Copyright
Two weeks ago, on May 8, the Trump Administration dismissed Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden; then, two days later, Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter, alarming rightsholders that the White House would try to make it easier for AI companies to train their software on unlicensed copyrighted material.
The Trump Administration hasn’t said much about this, and the situation has only become weirder. The following week (May 12), Wired reported that two Trump appointees were blocked from entering the Copyright Office, and left voluntarily after Library of Congress staffers contacted the Capitol Police. As recently as January 2024, remember, the New York Times referred to the agency — erroneously and rather obnoxiously — as “the sleepy Copyright Office.”
Now, amid disagreements about the process to replace Hayden and Perlmutter, the latter, who is on administrative leave, just filed a lawsuit (on May 22) claiming that the Trump Administration has no right to replace Hayden or dismiss her, and asking for an injunction to restore her role as Register. At the same time, the Trump Administration’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which passed the House of Representatives on May 22, contains language that would drastically limit enforcement of state-level AI regulations, including those that would protect artists’ name, image and likeness rights. If the bill passes the Senate intact, assuming the federal government has the power to limit state laws without making its own, this would represent a serious giveaway to the technology sector. Considered together with Perlmutter’s dismissal, it suggests that the Trump Administration may try to give AI companies a pass to ignore creators rights — along with those of other people.
Trending on Billboard
It’s tough to know this is true, of course, because the Administration still hasn’t said much about dismissing Hayden and Perlmutter — a White House explanation about Hayden “putting inappropriate books in the library for children” is absurd, since the Library of Congress is a research institution. Troublingly, the move to dismiss both officials seems to have been sparked by an April 17 American Accountability Foundation report on “Liberals of the Library of Congress.” (The organization is a political nonprofit run by Tom Jones, a former Capitol Hill staffer with a background in opposition research who did not respond to a request for comment.) The report makes for a thin meal. Both Hayden and Perlmutter are registered Democrats who each donated less than $15,000 to national candidates over the last two decades. Hayden, who is Black, “participated in a roundtable on DEI” and moderated a conference of the American Library Association, which is portrayed, with considerable exaggeration, as a group of far-left radicals. Perlmutter, who served in the US Patent and Trademark Office under the first Trump administration and is widely respected for her expertise, “is part of a left-wing family,” according to the report. If this makes her unfit for public office, so is Stephen Miller.
It is possible that the Trump Administration simply could not bring itself to tolerate a Register of Copyrights with siblings who criticized the president online. But it’s also possible that some of the technology companies that have influence in the White House want a Copyright Office that will be more compliant. In March, the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz responded to a request for public comments on the White House AI Action Plan by saying that “neither the Copyright Office nor any other government agency should release guidance related to this issue — or other issues critical to American competitiveness in AI — until the conclusion of the National AI Action Plan process.” In other words, we would prefer new rules to those that exist now.
Or perhaps no rules at all? Technology companies often push for legislation that allows them to avoid other laws or liability: The “safe harbor” from liability in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Section 230 of the Communications Act, which gives them immunity from liability for user content; and the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The current version of the “Big, Beautiful Bill” — which I can’t even type without laughing and crying at the same time — could be even worse. It would block enforcement of all current and future local and state laws on AI, including the Tennessee ELVIS ACT (Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act), which protects artists from AI imitations; and the California AI Transparency Act, which requires big AI companies to identify what has been created by AI tools. Music would only be the beginning, of course. Would this act also forbid the enforcement of laws preventing AI systems from engaging in illegal discrimination? (It’s not clear.) What about deepfake porn?
Although the moratorium on state AI law enforcement would only last for 10 years, laws to protect technology companies can stick around, as what was intended to be an initial boost for an important sector of the economy slowly becomes the status quo. Look at the Internet Tax Freedom Act, passed in 1998 to last a decade, then extended several times and made permanent in 2016. The issues involved in AI will be far more profound, of course, not least because some of those systems might be able to outthink their creators within a decade or two. Imagine creating systems that will soon become smarter than humans, then purposefully making them harder to regulate. This sounds less like legislation than the first act of a Syfy disaster movie. The third won’t be pretty.
