Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Patent licensing entity’s power converter patents properly succumbed to Samsung’s challenge
    • COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Owner of Superman franchise remains firmly in the hands of DC Comics
    • PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Non-obviousness affirmed in electronic communications management patent dispute
    • PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Summary judgment of non-infringement affirmed in swimming pool design patent dispute
    • STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES: Courts split on standing requirements for DMCA claims in AI disputes
    • TRADEMARK—TTAB: Board affirms refusal to register stylized mark because of mutilation
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    IP Law Daily, STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES: Courts split on standing requirements for DMCA claims in AI disputes, (Apr 25, 2025)

    By Thomas Long, J.D.

    Article examines question of whether removal of copyright management information from materials used in AI training datasets causes “concrete injury” to rights owners.

    The use by artificial intelligence software developers has spurred do ...

    By Thomas Long, J.D.

    Article examines question of whether removal of copyright management information from materials used in AI training datasets causes “concrete injury” to rights owners.

    The use by artificial intelligence software developers has spurred dozens of lawsuits by copyright owners who contend that their IP rights have been violated. Along with traditional infringement claims, copyright owners have asserted that the removal of copyright management information (CMI)—such as author attribution and digital watermarks embedded in images—violates Section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b). AI developers have responded with motions to dismiss DMCA claims for lack of Article III standing, arguing that removing CMI in this context did not cause an injury-in-fact to the rights owners. At least one federal district court agrees with the AI companies, although others have taken a contrary view. The issue is likely to receive appellate review soon.

    A Strategic Perspectives article, titled “Copyright owners’ claims over AI companies’ removal of identifying information raise Article III standing questions,” examines recent and ongoing developments regarding this question and considers broader implications of courts’ decisions on Article III standing jurisprudence.

    MainStory: AINews Copyright TechnologyInternet

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use