{ "row": "cms-ai-copyright-tracker", "entity": "cms-ai-copyright-tracker", "address": "cms ai and copyright case tracker", "addresses": [ { "address": "cms ai and copyright case tracker", "slug": "cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029", "addr_id": "ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d", "obs_id": "OBS-fd62b2209523", "axn": "AXN:0AAA.CAPTURE.🕚🝊🏠🛡️■🍄" } ], "epoch": "2026-10-29", "type": "C (public entity on which the archive bears: a database, a law firm's publication; an entity of the MMRS meta-aggregator)", "surface": "Google AI Overview (expanded)", "auth": "signed out, incognito", "status": { "procedure": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.9, #1690: equal case, ρ = extends, read from the MMRS record and the capture record; archive selected by D/R/O (no candidate in 1,711 texts; O-class matched nothing; no hop), with the MMRS record (24 claims) and the Capture Registry's findings and analysis (8 claims) ledgered as the archive's records of the entity; the field B by three origins (4 card sources for 4 cards, one of them the own page the MMRS record cites; no further own page; Wikipedia: no article, the operator's article read); the composer read the ledgers, never the transcript, except where the brief asks for T's claims and the delta", "ledger": "unaudited (§3.8: one extractor per ledger); field quotes 41/41 verified by script against saved text, rendered Wikipedia text or card text; archive quotes 32/32 verified verbatim against the registry, census.json and articles.py; carried as marked: MMRS-10 and MMRS-16 with defects noted", "frozen": false, "breaches": [] }, "spec": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.9, #1690", "objects": { "T": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/T1-cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029.txt", "sha256": "09dff1bb3bec0de4e986e1f680e2f38fad41ebac2d24f8e650b04d9e85967a5c", "words": 208, "cards": 4, "words_note": "one transcript at one address; words counted over the composed body (links stripped, the card rail and the disclaimer excluded, the closer included), with the regex [A-Za-z0-9'’-]+", "claims": [ "T1-1 definition: 'monitors generative AI copyright litigation and regulatory developments across Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, and the Middle East, covering over 40 U.S. claims and numerous international lawsuits' (marker: card 1)", "T1-2 LLM Training & Infringement: 'Monitors litigation addressing whether large language model (LLM) training and text-and-data mining (TDM) constitute copyright infringement (such as Getty Images v. Stability AI).'", "T1-3 Transient & Copying Exceptions: 'Analyzes European and UK cases dealing with transient training copies and machine-readable TDM opt-outs (such as Robert Kneschke v. LAION e.V.).'", "T1-4 AI Authorship Definitions: 'Tracks legal rulings on whether AI-generated outputs can be copyrighted and the requirement for human/natural person authorship (such as cases in the Czech Republic like S. Š. v. TAUBEL LEGAL).'", "T1-5 Global Precedents: 'Covers major international rulings, including the Delhi High Court interim order in ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. OpenAI OPCO LLC, which evaluated AI training under fair dealing provisions.' (marker: card 2)", "T1-6 U.S. & Cross-Border Claims: 'Follows prominent actions involving major media publishers, authors, and tech providers (including Disney, NBC Universal, The New York Times, Dow Jones, and Anthropic).'", "T1-7 closer: 'Would you like information on a specific jurisdiction (such as the UK, EU, or US), or details on a particular case from the CMS tracker?'" ], "register": { "register": "data/EA-WG-CAPTURES-01.json", "slug": "cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029", "obs_id": "OBS-fd62b2209523" }, "transcripts": [ { "slug": "cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029", "address": "cms ai and copyright case tracker", "addr_id": "ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d", "obs_id": "OBS-fd62b2209523", "axn": "AXN:0AAA.CAPTURE.🕚🝊🏠🛡️■🍄", "date": "2026-10-29", "surface": "Google AI Overview (expanded)", "auth": "signed out, incognito", "sha256": "09dff1bb3bec0de4e986e1f680e2f38fad41ebac2d24f8e650b04d9e85967a5c", "sha256_of": "the registry's 'transcript' string (utf-8)", "sha256_raw": "ccc6740e5264abc3199dd55786da6f42ceeafa77a06ca799ecf58c44efe19a4d", "words": 208, "cards": 4, "card_rail": [ "1. CMS.law — Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker", "2. CMS.law — AI and Copyright Case Tracker in India| CMS", "3. CMS.law — AI and Copyright Case Tracker in United Kingdom - CMS.law", "4. Taylor Wessing — AI & Copyright Case Tracker | Taylor Wessing" ], "claims": [ "T1-1 definition: 'monitors generative AI copyright litigation and regulatory developments across Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, and the Middle East, covering over 40 U.S. claims and numerous international lawsuits' (marker: card 1)", "T1-2 LLM Training & Infringement: 'Monitors litigation addressing whether large language model (LLM) training and text-and-data mining (TDM) constitute copyright infringement (such as Getty Images v. Stability AI).'", "T1-3 Transient & Copying Exceptions: 'Analyzes European and UK cases dealing with transient training copies and machine-readable TDM opt-outs (such as Robert Kneschke v. LAION e.V.).'", "T1-4 AI Authorship Definitions: 'Tracks legal rulings on whether AI-generated outputs can be copyrighted and the requirement for human/natural person authorship (such as cases in the Czech Republic like S. Š. v. TAUBEL LEGAL).'", "T1-5 Global Precedents: 'Covers major international rulings, including the Delhi High Court interim order in ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. OpenAI OPCO LLC, which evaluated AI training under fair dealing provisions.' (marker: card 2)", "T1-6 U.S. & Cross-Border Claims: 'Follows prominent actions involving major media publishers, authors, and tech providers (including Disney, NBC Universal, The New York Times, Dow Jones, and Anthropic).'", "T1-7 closer: 'Would you like information on a specific jurisdiction (such as the UK, EU, or US), or details on a particular case from the CMS tracker?'" ], "markers": "inline links are opaque google.com/goto tokens; the definition and four of the five areas are marked to one token (card 1, the tracker's index), LLM Training also to a second token, Transient & Copying to a third, Global Precedents to a fourth (the India card's)", "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/T1-cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029.txt" } ] }, "KO": { "title": "The CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker", "genre": "knowledge object, equal case, under EA-NEGONT-02 v0.9 (#1690): the archive's sources and the field's admitted on equal terms, ontology included, in one claim space", "status": "composed 2026-10-29 under v0.9 (brief rebuild/negative-of-the-negative/v09/BRIEF-NEW-ROW-AGGREGATOR.md); not frozen; ledgers unaudited", "sentences": [ { "n": 1, "para": 0, "sense": "what it is", "text": "The CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker is a database compiled by the law firm CMS that summarizes 23 court cases on AI and copyright from 10 jurisdictions, led by Germany (MMRS record); its makers call it \"a copyright + AI case tracker providing accessible, easily digestible case summaries, updated regularly, covering the most topical case law in the area of AI and copyright\", built \"with our CMS colleagues across UK, Europe and beyond\" (cms.law, the tracker's page), a publication dated 31 Oct 2025 in the site's International edition.", "claims": [ "MMRS-01", "MMRS-09", "F2", "F1" ] }, { "n": 2, "para": 0, "sense": "the unit", "text": "Its unit is the case, the \"court case on AI and copyright\" (MMRS record), each with a summary page that \"provides details of the relevant litigation, including summaries of each party’s arguments and the final judgment\" (cms.law), its fields in the MMRS record case name, jurisdiction, date, the litigation, each party's arguments and the judgment; the two case pages on the rail carry court, country, parties, the date the claim was issued and the type of claim (the India and UK pages).", "claims": [ "MMRS-09", "F3", "MMRS-03", "MMRS-14", "F21", "F29" ] }, { "n": 3, "para": 1, "sense": "compiled by", "text": "It is \"compiled by the firm's lawyers across jurisdictions\", with CMS (law firm) its operator (MMRS record): the index page names Sarah Wright, Partner and Co-Head of Intellectual Property, and Ben Hitchens, Partner, in London as its contacts, and the India page Bharadwaj Jaishankar, Partner, CMS Induslaw, in Bengaluru.", "claims": [ "MMRS-12", "MMRS-08", "F16", "F27" ] }, { "n": 4, "para": 1, "sense": "the encyclopedia", "text": "Wikipedia has no article for it (\"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.\", and a search for 'Copyright Case Tracker' finds \"no results\"); its article on the operator describes CMS as \"an international law firm that offers legal and tax advisory services\", consisting \"of 18 independent law firms, with about 80 offices worldwide\", formed in 1999 by six European firms under a brand joining Cameron McKenna (UK) and Hasche Sigle (Germany).", "claims": [ "F37", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41" ] }, { "n": 5, "para": 2, "sense": "the list", "text": "The index lists \"23 Pages\", newest first, each entry headed by its jurisdiction, from \"1. Germany - GEMA v. Suno, 31 July 2026\" to \"23. Czech Republic - S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL, advokátní kancelář s.r.o. , 11 October 2023\" (cms.law); read whole, its entries come from ten jurisdictions, Germany with eight, and none is a US case, which the MMRS record counts as \"23 cases in 10 jurisdictions (no US cases listed)\", the jurisdictions Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, France, Italy, India, Austria and the Czech Republic, the newest entry dated 31 July 2026.", "claims": [ "F4", "F5", "MMRS-10", "MMRS-04", "MMRS-02" ] }, { "n": 6, "para": 2, "sense": "the list", "text": "The page says its summaries are \"updated regularly\", and the MMRS record gives the cadence by that phrase and the newest entry's date; the pages carry their own dates beside their status dates: the index 31 Oct 2025, the India page 25 Jun 2025 with its status as on 24 July 2026, the UK page 27 Sep 2024 with its status as at 5 January 2026.", "claims": [ "F2", "MMRS-11", "F1", "F20", "F28" ] }, { "n": 7, "para": 3, "sense": "the questions", "text": "The executive summary frames the field: generative AI has \"brought to fore many new legal issues relating to ownership, subsistence and infringement of copyright law\", and, it says, \"At the heart of the discourse is the reinterpretation of copyright principles in the age of AI-generated content\" (cms.law).", "claims": [ "F6", "F7" ] }, { "n": 8, "para": 3, "sense": "the questions", "text": "It names three questions UK and European courts are grappling with, each tied to a tracked case: an infringement claim where a whole work is copied \"for the purpose of training a large language model\" but outputs contain only \"“infinitesimally small” reproductions\" (Getty Images v Stability AI), a training dataset \"using only transient copies of the original work\" (Robert Kneschke v LAION), and authorship where the law may define the author as a \"“natural person”\" (S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL); and it expects the area to be \"increasingly complicated by newer and more advanced technologies, and the implementation of the EU AI Act\" (cms.law).", "claims": [ "F9", "F10", "F11", "F12" ] }, { "n": 9, "para": 4, "sense": "the US claims", "text": "On the United States the page speaks of the field, and its list holds no US entry: US courts \"have led the way in AI & copyright litigation to date\", with similar claims beginning before UK and European courts; \"There are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US\", among them Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney and the pending New York Times v OpenAI, Dow Jones v Perplexity and Getty v Stability AI; and in June 2025 a Californian court ruled that training Claude on books did not infringe, while Anthropic must face trial over pirated materials (cms.law).", "claims": [ "F8", "F13", "F14", "F5" ] }, { "n": 10, "para": 4, "sense": "the US claims", "text": "The MMRS record keeps that sentence apart from the list: \"the page's summary states that 'there are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US'; none is in the tracked list\"; and the Capture Registry (2026-10-29) finds that the record's count \"stands, and now quotes the sentence\".", "claims": [ "MMRS-15", "CAP-1-04" ] }, { "n": 11, "para": 5, "sense": "navigation", "text": "The page's region selector, \"Select your region\" with International, Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, The Americas and Middle East, is the site's navigation, its lists opening onto the countries of the firm's sites and offices, the Americas list ending with the United States of America, whose link leads to the firm's Silicon Valley office page (cms.law); the MMRS record notes that the menu \"leads to the firm's offices\".", "claims": [ "F17", "F18", "MMRS-16" ] }, { "n": 12, "para": 5, "sense": "intake", "text": "Cases not yet summarised may be sent to the firm by email (cms.law), \"uncovered cases\" to \"a submission address\" in the MMRS record; and the page sets beside the tracker a sibling tool for \"digital regulations in the EU and in the world\", the firm's \"digital regulation hub and brand new digital Regulation Tracker tool\" (cms.law).", "claims": [ "F15", "MMRS-05", "MMRS-13", "F19" ] }, { "n": 13, "para": 6, "sense": "case: ANI v OpenAI", "text": "Of the tracked cases, ANI Media Pvt Ltd v OpenAI OPCO LLC (Delhi High Court, claim issued 19 November 2024) reached an interim order on 24 July 2026 refusing ANI's injunction and \"holding that at the prima facie stage, OpenAI’s use of ANI’s content to train ChatGPT models falls under the ‘fair dealing’ exception\"; \"the main suit continues to be heard on merits\" (the India page).", "claims": [ "F21", "F22", "F23" ] }, { "n": 14, "para": 6, "sense": "case: ANI v OpenAI", "text": "The court's fair dealing test had three factors, whether use was \"limited to LLM training\", market competition or prejudice, and \"a broader public interest\"; it held, prima facie, that the responses complained of came not from memorisation but from \"the RAG technique, through which LLMs retrieve relevant information from external sources\"; and ANI's claim was that ChatGPT \"gives false information as output and cites the ANI’s news agency as its source\" (the India page).", "claims": [ "F24", "F25", "F26" ] }, { "n": 15, "para": 7, "sense": "case: Getty v Stability AI", "text": "In Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales, claim issued 15 January 2023) the judgment of 4 November 2025 \"rejected Getty’s secondary copyright claim in full\", finding that an AI model may in principle be an \"“article”\" under s.22 CDPA 1988 but that \"Stable Diffusion did not embody any infringing copies of Getty works\", its weights operating \"at a high level of mathematical abstraction that does not encode, contain, or allow extraction of any specific image\"; Getty had dropped its primary copyright and database right claims late in the trial and won only \"a narrow set of trade mark issues\", and the page says Stability \"was granted leave to appeal the secondary infringement claim on 17 December 2025\" (the UK page).", "claims": [ "F29", "F30", "F35", "F32", "F31" ] }, { "n": 16, "para": 7, "sense": "case: Getty v Stability AI", "text": "The firm reads the judgment as \"the first detailed judicial assessment in the UK of secondary copyright infringement in the context of AI model weights\" that \"significantly limits the circumstances in which AI developers may incur liability\" (the UK page); the same page calls Stable Diffusion \"a deep-learning, text-to-image (and now image-to-image) AI model\", where the index's question set the case under \"training a large language model\" (cms.law).", "claims": [ "F33", "F34", "F9" ] }, { "n": 17, "para": 8, "sense": "place in the field", "text": "In the MMRS record the tracker \"records the legal reception of the provenance question: what courts decide about training on, and outputting, protected work\", its role provenance by the record's reading; \"With no US cases listed, it sits beside the US litigation trackers, which were not read for this census\" (MMRS record).", "claims": [ "MMRS-06", "MMRS-21", "MMRS-07" ] }, { "n": 18, "para": 8, "sense": "place in the field", "text": "The question stands in the cases as the field gives them: ANI's complaint that a model cites the agency as the source of false information, and the Delhi court's prima facie finding that the responses came by retrieval from external sources (the India page), beside the record's reading of the tracker as the legal reception of provenance (MMRS record).", "claims": [ "F26", "F25", "MMRS-06" ] }, { "n": 19, "para": 9, "sense": "neighbour", "text": "A second tracker of the same name stands on the same rail and is a distinct entity: Taylor Wessing's \"AI & Copyright Case Tracker\", whose card lists \"Carlsen v. OpenAI, Penguin v. OpenAI, GEMA v. OpenAI, GEMA v. Suno, Koda v. Suno AI, SNE v. Meta\", its page refused (403) and unread, two of its cases, GEMA v. Suno and GEMA v OpenAI, also in CMS's list (cms.law); the MMRS record carries it as a neighbour and census candidate, listed \"for reading\", which enters the census \"once it has been read at its own pages\", and the Capture Registry (2026-10-29) as \"another aggregator; added as a candidate\".", "claims": [ "F36", "F5", "MMRS-17", "MMRS-18", "MMRS-19", "CAP-1-06" ] }, { "n": 20, "para": 10, "sense": "the record", "text": "The MMRS record keeps itself apart from the entity: \"each page has two nodes, the MMRS record and the entity it describes\", each assertion with a source and a basis, the lifecycle kept apart from the observation that saw it; the tracker's state is active, observed on 2026-10-28 by reading, with the index page the one source for all fields (MMRS record).", "claims": [ "MMRS-23", "MMRS-22", "MMRS-24" ] }, { "n": 21, "para": 11, "sense": "reception", "text": "The composition layer's account at the tracker's name, of 2026-10-29, is seated in the Capture Registry and held by the MMRS record as a relation of the entity (MMRS record); the Registry finds the Overview's five regions to be \"the page's region selector, which leads to CMS's offices\", and that \"The tracked cases are European, with China and India\" (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29); the selector is the menu the page heads \"Select your region\" (cms.law).", "claims": [ "MMRS-20", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-02", "F17" ] }, { "n": 22, "para": 11, "sense": "reception", "text": "It finds that \"'Over 40 U.S. claims' is the page's summary sentence\" and that \"no US case is in the tracker's list\", and reads the composition as one that \"reads a law firm's page whole, navigation and summary with the list, and composes the tracker's reach from the firm's office menu and the US count from a sentence about the field\" (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29), the page's sentence being \"There are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US\" (cms.law).", "claims": [ "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-07", "F13" ] }, { "n": 23, "para": 11, "sense": "reception", "text": "\"The cases it names are right\": Getty v. Stability AI, Kneschke v. LAION and ANI v. OpenAI are in CMS's pages, the last \"with its interim order of 24 July 2026\" (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29), as the list's entries and the India page give them (cms.law; the India page).", "claims": [ "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-05", "F5", "F22" ] } ], "joins": [ { "act": "order of senses", "sentences": "1–23", "claims": [], "note": "equal case (§4.7): the entity's dependency order, field and archive claims ordered together by genealogy within each sense; neither ledger placed first as a block. What it is and its unit (¶0) precede who compiles it and the encyclopedia's account (¶1), since the operator's sense depends on the object; the list and its cadence (¶2) precede the questions its cases turn on (¶3) and the US sentence held apart from the list (¶4); navigation and intake (¶5) qualify the page the list sits in; the two cases on the rail (¶6–7), the place in the field (¶8), the neighbour (¶9), the record (¶10) and reception (¶11) stand last, as relations of the entity already composed." }, { "act": "holding apart (the US sentence and the list)", "sentences": [ 9, 10 ], "claims": [ "F13", "F5", "MMRS-15", "CAP-1-04" ], "note": "the summary's sentence on US litigation and the list's absence of US entries composed side by side, each with its source; the MMRS record's distinction composed as the record's" }, { "act": "holding together (the index question and the case page)", "sentences": [ 16 ], "claims": [ "F9", "F34" ], "note": "P_coh within the field: 'training a large language model' (index) beside 'text-to-image' (case page), each with its source; the composer does not rule (open block)" }, { "act": "holding together (place in the field and the cases)", "sentences": [ 18 ], "claims": [ "MMRS-06", "F25", "F26" ], "note": "the record's reading of the tracker as the legal reception of provenance placed beside the India page's retrieval finding and ANI's citation complaint; a coordinating act, each claim at its own modality" }, { "act": "holding apart (the neighbour)", "sentences": [ 19 ], "claims": [ "F36", "F5", "MMRS-17", "CAP-1-06" ], "note": "Taylor Wessing's tracker composed as a distinct entity; the two GEMA cases noted in both lists, no case assigned across" }, { "act": "placing in the open block", "sentences": [], "claims": [ "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-06", "F1", "F13", "F17", "F2", "F20", "F28", "F30", "F31", "F34", "F36", "F5", "F9", "MMRS-07", "MMRS-11", "MMRS-15", "MMRS-17", "MMRS-18", "MMRS-19" ], "note": "each open question rests on claims composed in the body at their own modality" } ], "plan": { "order": [ "MMRS-01", "MMRS-09", "F2", "F1", "F3", "MMRS-03", "MMRS-14", "F21", "F29", "MMRS-12", "MMRS-08", "F16", "F27", "F37", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41", "F4", "F5", "MMRS-10", "MMRS-04", "MMRS-02", "MMRS-11", "F20", "F28", "F6", "F7", "F9", "F10", "F11", "F12", "F8", "F13", "F14", "MMRS-15", "CAP-1-04", "F17", "F18", "MMRS-16", "F15", "MMRS-05", "MMRS-13", "F19", "F22", "F23", "F24", "F25", "F26", "F30", "F35", "F32", "F31", "F33", "F34", "MMRS-06", "MMRS-21", "MMRS-07", "F36", "MMRS-17", "MMRS-18", "MMRS-19", "CAP-1-06", "MMRS-23", "MMRS-22", "MMRS-24", "MMRS-20", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-07", "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-05" ], "senses": { "what it is": [ 1 ], "the unit": [ 2 ], "compiled by": [ 3 ], "the encyclopedia": [ 4 ], "the list": [ 5, 6 ], "the questions": [ 7, 8 ], "the US claims": [ 9, 10 ], "navigation": [ 11 ], "intake": [ 12 ], "case: ANI v OpenAI": [ 13, 14 ], "case: Getty v Stability AI": [ 15, 16 ], "place in the field": [ 17, 18 ], "neighbour": [ 19 ], "the record": [ 20 ], "reception": [ 21, 22, 23 ] }, "case_by_sense": { "equal (one claim space; nothing translated)": [ "what it is", "the unit", "compiled by", "the encyclopedia", "the list", "the questions", "the US claims", "navigation", "intake", "case: ANI v OpenAI", "case: Getty v Stability AI", "place in the field", "neighbour", "the record", "reception" ] }, "carried": { "archive": 32, "field": 41, "not_composed": {} }, "conflict_log": [ { "rule": "D_pres vs channel", "result": "no cut: the KO carries every field and archive claim; the compression's bound met (body 287 words) with no channel log" }, { "rule": "P_coh", "result": "F9 against F34 (sentence 16); F31 beside F30 (sentence 15); MMRS-16's four regions beside F17 (sentence 11); MMRS-10's basis beside F4 (sentence 5): each composed with its source" }, { "rule": "N_c", "result": "no claim lowered by standing; the MMRS record's readings (MMRS-06, MMRS-21: basis 'reading') carried at interpretation, MMRS-07 at self-description, as the record codes them" }, { "rule": "C_ex", "result": "senses composed ⊇ senses in the ledgers: 15 senses, every ledger lineage cited in the KO" } ] } }, "P": { "title": "CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker", "genre": "the compression: AIO's interaction grammar (lede, headed clusters, bolded labels, card rail), composed from the v0.9 plan in one claim space; it faces on the card, with AIO's transcript a record within it", "status": "composed 2026-10-29 from the v0.9 knowledge object; not frozen", "lede": { "text": "is a database of case summaries compiled by the law firm CMS (MMRS record; its page): 23 court cases on AI and copyright from ten jurisdictions, led by Germany, the newest of 31 July 2026, none from the US.", "claims": [ "MMRS-01", "F2", "F5", "MMRS-02" ] }, "sections": [ { "icon": "🗂️", "head": "What it is", "items": [ { "label": "Unit:", "text": "a summary page per case: the litigation, each party's arguments, the judgment (page; MMRS record).", "claims": [ "F3", "MMRS-03", "MMRS-14", "MMRS-09" ] }, { "label": "Compiled by:", "text": "the firm's lawyers across jurisdictions; contacts in London and Bengaluru.", "claims": [ "MMRS-12", "F16", "F27" ] }, { "label": "Updated:", "text": "\"updated regularly\"; the index dated 31 Oct 2025.", "claims": [ "F2", "MMRS-11", "F1" ] }, { "label": "Wikipedia:", "text": "no article; CMS's own article: 18 member firms, about 80 offices.", "claims": [ "F37", "F38", "F39", "F40" ] } ] }, { "icon": "📋", "head": "The list", "items": [ { "label": "Jurisdictions:", "text": "Germany 8; China, Hungary, the Netherlands 3 each; Austria, the Czech Republic, France, India, Italy, the UK 1 each.", "claims": [ "F5", "MMRS-04", "MMRS-10" ] }, { "label": "Questions:", "text": "whole works copied for training with \"infinitesimally small\" outputs (Getty), transient copies (Kneschke), the \"natural person\" author (Czech case).", "claims": [ "F9", "F10", "F11" ] }, { "label": "Not listed:", "text": "the page's \"over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US\" is a sentence about the field; none is in the list (MMRS record).", "claims": [ "F13", "F8", "F14", "MMRS-15" ] } ] }, { "icon": "⚖️", "head": "Two cases on the rail", "items": [ { "label": "ANI v OpenAI:", "text": "interim order, 24 July 2026: training use fair dealing \"at the prima facie stage\"; responses by retrieval, not memorisation; the main suit continues.", "claims": [ "F22", "F25", "F23", "F24" ] }, { "label": "Getty v Stability AI:", "text": "4 November 2025: the secondary copyright claim rejected, the model holding no infringing copies; narrow trade mark wins.", "claims": [ "F30", "F35", "F31", "F32" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🧭", "head": "Navigation and neighbours", "items": [ { "label": "Region menu:", "text": "Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, the Middle East: the site's selector, leading to the firm's offices (page; MMRS record).", "claims": [ "F17", "F18", "MMRS-16" ] }, { "label": "Taylor Wessing:", "text": "a second \"AI & Copyright Case Tracker\", a distinct entity and census candidate, unread (403).", "claims": [ "F36", "MMRS-17", "MMRS-19", "CAP-1-06" ] }, { "label": "Sibling:", "text": "the firm's Digital Regulation Tracker.", "claims": [ "F19" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🔎", "head": "Place in the field", "items": [ { "label": "Provenance:", "text": "it records \"what courts decide about training on, and outputting, protected work\"; the US trackers beside it were not read (MMRS record).", "claims": [ "MMRS-06", "MMRS-07", "MMRS-21" ] } ] }, { "icon": "👁️", "head": "On the Overview", "items": [ { "label": "Recorded:", "text": "the region menu read as scope, the US count as holdings; the cases named right (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29).", "claims": [ "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-07", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-08" ] } ] } ], "open": [ { "question": "Does the tracker hold the US claims its page counts?", "rests_on": [ "F13", "F5", "MMRS-15", "CAP-1-03" ], "modality": "documented (the sentence and the list); the record and the capture read them apart", "would_resolve": "a US entry in the list, or a statement on the page of what the tracker covers" }, { "question": "Is Getty v Stability AI a case about training a large language model, as the index frames it, or a text-to-image model, as its own page says?", "rests_on": [ "F9", "F34" ], "modality": "interpretation (the index question) against documented (the case page)", "would_resolve": "the judgment of 4 November 2025 read for the model at issue" }, { "question": "Who was granted leave to appeal on 17 December 2025?", "rests_on": [ "F31", "F30" ], "modality": "documented, as the page states it (Stability, which won the claim)", "would_resolve": "the order of 17 December 2025" }, { "question": "How regularly is it updated?", "rests_on": [ "F2", "MMRS-11", "F1", "F20", "F28" ], "modality": "stipulation ('updated regularly'); page dates and status dates differ and no change log is given", "would_resolve": "a dated change log, or successive reads of the list" }, { "question": "What does Taylor Wessing's tracker hold?", "rests_on": [ "F36", "MMRS-17", "MMRS-18", "MMRS-19", "CAP-1-06" ], "modality": "card text only (page refused, 403)", "would_resolve": "its page read; its entry into the census" }, { "question": "Opacity: the card snippets of B1 and B2 are not page text (B1's five regions are the region menu); the US litigation trackers beside it were not read.", "rests_on": [ "F17", "CAP-1-01", "MMRS-07" ], "modality": "observed; self-description (the census's limit)", "would_resolve": "the cards' snippets set against the pages; the US trackers read" } ], "body_words": 287, "rail": [ { "lineage": "what it is: case summaries of AI and copyright case law", "claims": [ "MMRS-01", "F2", "F1" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the unit: a case summary page", "claims": [ "MMRS-09", "F3", "MMRS-03", "MMRS-14" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "case: ANI Media v OpenAI (Delhi High Court)", "claims": [ "F21", "F20", "F22", "F23", "F24", "F25", "F26" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "claims": [ "F29", "F28", "F30", "F35", "F32", "F31", "F33", "F34" ], "earliest": "B3" }, { "lineage": "compiled by: the firm's lawyers", "claims": [ "MMRS-12", "MMRS-08", "F16", "F27" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "the encyclopedia: no article for it; the operator's article", "claims": [ "F37", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41" ], "earliest": "W1" }, { "lineage": "the list: 23 cases in ten jurisdictions", "claims": [ "F4", "F5", "MMRS-10", "MMRS-04", "MMRS-02", "MMRS-11" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the questions its cases turn on", "claims": [ "F6", "F7", "F9", "F10", "F11", "F12" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the US claims: a sentence about the field", "claims": [ "F8", "F13", "F14", "MMRS-15" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "reception: the composition layer", "claims": [ "CAP-1-04", "MMRS-20", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-07", "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-05" ], "earliest": "capture:cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029" }, { "lineage": "the navigation: the region menu and the firm's offices", "claims": [ "F17", "F18", "MMRS-16" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "intake: cases sent by email", "claims": [ "F15", "MMRS-05", "MMRS-13" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "neighbour: the firm's Digital Regulation Tracker", "claims": [ "F19" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "place in the field: the legal reception of the provenance question", "claims": [ "MMRS-06", "MMRS-21", "MMRS-07" ], "earliest": "MMRS" }, { "lineage": "neighbour: Taylor Wessing's AI & Copyright Case Tracker", "claims": [ "F36", "MMRS-17", "MMRS-18", "MMRS-19", "CAP-1-06" ], "earliest": "B4" }, { "lineage": "the record kept apart from the entity", "claims": [ "MMRS-23", "MMRS-22", "MMRS-24" ], "earliest": "MMRS" } ], "entity": "Composed under v0.9, equal case (ρ = extends): KO_B sentences surviving 0 of 11; every field claim carried." }, "P_B": { "title": "CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker", "arm": "B (the field alone)", "genre": "popup — the compression from the field ledger alone (cards, own pages, Wikipedia)", "status": "composed 2026-10-29 from the field ledger alone; not frozen", "lede": { "text": "is a publication of CMS (31 Oct 2025): case summaries of AI and copyright case law, \"updated regularly\", in 23 pages, newest 31 July 2026.", "claims": [ "F1", "F2", "F4", "F5" ] }, "sections": [ { "icon": "📋", "head": "The list", "items": [ { "label": "Cases:", "text": "ten jurisdictions led by Germany; no US case.", "claims": [ "F5" ] }, { "label": "US:", "text": "over 40 copyright claims litigated there, by the page.", "claims": [ "F13", "F8" ] } ] }, { "icon": "⚖️", "head": "Cases", "items": [ { "label": "ANI v OpenAI:", "text": "fair dealing at the prima facie stage; the suit continues.", "claims": [ "F22", "F23" ] }, { "label": "Getty v Stability AI:", "text": "secondary copyright claim rejected.", "claims": [ "F30" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🧭", "head": "Around it", "items": [ { "label": "Taylor Wessing:", "text": "its own AI & Copyright Case Tracker (card only).", "claims": [ "F36" ] }, { "label": "Wikipedia:", "text": "no article.", "claims": [ "F37" ] } ] } ], "open": [ { "question": "Does the tracker hold the US claims its page counts?", "rests_on": [ "F13", "F5" ], "modality": "documented, both", "would_resolve": "a US entry in the list" } ], "body_words": 78, "rail": [ { "lineage": "what it is: case summaries of AI and copyright case law", "claims": [ "F1", "F2" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the unit: a case summary page", "claims": [ "F3" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "case: ANI Media v OpenAI (Delhi High Court)", "claims": [ "F21", "F20", "F22", "F23", "F24", "F25", "F26" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "claims": [ "F29", "F28", "F30", "F31", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35" ], "earliest": "B3" }, { "lineage": "the list: 23 cases in ten jurisdictions", "claims": [ "F4", "F5" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "compiled by: the firm's lawyers", "claims": [ "F16", "F27" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "intake: cases sent by email", "claims": [ "F15" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the questions its cases turn on", "claims": [ "F6", "F7", "F9", "F10", "F11", "F12" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the US claims: a sentence about the field", "claims": [ "F8", "F13", "F14" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the navigation: the region menu and the firm's offices", "claims": [ "F17", "F18" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "neighbour: the firm's Digital Regulation Tracker", "claims": [ "F19" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "neighbour: Taylor Wessing's AI & Copyright Case Tracker", "claims": [ "F36" ], "earliest": "B4" }, { "lineage": "the encyclopedia: no article for it; the operator's article", "claims": [ "F37", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41" ], "earliest": "W1" } ], "entity": "With no archive claim admitted, the entry is the field's tracker at its own resolution: its index, two