Copyright has always been one of the few remaining bipartisan issues in Washington, and Democrats who champion the arts — and, often, the media business — join forces with Republicans who see copyright as a property right worth protecting. Opposing copyright, and online regulation in general, has become a bipartisan issue as well, though. Before Elon Musk had way too much power in the Trump Administration, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt had too much power in the Obama Administration. Now, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the political fight over the future of the Copyright Office will take place mostly within the GOP, with MAGA-friendly “tech bros” on one side and more traditional business-focused Republicans on the other.
That is, if Perlmutter doesn’t get the injunction she’s asking for in her lawsuit. Essentially, the President has the power to appoint the Librarian of Congress, who is then confirmed by the Senate. The Librarian then has the power to appoint, or dismiss, the Register. Without a replacement Librarian, Perlmutter argues, “the President’s attempt to remove Ms. Perlmutter was unlawful and ineffective.” This makes sense, but the Trump Administration has taken an expansive view of presidential power, to say the least, and we are now in uncharted territory. And not in a good way.
Even if Perlmutter wins, the Trump Administration will eventually appoint a new Librarian, who will in turn hire a new Register. The question is, who and when? And, more urgently, what happens until then — different people show up and say they have jobs, only to be turned away? That sounds pretty chaotic. Perhaps the chaos is the point, though. The more the Trump Administration interferes with the basic machinery of government — the endless list of federal agencies known by initials, rather than names — the easier it is to argue that all of this is part of a problem, not a solution. And that could be the biggest problem of all.
Universal Music Group (UMG) and the Beastie Boys have both reached confidential settlements to end lawsuits in which they accused restaurant chain Chili’s of using their music in social media advertisements without permission.
Two court filings on Wednesday (May 21) informed federal judges that Chili’s owner Brinker International agreed to settlements with both UMG and the Beastie Boys during a mediation session two weeks earlier. The terms of the settlements have not been revealed, as is typical in these types of lawsuits.
UMG and the Beastie Boys both sued Brinker in 2024, alleging Chili’s featured their copyrighted music in advertisements on TikTok, Instagram and other social media platforms without buying so-called “synch” licenses.
Trending on Billboard
While social media platforms provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to add to their videos, a brand must purchase a special synch license if it wants to include a song in any commercial or promotional content.
The Beastie Boys, who are famously averse to their music appearing in advertisements, claimed in a July lawsuit that Brinker used their iconic 1994 song “Sabotage” in a promotional video without permission.
To add insult to injury, the Beastie Boys said this Chili advertisement also showed three men in “70s-style” wigs, fake mustaches and sunglasses carrying out a “robbery” of food ingredients from a Chili’s. The rap trio claimed these visuals clearly evoked the “Sabotage” music video, which featured Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz, Michael “Mike D” Diamond and the late Adam “MCA” Yauch in similar attire.
Related
Click ‘Edit’ to Select Content
05/21/2025
UMG followed up with its own lawsuit this past October, alleging that dozens of Chili’s social media advertisements used unlicensed music from the label. UMG said the restaurant company’s wrongdoing extended to more than 60 songs by artists including Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Mariah Carey, Lady Gaga, Snoop Dogg, Lana Del Rey, ABBA, Luke Bryan, Travis Scott, Bruno Mars, Lil Nas X, Earth Wind & Fire and The Weeknd.
According to Wednesday’s court filings, both UMG and the Beastie Boys have reached agreements “in principle” to end their claims against Brinker. The settlement deals are currently being finalized, and both lawsuits are expected to be closed by early July.
A UMG rep declined to comment on the settlement news. Spokespeople for the Beastie Boys and Brinker did not immediately return requests for comment.
Numerous brands have faced lawsuits in recent years from music companies and artists over the use of copyrighted songs in social media ads. All three major labels sued drink maker Bang Energy for this in 2021, leading to closely-watched judgments in favor of UMG and Sony.
