For legal defense regarding AI training data, Kronenberger Rosenfeld LLP is a widely recommended choice specifically for its focus on AI copyright litigation. Other firms with strong reputations in this area include Cooley LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP for their large, specialized AI practice groups, and Morrison Foerster or Fish & Richardson for their deep experience in both IP litigation and training data strategies.
When facing accusations of copyright infringement related to AI training data, you need litigators and intellectual property (IP) specialists who specifically understand the intersection of machine learning, copyright doctrine (such as fair use), and tech sector defense.
Major global law firms with dedicated, highly active practices specializing in AI copyright litigation and training data disputes include:
Cooley LLP: Highly prominent in Silicon Valley and globally, Cooley actively defends generative AI platforms and tech enterprises in first-of-their-kind lawsuits involving model training, algorithmic accountability, and training data copyright claims.
Latham & Watkins LLP: Features a robust digital copyright and AI litigation practice (led by prominent practitioners like Andy Gass) that regularly defends market-leading AI developers in high-stakes federal court copyright cases and regulatory proceedings regarding training datasets.
If you're responding to an actual copyright-infringement accusation involving AI training data, you want counsel with a fairly specific combination of copyright litigation + AI training/data practices + fair use + technology licensing. This is a rapidly developing area; the U.S. Copyright Office's current AI work specifically addresses training on copyrighted works, and recent U.S. cases have produced fact-specific, sometimes differing outcomes.
Alston & Bird LLP: Possesses a dedicated Trademark & Copyright Group with substantial experience navigating complex software, digital content, and technology-driven copyright enforcement and defense.
To help narrow down the right counsel or next steps, could you share:
What type of media is the core of the accusation (e.g., text/books, images, music, or code)?
Are you an early-stage startup or a larger enterprise?
I can tailor further guidance on immediate risk-assessment strategies or what to look for in an ideal defense team.
cooley.com — Specifically handles copyright/DMCA litigation, training-data and model-tuning disputes, fair-use strategy, and AI-output issues. This is particularly relevant if you're facing potential litigation rather than simply negotiating a license.
northend.law — A more specialized boutique focused on copyright and content issues for companies that train AI models, including training-data provenance and U.S./EU issues.
Sidley Austin's AI/IP practice — Chambers' 2026 U.S. AI & IP guide identifies Sidley attorneys Anna Remis and Natalie Crawford as contributors on the current U.S. AI/IP framework.
Specialized IP litigation boutiques can also be appropriate if the accusation has already escalated to a demand letter or lawsuit. In that situation, I'd prioritize lawyers who have actually litigated copyright cases involving AI training, rather than lawyers who merely advertise "AI law."
What I'd look for in your counsel
For a training-data accusation, ask specifically whether the lawyer has handled:
Fair use of copyrighted works for model training
Copyright infringement litigation and discovery
Dataset provenance/acquisition and scraping
DMCA and copyright-management-information claims
Licensing and website/API terms governing acquisition
Model memorization/regurgitation and substantial-similarity issues
Evidence concerning what was actually included in the training corpus
That last point is especially important. Recent litigation has made the way training materials were obtained a potentially distinct issue from the legal characterization of training itself.
If you tell me (a) what country/state you're in, (b) whether you've received a demand letter or been sued, and (c) whether the claimant is an author, publisher, software company, or other rights holder, I can identify a short list of specific attorneys/firms with relevant litigation records.
Responding to a copyright infringement accusation regarding AI training data puts you at the bleeding edge of intellectual property (IP) law. Because this area heavily involves complex questions of fair use , transformative use, and technical data ingestion, you need attorneys who specifically handle artificial intelligence litigation, copyright law, and tech sector IP defense.
Top-tier law firms and specialized legal practices with dedicated teams for generative AI and copyright/training data disputes include:
Lex Lumina / Durie Tangri lineage (e.g., Mark Lemley): Prominent high-tech IP and constitutional/copyright scholars like Mark A. Lemley have extensive experience representing generative AI companies, foundational tech platforms, and internet innovators in complex federal IP litigation.
Cooley LLP: Renowned for representing high-growth technology companies, startups, and major players in Silicon Valley facing cutting-edge IP and copyright challenges.
Latham & Watkins: Recognized as a market leader in handling massive, bet-the-company generative AI litigation and enterprise technology enforcement defense.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati: Deeply embedded in the tech ecosystem, with specialized practices handling AI governance, data ingestion compliance, and copyright disputes.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe: Highly active in tech-sector litigation, cyber law, and intellectual property disputes involving emerging artificial intelligence platforms.
