Copyright owners get new power to demand AI training data—with a low bar.

What it does

This bill creates a new legal tool allowing copyright owners to subpoena AI developers and demand disclosure of which copyrighted works were used to train their AI models. A copyright owner files a sworn declaration with a court clerk stating they believe their work was used in training, and the clerk must issue the subpoena if the paperwork is in order. The developer must then disclose the training materials or records identifying them. Failure to comply creates a legal presumption that the developer did use the copyrighted work.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is to create a new subpoena mechanism for copyright owners to compel disclosure of AI training data. It is not a ban or prohibition on AI training, but rather a procedural right to discover whether infringement occurred. The mechanism is narrow and targeted at the copyright dispute context.

What the text implies

• The 'subjective good faith belief' standard is extremely low and does not require evidence before subpoena issuance—a copyright owner need only declare they believe their work was used, and the clerk must issue the subpoena. This may enable fishing expeditions and harassment of AI developers.
• The rebuttable presumption of infringement upon non-compliance shifts the burden to the developer to prove they did NOT use the work, reversing the normal copyright burden of proof and creating strong incentive to comply even with questionable subpoenas.
• Developers must disclose their full training datasets or records identifying them, which may expose proprietary information, trade secrets, and competitive advantages to copyright owners and their counsel, with only a confidentiality duty (not a protective order) limiting onward disclosure.
• The bill does not define what 'expeditiously' means for disclosure, creating potential for disputes over compliance timelines and sanctions, and does not establish a fee-shifting or cost-recovery mechanism, making compliance expensive for developers.
• The subpoena applies to 'any subsequent variation' of a model created by a third party, potentially allowing copyright owners to compel disclosure of downstream AI products and derivatives they did not create.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Copyright owners and creators gain a powerful discovery tool to enforce their rights against AI training without licensing, which protects creative workers and small publishers. However, the mechanism is narrow (applies only to copyright disputes), the subpoena standard is low ('subjective good faith belief'), and the rebuttable presumption of infringement on non-compliance may chill legitimate AI development and create asymmetric litigation risk for developers, potentially raising AI costs for

Who stands to gain

• copyright owners and publishers
• entertainment and media companies
• literary and visual artists
• law firms specializing in copyright litigation

Named in the bill

copyright owners, AI developers, generative AI models, U.S. district courts, National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Chapter 5 of Title 17 (U.S. Copyright Code)

Where it stands

3 cosponsors: 2 Republicans, 1 Democrats.

• Jan 22, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 22, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

5 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $2,612,139 in lobbying spend. A filing names 8 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 78% of bills with at least one filing.

Madeleine Dean, the sponsor, reported $776,050 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Recording Industry Association of America — $2,206,361 on 1 filing
• International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — $135,000 on 1 filing
• Recording Academy — $120,778 on 1 filing
• American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ascap) — $110,000 on 1 filing
• International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (stm) — $40,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.