LEGAL ANNEXES
The case law the framework anticipates. Nine annexes consolidating the major AI-and-IP litigation and policy developments that the framework’s rights architecture is designed to address.
Annex 1 — Andersen v. Stability AI (US, ongoing)
Visual artists’ class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt. Claims of copyright infringement through training-data ingestion and derivative-output generation. Framework relevance: CIP-Training-Ingestion field, TDM opt-out architecture.
Annex 2 — Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK, judgment + appeal pending)
Getty’s UK High Court claim. Judgment found infringement through training-data ingestion. Framework relevance: database rights, training-data provenance, CIP-Rights-Database field.
Annex 3 — Bartz v. Anthropic (US, $1.5B settlement)
Music publisher claims against AI training. Framework relevance: CMO-Registration, Source Material Declaration Architecture.
Annex 7 — NYT v. OpenAI / Microsoft (US, ongoing)
The New York Times’ claim for training-data ingestion and output memorisation. Framework relevance: TDM opt-out, Output-Provenance Architecture, training-data documentation.
Annex 6 — UK and EU policy developments
UK CDPA reform proposals, EU AI Act Articles 50 and 53, TDM exception debates. Framework relevance: Jurisdiction-Scope field, regulatory-restriction reason code.
Per-jurisdiction summary indices
Cross-referenced indices by jurisdiction (US, UK, EU, international) and by framework feature (which annexes are relevant to which fields and architectures).
CIP Legal-Evidentiary Annexes v3.22 (Path B expansion v3.23), https://creativeip.org/legal-annexes