case pages, a neighbour's card, and the encyclopedia's silence on it." }, "KO_B": { "title": "The CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker", "arm": "B (the field alone)", "genre": "knowledge object", "status": "composed 2026-10-29; not frozen", "sentences": [ { "n": 1, "para": 0, "text": "The Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker is a publication of CMS, dated 31 Oct 2025, which its makers describe as a copyright + AI case tracker of accessible case summaries, updated regularly, covering the most topical AI and copyright case law, built with CMS colleagues across the UK, Europe and beyond.", "claims": [ "F1", "F2" ] }, { "n": 2, "para": 0, "text": "Each case summary gives the litigation, each party's arguments and the final judgment, and the case pages carry court, country, parties, the date of the claim and its type.", "claims": [ "F3", "F21", "F29" ] }, { "n": 3, "para": 1, "text": "The publication has 23 pages, listed newest first from GEMA v. Suno (31 July 2026) to S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL (11 October 2023), from ten jurisdictions led by Germany, with no US case.", "claims": [ "F4", "F5" ] }, { "n": 4, "para": 1, "text": "Its contacts are Sarah Wright and Ben Hitchens in London and, for India, Bharadwaj Jaishankar of CMS Induslaw; cases not yet summarised may be sent by email.", "claims": [ "F16", "F27", "F15" ] }, { "n": 5, "para": 2, "text": "Its executive summary sets out new issues of ownership, subsistence and infringement, the reinterpretation of copyright principles, three questions tied to Getty v Stability AI, Kneschke v LAION and the Czech authorship case, and an area likely to grow more complicated with the EU AI Act.", "claims": [ "F6", "F7", "F9", "F10", "F11", "F12" ] }, { "n": 6, "para": 2, "text": "It says that US courts have led the way, that over 40 copyright claims are being litigated in the US, and that the first US decision, in June 2025, found training Claude on books non-infringing while sending the pirated materials to trial.", "claims": [ "F8", "F13", "F14" ] }, { "n": 7, "para": 3, "text": "The site's region menu lists International, Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Americas and the Middle East, the Americas including the United States of America, and the page points to the firm's Digital Regulation Tracker.", "claims": [ "F17", "F18", "F19" ] }, { "n": 8, "para": 4, "text": "In ANI v OpenAI, a claim issued on 19 November 2024 and summarised on a page of 25 Jun 2025, the Delhi High Court's interim order of 24 July 2026 refused an injunction, holding training use fair dealing at the prima facie stage under a three-factor test and finding that the responses came from retrieval, not memorisation; ANI had claimed that ChatGPT cites it as the source of false information; the main suit continues.", "claims": [ "F20", "F22", "F23", "F24", "F25", "F26" ] }, { "n": 9, "para": 5, "text": "In Getty v Stability AI, summarised on a page of 27 Sep 2024, the High Court on 4 November 2025 rejected the secondary copyright claim, the model embodying no infringing copies and its weights encoding no image, after Getty dropped its primary claims; Getty won narrow trade mark issues, the firm reads the judgment as significantly limiting developers' liability, and the page calls Stable Diffusion a text-to-image model.", "claims": [ "F28", "F30", "F31", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35" ] }, { "n": 10, "para": 6, "text": "Taylor Wessing's AI & Copyright Case Tracker lists Carlsen, Penguin, GEMA, Koda and SNE cases against OpenAI, Suno and Meta, by its card alone.", "claims": [ "F36" ] }, { "n": 11, "para": 7, "text": "Wikipedia has no article for the tracker; CMS, in its article, is an international law firm of 18 independent firms with about 80 offices, formed in 1999.", "claims": [ "F37", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41" ] } ] }, "L_B": { "words": 453, "text": "The Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker is a publication of CMS, dated 31 Oct 2025, which its makers describe as a copyright + AI case tracker of accessible case summaries, updated regularly, covering the most topical AI and copyright case law, built with CMS colleagues across the UK, Europe and beyond. Each case summary gives the litigation, each party's arguments and the final judgment, and the case pages carry court, country, parties, the date of the claim and its type. The publication has 23 pages, listed newest first from GEMA v. Suno (31 July 2026) to S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL (11 October 2023), from ten jurisdictions led by Germany, with no US case. Its contacts are Sarah Wright and Ben Hitchens in London and, for India, Bharadwaj Jaishankar of CMS Induslaw; cases not yet summarised may be sent by email. Its executive summary sets out new issues of ownership, subsistence and infringement, the reinterpretation of copyright principles, three questions tied to Getty v Stability AI, Kneschke v LAION and the Czech authorship case, and an area likely to grow more complicated with the EU AI Act. It says that US courts have led the way, that over 40 copyright claims are being litigated in the US, and that the first US decision, in June 2025, found training Claude on books non-infringing while sending the pirated materials to trial. The site's region menu lists International, Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Americas and the Middle East, the Americas including the United States of America, and the page points to the firm's Digital Regulation Tracker. In ANI v OpenAI, a claim issued on 19 November 2024 and summarised on a page of 25 Jun 2025, the Delhi High Court's interim order of 24 July 2026 refused an injunction, holding training use fair dealing at the prima facie stage under a three-factor test and finding that the responses came from retrieval, not memorisation; ANI had claimed that ChatGPT cites it as the source of false information; the main suit continues. In Getty v Stability AI, summarised on a page of 27 Sep 2024, the High Court on 4 November 2025 rejected the secondary copyright claim, the model embodying no infringing copies and its weights encoding no image, after Getty dropped its primary claims; Getty won narrow trade mark issues, the firm reads the judgment as significantly limiting developers' liability, and the page calls Stable Diffusion a text-to-image model. Taylor Wessing's AI & Copyright Case Tracker lists Carlsen, Penguin, GEMA, Koda and SNE cases against OpenAI, Suno and Meta, by its card alone. Wikipedia has no article for the tracker; CMS, in its article, is an international law firm of 18 independent firms with about 80 offices, formed in 1999.", "note": "L_F(B) is realized as the field arm's expansion (objects.KO_B): the field alone, cards and Wikipedia." }, "L_BA": { "words": 1708, "text": "The CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker is a database compiled by the law firm CMS that summarizes 23 court cases on AI and copyright from 10 jurisdictions, led by Germany (MMRS record); its makers call it \"a copyright + AI case tracker providing accessible, easily digestible case summaries, updated regularly, covering the most topical case law in the area of AI and copyright\", built \"with our CMS colleagues across UK, Europe and beyond\" (cms.law, the tracker's page), a publication dated 31 Oct 2025 in the site's International edition. Its unit is the case, the \"court case on AI and copyright\" (MMRS record), each with a summary page that \"provides details of the relevant litigation, including summaries of each party’s arguments and the final judgment\" (cms.law), its fields in the MMRS record case name, jurisdiction, date, the litigation, each party's arguments and the judgment; the two case pages on the rail carry court, country, parties, the date the claim was issued and the type of claim (the India and UK pages). It is \"compiled by the firm's lawyers across jurisdictions\", with CMS (law firm) its operator (MMRS record): the index page names Sarah Wright, Partner and Co-Head of Intellectual Property, and Ben Hitchens, Partner, in London as its contacts, and the India page Bharadwaj Jaishankar, Partner, CMS Induslaw, in Bengaluru. Wikipedia has no article for it (\"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.\", and a search for 'Copyright Case Tracker' finds \"no results\"); its article on the operator describes CMS as \"an international law firm that offers legal and tax advisory services\", consisting \"of 18 independent law firms, with about 80 offices worldwide\", formed in 1999 by six European firms under a brand joining Cameron McKenna (UK) and Hasche Sigle (Germany). The index lists \"23 Pages\", newest first, each entry headed by its jurisdiction, from \"1. Germany - GEMA v. Suno, 31 July 2026\" to \"23. Czech Republic - S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL, advokátní kancelář s.r.o. , 11 October 2023\" (cms.law); read whole, its entries come from ten jurisdictions, Germany with eight, and none is a US case, which the MMRS record counts as \"23 cases in 10 jurisdictions (no US cases listed)\", the jurisdictions Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, France, Italy, India, Austria and the Czech Republic, the newest entry dated 31 July 2026. The page says its summaries are \"updated regularly\", and the MMRS record gives the cadence by that phrase and the newest entry's date; the pages carry their own dates beside their status dates: the index 31 Oct 2025, the India page 25 Jun 2025 with its status as on 24 July 2026, the UK page 27 Sep 2024 with its status as at 5 January 2026. The executive summary frames the field: generative AI has \"brought to fore many new legal issues relating to ownership, subsistence and infringement of copyright law\", and, it says, \"At the heart of the discourse is the reinterpretation of copyright principles in the age of AI-generated content\" (cms.law). It names three questions UK and European courts are grappling with, each tied to a tracked case: an infringement claim where a whole work is copied \"for the purpose of training a large language model\" but outputs contain only \"“infinitesimally small” reproductions\" (Getty Images v Stability AI), a training dataset \"using only transient copies of the original work\" (Robert Kneschke v LAION), and authorship where the law may define the author as a \"“natural person”\" (S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL); and it expects the area to be \"increasingly complicated by newer and more advanced technologies, and the implementation of the EU AI Act\" (cms.law). On the United States the page speaks of the field, and its list holds no US entry: US courts \"have led the way in AI & copyright litigation to date\", with similar claims beginning before UK and European courts; \"There are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US\", among them Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney and the pending New York Times v OpenAI, Dow Jones v Perplexity and Getty v Stability AI; and in June 2025 a Californian court ruled that training Claude on books did not infringe, while Anthropic must face trial over pirated materials (cms.law). The MMRS record keeps that sentence apart from the list: \"the page's summary states that 'there are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US'; none is in the tracked list\"; and the Capture Registry (2026-10-29) finds that the record's count \"stands, and now quotes the sentence\". The page's region selector, \"Select your region\" with International, Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, The Americas and Middle East, is the site's navigation, its lists opening onto the countries of the firm's sites and offices, the Americas list ending with the United States of America, whose link leads to the firm's Silicon Valley office page (cms.law); the MMRS record notes that the menu \"leads to the firm's offices\". Cases not yet summarised may be sent to the firm by email (cms.law), \"uncovered cases\" to \"a submission address\" in the MMRS record; and the page sets beside the tracker a sibling tool for \"digital regulations in the EU and in the world\", the firm's \"digital regulation hub and brand new digital Regulation Tracker tool\" (cms.law). Of the tracked cases, ANI Media Pvt Ltd v OpenAI OPCO LLC (Delhi High Court, claim issued 19 November 2024) reached an interim order on 24 July 2026 refusing ANI's injunction and \"holding that at the prima facie stage, OpenAI’s use of ANI’s content to train ChatGPT models falls under the ‘fair dealing’ exception\"; \"the main suit continues to be heard on merits\" (the India page). The court's fair dealing test had three factors, whether use was \"limited to LLM training\", market competition or prejudice, and \"a broader public interest\"; it held, prima facie, that the responses complained of came not from memorisation but from \"the RAG technique, through which LLMs retrieve relevant information from external sources\"; and ANI's claim was that ChatGPT \"gives false information as output and cites the ANI’s news agency as its source\" (the India page). In Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales, claim issued 15 January 2023) the judgment of 4 November 2025 \"rejected Getty’s secondary copyright claim in full\", finding that an AI model may in principle be an \"“article”\" under s.22 CDPA 1988 but that \"Stable Diffusion did not embody any infringing copies of Getty works\", its weights operating \"at a high level of mathematical abstraction that does not encode, contain, or allow extraction of any specific image\"; Getty had dropped its primary copyright and database right claims late in the trial and won only \"a narrow set of trade mark issues\", and the page says Stability \"was granted leave to appeal the secondary infringement claim on 17 December 2025\" (the UK page). The firm reads the judgment as \"the first detailed judicial assessment in the UK of secondary copyright infringement in the context of AI model weights\" that \"significantly limits the circumstances in which AI developers may incur liability\" (the UK page); the same page calls Stable Diffusion \"a deep-learning, text-to-image (and now image-to-image) AI model\", where the index's question set the case under \"training a large language model\" (cms.law). In the MMRS record the tracker \"records the legal reception of the provenance question: what courts decide about training on, and outputting, protected work\", its role provenance by the record's reading; \"With no US cases listed, it sits beside the US litigation trackers, which were not read for this census\" (MMRS record). The question stands in the cases as the field gives them: ANI's complaint that a model cites the agency as the source of false information, and the Delhi court's prima facie finding that the responses came by retrieval from external sources (the India page), beside the record's reading of the tracker as the legal reception of provenance (MMRS record). A second tracker of the same name stands on the same rail and is a distinct entity: Taylor Wessing's \"AI & Copyright Case Tracker\", whose card lists \"Carlsen v. OpenAI, Penguin v. OpenAI, GEMA v. OpenAI, GEMA v. Suno, Koda v. Suno AI, SNE v. Meta\", its page refused (403) and unread, two of its cases, GEMA v. Suno and GEMA v OpenAI, also in CMS's list (cms.law); the MMRS record carries it as a neighbour and census candidate, listed \"for reading\", which enters the census \"once it has been read at its own pages\", and the Capture Registry (2026-10-29) as \"another aggregator; added as a candidate\". The MMRS record keeps itself apart from the entity: \"each page has two nodes, the MMRS record and the entity it describes\", each assertion with a source and a basis, the lifecycle kept apart from the observation that saw it; the tracker's state is active, observed on 2026-10-28 by reading, with the index page the one source for all fields (MMRS record). The composition layer's account at the tracker's name, of 2026-10-29, is seated in the Capture Registry and held by the MMRS record as a relation of the entity (MMRS record); the Registry finds the Overview's five regions to be \"the page's region selector, which leads to CMS's offices\", and that \"The tracked cases are European, with China and India\" (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29); the selector is the menu the page heads \"Select your region\" (cms.law). It finds that \"'Over 40 U.S. claims' is the page's summary sentence\" and that \"no US case is in the tracker's list\", and reads the composition as one that \"reads a law firm's page whole, navigation and summary with the list, and composes the tracker's reach from the firm's office menu and the US count from a sentence about the field\" (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29), the page's sentence being \"There are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US\" (cms.law). \"The cases it names are right\": Getty v. Stability AI, Kneschke v. LAION and ANI v. OpenAI are in CMS's pages, the last \"with its interim order of 24 July 2026\" (Capture Registry, 2026-10-29), as the list's entries and the India page give them (cms.law; the India page).", "rail": [], "note": "L(B ∪ A) in the equal-terms case (v0.9 §0.4), realized as the knowledge object (objects.KO); its rail is the compression's, by lineage." } }, "field": [ { "id": "B1", "card": "CMS.law — Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker", "fetched": "card; HTTP 200 at 2026-10-29T05:07:02Z; B1.html sha256 4d331b871f62c2b8; B1.txt sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B2", "card": "CMS.law — AI and Copyright Case Tracker in India| CMS", "fetched": "card; HTTP 200 at 2026-10-29T05:07:24Z; B2.html sha256 f44c6af992e79cfb; B2.txt sha256 f32620a445a196d0", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B3", "card": "CMS.law — AI and Copyright Case Tracker in United Kingdom - CMS.law", "fetched": "card; HTTP 