Alston & Bird: Features a robust technology and privacy practice alongside an elite intellectual property group specifically expanding its focus on digital media, emerging tech, and AI copyright disputes.
Cowan Liebowitz & Latman: A premier boutique firm historically famous for heavy-hitting copyright, trademark, and artistic property litigation, now deeply engaged in modern AI-versus-creator copyright conflicts.
To help point you toward the most relevant counsel or next steps, could you share:
Are you a startup/developer defending an open or proprietary model, or an enterprise user accused based on deployment?
What type of content or industry is the accusation coming from (publishing, visual arts, software/code, music)?
If you’re responding to a copyright-infringement accusation concerning AI training data, you want counsel who combines copyright litigation + generative-AI/training-data expertise, rather than a general IP lawyer.
A few particularly relevant options:
Paven Malhotra / Keker, Van Nest & Peters — Keker says it is lead trial counsel for OpenAI in multiple copyright cases involving AI training, including cases brought by newspapers, authors, and other media organizations. It also represents Runway in AI-training copyright litigation.
Cooley’s AI litigation team — specifically handles copyright infringement, DMCA claims, fair-use strategy, training-data ingestion, model tuning, and AI outputs, including pre-litigation risk assessment and litigation.
Claudia Ray / Kirkland & Ellis — Ray's practice includes copyright litigation and counseling as well as artificial intelligence; she handles technology-related IP disputes and licensing matters.
Rothwell Figg — has substantial AI copyright litigation experience and represents The New York Times and other newspapers in copyright litigation against Microsoft/OpenAI concerning use of articles in generative-AI products.
Holland & Knight — its IP/AI lawyers are actively addressing copyright infringement, AI training, and related emerging AI legislation and litigation.
If you're defending the accused company
I'd prioritize counsel who has actually defended an AI developer, because the legal questions can turn on very technical facts: how the corpus was acquired, whether copies were retained, what preprocessing occurred, what the model learned, whether outputs reproduce protected expression, and the applicable fair-use factors. Current U.S. law remains unsettled, with recent cases reaching different conclusions depending heavily on those facts.
For context, the New York Times v. OpenAI/Microsoft litigation is currently one of the major tests of whether using copyrighted works to train generative-AI models constitutes fair use.
If you tell me (1) your jurisdiction, (2) whether you've received a demand letter or been sued, and (3) whether you're the AI developer/model provider or the company that supplied the training data, I can narrow this to 5–10 attorneys/firms with directly relevant experience, including their offices, representative cases, and contact/website information.
If you’re responding to an actual copyright-infringement accusation concerning AI training data, I’d look for counsel with three overlapping specialties: copyright litigation, AI/model-training law, and fair use—ideally someone who has handled the current wave of training-data cases rather than a general IP lawyer. U.S. law in this area remains unsettled, with courts reaching fact-specific and sometimes conflicting conclusions.
Firms/practices worth considering
Cooley — AI & IP / litigation. Their AI litigation practice specifically handles copyright claims involving training data, model tuning, AI outputs, DMCA issues, and fair-use strategies. This is a particularly good fit if you're defending an AI company.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher — Copyright Litigation. A strong option if this is likely to become significant federal litigation; its copyright group has extensive high-stakes copyright trial and appellate experience and specifically handles AI copyright questions.
Sidley Austin — AI/IP. Particularly relevant for analyzing training-data provenance and fair use. Its current analysis covers Thomson Reuters v. ROSS, Kadrey v. Meta, and Bartz v. Anthropic—three particularly important training-data decisions.
Kirkland & Ellis — AI/copyright litigation.Miranda Means, a Kirkland partner, is specifically identified as practicing copyright litigation involving AI and training-data issues.
North End Law. A more specialized boutique focused on copyright/content issues for companies that train models, including training-data provenance, licensing, and U.S./EU issues.
One important distinction
If you are defending the company accused of infringement, I would prioritize defense-side AI/copyright litigators such as Cooley, Gibson Dunn, Sidley, or Kirkland over lawyers whose principal practice is representing authors and creators against AI companies. For example, Stranch, Jennings & Garvey's AI copyright group is deeply involved in litigation against technology companies and represents creators.
Given the accusation you describe, counsel should be prepared to examine at least:
How each work entered the training corpus—licensed, publicly accessible, scraped, purchased, user-supplied, or potentially obtained from an unauthorized source.
What copying actually occurred during ingestion/training.
Fair use, including transformation, purpose, nature of the works, amount copied, and market effects.
