The tracker (July 2026)
This is the citable centerpiece. Every major creative-AI copyright case, its current status, what is at stake, and the next date to watch. Dated to the docket and primary reporting; nothing here is a final ruling on the core fair-use question unless it says so.
| Case | Domain | Status (Jul 2026) | What is at stake | Next / note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disney, Universal & Warner Bros. v. Midjourney | Image / video | IN DISCOVERY C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-05275 |
Whether generating studios' protected characters infringes; Midjourney claims fair use | Procedural date Aug 31, 2026. Full tracker |
| Andersen v. Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt & Runway | Image (artists) | PRE-TRIAL, SCHEDULE PUSHED N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-00201 |
Artists' direct-infringement claims over training on their work; DMCA 1202 claims were dismissed | Summary judgment hearing Feb 17, 2027; trial date moved |
| Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK) | Image | COPYRIGHT CLAIM REJECTED UK High Court, on appeal |
UK High Court rejected the secondary copyright claim (Nov 2025) but found limited trademark infringement; Getty is appealing | Appeal likely late 2026 / 2027 |
| Getty Images v. Stability AI (US) | Image | CLAIMS ADVANCED N.D. Cal. |
US court largely denied Stability's motion to dismiss (Apr 2026); copyright and trademark claims proceed, only the false CMI claim was dismissed | Ongoing |
| UMG & Sony v. Suno; Sony v. Udio | Music | LITIGATING (FAIR USE) Massachusetts / SDNY |
Universal and Sony did not settle with Suno and filed a second suit on Sep 18, 2026 over 60,202 more recordings; Sony has not settled with Udio and sued it again in July 2026 | Dispositive motions due Jun 22, 2027 (D. Mass. 1:24-cv-11611). Music guide |
| Warner v. Suno | Music | SETTLED Late 2025 |
Multi-million settlement plus licensing partnership; avoids a precedent-setting ruling | Resolved (terms partly sealed) |
| Universal (UMG) v. Udio | Music | SETTLED Oct 2025 |
First major-label AI-music licensing template | Resolved |
| Thaler v. Perlmutter | Copyrightability | DECIDED SCOTUS cert denied |
Confirms pure AI output has no US copyright; human authorship required | Final (Mar 2, 2026). Copyright guide |
Sources: CourtListener (Disney v. Midjourney) · Variety · Andersen v. Stability (N.D. Cal., summary judgment Feb 2027) · Paul Weiss (Getty v. Stability UK) · UMG and Sony v. Suno (D. Mass. 1:24-cv-11611) · CNBC (Thaler). Verified July 2026.
The big picture: three questions, three answers-in-progress
Is AI training fair use?
Unresolved in the US. The Midjourney, Andersen, and Suno cases are the ones most likely to answer it. No final ruling yet; the Suno music case is closest.
Will the majors litigate or license?
Splitting. Warner settled into licensing deals with both Suno and Udio, and Universal licensed Udio, but Universal and Sony are still suing Suno and Sony has not settled with Udio. Settlements resolve disputes without setting precedent.
Can AI output be copyrighted?
Answered: no, for the purely AI-generated parts. The Supreme Court left the human-authorship rule in place in March 2026 (Thaler).
The core question, is training on copyrighted work fair use, is still unanswered in the US, and these cases are where it gets decided.The state of play
Image and video cases
The image fight is the loudest. Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. v. Midjourney is the biggest studio-versus-AI case, currently in discovery, where Midjourney is pushing to force the studios to reveal their own AI use. Andersen v. Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway is the artists' class action; its DMCA Section 1202 claims were dismissed, but direct copyright-infringement claims are advancing, with summary judgment now set for February 2027. In the UK, Getty Images v. Stability AI produced the first major judgment: in November 2025 the High Court rejected Getty's secondary copyright claim while finding limited trademark infringement from Getty watermarks appearing in outputs, and Getty is appealing; a separate US Getty case advanced trademark claims in April 2026. Read the deep dive on the studio case in our Disney v. Midjourney tracker.
Music cases
Music is where settlements and litigation are splitting the majors. After the record labels sued the AI generators Suno and Udio, the majors have split by company and by defendant: Warner settled with Suno (November 25, 2025) and with Udio (November 19, 2025), and Universal settled with Udio (October 2025). Universal and Sony are still suing Suno in Massachusetts, where dispositive motions are now due June 22, 2027, and they filed a second suit against Suno on September 18, 2026. Sony has not settled with Udio either. In Germany, a Munich court ruled for the collecting society GEMA against Suno on July 31, 2026; that judgment is not final. Which tools this makes safe to sell from is the subject of our AI music commercial-safety guide.
The copyrightability question
This one is settled. Separate from the training and infringement fights is the question of whether you can copyright AI output at all. On March 2, 2026, the US Supreme Court declined to hear Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving in place the rule that US copyright requires a human author. Output generated from a prompt alone cannot be registered, though copyright can still attach to substantial human contributions. The full explanation is in is AI image output copyrightable.
The next big date: UMG and Sony v. Suno
Of all the pending cases, Universal and Sony's fight with Suno is the one most likely to deliver a clear US ruling on whether training AI on music is fair use, with dispositive motions now due June 22, 2027. We update this tracker the day a material ruling or settlement is reported. Subscribe below for the alert.
Recent moves (newest first)
Disney v. Midjourney procedural date, case remains in discovery.
Andersen v. Stability summary judgment hearing, after the court pushed the schedule back about three months.
UMG and Sony v. Suno dispositive motions due, the likeliest clear US music precedent.
