by Kathleen Lynch | May 12, 2026 | Copying, Copyright, Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship, Infringement, Innovation, Intellectual Property, IP, Licensing, Small Business, Start Up
The legal battle over Generative AI reached a fever pitch this past week as five of the world’s largest publishing houses—Elsevier, Cengage, Hachette, Macmillan, and McGraw Hill—joined forces with celebrated author Scott Turow to file a massive copyright infringement action in New York.
The case, Elsevier Inc. et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Mark Zuckerberg (S.D.N.Y. 2026), marks a significant escalation in the industry’s defense of intellectual property. The plaintiffs allege that Meta, under the personal direction of Mark Zuckerberg, infringed upon millions of copyrighted works to build its “Llama” AI models.
A Three-Phase Infringement Strategy
The complaint meticulously outlines a “three-phase” process of alleged infringement:
- Torrenting from “Shadow Libraries”: The plaintiffs allege Meta willfully downloaded millions of books and journals from notorious pirate sites, including LibGen, Sci-Hub, and Anna’s Archive.
- Unauthorized Training and Reproduction: The suit claims Meta made millions of unauthorized digital copies during the preprocessing and training phases of its Llama Large Language Models (LLMs).
- The “Infinite Substitution Machine”: Perhaps most critically, the plaintiffs argue the end product is designed to directly compete with their original works, creating an “infinite substitution machine” that generates content intended to replace the need for the original copyrighted materials.
Beyond Copyright: The DMCA and Personal Liability
The lawsuit further alleges violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Specifically, the plaintiffs claim Meta systematically stripped away Copyright Management Information (CMI)—such as ISBNs, DOIs, and digital watermarks—to obfuscate the illicit sources of its training data.
Most notably, the case names Mark Zuckerberg personally as a defendant. The complaint characterizes Zuckerberg as the “guiding force” behind a “move fast and break things” strategy that prioritized data acquisition at any cost. This bold move raises significant questions regarding corporate veil-piercing and the extent to which a high-level executive can be held personally liable for a corporation’s infringing activities.
Protecting Your Intellectual Capital
Capitalizing on innovation while navigating the complexities of intellectual property law is critical to the survival of any modern organization. Having a strategic partner to guide these decisions is no longer optional—it is a necessity.
The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is dedicated to helping businesses like yours stay ahead of the curve and protect what they build.
Start the conversation today. Your first consultation is free. Email us: kl****@*****aw.com
by Kathleen Lynch | Apr 14, 2026 | Copying, Copyright, Infringement, Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation, Small Business
In a major blow to copyright holders, a recent high stakes battle between Cox Communications and Sony Music Entertainment has redefined the boundaries of internet service provider (ISP) liability.
The Background: 163,000 Red Flags
As an ISP, Cox provides the “pipes” for the internet. Sony, representing various music copyright owners, employed the firm MarkMonitor to track illegal downloads. Over a two-year period, Sony sent Cox approximately 163,000 notices identifying specific IP addresses associated with copyright infringement.
Despite these thousands of notices, the infringing activity continued. Sony sued Cox in federal district court on two counts:
- Contributory Infringement: Claiming Cox contributed to the users’ illegal activity.
- Vicarious Liability: Claiming Cox was responsible for the infringement occurring on its network.
The initial jury found Cox liable on both counts. However, upon appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a split decision: it affirmed the contributory infringement but reversed the vicarious liability.
The Ruling: Intent is Everything
The Supreme Court ultimately held that Cox was not liable for contributory infringement. The reasoning? Cox did not intend for its service to be used for illegal downloading.
The court found that:
- Cox did not actively induce users to infringe.
- The service was not “tailored” specifically for copyright
- Providing a general-purpose tool (internet access) that can be used for infringement is not the same as intending for it to happen.
The Takeaway: Knowledge vs. Intent
The court’s decision essentially looked past the fact that Cox received 163,000 notices and did nothing. The takeaway for IP owners is clear: To prevail on contributory infringement, you must prove intent. Simply knowing that a service can be used for infringing activity—or even being told it is being used that way—may no longer be enough to hold a service provider liable if the service has substantial non-infringing uses. In this case, the court decided that “knowing” wasn’t “doing.”
Protect Your Innovation
Protecting your intellectual property is critical to the survival of any organization. In a changing legal landscape, having the right counsel to help you navigate these decisions is more important than ever.
The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help your business stay ahead of the game.
Your first consultation is free. Email us: kl****@*****aw.com
by Kathleen Lynch | Feb 25, 2015 | Copying, Copyright, Infringement, Intellectual Property
If anyone caught the halftime show at the Super Bowl this year, you may remember the dancing sharks that were a part of Katy Perry’s halftime show. The sharks were an instant sensation, particularly the left shark who was seen dancing awkwardly behind Ms. Perry. Now one businessman has tried to capitalize on that.
Fernando Sosa is in the 3D printing business. Mr. Sosa makes and sells 3D printed sculptures typically of political figures. After the Super Bowl, Mr. Sosa developed and offered for sale a replica “Left Shark” figure. Attorneys for Katy Perry quickly fired off a cease and desist letter to Mr. Sosa claiming that the figure infringed Katy Perry’s intellectual property. In particular, the letter alleged that Mr. Sosa’s selling of the shark figurine violated Ms. Perry’s copyrights in the shark. Mr. Sosa has agreed to stop selling the shark.
According to CNN, Mr. Sosa remarked “ it looks like dictators and world leaders like Putin and Kim Jong Un or Chris Christie are much easier to deal with,” and “all this lawyer crap is stressful.”
Take away: before considering copying something in a public domain, think about whether any third party may have rights to the subject matter. This applies to sharks as well as digital images and content on the internet. Even though a digitized item can be downloaded, doesn’t mean it should be. One way to err on the side of caution is to check the ownership of the item. If a copyright notice accompanies the material that indicates the owner. Most owners can be contacted and some may grant a license to you to use their image or content (or shark) as you would like. However, it is the owner’s right to grant and not yours to take.
Protecting your innovative developments and respecting the intellectual property rights of third parties is critical to any organization. Having the right person to help you make those decisions is important. The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game. The first telephone consultation is free. Email us at kl****@*****aw.com.
