Last month, we discussed NVIDIA’s demo video for its forthcoming DLSS 5 technology and the controversy surrounding it. While I’m going to continue to be of the posture that an injection of nuance is desperately needed in the reaction to AI tools and the like, our comments section largely disagreed with me on that post. That’s cool, that’s what this place is for, and I still love you all.

But this post is not about DLSS 5. Rather, it’s about the video itself and how it was briefly taken down over automated copyright claims thanks to an Italian news channel. Please note that the source material here was written while the video was still down, but it has since been restored.

And now, here we are in April, and NVIDIA’s DLSS 5 announcement trailer is no longer available to watch on YouTube on the company’s official GeForce channel. And no, it’s not because NVIDIA is responding to the feedback and retooling the technology for a re-reveal or re-announcement; it’s now blocked on “copyright grounds.”

A clear mistake, but also one that highlights the limitations of Google’s automated system for YouTube. Apparently, the Italian television channel La7 included footage from the DLSS 5 reveal in a recent broadcast and has since copyrighted it. From there, essentially every video on YouTube with DLSS 5 trailer footage was issued a copyright strike and said to be in violation, with the videos taken down with the following message: “Video unavailable: This video contains content from La7, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.”

Yes, this was clearly a mistake. But it’s a mistake that I’m frankly tired of hearing about, all while Google does absolutely nothing to iterate on its copyright process and systems to mitigate such mistakes. The examples of this very thing are so legion as to be laughable. Whether due to error or due to malicious intent, videos that include content from other videos for the purposes of reporting and commentary, which are then copyrighted and result in takedowns of the source material, happens all the damned time.

This is almost certainly all automated, which means there are no human eyes looking for an error in the flagging of a copyright violation. It just gets tagged as such and taken down. And, no, the irony is not lost on me that we need human eyes to keep an automated copyright takedown on a video about AI from occurring.

What makes this alarming is that the video was taken down with seemingly no human interaction or input, as it’s clear that NVIDIA not only created DLSS 5, for better or worse, but also the trailer that has been a hot topic of discussion this year. We’re assuming this will be resolved fairly quickly. Still, it will be interesting to see whether YouTube responds to this case and claims that false copyright infringement notices like this are prevalent on the platform.

Google hasn’t been terribly interested in commenting on the plethora of cases like this in the past, so I strongly doubt it will now. Which is a damned shame, honestly, because the company really should be advocating for all of the users on its platform, if not especially those that are negatively impacted by this haphazard process.

But, for now, the video is back, so you can go hate-watch it again if you like.

The Trump administration’s AI policy is two-faced, torn between deregulation and despotism.

In March, the administration released its National AI Legislative Framework, directing Congress to “prevent the United States government from coercing technology providers, including AI providers, to ban, compel, or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas.” This policy against government interference with AI is consistent with the administration’s purported light-touch approach to regulating the technology—but contrary to its recent actions.

In February 2025, Vice President Vance denounced “excessive regulation of the AI sector,” endorsing a “deregulatory flavor” of AI policy. Several months later, the administration released its AI Action Plan, pledging to “dismantle unnecessary regulatory barriers” and “onerous regulation.”

At first, the Trump administration followed through on this deregulatory promise. Three days into his second term, President Trump revoked an Executive Order from President Biden which established a government-wide effort to regulate and guide the development of the AI industry. Next, as directed by President Trump’s AI Action Plan, the Office of Science and Technology Policy initiated a proceeding to identify federal rules and regulations “that unnecessarily hinder” AI in order to implement “regulatory reform” and “promote” the technology. Last December, the Federal Trade Commission, led by two Trump appointees, set aside a Biden-era enforcement action against Rytr, an AI-powered writing assistant. The FTC explained that, “after reviewing the final order in response to President Trump’s AI Action Plan,” it concluded “the order unduly burdens innovation in the nascent AI industry.”

Despite the laissez-faire gesturing, however, the administration demonstrates a tyrannical impulse to control AI. In the same breath as denouncing excessive regulation, Vice President Vance demanded that “AI must remain free from ideological bias.” President Trump’s AI Action Plan echoed this command, directing AI companies to design their models “to pursue objective truth rather than social engineering agendas.” This rhetoric elides the fact that the First Amendment bars the government from deciding what constitutes “truth.”

In recent months, the administration has sought to exert control over the industry under the guise of combatting so-called “woke AI.” Last July, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government, prohibiting government procurement of AI models unless they are ideologically “neutral,” i.e., “nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI.” In January, Secretary of Defense Hegseth issued a memo instructing the Department of Defense to “utilize models free from usage policy constraints” and banning the DoD from “employ[ing] AI models which incorporate ideological ‘tuning.’”