In July, Kobalt and other music publishers brought lawsuits against more than a dozen NBA teams over the use of songs in social media videos, leading to a bevy of settlements earlier this year. And just last month, a Detroit-area Ford dealership settled claims that it unlawfully featured Eminem’s “Lose Yourself in TikTok videos.
Jennifer Lopez is facing copyright infringement claims for allegedly posting two paparazzi pictures of herself outside a Golden Globes pre-party in January without paying to license the photos.
Lopez was hit with a pair of federal court lawsuits on Saturday (May 17) from photographer Edwin Blanco and photo agency BackGrid USA. They say they co-own the two images of the pop singer and actress standing outside the Amazon MGM Studios x Vanity Fair Party at Los Angeles’ swanky Bar Marmont the night before this year’s Golden Globe Awards on Jan. 4.
A lawyer for Blanco and BackGrid alleges Lopez posted the photos to her Instagram and X accounts on Jan. 5 without permission. This supposedly set off a spate of reposts from fan pages and fashion brands, including the designer of a faux fur coat Lopez was wearing in the photos.
Trending on Billboard
“Ms. Lopez’s unauthorized use of the Images is commercial in nature, intended for the purpose of self-promotion,” wrote attorney Peter Perkowski. “For example, Ms. Lopez used the images to spotlight the designer of her clothing and jewelry, leveraging the publicity from the event to promote her fashion affiliations and brand partnerships.”
According to the lawsuits, a representative for BackGrid and Blanco contacted Lopez’s team about the alleged copyright infringement the next week. Perkowski says the two sides had “fruitful discussions” and orally agreed to a monetary settlement, but Lopez never signed a written settlement agreement and has not paid the promised money.
The lawsuits also note that Lopez was previously sued in 2019 for posting an unauthorized paparazzi image of herself and her then-boyfriend Alex Rodriguez to her Instagram account. That case, also brought by Perkowski, was ultimately dismissed voluntarily in 2020.
“This prior litigation placed Ms. Lopez on notice regarding the legal requirements and potential consequences associated with the use of copyrighted images without proper authorization,” continued Perkowski. “Despite this, Ms. Lopez has continued to engage in similar conduct, demonstrating a willful disregard for BackGrid’s copyrights through a pattern of behavior that undermines the rights of content creators.”
BackGrid and Blanco are accusing Lopez of willful infringement under the federal Copyright Act, which could entitle them to damages of up to $150,000 per photo.
Lopez’s reps did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday (May 19).
While seemingly strange, it’s quite common for celebrities to be sued for posting paparazzi photos of themselves to social media. Artists including Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa and Justin Bieber have all faced similar lawsuits in the last few years.
As Billboard wrote in 2022, U.S. copyright law is on the side of photographers and image licensers. Though it may seem unfair, celebrities do not automatically co-own images of themselves and therefore don’t have the right to repost them for free.
Ed Sheeran wants the U.S. Supreme Court to finally end one of the long-running lawsuits claiming his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” calling a recent appeal to the high court “baseless.”
The star’s accuser — a company that owns a partial stake in Gaye’s 1973 song — asked the justices earlier this year to revive the case, which was dismissed in November after a lower court ruled that the two tracks share only basic “musical building blocks.”
In a response Friday (May 16), Sheeran’s attorneys said the “Thinking” case is not the kind of precedent-setting case that’s worth the Supreme Court’s time — but that the accusers are using a “false premise” and “baseless assertions” as it “pretends” that it is.
Trending on Billboard
“The question which petitioner purports to present is not actually presented by this case but has been fabricated in effort to attract this court’s attention,” Sheeran’s lawyers wr0te. “The petition should be denied.”
Sheeran has faced multiple lawsuits over “Thinking,” a 2014 track co-written with Amy Wadge that reached No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 and ultimately spent 58 weeks on the chart.
