- [`CASE-KADREY-V-META: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
- [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md)
- [`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV: Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md)
+- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
- [`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC: Packingham v. North Carolina`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md)
- [`CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL: Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL.md)
- [`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md)
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER: Thaler v. Perlmutter`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
- [`CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY: Universal City Studios v. Corley`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md)
- [`CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ: United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md)
- [`CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV: United States v. Sklyarov / Elcomsoft`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV.md)
@@ -129,6 +140,8 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED: Alabama HB 161 Enrolled — App Store Accountability Act`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md)
- [`SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026: Alston & Bird — Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md)
- [`SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026: AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md)
- [`SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026: BBC News — Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026.md)
- [`SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING: Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING.md)
- [`SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008: White House — President Bush Signs FISA Amendments Act of 2008`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008.md)
@@ -143,6 +156,8 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-BIO: Ian Clarke — Freenet Project Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-BIO.md)
- [`SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001: Freenet: A Distributed Anonymous Information Storage and Retrieval System`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001.md)
- [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023: Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
- [`SRC-COOLEY-TECH: Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md)
- [`SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET: CourtListener Docket — United States v. Tunick (1:25-cr-00499)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET.md)
- [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001: DOJ — Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001.md)
@@ -161,6 +176,10 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS: FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-261)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS.md)
- [`SRC-FRANCE24-DUROV-KAMINSKI-2024: France 24 / AFP — Telegram Boss Durov Charged in France; Lawyer David-Olivier Kaminski Quoted`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-FRANCE24-DUROV-KAMINSKI-2024.md)
- [`SRC-FREENET-HISTORY: Freenet History Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FREENET-HISTORY.md)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md)
- [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT: GNUnet About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md)
- [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md)
- [`SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES: GrapheneOS Features Overview — Duress PIN/Password`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES.md)
@@ -172,6 +191,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII: 50 U.S.C. § 1702 — International Emergency Economic Powers (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII.md)
- [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025.md)
- [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Sentenced (Nov. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
- [`SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL: Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md)
- [`SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA: Louisiana Act No. 185 — App Store Accountability Act (2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA.md)
- [`SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS: Encryption backdoors aren't worth the price`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS.md)
@@ -180,11 +200,15 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005: LWN.net — An Introduction to GNUnet (2005)`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005.md)
- [`SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT: House Passes Massie Amendment to Strengthen Privacy and Security`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT.md)
- [`SRC-MEDUZA-DUROV-FSB-2026: Meduza — FSB Accuses Durov of Aiding Terrorism and Issues International Arrest Warrant`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-MEDUZA-DUROV-FSB-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
- [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076: OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md)
- [`SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321: OFAC Recent Actions — Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md)
- [`SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT: OIR Bootstrap Prompt`](source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md)
- [`SRC-OIR-PROJECT-CHARTER-DOCX: Open Internet Reference Project Charter`](source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-PROJECT-CHARTER-DOCX.md)
- [`SRC-OIR-ROADMAP-DOCX: Open Internet Reference Roadmap`](source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-ROADMAP-DOCX.md)
+- [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024: Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md)
- [`SRC-PAUL-FISA: Fox News Op-Ed: Sen. Rand Paul — My FISA Reform Amendment Will Keep America Safe`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-PAUL-FISA.md)
- [`SRC-PAUL-FOURTH-AMENDMENT: Dr. Rand Paul Introduces Legislation to Restore and Protect Americans' Fourth Amendment Rights`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-PAUL-FOURTH-AMENDMENT.md)
- [`SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH: Perkins Coie Technology Transactions & Privacy Law Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH.md)
@@ -192,10 +216,15 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024: Dutch Judiciary English News — Tornado Cash Developer Jail Sentence (May 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024.md)
- [`SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV: Rafto Foundation — Agora / Pavel Chikov Prize Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV.md)
- [`SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018: RFE/RL — Russian Court Orders Telegram App Blocked (2018)`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018.md)
+- [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md)
- [`SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026: TechCrunch — DOJ Accuses American of Wiping Phone with Duress Password (July 24, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026.md)
- [`SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026: TechSpot — Prosecutors Charge Atlanta Man After GrapheneOS Phone Wipe (2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026.md)
- [`SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ: Telegram FAQ`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ.md)
- [`SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS: Telegram Press Info`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS.md)
+- [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+- [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
- [`SRC-TR-IAN-CLARKE: MIT Technology Review — Ian Clarke Innovator Profile`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-TR-IAN-CLARKE.md)
- [`SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022: Treasury Issues First Sanctions on a Virtual Currency Mixer — Blender.io (May 6, 2022)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022.md)
- [`SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023: Treasury Designates Roman Semenov, Co-Founder of Tornado Cash (Aug. 23, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023.md)
@@ -206,7 +235,14 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026: United States v. Tunick — Motion to Suppress (Mar. 17, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026.md)
- [`SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED: Texas SB 2420 — App Store Accountability Act (Enrolled Text)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED.md)
- [`SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026: Texas Tribune — Supreme Court Lets Texas App Age Verification Law Stay in Effect`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md)
- [`SRC-USC-18-2232-LII: 18 U.S.C. § 2232 (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-2232-LII.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025: U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023: Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
- [`SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA: Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA.md)
- [`SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET: Wilson Sonsini Internet Strategy and Litigation Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET.md)
- [`SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE: Wilson Sonsini Software Industry Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE.md)
@@ -231,7 +267,11 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`TECH-PGP: Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-PGP.md)
- [`TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET: Samourai Wallet`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET.md)
- [`TECH-TORNADO-CASH: Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
- [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION: App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
- [`TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH: Code as Speech`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md)
- [`TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD: Computer Fraud and Abuse`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD.md)
- [`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION: Decentralized Moderation in Censorship-Resistant Networks`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md)
@@ -256,19 +296,30 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
## draft Records { #draft-records }
+- [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
- [`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ: Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md)
- [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md)
- [`CASE-CARPENTER-V-US: Carpenter v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CARPENTER-V-US.md)
- [`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420: CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md)
- [`CASE-CHATRIE-V-US: Chatrie v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CHATRIE-V-US.md)
- [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN: Coin Center v. Yellen`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md)
+- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
- [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md)
- [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY: Junger v. Daley`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md)
+- [`CASE-KADREY-V-META: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
- [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md)
- [`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV: Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md)
+- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
- [`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC: Packingham v. North Carolina`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md)
- [`CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL: Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL.md)
- [`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md)
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER: Thaler v. Perlmutter`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
- [`CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY: Universal City Studios v. Corley`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md)
- [`CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ: United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md)
- [`CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV: United States v. Sklyarov / Elcomsoft`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV.md)
@@ -357,6 +408,8 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED: Alabama HB 161 Enrolled — App Store Accountability Act`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md)
- [`SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026: Alston & Bird — Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md)
- [`SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026: AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md)
- [`SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026: BBC News — Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026.md)
- [`SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING: Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING.md)
- [`SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008: White House — President Bush Signs FISA Amendments Act of 2008`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008.md)
@@ -371,6 +424,8 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-BIO: Ian Clarke — Freenet Project Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-BIO.md)
- [`SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001: Freenet: A Distributed Anonymous Information Storage and Retrieval System`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001.md)
- [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023: Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
- [`SRC-COOLEY-TECH: Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md)
- [`SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET: CourtListener Docket — United States v. Tunick (1:25-cr-00499)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET.md)
- [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001: DOJ — Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001.md)
@@ -389,6 +444,10 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS: FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-261)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-FISA-AMENDMENTS-ACT-2008-CONGRESS.md)
- [`SRC-FRANCE24-DUROV-KAMINSKI-2024: France 24 / AFP — Telegram Boss Durov Charged in France; Lawyer David-Olivier Kaminski Quoted`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-FRANCE24-DUROV-KAMINSKI-2024.md)
- [`SRC-FREENET-HISTORY: Freenet History Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FREENET-HISTORY.md)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md)
- [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT: GNUnet About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md)
- [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md)
- [`SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES: GrapheneOS Features Overview — Duress PIN/Password`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES.md)
@@ -400,6 +459,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII: 50 U.S.C. § 1702 — International Emergency Economic Powers (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII.md)
- [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025.md)
- [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Sentenced (Nov. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
- [`SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL: Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md)
- [`SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA: Louisiana Act No. 185 — App Store Accountability Act (2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA.md)
- [`SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS: Encryption backdoors aren't worth the price`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS.md)
@@ -408,11 +468,15 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005: LWN.net — An Introduction to GNUnet (2005)`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-LWN-GNUNET-INTRO-2005.md)
- [`SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT: House Passes Massie Amendment to Strengthen Privacy and Security`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MASSIE-ENCRYPTION-AMENDMENT.md)
- [`SRC-MEDUZA-DUROV-FSB-2026: Meduza — FSB Accuses Durov of Aiding Terrorism and Issues International Arrest Warrant`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-MEDUZA-DUROV-FSB-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
- [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076: OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md)
- [`SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321: OFAC Recent Actions — Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md)
- [`SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT: OIR Bootstrap Prompt`](source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md)
- [`SRC-OIR-PROJECT-CHARTER-DOCX: Open Internet Reference Project Charter`](source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-PROJECT-CHARTER-DOCX.md)
- [`SRC-OIR-ROADMAP-DOCX: Open Internet Reference Roadmap`](source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-ROADMAP-DOCX.md)
+- [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024: Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md)
- [`SRC-PAUL-FISA: Fox News Op-Ed: Sen. Rand Paul — My FISA Reform Amendment Will Keep America Safe`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-PAUL-FISA.md)
- [`SRC-PAUL-FOURTH-AMENDMENT: Dr. Rand Paul Introduces Legislation to Restore and Protect Americans' Fourth Amendment Rights`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-PAUL-FOURTH-AMENDMENT.md)
- [`SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH: Perkins Coie Technology Transactions & Privacy Law Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-PERKINS-COIE-TECH.md)
@@ -420,10 +484,15 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024: Dutch Judiciary English News — Tornado Cash Developer Jail Sentence (May 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024.md)
- [`SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV: Rafto Foundation — Agora / Pavel Chikov Prize Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV.md)
- [`SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018: RFE/RL — Russian Court Orders Telegram App Blocked (2018)`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018.md)
+- [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md)
- [`SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026: TechCrunch — DOJ Accuses American of Wiping Phone with Duress Password (July 24, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026.md)
- [`SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026: TechSpot — Prosecutors Charge Atlanta Man After GrapheneOS Phone Wipe (2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026.md)
- [`SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ: Telegram FAQ`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ.md)
- [`SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS: Telegram Press Info`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS.md)
+- [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+- [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
- [`SRC-TR-IAN-CLARKE: MIT Technology Review — Ian Clarke Innovator Profile`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-TR-IAN-CLARKE.md)
- [`SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022: Treasury Issues First Sanctions on a Virtual Currency Mixer — Blender.io (May 6, 2022)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TREASURY-BLENDER-2022.md)
- [`SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023: Treasury Designates Roman Semenov, Co-Founder of Tornado Cash (Aug. 23, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023.md)
@@ -434,7 +503,14 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026: United States v. Tunick — Motion to Suppress (Mar. 17, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026.md)
- [`SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED: Texas SB 2420 — App Store Accountability Act (Enrolled Text)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED.md)
- [`SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026: Texas Tribune — Supreme Court Lets Texas App Age Verification Law Stay in Effect`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md)
- [`SRC-USC-18-2232-LII: 18 U.S.C. § 2232 (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-2232-LII.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025: U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023: Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
- [`SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA: Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA.md)
- [`SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET: Wilson Sonsini Internet Strategy and Litigation Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-INTERNET.md)
- [`SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE: Wilson Sonsini Software Industry Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-WILSON-SONSINI-SOFTWARE.md)
@@ -459,7 +535,11 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`TECH-PGP: Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-PGP.md)
- [`TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET: Samourai Wallet`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET.md)
- [`TECH-TORNADO-CASH: Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
- [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION: App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
- [`TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH: Code as Speech`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md)
- [`TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD: Computer Fraud and Abuse`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD.md)
- [`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION: Decentralized Moderation in Censorship-Resistant Networks`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md)
@@ -618,19 +698,30 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
## case Records { #case-records }
+- [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
- [`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ: Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md)
- [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md)
- [`CASE-CARPENTER-V-US: Carpenter v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CARPENTER-V-US.md)
- [`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420: CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md)
- [`CASE-CHATRIE-V-US: Chatrie v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CHATRIE-V-US.md)
- [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN: Coin Center v. Yellen`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md)
+- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md)
+- [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md)
+- [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md)
- [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md)
- [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY: Junger v. Daley`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md)
+- [`CASE-KADREY-V-META: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md)
- [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md)
- [`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV: Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md)
+- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md)
- [`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC: Packingham v. North Carolina`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md)
- [`CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL: Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL.md)
- [`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md)
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md)
+- [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER: Thaler v. Perlmutter`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md)
+- [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md)
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md)
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md)
- [`CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY: Universal City Studios v. Corley`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY.md)
- [`CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ: United States v. Rodriguez (Samourai Wallet)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md)
- [`CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV: United States v. Sklyarov / Elcomsoft`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV.md)
@@ -720,6 +811,8 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED: Alabama HB 161 Enrolled — App Store Accountability Act`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md)
- [`SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026: Alston & Bird — Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md)
- [`SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026: AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md)
- [`SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026: BBC News — Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026.md)
- [`SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C: Tim Berners-Lee W3C Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BERNERS-LEE-W3C.md)
- [`SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF: Bernstein v. US Dept. of Justice EFF Case Page`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF.md)
@@ -755,6 +848,8 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE: EFF Press Release - Cindy Cohn Stepping Down`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE.md)
- [`SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE: FOSS Force - Cohn Returns to the Courtroom`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE.md)
- [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023: Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
- [`SRC-COOLEY-TECH: Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md)
- [`SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX: U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Resources`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX.md)
- [`SRC-CORLEY-LII: Universal City Studios v. Corley Opinion Text (Open Casebook)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CORLEY-LII.md)
@@ -785,6 +880,10 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-FREENET-HISTORY: Freenet History Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FREENET-HISTORY.md)
- [`SRC-FSF-ABOUT: Free Software Foundation About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FSF-ABOUT.md)
- [`SRC-FSF-PRESS: Free Software Foundation Press Information`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-FSF-PRESS.md)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md)
- [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT: GNUnet About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md)
- [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md)
- [`SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO: Jennifer Granick ACLU Staff Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO.md)
@@ -806,6 +905,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO: Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md)
- [`SRC-JUNGER-CMU: Junger v. Daley Opinion Text (CMU)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-CMU.md)
- [`SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER: Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md)
+- [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
- [`SRC-KAHN-CNRI: Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAHN-CNRI.md)
- [`SRC-KAY-CHM: Alan Kay Computer History Museum Profile`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAY-CHM.md)
- [`SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL: Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md)
@@ -825,6 +925,9 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-MEEKER-ABOUT: Heather Meeker About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MEEKER-ABOUT.md)
- [`SRC-MOGLEN-COLUMBIA: Eben Moglen Columbia Law School Faculty Page`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MOGLEN-COLUMBIA.md)
- [`SRC-MOGLEN-DSI: Eben Moglen Columbia Data Science Institute Profile`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-MOGLEN-DSI.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
- [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076: OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md)
- [`SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321: OFAC Recent Actions — Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md)
- [`SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT: OIR Bootstrap Prompt`](source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md)
@@ -833,6 +936,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-ORIN-KERR-GWU: Orin Kerr George Washington University Law Faculty Page`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-ORIN-KERR-GWU.md)
- [`SRC-OSI-ABOUT: Open Source Initiative About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OSI-ABOUT.md)
- [`SRC-OSI-HISTORY: Open Source Initiative History Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OSI-HISTORY.md)
+- [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024: Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md)
- [`SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO: Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (GovInfo)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO.md)
- [`SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA: Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA.md)
- [`SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII: Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII.md)
@@ -870,11 +974,16 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET: The Double Ratchet Algorithm`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET.md)
- [`SRC-SIGNAL-HOME: Signal Official Website`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-SIGNAL-HOME.md)
- [`SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH: The X3DH Key Agreement Protocol`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md)
+- [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md)
- [`SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO: Mitch Stoltz EFF Staff Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-STOLTZ-EFF-BIO.md)
- [`SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026: TechCrunch — DOJ Accuses American of Wiping Phone with Duress Password (July 24, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHCRUNCH-TUNICK-DURESS-2026.md)
- [`SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026: TechSpot — Prosecutors Charge Atlanta Man After GrapheneOS Phone Wipe (2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TECHSPOT-TUNICK-GRAPHENEOS-2026.md)
- [`SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ: Telegram FAQ`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-FAQ.md)
- [`SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS: Telegram Press Info`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TELEGRAM-PRESS.md)
+- [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+- [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
- [`SRC-TIEN-EFF: Lee Tien EFF Staff Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-TIEN-EFF.md)
- [`SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER: Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER.md)
- [`SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT: Tor Project Contact Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-TOR-PROJECT-CONTACT.md)
@@ -889,6 +998,11 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026: United States v. Tunick — Motion to Suppress (Mar. 17, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TUNICK-MOTION-SUPPRESS-2026.md)
- [`SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED: Texas SB 2420 — App Store Accountability Act (Enrolled Text)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED.md)
- [`SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026: Texas Tribune — Supreme Court Lets Texas App Age Verification Law Stay in Effect`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md)
- [`SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII: U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII.md)
- [`SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-IV-LII: U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-IV-LII.md)
- [`SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO: 17 U.S.C. § 107 (GovInfo)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO.md)
@@ -898,6 +1012,8 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
- [`SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (GovInfo)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO.md)
- [`SRC-USC-18-1030-LII: 18 U.S.C. § 1030`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-1030-LII.md)
- [`SRC-USC-18-2232-LII: 18 U.S.C. § 2232 (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-2232-LII.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025: U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023: Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
- [`SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO: Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (GovInfo)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO.md)
- [`SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII: Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-LII.md)
- [`SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA: Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA.md)
@@ -943,7 +1059,11 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually.
