Music Piracy, AI Lawsuits Top 2026 Copyright Litigation Calendar

A trio of critical issues primed to dominate the copyright landscape in 2026 will test music-piracy liability, President Donald Trump’s authority, and the evolution of artificial intelligence.

The US Supreme Court could provide decisive answers to questions about what internet service providers must do to help police online music piracy in a case between music publishers and Cox Communications Inc. that was argued in December. But even that billion-dollar case could be eclipsed by the economic impact of the sprawling, contentious litigation prodding how copyright law applies to the training of the models that power generative AI.

These are merely the tip of what could be a busy 2026 in copyright law. Here are the highlights.

AI and Copyright

Lawsuits against generative-AI companies filed beginning in early 2023 have continued to flow into courts, which are developing the case law around model-training and content-downloading practices that will shape the legal boundaries and economics of the technology and creative industries.

The first appeal of a fair-use decision in an AI copyright case—albeit involving non-generative AI—will likely be argued before the Third Circuit in 2026 after briefing by Ross Intelligence and Thompson Reuters Enterprise GmbH last fall.

Meanwhile, discovery will continue in dozens of generative-AI suits. A pair of judges have validated fair-use defenses for using works to train AI, at least in the circumstances at issue in each case. But one California federal judge said copying from pirate sites isn’t fair, while another added that he doubted training inherently passes muster.

Appeals courts have yet to weigh in, and, amid the uncertainty, Anthropic aims to finalize its $1.5 billion settlement to end a class action brought by authors.

ISPs and Piracy

Cox and music publishers await the Supreme Court’s decision in their billion-dollar case over the ISP’s liability for music piracy by its users. The lawsuit is one of several filed by a group of music publishers representing the vast majority of the industry.

Supreme Court arguments were held Dec. 2, and a decision at some point in 2026 will clarify how active ISPs must be in addressing copyright infringement on their networks. Some justices appeared to be seeking middle ground between the “extremes” offered by the parties.

ISPs say it’s unreasonable to ask them to cut off critical internet access based on an allegation against an unknown person in a household, or even a university or hospital system. Copyright owners argue the ISPs—positioned at a critical piracy bottleneck—are trying to nullify the balance struck in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, where online platforms help fight piracy to avoid liability for users’ actions.

The publishers also sued several other ISPs, including Grande Communications Networks LLC, whose petition is pending before the high court.

President and Copyright

Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter’s lawsuit alleging Trump illegally fired her carries political ramifications rare in copyright governance. The Supreme Court in November left in place a US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit opinion temporarily reinstating Perlmutter until the justices can address a pair of other Trump firings. The circuit court’s ruling would keep Perlmutter in the post until the panel decides the merits of her appeal seeking to be reinstated during litigation.

The dispute is one of several accusing Trump of exceeding his authority by firing officials outside of executive agencies, such as independent commissions established by Congress. Courts have said the Copyright Office, part of the legislative branch’s Library of Congress, has both executive and legislative functions.

Perlmutter argues in her suit that only the librarian of Congress can fire the register of copyrights. She also claims the appointment of former Trump defense attorney and current Justice Department official Todd Blanche as acting librarian—a president-appointed, Senate-confirmed position—was illegal because the legislative agency falls outside of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act’s bounds.

The DC Circuit found Perlmutter likely to prevail in part because she was fired immediately after releasing a draft report to Congress on AI and copyright. The majority on a split panel—both Democratic appointees—said the firing raised serious separation-of-powers implications because it suggested she was fired for advice she gave to lawmakers. The district judge and a dissenting circuit judge—both Trump appointees—said she failed to establish that she’d suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.

Other Cases to Watch

AI Authorship: Computer scientist Stephen Thaler petitioned the Supreme Court in October to hear his case that his generative AI image creator should legally be registered as a copyright owner. The argument has been rejected by the Copyright Office and the DC Circuit. The justices asked the government to respond to his petition by Jan. 26.

Documenting Tiger Kings: Netflix Inc.‘s bid to get the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to reverse itself in an appeal over the streaming giant’s “Tiger King” docuseries could be resolved in 2026. The court in March 2024 revived a cameraman’s suit over footage that appeared in the hit series. But it granted a rehearing, and the panel indicated during July 2024 oral arguments that it could be swayed by Netflix’s argument that ruling such a short clip in a documentary isn’t fair use could seriously threaten the entire genre.