News Corp has fired back at Brave Software, filing a countersuit that accuses the search company of “flagrant theft” for distributing and selling copies of Wall Street Journal and New York Post articles to AI companies. The Tuesday filing in an Oakland, California, federal court escalates a legal fight Brave started more than a year ago, as reported by Reuters.

Brave sued News Corp preemptively in March 2025, asking a court to declare that bundling copyrighted articles for licensing and resale is not copyright infringement. It filed after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from the Rupert Murdoch-controlled publisher. Brave revised its complaint in May 2026, following what News Corp described as failed negotiations for a market-based licensing deal.

Now News Corp is on offense. In its filing, the company argued that Brave’s “covert scraping” and resale of copyrighted articles fall “nowhere near the bounds” of fair use.

“The more content Brave copies and sells, the more revenue it generates, and the less incentive AI companies have to negotiate licenses with the publishers who produced the content,” the lawsuit said. “Brave profits while publishers are cut out.”

News Corp wants an injunction, unspecified monetary damages and statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement. CEO Robert Thomson framed the case bluntly, saying Brave’s conduct showed “blatant disregard” for how information gets disseminated.

“This era of tacky tech trafficking must come to an end if journalism is to have a sustainable future,” he said.

Brave sees itself as the underdog. It has described itself as the smallest of three U.S. companies running independent search engines at scale, behind Google and Microsoft’s Bing. In its own filings, Brave argued that indexing News Corp content to make it searchable, and serving users snippets and “high-level summaries,” qualifies as fair use. It also accused News Corp of threatening to disrupt generative AI, which it called what many consider “the most important innovation so far this century.”

The dispute is one piece of growing litigation over copyrighted content and AI training. The New York Times’ ongoing case against OpenAI and Microsoft remains the highest-profile example, and courts have yet to settle what fair use means when publisher content feeds AI systems. The New York Post, Dow Jones and News Corp’s British and Australian operations are all defendants in Brave’s suit.

For publishers, the fight matters beyond News Corp’s balance sheet. Brave’s business model depends on packaging searchable web content into a data feed that AI developers can buy. If that survives a fair-use challenge, it undercuts the licensing deals publishers have been signing with AI firms. If it doesn’t, intermediaries selling scraped content face steep liability.

The post News Corp countersues Brave over alleged AI scraping of WSJ and Post articles appeared first on The Media Copilot.

The New York Times and a group of other publishers are asking a federal court to sanction OpenAI, accusing the company of withholding or destroying evidence in a high-stakes copyright case over how ChatGPT was trained and used.

In a motion filed Thursday in federal court in Manhattan, the publishers alleged that OpenAI misrepresented its ability to search training datasets and ChatGPT output logs for copyrighted news material. According to Reuters, the publishers said OpenAI told the court it could not search its large language models for their work while allegedly concealing that it had already done so “even before the first News Plaintiff filed suit.”

The motion is the latest escalation in the copyright fight between major news organizations and AI companies. It also moves the dispute deeper into discovery, where the question is not just whether AI companies can use journalism to train models, but whether they can preserve, search and produce the records needed to prove what happened.

The plaintiffs include The Times, the New York Daily News and other media organizations, including Ziff Davis and the Center for Investigative Reporting, according to The Associated Press and Variety. The original New York Times article reported that the publishers are seeking legal sanctions against OpenAI, including monetary penalties and other remedies.

The filing does not ask for sanctions against Microsoft, which is also a defendant in The Times’ broader copyright case, according to The Times’ summary of the motion. Microsoft has invested heavily in OpenAI and integrated OpenAI technology into products including Copilot.

“The evidence is in OpenAI’s training data sets and ChatGPT output logs,” the publishers said in the motion, according to The Times. “But instead of just producing that evidence at the start of the case and focusing on the merits of its fair use defense, OpenAI chose obstruction.”

OpenAI rejected the allegations. “As the Times’ case weakens and they’ve been forced to drop claims against us, they’re persisting with their efforts to invade the privacy of people who have nothing to do with this case, including by making these blatantly false allegations,” OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri told Reuters. “We’ll continue defending our users’ privacy and the long-established principles of fair use.”

The publishers allege that OpenAI deleted billions of relevant ChatGPT conversations or made them unsearchable. They also argue that an OpenAI employee later testified that the company had performed multiple searches for news publishers’ content, contradicting earlier representations about the company’s technical limitations.