## topic Records { #topic-records }
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md)
- [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION: App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md)
- [`TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH: Code as Speech`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md)
- [`TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD: Computer Fraud and Abuse`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD.md)
- [`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION: Decentralized Moderation in Censorship-Resistant Networks`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md)
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..1fdaf3f3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+title: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Northern District of California summary-judgment order holding that training Anthropic’s Claude models on purchased books was fair use, while pirated library copies were not excused as fair use.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge William Alsup)
+- Publication date: 2025-06-23
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.434709/gov.uscourts.cand.434709.231.0_4.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the fair-use summary-judgment order in No. C 24-05417 WHA. Primary authority for the court’s split holding on training copies versus pirated library copies. District-court authority; not an appellate holding. Later settlement approval is a separate source.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](../../../used-for.md#case-bartz-v-anthropic)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-06-23`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..24a0025f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL
+title: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Northern District of California order granting final approval of a $1.5 billion class settlement covering Anthropic’s past acquisition and copying of listed pirated books.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
+- Publication date: 2026-07-20
+- Source type: District court order and judgment (PDF)
+- URL: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28503369/anthropic-settlement-final-approval.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+DocumentCloud reproduction of Dkt. 680 in No. 4:24-cv-05417-AMO. Primary court order for settlement terms as the court described them. Settlement approval is not a merits holding on fair use; the June 2025 fair-use order remains the source for that analysis.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](../../../used-for.md#case-bartz-v-anthropic)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2026-07-20`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9d92ade2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+id: SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET
+title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: CourtListener docket for the music-publisher lyric-copyright action against Anthropic, including the original Tennessee filing date reflected on the transferred complaint.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener / PACER)
+- Publication date: 2024-06-26
+- Source type: Public docket
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68889092/concord-music-group-inc-v-anthropic-pbc/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP for No. 5:24-cv-03811. The transferred complaint docket text records an original Middle District of Tennessee filing dated October 18, 2023. Reliable for case number, transfer posture, and later docket events as of the access date. A related later action, No. 5:26-cv-00880, is a separate docket.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](../../../used-for.md#case-concord-v-anthropic)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2024-06-26`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3a35d223
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+id: SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Northern District of California order allowing music publishers’ amended claims for secondary copyright infringement and DMCA CMI removal against Anthropic to proceed.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Eumi K. Lee)
+- Publication date: 2025-10-06
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.431519/gov.uscourts.cand.431519.461.0_2.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the October 6, 2025 order in No. 24-cv-03811-EKL. Primary authority for pleading-stage holdings on the first amended complaint. The order recites alleged facts from the FAC and prior procedural history (including the March 26, 2025 dismissal with leave to amend). It is not a fair-use merits ruling.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](../../../used-for.md#case-concord-v-anthropic)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-10-06`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..10319c78
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT
+title: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Wrongful-death and product-liability complaint alleging that a Character.AI chatbot contributed to the death of a 14-year-old user.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - first-amendment
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Megan Garcia (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2024-10-22
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581.1.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.). Primary source for original claims and parties. Allegations are unverified. Later amended complaints and the May 2025 motion-to-dismiss order control for operative theories. This page concerns a minor’s death; do not reproduce alleged chatbot transcripts or methods of harm.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](../../../used-for.md#case-garcia-v-character-technologies)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2024-10-22`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..189f55cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+id: SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+title: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Middle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - first-amendment
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Judge Anne C. Conway)
+- Publication date: 2025-05-20
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581.115.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of Dkt. 115. Primary authority for pleading-stage holdings, including that the court was not prepared to treat Character.AI outputs as protected speech at that stage and that the app could be a “product” insofar as claims targeted design defects rather than ideas or expressions. Not a merits finding of liability. Entered on the docket May 21, 2025.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](../../../used-for.md#case-garcia-v-character-technologies)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+- [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-first-amendment)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-05-20`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..6f0ce423
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+id: SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+title: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Landgericht München I, 42. Zivilkammer
+- Publication date: 2025-11-11
+- Source type: Official first-instance judgment (HTML report)
+- URL: https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-GRURRS-B-2025-N-30204
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official Bavarian judicial-decision report of the November 11, 2025 Endurteil. Primary authority for the tenor (injunction, information, and damages) and the court’s holdings on memorization, reproduction under § 16 UrhG / Art. 2 InfoSoc Directive, and the limits of § 44b UrhG. The report lists an appellate caption OLG München 6 U 3662/25 e; the judgment is first-instance and not treated here as final EU or German law.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](../../../used-for.md#case-gema-v-openai)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-11-11`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9f81c4e0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+id: SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025
+title: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Landgericht München I (Pressesprecherin Cornelia Kallert)
+- Publication date: 2025-11-11
+- Source type: Official court press release
+- URL: https://www.bayern.verfassungsgerichtshof.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2025/11.php
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official press summary issued the day of judgment. Useful for a concise statement of holdings and for the explicit statement that the judgment is not legally binding (nicht rechtskräftig). The full Endurteil is the controlling primary source for operative language.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](../../../used-for.md#case-gema-v-openai)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-11-11`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..8e596343
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+title: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Northern District of California order granting Meta summary judgment on fair use for copying thirteen authors’ books as Llama training data on the record presented.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Vince Chhabria)
+- Publication date: 2025-06-25
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv03417/415175/598/0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Justia reproduction of Dkt. 598 in No. 3:23-cv-03417-VC. Primary district-court authority. The opinion is fact-specific to these plaintiffs’ market-harm showing and leaves torrenting/distribution claims for later proceedings. Not an appellate holding.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](../../../used-for.md#case-kadrey-v-meta)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-06-25`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..36282ce5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026
+title: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Southern District of New York order dismissing with prejudice news plaintiffs’ material-contribution contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft after Cox.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
+- Publication date: 2026-08-06
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396.1662.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of an August 6, 2026 order in the consolidated publisher litigation. Primary source for dismissal with prejudice of material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement, and for denial of leave to amend specified Microsoft theories. Direct-infringement and other remaining claims are not resolved by this order.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](../../../used-for.md#case-nyt-v-openai)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2026-08-06`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c7238e77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT
+title: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Complaint alleging that Microsoft and OpenAI copied New York Times works to train large language models and that model outputs reproduced Times content.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: The New York Times Company (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2023-12-27
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24241000/2023-12-27-nyt-dkt-1-complaint.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+DocumentCloud copy of the original complaint in No. 1:23-cv-11195. Primary source for what the Times alleged at filing, not for the truth of disputed facts. Later amended pleadings and judicial orders control for claims that survived motions to dismiss.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](../../../used-for.md#case-nyt-v-openai)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2023-12-27`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f83d7813
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+title: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Southern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft while dismissing specified DMCA and hot-news claims.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Sidney H. Stein)
+- Publication date: 2025-04-04
+- Source type: District court opinion (PDF)
+- URL: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/yf%2023cv11195%20OpenAI%20MTD%20opinion%20april%204%202025.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official S.D.N.Y. opinion PDF covering Nos. 23-cv-11195, 24-cv-3285, and 24-cv-4872. Primary authority for pleading-stage rulings. Not a merits determination of fair use. Later 2026 pleadings rulings on contributory-infringement theories are a separate source.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](../../../used-for.md#case-nyt-v-openai)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-04-04`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a91655b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+id: SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT
+title: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Second Sony-affiliated complaint against Udio asserting 30,117 additional sound recordings after leave to expand the 2024 action was denied.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Sony Music Entertainment et al. (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2026-07-20
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.668696/gov.uscourts.nysd.668696.1.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the complaint in No. 1:26-cv-6120 (S.D.N.Y.). Primary for Sony’s 2026 allegations and for its description of the June 29, 2026 leave-to-amend ruling in No. 1:24-cv-04777. The quoted leave-to-amend order is not attached here; treat those quotations as plaintiff-reported unless independently verified from the 2024 docket.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](../../../used-for.md#case-umg-v-udio)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2026-07-20`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..daec1ccc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+title: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Complaint seeking a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are not protected by copyright.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Spyder Games LLC and Speedy Simulator Gaming, LLC (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2025-11-26
+- Source type: District court complaint
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71968381/1/spyder-games-llc-v-mementum-lab/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener reproduction of ECF No. 1 in No. 5:25-cv-10248 (N.D. Cal.). Primary source for the original declaratory-relief theory and parties. Allegations about game popularity, ownership assignments from TikTok creators, and the amount of money demanded are unverified complaint statements. Later counterclaims and scheduling orders are documented on the docket source.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](../../../used-for.md#case-spyder-v-mementum)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-brain-rot)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-11-26`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e910bde6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+id: SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET
+title: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: CourtListener docket record for the Steal a Brainrot copyright and trademark dispute in the Northern District of California.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener / PACER)
+- Publication date: 2025-11-26
+- Source type: Public docket
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71968381/spyder-games-llc-v-mementum-lab/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP. Reliable for case number, filing date, assigned judge, nature of suit, and docket-entry descriptions as of the access date (last known filing listed as July 31, 2026). Docket text is not a substitute for reading later pleadings in full. Cause of action is listed as 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (trademark) with nature of suit 820 (copyright).
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](../../../used-for.md#case-spyder-v-mementum)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-brain-rot)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-11-26`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e57fa0eb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+id: SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+title: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: D.C. Circuit opinion affirming refusal to register a copyright in an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
+- Publication date: 2025-03-18
+- Source type: Appellate court opinion (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40231/gov.uscourts.cadc.40231.01208720945.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the D.C. Circuit opinion in No. 23-5233. Primary appellate authority for the statutory human-authorship requirement as applied to a work the applicant identified as autonomously generated by AI. The court did not decide whether the Constitution independently requires human authorship, and it treated as waived Thaler’s later argument that he was the human author by directing the system.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](../../../used-for.md#case-thaler-v-perlmutter)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](../../../used-for.md#case-spyder-v-mementum)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-brain-rot)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-03-18`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c4b7bcdb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+title: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: District of Delaware memorandum opinion rejecting Ross Intelligence’s fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation)
+- Publication date: 2025-02-11
+- Source type: District court memorandum opinion (PDF)
+- URL: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/20-613_5.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official District of Delaware opinion PDF. Primary authority for the court’s revised fair-use analysis. The court expressly limited the holding to non-generative AI. District-court authority; later appellate status requires separate verification.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](../../../used-for.md#case-thomson-reuters-v-ross)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-02-11`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..675b2b2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Suno’s answer admitting that its model was built from tens of millions of recordings and asserting fair use, copyright misuse, and other defenses.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Suno, Inc. (defendant filing)
+- Publication date: 2024-08-01
+- Source type: District court answer (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.272063/gov.uscourts.mad.272063.28.0_1.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of Suno’s answer in No. 1:24-cv-11611-FDS. Primary source for Suno’s admissions and affirmative defenses, including the fair-use defense. Admissions are evidence of what Suno pleaded; they are not a judicial finding.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](../../../used-for.md#case-umg-v-suno)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2024-08-01`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..28e52244
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+id: SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Major-label complaint alleging that Suno copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service and seeking damages and injunctive relief.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2024-06-24
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.272063/gov.uscourts.mad.272063.1.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 1:24-cv-11611 (D. Mass.). Primary source for what the label plaintiffs alleged at filing, not for the truth of disputed facts. Later stipulations and orders control for which plaintiffs remain in the case.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](../../../used-for.md#case-umg-v-suno)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2024-06-24`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7db053ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+id: SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Rule 41 stipulation dismissing Warner-affiliated plaintiffs’ claims against Suno with prejudice while leaving UMG and Sony claims unaffected.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Parties in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation)
+- Publication date: 2025-12-09
+- Source type: District court stipulation (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.272063/gov.uscourts.mad.272063.174.1.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the signed stipulation in No. 1:24-cv-11611-FDS. Primary for the fact and scope of the Warner plaintiffs’ exit. The stipulation does not disclose settlement terms. A later docket order entered the stipulation on January 28, 2026; that minute order is not reproduced in this PDF.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](../../../used-for.md#case-umg-v-suno)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-12-09`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7f74ed6d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+id: SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Major-label complaint alleging that Uncharted Labs (Udio) copied copyrighted sound recordings to train a generative music service.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2024-06-24
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.623701/gov.uscourts.nysd.623701.9.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the operative complaint filed June 25, 2024 (after a June 24 deficient first attempt) in No. 1:24-cv-04777 (S.D.N.Y.). Primary source for the original allegations, not for later dismissals or the 2026 Sony follow-on action.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](../../../used-for.md#case-umg-v-udio)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2024-06-24`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..364eca61
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+id: SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: CourtListener docket for the original major-label copyright action against Udio, including later stipulations dismissing UMG and Warner claims.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener / PACER)
+- Publication date: 2024-06-24
+- Source type: Public docket
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68878697/umg-recordings-inc-v-uncharted-labs-inc/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP. Reliable for case number, filing date, assigned judge (Alvin K. Hellerstein), and docket-entry descriptions, including the November 5, 2025 stipulation dismissing UMG and Capitol claims without prejudice and the November 25, 2025 stipulation dismissing Warner-affiliated claims without prejudice. Docket text is not a substitute for reading later pleadings in the related 2026 Sony action.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](../../../used-for.md#case-umg-v-udio)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2024-06-24`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md
index 0e8b39e0..d4fc554d 100644
--- a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md
@@ -50,6 +50,10 @@ Cornell LII is a high-confidence legal reference. For formal citation or final p
- [`STAT-USC-107`](../../../used-for.md#stat-usc-107)
- [`TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`](../../../used-for.md#topic-fair-use-video)
- [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](../../../used-for.md#case-lenz-v-universal)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](../../../used-for.md#case-bartz-v-anthropic)
+- [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](../../../used-for.md#case-kadrey-v-meta)
+- [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](../../../used-for.md#case-thomson-reuters-v-ross)
## Document metadata
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..4ad66333
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+id: SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+title: U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Copyright Office report concluding that existing U.S. law can resolve AI copyrightability questions and that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States Copyright Office
+- Publication date: 2025-01-29
+- Source type: Official agency report
+- URL: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official Register of Copyrights report. Policy analysis and registration-practice conclusions, not binding judicial precedent. Part 3 (training) was later issued in pre-publication form; this source is used only for Part 2 copyrightability conclusions reviewed on access.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](../../../used-for.md#case-thaler-v-perlmutter)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-brain-rot)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2025-01-29`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5f133f93
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+id: SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+title: Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: U.S. Copyright Office statement of policy on examining and registering works that contain AI-generated material, effective March 16, 2023.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress
+- Publication date: 2023-03-16
+- Source type: Federal Register statement of policy (37 C.F.R. Part 202)
+- URL: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official Copyright Office policy statement published at 88 Fed. Reg. 16190. Agency guidance on registration practice, not a judicial holding. The Office later issued a January 2025 copyrightability report that elaborates the same human-authorship framework.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
+- [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](../../../used-for.md#case-thaler-v-perlmutter)
+- [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](../../../used-for.md#case-spyder-v-mementum)
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-brain-rot)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2023-03-16`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..b207c117
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+id: SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024
+title: Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Official Oxford University Press announcement selecting “brain rot” as Oxford Word of the Year 2024 and publishing the press’s definition of the term.