The memo set the stage for the ongoing dispute between the administration and Anthropic, an American AI company. In July 2025, the DoD contracted with Anthropic to deploy its AI models for national security applications like intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, and cyber operations. In the contract, Anthropic stipulated that the government could not use its models for mass domestic surveillance or to power fully autonomous weapons—arguably violating Hegseth’s rule against usage constraints.

Consequently, in late February, Hegseth threatened to cut ties with Anthropic unless the company allowed the military to use its AI for “all lawful purposes.” When Anthropic refused, President Trump directed federal agencies to “IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology,” deriding the firm as “A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY.” He threatened to “use the Full Power of the Presidency to make [Anthropic] comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.”

The DoD then designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk” under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018, defined as an entity that “may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, extract data, or otherwise manipulate” the technology it provides “so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise manipulate” the use of the technology or the “information stored or transmitted” thereon. The government has never applied this designation to a U.S. company; it is typically reserved for foreign intelligence agencies, terrorists, and hostile actors. As a result, Anthropic may not provide products or services to the DoD, and contractors may not use its products while working on DoD projects. 

On March 9, Anthropic sued the administration in federal court, challenging the designation and seeking an injunction blocking its implementation. The company pleaded that the Trump administration has “harm[ed] Anthropic irreparably,” jeopardizing public and private contracts and costing it “hundreds of millions of dollars in the near-term,” as well as attacking “Anthropic’s reputation and core First Amendment freedoms.”

On March 26, the District Court for the Northern District of California sided with Anthropic and granted a preliminary injunction barring a variety of federal agencies from terminating their contracts. The court also blocked the DoD and Hegseth from implementing the supply chain risk designation. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin observed that the Trump administration is “punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position,” which “is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation.” Last week, the administration appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

Hegseth accused Anthropic of “duplicity,” but it is the Trump administration that has been duplicitous about its approach to AI. Despite championing deregulation, the administration has weaponized the federal government to punish an American AI company for refusing to bend to its will. Abusing the government procurement process to crush domestic AI firms is the opposite of light-touch regulation.

Judge Lin described the Trump administration’s actions against Anthropic as “Orwellian.” The administration has shown its ugly side on AI, and it looks a lot like tyranny. 

Andy Jung is associate counsel at TechFreedom, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank focused on technology law and policy.

In case you’ve been asleep, what appears to be an increasingly mentally unstable Donald Trump has further destabilized the middle east with a war nobody asked for or wanted. Most U.S. media coverage of Trump’s disastrous Iran war hasn’t been great, but they’ve still occasionally managed to communicate the pointlessness of the endeavor to the electorate (which speaks more of the unpopularity of the war than their reporting chops).

Trump recently announced a “cease fire” with Iran (which apparently isn’t even a cease fire), but refused to state what the conditions of the cease fire or long term peace actually are. The Iranian Security Council issued a list of ten demands that, if agreed to, would leave Iran in a stronger position than when this whole idiocy started:

Some news outlets, like CNN, simply reported directly on what Iran had claimed. This, as you might expect, upset Donald Trump and his top FCC censor Brendan Carr, who are now threatening an “investigation” of CNN for simply repeating what was publicly stated:

Not mentioned (of course) is the fact that Fox News also reported the Iran statement, yet avoided being called out by the president:

Trump later would issue another statement over at his right wing propaganda website, calling for criminal action against CNN (and CNN only), while making up a whole bunch of nonsense (he may or may not believe is actually true):

Trump’s sensitivity here suggests they’re well aware that a massive, superior military has been getting dog-walked by Iranians because Trump and his advisors were too stupid to understand modern, cheap drone warfare and how shipping in the Straight of Hormuz actually worked. The shipping logjam is driving up gas prices and making life difficult for Republicans ahead of the midterms.

There is, of course, absolutely zero basis for any meaningful criminal action against CNN here of any kind that wouldn’t be laughed out of court on free speech grounds. As we’ve seen with corporate media that doesn’t mean they won’t still capitulate embarrassingly, but so far CNN is standing its ground. As it should, since again, all it did was report on an Iranian statement in a very basic way alongside dozens of other news outlets.

The bigger threat, as I keep noting, is CNN’s looming acquisition by Larry Ellison as part of the Paramount Warner Brothers merger. CNN under current management is already very friendly to right wing ideology (see its enthusiastic platforming of MAGA bullshitter Scott Jennings). Under Ellison’s ownership (see: Bari Weiss at CBS) there’s little doubt CNN will be converted into yet another Trump agitprop network.

At which point, Trump will move on to threatening any remaining U.S. corporate media outlets that haven’t either embarrassingly capitulated or been purchased by a right wing billionaire. This is, as I keep repeating, an exact copy of Victor Orban’s autocratic media policy in Hungary, which involves having party-loyal oligarchs buy up all corporate media outlets and pummel the public with propaganda while the government strangles what’s left of real, independent reporting just out of frame.