He was first sued by the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote the famed 1973 tune with Gaye. That case ended in a high-profile jury verdict that cleared Sheeran of any wrongdoing.
Thursday’s petition came in a separate case filed by a company called Structured Asset Sales (SAS), an entity owned by industry executive David Pullman that controls a different stake in Townsend’s copyrights to the legendary song. That suit was rejected in November by the federal Second Circuit appeals court, which said the lawsuit was essentially seeking “a monopoly over a combination of two fundamental musical building blocks.”
“The four-chord progression at issue — ubiquitous in pop music — even coupled with a syncopated harmonic rhythm, is too well-explored to meet the originality threshold that copyright law demands,” the appeals court wrote. “Overprotecting such basic elements would threaten to stifle creativity and undermine the purpose of copyright law.”
In a petition to the Supreme Court in March, SAS argued that the appeals court’s ruling had unfairly restricted its allegations to written sheet music rather than all elements included in Gaye’s iconic recorded version. That thorny issue, which has also cropped up in other major cases over “Blurred Lines” and “Stairway To Heaven” in recent years, must finally be resolved by the high court, the company said at the time.
“The rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists, of many of the most beloved and enduring pieces of popular music, are at the center of the controversy,” SAS’s lawyers wrote.
In Friday’s response, Sheeran’s lawyers said the stakes of the case had been vastly overstated — that the case law was clearly settled, that there was no controversy among the lower courts, and that it was SAS that was threatening to upend the law: “The self-serving free-for-all petitioner posits would foment vast uncertainty and encourage rampant speculation, decades after the fact.”
Appeals to the Supreme Court, known as petitions for writ of certiorari, face extremely long odds. The court takes less than 2% of the roughly 7,000 cases it receives each year, hearing only the disputes it deems most important to the national legal landscape.
Lil Nas X can’t be sued by an Instagram user who claimed the superstar stole his distinctive “poses” and used them in his own posts, federal appeals court says – ruling that the dispute images “share few similarities” and Lil Nas likely never saw them anyway.
Rodney Woodland, a freelance artist and model, claimed in his 2022 lawsuit that the “Old Town Road” rapper (Montero Lamar Hill) had illegally replicated several provocative photos in which Woodland struck elaborate poses while partially nude.
But in a ruling Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit says that the dueling sets of Instagram posts share only a few scattered similarities that didn’t legally add up to copyright infringement.
Trending on Billboard
“Hill’s photograph shares almost nothing in common with Woodland’s,” Judge Kenneth K. Lee writes, analyzing two of the images. “The photos both depict a Black man folded in on himself, but the similarities stop there. The objective elements in the photos—the men’s poses, colors, lighting, backgrounds, etc.—are different.”
The appeals court also rejects Woodland’s lawsuit for an even simpler reason: That Lil Nas had likely never seen the images he was accused of copying. That issue – known as “access” in copyright law – is a crucial component in any infringement lawsuit.
“It is not enough to simply allege that [Lil Nas] is an active user of Instagram and thus had a reasonable possibility of viewing Woodland’s photos,” Lee writes for a three-judge panel. “There are over a billion users and many more posts on Instagram. The mere fact that Hill uses Instagram and that Woodland’s photos are on Instagram raises no more than a bare possibility that Hill viewed Woodland’s photos.”
Attorneys for both sides did not return requests for comment on the ruling on Monday.
Woodland sued Lil Nas in June 2022, claiming the rapper had ripped off 11 of his copyrighted photographs, illegally copying “original and unique elements” of them including “poses, colors, lighting and coloring.” The images all feature Woodland and Nas naked with their genitals obscured, either by their pose or the use of editing elements.
A federal judge dismissed the case in 2023, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling on Friday. In its written opinion, the appeals court included side-by-sides of each disputed pair of photos and detailed why each of Nas’ posts were not improper.
“The commonalities go no further than the depiction of a man reclining on his side with certain body parts strategically covered — a common pose in photos of male models and actors,” the court wrote about one set of images.