+tags:
+ - source
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md`
+- Source ID: `SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024)
+
+!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 0
+ - **Relationships**: 0
+ - **Research debt items**: 0
+
+---
+
+# Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Oxford University Press
+- Publication date: 2024
+- Source type: Official publisher announcement
+- URL: https://corp.oup.com/news/brain-rot-named-oxford-word-of-the-year-2024/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-08-22
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+Official Oxford University Press Word of the Year announcement. Primary source for OUP’s 2024 selection and definition. Lexicographic, not a medical or legal finding. Does not address the later “Italian brainrot” meme-character copyright litigation.
+
+## Used For
+
+- [`TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-brain-rot)
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
+- Publication date: `2024`
+- Access date: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md
index 09b4fe86..5b5f549f 100644
--- a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ Official biography maintained by EFF. Primary source for Walsh's role and practi
## Used For
- [`PERSON-KIT-WALSH`](../../../used-for.md#person-kit-walsh)
+- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright)
## Document metadata
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..417c8076
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+---
+id: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+title: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+ - subject: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-06-23"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 3
+ - **Relationships**: 4
+ - **Research debt items**: 4
+
+---
+
+# Bartz v. Anthropic PBC
+
+## Summary
+
+Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. C 24-05417 (N.D. Cal.), is an authors’ class action over Anthropic’s copying of books to assemble a library and train Claude. On June 23, 2025, Judge William Alsup held that training on the books was exceedingly transformative fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, and that converting purchased print copies into digital library copies was also fair use, but that creating a permanent general-purpose library from pirated copies was not excused as fair use. On July 20, 2026, the court granted final approval of a $1.5 billion settlement of claims about past pirated acquisition and copying of works on a defined Works List.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Named author plaintiffs include Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson, with affiliated corporate entities Bartz Inc. and MJ + KJ Inc.[^1]
+- Anthropic is described as an AI firm founded in January 2021 whose service Claude was first released publicly in March 2023.[^1]
+- The fair-use order states that Anthropic downloaded Books3, LibGen, and PiLiMi collections containing pirated books, amounting to over seven million copies, and also purchased millions of print books that were stripped and scanned into a digital library.[^1]
+- On summary judgment limited to fair use, the court held that using the books to train Claude and its precursors “was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107.”[^1]
+- The court held that digitizing purchased print copies for Anthropic’s central library was fair use because the digital copies replaced the purchased print copies without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies.[^1]
+- The court held that Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library and that creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing the piracy.[^1]
+- Authors did not allege in that motion practice that any LLM outputs infringed their works; the order addresses training copies and library copies.[^1]
+- On July 20, 2026, the court granted final approval of a non-reversionary $1.5 billion settlement covering beneficial or legal copyright owners of books on a Works List drawn from LibGen or PiLiMi versions Anthropic downloaded, limited to works with ISBN or ASIN and timely U.S. copyright registration.[^2]
+- The final-approval order states that the Works List contained 482,460 works, that about $3,000 per work was the estimated payment (four times the $750 ordinary statutory minimum), and that as of April 16, 2026, 440,490 works (91.3 percent) had been claimed.[^2]
+- The court described the release as covering past AI inputs (pirating and copying) up to the point of any AI output, and as not releasing claims about past AI outputs or claims about future conduct on or after August 25, 2025.[^2]
+- The settlement provides for destruction of class members’ pirated works; the order quotes Anthropic’s representation that neither the LibGen nor PiLiMi datasets were in the training corpus of any commercially released large language model.[^2]
+- The court awarded class counsel $101,561,111 in fees (nearly 6.8 percent of the fund plus interest), expense reimbursement, and $15,000 service awards to each of three class representatives.[^2]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE) — Order on Fair Use (June 23, 2025). Primary district-court authority.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL) — Final approval order (July 20, 2026). Primary court order on settlement terms.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+The case was among the first to split AI-training copying from the method of acquiring the training corpus. Judge Alsup’s order is frequently contrasted with [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), decided two days later, which granted fair use on a different market-harm record and criticized Bartz’s treatment of market dilution.[^1]
+
+The later settlement is a class compromise of the remaining piracy-library theory, not a stipulated holding that training is always fair use or always infringement.[^2]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Authority level: district-court summary-judgment order plus class-settlement approval. Not circuit precedent.
+
+The fair-use holding applies [17 U.S.C. § 107](STAT-USC-107.md) factor by factor to three uses: (1) training copies, (2) purchased-and-scanned library copies, and (3) pirated library copies.[^1] Training was treated as transformative because the models learned to generate new text rather than to provide the books to the public as books.[^1] Pirated acquisition for a retained general-purpose library was treated as a substitute for paid copies and therefore not transformative in the same way.[^1] Buying a copy later does not, the court noted, absolve liability for earlier theft, though it may affect statutory damages.[^1]
+
+The settlement’s narrow release is legally significant: output claims and post-August 25, 2025 conduct remain outside the class deal, and works not on the Works List are unaffected.[^2]
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` cites [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE).
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-KADREY-V-META`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE): Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025).
+2. [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL): Final approval order (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026).
+
+Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):
+
+- [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add the class-certification order and settlement agreement as dedicated sources.
+- Confirm Ninth Circuit Rule 23(f) petition disposition.
+- Document opt-out litigation, if any, with docket citations.
+- Obtain an official PACER/RECAP copy of Dkt. 680 in addition to the DocumentCloud file.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Decision date: `2025-06-23`
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d6ee7e02
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+id: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-10-06"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 3
+ - **Relationships**: 4
+ - **Research debt items**: 4
+
+---
+
+# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC
+
+## Summary
+
+Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.), is music-publisher litigation over song lyrics and Anthropic’s Claude models. After an initial dismissal of secondary-infringement and DMCA claims with leave to amend, Judge Eumi K. Lee on October 6, 2025 denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Direct infringement, contributory and vicarious infringement, and DMCA copyright-management-information claims therefore proceeded past that pleading stage. The case is about musical compositions (lyrics), not sound-recording masters.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- The action pending in the Northern District of California as No. 5:24-cv-03811 reflects a complaint originally filed October 18, 2023 in the Middle District of Tennessee and later transferred; the N.D. Cal. docket date is June 26, 2024.[^2]
+- Plaintiffs are eight music publishing companies: Concord Music Group, Inc., Capitol CMG, Inc., Universal Music Corp., Songs of Universal, Inc., Universal Music - MGB NA LLC, Polygram Publishing, Inc., Universal Music - Z Tunes LLC, and ABKCO Music, Inc.[^1]
+- The first amended complaint alleges that the publishers own or control exclusive rights in millions of musical compositions, including 500 works listed in Exhibit A, and that Anthropic used those lyrics to train Claude and that Claude outputs the lyrics to users.[^1]
+- Publishers allege that Anthropic curated training data from third-party datasets including Common Crawl and The Pile, and that it used the Newspaper algorithm in a way that removed copyright management information more effectively than available alternatives.[^1]
+- Claims in the FAC are (I) direct copyright infringement, (II) contributory infringement, (III) vicarious infringement, and (IV) removal or alteration of CMI under the DMCA.[^1]
+- On March 26, 2025, the court granted Anthropic’s first motion to dismiss the secondary-infringement and CMI claims, with leave to amend. Publishers filed the FAC on April 25, 2025. Anthropic moved again on May 9, 2025.[^1]
+- On October 6, 2025, the court denied the second motion to dismiss in full, holding that the FAC plausibly alleged contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and DMCA § 1202(b)(1) and (b)(3) claims, and ordered Anthropic to answer within 14 days after a ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.[^1]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025) — Order denying MTD (Oct. 6, 2025). Primary for parties, claims, procedural history, alleged FAC facts, and holdings.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET) — CourtListener docket for No. 5:24-cv-03811. Primary for original Tennessee filing date and transfer caption.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Concord is the leading U.S. publisher suit about lyrics in large language models, distinct from the label suits against [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings) and from [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (books and a pirated-library settlement). The October 2025 order is a pleading decision, not a fair-use holding.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: Rule 12(b)(6) order. The court accepted FAC allegations as true for that motion and did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md).[^1]
+
+Two points matter for the rest of the AI-copyright map. First, the works are short, highly memorable lyrics. Publishers allege regurgitation from simple prompts, which is closer to the output-substitution theory in [Times v. OpenAI](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) than to Bartz’s purchased-book training holding.[^1] Second, the court allowed DMCA CMI claims to proceed on allegations that Anthropic chose a stripping algorithm and distributed lyrics without CMI while concealing its own infringement, distinguishing Tremblay’s third-party-user framing.[^1]
+
+A related later action, Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:26-cv-00880 (N.D. Cal.), appears on CourtListener as filed January 28, 2026. This page does not treat that docket’s allegations as found facts.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` cites [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025).
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025): Order denying motion to dismiss FAC (Oct. 6, 2025).
+2. [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET): CourtListener docket for No. 5:24-cv-03811.
+3. [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add the original Tennessee complaint, the FAC, and any second amended complaint as operative-pleading sources.
+- Add the March 26, 2025 dismissal order and any preliminary-injunction ruling from primary PDFs.
+- Add No. 5:26-cv-00880 (and any BMG publisher action) from those complaints, not trackers.
+- Add Anthropic’s answer and any later merits order.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Decision date: `2025-10-06`
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2aca64e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+---
+id: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+title: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - first-amendment
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+ - intermediary-liability
+sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-05-20"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 2
+ - **Relationships**: 5
+ - **Research debt items**: 4
+
+---
+
+# Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.
+
+## Summary
+
+Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a civil action arising from the death of a 14-year-old Character.AI user. On May 20, 2025, Judge Anne C. Conway dismissed intentional infliction of emotional distress and dismissed Alphabet Inc. without prejudice, but otherwise denied motions to dismiss, including product-liability and negligence theories, and declined at the pleading stage to hold that Character.AI outputs are protected First Amendment speech.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- The original complaint was filed October 22, 2024, in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, by Megan Garcia individually and as personal representative of the estate of S.R.S. III, against Character Technologies, Inc., Noam Shazeer, Daniel De Frietas Adiwarsana, Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., and unnamed defendants.[^1]
+- The complaint alleges wrongful death, strict product liability, negligence, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act violations, and related claims arising from the minor’s use of the Character.AI product.[^1]
+- Nature of suit on the public docket is personal-injury product liability; the cause is diversity product liability (28 U.S.C. § 1332).[^1]
+- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that the First Amendment precludes the claims and that Character.AI is not a product for product-liability purposes.[^2]
+- On May 20, 2025, the court dismissed claims against Alphabet Inc. without prejudice after plaintiff represented she wished to dismiss that defendant.[^2]
+- The court granted the remaining defendants’ motions without leave to amend as to the IIED claim and otherwise denied the motions as to remaining claims.[^2]
+- Personal-jurisdiction motions by the individual defendants were denied, with leave to refile a Rule 12(b)(2) motion after 90 days of jurisdictional discovery. Answers were due June 10, 2025.[^2]
+- The court held it was “not prepared to hold that the Character A.I. LLM’s output is speech at this stage,” stating defendants had not articulated why words strung together by an LLM are speech, and noting that Character.AI “is not a ‘person’ and is therefore not protected by the Bill of Rights.”[^2]
+- The court discussed [Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.](CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md) and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC as defendants’ analogies, but held the operative question is whether Character.AI’s output is expressive speech, not merely whether chatbots resemble games or social-media feeds.[^2]
+- The court held that Character.AI is a product for purposes of plaintiff’s product-liability claims “so far as Plaintiff’s claims arise from defects in the Character A.I. app rather than ideas or expressions within the app.”[^2]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT) — Original complaint (Oct. 22, 2024). Plaintiff allegations; this page does not reproduce alleged chatbot content or details of the death.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025) — Order on motions to dismiss (May 20, 2025). Primary district-court pleading-stage authority.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Garcia is among the first federal cases to test whether a companion chatbot is a “product” whose design can support wrongful-death liability, as distinct from a publisher of protected speech. The May 2025 order is a pleading-stage decision, not a finding that Character.AI caused the death or that chatbot outputs can never be speech.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: Middle District of Florida. Authority level: district-court order on motions to dismiss. Not circuit precedent. The order does not decide the merits.
+
+The First Amendment analysis is limited: defendants may assert users’ rights to receive speech, but at the 12(b)(6) stage they had not shown LLM output is speech.[^2] The product-liability analysis separates design choices (age checks, reporting tools, human-like mannerisms, inability to exclude indecent content) from the content of particular messages.[^2] That distinction is the holding most likely to be cited in later AI-harm suits.
+
+This page does not state that any defendant is liable. Later docket events, including any settlement, are research debt.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` cites [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025).
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` related_to `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`.
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` related_to `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`.
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` related_to `CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`.
+- `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` related_to `TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT): Original complaint (Oct. 22, 2024).
+2. [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025): Order on motions to dismiss (May 20, 2025).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add the second amended complaint as the later operative pleading.
+- Verify post-answer docket events (discovery, any settlement) from CourtListener rather than secondary trackers.
+- Confirm whether defendants raised 47 U.S.C. § 230 in later pleadings; the May 2025 order’s Section 230 treatment was not relied on in the verified facts above.
+- Add Moody v. NetChoice as a CASE page if OIR expands platform-speech coverage.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Decision date: `2025-05-20`
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e17627f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+---
+id: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+title: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-11-11"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 2
+ - **Relationships**: 4
+ - **Research debt items**: 3
+
+---
+
+# GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)
+
+## Summary
+
+GEMA v. OpenAI, Az. 42 O 14139/24 (LG München I, Nov. 11, 2025), is a German first-instance copyright judgment for Germany’s musical collecting society against two OpenAI group companies. The 42nd Civil Chamber largely granted injunction, information, and damages claims over nine German song lyrics, holding that memorization in models 4 and 4o and output of those lyrics were unauthorized reproductions not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception. A personality-rights claim over misattributed altered lyrics was dismissed. The court’s press release states that the judgment is not final.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- On November 11, 2025, Landgericht München I entered judgment in 42 O 14139/24 on claims by GEMA against two OpenAI-group defendants concerning nine well-known German song lyrics, including “Atemlos” (Kristina Bach) and “Wie schön, dass du geboren bist” (Rolf Zuckowski).[^1][^2]
+- The court enjoined the defendants, on pain of a fine of up to €250,000 or imprisonment, from reproducing the lyrics in large language models without consent, as occurred in models 4 and 4o, and from making the lyrics available or reproducing them in chatbot outputs without consent.[^1]
+- The court also ordered the defendants to provide an organized accounting of the extent of those acts and resulting revenues (from specified start dates for each defendant) and addressed damages and pre-litigation costs in the tenor.[^1]
+- The official headnotes state that memorization can be found by comparing the original work with output from a simple prompt; that memorization in a language model is a reproduction under § 16 UrhG because the work is physically fixed and can be made indirectly perceptible; that fixation does not require identifying a discrete dataset if the work is present in model parameters; and that § 44b UrhG covers reproductions when compiling training material, not training that goes beyond preparing text-and-data mining.[^1]
+- The court held the model operators liable for infringing outputs because they exercise control (Tatherrschaft); users may assume control if they provoke outputs, but that is not so for simple prompts.[^1]
+- The chamber rejected the TDM exception for in-model reproductions: preparatory copies for analysis do not affect authors’ exploitation interests, but storing works in specified model parameters does. It also rejected an analogical extension of § 44b and rejected § 57 UrhG (insignificant accessory) because the training corpus is not itself a protected main work.[^2]
+- The chamber dismissed GEMA’s additional claim for violation of general personality rights based on incorrect attribution of altered lyrics.[^2]
+- The official press release states that the judgment is not legally binding (nicht rechtskräftig). The official decision report lists an appellate caption OLG München 6 U 3662/25 e.[^1][^2]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025) — Official Endurteil report (Nov. 11, 2025). Primary for tenor, headnotes, and appeal caption.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025) — Official court press release (Nov. 11, 2025). Primary for summary holdings, dismissed personality-rights claim, and non-final status.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+GEMA is a collecting society asserting lyrics, not record-label master rights. The theory—that a model that can emit lyrics on a simple prompt has reproduced those lyrics in its parameters—parallels the U.S. publisher allegations in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), but this is a first-instance merits judgment under the German Copyright Act and the InfoSoc and DSM Directives, not a U.S. fair-use case.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: Landgericht München I (first instance). Authority level: non-final German judgment. It does not bind U.S. courts and is not a Court of Justice of the European Union ruling.[^1][^2]
+
+The doctrinal move is to treat extractable memorization as “reproduction in any manner or form” under Art. 2 InfoSoc Directive / § 16 UrhG, including fixation as probability parameters.[^1][^2] The court then narrows commercial TDM (§ 44b UrhG / Art. 4 DSM Directive) to corpus-preparation copies, not lasting embodiment of works in a trained model.[^1] Operator liability for simple-prompt outputs follows from the court’s view that the model, not the user, generates the content.[^1]
+
+Comparative use: this is evidence of one EU member-state first-instance approach to lyrics and LLMs. It is not a statement of settled EU law, and it is not a holding about generative audio models such as [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) or [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md).