A sanctions memorandum posted by Ars Technica says the publishers want the court to bar OpenAI from relying on a disputed 20 million-log ChatGPT sample, find that ChatGPT’s output logs include or would have shown substantial use of the publishers’ copyrighted material, instruct the jury on those findings and award fees and costs tied to the discovery fight.

Those remedies would matter because discovery disputes can shape the trial record. If the court finds OpenAI failed to preserve or produce relevant evidence, the ruling could affect what arguments OpenAI can make later and what conclusions a jury may be allowed to draw from missing or incomplete records.

The Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023, alleging that millions of Times articles were used without permission to train AI systems that now compete with publishers as sources of information. OpenAI and other AI companies have argued that training models on large bodies of text is protected by fair use, a theory now being tested across lawsuits from authors, artists, music labels and news organizations.

For publishers, the issue goes beyond training data. They argue that AI chatbots and AI search summaries can answer readers’ questions using journalism without sending traffic, licensing revenue or subscribers back to the organizations that reported the information. Media Copilot has been tracking the same pressure point in coverage of Google’s AI accuracy problem and The Times’ warnings about AI companies using journalism without permission.

At the same time, publishers are taking different approaches to the AI economy. Some are suing. Others have signed licensing deals with AI companies. The Associated Press announced a deal with OpenAI in 2023, while other media companies have made agreements with OpenAI, Google, Meta and Amazon.

The sanctions motion could increase pressure on both sides. A ruling against OpenAI would give publishers leverage in court and in licensing talks. A ruling for OpenAI would strengthen the company’s argument that publishers are using discovery to intrude into user privacy and commercially sensitive systems.

Either way, the case shows that AI copyright fights are becoming data-governance fights. The central questions are no longer only what AI systems were trained on. They are whether companies can prove it, search it, preserve it and explain it in court.

The post Publishers ask court to sanction OpenAI in escalating copyright fight appeared first on The Media Copilot.

For the second time this year, Google has removed and then reinstated a Press Gazette investigation into Clickout Media from its search results after an anonymous complaint under the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, restoring it only after the outlet pressed for comment. The delisted article reported that theU.K.-based marketing company had published AI-generated news stories containing factual errors and fabricated information.

The Press Gazette piece, published last week under the headline “AI reporters churn out error-strewn stories for football websites,” reported how Clickout Media acquired three established U.K. football news websites and began publishing stories under AI-generated reporter bylines that Press Gazette found contained numerous errors.

According to records in the Lumen transparency database, which publishes DMCA takedown notices Google receives, an entity identifying itself as “DRF Corp” accused Press Gazette of “willfully” copying its content and images. The complaint claimed the original work was a now-deleted Reddit post. Press Gazette said the allegedly infringing content was unrelated to its investigation. 

The latest takedown follows a similar incident in March, when Google removed a Press Gazette investigation into Clickout Media from its search results after another anonymous complaint. The article reported that the company had acquired news websites to drive traffic to its promotion of online casino content. Google reinstated the story after Press Gazette sought comment. 

The second article has since been reinstated as well after Press Gazette pressed Google for comment. But the pattern of the same target, the same anonymous complaint and a reversal by Google when challenged has drawn criticism from media industry figures, who say bad actors can exploit copyright takedown systems to remove legitimate reporting from search results while low-quality AI-generated content remains visible. 

Dominic Young, chief executive of the micropayment firm Axate and a co-founder of the SPUR Coalition on AI licensing standards, condemned the takedowns in comments posted on LinkedIn. 

“By effectively rendering copyright infringement consequence-free, and reserving the right for tech platforms to profit from it, this law created anarchy online and made copyright infringement into a business model – now being exploited by AI companies and a swarm of proxies helping them get whatever they want, regardless of what the owners say,” Young said. 

The DMCA allows anyone to file a takedown notice regardless of whether they have registered their work with the U.S. Copyright Office. Google reviews each notice to ensure it meets legal and policy requirements. It is not required to remove the reported material, but failing to act on a valid notice could expose the company to secondary liability for copyright infringement, so it usually complies. 

The post Google delists then reinstates Press Gazette investigation into AI-generated news stories   appeared first on The Media Copilot.