First, some of the good news: certain AI models—currently Anthropic’s Mythos, but surely others are well on their way if they haven’t already arrived—turn out to be really good at finding cybersecurity vulnerabilities. As Anthropic itself reported:

During our testing, we found that Mythos Preview is capable of identifying and then exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in every major operating system and every major web browser when directed by a user to do so. The vulnerabilities it finds are often subtle or difficult to detect. Many of them are ten or twenty years old, with the oldest we have found so far being a now-patched 27-year-old bug in OpenBSD—an operating system known primarily for its security.

That’s quite the tool, if it can help find vulnerabilities so that they can be patched.

But it’s also quite the tool to help find vulnerabilities so that they can be exploited. Like so many tools, including technological tools, whether they are good or bad depends entirely in how they are used. A hammer is a really helpful tool for building things, but it also smashes windows. And with this news, AI now has the capability for some really destructive uses.

To try to prevent them, Anthropic is working with some of the largest tech companies in the world to let them use a preview of its model on their own software to help QA them and proactively patch vulnerabilities. As Casey Newton reports:

Anthropic announced Mythos alongside Project Glasswing, an initiative with more than 40 of the world’s biggest tech companies that will see Anthropic grant early access to the model to find and patch vulnerabilities across many of the world’s most important systems. Launch partners in the coalition include Apple, Google, Microsoft, Cisco and Broadcom.

They’ll be tasked with scanning and patching their own systems along with the critical open-source systems that modern digital infrastructure depends on. Anthropic is giving participants $100 million in usage credits for Mythos, and donating another $4 million to open-source security efforts.

This sounds like a great program. It also should be noted that the Mythos model is not consumer-grade AI; it takes expensive, dedicated infrastructure to run, which means that, at least for the moment, there’s not an imminent danger of it being misused. But trouble is nevertheless brewing, and someday it will be here, which raises certain questions, like:

(A) What about other AI models, which will inevitably be similarly powerful? What if they are produced by less ethical companies, who would have no compunction against rogue actors using their systems in destructive ways that Project Glasswing won’t have intercepted?

(B) And what about every single legacy technology system in use, which Project Glasswing is unlikely to be able to retroactively fix? Large, resourced companies may be able to weather the on-coming storm, but what about your local dentist office? Or a hospital? Municipal IT systems? Networked technology is everywhere, and these smaller businesses and institutions are likely to both have older, unpatched technology and also fewer resources to update and secure them, or deal with the consequences of a hack, which can be devastating for the business or the people they serve.

On the other hand, there does seem to be one other bit of good news with this revelation: governments, including that of the United States, have often engaged in the dubious practice of hording zero-days, or collecting information about vulnerabilities that they then kept secret so that they could exploit them themselves by using them on an adversary. For those unfamiliar, “zero-day” refers to a vulnerability that has yet to be disclosed, which is why it’s on “day zero,” or before the first day of it being a known vulnerability that could now be fixed.

Mythos’s capabilities would seem to obviate this strategy, because suddenly the stash of unknown vulnerabilities isn’t really going to be such a secret, since anyone using the model will be able to find them. Mythos’s existence changes the balance of interests, where the stronger national security play by the government would be to disclose any discovered vulnerability to the vendor as soon as possible so that they can be patched and our nation’s systems more secured. Arguably that was always the better national security play, but now there’s definitely no upside to trying to keep them secret because it now definitely needs to be presumed that adversaries will be able to find and exploit them. They’ll have the tools.

With these AI models we’re going to need to presume that everyone is going to have the tools to know about every vulnerability. Up to now there has been at least the illusion of some security, because vulnerabilities couldn’t be exploited if no one knew about them, and finding vulnerabilities is hard. But now that it will be easy, the risk to the nation’s cybersecurity is greater than we have ever before contended with.

It is also not really a great harbinger that we know about Mythos because… a copy of the software got leaked. It’s just the software that was leaked and not the models it uses to tune its “reasoning,” which means that anyone trying to now build their own Mythos is still missing an important piece if they want to mimic its full capabilities, but they would have a lot. Which is probably why Anthropic has been sending DMCA takedown notices to have the leaked software removed from the Internet.

But doing so raises a related issue: the role of copyright law when it comes to “vibe coding,” or “having an AI system write the software rather than a programmer, just by instructing it on what to do. It’s especially important in light of the cybersecurity concerns always raised by software (and including vibe-coded software, as we’re having to trust that what’s produced does not have vulnerabilities). Copyright requires a human author, which raises the question: can software written by an AI be copyrightable? The answer would appear to be no, unless there was a great deal of creative effort on the part of a human being to instruct the AI or modify the output. But as Ed Lee chronicled, per Anthropic itself, even its own software (“pretty much 100%”) is being written by AI. And if that’s the case, then Anthropic has no business sending takedown notices for its software because DMCA takedown notices are only for demanding the removal of copyrighted works, which, it would appear, Anthropic’s own code does not qualify for.