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` cites [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025).
+- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025): LG München I Endurteil, 42 O 14139/24 (Nov. 11, 2025).
+2. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025): LG München I Pressemitteilung 11/2025.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add any OLG München appellate judgment in 6 U 3662/25 e when issued.
+- Add GEMA’s complaint or a certified English translation only if an official or party-issued text is available.
+- Add GEMA v. Suno or other German music-AI judgments from official court texts, not trackers.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Decision date: `2025-11-11`
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9b68d382
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+id: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+title: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors’ books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+ - subject: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-06-25"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-KADREY-V-META`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-KADREY-V-META)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 2
+ - **Relationships**: 4
+ - **Research debt items**: 4
+
+---
+
+# Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
+
+## Summary
+
+Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), is a Northern District of California action by thirteen authors alleging that Meta downloaded their books from shadow libraries and used them to train Llama models. On June 25, 2025, Judge Vince Chhabria granted Meta’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on fair use as to that training copying, emphasizing the plaintiffs’ failure to present market-dilution evidence, while scheduling further proceedings on alleged unlawful distribution during torrenting.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Case No. 3:23-cv-03417-VC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Order dated June 25, 2025 (Dkt. 598).[^1]
+- Plaintiffs are thirteen authors, described by the court as mostly famous fiction writers, who sued Meta for downloading their books from online “shadow libraries” and using them to train Llama large language models.[^1]
+- The court stated that, in most cases, unauthorized copying of protected works to train generative AI “will likely” be illegal because of market-dilution risk, but that courts must decide on the evidence presented.[^1]
+- Plaintiffs’ two primary market theories on the fair-use motions were that Llama could reproduce small snippets and that training without permission diminished a market to license books as AI training data. The court called both “clear losers” on this record: Llama was not capable of generating enough text from the plaintiffs’ books to matter, and plaintiffs were not entitled to a licensing market for AI training data as such.[^1]
+- The court identified market dilution (flooding the market with competing AI-generated works) as the potentially winning theory, but held that plaintiffs barely addressed it and presented no meaningful evidence of it.[^1]
+- Because Meta’s use was highly transformative, the court held plaintiffs needed to win decisively on the fourth fair-use factor; absent dilution evidence, factor four favored Meta and Meta was entitled to summary judgment on fair use for using these plaintiffs’ books as LLM training data.[^1]
+- The court distinguished [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md), arguing that Judge Alsup underweighted market harm by analogizing AI training to teaching schoolchildren to write.[^1]
+- The order states that a separate ruling would grant Meta summary judgment on the DMCA claim, and set a July 11, 2025 conference on the claim that Meta unlawfully distributed the works during torrenting.[^1]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE) — Order on partial summary judgment (June 25, 2025). Primary district-court authority.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Kadrey and Bartz were decided in the same district two days apart and immediately framed a split in how Northern District judges weigh transformativeness against market harm for LLM training.[^1] Kadrey is not a holding that shadow-library downloading is always lawful; the court left distribution/torrenting issues open and repeatedly warned that other plaintiffs with a developed dilution record might win.[^1]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: N.D. Cal. Authority level: district-court partial summary judgment. Not circuit precedent.
+
+The opinion treats [17 U.S.C. § 107](STAT-USC-107.md) as fact-specific. Factor one favored Meta as highly transformative; factor four was treated as the most important and turned on the absence of dilution proof rather than on a categorical rule that training is fair use.[^1] The court rejected an argument that adverse copyright rulings would halt LLM development, stating that developers could license works or use public-domain materials.[^1]
+
+Software companies should not read Kadrey as a safe harbor for training on pirated books. The fair-use win is limited to copying these thirteen authors’ books as training data on this evidentiary record, with distribution claims reserved.[^1]
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-KADREY-V-META` cites [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE).
+- `CASE-KADREY-V-META` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+- `CASE-KADREY-V-META` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-KADREY-V-META` related_to `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE): Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
+
+Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):
+
+- [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add a CourtListener/RECAP copy of Dkt. 598 in addition to the Justia PDF.
+- Document the later torrenting/distribution rulings and any appeal.
+- Identify the thirteen named plaintiffs from the complaint as a source-backed list.
+- Add the Copyright Office fair-use summary (788 F. Supp. 3d) as a secondary finding aid only.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Decision date: `2025-06-25`
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d0cde974
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+id: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+title: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-04-04"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 3
+ - **Relationships**: 3
+ - **Research debt items**: 5
+
+---
+
+# The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)
+
+## Summary
+
+The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.), is lead publisher copyright litigation against OpenAI and Microsoft over alleged copying of news works to train GPT-based products and alleged output-stage substitution. On April 4, 2025, Judge Sidney H. Stein largely denied motions to dismiss copyright claims in the Times, Daily News, and Center for Investigative Reporting actions. On August 6, 2026, the court dismissed with prejudice the news plaintiffs’ material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- The Times filed its complaint on December 27, 2023, against Microsoft Corporation and multiple OpenAI entities, alleging claims including direct, vicarious, and contributory copyright infringement, DMCA § 1202 violations, and unfair competition by misappropriation.[^1][^2]
+- The complaint alleges that defendants used Times journalism to train GPT-based products including ChatGPT, ChatGPT Enterprise, Bing Chat, Azure OpenAI Service, and Microsoft 365 Copilot, and that outputs can reproduce Times content.[^1]
+- Related publisher actions captioned in the April 4, 2025 opinion include Daily News LP v. Microsoft Corp., No. 24-cv-3285, and Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, No. 24-cv-4872.[^2]
+- On April 4, 2025, the court held that claims of direct infringement occurring more than three years before filing were not time-barred on the pleadings, because OpenAI had not shown plaintiffs discovered or should have discovered the alleged infringement by the relevant 2020/2021 dates.[^2]
+- The court held that the publisher plaintiffs had plausibly alleged contributory copyright infringement at the pleading stage.[^2]
+- The court dismissed without prejudice specified DMCA § 1202 claims, including Microsoft’s § 1202(b)(1) claims in all three actions, OpenAI’s § 1202(b)(1) claim in the Times action, and defendants’ § 1202(b)(3) claims in all three actions, while allowing Daily News and CIR § 1202(b)(1) claims against OpenAI to proceed.[^2]
+- The court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege “hot news” misappropriation as to news content and the Times’s Wirecutter recommendations.[^2]
+- The court granted OpenAI’s motion to dismiss CIR’s direct-infringement claim insofar as it rested on ChatGPT/Copilot “abridgments” in Exhibit 11, holding those summaries were not substantially similar to CIR’s articles as a matter of law.[^2]
+- On August 6, 2026, the court dismissed with prejudice the news plaintiffs’ “material contribution” contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft premised on alleged direct infringement by end users, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cox, 146 S. Ct. 959 (2026). OpenAI’s Rule 12(c) motion was denied as moot as to those plaintiffs because they agreed to that dismissal.[^3]
+- The August 6, 2026 order also dismissed with prejudice trademark-dilution claims by the Times and Daily News, and denied the Times’s and Daily News’s motions for leave to amend to add new contributory theories against Microsoft.[^3]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT) — Original Times complaint (Dec. 27, 2023). Plaintiff allegations.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025) — Opinion (Apr. 4, 2025). Primary district-court pleading-stage authority.
+
+[^3]: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026) — Order (Aug. 6, 2026). Primary district-court authority on later contributory-claim dismissal.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+The Times action is the highest-profile news-publisher suit in the generative-AI copyright wave. Unlike [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), which reached summary judgment on book-training fair use, this docket remained at pleadings and discovery as of the August 2026 order, with output substitution and training still live issues for remaining claims.[^2][^3]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York. Authority level: district-court pleading orders; no fair-use merits holding is recorded here.
+
+The April 2025 opinion is important for what it did not do: it refused to end the case on statute-of-limitations or contributory-infringement pleadings, while trimming DMCA CMI, hot-news, and some abridgment theories.[^2] Fair use remains a fact-intensive defense for later stages. The August 2026 order shows Supreme Court secondary-liability law (Cox) already reshaping AI cases: material-contribution theories tied to end-user outputs can fail even when direct-infringement claims against the model developer continue.[^3]
+
+This page does not treat the complaint’s exhibits of allegedly memorized articles as proven copying.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` cites [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025).
+- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT): Times complaint (Dec. 27, 2023).
+2. [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025): Opinion on motions to dismiss (Apr. 4, 2025).
+3. [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026): Order on Rule 12(c) contributory claims (Aug. 6, 2026).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add the first amended Times complaint (ECF 170) as the operative pleading source.
+- Document consolidation/MDL captioning (RECAP numbers differ across related dockets).
+- Add any summary-judgment or discovery orders on output logs after August 2026.
+- Create a dedicated CASE page for Cox v. Sony (146 S. Ct. 959 (2026)) if OIR takes on secondary copyright liability more broadly.
+- Getty Images v. Stability AI, Authors Guild/OpenAI book cases, and Disney/Midjourney remain separate research-debt case pages.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Decision date: `2025-04-04`
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..b7d7a6a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+---
+id: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+title: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+ - subject: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 4
+ - **Relationships**: 5
+ - **Research debt items**: 5
+
+---
+
+# Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab
+
+## Summary
+
+Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, No. 5:25-cv-10248 (N.D. Cal.), is a pending declaratory-judgment action filed November 26, 2025. The original complaint asks the court to hold that AI-generated “brainrot” characters claimed by Mementum Lab, including Tung Tung Tung Sahur, are not protected by U.S. copyright and that their use in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot does not infringe.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- The complaint was filed November 26, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco / San Jose division, as No. 5:25-cv-10248.[^1][^2]
+- Plaintiffs are Spyder Games LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company, and Speedy Simulator Gaming, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company. Defendant is Mementum Lab, described as a French company.[^1]
+- The CourtListener docket lists Judge Noel Wise as assigned, refers Magistrate Judge Susan G. Van Keulen, codes the cause as 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (trademark) and the nature of suit as 820 (copyright), and lists a last known filing of July 31, 2026.[^2]
+- The complaint seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and a jury trial.[^1]
+- The complaint alleges that plaintiffs own Steal a Brainrot, a Roblox game that debuted in May 2025, and that they hold U.S. Copyright Registration PA0002544969 for the game.[^1]
+- The complaint alleges that “brainrots” in the game are inspired by humorous internet meme figures created using artificial intelligence programs, and that Mementum claims to own or control copyrights in more than a dozen such characters, including “Tung Tung Sahor” and “U Din Din Din Din Dun Ma Din Din Din Dun,” as well as “more than 50% of the entire ‘brainrot universe.’”[^1]
+- The complaint alleges that Mementum sent a cease-and-desist letter in early 2025 claiming that TikTok creator “Noxa” created “Tung Tung Tung Sahur” and assigned rights to Mementum, later claiming also to represent creator “Breno,” and that Mementum threatened a DMCA takedown and a copyright suit unless plaintiffs paid.[^1]
+- Plaintiffs deny that Mementum possesses valid, enforceable copyrights in the brainrots, including because, they allege, the brainrots were generated by AI without human authorship.[^1]
+- The complaint cites [Thaler v. Perlmutter](CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) and the Copyright Office’s March 2023 AI registration guidance as support for that authorship theory.[^1][^3][^4]
+- Docket entries include an amended counterclaim filed by Mementum on June 5, 2026, a Mementum motion to dismiss noticed for hearing September 16, 2026, and a Spyder motion to dismiss Mementum’s first amended counterclaims also noticed for September 16, 2026.[^2]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT) — Complaint, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff allegations except as to filing identifiers.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET) — CourtListener docket for No. 5:25-cv-10248. Procedural record as of 2026-08-22.
+
+[^3]: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC) — Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Primary appellate authority cited in the complaint.
+
+[^4]: [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023) — 88 Fed. Reg. 16190. Agency guidance quoted in the complaint.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Steal a Brainrot is alleged to be a treasure-hunt game in which AI-inspired meme characters march on a red carpet and players steal them for virtual currency.[^1] The suit is one of the first U.S. federal cases to apply the post-Thaler human-authorship rule to viral, commercially valuable meme characters rather than to a registration application for a gallery image.
+
+No court has yet decided whether the characters at issue are uncopyrightable AI output, a human-authored compilation or derivative, or protectable as trademarks even if copyright fails.[^2]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Authority level: pending district-court civil action; no merits opinion is recorded here.
+
+The original complaint frames a binary: if the images were produced by AI that determined the expressive elements, Copyright Office guidance and Thaler say there is no copyright to enforce, so a threatened DMCA takedown would rest on a legally invalid claim.[^1][^3][^4] Thaler, however, involved an applicant who listed a machine as sole author and disclaimed human authorship; it does not automatically decide a later dispute in which a promoter alleges iterative prompting, naming, backstory, voice, or post-generation editing.[^3]
+
+Personal jurisdiction is pleaded under Rule 4(k)(2) on the theory that Mementum is a foreign defendant not subject to any state’s general jurisdiction and directed copyright threats and a threatened DMCA takedown at a U.S. game.[^1] Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (c)(3).[^1]
+
+Later docket activity shows the case expanded beyond the original copyright declaration: Mementum filed counterclaims and amended counterclaims, and both sides noticed motions for September 16, 2026.[^2] Those later pleadings should be read in full before describing trademark or European-law theories as facts.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` cites [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT).
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` related_to `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`.
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` related_to `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`.
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` related_to `TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT): Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025).
+2. [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET): CourtListener docket, No. 5:25-cv-10248.
+3. [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC): Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+4. [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023): Copyright Office AI registration guidance (2023).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add RECAP PDFs for Mementum’s counterclaims, any covenant not to sue, and the July 2026 scheduling / leave-to-amend orders.
+- Verify U.S. Copyright Registration PA0002544969 on copyright.gov.
+- Confirm the correct spelling and claimed creators of each disputed character from exhibit 1 to the complaint.
+- Record any ruling from the September 16, 2026 motion hearing when issued.