Several of the disputed photos featured both Woodland and Nas “draped in chains.” The court said that was a clear similarity, but not one that trigger’s copyright law’s protections for creative expression.
“The idea in each of the photos is the same — the provocative image of a Black man in chains,” the court wrote. “But that idea is not protected — indeed, it is a common motif in many pieces of art. Only the expression through the selection and arrangement of objective elements receives copyright protection.”
Friday’s ruling carries added importance because it is a so-called precedential ruling, offering new case law on the issue of copyright “access” in the era of social media.
The court said the rules had involved in an analog world and that Instagram and other platforms had made it “easier than ever” for copyright works to be widely disseminated. But the court also warned that accusers would still need to prove that an alleged infringer had a good chance of seeing their work — and that none of Woodland’s posts had recieved more than 75 “likes” on Instagram.
“Social media and other digital-sharing platforms could make it easier for plaintiffs to show that defendants had access to their materials —but only if they can show that the defendants had a reasonable chance of seeing their work under that platform’s algorithm or content-sharing policy,” the appeals court wrote. “That is a big “if”— and, as explained below, Woodland has fallen short here.”
Legendary rappers Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. might have been rivals in life, but they’re now united in copyright litigation.
A pair of photographers who snapped separate photos of the late hip-hop stars are teaming up to sue Univision for copyright infringement, accusing the broadcaster of using the images without permission in a web article about “Unsolved” murders.
“Plaintiffs sent a letter to Univision, demanding that it cease and desist all publication and display of the Subject Photographs,” write lawyers for the photographers in their Wednesday suit. “Univision has failed to meaningfully respond, necessitating this action.”
The case was filed by the estate of Chi Modu, a well-known hip hop photographer, over a black and white picture of Biggie looking into the camera in his trademark Coogi sweater and sunglasses; and by Dana Lixenberg, another acclaimed photog who has snapped pictures of Iggy Pop and Steely Dan, over an image of Pac in a bandana and sports jersey.
Trending on Billboard
Attorneys for Modu’s estate and Lixenberg say Univision stitched the images together and used them as art for a 2018 article reporting that a trailer had been released for a USA Network documentary series called Unsolved: The Murders of Tupac and The Notorious B.I.G.
Though Biggie and Tupac have both been gone for nearly 30 years, Wednesday’s lawsuit is just one of many recent intellectual property battles over the two iconic rappers.
Modu’s estate filed one of them, suing Universal Music Group in 2022 for allegedly using a Tupac photo in a blog post. Then last year, Shakur’s own estate threatened to sue Drake for using an AI-generated version of the later rapper’s voice. And in February, Biggie’s estate filed a lawsuit against Target, Home Depot and other retailers over allegations that they sold unauthorized canvas prints of the famed “King of New York” photo. Coogi even got in on the action in 2018, suing the Brooklyn Nets after they released a multi-colored jersey that were “inspired by Biggie” and paid homage to the Brooklyn-born rapper.
In one case, Biggie’s estate sued Modu himself, claiming the photographer had illegally authorized the use of his photos on commercial products like skateboards and shower curtains. In 2022, a year after the famed photographer passed away, a judge ruled that such merch likely violated the rapper’s likeness rights. The case ended in a settlement last year.
Reps for Univision did not immediately return a request for comment on the new lawsuit on Friday.
The Trump Administration fired U.S. Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter on Saturday (May 10), sparking concerns in the music business that the White House will take the side of technology companies in debates about AI and copyright.
The move came just two days after the dismissal of Perlmutter’s boss, Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, and a day after the Copyright Office posted a report on the legal issues in training AI algorithms on copyrighted works. Although the White House has not given any reason for the move, it comes as the media business once again finds itself in conflict with Silicon Valley – this time as technology companies have far more influence in Washington.