But maybe it’s better if software stops being subject to copyright. “Vibe coding,” is becoming increasingly efficient, to the point that there is likely no need for copyright to incentivize its authorship. Instead, what public policy really needs to emphasize is that whatever software is produced is secure software. But in many ways copyright obstructs that goal, like through its lengthy terms, which mean that while a copyright holder might not still be maintaining its older software, no one else can maintain and patch it either, without potentially infringing the software’s copyright.  Or through its privileged secrecy (unusually for copyright, when it comes to software you don’t actually have to disclose all the actual code to register a copyright in it!) and other powers to lock out security research efforts, like through Section 1201 of the DMCA, when such efforts aren’t specifically supported by the developer–assuming the developer supports any security testing at all, as right now there aren’t necessarily the incentives to make them care about it.  Instead public policy has given them the ability, like with copyright, to escape oversight of the security of their software products, even as those products end up embedded in more and more of our lives.

It’s time to change that focus and get copyright out of the way of making software security our top policy priority.

And fast.

Luminar Mobile is your all-in-one creative companion designed for iOS, Android OS, and Chrome OS. Powered by an intuitive, touch-responsive interface, it lets you enhance photos effortlessly—anytime, anywhere. Whether you’re adjusting lighting, perfecting portraits, or adding artistic flair, Luminar Mobile delivers pro-level results in the palm of your hand. It’s on sale for $20.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

I’m not here to cut the Trump administration any slack or engage in both-sides bullshit, but this is something that has always been true: we treat anyone imprisoned or detained as less than human. The dehumanization begins with something we call “processing” — a word that separates a human from their humanity by making them sound like nothing more than paperwork.

The horrors seen in jails and prisons are often compounded at immigrant detention facilities. While some duty of less-than-minimal care might be extended to imprisoned US citizens, it’s far more often ignored when federal officers believe (mistakenly) that migrants aren’t protected by the Constitution.

The litany of violations stretches back forever. Techdirt doesn’t stretch back quite that far, but let’s take a stroll down memory lane.

From 2022, back when Biden was still in office and people like me were thinking no one would ever elect Trump to office again:

ICE’s ‘Fierce Commitment’ To Ensuring Detainees Are Cared For Properly Includes Inadequate Staffing, Unsanitary Facilities

That’s taken from a report demanding (“Management Alert”) the immediate removal of all detainees from this New Mexico detention center due to numerous violations, including a shortage of 112 employees and no less than 83 cells with “inoperable” sinks and toilets.

Going back further to Trump’s first administration:

Report Shows ICE Almost Never Punishes Contractors Housing Detainees No Matter How Many Violations They Rack Up

In this Inspector General’s report, we learned that only 28 of 106 contractors were provided with the tools needed to meet minimum “performance standards.” We also learned that the $3.9 billion being thrown to private contractors was shored up by absolutely no level of accountability. ICE approved 96% of waivers requested by contractors who failed to meet minimum housing standards for detainees.

While it’s been a persistent problem, things are significantly worse now. The Trump administration is detaining more migrants than ever before. It’s also far more willing to pawn these duties off on private prison contractors who prioritize making money over taking care of the people thrust into their care by Trump’s top bigots.

On top of that, the administration is fighting wars on several litigation fronts in hopes of preventing any form of oversight from slowing its roll towards total migrant annihilation. Everything that was bad before is getting so much worse.

Thanks to the White House Merchant of Death, RFK Jr., measles outbreaks are being reported at detention facilities. Thanks to absolutely every-fucking-body else in the administration, reports of inhumane conditions are somehow still on the rise, even after years of regularly reported inhuman conditions at ICE facilities.

Here’s even more. At a facility where guards were caught setting up suicide “death pools” for inmates, more evidence of deliberate cruelty and inhumane treatment has surfaced. The host of ongoing atrocities is none other than Camp East Montana, comfortably nestled in the heartland of the “who gives a fuck about immigrants” Fifth Circuit: El Paso, Texas.

Here’s the New York Times with the details of more man’s inhumanity to man, as personified by “immigration enforcement” forces of Trump’s second term.

An inspection in February of Camp East Montana in Texas, one of the country’s largest immigration detention centers, found dozens of violations of national standards, including instances that may have exposed detainees to illnesses and uses of force that were not documented, a new report found.

[…]

The inspection, which was carried out by the agency over three days in February and included interviews with 49 detainees, found that there were at least 49 overall “deficiencies” from national standards at the camp. Of all the deficiencies, 22 involved use of force and restraints, and five involved issues related to medical care. 

ICE actually released this inspection report. However, it did make sure names were changed redacted to protect the innocent guilty. While it’s uncharacteristically protective of the inspectors, it also makes sure we may never know which “Creative Corrections” employees helped make this detention center the hell hole it is.

Other censorship by the administration deliberately denies Americans access to the facts. What possible purpose is served here, other than allowing the government to pretend its rights violations were somehow excused by the [redacted] passage of time?