+- Avoid relying on trade-press articles as the sole source for later procedural developments.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..bc24c389
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+---
+id: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+title: Thaler v. Perlmutter
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-03-18"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 3
+ - **Relationships**: 4
+ - **Research debt items**: 4
+
+---
+
+# Thaler v. Perlmutter
+
+## Summary
+
+Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), affirmed the Copyright Office’s refusal to register “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” an image Dr. Stephen Thaler attributed solely to a generative system he called the Creativity Machine. The D.C. Circuit held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires eligible works to be authored in the first instance by a human being.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Citation: Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025), later reported as 130 F.4th 1039. Appeal from D.D.C. No. 1:22-cv-01564.[^1]
+- Argued September 19, 2024; decided March 18, 2025. Opinion by Circuit Judge Millet, joined by Circuit Judge Wilkins and Senior Circuit Judge Rogers.[^1]
+- Thaler’s application listed the Creativity Machine as author, Thaler as copyright claimant, and described the work as “2-D artwork, Created autonomously by machine.”[^1]
+- The Copyright Office denied registration because a human being did not create the work; the Registration Program and Review Board affirmed on that ground.[^1]
+- The district court granted summary judgment for the Office, holding that “[h]uman authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright,” Thaler v. Perlmutter, 687 F. Supp. 3d 140, 146 (D.D.C. 2023).[^1]
+- The D.C. Circuit affirmed. It held that the Creativity Machine cannot be the recognized author of a copyrighted work because the Copyright Act requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being.[^1]
+- The court did not decide whether the Constitution independently requires human authorship. It treated as waived Thaler’s argument that he was the author by making and using the Creativity Machine, because that argument was not presented to the agency.[^1]
+- The court also rejected reliance on the work-made-for-hire provision as a way to vest authorship in a machine and then transfer it to Thaler on the application record.[^1]
+- The Copyright Office’s March 2023 registration guidance, issued while Thaler’s district-court case was pending, states that when AI determines the expressive elements of its output, that material is not the product of human authorship and is not protected by copyright.[^2]
+- The Office’s January 2025 copyrightability report reiterated that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable and that prompts alone do not provide sufficient control under current generally available technology.[^3]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC) — D.C. Circuit opinion. Primary authority.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023) — 88 Fed. Reg. 16190. Agency guidance.
+
+[^3]: [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025) — Copyright Office Part 2 report (Jan. 2025). Agency report.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+U.S. registration practice has long refused works that do not “owe their origin to a human agent,” a line the Office traces through its Compendium editions and through cases such as Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884), Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997), and Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).[^1][^2] Thaler presented that doctrine with a generative-AI system rather than a camera, a monkey, or an alleged spiritual author.
+
+The decision is the leading appellate statement that a non-human machine cannot be listed as author under the 1976 Act. Later disputes, including [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md), cite it when challenging copyright claims in AI-generated meme images. Those later cases may involve mixed human and machine contributions that Thaler’s waived-human-author record does not resolve.[^1]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, reviewing Copyright Office action under the APA. Authority level: binding in the D.C. Circuit; persuasive elsewhere.
+
+The opinion grounds the human-authorship requirement in statutory text and structure, including term-of-protection provisions that measure duration by a human author’s life, rather than in a constitutional holding.[^1] Because Thaler’s application and administrative appeals insisted the work was generated autonomously without human creative contribution, the court did not decide how much human prompting, selection, or editing would suffice for authorship.[^1] The Copyright Office’s later report fills that gap as agency analysis: assistive use of AI does not bar protection; human-perceptible expression, creative arrangement, and creative modification may be protected; prompt-only control, on current tools, does not.[^3]
+
+Thaler cites [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) for the incentive theory of copyright, not for a fair-use holding about AI training.[^1]
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` cites [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC).
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`.
+- `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` related_to `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC): Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+2. [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023): Copyright Office AI registration guidance (2023).
+3. [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025): Copyright Office AI copyrightability report, Part 2 (2025).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add the D.D.C. summary-judgment opinion (687 F. Supp. 3d 140) as a dedicated source record.
+- Confirm Supreme Court certiorari status after the March 18, 2025 judgment and May 20, 2025 mandate.
+- Add the Copyright Office Review Board decision on “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” (Feb. 14, 2022) as a primary administrative source.
+- Document Zarya of the Dawn cancellation (human text, AI images) as a related registration example from the 2023 guidance footnotes.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Decision date: `2025-03-18`
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..fdc904e8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+---
+id: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+title: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - subject: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+ - subject: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - subject: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+decision_date: "2025-02-11"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 2
+ - **Relationships**: 4
+ - **Research debt items**: 4
+
+---
+
+# Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.
+
+## Summary
+
+Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025), is a copyright action over Ross’s use of Westlaw headnotes, via LegalEase “Bulk Memos,” to train a competing legal-research search engine. Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation, granted Thomson Reuters partial summary judgment on direct infringement of specified headnotes and rejected Ross’s fair-use defense, emphasizing that Ross’s tool was not generative AI and competed with Westlaw.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Plaintiffs Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH and West Publishing Corp. own Westlaw, including editorial headnotes and the Key Number System.[^1]
+- Ross built a legal-research search engine that uses artificial intelligence. After Thomson Reuters refused a license, Ross obtained roughly 25,000 Bulk Memos from LegalEase, compiled by lawyers using a guide that explained how to create questions using Westlaw headnotes.[^1]
+- In 2023 the court had largely denied summary judgment on infringement and fair use (694 F. Supp. 3d 467). In 2025 it revised that ruling under Rule 54(b).[^1]
+- The February 11, 2025 opinion granted most of Thomson Reuters’s motion for partial summary judgment on direct copyright infringement and related defenses, granted Thomson Reuters’s motion on fair use, and denied Ross’s fair-use and copyright summary-judgment motions.[^1]
+- The court held Ross’s use was commercial and not transformative because it lacked a further purpose or different character from Westlaw’s: Ross used headnotes as AI data to create a legal-research tool to compete with Westlaw.[^1]
+- The court stated it is undisputed that “Ross’s AI is not generative AI (AI that writes new content itself).” When a user enters a legal question, “Ross spits back relevant judicial opinions that have already been written.”[^1]
+- The court distinguished intermediate-copying software cases including [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md), on the ground that those cases involved copying necessary for competitors to innovate in computer programs, a factor the court found absent here.[^1]
+- Factor two (nature of the work) and factor three (amount) were treated as favoring Ross, but factor four (market effect) and factor one were treated as more important; weighing them, the court granted summary judgment for Thomson Reuters on fair use.[^1]
+- Remaining factual issues on liability for Appendix A headnotes included whether some copyrights had expired or were untimely created, a question left for the jury.[^1]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025) — Memorandum opinion (Feb. 11, 2025). Primary district-court authority.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Ross is an earlier AI-training copyright case that does not involve a chatbot that writes new prose. The court flagged that limitation expressly so later readers would not treat the opinion as a holding about generative models.[^1] Generative-training decisions such as [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) therefore address a different product, even though all three apply § 107.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: District of Delaware. Authority level: district-court summary judgment. Appellate status is research debt.
+
+The opinion is most useful as a contrast case: when an AI system is trained on copyrighted editorial content to power a substitute research product that returns existing opinions, the court found no transformative purpose and serious market harm.[^1] Companies building generative systems often argue the opposite—that training produces a new tool rather than a substitute database. Ross shows that labeling a product “AI” does not, by itself, establish fair use.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS` cites [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025).
+- `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+- `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025): Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025).
+
+Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):
+
+- [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Record the 2023 opinion (694 F. Supp. 3d 467) as a dedicated source.
+- Verify Third Circuit appeal docket and any later opinion.
+- Add the complaint and Appendix A headnote list if needed for work-by-work claims.
+- Confirm trial or judgment outcome after the February 2025 liability rulings.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Decision date: `2025-02-11`
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..16d53303
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+---
+id: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Pending District of Massachusetts copyright action in which major record labels allege that Suno copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; Suno asserts fair use, and Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-UMG-V-SUNO)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 4
+ - **Relationships**: 5
+ - **Research debt items**: 3
+
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.
+
+## Summary
+
+UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-11611 (D. Mass.), is the major-label copyright action against the generative music service Suno. Universal, Sony, and Warner affiliates alleged that Suno copied their sound recordings to train a commercial music generator. Suno answered that any copying is fair use. Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later stipulated to dismissal of their claims with prejudice. As of the sources reviewed here, UMG and Sony claims remain, and no court has issued a fair-use merits ruling.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- On June 24, 2024, UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner-affiliated companies filed a copyright complaint against Suno, Inc. in the District of Massachusetts.[^1]
+- The complaint alleges that building Suno required copying and ingesting “decades worth of the world’s most popular sound recordings” so the model could generate outputs that imitate human recordings, and that Suno did so without authorization.[^1]
+- Plaintiffs assert two counts: direct infringement of post-1972 copyrighted sound recordings under 17 U.S.C. § 106, and direct infringement of pre-1972 recordings under the Music Modernization Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1401. They seek a willfulness declaration, an injunction, and statutory damages under § 504(c).[^1]
+- Exhibit A to the complaint is described as an illustrative, non-exhaustive list of works; plaintiffs state they intend to amend later to add additional recordings.[^1]
+- In its August 1, 2024 answer, Suno admits that constructing its model required showing the program “tens of millions of instances of different kinds of recordings” to derive statistical insights, and asserts that any copying of copyrightable expression is fair use in service of creating a new, non-infringing product.[^2]
+- Suno also pleads copyright misuse and unclean hands, de minimis copying, innocent infringement, and other affirmative defenses.[^2]
+- On December 9, 2025, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Atlantic Records Group LLC, Rhino Entertainment LLC, The All Blacks U.S.A., Inc., Warner Music International Services Limited, and Warner Records Inc. stipulated under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that their claims against Suno are dismissed with prejudice, and that claims of all other plaintiffs are unaffected.[^3]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT) — Original complaint (June 24, 2024). Plaintiff allegations except as to filing date, parties, and claims pleaded.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER) — Suno answer (Aug. 1, 2024). Defendant admissions and defenses.
+
+[^3]: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL) — Warner stipulation of dismissal (Dec. 9, 2025).
+
+## Historical Context
+
+The Suno and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) complaints were filed the same day and use parallel theories: unauthorized copying of master sound recordings to train a competing generative-music product.[^1] They sit beside publisher lyric suits such as [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and the German first-instance lyric judgment in [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md). Unlike [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), this docket had not reached a fair-use summary-judgment ruling in the sources reviewed here.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: District of Massachusetts. Authority level: complaint, answer, and a partial Rule 41 dismissal. No merits holding on [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) is recorded here.[^1][^2][^3]
+
+The live dispute is whether ingesting copyrighted sound recordings to train a commercial music generator is fair use. Suno’s answer frames the copies as unseen intermediate analysis of genre and style, which copyright does not protect, and cites Google v. Oracle and Authors Guild v. Google.[^2] The labels plead the opposite: wholesale commercial copying whose outputs occupy the same market as the recordings copied.[^1] That is a fact-intensive § 107 question. This page does not treat prompt-engineered “soundalike” exhibits as proven copying.
+
+The Warner stipulation ends those plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. It does not disclose terms and does not resolve UMG or Sony claims.[^3]
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` cites [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT).
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT): Original complaint (June 24, 2024).
+2. [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER): Suno answer (Aug. 1, 2024).
+3. [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL): Warner stipulation of dismissal (Dec. 9, 2025).
+4. [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add any later amended complaint, DMCA § 1201 stream-ripping claim if leave to amend is granted, and the January 28, 2026 order entering the Warner stipulation.
+- Add a fair-use or other merits order when one issues.
+- Do not treat press reports of licensing-partnership terms as facts unless a party filing or official release states them.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..338cef00
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md
@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+---
+id: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+title: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)
+type: case
+status: draft
+summary: Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which major labels alleged that Udio copied sound recordings to train a generative music service; UMG and Warner later dismissed their claims, and Sony filed a 2026 follow-on action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.
+tags:
+ - case
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET
+ - SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md`
+- Source ID: `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-UMG-V-UDIO)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 4
+ - **Relationships**: 5
+ - **Research debt items**: 4
+
+---
+
+# UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. (Udio)
+
+## Summary
+
+UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04777 (S.D.N.Y.), is the original major-label copyright action against the generative music service Udio. Universal, Sony, and Warner affiliates alleged unauthorized copying of sound recordings for training. UMG/Capitol and Warner later stipulated to dismissal of their claims without prejudice. Sony remained and, on July 20, 2026, filed a second action, No. 1:26-cv-6120, asserting 30,117 additional recordings. No fair-use merits ruling is recorded in the sources reviewed here.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- On June 24, 2024, UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, Arista Music, Arista Records LLC, and Warner-affiliated companies sued Uncharted Labs, Inc., d/b/a Udio.com, in the Southern District of New York. A corrected complaint was entered June 25, 2024. The case was assigned to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.[^1][^2]
+- The complaint alleges that Udio copied and ingested popular sound recordings to train a service that generates digital music files in seconds, without authorization, and that outputs will compete with the recordings used in training.[^1]
+- Plaintiffs plead two counts paralleling the Suno action: direct infringement of post-1972 sound recordings and direct infringement of pre-1972 recordings indexed under 17 U.S.C. § 1401. They seek a willfulness declaration, an injunction, and statutory damages.[^1]
+- On November 5, 2025, the court so-ordered a stipulation dismissing all claims by UMG Recordings, Inc. and Capitol Records, LLC against Udio without prejudice, stating that other plaintiffs’ claims were unaffected.[^2]
+- On November 25, 2025, the court so-ordered a stipulation dismissing all claims by Atlantic Recording Corporation, Rhino Entertainment Company, Warner Music Inc., Warner Music International Services Limited, Warner Records Inc., Warner Records LLC, and Warner Records/SIRE Ventures LLC without prejudice, again leaving other plaintiffs’ claims unaffected.[^2]
+- On July 20, 2026, Sony Music Entertainment and affiliated Sony labels filed Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-6120 (S.D.N.Y.), describing it as a second action after the original complaint identified only an illustrative fraction of copied recordings.[^3]
+- The 2026 complaint asserts 30,117 sound recordings, alleges that forensic analysis of Udio’s training data identified hundreds of thousands of Sony works, and alleges that Udio obtained many recordings by stream-ripping from YouTube in circumvention of technological protection measures. It also pleads Copyright Act, § 1401, and DMCA § 1201 claims.[^3]
+- The 2026 complaint states that plaintiffs sought leave to add those works in the original action and that on June 29, 2026 the court denied leave while saying plaintiffs could seek relief for all copyrighted works in another lawsuit.[^3]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT) — Original complaint (June 24/25, 2024). Plaintiff allegations except as to caption and claims pleaded.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET) — CourtListener docket for No. 1:24-cv-04777. Primary for filing dates and dismissal stipulations.
+
+[^3]: [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT) — Second Sony complaint (July 20, 2026). Plaintiff allegations; the June 29, 2026 leave-to-amend ruling is quoted from that complaint.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+The Udio complaint was filed the same day as [UMG v. Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and uses the same master-recording theory.[^1] Partial dismissals later split the majors: UMG and Warner exited the original Udio docket without prejudice, while Sony continued and opened a second case on an expanded work list.[^2][^3] Those dismissals are not a fair-use ruling.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York. Authority level: complaint, docket stipulations, and a 2026 follow-on complaint. No judicial determination of [fair use](STAT-USC-107.md) is recorded here.[^1][^2][^3]
+
+Two features distinguish Udio from the book-training summary judgments. First, the works are sound recordings, including pre-1972 recordings asserted under § 1401, not literary works.[^1] Second, the 2026 pleading adds a DMCA circumvention theory (YouTube stream-ripping) to the training-copy claim.[^3] The November 2025 stipulations are without prejudice, so they do not finally adjudicate the dismissed labels’ rights.[^2]
+
+This page does not treat Audible Magic match counts or stream-ripping allegations as proven. The 30,117-work figure is the number Sony chose to plead, not a judicial finding of the training set’s size.[^3]
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` cites [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT).
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT): Original complaint (June 2024).
+2. [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET): CourtListener docket for No. 1:24-cv-04777.
+3. [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT): Sony follow-on complaint (July 20, 2026).
+4. [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add Udio’s answer in No. 1:24-cv-04777 as a primary source for any training-data admissions.
+- Add the June 29, 2026 leave-to-amend order from the original docket rather than Sony’s quotation of it.
+- Add any later scheduling, summary-judgment, or settlement filings in either Udio action.
+- Do not import press-reported royalty rates or equity terms without a party filing.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md
index 5778f486..fe6eca52 100644
--- a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md
@@ -37,6 +37,11 @@ relationships:
object: CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE
sources:
- SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA
+ - subject: STAT-USC-107
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
last_verified: "2026-07-19"
enactment_date: "1976"
---
@@ -53,8 +58,8 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside
- **Status**: `draft`
- **Sources**: 3
- - **Relationships**: 5
- - **Research debt items**: 3
+ - **Relationships**: 6
+ - **Research debt items**: 4
---
@@ -90,6 +95,7 @@ Legal analysis has not yet been drafted from primary case law. Future work shoul
- `STAT-USC-107` related_to `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO`.