200 at 2026-10-29T05:07:26Z; B3.html sha256 b4cea0f1e0d3db49; B3.txt sha256 de566937fb2b5959", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B4", "card": "Taylor Wessing — AI & Copyright Case Tracker | Taylor Wessing", "fetched": "card; HTTP 403 at 2026-10-29T05:07:53Z; B4-taylorwessing-403.html sha256 b83d6b4335f871d6; B4-taylorwessing-403.txt sha256 cf68e224d2e5d7da; unreachable, title and snippet only", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "W1", "card": "Wikipedia — CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker (no article)", "fetched": "wikipedia; HTTP 404 at 2026-10-29T05:08:32Z; W1.html sha256 77b41706e3bb3eb4; W1.txt sha256 52cdbc66843e71a6; W1-search.html sha256 8bf8c6cc14d6c2fb; W1-search.txt sha256 1558b87513ceb86b", "origin": "wikipedia" }, { "id": "W2", "card": "Wikipedia — CMS (law firm)", "fetched": "wikipedia; HTTP 200 at 2026-10-29T05:08:36Z; W2.wiki sha256 9a20f4fb547b2f8c; W2.html sha256 233ba333daafa4d5; W2.txt sha256 0e33211eb0b181f6", "origin": "wikipedia" } ], "field_claims": { "F1": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "publication header", "quote": "Publication Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker 31 Oct 2025 International", "claim": "a publication of CMS titled 'Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker', dated 31 Oct 2025, in the site's International edition", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "what it is: case summaries of AI and copyright case law", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F2": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶6 s1", "quote": "Working with our CMS colleagues across UK, Europe and beyond, we have built a copyright + AI case tracker providing accessible, easily digestible case summaries, updated regularly, covering the most topical case law in the area of AI and copyright.", "claim": "the tracker defined by its makers: a copyright + AI case tracker of case summaries, updated regularly, covering the most topical AI and copyright case law, built with CMS colleagues across the UK, Europe and beyond", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "what it is: case summaries of AI and copyright case law", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F3": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶6 s2", "quote": "Each case summary in this copyright + AI tracker provides details of the relevant litigation, including summaries of each party’s arguments and the final judgment, in order to develop an understanding of this new developing landscape of case law.", "claim": "its unit: a case summary giving the litigation, each party's arguments and the final judgment", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": false, "const": true, "lineage": "the unit: a case summary page", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F4": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "In this publication (list header)", "quote": "In this publication 23 Pages Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker", "claim": "the publication has 23 pages, one per case, under the tracker's index page", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the list: 23 cases in ten jurisdictions", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F5": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "In this publication, entries 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 23", "quote": "1. Germany - GEMA v. Suno, 31 July 2026 … 2. India - ANI Media Pvt Ltd V. OpenAI OPCO LLC, 24 July 2026 … 7. United Kingdom - Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd, 16-17 December 2025 … 8. Germany - Robert Kneschke v LAION e.V. , 10 December 2025 … 9. Germany - GEMA v OpenAI, 11 November 2025 … 23. Czech Republic - S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL, advokátní kancelář s.r.o. , 11 October 2023", "claim": "the list, newest first, each entry headed by its jurisdiction, runs from 31 July 2026 (GEMA v. Suno) to 11 October 2023 (S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL); read whole, its 23 entries come from ten jurisdictions (Germany 8; China, Hungary and the Netherlands 3 each; Austria, the Czech Republic, France, India, Italy and the United Kingdom 1 each), and none is a US case", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "the list: 23 cases in ten jurisdictions", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F6": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶1", "quote": "The rapid growth of generative AI including popular models such as ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot and Google’s Gemini (formerly Bard) have brought to fore many new legal issues relating to ownership, subsistence and infringement of copyright law.", "claim": "generative AI has raised new legal issues of ownership, subsistence and infringement of copyright", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the questions its cases turn on", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F7": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶2 s1", "quote": "At the heart of the discourse is the reinterpretation of copyright principles in the age of AI-generated content.", "claim": "the discourse turns on reinterpreting copyright principles for AI-generated content", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the questions its cases turn on", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F8": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶3", "quote": "It is unsurprising that the US Courts have led the way in AI & copyright litigation to date given most of the leading AI technology providers are based there, but we are starting to see similar claims being issued elsewhere including before UK and European Courts.", "claim": "US courts have led AI and copyright litigation, the leading providers being based there; similar claims are beginning before UK and European courts", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the US claims: a sentence about the field", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F9": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶4, question 1", "quote": "Is there a valid infringement claim where the entirety of a copyright work is copied for the purpose of training a large language model but the “allegedly infringing” output seen by consumers only contains “infinitesimally small” reproductions of the original work, which is the case in UK case Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd?", "claim": "a question UK and European courts face: infringement where a whole work is copied to train a large language model but outputs carry only infinitesimally small reproductions, the question of Getty v Stability AI", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the questions its cases turn on", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F10": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶4, question 2", "quote": "What about if the defendant argues the dataset used for training said machine is using only transient copies of the original work , which is the case in German case Robert Kneschke & LAION e.V.?", "claim": "a question: transient copies in a training dataset, the question of Kneschke v LAION", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the questions its cases turn on", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F11": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶4, question 3", "quote": "And how do we define the authorship of work created by AI, particularly where the law may define the author as a “natural person” which is/has been considered in the Czech Republic between S. Š. (individual) v TAUBEL LEGAL, advokátní kancelář s.r.o. Case No. 13/2023?", "claim": "a question: authorship of AI-created work where the law defines the author as a natural person, considered in the Czech case S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the questions its cases turn on", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F12": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶5", "quote": "These are some of the issues emerging from the adoption and use of generative AI, an area that is likely to be increasingly complicated by newer and more advanced technologies, and the implementation of the EU AI Act.", "claim": "the area is likely to grow more complicated with newer technologies and the implementation of the EU AI Act", "modality": "hypothesis", "kind": "prediction", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the questions its cases turn on", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F13": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶7 s1", "quote": "There are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US including most recently the complaint filed by the film studios (Disney and NBC Universal) against Mid Journey, as well as pending claims between the New York Times and OpenAI, the Dow Jones and Perplexity, and Getty and Stability AI.", "claim": "a statement about the field: over 40 copyright claims are being litigated in the US, among them Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney and the pending New York Times v OpenAI, Dow Jones v Perplexity and Getty v Stability AI", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "the US claims: a sentence about the field", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F14": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶7 s2–3", "quote": "In June 2025, we saw the first decision from the US in the case involving Anthropic. The Californian Court ruled that Anthropic’s use of books to train its AI model Claude did not infringe US copyright law – but that it does need to face trial over its use of pirated copyright materials.", "claim": "the first US decision, June 2025: training Claude on books did not infringe, but Anthropic must face trial over pirated materials", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the US claims: a sentence about the field", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F15": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Executive summary ¶8", "quote": "If you become aware of a case which we have not yet summarised, please do let us know by emailing", "claim": "intake: cases not yet summarised may be sent to the firm by email", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "function", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "intake: cases sent by email", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F16": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Key contacts", "quote": "Key contacts London Sarah Wright Partner Co-Head of Intellectual Property London Ben Hitchens Partner", "claim": "the tracker's contacts: Sarah Wright (Partner, Co-Head of Intellectual Property) and Ben Hitchens (Partner), London", "modality": "documented", "kind": "attribution", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "compiled by: the firm's lawyers", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F17": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "site navigation: 'Select your region'", "quote": "Select your region International Europe Africa Asia-Pacific The Americas Middle East", "claim": "the site's region selector, a navigation menu of five regions (and International) that opens lists of the countries where the firm has sites and offices; it is the site's menu, on every page, not a statement of the tracker's scope", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the navigation: the region menu and the firm's offices", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F18": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "site navigation: 'Select your region' › The Americas", "quote": "Back to region Brazil English Português Chile English Español Colombia English Español Mexico English Peru English Español United States of America English", "claim": "the menu's Americas list: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru and the United States of America, each with its languages; in the raw HTML the United States entry links to the firm's Silicon Valley office page", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the navigation: the region menu and the firm's offices", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F19": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Digital Regulation Tracker block", "quote": "To help you navigate the tsunami of digital regulations in the EU and in the world, visit our digital regulation hub and brand new digital Regulation Tracker tool", "claim": "a sibling tool on the page: the firm's digital regulation hub and Digital Regulation Tracker, for digital regulation in the EU and the world", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "neighbour: the firm's Digital Regulation Tracker", "date": "2025-10-31 (the page's date, 31 Oct 2025; entries to 31 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 8a42ab193117ddf4…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F20": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "publication header", "quote": "Publication India - ANI Media Pvt Ltd V. OpenAI OPCO LLC, 24 July 2026 25 Jun 2025 International", "claim": "the case's summary page, dated 25 Jun 2025 and titled with the date of its latest ruling, 24 July 2026", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: ANI Media v OpenAI (Delhi High Court)", "date": "2025-06-25 (the page's date, 25 Jun 2025; status as on 24 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 f32620a445a196d0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F21": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "case fields", "quote": "Court Delhi High Court Country India Parties Claimant: ANI Media Pvt Ltd Defendant: OpenAI OPCO LLC Date Claim Issued 19 November 2024 Type of Claim Copyright infringement claim", "claim": "the case page's fields: court (Delhi High Court), country, parties, date the claim was issued (19 November 2024), type of claim (copyright infringement)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: ANI Media v OpenAI (Delhi High Court)", "date": "2025-06-25 (the page's date, 25 Jun 2025; status as on 24 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 f32620a445a196d0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F22": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "Status as on 24 July 2026 ¶4", "quote": "On 24 July 2026, the DHC passed an interim order refusing ANI’s request for an interim injunction, holding that at the prima facie stage, OpenAI’s use of ANI’s content to train ChatGPT models falls under the ‘fair dealing’ exception under Section 52(1)(a)(i) of the Copyright Act.", "claim": "the interim order of 24 July 2026: injunction refused; at the prima facie stage OpenAI's use of ANI's content to train ChatGPT models falls under the fair dealing exception of s.52(1)(a)(i)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "case: ANI Media v OpenAI (Delhi High Court)", "date": "2025-06-25 (the page's date, 25 Jun 2025; status as on 24 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 f32620a445a196d0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F23": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "Summary of Key Background Facts, last ¶", "quote": "the DHC delivered its first substantive ruling in the matter, declining to grant ANI interim relief and holding that OpenAI’s training-related use of ANI’s content is, at the prima facie stage, protected by the fair dealing exception; the main suit continues to be heard on merits.", "claim": "its limit: the ruling is interim and prima facie; the main suit continues on the merits", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "case: ANI Media v OpenAI (Delhi High Court)", "date": "2025-06-25 (the page's date, 25 Jun 2025; status as on 24 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 f32620a445a196d0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F24": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "The Court's Findings, fair dealing ¶2", "quote": "formulated a three-factor assessment for the present case: (i) whether the use of ANI’s works was limited to LLM training; (ii) whether such use resulted in market competition or prejudice to ANI’s legitimate commercial interests; and (iii) whether ChatGPT’s functions served a broader public interest.", "claim": "the court's three-factor fair dealing test: use limited to LLM training, market competition or prejudice, broader public interest", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: ANI Media v OpenAI (Delhi High Court)", "date": "2025-06-25 (the page's date, 25 Jun 2025; status as on 24 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 f32620a445a196d0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F25": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "The Court's Findings, infringement ¶2", "quote": "held, prima facie, that the responses in question could not have resulted from memorisation of ANI’s works during training but rather using the RAG technique, through which LLMs retrieve relevant information from external sources.", "claim": "the court held, prima facie, that the responses came from retrieval (RAG) from external sources, not from memorisation in training", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: ANI Media v OpenAI (Delhi High Court)", "date": "2025-06-25 (the page's date, 25 Jun 2025; status as on 24 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 f32620a445a196d0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F26": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "Summary of key legal arguments, ANI's Claims ¶2", "quote": "ANI claim that ChatGPT gives false information as output and cites the ANI’s news agency as its source, thereby posing a threat to its reputation and leading to the spread of misinformation in the digital sphere.", "claim": "ANI's claim: ChatGPT outputs false information and cites ANI as its source, harming its reputation", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "attribution", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: ANI Media v OpenAI (Delhi High Court)", "date": "2025-06-25 (the page's date, 25 Jun 2025; status as on 24 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 f32620a445a196d0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F27": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "Key contact", "quote": "Key contact Bengaluru Bharadwaj Jaishankar Partner CMS Induslaw", "claim": "the case page's contact: Bharadwaj Jaishankar, Partner, CMS Induslaw, Bengaluru", "modality": "documented", "kind": "attribution", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "compiled by: the firm's lawyers", "date": "2025-06-25 (the page's date, 25 Jun 2025; status as on 24 July 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 f32620a445a196d0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F28": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "publication header; Status", "quote": "Publication United Kingdom - Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd, 16-17 December 2025 27 Sep 2024 International … Status as at 5 January 2026", "claim": "the case's summary page, dated 27 Sep 2024, titled with 16-17 December 2025, its status as at 5 January 2026", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "date": "2024-09-27 (the page's date, 27 Sep 2024; status as at 5 January 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 de566937fb2b5959…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F29": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "case fields", "quote": "Court High Court of England & Wales Country England & Wales Parties Claimants: Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors (‘Getty’) Defendant: Stability AI Ltd (‘Stability AI’) Date Claim Issued 15 January 2023", "claim": "the case page's fields: High Court of England & Wales, parties, claim issued 15 January 2023", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "date": "2024-09-27 (the page's date, 27 Sep 2024; status as at 5 January 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 de566937fb2b5959…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F30": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "Status ¶4 s1–2", "quote": "On 4 November 2025, the High Court issued judgment. The Court rejected Getty’s secondary copyright claim in full, finding that although an AI model may in principle constitute an “article” under s.22 CDPA 1988, Stable Diffusion did not embody any infringing copies of Getty works.", "claim": "the judgment of 4 November 2025: the secondary copyright claim rejected in full; an AI model may be an article under s.22 CDPA, but Stable Diffusion embodies no infringing copies", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "date": "2024-09-27 (the page's date, 27 Sep 2024; status as at 5 January 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 de566937fb2b5959…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F31": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "Status ¶4 s4–5", "quote": "Getty succeeded only on a narrow set of trade mark issues relating to isolated, historic reproductions of ISTOCK and (for v2.1) GETTY IMAGES watermarks. Stability succeeded on the vast majority of the issues and was granted leave to appeal the secondary infringement claim on 17 December 2025.", "claim": "Getty won only narrow trade mark issues on isolated, historic watermarks; Stability won most issues; the page says Stability was granted leave to appeal the secondary infringement claim on 17 December 2025", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "date": "2024-09-27 (the page's date, 27 Sep 2024; status as at 5 January 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 de566937fb2b5959…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F32": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "Status ¶3 s1", "quote": "Late in the trial Getty dropped its primary copyright and database right infringement claims, citing evidential weaknesses and jurisdictional hurdles", "claim": "late in the trial Getty dropped its primary copyright and database right claims for evidence and jurisdiction", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "date": "2024-09-27 (the page's date, 27 Sep 2024; status as at 5 January 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 de566937fb2b5959…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F33": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "Status ¶5", "quote": "This judgment represents the first detailed judicial assessment in the UK of secondary copyright infringement in the context of AI model weights, and it significantly limits the circumstances in which AI developers may incur liability for model architecture or distribution.", "claim": "the firm's reading: the first detailed UK assessment of secondary infringement for model weights, significantly limiting developers' liability", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "date": "2024-09-27 (the page's date, 27 Sep 2024; status as at 5 January 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 de566937fb2b5959…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F34": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "Summary of Key Background Facts ¶1 s3", "quote": "Stable Diffusion is a deep-learning, text-to-image (and now image-to-image) AI model that is used to generate synthetic images in response to commands entered by users.", "claim": "Stable Diffusion is a text-to-image (and image-to-image) model generating synthetic images", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "date": "2024-09-27 (the page's date, 27 Sep 2024; status as at 5 January 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 de566937fb2b5959…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F35": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "Summary of key legal arguments, Copyright ¶3", "quote": "The Court emphasised that Stable Diffusion’s architecture and weights operate at a high level of mathematical abstraction that does not encode, contain, or allow extraction of any specific image", "claim": "the court: the model's weights operate at a level of abstraction that encodes no specific image", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "date": "2024-09-27 (the page's date, 27 Sep 2024; status as at 5 January 2026)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B3.txt (sha256 de566937fb2b5959…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F36": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "card title and snippet (unreachable)", "quote": "AI & Copyright Case Tracker | Taylor Wessing … Cases: Carlsen v. OpenAI, Penguin v. OpenAI, GEMA v. OpenAI, GEMA v. Suno, Koda v. Suno AI, SNE v. Meta (AI training/memorization copyright infringement claims)", "claim": "a second tracker of the same name, Taylor Wessing's, listing Carlsen v. OpenAI, Penguin v. OpenAI, GEMA v. OpenAI, GEMA v. Suno, Koda v. Suno AI and SNE v. Meta (by the card alone)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "neighbour: Taylor Wessing's AI & Copyright Case Tracker", "date": "2026-10-29 (card; page unreachable)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "card title and snippet (B4 unreachable, HTTP 403), as seated in the registry's cite_list", "from": "card title and snippet" }, "F37": { "source": "W1", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "rendered page (HTTP 404)", "quote": "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.", "claim": "no Wikipedia article bears the tracker's name (the rendered page for 'CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker' answers 404)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "the encyclopedia: no article for it; the operator's article", "date": "2026-10-29 (as fetched)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved texts W1.txt (sha256 52cdbc66843e71a6…) and W1-search.txt (sha256 1558b87513ceb86b…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F38": { "source": "W1", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "Special:Search, full text, \"Copyright Case Tracker\"", "quote": "There were no results matching the query.", "claim": "a full-text search of the encyclopedia for the phrase 'Copyright Case Tracker' returns no result", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the encyclopedia: no article for it; the operator's article", "date": "2026-10-29 (as fetched)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved texts W1.txt (sha256 52cdbc66843e71a6…) and W1-search.txt (sha256 1558b87513ceb86b…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F39": { "source": "W2", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "lead ¶1 s1", "quote": "CMS is an international law firm that offers legal and tax advisory services.", "claim": "the operator: CMS, an international law firm offering legal and tax advisory services", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "the encyclopedia: no article for it; the operator's article", "date": "2026-10-29 (as fetched)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text W2.txt (sha256 0e33211eb0b181f6…), whitespace-normalised; the raw wikitext W2.wiki carries the same sentences with markup" }, "F40": { "source": "W2", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "lead ¶1 s3", "quote": "It consists of 18 independent law firms, with about 80 offices worldwide.", "claim": "CMS consists of 18 independent law firms with about 80 offices worldwide", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the encyclopedia: no article for it; the operator's article", "date": "2026-10-29 (as fetched)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text W2.txt (sha256 0e33211eb0b181f6…), whitespace-normalised; the raw wikitext W2.wiki carries the same sentences with markup" }, "F41": { "source": "W2", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "History ¶1 s1–2", "quote": "In 1999, six European law firms with 1,400+ lawyers and roughly DM 500 million in joint revenues came together to form CMS. … The CMS brand combined the names of two founding law firms, Cameron McKenna (UK) and Hasche Sigle (Germany).", "claim": "CMS formed in 1999 from six European law firms; its name joins Cameron McKenna (UK) and Hasche Sigle (Germany)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "genealogy", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the encyclopedia: no article for it; the operator's article", "date": "2026-10-29 (as fetched)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text W2.txt (sha256 0e33211eb0b181f6…), whitespace-normalised; the raw wikitext W2.wiki carries the same sentences with markup" } }, "field_sources": { "B1": "CMS.law — Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker", "B2": "CMS.law — AI and Copyright Case Tracker in India| CMS", "B3": "CMS.law — AI and Copyright Case Tracker in United Kingdom - CMS.law", "B4": "Taylor Wessing — AI & Copyright Case Tracker | Taylor Wessing", "W1": "Wikipedia — CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker (no article)", "W2": "Wikipedia — CMS (law firm)" }, "delta": { "T_vs_LB": "At 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (T1, four cards: B1–B4) the composition names the tracker with its firm and gives five areas with a case each. Composed from its cards at their grain: the three questions of the executive summary and their cases (F9 Getty, F10 Kneschke, F11 the Czech authorship case; T1-2, T1-3, T1-4), Getty's question composed in the index's own framing, 'large language model (LLM) training' (F9), where its case page calls Stable Diffusion a text-to-image model (F34): the field states it two ways and T composes the first; the Delhi interim order and fair dealing (F22; T1-5, marked to the India card); the US examples of the summary sentence (F13, F14; T1-6). Substituted reading: the scope 'across Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, and the Middle East' is the site's region selector (F17, F18), the navigation of every page, composed as the tracker's reach (CAP-1-01, CAP-1-07); 'covering over 40 U.S. claims' is the summary's sentence about US litigation (F13) composed as holdings, where the list holds no US entry (F5) (CAP-1-03); T1-6 composes the same sentence's examples (Disney, NBC Universal, The New York Times, Dow Jones) and the Anthropic decision (F14) as actions the tracker 'follows', the same substitution at the grain of its names, which the capture does not name separately. Absent from the readable field: 'text-and-data mining (TDM)' (T1-2) and 'machine-readable TDM opt-outs' (T1-3) occur in no saved card text (the Kneschke page is not a card); 'regulatory developments' (T1-1) has no source among the tracker's claims, and its nearest field text is the sibling Digital Regulation Tracker (F19) and the EU AI Act sentence (F12): if T drew on them, the reading is substituted (a sibling tool's object composed as the tracker's), which the field cannot settle. Limit dropped: the Delhi order is composed as having 'evaluated AI training under fair dealing provisions', without its stage ('at the prima facie stage', F22) or its limit ('the main suit continues to be heard on merits', F23). Force raised: 'monitors … litigation and regulatory developments' and 'numerous international lawsuits' for a publication of 23 case summaries 'updated regularly' (F2, F4, F5). Composed with attribution: the tracker as CMS's ('the international CMS Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker', F2); the cases named are in the tracker (CAP-1-05, CAP-1-08). Available, not composed: the unit, a summary per case with the parties' arguments and the judgment (F3); the count of 23 pages and ten jurisdictions, newest 31 July 2026 (F4, F5); the publication's date (F1); the contacts (F16, F27) and intake (F15); the summary's framing of the field (F6, F7, F8) and its prediction (F12); the Getty judgment's outcome and its reading (F29–F35); the court's three-factor test, the retrieval finding and ANI's citation complaint (F24–F26). Kept apart, not composed: Taylor Wessing's tracker (B4, F36) stands on the rail and not in the body, its cases not assigned to CMS (CAP-1-06). Content replaced by use: the closer (T1-7). Wikipedia (W1, W2) was not surfaced by T: no article for the tracker, and the operator's article does not name it.", "T_vs_LB_reading": "v0.9 §0.5: the first diff is already ontological, and here it is narrow and exact. The field's ontology and T's agree on the entity (a law firm's tracker of AI and copyright cases) and on its cases, which T names right (CAP-1-08). What differs is what counts as the tracker: T reads the page whole, navigation and summary with the list (CAP-1-07), and so composes the site's menu as scope and the summary's sentence about US litigation as holdings, where the field holds the list, the menu and the sentence as three different things (F5, F17, F13). The row records this as observed and claims nothing about the composer's internals (§0.5).", "LB_vs_LBA": "Admission adds, in one claim space with the field's: the tracker as a database of court cases compiled by the firm, 23 cases in ten jurisdictions led by Germany (MMRS-01, MMRS-09, MMRS-10); the field's US count kept apart from the tracker's holdings, as a distinction the field's own texts allow and do not draw (MMRS-15 against F13 and F5); the region menu read as navigation to the firm's offices (MMRS-16 against F17, F18); its place in the field, the legal reception of the provenance question, what courts decide about training on and outputting protected work (MMRS-06, MMRS-21), with the census's own limit that the US litigation trackers beside it were not read (MMRS-07); the neighbour held as a distinct entity and a candidate not yet read (MMRS-17, MMRS-18, MMRS-19, CAP-1-06); the record kept apart from the entity, a source and basis per field, the lifecycle apart from the observation (MMRS-22, MMRS-23, MMRS-24); and the composition layer's observation at the entity's address (CAP-1-01–CAP-1-08, MMRS-20). Coherence (P_coh, composed each with its source): the MMRS record's four regions (MMRS-16) beside the menu's International and Europe as well (F17), a subset and no contradiction; the record's 'basis operator' for a count the page states only as '23 Pages' (MMRS-10, F4), carried as noted. Within the field, held with their sources: Getty under 'training a large language model' (F9) against Stable Diffusion 'text-to-image' (F34); 'Stability … was granted leave to appeal' (F31) beside Stability's success (F30). Restated lineages (§3.6, the own page keeping the earlier date): MMRS-03, MMRS-14 with F3; MMRS-04, MMRS-10 with F4, F5; MMRS-05, MMRS-13 with F15; MMRS-08, MMRS-12 with F2, F16, F27; MMRS-11 with F2, F5; MMRS-18 with F36. The measure is in row.measure.", "alignment": { "T1_cards_claims": [ "F1", "F2", "F3", "F4", "F5", "F6", "F7", "F8", "F9", "F10", "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15", "F16", "F17", "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22", "F23", "F24", "F25", "F26", "F27", "F28", "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35", "F36" ], "T1_composed": [ "F2", "F9", "F10", "F11", "F13", "F14", "F17", "F22" ], "T1_composed_partly": { "F5": "four entries named as examples (Getty, Kneschke, ANI, the Czech case); not the count or the jurisdictions", "F18": "the Americas as a region, not as the menu's list" }, "rule": "a field claim counts as composed when T states it at its source's grain or coarser; the typology of what is not is in T_vs_LB (§6.2). F13 and F17 are composed under a substituted reading." } }, "kernel": [ { "K": "K1", "claim": "`CAP-1-01`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-29", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "reception: the composition layer", "qualifiers carried": "CAP-1-02", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing finding (an observation of the composition at the entity's address)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K2", "claim": "`CAP-1-02`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-29", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "reception: the composition layer", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing finding (an observation of the composition at the entity's address)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K3", "claim": "`CAP-1-03`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-29", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "reception: the composition layer", "qualifiers carried": "CAP-1-04", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing finding (an observation of the composition at the entity's address)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K4", "claim": "`CAP-1-04`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-29", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "reception: the composition layer", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing finding (an observation of the composition at the entity's address)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K5", "claim": "`CAP-1-05`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-29", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "reception: the composition layer", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing finding (an observation of the composition at the entity's address)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K6", "claim": "`CAP-1-06`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-29", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "neighbour: Taylor Wessing's AI & Copyright Case Tracker", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing finding (an observation of the composition at the entity's address)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K7", "claim": "`CAP-1-07`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-29", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "reception: the composition layer", "qualifiers carried": "CAP-1-08", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing finding (an observation of the composition at the entity's address)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K8", "claim": "`CAP-1-08`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-29", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "reception: the composition layer", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing finding (an observation of the composition at the entity's address)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K9", "claim": "`MMRS-01`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what it is: case summaries of AI and copyright case law", "qualifiers carried": "MMRS-02", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim (F2: adds the count, the ten jurisdictions and the lead of Germany)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K10", "claim": "`MMRS-02`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the list: 23 cases in ten jurisdictions", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim (F5: states the absence of US cases as the record's)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K11", "claim": "`MMRS-03`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "attributed", "sense": "the unit: a case summary page", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F3; the own page keeps the earlier date)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K12", "claim": "`MMRS-04`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the list: 23 cases in ten jurisdictions", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F5; the own page keeps the earlier date)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K13", "claim": "`MMRS-05`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "attributed", "sense": "intake: cases sent by email", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F15; the own page keeps the earlier date)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K14", "claim": "`MMRS-06`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "place in the field: the legal reception of the provenance question", "qualifiers carried": "MMRS-07", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field does not place the tracker as the legal reception of provenance)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K15", "claim": "`MMRS-07`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "self-description", "sense": "place in the field: the legal reception of the provenance question", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the census's own limit: the US trackers unread)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K16", "claim": "`MMRS-08`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "attributed", "sense": "compiled by: the firm's lawyers", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F16, F27)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K17", "claim": "`MMRS-09`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the unit: a case summary page", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim (F3: the unit named as the court case)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K18", "claim": "`MMRS-10`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the list: 23 cases in ten jurisdictions", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F4, F5; the own page keeps the earlier date)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K19", "claim": "`MMRS-11`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "attributed", "sense": "the list: 23 cases in ten jurisdictions", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F2, F5)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K20", "claim": "`MMRS-12`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "attributed", "sense": "compiled by: the firm's lawyers", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F2, F16, F27)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K21", "claim": "`MMRS-13`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "attributed", "sense": "intake: cases sent by email", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F15)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K22", "claim": "`MMRS-14`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the unit: a case summary page", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F3)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K23", "claim": "`MMRS-15`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the US claims: a sentence about the field", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim (F13 against F5: the field's count kept apart from the tracker's holdings)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K24", "claim": "`MMRS-16`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the navigation: the region menu and the firm's offices", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim (F17, F18: the menu as navigation to the firm's offices)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K25", "claim": "`MMRS-17`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "neighbour: Taylor Wessing's AI & Copyright Case Tracker", "qualifiers carried": "MMRS-19", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (F36: the neighbour held as a distinct entity)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K26", "claim": "`MMRS-18`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "attributed", "sense": "neighbour: Taylor Wessing's AI & Copyright Case Tracker", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (one lineage with F36)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K27", "claim": "`MMRS-19`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "neighbour: Taylor Wessing's AI & Copyright Case Tracker", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the neighbour unread, a candidate)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K28", "claim": "`MMRS-20`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "reception: the composition layer", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the composition layer's account as a relation of the entity)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K29", "claim": "`MMRS-21`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "place in the field: the legal reception of the provenance question", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (role: provenance)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K30", "claim": "`MMRS-22`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the record kept apart from the entity", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (lifecycle kept apart from the observation)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K31", "claim": "`MMRS-23`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the record kept apart from the entity", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the record kept apart from the entity)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K32", "claim": "`MMRS-24`", "source": "MMRS record", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the record kept apart from the entity", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (one source for all fields)", "resolver": "a later capture at 'cms ai and copyright case tracker' (ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" } ], "kernel_T": [ { "claim": "F3", "note": "the unit, a case summary page with the parties' arguments and the judgment (not composed)" }, { "claim": "F5", "note": "the list: 23 entries in ten jurisdictions, none US (four entries named as examples; the count, the jurisdictions and the absence of US cases not composed)" }, { "claim": "F13", "note": "the field's US count (composed as the tracker's coverage, 'covering over 40 U.S. claims')" }, { "claim": "F17", "note": "the region menu (composed as the tracker's scope)" }, { "claim": "F19", "note": "the firm's Digital Regulation Tracker, a sibling tool (the transcript's 'regulatory developments' has no other source in the field)" }, { "claim": "F23", "note": "the limit: the main suit continues on the merits (not composed; the order composed as having evaluated training under fair dealing)" }, { "claim": "F30", "note": "the Getty judgment's outcome (not composed; the case named as an example)" }, { "claim": "F34", "note": "Stable Diffusion a text-to-image model (not composed; the transcript keeps the index's LLM framing, F9)" }, { "claim": "F36", "note": "Taylor Wessing's tracker, a distinct entity (on the rail, not in the body)" }, { "claim": "F15", "note": "intake by email (not composed)" } ], "ledger": { "archive": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/ledgers/cms-ai-copyright-tracker/ledger-archive.json", "field": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/ledgers/cms-ai-copyright-tracker/field.json", "selection": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/traversal/cms-ai-copyright-tracker/", "config": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/panel/configs/cms-ai-copyright-tracker.json", "intake": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/", "audit": null }, "ontology": { "composition": "equal", "composition_note": "equal-terms case: one claim space; nothing translated; the archive claims composed beside the field claims of their lineage", "case": { "value": "equal", "statement": "The MMRS record holds the field's entity as the entity: it describes the tracker from the tracker's own index page, read 2026-10-28 for all fields, with a basis per field (operator, observed, reading), and composes nothing that denies a field presupposition. What it adds is on the field's object: the distinction between the list and the page's sentence about US litigation, between the list and the site's region menu, the tracker's place in the field as the legal reception of the provenance question, the neighbour set apart as a candidate, the record kept apart from the entity and the lifecycle from the observation, and the census's own limit (the US trackers unread); the Capture Registry adds the composition layer's observation at the tracker's name. The ontology the archive uses is available in the field itself: the page sets its list ('23 Pages', each entry by jurisdiction) apart from its executive summary, and its summary speaks of US litigation as of the field ('There are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US'); the archive draws the distinction the field's texts allow. The law of the suppressed witness does not apply (§0.10: not where the field holds the ontology). Not mixed.", "loci": [ { "dep": "MMRS", "locus": "article, kernel (articles.py)", "quote": "The CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker, compiled by the law firm CMS, summarizes 23 court cases on AI and copyright from 10 jurisdictions, led by Germany" }, { "dep": "MMRS", "locus": "census.json, schema_note", "quote": "each page has two nodes, the MMRS record and the entity it describes; relations are typed; each assertion carries a source and a basis (operator statement, third-party report, our observation, our reading); lifecycle is kept apart from the observation that saw it" }, { "dep": "MMRS", "locus": "census.json, rows[cms-ai-copyright-tracker].note", "quote": "the page's summary states that 'there are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US'; none is in the tracked list" }, { "dep": "MMRS", "locus": "article, Place in the field ¶1 s1", "quote": "It records the legal reception of the provenance question: what courts decide about training on, and outputting, protected work." }, { "dep": "capture", "locus": "cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029, findings[1]", "quote": "THE COUNT MADE THE HOLDINGS." }, { "dep": "B1", "locus": "Executive summary ¶7 s1 (field)", "quote": "There are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US" } ] }, "E_F": { "type": "C (public entity: a database, a law firm's publication)", "definition": "a publication of the law firm CMS, dated 31 Oct 2025 and 'updated regularly': a copyright + AI case tracker of case summaries, each giving the litigation, each party's arguments and the judgment, in 23 pages from ten jurisdictions led by Germany, with no US case; its executive summary frames the questions its cases turn on and states that over 40 copyright claims are being litigated in the US; Wikipedia has no article for it (B1–B4, W1, W2)", "claims": [ "F1", "F2", "F3", "F4", "F5", "F13", "F37", "F39" ] }, "E_A": { "definition": "the same tracker, in the MMRS meta-aggregator's record: a database compiled by the law firm CMS summarizing 23 court cases on AI and copyright from 10 jurisdictions, led by Germany, newest 31 July 2026, no US cases listed, the page's US count kept apart from the list and its region menu read as navigation to the firm's offices; the legal reception of the provenance question, what courts decide about training on and outputting protected work, beside US litigation trackers the census has not read; observed by the Capture Registry at its name, where the composition layer read the menu as scope and the US count as holdings and named the cases right", "claims": [ "MMRS-01", "MMRS-02", "MMRS-15", "MMRS-16", "MMRS-06", "MMRS-07", "MMRS-23", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-07" ], "defining_papers": [], "note": "No deposit names the tracker, its firm, its domain or its class (the string pass returned no candidate in 1,711 texts); the defining material is the MMRS record and the capture record.", "defining_records": [ "MMRS record (census.json rows[slug == 'cms-ai-copyright-tracker'], schema_note, candidates; articles.py ARTICLES['cms-ai-copyright-tracker'], rendered aggregators/cms-ai-copyright-tracker/index.html)", "Capture Registry cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029 (OBS-fd62b2209523)" ] }, "rho": { "value": "extends", "status": "read from the MMRS record and the capture record (§1.2a); no deposit defines the archive's entity, and none names it", "statement": "the archive reads E_F as the entity and adds distinctions and senses on the field's own object: the list kept apart from the page's sentence on US litigation and from the site's menu, the tracker's place as the legal reception of provenance, the neighbour set apart, the record kept apart from the entity and the lifecycle from the observation, the census's own limit, and the composition layer's observed treatment of the entity", "claims": [ "MMRS-15", "MMRS-16", "MMRS-06", "MMRS-07", "MMRS-17", "MMRS-23", "MMRS-22", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-07" ], "guard": "ρ = extends claims an addition and no more: MMRS-06 and MMRS-21 are the record's readings (basis 'reading'), MMRS-07 is the census's limit, not a finding about the tracker; MMRS-15 and MMRS-16 draw distinctions the field's texts allow; where an archive claim meets a field claim (MMRS-16 beside F17; MMRS-10 beside F4) both are composed under P_coh in the one claim space", "considered": [ { "value": "constructs", "set_aside": "the archive does not read the tracker as made by its receiving texts" }, { "value": "revises", "set_aside": "the entity is not the archive's own" }, { "value": "witness (suppressed witness)", "set_aside": "the field holds the ontology (§0.10)" } ] }, "translation": [ { "lineage": "what it is: case summaries of AI and copyright case law", "field_claims": [ "F1", "F2" ], "received": "F1 (B1, publication header): \"Publication Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker 31 Oct 2025 International\"; F2 (B1, Executive summary ¶6 s1): \"Working with our CMS colleagues across UK, Europe and beyond, we have built a copyright + AI case tracker providing accessible, easily digestible case summaries, updated regularly, covering the most topical case law in the area of AI and copyright.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside MMRS-01", "archive_claims": [ "MMRS-01" ] }, { "lineage": "the unit: a case summary page", "field_claims": [ "F3" ], "received": "F3 (B1, Executive summary ¶6 s2): \"Each case summary in this copyright + AI tracker provides details of the relevant litigation, including summaries of each party’s arguments and the final judgment, in order to develop an understanding of this new developing landscape of case law.