CNN has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity, according to the network, accusing the AI company of unlawfully copying and distributing the network’s journalism without permission.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, marks CNN’s first copyright action against an AI company, and is believed to be the first such suit filed by any television network. It alleges Perplexity scraped and redistributed CNN’s reporting to power its AI-powered search product.

According to the filing, CNN attempted to negotiate a content licensing deal with Perplexity last year but failed to reach agreement on terms.

“As a result, before and after Perplexity’s negotiations with CNN, Perplexity knew that it was not permitted to access CNN’s content or to use its trademarks or service marks,” the lawsuit states.

The network said it “actively embraces the opportunities AI creates” and has commercial partnerships with responsible industry players, including a publicly reported deal with Meta last December. But CNN drew a hard line with Perplexity.

“CNN’s lawsuit stands for the proposition that Perplexity, a company valued at tens of billions of dollars, should not be able to steal from entities that create the original content Perplexity exploits,” a CNN spokesperson said. “The public rely on high quality news journalism reported by human beings to understand their world, which is frequently dangerous and expensive to produce. Commercial operators can and must pay to make use of it.”

The statement added: “There is no free option.”

Perplexity faces similar legal challenges from other major publishers, including The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, News Corp, Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Japanese media company Yomiuri Shimbun. Publishers including Gannett, TIME, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel, however, have announced licensing deals with Perplexity during the same period.

In a statement, Perplexity pushed back on the premise. “You can’t copyright facts,” said Jesse Dwyer, the company’s chief communications officer.

Earlier this year, in a legal response to the Times and Tribune suits, Perplexity argued that attempts “to stop this novel technology by monopolizing facts will founder on bedrock principles of intellectual property law that have consistently permitted innovative technologies like Perplexity to exist.”

The CNN lawsuit escalates a broader confrontation between news publishers and AI companies over compensation for content used to train and power generative AI tools. Publishers have largely pursued a two-track approach: suing some AI firms while striking licensing deals with others.

The post CNN sues Perplexity over alleged AI copyright theft appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Cate Blanchett has co-founded a new nonprofit aimed at solving one of AI’s most urgent unsolved problems: the ability for any person to control how their work, likeness, and identity are used by artificial intelligence systems.

RSL Media launched Tuesday as a public benefit nonprofit, built around a deceptively simple idea: Human consent should function like a traffic light—allowed, allowed with terms, or prohibited—that AI systems can actually read and respect. The organization has already secured support from a roster of A-list entertainment figures including Javier Bardem, George Clooney, Viola Davis, Tom Hanks, Dame Helen Mirren, Steven Soderbergh, Kristen Stewart, Meryl Streep, and Dame Emma Thompson, as well as Creative Artists Agency and the Music Artists Coalition.

“AI technologies are expanding rampantly, essentially unchecked and unregulated,” Blanchett said in a statement. “In order for humans to remain in front of these technologies, consent must be the first consideration.”

The launch comes less than a year after the Really Simple Licensing standard released version 1.0 of its open protocol that lets publishers define machine-readable terms for AI training on their content. RSL Media builds on that same architecture, extending the principle of machine-readable rights from content licensing to the protection of human creative expression, identity, and likeness.

“The right to decide whether AI can use your work or identity should not be reserved for only those who can afford lawyers or have platforms big enough to be heard,” said Nikki Hexum, co-founder and CEO of RSL Media. “It is a basic human right.”

The organization covers four distinct rights areas: creative works (songs, films, books, art, photography), identity (name, image, voice, movement, personal attributes), characters (fictional figures including their names, voices, and visual depictions), and marks (logos, trademarks, trade dress, brand identifiers). Its co-founders include not only Blanchett and Hexum but also Doug Leeds and Eckart Walther, the latter being the RSS co-creator behind the original RSL standard.

The legal framework was co-authored by James Everingham, former head of engineering at Instagram and CEO of Guild.ai; Jacqueline Sabec, a partner at King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano; and Francesca Amfitheatrof, former artistic director of watches and jewelry at Louis Vuitton and design director at Tiffany & Company.

A free, public registry launches in June. Once live, anyone will be able to verify their identity through RSLMedia.org, declare permissions for their work and likeness, and have those preferences translated into machine-readable signals that AI platforms can query before use.