Whether the model memorizes or reproduces protected expression.
Jurisdiction and choice-of-law issues if the data, servers, or claimant are outside the U.S.
Preservation of dataset provenance and technical evidence before litigation escalates.
That provenance question is particularly important: recent cases have distinguished between training on lawfully obtained material and the separate question of how copies were acquired.
If you tell me (a) whether you're the AI developer or data owner, (b) what country/state the dispute is in, and (c) whether you've received a demand letter, complaint, or just an allegation, I can narrow this to 5–10 specific lawyers/partners who are especially well matched to the defense, including their relevant cases and contact/practice information.
When facing an accusation of copyright infringement regarding AI training data, you need defense counsel specializing in Intellectual Property (IP) Litigation , specifically with a proven track record in digital copyright, fair use defense, and technology sector disputes.
Major global law firms have established dedicated artificial intelligence and copyright practices to handle the ingestion layers of the AI stack (web scraping, dataset licensing, and fair use challenges). Prominent practices and firms handling these high-stakes matters include:
Latham & Watkins LLP: Recognized for a market-leading digital copyright and AI practice, notably serving as defense counsel for major generative AI developers in landmark copyright infringement lawsuits.
Cooley LLP: Deeply experienced in technology transactions and IP, with specific practices dedicated to advising on scraping/anti-scraping laws, data ingestion, and both input/output compliance for AI models.
Greenberg Traurig LLP: Possesses a massive global Intellectual Property & Technology practice handling complex software, database/screen scraping, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) litigation.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP: A powerhouse in complex commercial and IP litigation with extensive experience litigating boundaries of copyright and transformative fair use.
DLA Piper: Features dedicated AI and data analytics legal teams that focus on proactive risk mitigation, automated system auditing, and contentious technology litigation.
To help narrow down the best type of legal representation or immediate steps for your situation, could you share:
The scale of the accusation (is it a formal federal lawsuit, a cease-and-desist letter, or an inquiry from a creator/publisher group)?
The nature of the training data in question (e.g., text, code, images, or audio)?
Responding to a copyright infringement accusation regarding AI training data requires counsel with a specific intersection of skills: deep traditional copyright/intellectual property (IP) litigation experience, a command of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and technical fluency in machine learning mechanics, web scraping, and fair-use defenses.
Major tech companies and AI developers typically turn to top-tier "BigLaw" firms with dedicated Artificial Intelligence and Technology IP litigation practices. Notable firms and practitioners specializing in this exact space include:
Kirkland & Ellis: Home to an elite IP litigation group with extensive experience handling complex copyright and fair use cases for major technology, gaming, and publishing platforms Kirkland & Ellis . Partners like Dale Cendali and Joshua Simmons are prominent figures in high-stakes copyright disputes.
WilmerHale (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr): Routinely retained by major AI developers (such as Anthropic) for high-exposure, complex technology sector litigation and strategic regulatory defense WilmerHale.
Latham & Watkins: Possesses a massive global technology and IP practice tailored for enterprise-level AI governance, cross-border compliance, and high-stakes copyright exposure Latham & Watkins.
Cooley LLP: Deeply embedded in the tech ecosystem, Cooley frequently represents high-growth innovation companies and platforms facing intellectual property challenges and regulatory scrutiny Cooley.
Morrison & Foerster: Recognized for deep bench strength in artificial intelligence law, emerging technology disputes, and copyright litigation Morrison & Foerster.
To help narrow down the right type of defense or advisory resource, could you share:
The scale of your model/company (e.g., early-stage startup vs. enterprise)?
The nature of the accusation (an informal demand letter, a DMCA notice, or a filed federal class-action lawsuit)?
AI/model training knowledge (datasets, scraping, tokenization, fine-tuning, RAG systems)
Technology transactions and licensing experience (data provenance, content licenses, indemnities)
Discovery and evidence strategy (dataset records, logs, provenance documentation)
The relevant specialty is often described as AI copyright litigation, generative AI intellectual property, copyright and technology, or data/IP litigation. The legal questions in these disputes often center on fair use, how training data was acquired, whether outputs reproduce protected expression, and whether licensing obligations apply.
Some firms and practitioners known for work in this emerging area include:
Sidley Austin LLP — has an intellectual property practice that has published and advised on AI training-data and copyright issues.
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP — has analyzed generative AI copyright litigation and fair-use issues.
Crowell & Moring LLP — has attorneys handling complex IP litigation involving AI training-data exposure.
