Barricades, as we know them today, are thought to date back to the European wars of religion. According to most historians, the first barricade went up in Paris in 1588; the word derives from the French barriques, or barrels, spontaneously put together. They have been assembled from the most diverse materials, from cobblestones, tyres, newspapers, dead horses and bags of ice (during Kyiv’s Euromaidan in 2013–14), to omnibuses and e‑scooters. Their tactical logic is close to that of guerrilla warfare: the authorities have to take the barricades in order to claim victory; all that those manning them have to do to prevail is to hold them.  The 19th century was the golden age for blocking narrow, labyrinthine streets. Paris had seen barricades go up nine times in the period before the Second Empire; during the July 1830 Revolution alone, 4,000 barricades had been erected (roughly one for every 200 Parisians). These barricades would not only stop, but also trap troops; people would then throw stones from windows or pour boiling water onto the streets. Georges‑Eugène Haussmann, Napoleon III’s prefect of Paris, famously created wide boulevards to make blocking by barricade more difficult and moving the military easier, and replaced cobblestones with macadam – a surface of crushed stone. As Flaubert observed in his Dictionary of Accepted Ideas: ‘Macadam: has cancelled revolutions. No more means to make barricades. Nevertheless rather inconvenient.’   Lead image: Barricades, as we know them today, are thought to have originated in early modern France. A colour engraving attributed to Achille‑Louis Martinet depicts the defence of a barricade during the 1830 July Revolution. Credit: Paris Musées / Musée Carnavalet – Histoire de Paris. Above: the socialist political thinker and activist Louis Auguste Blanqui – who was imprisoned by every regime that ruled France between 1815 and 1880 – drew instructions for how to build an effective barricade Under Napoleon III, Baron Haussmann widened Paris’s streets in his 1853–70 renovation of the city, making barricading more difficult Credit: Old Books Images / Alamy ‘On one hand, [the authorities] wanted to favour the circulation of ideas,’ reactionary intellectual Louis Veuillot observed apropos the ambiguous liberalism of the latter period of Napoleon III’s Second Empire. ‘On the other, to ensure the circulation of regiments.’ But ‘anti‑insurgency hardware’, as Justinien Tribillon has called it, also served to chase the working class out of the city centre: Haussmann’s projects amounted to a gigantic form of real-estate speculation, and the 1871 Paris Commune that followed constituted not just a short‑lived anarchist experiment featuring enormous barricades; it also signalled the return of the workers to the centre and, arguably, revenge for their dispossession.    By the mid‑19th century, observers questioned whether barricades still had practical meaning. Gottfried Semper’s barricade, constructed for the 1849 Dresden uprising, had proved unconquerable, but Friedrich Engels, one‑time ‘inspector of barricades’ in the Elberfeld insurrection of the same year, already suggested that the barricades’ primary meaning was now moral rather than military – a point to be echoed by Leon Trotsky in the subsequent century. Barricades symbolised bravery and the will to hold out among insurrectionists, and, not least, determination rather to destroy one’s possessions – and one’s neighbourhood – than put up with further oppression.   Not only self‑declared revolutionaries viewed things this way: the reformist Social Democrat leader Eduard Bernstein observed that ‘the barricade fight as a political weapon of the people has been completely eliminated due to changes in weapon technology and cities’ structures’. Bernstein was also picking up on the fact that, in the era of industrialisation, contention happened at least as much on the factory floor as on the streets. The strike, not the food riot or the defence of workers’ quartiers, became the paradigmatic form of conflict. Joshua Clover has pointed out in his 2016 book Riot. Strike. Riot: The New Era of Uprisings, that the price of labour, rather than the price of goods, caused people to confront the powerful. Blocking production grew more important than blocking the street. ‘The only weapons we have are our bodies, and we need to tuck them in places so wheels don’t turn’ Today, it is again blocking – not just people streaming along the streets in large marches – that is prominently associated with protests. Disrupting circulation is not only an important gesture in the face of climate emergency; blocking transport is a powerful form of protest in an economic system focused on logistics and just‑in‑time distribution. Members of Insulate Britain and Germany’s Last Generation super‑glue themselves to streets to stop car traffic to draw attention to the climate emergency; they have also attached themselves to airport runways. They form a human barricade of sorts, immobilising traffic by making themselves immovable.   Today’s protesters have made themselves consciously vulnerable. They in fact follow the advice of US civil rights’ Bayard Rustin who explained: ‘The only weapons we have are our bodies, and we need to tuck them in places so wheels don’t turn.’ Making oneself vulnerable might increase the chances of a majority of citizens seeing the importance of the cause which those engaged in civil disobedience are pursuing. Demonstrations – even large, unpredictable ones – are no longer sufficient. They draw too little attention and do not compel a reaction. Naomi Klein proposed the term ‘blockadia’ as ‘a roving transnational conflict zone’ in which people block extraction – be it open‑pit mines, fracking sites or tar sands pipelines – with their bodies. More often than not, these blockades are organised by local people opposing the fossil fuel industry, not environmental activists per se. Blockadia came to denote resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline as well as Canada’s First Nations‑led movement Idle No More. In cities, blocking can be accomplished with highly mobile structures. Like the barricade of the 19th century, they can be quickly assembled, yet are difficult to move; unlike old‑style barricades, they can also be quickly disassembled, removed and hidden (by those who have the engineering and architectural know‑how). Think of super tripods, intricate ‘protest beacons’ based on tensegrity principles, as well as inflatable cobblestones, pioneered by the artist‑activists of Tools for Action (and as analysed in Nick Newman’s recent volume Protest Architecture).   As recently as 1991, newly independent Latvia defended itself against Soviet tanks with the popular construction of barricades, in a series of confrontations that became known as the Barikādes Credit: Associated Press / Alamy Inversely, roadblocks can be used by police authorities to stop demonstrations and gatherings from taking place – protesters are seen removing such infrastructure in Dhaka during a general strike in 1999 Credit: REUTERS / Rafiqur Rahman / Bridgeman These inflatable objects are highly flexible, but can also be protective against police batons. They pose an awkward challenge to the authorities, who often end up looking ridiculous when dealing with them, and, as one of the inventors pointed out, they are guaranteed to create a media spectacle. This was also true of the 19th‑century barricade: people posed for pictures in front of them. As Wolfgang Scheppe, a curator of Architecture of the Barricade (currently on display at the Arsenale Institute for Politics of Representation in Venice), explains, these images helped the police to find Communards and mete out punishments after the end of the anarchist experiment. Much simpler structures can also be highly effective. In 2019, protesters in Hong Kong filled streets with little archways made from just three ordinary bricks: two standing upright, one resting on top. When touched, the falling top one would buttress the other two, and effectively block traffic. In line with their imperative of ‘be water’, protesters would retreat when the police appeared, but the ‘mini‑Stonehenges’ would remain and slow down the authorities. Today, elaborate architectures of protest, such as Extinction Rebellion’s ‘tensegrity towers’, are used to blockade roads and distribution networks – in this instance, Rupert Murdoch’s News UK printworks in Broxbourne, for the media group’s failure to report the climate emergency accurately Credit: Extinction Rebellion In June 2025, protests erupted in Los Angeles against the Trump administration’s deportation policies. Demonstrators barricaded downtown streets using various objects, including the pink public furniture designed by design firm Rios for Gloria Molina Grand Park. LAPD are seen advancing through tear gas Credit: Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Roads which radicals might want to target are not just ones in major metropoles and fancy post‑industrial downtowns. Rather, they might block the arteries leading to ‘fulfilment centres’ and harbours with container shipping. The model is not only Occupy Wall Street, which had initially called for the erection of ‘peaceful barricades’, but also the Occupy that led to the Oakland port shutdown in 2011. In short, such roadblocks disrupt what Phil Neel has called a ‘hinterland’ that is often invisible, yet crucial for contemporary capitalism. More recently, Extinction Rebellion targeted Amazon distribution centres in three European countries in November 2021; in the UK, they aimed to disrupt half of all deliveries on a Black Friday.   Will such blockades just anger consumers who, after all, are not present but are impatiently waiting for packages at home? One of the hopes associated with the traditional barricade was always that they might create spaces where protesters, police and previously indifferent citizens get talking; French theorists even expected them to become ‘a machine to produce the people’. That could be why military technology has evolved so that the authorities do not have to get close to the barricade: tear gas was first deployed against those on barricades before it was used in the First World War; so‑called riot control vehicles can ever more easily crush barricades. The challenge, then, for anyone who wishes to block is also how to get in other people’s faces – in order to have a chance to convince them of their cause.        2025-06-11 Kristina Rapacki Share

