“Deja Vu, All Over Again” (Entertainment Law Update – Episode 188)
Entertainment Law Update – Episode 188
Record Date: February 25, 2026
Location: Los Angeles, California
Hosts: Gordon Firemark & Tamera Bennett
Welcome to Entertainment Law Update — the podcast by entertainment lawyers, about entertainment law, where we round up notable cases, news, and developments to keep you informed (and hopefully a little entertained).
We welcome your feedback, suggestions, and story ideas. Visit www.entertainmentlawupdate.com and use the voice widget, or email us at entertainmentlawupdate@gmail.com.
UMG Sues Anthropic (AI + Music Copyright)
Universal Music Group, Concord, ABKCO, and other publishers have sued Anthropic in the Northern District of California, alleging large-scale copyright infringement connected to AI training data. The complaint reportedly identifies more than 20,000 copyrighted works and alleges the music was sourced through pirated channels, including BitTorrent—information that surfaced during discovery in Bartz v. Anthropic. This new filing may become a major test of AI-training liability theories and remedies.
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/umg-concord-and-abkco-sue-anthropic-for-3bn-in-what-could-be-single-largest-non-class-action-copyright-case-in-us-history/
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/files/2026/01/Anthropic-complaint-01.28.26-1.pdf
South Korea Supreme Court: Starship Entertainment Wins Defamation Case Against YouTuber “Sojang”
The Supreme Court of South Korea issued a final ruling in the Starship Entertainment v. “Sojang” matter, affirming criminal liability for a YouTube channel operator who posted 23 defamatory videos targeting multiple public figures (including Jang Won Young of IVE). The Court upheld a sentence of two years’ imprisonment (suspended for three years), forfeiture of 210 million won (about $145,780), and 120 hours of community service.
A key takeaway: labeling claims as “speculation” or “allegations” did not shield the creator from defamation liability—the Court looked at context and the overall impression on viewers, not the disclaimer language.
McGucken v. Shutterstock: When Safe Harbor Starts Looking Less Safe
In McGucken v. Shutterstock, photographer Elliot McGucken sued Shutterstock after third-party contributors uploaded his photos and Shutterstock displayed and licensed them through its marketplace. The district court granted summary judgment for Shutterstock, but the Second Circuit split the outcome:
- CMI claims (17 U.S.C. § 1202): summary judgment affirmed, because the record didn’t show the required scienter—intentional CMI removal/alteration plus knowledge it would facilitate infringement (per Mango v. BuzzFeed).
- Copyright infringement / DMCA safe harbor (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)): summary judgment vacated and remanded, because evidence of screening/curation raised factual disputes about whether Shutterstock was merely storing content “at the direction of a user” or exercising substantial influence and control that could defeat safe harbor.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/23-7652/23-7652-2026-02-10.html
https://wjlta.com/2022/02/18/stratton-oakmont-v-prodigy-services-the-case-that-spawned-section-230/
SoundExchange AI Registry: Opt-Out to Reserve Rights
SoundExchange is developing a global AI registry to help sound recording creators and rights owners express whether recordings are reserved from AI training and whether they want to be contacted for licensing. Rights holders are being asked to select one of several designations (including “Reserved” and “Contact RO”), with a default of “Not Indicated” if no response is provided. The discussion includes implications tied to jurisdictions where a text-and-data-mining exception may apply unless rights are expressly reserved.