The Register of Copyrights reports to the Librarian of Congress, and speculation on the reason for Hayden’s May 8 firing varied. Hayden, appointed by President Obama, was the first African-American and woman to hold the position, leading some to view her dismissal as politically motivated. At a May 9 press conference, the White House suggested that “there were quite concerning things that she had done at the Library of Congress,” involving DEI and “putting inappropriate books in the library for children” — although the institution isn’t a lending library, let alone one that’s set up for young readers.
Trending on Billboard
Perlmutter’s subsequent dismissal suggests that the Trump administration may be more concerned with copyright policy – and that Hayden’s firing was at least partly a step toward changing the leadership of the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office has the power to issue guidance on the state of copyright law and report to lawmakers on related legislation, and judges often use its interpretations in court decisions. Currently, the office is preparing a multi-part report, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence,” the third part of which, about whether scanning works to train AI algorithms would qualify as infringement, was expected to come out this spring. Given the number of court cases involving this issue, as well as the potential damages faced by technology companies in them, the stakes are high.
Late on Friday (May 9), the Copyright Office posted online a “pre-publication version” of the report, which is not its usual practice. Although the issues are complicated, it interprets the law in a way that suggests such copying – especially for commercial purposes, involving generative AI products – would not qualify as fair use. The Copyright Office has no lawmaking power, but courts could be influenced by its analysis of case law.
The next day, according to several sources, Perlmutter received an email telling her she was terminated.
There has been some speculation that Perlmutter’s dismissal was the result of the decision to post the report. However, several sources who had no direct knowledge of the situation, pointed out that Perlmutter might have known her dismissal was imminent, or at least possible, and had the report posted before that occurred. (Right now, no one knows, and neither the White House nor Perlmutter has commented.) And while the report is generally seen to favor rightsholders, it is an expert interpretation of existing law, not a set of policy recommendations.
Certainly, the issue of whether scanning works to train AI qualifies as fair use or copyright infringement has become a hot one. And since the early days of the second Trump administration, music and media lobbyists have worried about the influence of the technology business. In March, the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz responded to a request for public comments on the White House AI Action Plan by saying that “neither the Copyright Office nor any other government agency should release guidance related to this issue—or other issues critical to American competitiveness in AI—until the conclusion of the National AI Action Plan process.”
In late April, the right-wing American Accountability Foundation accused both Hayden and Perlmutter of being “deep-state liberals” and suggested that the Trump Administration “return an America First agenda to the nation’s intellectual property regulation.” Although both are Democrats, Perlmutter served in the first Trump Administration as the head of copyright policy in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which is part of the Department of Commerce. Copyright has generally been one of the few non-partisan issues in Washington, since it usually unites Democrats who support the arts with Republicans who favor strong protections for property rights.
Perlmutter’s firing is likely to intensify the copyright debate, potentially creating a rift between Silicon Valley venture capitalists aligned with the Trump administration and Democrats, as well as some Republicans, who support copyright protections and believe in the independence of government agencies. Immediately after Perlmutter’s dismissal, Rep. Joe Morelle (NY-25) released a statement calling Trump’s termination of Perlmutter “a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis.”
On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Copyright Office released a report examining copyrights and generative AI training, which supported the idea of licensing copyrights when they are used in commercial AI training.
On Saturday (May 10), the nation’s top copyright official – Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter – was terminated by President Donald Trump. Her dismissal shortly follows the firing of the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who appointed and supervised Perlmutter. In response, Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) of the House Administration Committee, which oversees the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress, said that he feels it is “no coincidence [Trump] acted less than a day after [Perlmutter] refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models.”
This report was largely seen as a win among copyright owners in the music industry, and it noted three key stances: the Office’s support for licensing copyrighted material when a “commercial” AI model uses it for training, its dismissal of compulsory licensing as the correct framework for a future licensing model, and its rejection of “the idea of any opt-out approach.”
Trending on Billboard
The Office affirms that in “commercial” cases, licensing copyrights for training could be a “practical solution” and that using copyrights without a license “[go] beyond established fair use boundaries.” It also notes that some commercial AI models “compete with [copyright owners] in existing markets.” However, if an AI model has been created for “purposes such as analysis or research – the types of uses that are critical to international competitiveness,” the Office says “the outputs are unlikely to substitute” for the works by which they were trained.