The approach mirrors the logic behind IAB Europe’s compensation framework (and the earlier RSL protocol) in aiming to turn consent into infrastructure. RSL Media’s registry goes further, however, by applying that model to individuals rather than publishers, covering identity and likeness alongside creative work.

The post Cate Blanchett Backs New AI Rights Nonprofit appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Scott Turow, the bestselling author of “Presumed Innocent,” has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Meta. And he’s brought along half of the publishing industry.

Turow and his company S.C.R.I.B.E. joined forces with Hachette, Macmillan, McGraw Hill, Elsevier and Cengage to file a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs allege Meta built its Llama language model by copying millions of copyrighted books and journal articles, with direct authorization from CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The complaint claims Meta “briefly considered licensing deals with major publishers” but reversed course in April 2023 after the question was escalated to Zuckerberg. A Meta employee is quoted in the filing as saying: “If we license one single book, we won’t be able to lean into the fair use strategy.”

The lawsuit cites specific works including Turow’s “Presumed Innocent,” Douglas Preston’s “Impact,” Peter Brown’s “The Wild Robot,” N.K. Jemisin’s “The Fifth Season,” and Lemony Snicket’s “Who Could That Be at This Hour?” The class could include authors with registered copyrights on books with ISBNs or journal articles with DOIs or ISSNs.

“All Americans should understand that the bold future promised by A.I., has been, to paraphrase the investigative writer Alex Reisner, created with stolen words,” Turow said in a statement to NPR. “It is all the more shameful that these violations of the law were undertaken by one of the richest corporations in the world.”

Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger called it “the most flagrant copyright breach in history.” The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and an order requiring Meta to destroy all infringing copies.

Meta pushed back sharply. “AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use,” said Nkechi Nneji, a Meta public affairs director. “We will fight this lawsuit aggressively.”

The case enters a complicated legal landscape. A federal judge dismissed a different group of authors’ copyright claims against Meta last June, finding the plaintiffs didn’t present enough evidence of harm. But Anthropic settled with publishers for $1.5 billion last September after a ruling that the company had copied millions of books without consent or compensation.

Whether Turow’s case can distinguish itself from Meta’s previous win — and overcome the “fair use” defense — will be the central question.

The post Scott Turow and Five Publishers Sue Meta Over AI Training Data appeared first on The Media Copilot.

The Trump administration released its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence on March 20 — a four-page document that tells Congress what the White House wants federal AI law to look like, and signals clearly what it doesn't want: state-level regulation, a new federal AI agency, or courts deciding that AI training violates copyright law.

The framework isn't binding. It's a legislative wish list that still needs Congress to act. But it maps the administration's priorities across seven areas, and for publishers and media companies, two of them matter most.

On intellectual property, the White House punts to the courts while tipping its hand. The document states the administration "believes that training of AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws" — then says it supports judicial resolution. That's a tell. For publishers currently suing OpenAI, Google, and others over training data — including Encyclopedia Britannica's recent suit against OpenAI and News Corp's ongoing case against Perplexity — the administration has effectively signaled it's rooting against them. The framework does contemplate collective licensing frameworks and protections against unauthorized replicas of people's voices and likenesses, but the core fair use question is left to judges who now know where the White House stands. That's also bad news for publishers pushing for statutory licensing models as a structural solution.

On federal preemption, the framework pushes hard to override state AI laws that "impose undue burdens" on a national strategy for "global AI dominance." The immediate target is Colorado's AI Act — the first state law requiring impact assessments and transparency for high-risk AI deployments — which was already delayed from February to June 2026 under industry pressure. The framework would put federal law above a patchwork of state rules, effectively neutering the most aggressive state-level efforts to regulate AI behavior. It's the opposite direction from the EU AI Act, which the administration's framework implicitly positions itself against.

The rest covers child safety — age verification and deepfake protections via the Take It Down Act, which targets non-consensual intimate imagery — infrastructure buildout, workforce development, and a preference for regulatory sandboxes and industry-led standards over a new AI regulator. The deepfake protections are notable given Grok's ongoing global regulatory scrutiny over sexualized AI imagery, though the framework addresses individual harm rather than platform accountability.

The overall posture is: light-touch federal rules, no new agency, and existing sector-specific regulators handle the rest. The contrast with the EU is deliberate. The administration's framework is a bet that the US approach — let companies build, let courts sort out the edges — will outcompete Europe's more prescriptive compliance regime. For publishers, that bet means the most important AI policy battles are now happening in courtrooms, not legislatures — and the traffic consequences of losing those battles are already here.