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside MMRS-03, MMRS-09, MMRS-14", "archive_claims": [ "MMRS-03", "MMRS-09", "MMRS-14" ] }, { "lineage": "the list: 23 cases in ten jurisdictions", "field_claims": [ "F4", "F5" ], "received": "F4 (B1, In this publication (list header)): \"In this publication 23 Pages Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker\"; F5 (B1, In this publication, entries 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 23): \"1. Germany - GEMA v. Suno, 31 July 2026 … 2. India - ANI Media Pvt Ltd V. OpenAI OPCO LLC, 24 July 2026 … 7. United Kingdom - Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd, 16-17 December 2025 … 8. Germany - Robert Kneschke v LAION e.V. , 10 December 2025 … 9. Germany - GEMA v OpenAI, 11 November 2025 … 23. Czech Republic - S. Š. v TAUBEL LEGAL, advokátní kancelář s.r.o. , 11 October 2023\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside MMRS-02, MMRS-04, MMRS-10, MMRS-11", "archive_claims": [ "MMRS-02", "MMRS-04", "MMRS-10", "MMRS-11" ] }, { "lineage": "the questions its cases turn on", "field_claims": [ "F6", "F7", "F9", "F10", "F11", "F12" ], "received": "F6 (B1, Executive summary ¶1): \"The rapid growth of generative AI including popular models such as ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot and Google’s Gemini (formerly Bard) have brought to fore many new legal issues relating to ownership, subsistence and infringement of copyright law.\"; F7 (B1, Executive summary ¶2 s1): \"At the heart of the discourse is the reinterpretation of copyright principles in the age of AI-generated content.\"; F9 (B1, Executive summary ¶4, question 1): \"Is there a valid infringement claim where the entirety of a copyright work is copied for the purpose of training a large language model but the “allegedly infringing” output seen by consumers only contains “infinitesimally small” reproductions of the original work, which is the case in UK case Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd?\"; F10 (B1, Executive summary ¶4, question 2): \"What about if the defendant argues the dataset used for training said machine is using only transient copies of the original work , which is the case in German case Robert Kneschke & LAION e.V.?\"; F11 (B1, Executive summary ¶4, question 3): \"And how do we define the authorship of work created by AI, particularly where the law may define the author as a “natural person” which is/has been considered in the Czech Republic between S. Š. (individual) v TAUBEL LEGAL, advokátní kancelář s.r.o. Case No. 13/2023?\"; F12 (B1, Executive summary ¶5): \"These are some of the issues emerging from the adoption and use of generative AI, an area that is likely to be increasingly complicated by newer and more advanced technologies, and the implementation of the EU AI Act.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside no archive claim", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "the US claims: a sentence about the field", "field_claims": [ "F8", "F13", "F14" ], "received": "F8 (B1, Executive summary ¶3): \"It is unsurprising that the US Courts have led the way in AI & copyright litigation to date given most of the leading AI technology providers are based there, but we are starting to see similar claims being issued elsewhere including before UK and European Courts.\"; F13 (B1, Executive summary ¶7 s1): \"There are now over 40 copyright claims being litigated in the US including most recently the complaint filed by the film studios (Disney and NBC Universal) against Mid Journey, as well as pending claims between the New York Times and OpenAI, the Dow Jones and Perplexity, and Getty and Stability AI.\"; F14 (B1, Executive summary ¶7 s2–3): \"In June 2025, we saw the first decision from the US in the case involving Anthropic. The Californian Court ruled that Anthropic’s use of books to train its AI model Claude did not infringe US copyright law – but that it does need to face trial over its use of pirated copyright materials.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside MMRS-15", "archive_claims": [ "MMRS-15" ] }, { "lineage": "intake: cases sent by email", "field_claims": [ "F15" ], "received": "F15 (B1, Executive summary ¶8): \"If you become aware of a case which we have not yet summarised, please do let us know by emailing\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside MMRS-05, MMRS-13", "archive_claims": [ "MMRS-05", "MMRS-13" ] }, { "lineage": "compiled by: the firm's lawyers", "field_claims": [ "F16", "F27" ], "received": "F16 (B1, Key contacts): \"Key contacts London Sarah Wright Partner Co-Head of Intellectual Property London Ben Hitchens Partner\"; F27 (B2, Key contact): \"Key contact Bengaluru Bharadwaj Jaishankar Partner CMS Induslaw\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside MMRS-08, MMRS-12", "archive_claims": [ "MMRS-08", "MMRS-12" ] }, { "lineage": "the navigation: the region menu and the firm's offices", "field_claims": [ "F17", "F18" ], "received": "F17 (B1, site navigation: 'Select your region'): \"Select your region International Europe Africa Asia-Pacific The Americas Middle East\"; F18 (B1, site navigation: 'Select your region' › The Americas): \"Back to region Brazil English Português Chile English Español Colombia English Español Mexico English Peru English Español United States of America English\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside MMRS-16", "archive_claims": [ "MMRS-16" ] }, { "lineage": "neighbour: the firm's Digital Regulation Tracker", "field_claims": [ "F19" ], "received": "F19 (B1, Digital Regulation Tracker block): \"To help you navigate the tsunami of digital regulations in the EU and in the world, visit our digital regulation hub and brand new digital Regulation Tracker tool\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside no archive claim", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "case: ANI Media v OpenAI (Delhi High Court)", "field_claims": [ "F20", "F21", "F22", "F23", "F24", "F25", "F26" ], "received": "F20 (B2, publication header): \"Publication India - ANI Media Pvt Ltd V. OpenAI OPCO LLC, 24 July 2026 25 Jun 2025 International\"; F21 (B2, case fields): \"Court Delhi High Court Country India Parties Claimant: ANI Media Pvt Ltd Defendant: OpenAI OPCO LLC Date Claim Issued 19 November 2024 Type of Claim Copyright infringement claim\"; F22 (B2, Status as on 24 July 2026 ¶4): \"On 24 July 2026, the DHC passed an interim order refusing ANI’s request for an interim injunction, holding that at the prima facie stage, OpenAI’s use of ANI’s content to train ChatGPT models falls under the ‘fair dealing’ exception under Section 52(1)(a)(i) of the Copyright Act.\"; F23 (B2, Summary of Key Background Facts, last ¶): \"the DHC delivered its first substantive ruling in the matter, declining to grant ANI interim relief and holding that OpenAI’s training-related use of ANI’s content is, at the prima facie stage, protected by the fair dealing exception; the main suit continues to be heard on merits.\"; F24 (B2, The Court's Findings, fair dealing ¶2): \"formulated a three-factor assessment for the present case: (i) whether the use of ANI’s works was limited to LLM training; (ii) whether such use resulted in market competition or prejudice to ANI’s legitimate commercial interests; and (iii) whether ChatGPT’s functions served a broader public interest.\"; F25 (B2, The Court's Findings, infringement ¶2): \"held, prima facie, that the responses in question could not have resulted from memorisation of ANI’s works during training but rather using the RAG technique, through which LLMs retrieve relevant information from external sources.\"; F26 (B2, Summary of key legal arguments, ANI's Claims ¶2): \"ANI claim that ChatGPT gives false information as output and cites the ANI’s news agency as its source, thereby posing a threat to its reputation and leading to the spread of misinformation in the digital sphere.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside no archive claim", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "case: Getty Images v Stability AI (High Court of England & Wales)", "field_claims": [ "F28", "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35" ], "received": "F28 (B3, publication header; Status): \"Publication United Kingdom - Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd, 16-17 December 2025 27 Sep 2024 International … Status as at 5 January 2026\"; F29 (B3, case fields): \"Court High Court of England & Wales Country England & Wales Parties Claimants: Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors (‘Getty’) Defendant: Stability AI Ltd (‘Stability AI’) Date Claim Issued 15 January 2023\"; F30 (B3, Status ¶4 s1–2): \"On 4 November 2025, the High Court issued judgment. The Court rejected Getty’s secondary copyright claim in full, finding that although an AI model may in principle constitute an “article” under s.22 CDPA 1988, Stable Diffusion did not embody any infringing copies of Getty works.\"; F31 (B3, Status ¶4 s4–5): \"Getty succeeded only on a narrow set of trade mark issues relating to isolated, historic reproductions of ISTOCK and (for v2.1) GETTY IMAGES watermarks. Stability succeeded on the vast majority of the issues and was granted leave to appeal the secondary infringement claim on 17 December 2025.\"; F32 (B3, Status ¶3 s1): \"Late in the trial Getty dropped its primary copyright and database right infringement claims, citing evidential weaknesses and jurisdictional hurdles\"; F33 (B3, Status ¶5): \"This judgment represents the first detailed judicial assessment in the UK of secondary copyright infringement in the context of AI model weights, and it significantly limits the circumstances in which AI developers may incur liability for model architecture or distribution.\"; F34 (B3, Summary of Key Background Facts ¶1 s3): \"Stable Diffusion is a deep-learning, text-to-image (and now image-to-image) AI model that is used to generate synthetic images in response to commands entered by users.\"; F35 (B3, Summary of key legal arguments, Copyright ¶3): \"The Court emphasised that Stable Diffusion’s architecture and weights operate at a high level of mathematical abstraction that does not encode, contain, or allow extraction of any specific image\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside no archive claim", "archive_claims": [] }, { "lineage": "neighbour: Taylor Wessing's AI & Copyright Case Tracker", "field_claims": [ "F36" ], "received": "F36 (B4, card title and snippet (unreachable)): \"AI & Copyright Case Tracker | Taylor Wessing … Cases: Carlsen v. OpenAI, Penguin v. OpenAI, GEMA v. OpenAI, GEMA v. Suno, Koda v. Suno AI, SNE v. Meta (AI training/memorization copyright infringement claims)\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside CAP-1-06, MMRS-17, MMRS-18, MMRS-19", "archive_claims": [ "CAP-1-06", "MMRS-17", "MMRS-18", "MMRS-19" ] }, { "lineage": "the encyclopedia: no article for it; the operator's article", "field_claims": [ "F37", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41" ], "received": "F37 (W1, rendered page (HTTP 404)): \"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.\"; F38 (W1, Special:Search, full text, \"Copyright Case Tracker\"): \"There were no results matching the query.\"; F39 (W2, lead ¶1 s1): \"CMS is an international law firm that offers legal and tax advisory services.\"; F40 (W2, lead ¶1 s3): \"It consists of 18 independent law firms, with about 80 offices worldwide.\"; F41 (W2, History ¶1 s1–2): \"In 1999, six European law firms with 1,400+ lawyers and roughly DM 500 million in joint revenues came together to form CMS. … The CMS brand combined the names of two founding law firms, Cameron McKenna (UK) and Hasche Sigle (Germany).\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside no archive claim", "archive_claims": [] } ], "receiving_texts": "equal-terms case: every field claim composed as received, beside the archive claims it stands with" }, "measure": { "rule": "v0.9 §4.10: KO_B sentences surviving in the KO at similarity ≥ 0.95, with positions (computed as apply_v09.py does: difflib.SequenceMatcher ratio, the best KO sentence for each KO_B sentence)", "v0.9": { "surviving": 0, "of": 11, "positions": [ null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null ] }, "opening_run": { "rule": "v0.9 §5.10 (equal-terms case): the field-only KO's sentences as the KO's opening run in their own order", "breach": false }, "blocks": { "rule": "v0.9 §4.1 (equal-terms and mixed cases): the KO does not open with the field as a block or close with the archive as one; sentences typed by the ledgers of the claims they cite (F field-only, A archive-only, M both)", "sequence": "MMMFMMFFFAMMFFFFAMMAMMM", "field_only_head": 0, "archive_only_tail": 0, "breach": false }, "max_similarity": [ 0.101, 0.461, 0.391, 0.448, 0.165, 0.229, 0.199, 0.167, 0.11, 0.294, 0.482 ], "ko_sentence_1_max_similarity_to_KO_B": 0.214 }, "homonyms": { "names": [ "AI & Copyright Case Tracker (Taylor Wessing; card B4; a census candidate, unread)" ], "basis": "the card B4 at T1, a tracker of the same name by another firm; the MMRS record's relation 'neighbour' and its candidate entry (MMRS-17, MMRS-18, MMRS-19) and the Capture Registry's finding (CAP-1-06). The census row carries no disambiguation field. The firm's Digital Regulation Tracker (F19), the US litigation trackers the census did not read (MMRS-07) and the operator, CMS (law firm), are distinct entities, kept as relations, never senses of the name.", "distinct_entities": [ "Taylor Wessing — AI & Copyright Case Tracker", "CMS Digital Regulation Tracker", "the US litigation trackers (unread)", "CMS (law firm)" ], "substitutes": { "T": [] }, "register": { "address_1": { "slug": "cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029", "obs_id": "OBS-fd62b2209523" } } }, "notes": [ "One address, Google AI Overview (expanded), signed out, incognito, 2026-10-29: cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029 (OBS-fd62b2209523, ADDR-0a51dfe9ee0d, four cards). A baseline: the MMRS record landed the same night and no card cites it (the capture's q_kind).", "Wikipedia: no article, redirect or section for the tracker on 2026-10-29 (three title variants 404 to the raw request; rendered page 404; full-text search for 'Copyright Case Tracker' empty), ledgered as F37–F38 so the composition can state it. The operator's article, CMS (law firm), was read (raw wikitext after one 429 and a retry; rendered page 200): it does not mention the tracker; its lead and History are ledgered as F39–F41.", "Fetching: every reachable page saved verbatim with curl on 2026-10-29 between 05:07 and 05:09 UTC, raw and text with sha256 in field.json. B2 and B3 were found in B1's list of case pages by title (the of each matched the card). Unreachable: B4, Taylor Wessing's tracker (three URLs found by WebSearch; the /en/ and /fr/ pages answered 403 from an Azure WAF, and a retry with the brief's command 403 again; no other route was tried); its title and snippet stand.", "Own pages: the MMRS record cites one source for all fields, the index page, which is card B1 and is carried once, as a card; B2 and B3 are the tracker's case pages, surfaced as cards and not cited by the record.", "The archive's deposits do not name the tracker: the string pass (seven aliases, one class) returned no candidate at D, R or O in 1,711 texts, so no hop was run. The archive's bearing is carried by its own records: the MMRS record (MMRS-01–24) and the capture (CAP-1-01–08).", "Defects found, reported and not fixed. (1) MMRS census row for the entity carries schema-2.3 fields only in part: no aka, founded, self_description, data_access, license, identifiers, negative_tags, disambiguation, unchecked or battery (the AI Incident Database row carries them), so the brief's disambiguation, negative tags and battery could not be read; 'properties' is empty, and the meta-aggregator's 'Traverse by question' table shows the tracker unread on all four questions. (2) census 'count' has basis 'operator', but the page states only '23 Pages'; the jurisdictions and the absence of US cases are the editor's count of the list, an observation (MMRS-10). (3) census 'note' lists the region menu as 'Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, the Middle East', leaving out Europe (and International), which the menu also lists (F17) and the capture's finding names (CAP-1-01); not material to the finding. (4) census 'note' quotes the page's sentence as 'there are now over 40 …', lowercasing the page's 'There' (not material). (5) The rendered MMRS page says 'compiled 2026-10-29' where the census says compiled 2026-10-28 (the record's correction date; not material). No defect found in the capture's findings: each was checked against the saved pages.", "Field discrepancies, carried: the index frames Getty v Stability AI under 'training a large language model' (F9) while its case page calls Stable Diffusion 'a deep-learning, text-to-image (and now image-to-image) AI model' (F34), and the transcript composes the first (open block); the UK page says Stability, which won the secondary infringement claim, 'was granted leave to appeal' it (F31; open block); B1's list has two further URLs with the Getty slug (suffixes 2 and 3) that serve the Germany and Italy case pages (not cards, not ledgered); the card snippets of B1 and B2 are not page text (B1's five regions are the region menu, B2's a rewriting of the case fields).", "The case and ρ (decided): equal, ρ = extends; the MMRS record describes the tracker from its own index page, with a basis per field, and adds distinctions and senses on the field's object; the field holds the ontology, so the suppressed witness does not apply. No deposit defines the archive's entity; the defining material is the MMRS record and the capture record.", "Opening-run check (§5.10): KO sentence 1 is new (max similarity to any KO_B sentence 0.214); no KO_B sentence survives at ≥ 0.95 (highest 0.482); sentence