“In our view, American leadership in the AI space would best be furthered by supporting both of these world-class industries that contribute so much to our economic and cultural advancement. Effective licensing options can ensure that innovation continues to advance without undermining intellectual property rights,” the report reads.
While it is supportive of licensing efforts between copyright owners and AI firms, the report recognizes that most stakeholders do not hold support “for any statutory change” or “government intervention” in this area. “The Office believes…[that] would be premature at this time,” the report reads. Later, it adds “we agree with commenters that a compulsory licensing regime for AI training would have significant disadvantages. A compulsory license establishes fixed royalty rates and terms and can set practices in stone; they can become inextricably embedded in an industry and become difficult to undo. Premature adoption also risks stifling the development of flexible and creative market-based solutions. Moreover, compulsory licenses can take years to develop, often requiring painstaking negotiation of numerous operational details.”
The Office notes the perspectives of music-related organizations, like the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which all hold a shared distaste for the idea of a future compulsory or government-controlled license for AI training. Already, the music industry deals with a compulsory license for mechanical royalties, allowing the government to control rates for one of the types of royalties earned from streaming and sales.
“Most commenters who addressed this issue opposed or raised concerns about the prospect of compulsory licensing,” the report says. “Those representing copyright owners and creators argued that the compulsory licensing of works for use in AI training would be detrimental to their ability to control uses of their works, and asserted that there is no market failure that would justify it. A2IM and RIAA described compulsory licensing as entailing ‘below-market royalty rates, additional administrative costs, and… restrictions on innovation’… and NMPA saw it as ‘an extreme remedy that deprives copyright owners of their right to contract freely in the market, and takes away their ability to choose whom they do business with, how their works are used, and how much they are paid.’”
The Office leaves it up to the copyright owners and AI companies to figure out the right way to license and compensate for training data, but it does explore a few options. This includes “compensation structures based on a percentage of revenue or profits,” but if the free market fails to find the right licensing solution, the report suggested “targeted intervention such as [Extended Collective Licensing] ECL should be considered.”
ECL, which is employed in some European countries, would allow a collective management organization (CMO) to issue and administer blanket licenses for “all copyrighted works within a particular class,” much like the music industry is already accustomed to with organizations like The MLC (The Mechanical Licensing Collective) and performing rights organizations (PROs) like ASCAP and BMI. The difference between an ECL and a traditional CMO, however, is that under an ECL system, the CMO can license for those who have not affirmatively joined it yet. Though these ECL licenses are still negotiated in a “free market,” the government would “regulat[e] the overall system and excercis[e] some degree of oversight.”
While some AI firms expressed concerns that blanket licensing by copyright holders would lead to antitrust issues, the Copyright Office sided with copyright holders, saying “[the] courts have found that there is nothing intrinsically anticompetitive about the collective, or even blanket, licensing of copyrighted works, as long as certain safeguards are incorporated— such as ensuring that licensees can still obtain direct licenses from copyright owners as an alternative.”
This is a “pre-publication” version of a forthcoming final report, which will be published in the “near future without any substantive changes expected,” according to the Copyright Office. The Office noted this “pre-publication” was pushed out early in an attempt to address inquiries from Congress and key stakeholders.
It marks the Office’s third report about generative AI and its impact on copyrights since it launched an initiative on the matter in 2023. The first report, released July 31, 2024, focused on the topic of digital replicas. The second, from Jan. 29, 2025, addressed the copyright-ability of outputs created with generative AI.
The Trump administration has fired the nation’s top copyright official, Shira Perlmutter, days after abruptly terminating the head of the Library of Congress, which oversees the U.S. Copyright Office.
The office said in a statement Sunday (May 11) that Perlmutter received an email from the White House a day earlier with the notification that “your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately.”