The government not only censored the number of detainee files reviewed, but also the ratio of files in noncompliance. What escapes ICE’s black-boxed attempts to redeem itself is this, which is plenty damning on its own:

[I]nitial classification process and initial housing assignments were not completed within 12 hours of detainees’ admission […]; rather they were completed 14 hours to 25 days after [admission]…

Everything that might show how often (or how frequently) violations occurred has been removed. It’s a deliberate muddying of the statistical waters. Who knows what’s behind the black box? It could mean rights were violated 10% of the time. Or it could mean rights were violated almost every time. But we the people — you know, the ones expected to foot the bill for this bullshit — aren’t allowed to know the actual details of what’s being done in our names.

If the government wants to play it that way, fine. We’ll just assume the worst and dare it to provide evidence to the contrary. And we know it never will. If or when the government decides to unredact this report, it will undoubtedly show us what we’ve always assumed: The administration and its contractors routinely abused detainees and violated their rights because the people in charge made it clear they don’t consider migrants to be humans.

And that makes this news as inevitable as it is deplorable:

So far this year, 14 people have died in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, including a Mexican man who was found unresponsive last week at a facility outside Los Angeles, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security.

If that seems like a low (or worse, an acceptable) number of deaths, think again:

In 2025, ICE reported 33 total in-custody deaths and in 2024 there were 11.

Deaths in ICE custody tripled under Trump during his first year back in office. If this pace continues, we’ll be looking at 56 in-custody deaths, which would nearly double the same number Trump managed to triple in 2025.

This will only get worse. The administration is still trying to buy up any warehouses it can to repurpose as detention centers. The workload is being stretched even thinner, leaving private citizens more poorly trained than current ICE officers in charge of the lives and well-being of thousands of detainees. The misery and death will continue. Unfortunately for us, this administration not only welcomes blood on its hands, but revels in it.

Last month FCC boss Brendan Carr illegally ignored remaining U.S. media consolidation laws to rubber stamp Nexstar’s $6.2 billion purchase of Tegna. It’s part of the generational Republican quest to steadily consolidate media, then replace whatever journalism remains with a soggy mish mash of lazy infotainment and right wing propaganda (see: Sinclair Broadcasting).

But there’s trouble in paradise: a judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the merger from proceeding. For now.

“Defendants must immediately cease all ongoing actions relating to integration and consolidation of Nexstar and Tegna,” wrote Troy Nunley, the chief judge in US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The savior in this case is curiously DirecTV, not-long-ago spun off from its own disastrous union with AT&T. DirecTV filed suit saying that the consolidation in local broadcast TV will erode what’s left of competition in the local broadcast TV sector, harming product quality, opinion diversity, and labor, while resulting in higher overall prices (for everyone) in exchange for even worse product.

From the restraining order:

“Nexstar admits the merger will greatly increase its already huge “scale” and its “leverage,” i.e., the ability to force its TV distribution customers, including Plaintiff, to pay even
higher fees for local news, live sports, and other content they distribute to their subscribers.
Plaintiff alleges Nexstar will also shut down local newsrooms in dozens of markets, reducing the amount, variety, and quality of local broadcast news that Americans rely on for trusted
information about their communities. Plaintiff asserts those harms from reduced
competition are precisely what antitrust laws are designed to prevent.”

Nexstar was so certain the merger was a done deal, it had begun changing the physical signs and logos on many of the acquired stations it had begun integrating, something it’s since been forced to reverse. The company has also tried to insist it can’t comply with some of the Judge’s demands because some aspects of the early integration “can’t be undone.”

The deal would combine Nexstar’s stable of more than local 200 stations with Tegna’s 65 outlets in major markets nationwide, blowing past restrictions that no company can control more than 39 percent of households (the new combined company reaches 54.5 percent). In addition to the NexStar lawsuit, the companies are also being sued by a coalition of eight attorneys general and consumer groups.

Since Rupert Murdoch convinced Ronald Reagan to eliminate laws preventing one mogul from owning a paper and TV station in one market, Republican policies (and corporations) have pushed relentlessly to pursue the goal of a monolithic, highly consolidated media in exclusive service to the extraction class and corporate power. The result has been anything but subtle.

Media scholars have been warning about the perils of this for decades, but only recently, under the ham-fisted efforts of Trumpism, have people truly begun seeing the full outline of the threat. The media sector (like most U.S. sectors) desperately needs an antitrust renaissance; and if the federal government is no longer willing to engage in adult supervision, other parties will have to fill the void.

A little over a year ago, we wrote about a fairly silly lawsuit filed against Netflix (and Warner Bros.) by Pepperdine University in California for trademark infringement. At issue is the Netflix show Running Point, which is a fictionalized story of a female executive thrust into ownership of a professional basketball team, inspired by the Lakers’ Jeannie Buss, who is also an Executive Producer on the show. The show’s fictional team, which is supposed to be a reference to the NBA’s Los Angeles Lakers, is called “The Waves”. Pepperdine’s sports teams are also called “The Waves”, which the school claimed made all of this trademark infringement.