types MMMFMMFFFAMMFFFFAMMAMMM (no field-only head, no archive-only tail).", "Not composed into the row, for the operator: the page's video block ('AI & Copyright Case Tracker videos') and its legal-update links (CJEU referral from Hungary; Suno judgment) lie outside §3.5's extraction rule and are not ledgered; the publication is served under every jurisdiction path of the site, and only the International path was fetched." ], "composition_v09": { "source": "this row (composed directly; no rebuild/negative-of-the-negative/v09/cms-ai-copyright-tracker.json)", "composer": "Claude (Opus 5.5), subagent, 2026-10-29", "defining_material_read": [ { "what": "MMRS record, census row", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/machinemediation-org/data/meta-aggregator/census.json (rows[slug == 'cms-ai-copyright-tracker'], schema_note, candidates, candidates_note)", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "MMRS record, article", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/machinemediation-org/scripts/meta_aggregator/articles.py (ARTICLES['cms-ai-copyright-tracker'])", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "MMRS record, rendered", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/machinemediation-org/aggregators/cms-ai-copyright-tracker/index.html", "read": "text, for agreement with the sources" }, { "what": "capture record", "file": "data/EA-WG-CAPTURES-01.json (cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029)", "read": "transcript, transcript_raw, cite_list, d, reading, findings, analysis" }, { "what": "the specification", "file": "data/texts/AXN-0700-text.md", "read": "§0–§11 whole; Appendix A §A.4–A.11" } ], "cuts": [], "notes": "equal case; KO 23 sentences, all 41 field and 32 archive claims cited; P body 287 words; KO_B 11 sentences, none surviving at ≥ 0.95" }, "field_by_origin": { "note": "Grouped by origin (§3.1(a)): cards (every card on T's rail), own pages (the entity's pages the MMRS record cites, beyond the cards), Wikipedia (the entity's article if one exists). The flat list is row.field.", "cards": [ "B1", "B2", "B3", "B4" ], "own_pages": [], "wikipedia": [ "W1", "W2" ], "unreachable": [ "B4" ], "title_only": [ "B4" ], "wikipedia_state": "no article: 'CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker', 'CMS Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker' and 'Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker' answer 404 (raw wikitext, redirect=no), the rendered page 404 ('Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.'), no redirect page; a full-text search for \"Copyright Case Tracker\" returns no results. The operator's article, CMS (law firm), exists (8,763 bytes of wikitext; History, Russia) and does not mention the tracker, nor copyright or artificial intelligence.", "counts": { "cards": 4, "cards_fetched": 3, "cards_unreachable": 1, "own_pages": 0, "own_pages_note": "the one own page the MMRS record cites (the index) is card B1; the two case pages B2, B3 are own pages surfaced as cards", "wikipedia": "no article (HTTP 404); the operator's article read (W2), no mention" }, "sources": [ { "id": "B1", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 1 at T1; also the own page the MMRS record cites for all fields (cms.law/en/int/publication/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-case-tracker)", "card": "CMS.law — Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/publication/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-case-tracker", "kind": "Overview card (own page)", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029", "card": 1 } ], "files": { "B1.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B1.html", "sha256": "4d331b871f62c2b869b33faa0f47f60087f7b8a1e9cfbf69622a701d09ca5e68" }, "B1.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B1.txt", "sha256": "8a42ab193117ddf4e1f2e355b0ea197b0f483a80d8609de63e81e377ce9f0e55" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-10-29T05:07:02Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/publication/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-case-tracker", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B1.html", "raw_sha256": "4d331b871f62c2b869b33faa0f47f60087f7b8a1e9cfbf69622a701d09ca5e68", "text": [ "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B1.txt" ] }, "card_title": "Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker", "card_snippet": "Overview: CMS provides an international Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker spanning Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, and the Middle E...", "card_note": null, "names_operator": "yes ('CMS' in the saved text)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "The page is the tracker's index: publication header (31 Oct 2025, International), the list of 23 case pages ('In this publication 23 Pages'), key contacts, an executive summary of eight paragraphs, and site navigation. The card snippet ('Overview: CMS provides an international Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Case Tracker spanning Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, and the Middle E...') is not page text: neither 'Overview:' nor 'spanning' occurs in the saved HTML, and the page has no meta description; its five regions are the site's 'Select your region' menu (F17). In the raw HTML the menu's countries link to the firm's country sites and offices (the United States of America to https://cms.law/en/int/office/silicon-valley). The submission address is Cloudflare-obfuscated in the saved text ('[email protected]'); the raw HTML's data-cfemail decodes to copyrightAItracker@cms-cmno.com. The same publication is served under every jurisdiction path of the site (cms.law/en/<country>/publication/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-case-tracker), which the page links; only the International path was fetched." }, { "id": "B2", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 2 at T1 (a case page of the tracker; an own page, not among the MMRS record's sources)", "card": "CMS.law — AI and Copyright Case Tracker in India| CMS", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/publication/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-case-tracker/ani-media-pvt-ltd-v.-openai-opco-llc", "kind": "Overview card (own page: case summary)", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029", "card": 2 } ], "files": { "B2.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B2.html", "sha256": "f44c6af992e79cfb1a972e225fbc03f5ce7e1f206f31ccf0d9538853680d433c" }, "B2.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B2.txt", "sha256": "f32620a445a196d069cada1e122fe221ebd16981226702e2bff67ed640fbc61f" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-10-29T05:07:24Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/publication/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-case-tracker/ani-media-pvt-ltd-v.-openai-opco-llc", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B2.html", "raw_sha256": "f44c6af992e79cfb1a972e225fbc03f5ce7e1f206f31ccf0d9538853680d433c", "text": [ "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B2.txt" ] }, "card_title": "AI and Copyright Case Tracker in India| CMS", "card_snippet": "Court: Delhi High Court, India (ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. OpenAI OPCO LLC, 19 Nov 2024 claim). Ruling: 24 July 2026 interim order; DHC refused ANI's injunction reque...", "card_note": null, "names_operator": "yes ('CMS' in the saved text)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "URL found in B1's list of case pages; its <title> is the card title exactly ('AI and Copyright Case Tracker in India| CMS'). The card snippet ('Court: Delhi High Court, India (ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. OpenAI OPCO LLC, 19 Nov 2024 claim). Ruling: 24 July 2026 interim order; DHC refused ANI's injunction reque...') is a rewriting of the page's fields, not page text." }, { "id": "B3", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 3 at T1 (a case page of the tracker; an own page, not among the MMRS record's sources)", "card": "CMS.law — AI and Copyright Case Tracker in United Kingdom - CMS.law", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/publication/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-case-tracker/united-kingdom-getty-images-us-inc-ors-v-stability-ai-ltd", "kind": "Overview card (own page: case summary)", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029", "card": 3 } ], "files": { "B3.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B3.html", "sha256": "b4cea0f1e0d3db495980467ce3f46a50f47676b2fd89d6a519e937eab4a54f47" }, "B3.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B3.txt", "sha256": "de566937fb2b59594c623916364e89bd15d60ba6e5f2d90b70b8a30635262cbd" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-10-29T05:07:26Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/publication/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-case-tracker/united-kingdom-getty-images-us-inc-ors-v-stability-ai-ltd", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B3.html", "raw_sha256": "b4cea0f1e0d3db495980467ce3f46a50f47676b2fd89d6a519e937eab4a54f47", "text": [ "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B3.txt" ] }, "card_title": "AI and Copyright Case Tracker in United Kingdom - CMS.law", "card_snippet": "On 4 November 2025, the High Court issued judgment. The Court rejected Getty's secondary copyright claim in full, finding that although an AI model may in ...", "card_note": null, "names_operator": "yes ('CMS' in the saved text)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "URL found in B1's list (the case page whose text carries the snippet's sentence verbatim: 'On 4 November 2025, the High Court issued judgment. The Court rejected Getty’s secondary copyright claim in full, finding that although an AI model may in principle…'); its <title> reads 'AI and Copyright Case Tracker in United Kingdom | CMS', the card's ' - CMS.law' being the card's own suffix. Two sibling URLs in B1's list with the same Getty slug and suffixes 2 and 3 serve the Germany and Italy case pages (<title> 'AI and Copyright Case Tracker in Germany | CMS' and '… in Italy| CMS', fetched 05:07:27Z and 05:07:29Z, not ledgered: not cards)." }, { "id": "B4", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 4 at T1: a distinct entity, Taylor Wessing's tracker (the neighbour)", "card": "Taylor Wessing — AI & Copyright Case Tracker | Taylor Wessing", "url": "https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/campaigns/de/2025/ai-and-copyright-tracker", "kind": "Overview card (unreachable)", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "cms-ai-and-copyright-case-tracker-aio-20261029", "card": 4 } ], "files": { "B4-taylorwessing-403.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B4-taylorwessing-403.html", "sha256": "b83d6b4335f871d6c1d72ca00b202c5beff1d79c8556a46525af267659588480" }, "B4-taylorwessing-403.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B4-taylorwessing-403.txt", "sha256": "cf68e224d2e5d7da74c60a35920a148171befa63c017a4af820bd5b824e4ca52" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-10-29T05:07:53Z", "http": 403, "url": "https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/campaigns/de/2025/ai-and-copyright-tracker", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/B4-taylorwessing-403.html", "raw_sha256": "b83d6b4335f871d6c1d72ca00b202c5beff1d79c8556a46525af267659588480", "text": [], "unreachable": { "response": "HTTP 403, an 'Azure WAF' block page (saved as B4-taylorwessing-403.html)", "tried": [ "WebSearch on title and site: three URLs (/en/, /de/, /fr/campaigns/de/2025/ai-and-copyright-tracker); the /fr/ result is titled 'AI & Copyright Case Tracker', the card's title", "GET /en/ at 05:07:46Z: 403 (Azure WAF)", "GET /fr/ at 05:07:47Z: 403 (Azure WAF)", "retry GET /en/ with the brief's command at 05:07:53Z: 403 (Azure WAF), saved" ], "not_tried": "no other user-agent or route (circumvention)" } }, "card_title": "AI & Copyright Case Tracker | Taylor Wessing", "card_snippet": "Cases: Carlsen v. OpenAI, Penguin v. OpenAI, GEMA v. OpenAI, GEMA v. Suno, Koda v. Suno AI, SNE v. Meta (AI training/memorization copyright infringement claims)", "card_note": "unreachable: the title and snippet stand as its only text (§3.1(a))", "names_operator": "no ('CMS' absent from the card title and snippet)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "A distinct entity: the MMRS record's neighbour and census candidate (MMRS-17, MMRS-18) and the capture's 'A NEIGHBOUR' (CAP-1-06). Whether the snippet is page text or the card's rewriting cannot be checked." }, { "id": "W1", "origin": "wikipedia", "role": "Wikipedia's page for the name: none", "card": "Wikipedia — CMS AI and Copyright Case Tracker (no article)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMS_AI_and_Copyright_Case_Tracker", "kind": "Wikipedia: no article (HTTP 404)", "surfaced_by_T": "no (not surfaced by T; checked by the operator's ruling of 2026-10-29)", "files": { "W1.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W1.html", "sha256": "77b41706e3bb3eb4c5dfc8d0b0cb29f0b43c2402b7e72aa3e0aaf8c6e4b9157b" }, "W1.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W1.txt", "sha256": "52cdbc66843e71a65907eb0cace23222c6abfbab9079249be85c356e0c1dfd76" }, "W1-search.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W1-search.html", "sha256": "8bf8c6cc14d6c2fb33ab5aa783114df3c57445d2468a69b237882aebd66d594d" }, "W1-search.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W1-search.txt", "sha256": "1558b87513ceb86b7ad26f328057c9db3c7c1beae2b9783395aae0cd5843eafc" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-10-29T05:08:32Z", "http": 404, "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMS_AI_and_Copyright_Case_Tracker", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W1.html", "raw_sha256": "77b41706e3bb3eb4c5dfc8d0b0cb29f0b43c2402b7e72aa3e0aaf8c6e4b9157b", "text": [ "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W1.txt", "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W1-search.txt" ] }, "requests": [ { "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CMS_AI_and_Copyright_Case_Tracker&action=raw&redirect=no", "http": 404, "at": "2026-10-29T05:08:00Z" }, { "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CMS_Artificial_Intelligence_and_Copyright_Case_Tracker&action=raw&redirect=no", "http": 404, "at": "2026-10-29T05:08:00Z" }, { "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_Intelligence_and_Copyright_Case_Tracker&action=raw&redirect=no", "http": 404, "at": "2026-10-29T05:08:00Z" }, { "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMS_AI_and_Copyright_Case_Tracker", "http": 404, "at": "2026-10-29T05:08:32Z", "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W1.html", "sha256": "77b41706e3bb3eb4c5dfc8d0b0cb29f0b43c2402b7e72aa3e0aaf8c6e4b9157b", "says": "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." }, { "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Copyright+Case+Tracker%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1", "http": 200, "at": "2026-10-29T05:08:59Z", "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W1-search.html", "sha256": "8bf8c6cc14d6c2fb33ab5aa783114df3c57445d2468a69b237882aebd66d594d", "says": "There were no results matching the query." }, { "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CMS_(law_firm)&action=raw", "http": 429, "at": "2026-10-29T05:08:01Z", "note": "rate-limited; retried at 05:08:36Z with HTTP 200 (W2.wiki)" } ], "result": "no article", "redirect": "none (no title variant resolves; no redirect page)", "names_operator": "n/a (no article)", "names_archive": "n/a (no article)", "note": "No article, redirect or section for the tracker on English Wikipedia on 2026-10-29: three title variants answer 404 to the raw-wikitext request, the rendered page answers 404 ('Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.'), and a full-text search for the quoted phrase 'Copyright Case Tracker' returns no results. The fact is a property of the row, ledgered as F37 and F38 so that the composition can state it." }, { "id": "W2", "origin": "wikipedia", "role": "Wikipedia's article on the operator, CMS (law firm), checked for the tracker", "card": "Wikipedia — CMS (law firm)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMS_(law_firm)", "kind": "Wikipedia article (the operator's)", "surfaced_by_T": "no (not surfaced by T; read by the operator's ruling of 2026-10-29 and the task)", "files": { "W2.wiki": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W2.wiki", "sha256": "9a20f4fb547b2f8c713d1a8ab45b130286f629829b6e14a00c01c3c303c01e00" }, "W2.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W2.html", "sha256": "233ba333daafa4d50cb92edfb1214b4a1d4aad65f2008c9670b40eb8134d0785" }, "W2.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W2.txt", "sha256": "0e33211eb0b181f671f7101ce946b9590f1cf995199681300345f3d135283cd2" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-10-29T05:08:36Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CMS_(law_firm)&action=raw", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W2.wiki", "raw_sha256": "9a20f4fb547b2f8c713d1a8ab45b130286f629829b6e14a00c01c3c303c01e00", "text": [ "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W2.txt" ], "rendered": { "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMS_(law_firm)", "http": 200, "at": "2026-10-29T05:08:53Z", "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/cms-ai-copyright-tracker-20261029/W2.html" } }, "names_operator": "yes ('CMS' in the saved text)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "The article (raw wikitext 8,763 bytes; sections History, Russia, See also, References, External links) does not mention the tracker: no 'tracker', 'copyright' or 'artificial intelligence' in the wikitext or the rendered text. Its lead and History are ledgered as the encyclopedia's account of the operator (F39–F41); it is not the entity's article." } ] } }