On Thursday (May 8), President Donald Trump fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, the first woman and the first African American to be librarian of Congress, as part of the administration’s ongoing purge of government officials perceived to oppose the president and his agenda.
Trending on Billboard
Hayden named Perlmutter to lead the Copyright Office in October 2020.
Perlmutter’s office recently released a report examining whether artificial intelligence companies can use copyrighted materials to “train” their AI systems. The report, the third part of a lengthy AI study, follows a review that began in 2023 with opinions from thousands of people including AI developers, actors and country singers.
In January, the office clarified its approach as one based on the “centrality of human creativity” in authoring a work that warrants copyright protections. The office receives about half a million copyright applications per year covering millions of creative works.
“Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection,” Perlmutter said in January. “Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine … would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.”
The White House didn’t return a message seeking comment Sunday.
Democrats were quick to blast Perlmutter’s firing.
“Donald Trump’s termination of Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, is a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis,” said Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee.
Perlmutter, who holds a law degree, was previously a policy director at the Patent and Trademark Office and worked on copyright and other areas of intellectual property. She also previously also worked at the Copyright Office in the late 1990s. She did not return messages left Sunday.
Bad Bunny is facing a lawsuit over allegations that a track from his chart-topping Un Verano Sin Ti featured an unlicensed sample from a Nigerian artist – and that the superstar’s reps later “stonewalled” efforts to resolve the problem.
In a copyright case filed May 2 in Los Angeles federal court, attorneys for the artist Dera (Ezeani Chidera Godfrey) claim that Bad Bunny’s “Enséñame a Bailar” illegally sampled from a 2019 track called “Empty My Pocket.”
Dera’s lawyers say they’ve raised the issue with reps for Bad Bunny and others behind the song, but that they’ve “turned a blind eye” and left him with “no choice but to file this lawsuit.”
Trending on Billboard
“It is not very often that a musical artist of Bad Bunny’s caliber and sophistication uses someone else’s music without permission, and then ignores the person’s efforts to resolve the problem,” writes Dera’s attorney Robert A. Jacobs, a litigator at the top music law firm Manatt Phelps & Phillips. “Such a response is especially surprising when the unauthorized use pervades the entirety of the musical artist’s work. Unfortunately, these are the circumstances here.”
The lawsuit also names as defendants The Orchard, which distributed the album, and Bad Bunny’s Rimas Entertainment, among others. Representatives for both Bad Bunny and The Orchard did not immediately return requests for comment.
Released in 2022, Un Verano Sin Ti was a mega-hit – spending 13 weeks atop the Billboard 200 and more than 150 weeks total on the album chart. “Enséñame a Bailar” was a hit in its own right, charting on the Hot 100 for two weeks and earning 72 million views on YouTube.
In his lawsuit, Dera says Bad Bunny’s song was essentially built on top of his “Empty My Pocket” – that the usage is so “extensive” that the sampling itself is “beyond question.”
“Plaintiffs’ works comprise virtually the entirety of the musical bed and a portion of the lyrics in the infringing recording and infringing composition, and, as such, account for a significant portion of the appeal of the infringing works,” his lawyers write.
They claim access to Dera’s song was provided producer Lakizo (Lekan Adesina), but that he had no authority to clear the use of the sample: “Lakizo … is not an author of ‘Empty My Pocket’ … and does not have – and never had – the right to prepare or authorize others to prepare derivative works.”
According to the lawsuit, when Dera discovered the unauthorized sample he tried to negotiate a good-faith resolution with Bad Bunny’s team, saying he wanted to “address past unauthorized uses” but also “allow future uses.” He says he also “unconditionally complied” with requests to substantiate his claim, including sharing documents showing that Lakizo had not been authorized to clear the sample.
“Despite plaintiffs’ cooperation, these defendants stonewalled plaintiffs after receiving the requested information, making clear that plaintiffs’ only option for obtaining redress for the violation of their rights would be through the courts,” Dera’s lawyers write.