Add sourced AI copyright cases and surface them in site navigation

bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+id: SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET
+title: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: CourtListener docket for the visual-artists putative class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway.
+tags:
+  - source
+  - case
+  - copyright
+  - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-09-02"
+---
+
+# Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener / PACER)
+- Publication date: 2023-01-13
+- Source type: Public docket
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66732129/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-09-02
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP for No. 3:23-cv-00201. Reliable for filing date, later docket events, and the August 12, 2024 MTD-order entry as of the access date. Not a substitute for the order PDF or later operative complaints.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`

bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024
+title: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Northern District of California order allowing artists’ Copyright Act and some Lanham Act claims against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway to proceed, while dismissing DMCA claims with prejudice.
+tags:
+  - source
+  - case
+  - copyright
+  - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-09-02"
+---
+
+# Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge William H. Orrick)
+- Publication date: 2024-08-12
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.407208/gov.uscourts.cand.407208.223.0_3.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-09-02
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the August 12, 2024 order in No. 23-cv-00201-WHO, reported as 744 F. Supp. 3d 956. Primary authority for pleading-stage holdings on the first amended complaint. The order recites alleged FAC facts and is not a fair-use merits ruling. Later amended complaints and discovery orders are not this source.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`

bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+id: SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT
+title: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: BMG publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works, and removed copyright management information.
+tags:
+  - source
+  - case
+  - copyright
+  - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-09-02"
+---
+
+# BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2026-03-17
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466061/gov.uscourts.cand.466061.1.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-09-02
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 5:26-cv-02334. Primary for filing date, claims, and BMG’s identification of Concord I and Concord II as related actions. Allegations are not found facts.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`

bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+id: SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT
+title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Second Concord/UMG/ABKCO publisher complaint against Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann alleging torrenting of books containing musical compositions and later Claude training and outputs.
+tags:
+  - source
+  - case
+  - copyright
+  - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-09-02"
+---
+
+# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (Concord II)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2026-01-28
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.463362/gov.uscourts.cand.463362.1.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-09-02
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 5:26-cv-00880. Primary for filing date, named defendants, and alleged torrenting and later-model training theories. Later amended complaints are not this source. Allegations are not found facts.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`
+- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`

bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+id: SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026
+title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Order relating Concord II (No. 5:26-cv-00880) to Concord I (No. 5:24-cv-03811) before Judge Eumi K. Lee.
+tags:
+  - source
+  - case
+  - copyright
+  - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-09-02"
+---
+
+# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Eumi K. Lee)
+- Publication date: 2026-02-18
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.463362/gov.uscourts.cand.463362.57.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-09-02
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the February 18, 2026 related-case order. Primary for the court’s finding that No. 26-cv-00880 is related to No. 24-cv-03811-EKL and reassignment to Judge Lee. Not a merits ruling.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`

bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT
+title: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Studio complaint alleging that Midjourney copied Disney and Universal character works to train an image generator and that the service outputs unauthorized reproductions and derivatives.
+tags:
+  - source
+  - case
+  - copyright
+  - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-09-02"
+---
+
+# Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing)
+- Publication date: 2025-06-11
+- Source type: District court complaint (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999.1.0_3.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-09-02
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal.). Primary source for what the Disney and Universal plaintiffs alleged at filing, not for the truth of disputed facts. The later Warner Bros. action and consolidation are not this source.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`

bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+id: SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026
+title: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Magistrate discovery order in the consolidated Disney/Universal/Warner Bros. action against Midjourney, limiting compelled production of the studios’ own generative-AI materials to consumer-facing uses of the asserted works.
+tags:
+  - source
+  - case
+  - copyright
+  - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-09-02"
+---
+
+# Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Central District of California (Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin)
+- Publication date: 2026-06-15
+- Source type: District court discovery order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999.88.0.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-09-02
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the June 15, 2026 memorandum decision in No. 2:25-cv-05275-JAK-AJR. Primary for consolidation of the Warner Bros. action, the identity of the Warner Bros. Discovery plaintiffs, and the limited grant of Midjourney’s motion to compel. It is not a fair-use or infringement merits ruling. Midjourney later sought district-judge review of the order; that motion is not this source.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`

bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+id: SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET
+title: Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Ninth Circuit CourtListener docket for the interlocutory appeal from the Northern District of California Copilot / GitHub copyright-management-information order.
+tags:
+  - source
+  - case
+  - copyright
+  - artificial-intelligence
+  - open-source-software
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-09-02"
+---
+
+# Doe v. GitHub, Inc., Ninth Circuit CourtListener docket
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (via CourtListener / PACER)
+- Publication date: 2024-12-23
+- Source type: Public appellate docket
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69495342/doe-et-al-v-github-inc-et-al/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-09-02
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener docket for No. 24-7700. Reliable for the appeal’s opening from N.D. Cal. No. 4:22-cv-06823-JST, the December 23, 2024 case-opening date, and the February 11, 2026 oral-argument date as of the access date. The docket does not itself contain an appellate opinion.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`

bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+id: SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024
+title: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice open-source developers’ DMCA § 1202(b) claims against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI entities, while allowing breach-of-open-source-license claims to proceed.
+tags:
+  - source
+  - case
+  - copyright
+  - artificial-intelligence
+  - open-source-software
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-09-02"
+---
+
+# Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)
+
+## Bibliographic Metadata
+
+- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Jon S. Tigar)
+- Publication date: 2024-06-24
+- Source type: District court order (PDF)
+- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.403220/gov.uscourts.cand.403220.253.0_1.pdf
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-09-02
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+RECAP copy of the June 24, 2024 order in No. 22-cv-06823-JST. Primary authority for dismissal with prejudice of the § 1202(b) claim and survival of the open-source-license contract claim. The order is a pleading decision, not a holding that Copilot training is or is not fair use. The Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal is not this source.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`
+- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`
+- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`

bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+id: SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET
+title: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984)
+type: source
+status: draft
+summary: CourtListener docket for the Wall Street Journal and New York Post copyright action against Perplexity AI.
+tags:
+  - source
+  - case
+  - copyright
+  - artificial-intelligence
+sources: []
+relationships: []
+last_verified: "2026-09-02"
+---
+
+# Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, 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: 2024-10-21
+- Source type: Public docket
+- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69280523/dow-jones-company-inc-v-perplexity-ai-inc/
+- Archive URL: None recorded
+- Access date: 2026-09-02
+
+## Reliability Notes
+
+CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP for No. 1:24-cv-07984. Reliable for the October 21, 2024 filing date and later docket events as of the access date. Not a substitute for the August 21, 2025 opinion.
+
+## Used For
+
+- `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`