The post The White House AI blueprint tells publishers where the administration stands on copyright. Spoiler: It’s not with them appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Encyclopedia Britannica and its Merriam-Webster subsidiary sued OpenAI in Manhattan federal court on Friday, alleging the company used nearly 100,000 of their articles to train ChatGPT without permission, and then used the chatbot to cannibalize the traffic that encyclopedias depend on to survive.

The complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, says OpenAI made “near-verbatim” copies of Britannica’s encyclopedia entries, dictionary definitions and reference content to train its GPT large language models. It also accuses OpenAI of trademark infringement—specifically, generating AI “hallucinations” that falsely cite Britannica as a source, implying a permission that was never granted.

OpenAI’s response was the standard playbook: “Our models empower innovation, and are trained on publicly available data and grounded in fair use.”

Britannica isn’t new to this fight. The company sued Perplexity last September over similar allegations—that Perplexity’s answer engine reproduces its content without attribution or compensation. That case is still ongoing. The OpenAI suit extends the same theory to a much larger defendant with much deeper pockets and a far larger user base.

The core grievance goes beyond copyright. Britannica’s complaint frames the harm as a flywheel: OpenAI trains on Britannica’s content, then deploys a product that answers the same questions Britannica’s websites would have answered, diverting users before they ever arrive. It’s the same structural argument publishers have been making about AI search summaries, and it’s why policymakers in Europe and Brazil are exploring statutory licensing as a way to compensate content creators whose work powers AI without delivering any traffic in return.

Britannica requested unspecified monetary damages and an injunction blocking further infringement. The case joins a growing docket of high-stakes AI copyright litigation heading for a reckoning in U.S. courts over whether training on publicly available data constitutes fair use—a question on which the industry, publishers, and regulators are all waiting for an answer.

The post Encyclopedia Britannica sues OpenAI for training ChatGPT on its content appeared first on The Media Copilot.

The latest turn in the Dow Jones and New York Post case against Perplexity is less about one chatbot answer than about how copyright evidence gets built in the AI era. According to Press Gazette, Perplexity is asking the court to force the publishers to turn over records showing the prompts they used to test its system before filing suit.

Perplexity’s argument is blunt. In a filing quoted by Press Gazette, the company said, “This discovery would reveal an inconvenient truth: Plaintiffs repeatedly and deceptively crossed the line from investigation to entrapment.” In other words, Perplexity is not just denying infringement. It is arguing that the publishers tried to engineer failure conditions to make a stronger case.

That matters because publisher lawsuits against answer engines and generative AI tools often depend on showing that a system can reproduce or closely mimic protected reporting. If courts start scrutinizing how those tests were constructed, the evidentiary playbook for future cases could get more complicated.

Press Gazette reported that Dow Jones and the New York Post oppose producing the prompt records, arguing they are protected attorney work product created in anticipation of litigation. The dispute now sits at an awkward but important junction: publishers want to demonstrate copying while AI companies want room to argue that the tests did not reflect normal user behavior.

The prompt-log fight could matter beyond Perplexity

The legal issue here is narrow, but the industry implication is broad. AI companies have spent months insisting that many public examples of harmful output, hallucinations or copyright problems come from adversarial prompting. Publishers, for their part, have strong incentives to probe systems hard because casual use may not expose the outer edge of reproduction risk.

Press Gazette described one example in which Perplexity summarized a Wall Street Journal article but refused a request to reproduce part of it verbatim. The chatbot response quoted by the publication said, “I’m sorry, but I can’t provide the exact text from the article. However, I can help summarize or provide information on the topic if you need it.” That example supports Perplexity’s broader point that the system may resist some direct copying requests. But it does not settle whether other prompts produced output that went too far.

For publishers, that is the danger in this stage of the litigation cycle. Courts may begin asking not only what the chatbot returned, but how many tries it took, what sequence of prompts got there and whether those prompts resembled ordinary use. That is a harder factual record to present cleanly than a simple side-by-side reproduction claim.

Why newsroom leaders should care

This case is not just another skirmish in the running AI copyright war. It could influence how publishers and newsroom counsel document future complaints against search-answer and RAG-style products.

