"Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.
Following an internal review, and in light of concerns raised about your social media presence, we've decided not to proceed with publishing your work in this issue. As a trauma-informed and inclusive publication, the Aftershock Review has a duty of care to ensure our contributors and readers feel safe and respected. This decision reflects our commitment to those principles and is final.
A UK High Court judge ruled on 4 March that there is an "arguable case" for the court order, which was filed by McPartlin and Donnelly in August 2025. It centres on a relationship between the duo and an unidentified art consultant, only referred to in the filing as 'X'. The anonymous party handled the pair's purchase of six Banksy prints for a combined £550,000 from the art dealer, Andrew Lilley.
As the AI revolution accelerates and continues to reshape traditional business models, it has triggered a cascade of new legal, regulatory and policy challenges. At the forefront of these emerging issues are a growing number of high-stakes legal battles between content creators and major Generative AI (GenAI) companies behind large language models (LLMs). This article examines key legal themes and critical questions arising from recent developments at the intersection of AI and Copyright law.