- `STAT-USC-107` related_to `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`.
- `STAT-USC-107` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`.
+- `STAT-USC-107` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
## Sources
@@ -100,6 +106,7 @@ Legal analysis has not yet been drafted from primary case law. Future work shoul
## Research Debt
- Add leading video and music fair use cases with primary sources (for example Campbell v. Acuff-Rose).
+- Compare statutory factors to generative-AI training decisions collected on [Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md).
- Summarize statutory history from official legislative materials.
- Draft legal analysis from primary case law rather than secondary guides.
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..adebaf16
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,250 @@
+---
+id: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+title: Copyright and Generative AI
+type: topic
+status: draft
+summary: U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.
+tags:
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+ - case-studies
+sources:
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+ - SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO
+relationships:
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: PERSON-KIT-WALSH
+ sources:
+ - SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md`
+- Source ID: `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 15
+ - **Relationships**: 17
+ - **Research debt items**: 5
+
+---
+
+# Copyright and Generative AI
+
+## Summary
+
+U.S. copyright law is being applied to generative AI along two tracks. Outputs: courts and the Copyright Office currently treat purely machine-determined expression as uncopyrightable. Inputs: district courts have split on whether copying works to train models is fair use, and they have distinguished pirated acquisition, competing non-generative tools, and news-output substitution.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Copyright protection under U.S. law for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research is limited by the four fair-use factors in [17 U.S.C. § 107](STAT-USC-107.md).[^1]
+- The Copyright Office’s March 16, 2023 registration guidance states that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity, that applicants must disclose more-than-de-minimis AI-generated content, and that when AI determines the expressive elements of an output, that material is not protected by copyright.[^2]
+- The same guidance states that humans may claim copyright in their own contributions, including creative selection, coordination, and arrangement of AI-generated material or sufficiently creative modifications, and that applicants should not list an AI system as author merely because they used it.[^2]
+- The Office’s January 2025 copyrightability report concluded that existing law can resolve AI copyrightability questions without legislative change; that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable; that prompts alone do not provide sufficient control on current generally available technology; and that the case has not been made for sui generis protection of AI-generated content.[^3]
+- In [Thaler v. Perlmutter](CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md), the D.C. Circuit held that the Copyright Act requires eligible works to be authored in the first instance by a human being and affirmed refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative system.[^4]
+- In [Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence](CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md), the District of Delaware rejected fair use for a competing non-generative legal-research AI trained on Westlaw headnotes.[^5]
+- In [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md), the Northern District of California held that training Claude on books was transformative fair use but that a permanent library of pirated copies was not excused as fair use; a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims received final approval on July 20, 2026.[^6][^7]
+- In [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), the Northern District of California granted Meta summary judgment on fair use for training Llama on thirteen authors’ books on that record, while warning that market-dilution evidence could change the result in other cases and leaving torrenting-distribution claims open.[^8]
+- In [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp.](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md), the Southern District of New York in April 2025 largely denied motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft; an August 2026 order later dismissed material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement.[^9]
+- In [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md), game studios seek a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters are not copyrightable. See [Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters](TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md).[^10]
+- Music-industry suits are collected in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): labels allege unlicensed copying of sound recordings to train [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md); publishers allege lyric copying in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md); and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) is a non-final German first-instance judgment that memorized lyrics in models 4 and 4o were unauthorized reproductions.[^11][^12][^13][^14]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII) — 17 U.S.C. § 107. Primary statutory authority.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023) — 88 Fed. Reg. 16190. Agency guidance.
+
+[^3]: [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025) — Copyright Office Part 2 report (Jan. 2025). Agency report.
+
+[^4]: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC) — 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Primary appellate authority.
+
+[^5]: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025) — D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025. District-court authority.
+
+[^6]: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE) — N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025. District-court authority.
+
+[^7]: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL) — N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026. Settlement approval order.
+
+[^8]: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE) — 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025). District-court authority.
+
+[^9]: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025) — S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025. Pleading-stage authority.
+
+[^10]: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT) — N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025. Pending case; plaintiff allegations.
+
+[^11]: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT) — D. Mass. June 24, 2024. Pending; plaintiff allegations.
+
+[^12]: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT) — S.D.N.Y. June 2024. Pending; plaintiff allegations.
+
+[^13]: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025) — N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025. Pleading-stage order.
+
+[^14]: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025) — LG München I Nov. 11, 2025. Non-final first-instance judgment.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Software copyright already had a fair-use landmark in [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md), which treated copying of Java API declaring code as transformative fair use. Generative-AI cases cite Google v. Oracle but present a different use: ingesting expressive works at scale to produce competing text, images, or music. No U.S. court of appeals had, as of the sources reviewed here, issued a merits holding that LLM training on copyrighted books is or is not fair use.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Three questions should be kept separate.
+
+**Authorship of outputs.** Thaler and Copyright Office practice answer the easy case: a work with no human author cannot be registered or owned as copyrighted expression.[^2][^3][^4] Mixed works remain a case-by-case inquiry. Spyder tests whether viral meme characters created with image generators fall on the uncopyrightable side of that line.[^10]
+
+**Copying for training (inputs).** Fair use under § 107 is fact-specific.[^1] Ross involved a substitute legal-research tool, not a generative writer.[^5] Bartz treated generative training as transformative but piracy-for-library as infringement.[^6] Kadrey treated generative training as fair use on a thin market-harm record while saying other records may come out the other way.[^8] Publisher cases such as the Times action add output-substitution and secondary-liability theories that book-training summary judgments did not decide.[^9] Music cases add a further split: sound-recording training claims against Suno and Udio remain without a U.S. fair-use holding, while GEMA is a non-final German holding that lyric memorization is reproduction outside the TDM exception.[^11][^12][^14]
+
+**Remedies and settlements.** Bartz’s $1.5 billion settlement prices past pirated acquisition for a defined class; it does not freeze the fair-use doctrine or release output claims.[^7]
+
+Non-copyright AI suits (chatbot product liability, defamation, privacy) are collected in [AI Litigation Landscape](TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md).
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` cites [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025).
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-KADREY-V-META`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `PERSON-KIT-WALSH`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+2. [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023): Copyright Office AI registration guidance (2023).
+3. [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025): Copyright Office AI copyrightability report, Part 2 (2025).
+4. [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC): Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+5. [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025): Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. 2025).
+6. [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE): Bartz v. Anthropic, Order on Fair Use (2025).
+7. [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL): Bartz settlement final approval (2026).
+8. [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE): Kadrey v. Meta (N.D. Cal. 2025).
+9. [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025): Times v. Microsoft/OpenAI MTD opinion (2025).
+10. [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT): Spyder Games v. Mementum complaint (2025).
+11. [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT): UMG v. Suno complaint (2024).
+12. [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT): UMG v. Udio complaint (2024).
+13. [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025): Concord v. Anthropic MTD denial (2025).
+14. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025): GEMA v. OpenAI, LG München I (2025).
+
+Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):
+
+- [`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO): Kit Walsh EFF biography (relationship only).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK High Court 2025 and N.D. Cal. U.S. action) with primary judgments.
+- Add Andersen v. Stability AI / artists’ class actions from complaints and orders.
+- Add Copyright Office Part 3 (training) when a final version is cited from copyright.gov rather than secondary summaries.
+- Document U.S. Copyright Office registration examples beyond Thaler (Zarya of the Dawn; later granted mixed-work registrations).
+- Music-generator and lyric cases now have dedicated pages; add later U.S. fair-use orders and any OLG München appeal in GEMA there.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3d3024b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md
@@ -0,0 +1,247 @@
+---
+id: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+title: AI Litigation Landscape
+type: topic
+status: draft
+summary: Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.
+tags:
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - copyright
+ - first-amendment
+ - digital-rights
+ - case-studies
+ - intermediary-liability
+sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+relationships:
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-KADREY-V-META
+ sources:
+ - SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
+ notes: Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil product liability, not a criminal developer prosecution.
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md`
+- Source ID: `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 14
+ - **Relationships**: 16
+ - **Research debt items**: 5
+
+---
+
+# AI Litigation Landscape
+
+## Summary
+
+Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented here fall into four clusters: (1) copyright in training data and model outputs, including news, books, and music, (2) copyright and trademark claims over AI-generated viral characters, (3) product-liability and speech defenses when chatbot products are alleged to have harmed users, and (4) one comparative German first-instance lyric judgment. This page is an inventory, not a prediction of outcomes.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- [Thaler v. Perlmutter](CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) held that the Copyright Act requires human authorship and affirmed refusal to register a work attributed solely to a generative-AI system.[^1]
+- The Copyright Office’s January 2025 copyrightability report concluded that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable and that prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control on current generally available technology.[^2]
+- [Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence](CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected fair use for a non-generative legal-research AI trained on Westlaw headnotes to compete with Westlaw.[^3]
+- [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) held that training Claude on books was transformative fair use but that a pirated permanent library was not; a $1.5 billion class settlement of piracy claims was finally approved July 20, 2026.[^4][^5]
+- [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025) granted Meta fair-use summary judgment on Llama training as to thirteen authors on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.[^6]
+- [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp.](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) (S.D.N.Y.) survived most of an April 4, 2025 motion to dismiss; an August 6, 2026 order dismissed material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement.[^7][^8]
+- [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 26, 2025) seeks a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” characters used in Steal a Brainrot are not copyrightable. See [Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters](TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md).[^9]
+- [Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.](CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) allowed most wrongful-death and product-liability claims against a chatbot company and Google to proceed and declined, at the pleading stage, to treat LLM output as protected speech.[^10]
+- Music copyright dockets are inventoried in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [UMG v. Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [UMG v. Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings; partial dismissals; no U.S. fair-use holding), [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (lyrics; secondary and DMCA claims survive dismissal), and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) (non-final German first-instance lyric judgment).[^11][^12][^13][^14]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC) — 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025) — Copyright Office Part 2 report (Jan. 2025).
+
+[^3]: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025) — D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025.
+
+[^4]: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE) — N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025.
+
+[^5]: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL) — N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026.
+
+[^6]: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE) — 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
+
+[^7]: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025) — S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025.
+
+[^8]: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026) — S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026.
+
+[^9]: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT) — N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025. Pending; allegations.
+
+[^10]: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025) — M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025. Pleading-stage order.
+
+[^11]: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT) — D. Mass. June 24, 2024. Pending.
+
+[^12]: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT) — S.D.N.Y. June 2024. Pending.
+
+[^13]: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025) — N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025.
+
+[^14]: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025) — LG München I Nov. 11, 2025. Not final.
+
+## Case map
+
+| Cluster | Leading OIR page | What is actually decided (as of sources cited) |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Output authorship | [Thaler](CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) | Machine listed as sole author cannot register. |
+| Training vs piracy | [Bartz](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Training fair use; pirated library not; piracy claims settled. |
+| Training market harm | [Kadrey](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) | Fair use on this record; dilution theory undeveloped. |
+| Competing research AI | [Ross](CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) | Not fair use; tool was not generative. |
+| News outputs | [Times v. OpenAI](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) | Claims largely survive dismissal; some secondary theories dismissed. |
+| Meme-character ownership | [Spyder](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) | Pending declaration action. |
+| Music masters | [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) / [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) | Pending; partial dismissals; no U.S. fair-use holding. |
+| Music lyrics (U.S.) | [Concord](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Secondary and CMI claims survive 12(b)(6). |
+| Music lyrics (DE) | [GEMA](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) | First-instance liability; not final. |
+| Chatbot harm | [Garcia](CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) | Design-defect claims proceed; speech defense not established at 12(b)(6). |
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+These dockets are not one “AI law.” Copyright training cases apply [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) to copying that happens before a user sees an answer. Authorship cases ask who, if anyone, owns the answer or the image. Product-liability cases ask whether the software is a product whose design can be defective, which collides with [First Amendment](TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md) arguments that outputs are speech.[^10]
+
+For open-internet and software-freedom work, two tensions matter. First, a broad training-is-always-infringement rule would raise the cost of building models, including open-weight models; Bartz and Kadrey show district judges already disagree about how to weigh that against market harm.[^4][^6] Second, treating chatbot text as unprotected non-speech at the pleading stage, as in Garcia, could expand design-defect litigation against conversational software without a merits record on causation.[^10]
+
+Criminal and sanctions cases involving software authors remain on [Documented Proceedings Involving Software Authors and Operators](TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY.md); they are a different inventory.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-KADREY-V-META`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC): Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+2. [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025): Copyright Office AI copyrightability report, Part 2 (2025).
+3. [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025): Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. 2025).
+4. [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE): Bartz fair-use order (2025).
+5. [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL): Bartz settlement final approval (2026).
+6. [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE): Kadrey v. Meta (2025).
+7. [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025): Times MTD opinion (2025).
+8. [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026): Times Rule 12(c) order (2026).
+9. [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT): Spyder complaint (2025).
+10. [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025): Garcia MTD order (2025).
+11. [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT): UMG v. Suno complaint (2024).
+12. [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT): UMG v. Udio complaint (2024).
+13. [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025): Concord MTD denial (2025).
+14. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025): GEMA v. OpenAI (2025).
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add Walters v. OpenAI (defamation / ChatGPT hallucinations) with a primary docket and any opinion.
+- Add Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK and U.S.) from judgments.
+- Add EU AI Act public-enforcement matters only with official documents.
+- Verify Garcia docket for any 2026 settlement or judgment before stating the case is resolved.
+- Defamation, biometric-privacy, and employment AI cases are not yet in this inventory.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5c0b7dd1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+---
+id: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+title: Music Copyright and Generative AI
+type: topic
+status: draft
+summary: Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.
+tags:
+ - copyright
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - digital-rights
+ - case-studies
+sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET
+ - SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
+relationships:
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-SUNO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-UMG-V-UDIO
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC
+ sources:
+ - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: STAT-USC-107
+ sources:
+ - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md`
+- Source ID: `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 10
+ - **Relationships**: 7
+ - **Research debt items**: 4
+
+---
+
+# Music Copyright and Generative AI
+
+## Summary
+
+Generative-AI music disputes split along the same two copyright interests the industry has always separated: sound recordings (the recorded performance) and musical compositions (the song, including lyrics). U.S. major labels sued Suno and Udio over alleged unlicensed copying of masters. U.S. publishers sued Anthropic over lyrics in Claude. A German first-instance court held OpenAI liable for memorizing and outputting nine German lyrics. As of the sources reviewed here, no U.S. court had issued a fair-use merits ruling on training a generative music model.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- In [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md), Universal, Sony, and Warner affiliates alleged in June 2024 that Suno copied their sound recordings to train a commercial music generator. Suno admitted training on tens of millions of recordings and pleaded fair use. Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice; UMG and Sony claims remained.[^1][^2][^3]
+- In [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md), the same majors filed a parallel June 2024 sound-recording action against Udio in the Southern District of New York. UMG/Capitol and Warner later dismissed their claims without prejudice. Sony remained and in July 2026 filed a second action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.[^4][^5][^6]
+- Both original label complaints plead post-1972 infringement under the Copyright Act and pre-1972 infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 1401, and both treat Exhibit A as an illustrative work list.[^1][^4]
+- In [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), eight publishers allege that Anthropic used copyrighted lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics. On October 6, 2025, the Northern District of California denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the amended secondary-infringement and DMCA CMI claims.[^7]
+- In [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md), Landgericht München I on November 11, 2025 largely granted GEMA’s claims over nine German lyrics, holding that memorization in models 4 and 4o and output of those lyrics were unauthorized reproductions not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception. The court stated the judgment is not final.[^8][^9]
+- U.S. fair use is a four-factor, case-specific limitation in [17 U.S.C. § 107](STAT-USC-107.md). Suno’s answer invokes that defense; the label complaints argue it does not apply. No source cited on this page is a U.S. judicial determination of that question for a music generator.[^1][^2][^10]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT) — Suno complaint (June 24, 2024).
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER) — Suno answer (Aug. 1, 2024).
+
+[^3]: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL) — Warner stipulation (Dec. 9, 2025).