They were wrong about that, as we said in the previous post. Creative works are given wide latitude in trademark law, specifically in that the Rogers test typically applies. Even in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s terrible ruling on parody in the case of the Bad Spaniels and Jack Daniels lawsuit, this was always a situation in which the Rogers test would definitely apply. Specifically, SCOTUS’ decision that Rogers doesn’t apply when the offending trademark is used as a source identifier, because we’re talking about a fictional team used in a wider work of fiction, meaning the use isn’t an identifier or any source.

Netflix and Warner petitioned for dismissal for those very reasons and the now the court has agreed and the suit has been dismissed.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela said ‌on Tuesday , opens new tab that the fictional Los Angeles Waves basketball team in “Running Point” did not violate the Malibu, California, school’s rights because the show did not use the “Waves” name and ​logo as trademarks.

The ruling goes into much more detail, of course. It very specifically examines whether the Rogers test applies, deciding it does based on the usage. For example:

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege that the Waves mark was used by Defendants to exploit the success of Plaintiff’s sports teams or to create an association between the Running Point series and Pepperdine’s teams. Rather, at most, the FAC shows that the Waves mark is “immediately recognized” to identify the Running Point series, and that its use is synonymous with the series. These allegations, which Plaintiff concludes show that the Waves mark is used to “identify the show” are still not sufficient to show that the Waves mark was used as a designation of source for the series. Plaintiff’s repeated use of the words “identify” and “source-identification” do not actually show how the Waves mark was used to identify the source of the series. Rather, here, Defendants clearly claim to be the source of the series.

Finally, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the marketing of the show or Defendants’ behavior in similar uses. Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ used the Waves mark in marketing the Running Point series, this does not alter the Court’s above analysis that the Waves mark is not used to identify the source of the series. And the fact that Defendants have obtained trademarks in fictional businesses central to their shows in the past again does not show that Defendants have used the Waves mark to identify the source of Running Point here.

The ruling goes on to note that if Rogers applies, the Lanham Act does not. With source identifying out of the equation, the only remaining question is if the use in this case is artistically relevant. As the fictional team the main character owns, the name of that team is obviously artistically relevant.

Pepperdine has been given leave to amend its complaint into something that is actually legally sound, but I’m struggling to understand what that would even be. In lieu of an amended complaint, it seems that some creative works are still protected some of the time from nonsense trademark infringement claims, even in a post Bad Spaniels world.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.

Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.

In this week’s roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Ben is joined by Fadza Madzingira, a digital policy expert with a decade of experience at Meta, Salesforce, Ofcom and currently Twitch, where she leads the policy, outreach and education teams. Together, they discuss:

• Exclusive: Meta has discussed ending funding to the Oversight Board (Platformer)
• Spotlight: Five Years of the Oversight Board, from Experiment to Essential Institution (Ctrl-Alt-Speech)
• What Teens Are Doing With Those Role-Playing Chatbots (The New York Times)
• Early Lessons from Australia’s Teen Social Media Ban for the Rest of the World (Tech Policy Press)
• Stuck in the Middleware with Youth with Vaishnavi J (Ctrl-Alt-Speech)
• Greece to ban social media for under-15s from 2027, calls on EU action (Reuters)
• The Family Tech Cycle: Navigating Screens, Devices, and Social Media (Joan Ganz Cooney Center)

We’re still yet to find a Ctrl-Alt-Speech 2026 Bingo Card winner — could this week be your lucky day? Play along.

Copyright law is supposed to encourage creativity. Too often, it’s used to extract payouts from others.

Higbee & Associates, a law firm known for sending copyright demand letters to website owners, targeted May First Movement Technology, accusing it of infringing a photograph owned by Agence France-Presse (AFP). The claim was baseless. May First didn’t post the photo. It didn’t even own the website where the photo appeared.

May First is a nonprofit membership organization that provides web hosting and technical infrastructure to social justice groups around the world. The allegedly infringing image was posted years ago by one of May First’s members, a human rights group based in Mexico. When May First learned about the copyright complaint, it ensured that the group removed the image.

That should have been the end of it. Instead, the firm demanded payment.

So EFF stepped in as May First’s counsel and explained why AFP and Higbee had no valid claim. After receiving our response, Higbee backed down.

This outcome is a reminder that targets of copyright demands often have strong defenses—especially when someone else posted the material.

Hosting Content Isn’t the Same as Publishing It

Copyright law treats those who create or control content differently from those who simply provide the tools or infrastructure for others to communicate.

In this case, May First provided hosting services but didn’t post the photo. Courts have long recognized that service providers aren’t direct infringers when they merely store material at the direction of users. In those cases, service providers lack “volitional conduct”—the intentional act of copying or distributing the work.