If Perplexity succeeds in forcing disclosure of prompt logs, plaintiffs may have to assume their testing methods will be examined in detail. That could make legal teams more rigorous about documenting why a prompt sequence was reasonable and how closely it matched actual user behavior. It could also give AI defendants a repeatable strategy: shift the discussion from output alone to the testing design behind the output.

There is still an important unknown here. Press Gazette’s report leaves open whether the judge will require disclosure of the prompt records. Until that happens, the case remains a procedural fight with larger implications rather than a clear substantive win for either side.

But the underlying issue is not going away. As publishers try to prove that AI systems copied their work, and AI companies argue that plaintiffs had to game the system to show it, courts will increasingly be asked to decide where legitimate investigation ends and manufactured evidence begins. That line could matter almost as much as the copying question itself.

The post Perplexity says News Corp tried to bait its chatbot into copyright infringement appeared first on The Media Copilot.

By The Copilot, based on an interview by The Copilot, Pete Pachal

When a lawyer who’s also a published author tells you artificial intelligence doesn’t actually learn like humans, you should probably listen.

Jason Henderson is a corporate and transactional attorney who specializes in streaming and licensing deals. He also occasionally writes books (one or two of which may be part of a long-running science-fiction franchise), which means he understands copyright from both sides of the table. In this episode of The Media Copilot podcast, he walks through the messy reality of how AI companies acquire content, what fair use actually protects (and doesn’t), and why the courts care less about the theory of transformation and more about whether your product just destroyed someone’s business model.

• Watch on YouTube
• Listen or watch on Spotify
• Listen on other podcast services

The conversation starts with training data but quickly moves to the sharper edge: what happens when AI doesn’t copy your article but replaces the reason anyone would read it. Henderson explains why indemnification clauses in licensing deals only work if the company promising to cover you can actually pay up, why insurance may not protect publishers from AI-related risks, and why the next battlefield won’t be scraped text but agents that browse the web like users and become nearly impossible to block.

Why this matters

Media companies are no longer just competing with each other. They’re competing with systems that can answer questions, summarize stories, and satisfy curiosity without ever sending a reader to the source. Henderson maps out how courts evaluate that substitution, why “transformative use” is both the most important legal concept and the hardest to pin down, and why the industry is moving toward deals even as the lawsuits pile up.

He also sees a harder problem coming: agentic AI that behaves like a person, not a bot. The legal frameworks assume you can tell the difference. The technology is making that assumption obsolete.

What we cover

What we cover

• Jason’s background in AI, licensing, and streaming deals, plus his work as a writer and publisher
• The “AI learns like humans” argument, why it is only an analogy, and where it breaks down
• Inputs vs outputs: why training data and what models produce raise different legal and business issues
• A clear explanation of the four-factor fair-use test

• Why the ability to recreate articles via prompting becomes a legal flashpoint, even if framed as a “bug, not a feature”
• What media companies actually care about most, ethics vs bottom line, and why market substitution dominates
• The deal side: how licensing agreements are evolving for AI, including tighter usage restrictions
• The risk side: indemnification and why it only works if the other party can actually pay
• Insurance gaps: why many companies may not be protected for AI-related data and content liabilities
• The emerging “agents” problem: bot blocking, user proxies, and the future of attribution
• Hope vs dismay: personalization that helps audiences find authentic creators vs settling for “good enough” synthetic content
• Why Jason expects turbulence near term, but a longer-term premium on human-authored authenticity

👤 Guest

🔗Jason Henderson    🔗https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonhendersontx 

🔗Senior Attorney,JWL International  🔗https://jwlinternational.com/
🔗Founder,Castle Bridge Media      🔗https://www.castlebridgemedia.com/
🔗Co-host, Castle of Horror podcast (horror movie coverage)  🔗https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/castle-of-horror-podcast/id447295500

Enjoyed this episode?

Subscribe to The Media Copilot on Substack, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite app. On YouTube?  Tap the Like button and Subscribe to the YouTube channel.

Produced by Pete Pachal and Executive Producer Michele Musso
Edited by the Musso Media Team 

Music: “Favorite” by Alexander Nakarada, licensed under CC BY 4.0

All rights reserved. © AnyWho Media 2026

The post AI and copyright: How media can decide between litigation or negotiation  appeared first on The Media Copilot.