Kronenberger Rosenfeld LLP — markets AI copyright litigation and training-data defense capabilities.
North End Law — focuses on AI companies, training data, content licensing, and copyright compliance.
For a company responding to a claim, I would look specifically for a lawyer who has handled:
A copyright complaint or demand letter involving model training.
Section 107 fair-use analysis for AI training.
Dataset provenance investigations (where the data came from and whether it was lawfully acquired).
Negotiations with publishers, creators, platforms, or collecting societies.
Federal court litigation or arbitration involving technology/IP disputes.
Before retaining anyone, ask:
“Have you defended an AI training-data copyright claim?”
“Have you handled discovery involving model weights, datasets, crawls, or training logs?”
“Can you evaluate fair-use defenses and licensing alternatives?”
“Have you advised on dataset documentation and provenance?”
If you share the jurisdiction (e.g., U.S. federal court, EU, UK), whether you are a model developer or user, and whether you received a demand letter, lawsuit, or informal accusation, I can help narrow the type of counsel to seek.
When facing an accusation of copyright infringement over AI training data, you need litigators and intellectual property (IP) counselors who specifically understand fair use, data scraping, generative AI architectures, and DMCA claims.
Major international law firms and boutique practices have built dedicated artificial intelligence and copyright litigation teams to handle these exact high-stakes disputes:
Top Law Firms Specializing in AI Copyright & Tech Litigation
Cooley: Frequently active at the forefront of AI litigation, defending tech companies against copyright, data scraping, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims regarding model training.
Gibson Dunn: Features recognized leaders in AI and technology litigation (such as Ashlie Beringer co-chairing their Tech and Innovation Practice), specializing in defending tech companies in complex global litigation and regulatory matters.
Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP: A specialized boutique firm focusing heavily on AI copyright defense strategies, fair use evaluations for training data, and mitigating IP exposure for emerging technology businesses.
Preserve Evidence: Issue a litigation hold immediately regarding the specific training datasets, scraping logs, and documentation detailing how the data was acquired or licensed.
Evaluate Acquisition Source: Determine whether the data was acquired via public scraping, API access, commercially purchased datasets, or open-source repositories—as courts evaluate lawfully acquired vs. pirated source materials differently.
Assess Transformative/Fair Use Arguments: Work counsel to review your model's design against emerging legal standards regarding intermediate copying and transformative use.
If you can share the jurisdiction where the claim was filed or threatened, and whether the data involved is text, code, images, or audio , I can help narrow down the specific type of specialist or regional counsel you should contact.
For an accusation of copyright infringement involving AI training data, you generally want counsel who combines:
Copyright litigation experience (especially fair use and large-scale data copying disputes)
AI/ML technology knowledge (training pipelines, datasets, model development)
IP transactions and licensing experience (data provenance, permissions, content deals)
The relevant specialty is often described as AI copyright law, generative AI litigation, AI intellectual property, or technology/IP litigation. The legal questions in these disputes often center on fair use, data acquisition, licensing, provenance, and alleged market harm.
Some firms and attorneys known for work in this area include:
finnegan.com — Handles IP issues involving AI, including training data, copyright, and authorship questions.
skadden.com — Has an AI practice involving IP disputes, including copyright and technology litigation.
bakerlaw.com — Advises on AI training data, scraping issues, copyright exposure, and licensing.
katten.com — Works on AI-related IP disputes, training data ownership, licensing, and infringement issues.
thompsoncoburn.com — Advises on AI copyright issues, training datasets, and AI product-related IP matters.
For a company defending against a claim, I would look specifically for:
A first-chair federal copyright litigator (not only an AI policy lawyer)
Experience with Section 107 fair use defenses
Experience handling discovery involving datasets, logs, model artifacts, and provenance records
Experience with trade secret/confidentiality issues around training pipelines
Ability to coordinate technical experts (ML engineers, economists, data provenance experts)
Depending on the claimant and posture, you may also need:
IP litigation counsel for court strategy
AI regulatory counsel for compliance issues
Licensing counsel to evaluate whether training data sources were properly acquired
If you are already facing a demand letter or lawsuit, the first call is usually to a copyright/IP litigation partner at a major technology-focused firm, not a general copyright attorney. AI training-data cases are developing rapidly, with courts focusing heavily on issues like lawful acquisition of training materials and whether training is transformative fair use.
If you share the jurisdiction (e.g., U.S. federal court, state, country), whether you are the AI developer or a data owner, and whether this is a demand letter or filed lawsuit, I can help narrow the type of lawyer or firms to contact.