Copyright law also recognizes that intermediaries can’t realistically police everything users upload. That’s why legal protections like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbors exist. Even outside those safe harbors, courts still shield service providers from liability when they promptly respond to notices.

May First did exactly what the law expects: it notified its member, and the image came down.

A Claim That Should Have Been Withdrawn Much Sooner

The troubling part of this story isn’t just that a demand was sent. It’s that Higbee and AFP continued to demand money and threaten litigation after May First explained that it was merely a hosting provider and had the image removed.

In other words, the claim was built on shaky legal ground from the start. Once May First explained its role, Higbee should have withdrawn its demand. Individuals and small nonprofits shouldn’t need lawyers just to stop aggressive copyright shakedowns.

Statutory Damages Fuel Copyright Abuse

This isn’t an isolated case—it’s a predictable result of copyright law’s statutory damages regime.

Statutory damages can reach $150,000 per work, regardless of actual harm. That enormous leverage incentivizes firms like Higbee to send mass demand letters seeking quick settlements. Even meritless claims can generate revenue when recipients are too afraid, confused, or resource-constrained to fight back.

This hits community organizations, independent publishers, and small service providers that don’t have in-house legal teams especially hard. Faced with the threat of ruinous statutory damages, many just pay what is demanded.

That’s not how copyright law should work.

Know Your Rights

If you receive a copyright demand based on material someone else posted, don’t assume you’re liable.

You may have defenses based on:

• Your role as a hosting or service provider
• Lack of volitional conduct
• Prompt removal of the material after notice
• The statute of limitations
• The copyright owner’s failure to timely register the work
• The absence of actual damages

Every situation is different, but the key point is this: a demand letter is not the same as a valid legal claim.

Standing Up to Copyright Trolls

May First stood its ground, and Higbee abandoned its demand after we explained the law.

But the bigger problem remains. Copyright’s statutory damages framework enables aggressive enforcement tactics that targets the wrong parties, and chills lawful online activity.

Until lawmakers fix these structural incentives, organizations and individuals will keep facing pressure to pay up—even when they’ve done nothing wrong.

If you get one of these demand letters, remember: you may have more rights than it suggests.

• EFF Letter to Higbee and Associates, March 4, 2026

Republished from EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

The 2026 Canva Bundle has six courses to help you learn about graphic design. From logo design to business cards to branding to bulk content creation, these courses have you covered. It’s on sale for $20.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

We’ve talked for years about how the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown system is ripe for abuse. The legal structure of the law practically begs for such abuse: send a notice, content disappears, and the target has to fight through a slow counter-notice process to maybe get it back. The system rewards speed of takedowns over accuracy because the burden of getting it wrong really only works one way. Sites have incentive to take content down first and ask questions later to avoid facing expensive liability. Getting it wrong may frustrate those whose content has disappeared, but there’s basically no legal cost to the platform. But if they get something wrong and leave infringing content up, they could face a very expensive legal bill. Which means anyone with something to hide and no particular attachment to honesty has a ready-made censorship tool at their disposal.

And while Google is rare in that it is much more aggressive in rejecting DMCA notices than most other sites, that doesn’t mean that it’s perfect.

Last week, Press Gazette published an investigation into Clickout Media, a UK-based company that has been buying up respected online news outlets, gutting their newsrooms, replacing human journalists with AI-generated writers (complete with AI-generated profile photos), and stuffing the sites full of affiliate links to offshore gambling operations. The whole game is to exploit the acquired sites’ reputations and search rankings — what’s known as “parasite SEO” — to drive gambling traffic through what look like legitimate publications. It’s a really excellent piece of reporting about a practice that is gutting digital news brands. Just a quick snippet, though it’s worth reading the whole thing:

Speaking anonymously, one former Clickout Media employee said: “I was moved from site to site. Writing guidelines and strategies changed every other week with very little explanation. At first, I didn’t write casino content, but then I wrote articles on bets and odds. Then AI articles started appearing.”

The owners of one site bought by UK-based Clickout Media said they were approached by anonymous buyers in the first instance.

The organisation has previously bought multiple sites in football and women’s sports (Football Blog, She Kicks, Sportslens, Sportslens UK, Sportscasting UK, Football Blog UK), as well as gambling sites, including Gambling Insider, for which it is suggested Clickout Media paid at least £12m.

However, within days of being published, the exposé disappeared from Google’s search results, removed after a DMCA copyright complaint.

A search of the exact Press Gazette headline: “The SEO parasites buying, exploiting and ultimately killing online newsbrands” does not bring the article up.

A note at the bottom of the Google search results page reveals for this query states: “In response to multiple complaints that we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org: Complaint, Complaint.”

A follow-up article by Search Engine Land covering the same topic was also removed (that’s the second “complaint” link above). So whoever was behind this was being thorough.

