Creator lawsuits against AI companies are moving from courtroom arguments to real outcomes in 2025-2026—and the results are reshaping how AI giants access creative work. The New York Times case remains pending but survived dismissal; visual artist class actions are advancing toward trial; and the music industry has already pivoted from litigation to licensing deals. Together, these developments signal that courts are taking copyright claims seriously, and AI companies are increasingly willing to negotiate rather than fight. Here's what's actually happening and what it means for creators.
Why the New York Times case matters more than you might think
The Times alleged OpenAI and Microsoft copied its journalism at scale to build competing products without permission or payment. In April 2024, a judge declined to dismiss the case, allowing copyright infringement claims to move forward. The lawsuit doesn't hinge on whether the companies used Times content—they admit they did. It hinges on whether that use qualifies as legal under fair use doctrine. Judge Sidney H. Stein's April 2024 decision permitted the case to proceed on direct infringement claims, which the defendants did not fundamentally contest. The operative decision on the merits remains outstanding. If the Times prevails, AI companies may be required to secure licenses for published content or remove it from their training datasets. If they succeed in their defense, the publishing industry loses its primary legal argument for controlling how AI companies access their work.
How visual artist lawsuits advanced past the dismissal stage
In Andersen v. Stability AI, a federal judge determined that artists presented credible evidence their copyrights were infringed. The case survived the dismissal motion and entered the discovery phase. Named plaintiffs Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz represent a broader class of artists whose work appeared in the LAION-5B dataset—a collection of 5.8 billion image-text pairs assembled without artist authorization. Judge Orrick's August 2024 decision noted the model was "built to a significant extent on copyrighted works." In February 2025, plaintiffs submitted a revised complaint containing new documentation regarding LAION's construction and distribution. Getty Images pursued a parallel case and secured a March 2025 ruling permitting claims related to brand identity and visual distinctiveness to advance; the court found indications that Stable Diffusion sometimes replicated Getty's watermark, implying the system had absorbed protected Getty content into its training.
Why music licensing deals changed the entire playbook
The music industry abandoned its primary focus on copyright litigation in favor of negotiated licensing arrangements with AI music platforms—Universal reached a settlement with Udio in October 2024; Warner negotiated agreements with both Udio and Suno during late 2024; Sony has pursued a dual approach combining litigation with licensing discussions. This transition demonstrates that AI companies view licensing payments as a more practical path than contesting fair use claims in court. These licensing agreements have typically required AI music companies to secure rights for their training materials and incorporate artist consent controls into their platforms. This outcome represents the most tangible success creators have achieved: actual payment structures and mechanisms for artists to grant or withhold permission, moving beyond legal arguments alone.
References
- New York Times v. OpenAI/Microsoft copyright lawsuit (Eastern District of New York)
- Andersen v. Stability AI, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00201 (N.D. Cal.)
- Getty Images, Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03391 (N.D. Cal.)
What this means: Artist lawsuits and licensing deals are no longer hypothetical—they're shaping how AI companies operate. Courts are taking copyright claims seriously enough to let cases proceed; the music industry has already shown that AI companies will negotiate. Creators fighting back aren't just winning symbolic victories; they're securing real consent mechanisms and revenue. The next post in this series will explore what creators should do now to protect their work while these cases unfold.