{
  "_meta": {
    "doc": "Rinzara canonical legal-facts layer. Cross-cutting facts that the Monetization Checker, the policy tracker, and every article read from. Every fact carries source + lastVerified. These move; re-verify on the cadence in _meta.reverifyEvery.",
    "jurisdiction": "United States",
    "lastFullReview": "2026-06-08",
    "reverifyEvery": "monthly",
    "disclaimer": "Educational information, not legal advice. Verify against the linked primary source and consult a lawyer for your specific situation."
  },
  "copyright": {
    "id": "us-ai-output-copyright",
    "headline": "Pure AI-generated output cannot be copyrighted in the US. You can sell it, but you cannot stop others from copying it.",
    "detail": "On March 2, 2026 the US Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving in place the D.C. Circuit ruling that the Copyright Act requires a human author. Output generated by AI from prompts alone has no copyright protection: you cannot register it, and anyone can legally copy and reuse it. Copyright can attach only to the parts a human creatively authored, such as meaningful selection, arrangement, or substantial editing of the AI output. Prompts alone are treated as uncopyrightable instructions.",
    "ownershipVsCopyright": "Owning a license to use an output (granted by the tool) is NOT the same as holding copyright in it. Most paid tools grant you a broad commercial-use license; almost none can grant copyright, because copyright requires human authorship.",
    "sellable": true,
    "protectable": false,
    "lastVerified": "2026-06-08",
    "sources": [
      "https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/03/us-supreme-court-declines-to-consider-whether-ai-alone-can-create-copyrighted-works",
      "https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/02/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-for-ai-generated-material.html",
      "https://www.bakerdonelson.com/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-thaler-v-perlmutter-ai-cannot-be-an-author-under-the-copyright-act"
    ]
  },
  "voiceCloning": {
    "id": "us-voice-likeness",
    "headline": "Cloning a real person's voice or likeness without explicit written consent is illegal in a growing number of states. Verbal consent does not count.",
    "detail": "Tennessee's ELVIS Act (2024) was the first law to add voice to right-of-publicity protection; unauthorized cloning of a real, identifiable voice is both a civil and a criminal offense with statutory damages, with narrow fair-use carve-outs for comment, criticism, and parody. California, New York, and Illinois have right-of-publicity protections that also reach voice and likeness. The federal NO FAKES Act, which would create a nationwide digital-replica right (including after death), remains a bill, not yet law, as of mid-2026.",
    "rule": "Cloning a voice or likeness is legal only when it is your own voice or you hold explicit, written, use-specific consent from the person. A verbal yes does not meet the bar.",
    "lastVerified": "2026-06-08",
    "sources": [
      "https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/the-elvis-act-setting-the-stage-for-policing-unauthorized-use-of-ai-generated-sound-and-likeness.html",
      "https://removeyourmedia.com/2026/04/26/the-no-fakes-act-explained-what-it-means-for-rights-holders-fighting-ai-voice-and-likeness-clones/",
      "https://holonlaw.com/entertainment-law/synthetic-media-voice-cloning-and-the-new-right-of-publicity-risk-map-for-2026/"
    ]
  },
  "musicTrainingLitigation": {
    "id": "suno-udio-litigation",
    "headline": "The AI-music training lawsuits are partly settled and partly live. Warner and Universal have licensing deals; Sony's cases against Suno and Udio are headed for a pivotal ruling in summer 2026.",
    "detail": "Warner Music settled with Suno on November 25, 2025 in a first-of-its-kind licensing partnership; Universal Music settled with Udio in October 2025 and is co-launching a licensed platform in 2026. Sony Music has settled with neither: its fair-use cases against Suno (Massachusetts) and Udio (Southern District of New York) are expected to produce a pivotal ruling in summer 2026. The litigation concerns how the models were trained, not a blanket ban on the music you generate, but an adverse ruling could change tool availability and terms.",
    "affects": "This is training-data litigation, not a rule about your individual track. But it adds uncertainty to the music-generation category and can change a tool's terms or availability.",
    "lastVerified": "2026-06-08",
    "sources": [
      "https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/warner-music-group-settles-with-suno-strikes-first-of-its-kind-deal-with-ai-song-generator/",
      "https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2026/04/09/suno-universal-music-lawsuit-settlement-impasse/",
      "https://www.chartlex.com/blog/business/music-industry-ai-lawsuits-tracker-2026"
    ]
  }
}