Gardenful / TAOASave this picture!© Tao LeiLandscape Architecture•Beijing, China Architects: TAOA Area Area of this architecture project Area:  227 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  2024 Photographs Photographs:Tao LeiMore SpecsLess Specs Save this picture! Text description provided by the architects. This is an urban garden built for private use. As a corner of the city, I hope to fill the whole garden with abundant nature in this small space. The site is an open space in a villa compound, surrounded by a cluster of European-style single-family villas typical of Chinese real estate. Modern buildings greatly meet the requirements of indoor temperature and humidity comfort because of their complete facilities, but the building also has a clear climate boundary, cutting off the connection between indoor and outdoor, but also cut off the continuity of nature and life.Save this picture!Save this picture!There is no simple definition of the project as a garden or a building, too simple definition will only fall into the narrow imagination, the purpose is only to establish a place that can accommodate a piece of real nature, can give people shelter, can also walk in it. It is the original intention of this design to build a quiet place where you can be alone, a semi-indoor and semi-outdoor space, and re-lead the enclosed life to the outdoors and into the nature.Save this picture!Save this picture!The square site in the middle of the garden, which is a relatively independent space, the top shelter provides a comfortable life and cozy, the middle of the garden exposed a sky, sunshine and rain and snow will be staged here. With the corresponding land below, the trees and vegetation of the mountains are introduced into it, maintaining the most primitive wildness. To remain wild in this exquisite urban space, in this abstract geometric order, will naturally get rid of the wild gas of the original nature. A spatial transformation is made on both sides to the north, through the stairway and the upward pull of the roof space, extending the narrow auxiliary garden, which has no roof and is therefore bright, maintaining a different light and shade relationship from the central garden, which is filled with rocks and plants transplanted from the mountains.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!The structure of the garden is thin and dense synthetic bamboo, and the cross combination of dense structures forms a partition of the space, like a bamboo fence, forming a soft boundary. The interior of the space is lined with wooden panels, and the exterior is covered with thin and crisp aluminum panels. The "bridge" made of stone panels passes through different Spaces, sometimes standing between the bamboo structures, sometimes crossing the rocks, walking between them. Moving between order and wildness.Save this picture!Nature is difficult to measure, and because of its rich and ever-changing qualities, nature provides richness to Spaces. This is from the mountains to large trees, rocks, small flowers and plants, as far as possible to avoid artificial nursery plants. The structure of the garden will geometrically order the nature, eliminating the wild sense of nature. The details of nature can be discovered, and the life force released can be unconsciously perceived. The nature of fragments is real, is wild, and does not want to lose vitality and richness because of artificial transplantation. The superposition of wild abundance and modern geometric space makes it alive with elegance and decency.Save this picture!Save this picture!The nature is independent of the high-density urban space, becoming an independent world, shielding the noise of the city. These are integrated into a continuous and integral "pavilion" and "corridor" constitute the carrier of outdoor life of the family, while sheltering from the wind and rain, under the four eaves also create the relationship between light and dark space, the middle highlights the nature, especially bright, and becomes the center of life. From any Angle one can see a picture of hierarchy and order, a real fragment of nature, built into a new context by geometric order. The richness of nature is therefore more easily perceived, and the changes of nature are constantly played out in daily life and can be seen throughout the year.Save this picture! Project gallerySee allShow less Project locationAddress:Beijing, ChinaLocation to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address.About this officeTAOAOffice••• Published on June 15, 2025Cite: "Gardenful / TAOA" 15 Jun 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1028408/gardenful-taoa&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save想阅读文章的中文版本吗?满园 / TAOA 陶磊建筑是否 You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream

A dangerous strain of bird flu is spreading in US livestockMediaMedium/Alamy Since Donald Trump assumed office in January, the leading US public health agency has pulled back preparations for a potential bird flu pandemic. But as it steps back, another government agency is stepping up. While the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) previously held regular briefings on its efforts to prevent a wider outbreak of a deadly bird flu virus called H5N1 in people, it largely stopped once Trump took office. It has also cancelled funding for a vaccine that would have targeted the virus. In contrast, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has escalated its fight against H5N1’s spread in poultry flocks and dairy herds, including by funding the development of livestock vaccines. This particular virus – a strain of avian influenza called H5N1 – poses a significant threat to humans, having killed about half of the roughly 1000 people worldwide who tested positive for it since 2003. While the pathogen spreads rapidly in birds, it is poorly adapted to infecting humans and isn’t known to transmit between people. But that could change if it acquires mutations that allow it to spread more easily among mammals – a risk that increases with each mammalian infection. The possibility of H5N1 evolving to become more dangerous to people has grown significantly since March 2024, when the virus jumped from migratory birds to dairy cows in Texas. More than 1,070 herds across 17 states have been affected since then. H5N1 also infects poultry, placing the virus in closer proximity to people. Since 2022, nearly 175 million domestic birds have been culled in the US due to H5N1, and almost all of the 71 people who have tested positive for it had direct contact with livestock. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter “We need to take this seriously because when [H5N1] constantly is spreading, it’s constantly spilling over into humans,” says Seema Lakdawala at Emory University in Georgia. The virus has already killed a person in the US and a child in Mexico this year. Still, cases have declined under Trump. The last recorded human case was in February, and the number of affected poultry flocks fell 95 per cent between then and June. Outbreaks in dairy herds have also stabilised. It isn’t clear what is behind the decline. Lakdawala believes it is partly due to a lull in bird migration, which reduces opportunities for the virus to spread from wild birds to livestock. It may also reflect efforts by the USDA to contain outbreaks on farms. In February, the USDA unveiled a $1 billion plan for tackling H5N1, including strengthening farmers’ defences against the virus, such as through free biosecurity assessments. Of the 150 facilities that have undergone assessment, only one has experienced an H5N1 outbreak. Under Trump, the USDA also continued its National Milk Testing Strategy, which mandates farms provide raw milk samples for influenza testing. If a farm is positive for H5N1, it must allow the USDA to monitor livestock and implement measures to contain the virus. The USDA launched the programme in December and has since ramped up participation to 45 states. “The National Milk Testing Strategy is a fantastic system,” says Erin Sorrell at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. Along with the USDA’s efforts to improve biosecurity measures on farms, milk testing is crucial for containing the outbreak, says Sorrell. But while the USDA has bolstered its efforts against H5N1, the HHS doesn’t appear to have followed suit. In fact, the recent drop in human cases may reflect decreased surveillance due to workforce cuts, says Sorrell. In April, the HHS laid off about 10,000 employees, including 90 per cent of staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an office that helps investigate H5N1 outbreaks in farm workers. “There is an old saying that if you don’t test for something, you can’t find it,” says Sorrell. Yet a spokesperson for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says its guidance and surveillance efforts have not changed. “State and local health departments continue to monitor for illness in persons exposed to sick animals,” they told New Scientist. “CDC remains committed to rapidly communicating information as needed about H5N1.” The USDA and HHS also diverge on vaccination. While the USDA has allocated $100 million toward developing vaccines and other solutions for preventing H5N1’s spread in livestock, the HHS cancelled $776 million in contracts for influenza vaccine development. The contracts – terminated on 28 May – were with the pharmaceutical company Moderna to develop vaccines targeting flu subtypes, including H5N1, that could cause future pandemics. The news came the same day Moderna reported nearly 98 per cent of the roughly 300 participants who received two doses of the H5 vaccine in a clinical trial had antibody levels believed to be protective against the virus. The US has about five million H5N1 vaccine doses stockpiled, but these are made using eggs and cultured cells, which take longer to produce than mRNA-based vaccines like Moderna’s. The Moderna vaccine would have modernised the stockpile and enabled the government to rapidly produce vaccines in the event of a pandemic, says Sorrell. “It seems like a very effective platform and would have positioned the US and others to be on good footing if and when we needed a vaccine for our general public,” she says. The HHS cancelled the contracts due to concerns about mRNA vaccines, which Robert F Kennedy Jr – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – has previously cast doubt on. “The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration,” said HHS communications director Andrew Nixon in a statement to New Scientist. However, mRNA technology isn’t new. It has been in development for more than half a century and numerous clinical trials have shown mRNA vaccines are safe. While they do carry the risk of side effects – the majority of which are mild – this is true of almost every medical treatment. In a press release, Moderna said it would explore alternative funding paths for the programme. “My stance is that we should not be looking to take anything off the table, and that includes any type of vaccine regimen,” says Lakdawala. “Vaccines are the most effective way to counter an infectious disease,” says Sorrell. “And so having that in your arsenal and ready to go just give you more options.” Topics:

The recent wave of cyber attacks targeting UK retailers has been a moment of reckoning for the entire retail industry. As someone who went through supporting one of the largest retail breaches in history, this news hits close to home. The National Cyber Security Centre’s (NCSC) call to strengthen IT support protocols reinforces a hard truth: cybersecurity is no longer just a technical/operational issue. It’s a business issue that directly affects revenue, customer trust, and brand reputation. Retailers today are navigating an increasingly complex threat landscape, while also managing a vast user base that needs to stay informed and secure. The recent attacks don’t represent a failure, but an opportunity - an inflection point to invest in stronger visibility, continuous monitoring and a culture of shared responsibility that meets the realities of modern retail. We know that the cyber groups responsible for the recent retail hacks used sophisticated social engineering techniques, such as impersonating employees to deceive IT help desks into resetting passwords and providing information, thereby gaining unauthorised access to internal systems. Employees are increasingly a target, and retailers employ some of the largest, most diverse workforces, making them an even bigger risk with countless touchpoints for breaches. In these organisations, a cybersecurity-first culture is vital to combatting threats. Cybersecurity-first culture includes employees that are aware of these types of attacks and understand how to report them if they are contacted. In order to establish a cybersecurity-first culture, employees must be empowered to recognise and respond to threats, not just avoid them. This can be done through simulation training and threat assessments - showcasing real life examples of threats and brainstorming possible solutions to control and prevent further and future damage. This allows security teams to focus on strategy instead of constant firefighting, while leadership support - through budget, tools, and tone - reinforces its importance at every level. In addition to support workers, vendors also pose a significant attack path for bad actors. According to data from Elastic Path, 42% of retailers admit that legacy technology could be leaving them exposed to cyber risks. And with the accelerating pace of innovation, modern cyber threats are not only more complex, but often enter through unexpected avenues, like third-party vendors. Research from Vanta shows 46% of organisations say that a vendor of theirs has experienced a data breach since they started working together. The M&S breach is a case in point, with it being reported that attackers exploited a vulnerability in a contractor’s systems, not the retailer’s own. This underscores that visibility must extend beyond your perimeter to encompass the entire digital supply chain, in real time. Threats don’t wait for your quarterly review or annual audit. If you're only checking your controls or vendor status once a year, you're already behind. This means real-time visibility is now foundational to cyber defence. We need to know when something changes the moment it happens. This can be done through continuous monitoring, both for the technical controls and the relationships that introduce risk into your environment. We also need to rethink the way we resource and prioritise that visibility. Manual processes don’t scale with the complexity of modern infrastructure. Automation and tooling can help surface the right signals from the noise - whether it’s misconfigurations, access drift, or suspicious vendor behavior. The best case scenario is that security measures are embedded into all digital architecture, utilising a few security ‘must haves’ such as secure coding, continuous monitoring, and regular testing and improvement. Retailers who want to get proactive and about breaches following the events of the last few weeks can follow this action plan to get started: First, awareness - have your security leadership send a message out to managers of help desks and support teams to make sure they are aware of the recent attacks on retailers, and are in a position to inform teams of what to look out for. Then, investigate - pinpoint the attack path used on other retailers to make sure you have a full understanding of the risk to your organisation. After that, assess - conduct a threat assessment to identify what could go wrong, or how this attack path could be used in your organisation. The final step is to identify - figure out the highest risk gaps in your organisation, and the remediation steps to address each one. Strong cybersecurity doesn’t come from quick fixes - it takes time, leadership buy-in, and a shift in mindset across the organisation. My advice to security teams is simple: speak in outcomes. Frame cyber risk as business risk, because that’s what it is. The retailers that have fallen victim to recent attacks are facing huge financial losses, which makes this not just an IT issue - it’s a boardroom issue. Customers are paying attention. They want to trust the brands they buy from, and that trust is built on transparency and preparation. The recent retail attacks aren’t a reason to panic - they’re a reason to reset, evaluate current state risks, and fully understand the potential impacts of what is happening elsewhere. This is the moment to invest in your infrastructure, empower your teams, and embed security into your operations. The organisations that do this now won’t just be safer - they’ll be more competitive, more resilient, and better positioned for whatever comes next. Jadee Hanson is the Chief Information Security Officer at Vanta Read more about cyber security in retail Content Goes Here Harrods becomes latest UK retailer to fall victim to cyber attack Retail cyber crime spree a ‘wake-up call’, says NCSC CEO Retail cyber attacks hit food distributor Peter Green Chilled