+
+[^4]: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT) — Udio complaint (June 2024).
+
+[^5]: [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET) — Udio docket, including 2025 dismissals.
+
+[^6]: [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT) — Sony follow-on complaint (July 20, 2026).
+
+[^7]: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025) — Concord order denying MTD (Oct. 6, 2025).
+
+[^8]: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025) — LG München I judgment (Nov. 11, 2025).
+
+[^9]: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025) — Official press release (Nov. 11, 2025).
+
+[^10]: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII) — 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+Recorded-music copyright already distinguished the composition from the fixed recording. Generative systems cut across that line. A text model that emits lyrics is a composition problem. An audio model that emits a new recording in the style of existing masters is a sound-recording problem, and sometimes also a composition problem if melody or lyrics are reproduced. The 2024 label complaints treat the second problem as mass infringement of § 106 and § 1401 rights.[^1][^4] The publisher and GEMA matters treat the first as unauthorized reproduction and making available of lyrics.[^7][^8]
+
+Book-training decisions such as [Bartz](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) are adjacent but not controlling here: different works, different outputs, and no music-generator fair-use holding.
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Keep four questions separate.
+
+**Which exclusive right?** Labels plead reproduction of sound recordings used as training audio.[^1][^4] Publishers and GEMA plead reproduction and dissemination of lyrics.[^7][^8] A holding on one right does not decide the other.
+
+**Has a court decided training?** In the United States, as of these sources, no. Suno pleaded fair use; Concord survived a motion to dismiss on secondary and CMI theories without a § 107 ruling.[^2][^7] In Germany, LG München I did decide that extractable memorization of lyrics is a reproduction outside commercial TDM, but that judgment is not final and is not U.S. law.[^8][^9]
+
+**What do partial dismissals mean?** Warner’s Suno exit was with prejudice.[^3] UMG’s and Warner’s Udio exits were without prejudice.[^5] Neither set of stipulations states that training is lawful, and Sony’s 2026 Udio action shows the remaining label expanding the work list rather than abandoning the theory.[^6]
+
+**Outputs versus weights.** GEMA treats simple-prompt regurgitation as proof that the work is fixed in the model and as a separate communication to the public.[^8] U.S. label complaints also rely on generated “soundalikes,” but those exhibits remain allegations.[^1][^4]
+
+Broader authorship and book/news training issues stay on [Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md). The docket inventory is on [AI Litigation Landscape](TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md).
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`.
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `STAT-USC-107`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT): Suno complaint (2024).
+2. [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER): Suno answer (2024).
+3. [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL): Warner Suno dismissal (2025).
+4. [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT): Udio complaint (2024).
+5. [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET): Udio docket and dismissals.
+6. [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT): Sony second Udio complaint (2026).
+7. [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025): Concord MTD denial (2025).
+8. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025): Munich judgment (2025).
+9. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025): Munich press release (2025).
+10. [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Add GEMA v. Suno or other official German audio-model judgments when the court text is available.
+- Add any BMG or other publisher complaints against Anthropic or OpenAI from those filings.
+- Add U.S. fair-use or § 1201 orders in the Suno and Udio dockets when they issue.
+- Do not use lawsuit-tracker royalty or equity figures as facts.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9937c3b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+---
+id: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+title: Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters
+type: topic
+status: draft
+summary: Documents the 2024 lexical sense of “brain rot” and the later copyright fight over AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.
+tags:
+ - artificial-intelligence
+ - copyright
+ - digital-rights
+ - case-studies
+sources:
+ - SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025
+relationships:
+ - subject: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ predicate: cites
+ object: SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024
+ sources:
+ - SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024
+ - subject: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM
+ sources:
+ - SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT
+ - subject: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER
+ sources:
+ - SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC
+ - subject: TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023
+last_verified: "2026-08-22"
+---
+
+# Generated Source Mirror
+
+This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.
+
+- Source path: `knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md`
+- Source ID: `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`
+- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT)
+
+!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
+
+ - **Status**: `draft`
+ - **Sources**: 6
+ - **Relationships**: 4
+ - **Research debt items**: 4
+
+---
+
+# Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters
+
+## Summary
+
+“Brain rot” entered mainstream English as Oxford University Press’s 2024 Word of the Year, describing concern about overconsumption of trivial online content. In 2025 the same slang attached to a wave of AI-generated absurdist meme characters (often called “Italian brainrot”) and to the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot. Whether those characters can be owned under U.S. copyright is the subject of pending Northern District of California litigation.
+
+## Verified Facts
+
+- Oxford University Press selected “brain rot” as its Word of the Year for 2024 after a public vote involving more than 37,000 participants.[^1]
+- OUP defined “brain rot” as “the supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as the result of overconsumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging,” and also as “something characterized as likely to lead to such deterioration.”[^1]
+- OUP reported that usage frequency of the term increased 230% between 2023 and 2024, and that the first recorded use it identified was in Henry David Thoreau’s *Walden* (1854).[^1]
+- OUP associated the 2024 sense with low-quality social-media content and with online “brain rot language,” citing examples such as the *Skibidi Toilet* video series; the announcement does not address copyright ownership of later “Italian brainrot” characters.[^1]
+- In [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md), the complaint alleges that plaintiffs own the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot, that “brainrots” in the game are inspired by humorous internet meme figures created using artificial intelligence programs, and that defendant Mementum Lab claims copyright in those characters, including “Tung Tung Sahor” / “Tung Tung Tung Sahur.”[^2]
+- The Spyder complaint seeks a declaration that the disputed brainrots are not subject to copyright protection because they were generated by AI tools and lack the human authorship required by the Copyright Act.[^2]
+- The Spyder complaint cites [Thaler v. Perlmutter](CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) for the proposition that the Copyright Act requires work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, and quotes the Copyright Office’s March 2023 registration guidance that material whose expressive elements are determined by AI is not protected by copyright.[^2][^3][^4]
+- The Copyright Office’s January 2025 copyrightability report concluded that copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements, and that prompts alone do not provide sufficient control based on current generally available technology.[^5]
+- Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab was filed November 26, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as No. 5:25-cv-10248, assigned to Judge Noel Wise, with nature of suit listed as copyright.[^6]
+
+
+[^1]: [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024) — Oxford University Press Word of the Year 2024 announcement. Official lexicographic source.
+
+[^2]: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT) — Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025). Plaintiff allegations; not findings of fact.
+
+[^3]: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC) — Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Primary appellate authority.
+
+[^4]: [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023) — 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023). Agency registration guidance.
+
+[^5]: [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025) — Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 (Jan. 2025). Agency report; not a judicial holding.
+
+[^6]: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET) — CourtListener docket for No. 5:25-cv-10248. Procedural record.
+
+## Historical Context
+
+OUP presented the 2024 word as part of a longer cultural conversation about virtual life, following 2023’s “rizz.”[^1] By 2025, “brainrot” was also used as a label for a set of AI-generated animal-hybrid meme characters that spread on short-video platforms and were then licensed, copied, and merchandised. Steal a Brainrot, according to the Spyder complaint, debuted on Roblox in May 2025 as a treasure-hunt game in which players capture marching “brainrots.”[^2]
+
+The copyright dispute is not a medical claim about cognitive harm from scrolling. It asks whether an AI-generated viral character can be locked behind exclusive rights once a game or agency tries to monetize it. Plaintiffs in Spyder treat Thaler and Copyright Office guidance as answering that question “no” when the image is machine-determined; the defendant later asserted human creative contributions and trademark theories, which remain pending.[^2][^6]
+
+## Legal Analysis
+
+Jurisdiction for the character-ownership fight is U.S. federal copyright (and, on the docket, trademark) law in the Northern District of California.[^6] Authority level for the human-authorship rule cited in the complaint is the D.C. Circuit’s statutory holding in Thaler, which is persuasive outside the D.C. Circuit and was applied on a record in which the applicant listed a machine as sole author.[^3] The Copyright Office’s 2023 guidance and 2025 report are agency views: they treat prompt-only generation as uncopyrightable while leaving room for copyright in human selection, arrangement, or modification of AI output.[^4][^5]
+
+Spyder’s complaint is a declaratory-judgment action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 seeking a ruling that Mementum has no valid copyright in specified brainrots and that plaintiffs’ game use does not infringe.[^2] No merits ruling on that question is recorded on this page. If a court finds sufficient human authorship in names, stories, iterative prompting, or post-generation edits, the Thaler “autonomous machine author” fact pattern would not control. Trademark claims, if they proceed, would raise a different question—source identification—rather than authorship of the image itself.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` cites [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024).
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` related_to `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`.
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` related_to `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`.
+- `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
+
+## Sources
+
+1. [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024): Oxford University Press Word of the Year 2024 announcement.
+2. [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT): Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab complaint.
+3. [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC): Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
+4. [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023): Copyright Office AI registration guidance (2023).
+5. [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025): Copyright Office AI copyrightability report, Part 2 (2025).
+6. [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET): CourtListener docket, No. 5:25-cv-10248.
+
+## Research Debt
+
+- Obtain and summarize Mementum’s amended counterclaims and any covenant-not-to-sue filings from RECAP rather than secondary press.
+- Distinguish “Italian brainrot” character lore (creator-asserted names and stories) from prompt-only image generation with primary creator-side sources if those become part of a judicial record.
+- Document non-U.S. treatment of AI-generated meme characters (for example French or EU authorship rules) if Mementum continues to plead foreign rights.
+- Do not treat Oxford’s definition as a clinical finding; if a later page addresses cognitive-harm claims about short-form video, source those separately.
+
+## Document metadata
+
+- Last verified: `2026-08-22`
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md
index 4e0f9ccd..49bcb922 100644
--- a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.md
@@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ relationships:
object: ORG-EFF
sources:
- SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP
+ - subject: TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-USC-17-107-LII
last_verified: "2026-07-19"
---
@@ -58,7 +63,7 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside
- **Status**: `draft`
- **Sources**: 4
- - **Relationships**: 6
+ - **Relationships**: 7
- **Research debt items**: 4
---
@@ -108,6 +113,7 @@ Analysis of platform copyright enforcement systems (for example automated matchi
- `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO` related_to `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`.
- `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO` related_to `TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE`.
- `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO` related_to `ORG-EFF`.
+- `TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
## Sources
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md
index 5bd499df..dcdfef27 100644
--- a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ sources:
- SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII
- SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA
- SRC-FIRE-MISSION
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
relationships:
- subject: TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT
predicate: cites
@@ -39,6 +40,11 @@ relationships:
object: ORG-FIRE
sources:
- SRC-FIRE-MISSION
+ - subject: TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES
+ sources:
+ - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025
last_verified: "2026-07-31"
---
@@ -53,8 +59,8 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside
!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed"
- **Status**: `draft`
- - **Sources**: 3
- - **Relationships**: 5
+ - **Sources**: 4
+ - **Relationships**: 6
- **Research debt items**: 4
---
@@ -89,6 +95,7 @@ Legal analysis has not yet been drafted. Future work should distinguish constitu
- `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` related_to `TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH`.
- `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` related_to `ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT`.
- `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` related_to `ORG-FIRE`.
+- `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` related_to `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`.
## Sources
@@ -98,6 +105,7 @@ Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):
- [`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA`](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844/): Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
- [`SRC-FIRE-MISSION`](https://www.thefire.org/about-us/mission): FIRE Mission Page.
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025): Garcia v. Character Technologies order on motions to dismiss (May 20, 2025).
## Research Debt
diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md
index 6f44bb23..28b8ebd8 100644
--- a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md
+++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-KIT-WALSH.md
@@ -23,6 +23,11 @@ relationships:
object: ORG-EFF
sources:
- SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO
+ - subject: PERSON-KIT-WALSH
+ predicate: related_to
+ object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT
+ sources:
+ - SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO
last_verified: "2026-06-25"
---
@@ -38,7 +43,7 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside
- **Status**: `draft`
- **Sources**: 1
- - **Relationships**: 2
+ - **Relationships**: 3
- **Research debt items**: 5
---
@@ -69,6 +74,7 @@ Walsh's explicit focus on "coders' rights" and her work at the intersection of f
- `PERSON-KIT-WALSH` cites [`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO).
- `PERSON-KIT-WALSH` affiliated_with `ORG-EFF`.
+- `PERSON-KIT-WALSH` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`.
## Sources
@@ -77,7 +83,7 @@ Walsh's explicit focus on "coders' rights" and her work at the intersection of f
## Research Debt
- Document specific coders' rights cases handled.
-- Add details on AI and access to knowledge legal work.
+- Add details on AI and access to knowledge legal work; see [Copyright and Generative AI](../legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md).
- Document how software developers can engage with EFF on coders' rights issues.
- Corroborate self-reported biography or about-page claims with independent sources (institutional profile, court docket, case page, or reputable journalism).
- Add primary or secondary sources for major litigation and impact claims (dockets, case pages, official court records, or reputable journalism).
diff --git a/website/generated/taxonomy-audit.md b/website/generated/taxonomy-audit.md
index 1aeb90e9..90642cc3 100644
--- a/website/generated/taxonomy-audit.md
+++ b/website/generated/taxonomy-audit.md
@@ -1,123 +1,124 @@
-# Taxonomy Audit Report
-
-Last updated: 2026-08-22 06:22 UTC
-
-This report analyzes tag usage, identifies gaps, and surfaces potential duplicates.
-
-## Summary
-
-| Metric | Count |
-|--------|-------|
-| Tags declared in TAXONOMY.md | 55 |
-| Tags used in content | 57 |
-| Total tag applications | 1493 |
-| Orphan tags (declared but unused) | 13 |
-| Undeclared tags (used but not in TAXONOMY.md) | 15 |
-| Similar tag pairs (possible duplicates) | 0 |
-| Content without tags | 0 |
-
-## Tag Usage Frequency
-
-| Tag | Uses | Status |
-|-----|------|--------|
-| `source` | 208 | ✓ |
-| `digital-rights` | 169 | ✓ |
-| `privacy` | 114 | ✓ |
-| `organization` | 91 | ✓ |
-| `open-source-software` | 78 | ✓ |
-| `first-amendment` | 71 | ✓ |
-| `person` | 68 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `outreach` | 56 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `internet-governance` | 49 | ✓ |
-| `case` | 41 | ✓ |
-| `attorney` | 41 | ✓ |
-| `cryptography` | 33 | ✓ |
-| `copyright` | 32 | ✓ |
-| `surveillance` | 32 | ✓ |
-| `censorship-resistance` | 26 | ✓ |
-| `case-studies` | 23 | ✓ |
-| `fourth-amendment` | 23 | ✓ |
-| `computer-crime` | 23 | ✓ |
-| `internet-architecture` | 22 | ✓ |
-| `speech-and-code` | 21 | ✓ |
-| `sanctions` | 19 | ✓ |
-| `civil-society` | 19 | ✓ |
-| `intermediary-liability` | 18 | ✓ |
-| `peer-to-peer-networking` | 17 | ✓ |
-| `statute` | 16 | ✓ |
-| `secure-messaging` | 15 | ✓ |
-| `open-source-risk` | 14 | ✓ |
-| `age-verification` | 14 | ✓ |
-| `case-law` | 12 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `public-policy` | 10 | ✓ |
-| `safe-harbor` | 10 | ✓ |
-| `historical-event` | 9 | ✓ |
-| `technology` | 9 | ✓ |
-| `developer-rights` | 8 | ✓ |
-| `border-search` | 7 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `encryption-law` | 7 | ✓ |
-| `network-protocols` | 7 | ✓ |
-| `tornado-cash` | 6 | ✓ |
-| `export-control` | 6 | ✓ |
-| `constitutional-law` | 5 | ✓ |
-| `distributed-systems` | 5 | ✓ |
-| `technology-law` | 4 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `content-moderation` | 4 | ✓ |
-| `privacy-preserving-systems` | 3 | ✓ |
-| `civil-liberties` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `researcher` | 3 | ✓ |
-| `technical` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `imported-source` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `project-governance` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `technical-standard` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `academic-paper` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `distributed-hash-tables` | 2 | ✓ |
-| `software-distribution` | 1 | ✓ |
-| `example-tag` | 1 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `commentary` | 1 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `academic` | 1 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-| `onion-routing` | 1 | ⚠️ undeclared |
-
-## Orphan Tags
-
-These tags are declared in `TAXONOMY.md` but never used in any content:
-
-- `axona`
-- `consensus`
-- `content-addressing`
-- `court`
-- `cryptographic-signatures`
-- `due-process`
-- `key-management`
-- `paper`
-- `prior-restraint`
-- `protocol`
-- `regulation`
-- `routing`
-- `software-publication`
-
-**Action:** Either add content using these tags or remove them from TAXONOMY.md.