Now, Press Gazette doesn’t definitively identify who filed the takedown notice, and we should be careful here too. The complaint was filed anonymously from “US Hub” which gives us little info but which Press Gazette notes “suggests the complaint originated outside the US.” You can connect the dots yourself on who has a reason to make an investigative exposé of Clickout Media vanish from search results, but we can’t say for certain.

What we can say for certain is that the takedown notice itself is laughably, almost impressively, bogus. You can read it yourself over at the Lumen Database. The complaint claims Press Gazette’s entirely original investigation infringes on an unrelated article published by The Verge. That Verge article? It’s actually about Google cracking down on sketchy SEO practices, the likes of which Clickout Media seems to engage in. Which is, if nothing else, a spectacularly on-the-nose URL to attach to a fraudulent takedown of an article about sketchy SEO practices.

The language of the notice is quite something:

The infringing news website has blatantly and willfully violated copyright law by copying our entire content word for word, including all images, which are solely owned by our company. This includes the complete replication of our original written material, as published on our official website, along with the proprietary visuals accompanying it. Despite multiple good-faith efforts to resolve this matter amicably, the infringing party (hereinafter referred to as “Infringer”) continues to unlawfully publish and distribute our copyrighted content without permission. This is a direct and flagrant breach of our rights and a clear violation of Google’s copyright policies. We hereby demand the immediate removal of this infringing material from Google search results to protect our intellectual property.

None of that is true. Not one word. The Press Gazette article is original reporting. It has nothing to do with the Verge piece cited as the “original” work. There were no “multiple good-faith efforts to resolve this matter amicably,” because there was no infringement to resolve. The whole thing reads like someone fed a prompt into a chatbot asking it to write an angry-sounding but legally meaningless DMCA notice, and then pointed it at an article they wanted to disappear.

As the Press Gazette report on the bogus takedown notes, SEO experts found the whole thing bizarre, in part because Google is actually much better than most at sniffing out bullshit DMCA takedowns. But this one they missed.

Writing on X, SEO consultant Glenn Gabe said: “Surprised this was approved by Google…This is a BS DMCA takedown that doesn’t even make sense.”

Google processes an absolutely massive volume of takedown requests and rejects a good chunk of them. But this is the Impossibility Theorem in action: at that kind of scale, even a system that works well most of the time will let nonsense through sometimes. One bad notice that should have been caught in a ten-second review slips past, and suddenly a major piece of investigative journalism is invisible to anyone searching for it.

The good news is that, as of March 31, the Press Gazette article was reinstated in Google’s search results. The system worked, eventually. But that ‘eventually’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The article was invisible during what was probably the peak window of public interest in the story. Legal challenges to DMCA takedowns can take weeks or months to resolve, and the people who file these bogus notices know that. The copyright-enabled censorship just has to last long enough to blunt the impact.

For what it’s worth, the Press Gazette isn’t the only outlet digging into Clickout Media’s practices. Aftermath recently published its own extensive investigation based on eight months of reporting and interviews with more than two dozen current and former employees. That piece documents AI-generated author profiles, fake credentials (one supposed writer claimed an MA from Oxford in a program the university confirmed has never existed), writers being told never to publicly acknowledge any connection to Clickout Media, and a systematic strategy of acquiring beloved gaming publications only to fill them with crypto casino links.

Clickout Media is getting more and more negative attention, and Streisanding the Press Gazette story by having it removed from search will probably just attract more investigative reporters to the subject.

The company already has a pretty sketchy pattern: buy a respected publication, exploit its reputation, squeeze out whatever search ranking value you can, and discard the husk. And when someone publishes an article documenting what you’re doing, apparently get someone to file a bullshit copyright claim to make that article disappear too. It’s sketchy SEO all the way down.

This is why those of us who spend our time in the weeds of internet law won’t shut up about how legal liability systems are structured. The DMCA’s notice-and-takedown framework already gives bad actors a weapon to suppress speech. You don’t need a legitimate copyright claim. You don’t even need a coherent one. You just need to file the paperwork and wait for an automated system to do its thing.

And every time someone proposes weakening Section 230, or creating new obligations for platforms to proactively police third-party content, or imposing liability for hosting material that someone claims is harmful — they are, whether they realize it or not, proposing to hand bad actors this same kind of weapon in a dozen new calibers. The DMCA is the version of this we already have, and we can see plainly how it gets abused. We should be fixing the current system, and punishing the widespread abuses, rather than spreading that same broken incentive structure to every other area of online speech.

Bad actors will always exploit whatever legal lever is available to suppress content they don’t like. The question for policymakers is whether you’re going to keep handing them more levers. These kinds of bogus DMCA takedowns should be a warning for all those demanding reforms “weakening” Section 230. Because if you think bogus DMCA takedowns are bad now, just wait until they’re not just about copyright.