https://click.communications.soundexchange.com/%3D%3D?qs=eyJkZWtJZCI6Ijc4OTAwNmM2LTZkZTAtNGExNy1iMGY5LTljMWYzNjM0YTkzZCIsImRla1ZlcnNpb24iOjEsIml2IjoicWNiZ1RydVkzSHVZUHpkQ1VYa2N1dz09IiwiY2lwaGVyVGV4dCI6IlFNYzR1bXVwRVBFWTRMOXJFVVlLYW1WQUVXT09Lb3BCcWxvemhuM2pQZ29XRXdQZDM0b3hLRVhUN1l6ZFc0USs0MlBNZ0grL2xTRHFhUlRaemUyYlZ3SjlkZElwY0p1VGZrU3B4dUJPdTVqY2U1Zy9OMEpSZVJ5NyIsImF1dGhUYWciOiJGTm5ON1p0WEFuMTEwaWx3bTVOK1JBPT0ifQ
https://click.communications.soundexchange.com/?qs=eyJkZWtJZCI6IjMyMzg0ZGE2LWNmN2QtNGJjZC05NWViLWIxOTUwYWMwNDk0YyIsImRla1ZlcnNpb24iOjEsIml2IjoiUzFSQmIrQmgvaFNnRXM5OGNNM3FMQT09IiwiY2lwaGVyVGV4dCI6ImhxZWZSRWFKVGkwaEkyVU5rYm1rYjNTTGgxNmw5WXlsRDQyNlpMenF3QktLeDNtWnc5QjI3MzRJcFdFZEUzYzBiVnRJbkROZkVYcjdjRDdlUm1GZHZkVWNsWE9QL0lQYlYrcExWRUZ2NEdIK0ZLQVN6M3h3emVvcyIsImF1dGhUYWciOiJQdDVHWVYyOTFSeVZjNC84Zzl0WDZnPT0ifQ%3D%3D
Olympic Music Mayhem: Clearances, Chaos, and Last-Minute Fixes
The 2026 Olympics sparked renewed attention on the licensing realities of figure skating routines—especially when skaters use popular film music. Tomàs-Llorenç Guarino Sabaté’s routine using music from the Despicable Me/Minion films drew particular attention; rights were reportedly secured after initial issues.
This segment breaks down the permissions at play (public performance, synchronization/master use, derivative/arrangement), along with deal variables like territory, media scope, and term—and why athletes are often unequipped to secure these rights despite being required to do so.
https://kipcurriercopyright.blogspot.com/2026/02/figure-skater-saved-from-scrapping.html
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2026/02/12/why-the-olympics-are-a-copyright-disaster/
https://kipcurriercopyright.blogspot.com/2026/02/figure-skaters-try-to-master-new.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2026/02/10/minions-figure-skating-olympics/88579108007/
https://youtu.be/CDpO6zgVCrk?si=LKwAXNhtBcnJnRAk
https://youtu.be/WGFn5s221E0?si=Olrjlz-m-gd2shk9
Lawyer’s Case Terminated After Repeated AI Hallucinations in Court Filings
A New York federal judge took the rare step of terminating a case after repeated issues tied to AI-generated drafting errors—nonexistent case citations, quotes not found in cited opinions, and inconsistent writing style across submissions. The court emphasized that AI can be used as a tool, but lawyers remain responsible for verification, cite-checking, and professional judgment.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/randomly-quoting-ray-bradbury-did-not-save-lawyer-from-losing-case-over-ai-errors/
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Flycatcher-v-Affable-Avenue-Transcript-10-20-25.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.227.0.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69454898/226/flycatcher-corp-ltd-v-affable-avenue-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69454898/227/flycatcher-corp-ltd-v-affable-avenue-llc/
U.S. Copyright Office Releases CASE Act Study on the Copyright Claims Board
The U.S. Copyright Office released its study assessing the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) after its first few years of operation. The report includes filing volume and outcome data, including 1,222 claims filed from June 2022 through March 2025, with a mix of standard claims (up to $30,000) and smaller claims (up to $5,000). The study also discusses participation/opt-out patterns and recommends procedural refinements to reduce friction while preserving due process.
https://copyright.gov/policy/CASE-study
About the Show / Contact
Website: www.entertainmentlawupdate.com
Special thanks to our volunteer contributors: Jon Janacek, Charles Thorn, and Alexis Allen. Interested in joining the ELU contributor team? Email entertainmentlawupdate@gmail.com..