-
-## Undeclared Tags
-
-These tags are used in content but not listed in `TAXONOMY.md`:
-
-| Tag | Used in |
-|-----|---------|
-| `academic` | `bibliography/academic/SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER.md` |
-| `academic-paper` | `bibliography/academic/SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999.md`, `bibliography/academic/SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001.md`, `bibliography/academic/SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md` |
-| `border-search` | `knowledge/legal/STAT-18-USC-2232.md`, `knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH.md`, `knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-TUNICK.md` +4 more |
-| `case-law` | `bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO.md`, `bibliography/legal/SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA.md`, `bibliography/legal/SRC-CARPENTER-LII.md` +9 more |
-| `civil-liberties` | `knowledge/organizations/ORG-ACLU.md`, `bibliography/organizations/SRC-ACLU-HISTORY.md`, `bibliography/organizations/SRC-ACLU-CONTACT.md` |
-| `commentary` | `bibliography/legal/SRC-HILL-MARLOW-REVERSE-WARRANTS-2026.md` |
-| `example-tag` | `knowledge/_templates/knowledge-page.md` |
-| `imported-source` | `bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-ROADMAP-DOCX.md`, `bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-PROJECT-CHARTER-DOCX.md`, `bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md` |
-| `onion-routing` | `bibliography/academic/SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER.md` |
-| `outreach` | `knowledge/organizations/ORG-EFF.md`, `knowledge/organizations/ORG-OSI.md`, `knowledge/organizations/ORG-PUBLIC-KNOWLEDGE.md` +53 more |
-| `person` | `knowledge/people/PERSON-RON-WYDEN.md`, `knowledge/people/PERSON-ROBERT-KAHN.md`, `knowledge/people/PERSON-TIM-BERNERS-LEE.md` +65 more |
-| `project-governance` | `bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-ROADMAP-DOCX.md`, `bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-PROJECT-CHARTER-DOCX.md`, `bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md` |
-| `technical` | `knowledge/technical/TOPIC-ONION-ROUTING.md`, `bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET.md`, `bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md` |
-| `technical-standard` | `bibliography/technical/SRC-RFC-9293.md`, `bibliography/technical/SRC-RFC-1034.md`, `bibliography/technical/SRC-RFC-8446.md` |
-| `technology-law` | `knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US.md`, `knowledge/legal/TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD.md`, `bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO.md` +1 more |
-
-**Action:** Add these to TAXONOMY.md or replace with existing tags.
+# Taxonomy Audit Report
+
+Last updated: 2026-08-22 18:33 UTC
+
+This report analyzes tag usage, identifies gaps, and surfaces potential duplicates.
+
+## Summary
+
+| Metric | Count |
+|--------|-------|
+| Tags declared in TAXONOMY.md | 56 |
+| Tags used in content | 58 |
+| Total tag applications | 1655 |
+| Orphan tags (declared but unused) | 13 |
+| Undeclared tags (used but not in TAXONOMY.md) | 15 |
+| Similar tag pairs (possible duplicates) | 0 |
+| Content without tags | 0 |
+
+## Tag Usage Frequency
+
+| Tag | Uses | Status |
+|-----|------|--------|
+| `source` | 233 | ✓ |
+| `digital-rights` | 187 | ✓ |
+| `privacy` | 114 | ✓ |
+| `organization` | 91 | ✓ |
+| `open-source-software` | 78 | ✓ |
+| `first-amendment` | 75 | ✓ |
+| `case` | 74 | ✓ |
+| `copyright` | 68 | ✓ |
+| `person` | 68 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `outreach` | 56 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `internet-governance` | 49 | ✓ |
+| `attorney` | 41 | ✓ |
+| `artificial-intelligence` | 40 | ✓ |
+| `cryptography` | 33 | ✓ |
+| `surveillance` | 32 | ✓ |
+| `case-studies` | 27 | ✓ |
+| `censorship-resistance` | 26 | ✓ |
+| `fourth-amendment` | 23 | ✓ |
+| `computer-crime` | 23 | ✓ |
+| `internet-architecture` | 22 | ✓ |
+| `speech-and-code` | 21 | ✓ |
+| `intermediary-liability` | 20 | ✓ |
+| `sanctions` | 19 | ✓ |
+| `civil-society` | 19 | ✓ |
+| `peer-to-peer-networking` | 17 | ✓ |
+| `statute` | 16 | ✓ |
+| `secure-messaging` | 15 | ✓ |
+| `age-verification` | 14 | ✓ |
+| `open-source-risk` | 14 | ✓ |
+| `case-law` | 12 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `public-policy` | 10 | ✓ |
+| `safe-harbor` | 10 | ✓ |
+| `historical-event` | 9 | ✓ |
+| `technology` | 9 | ✓ |
+| `developer-rights` | 8 | ✓ |
+| `border-search` | 7 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `encryption-law` | 7 | ✓ |
+| `network-protocols` | 7 | ✓ |
+| `export-control` | 6 | ✓ |
+| `tornado-cash` | 6 | ✓ |
+| `constitutional-law` | 5 | ✓ |
+| `distributed-systems` | 5 | ✓ |
+| `technology-law` | 4 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `content-moderation` | 4 | ✓ |
+| `privacy-preserving-systems` | 3 | ✓ |
+| `civil-liberties` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `researcher` | 3 | ✓ |
+| `technical` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `academic-paper` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `imported-source` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `project-governance` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `technical-standard` | 3 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `distributed-hash-tables` | 2 | ✓ |
+| `software-distribution` | 1 | ✓ |
+| `example-tag` | 1 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `academic` | 1 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `onion-routing` | 1 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+| `commentary` | 1 | ⚠️ undeclared |
+
+## Orphan Tags
+
+These tags are declared in `TAXONOMY.md` but never used in any content:
+
+- `axona`
+- `consensus`
+- `content-addressing`
+- `court`
+- `cryptographic-signatures`
+- `due-process`
+- `key-management`
+- `paper`
+- `prior-restraint`
+- `protocol`
+- `regulation`
+- `routing`
+- `software-publication`
+
+**Action:** Either add content using these tags or remove them from TAXONOMY.md.
+
+## Undeclared Tags
+
+These tags are used in content but not listed in `TAXONOMY.md`:
+
+| Tag | Used in |
+|-----|---------|
+| `academic` | `bibliography\academic\SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER.md` |
+| `academic-paper` | `bibliography\academic\SRC-CLARKE-DDISRS-1999.md`, `bibliography\academic\SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001.md`, `bibliography\academic\SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md` |
+| `border-search` | `knowledge\legal\CASE-US-V-TUNICK.md`, `knowledge\legal\STAT-18-USC-2232.md`, `knowledge\legal\TOPIC-DEVICE-SEARCH.md` +4 more |
+| `case-law` | `bibliography\legal\SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO.md`, `bibliography\legal\SRC-CARPENTER-GOVINFO.md`, `bibliography\legal\SRC-CARPENTER-LII.md` +9 more |
+| `civil-liberties` | `knowledge\organizations\ORG-ACLU.md`, `bibliography\organizations\SRC-ACLU-CONTACT.md`, `bibliography\organizations\SRC-ACLU-HISTORY.md` |
+| `commentary` | `bibliography\legal\SRC-HILL-MARLOW-REVERSE-WARRANTS-2026.md` |
+| `example-tag` | `knowledge\_templates\knowledge-page.md` |
+| `imported-source` | `bibliography\imported\SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md`, `bibliography\imported\SRC-OIR-PROJECT-CHARTER-DOCX.md`, `bibliography\imported\SRC-OIR-ROADMAP-DOCX.md` |
+| `onion-routing` | `bibliography\academic\SRC-TOR-DESIGN-PAPER.md` |
+| `outreach` | `knowledge\organizations\ORG-ACLU.md`, `knowledge\organizations\ORG-CDT.md`, `knowledge\organizations\ORG-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md` +53 more |
+| `person` | `knowledge\people\PERSON-ALAN-KAY.md`, `knowledge\people\PERSON-ANDREW-RUSSELL.md`, `knowledge\people\PERSON-BRUCE-SCHNEIER.md` +65 more |
+| `project-governance` | `bibliography\imported\SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md`, `bibliography\imported\SRC-OIR-PROJECT-CHARTER-DOCX.md`, `bibliography\imported\SRC-OIR-ROADMAP-DOCX.md` |
+| `technical` | `knowledge\technical\TOPIC-ONION-ROUTING.md`, `bibliography\technical\SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET.md`, `bibliography\technical\SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md` |
+| `technical-standard` | `bibliography\technical\SRC-RFC-1034.md`, `bibliography\technical\SRC-RFC-8446.md`, `bibliography\technical\SRC-RFC-9293.md` |
+| `technology-law` | `knowledge\legal\CASE-VAN-BUREN-V-US.md`, `knowledge\legal\TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD.md`, `bibliography\legal\SRC-VAN-BUREN-GOVINFO.md` +1 more |
+
+**Action:** Add these to TAXONOMY.md or replace with existing tags.
diff --git a/website/generated/timeline.md b/website/generated/timeline.md
index 4513521e..aff8edcf 100644
--- a/website/generated/timeline.md
+++ b/website/generated/timeline.md
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
This page lists legal and historical milestones in chronological order using typed date fields (`decision_date`, `enactment_date`, `legislative_override_date`, `offense_date`, `charge_date`, `arrest_date`, `indictment_date`, and `event_date`). Document publication and verification dates are shown at the bottom of individual pages. Do not edit this file manually.
-Event count: 39
+Event count: 47
## 1976
@@ -129,6 +129,30 @@ Event count: 39
- **Offense**: [`CASE-US-V-TUNICK`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-TUNICK.md) — United States v. Tunick, No. 1:25-cr-00499 (N.D. Ga.), is a pending federal prosecution charging Samuel Tunick under 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) for allegedly deleting digital contents of a Google Pixel phone during a January 24, 2025 CBP secondary inspection at Atlanta’s airport; public reporting links the wipe to GrapheneOS duress credentials.
+## 2025-02-11
+
+- **Decision**: [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) — Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.
+
+## 2025-03-18
+
+- **Decision**: [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) — Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.
+
+## 2025-04-04
+
+- **Decision**: [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) — Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.
+
+## 2025-05-20
+
+- **Decision**: [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) — Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.
+
+## 2025-06-23
+
+- **Decision**: [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) — Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.
+
+## 2025-06-25
+
+- **Decision**: [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) — Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors’ books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.
+
## 2025-07-30
- **Decision**: [`CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md) — Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill, co-founders of Samourai Wallet, pled guilty in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds and were sentenced to five and four years in prison.
@@ -137,10 +161,18 @@ Event count: 39
- **Decision**: [`CASE-US-V-STORM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-STORM.md) — United States v. Storm, No. 1:23-cr-00430 (S.D.N.Y.), is the federal criminal prosecution of Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm; in August 2025 he was convicted of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business.
+## 2025-10-06
+
+- **Decision**: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) — Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.
+
## 2025-10-13
- **Enactment**: [`STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT.md) — California’s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043; Civ. Code Title 1.81.9) requires operating system providers to collect age at account setup and send age-bracket signals to apps, and requires developers to request those signals; effective January 1, 2026 and operative January 1, 2027.
+## 2025-11-11
+
+- **Decision**: [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) — First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.
+
## 2025-11-13
- **Indictment**: [`CASE-US-V-TUNICK`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-TUNICK.md) — United States v. Tunick, No. 1:25-cr-00499 (N.D. Ga.), is a pending federal prosecution charging Samuel Tunick under 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) for allegedly deleting digital contents of a Google Pixel phone during a January 24, 2025 CBP secondary inspection at Atlanta’s airport; public reporting links the wipe to GrapheneOS duress credentials.
diff --git a/website/generated/used-for.md b/website/generated/used-for.md
index c1933c9b..d2c756f8 100644
--- a/website/generated/used-for.md
+++ b/website/generated/used-for.md
@@ -2,7 +2,13 @@
This page is generated from `Used For` sections in source records. Do not edit it manually.
-Term count: 182
+Term count: 198
+
+## `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` { #case-bartz-v-anthropic }
+
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md)
+- [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII: 17 U.S.C. § 107`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
## `CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ` { #case-bernstein-v-doj }
@@ -38,6 +44,21 @@ Term count: 182
- [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023: Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md)
+## `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` { #case-concord-v-anthropic }
+
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` { #case-garcia-v-character-technologies }
+
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
+## `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` { #case-gema-v-openai }
+
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md)
+
## `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE` { #case-google-v-oracle }
- [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md)
@@ -47,6 +68,11 @@ Term count: 182
- [`SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO: Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md)
- [`SRC-JUNGER-CMU: Junger v. Daley Opinion Text (CMU)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-CMU.md)
+## `CASE-KADREY-V-META` { #case-kadrey-v-meta }
+
+- [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+- [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII: 17 U.S.C. § 107`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
## `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL` { #case-lenz-v-universal }
- [`SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9.md)
@@ -58,6 +84,12 @@ Term count: 182
- [`SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024: Dutch Judiciary English News — Tornado Cash Developer Jail Sentence (May 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024.md)
- [`SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023: Treasury Designates Roman Semenov, Co-Founder of Tornado Cash (Aug. 23, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023.md)
+## `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` { #case-nyt-v-openai }
+
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+
## `CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC` { #case-packingham-v-nc }
- [`SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO: Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (GovInfo)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO.md)
@@ -74,6 +106,36 @@ Term count: 182
- [`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA.md)
- [`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (U.S. Reports PDF)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC.md)
+## `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` { #case-spyder-v-mementum }
+
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md)
+- [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023: Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
+
+## `CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER` { #case-thaler-v-perlmutter }
+
+- [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025: U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023: Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
+
+## `CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS` { #case-thomson-reuters-v-ross }
+
+- [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII: 17 U.S.C. § 107`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+
+## `CASE-UMG-V-SUNO` { #case-umg-v-suno }
+
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md)
+
+## `CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` { #case-umg-v-udio }
+
+- [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md)
+
## `CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY` { #case-universal-v-corley }
- [`SRC-CORLEY-LII: Universal City Studios v. Corley Opinion Text (Open Casebook)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CORLEY-LII.md)
@@ -584,6 +646,56 @@ Term count: 182
- [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076: OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md)
- [`SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA: Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA.md)
+## `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` { #topic-ai-copyright }
+
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+- [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII: 17 U.S.C. § 107`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025: U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023: Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
+- [`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO: Kit Walsh EFF Staff Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md)
+
+## `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` { #topic-ai-litigation }
+
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md)
+- [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+
+## `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` { #topic-ai-music-copyright }
+
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md)
+- [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md)
+
## `TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION` { #topic-app-store-age-verification }
- [`SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED: Alabama HB 161 Enrolled — App Store Accountability Act`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md)
@@ -597,6 +709,15 @@ Term count: 182
- [`SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED: Texas SB 2420 — App Store Accountability Act (Enrolled Text)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED.md)
- [`SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026: Texas Tribune — Supreme Court Lets Texas App Age Verification Law Stay in Effect`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026.md)
+## `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` { #topic-brain-rot }
+
+- [`SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024: Oxford University Press — ‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year 2024`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024.md)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md)
+- [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md)
+- [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025: U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md)
+- [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023: Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md)
+
## `TOPIC-COMPUTER-FRAUD` { #topic-computer-fraud }
- [`SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (GovInfo)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-18-1030-GOVINFO.md)
@@ -639,6 +760,10 @@ Term count: 182
- [`SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO: 17 U.S.C. § 107 (GovInfo)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-GOVINFO.md)
- [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII: 17 U.S.C. § 107`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md)
+## `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` { #topic-first-amendment }
+
+- [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md)
+
## `TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT` { #topic-fourth-amendment }
- [`SRC-CARPENTER-GOVINFO: Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) (GovInfo)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CARPENTER-GOVINFO.md)