Getty v. Stability (US) most claims, including copyright and trademark, allowed to proceed.
SCOTUS denies cert in Thaler, locking in the human-authorship rule. CNBC
Getty v. Stability (UK) High Court rejects the copyright claim; Getty appeals. Warner settles with Suno.
Universal settles with Udio, the first major-label AI-music licensing template.
Join the list for AI Copyright Case Tracker alerts
Case alerts are not live yet. Join the list and we will only email when they are: a note when a material ruling or settlement drops in any of these cases, with a one-page summary of what each outcome would mean for creators and AI tools. This is the fastest-moving area of the fine print.
Free. Only case-ruling and rights alerts. Unsubscribe anytime.
What all of this means for you
For a creator or business using these tools, none of these cases changes the rules today. They target the AI companies and, in some cases, outputs that reproduce specific protected works; they do not ban the tools or your right to sell original, non-infringing work. The practical rules are unchanged and worth repeating: do not generate recognizable copyrighted characters, trademarks, or real people for commercial use; remember most tools offer no indemnification; and know that pure AI output cannot be copyrighted, so your defensible value is in the human layer you add. What these cases will change, eventually, is how the tools are trained and licensed, which is why they are worth tracking. The practical playbooks are in our commercial-use guide and music-safety guide.
Frequently asked questions
What are the biggest AI copyright lawsuits in 2026?
In creative AI: Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. v. Midjourney (image and video, in discovery); Andersen v. Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway (artists' class action, summary judgment set for February 2027); Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK copyright claim rejected November 2025 and on appeal, US trademark claims advanced April 2026); and Universal and Sony's case against Suno, with dispositive motions due June 2027. Separately, the Supreme Court declined Thaler v. Perlmutter in March 2026, locking in that pure AI output has no US copyright.
Has any court ruled that training AI is fair use?
Not definitively in the US for creative AI as of October 2026. The core question is still being litigated in the Midjourney, Andersen, and Suno cases with no final ruling. Outside generative AI, the Third Circuit rejected a fair use defense for AI training in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS on September 29, 2026, and a Munich court rejected Suno's defense in GEMA's case on July 31, 2026. In the UK, the High Court in Getty v. Stability rejected the secondary copyright claim in November 2025, but that turned partly on jurisdictional and UK-specific points and is under appeal. The Universal and Sony case against Suno, with dispositive motions due June 2027, is among the most likely to give a clear US answer.
Which AI copyright cases have settled?
On the music side, Warner settled with Suno and with Udio, and Universal settled with Udio, all in late 2025, establishing early licensing templates. Universal and Sony are still suing Suno, and Sony has not settled with Udio. Settlements resolve the parties' dispute without setting a precedent for everyone else, which is why the unsettled Suno case carries outsized importance.
Can AI-generated art be copyrighted in 2026?
No, not the purely AI-generated parts. On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court declined Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving in place the rule that US copyright requires a human author, so prompt-only output cannot be registered. Copyright can still attach to substantial human contributions such as significant editing, arrangement, or original elements a person adds.
Does a lawsuit mean I cannot use these tools?
No. These suits target the AI companies and outputs that reproduce specific protected works; they do not ban the tools or your right to sell original, non-infringing work. Avoid generating recognizable copyrighted characters, trademarks, or real people for commercial use, and remember most tools offer no indemnification. The cases matter because their outcomes could reshape how the tools are trained and licensed.
Bottom line
As of October 2026, the central legal question of creative AI, whether training on copyrighted work is fair use, remains unanswered in the US, and the Midjourney, Andersen, and especially the Universal and Sony v. Suno cases are where it is likely to be decided, with dispositive motions in the Suno case due June 2027. The music majors have split: Warner licensed both generators, Universal licensed Udio but is still suing Suno alongside Sony, and Sony has settled with neither; the UK gave AI companies an early win in Getty v. Stability that is now on appeal; and the one thing that is settled is that pure AI output cannot be copyrighted. For users, nothing changes today: make original work, avoid recognizable protected material in anything you sell, and add a human layer you can defend. We keep this tracker current as each case moves. Go deeper in the Disney v. Midjourney tracker, the AI music safety guide, and is AI output copyrightable.
This article is educational information, not legal advice, and it summarizes active litigation whose facts and status change. We date and source every claim and re-verify as cases move, but confirm against the linked dockets and primary reporting, and consult a lawyer for your situation. Last reviewed: July 11, 2026.
Keep going
Standards and research behind this page
Claims about what an AI tool can and cannot do are easiest to check against the standards bodies and research groups that measure these systems rather than against any vendor's own description. The sources below are the primary ones, linked so a reader can verify a claim here without taking this page's word for it.
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework is the US federal reference for evaluating and governing AI systems, including how their capabilities and limits should be characterised.
- NIST AI RMF Knowledge Base sets out the measurable characteristics of a trustworthy AI system, which is the vocabulary these comparisons use.
- Stanford HAI AI Index publishes the annual measured benchmarks on model capability, cost and adoption that vendor claims are checked against.
- National Science Foundation AI programme funds and documents the underlying research these products are built on.
- arXiv cs.AI carries the primary papers behind most model capability claims, usually months before a product mentions them.
- FTC Endorsement Guides governs how a review or recommendation must disclose a material connection, which is why the disclosure on this page exists.
- US Copyright Office states what copyright covers, which decides who owns the output of a generative tool.
- Section 508 defines the federal accessibility requirements a tool must meet to be usable in public-sector work.
This page compares tools and does not endorse one. Capabilities and pricing change frequently, and a reader should confirm current behaviour with the vendor before relying on it.