As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion Silicon advances and design innovations do still push us forward – but the future landscape of the industry is also being sculpted in courtrooms and parliaments Image credit: Disney / Epic Games Opinion by Rob Fahey Contributing Editor Published on June 13, 2025 In some regards, the past couple of weeks have felt rather reassuring. We've just seen a hugely successful launch for a new Nintendo console, replete with long queues for midnight sales events. Over the next few days, the various summer events and showcases that have sprouted amongst the scattered bones of E3 generated waves of interest and hype for a host of new games. It all feels like old times. It's enough to make you imagine that while change is the only constant, at least it's we're facing change that's fairly well understood, change in the form of faster, cheaper silicon, or bigger, more ambitious games. If only the winds that blow through this industry all came from such well-defined points on the compass. Nestled in amongst the week's headlines, though, was something that's likely to have profound but much harder to understand impacts on this industry and many others over the coming years – a lawsuit being brought by Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney, operators of the eponymous generative AI image creation tool. In some regards, the lawsuit looks fairly straightforward; the arguments made and considered in reaching its outcome, though, may have a profound impact on both the ability of creatives and media companies (including game studios and publishers) to protect their IP rights from a very new kind of threat, and the ways in which a promising but highly controversial and risky new set of development and creative tools can be used commercially. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool I say the lawsuit looks straightforward from some angles, but honestly overall it looks fairly open and shut – the media giants accuse Midjourney of replicating their copyrighted characters and material, and of essentially building a machine for churning out limitless copyright violations. The evidence submitted includes screenshot after screenshot of Midjourney generating pages of images of famous copyrighted and trademarked characters ranging from Yoda to Homer Simpson, so "no we didn't" isn't going to be much of a defence strategy here. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool – you don't sue the manufacturers of oil paints or canvases when artists use them to paint something copyright-infringing, nor does Microsoft get sued when someone writes something libellous in Word, and Midjourney may try to argue that their software belongs in that tool category, with users alone being ultimately responsible for how they use them. If that argument prevails and survives appeals and challenges, it would be a major triumph for the nascent generative AI industry and a hugely damaging blow to IP holders and creatives, since it would seriously undermine their argument that AI companies shouldn't be able to include copyrighted material into training data sets without licensing or compensation. The reason Disney and NBCU are going after Midjourney specifically seems to be partially down to Midjourney being especially reticent to negotiate with them about licensing fees and prompt restrictions; other generative AI firms have started talking, at least, about paying for content licenses for training data, and have imposed various limitations on their software to prevent the most egregious and obvious forms of copyright violation (at least for famous characters belonging to rich companies; if you're an individual or a smaller company, it's entirely the Wild West out there as regards your IP rights). In the process, though, they're essentially risking a court showdown over a set of not-quite-clear legal questions at the heart of this dispute, and if Midjourney were to prevail in that argument, other AI companies would likely back off from engaging with IP holders on this topic. To be clear, though, it seems highly unlikely that Midjourney will win that argument, at least not in the medium to long term. Yet depending on how this case moves forward, losing the argument could have equally dramatic consequences – especially if the courts find themselves compelled to consider the question of how, exactly, a generative AI system reproduces a copyrighted character with such precision without storing copyright-infringing data in some manner. The 2020s are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once AI advocates have been trying to handwave around this notion from the outset, but at some point a court is going to have to sit down and confront the fact that the precision with which these systems can replicate copyrighted characters, scenes, and other materials requires that they must have stored that infringing material in some form. That it's stored as a scattered mesh of probabilities across the vertices of a high-dimensional vector array, rather than a straightforward, monolithic media file, is clearly important but may ultimately be considered moot. If the data is in the system and can be replicated on request, how that differs from Napster or The Pirate Bay is arguably just a matter of technical obfuscation. Not having to defend that technical argument in court thus far has been a huge boon to the generative AI field; if it is knocked over in that venue, it will have knock-on effects on every company in the sector and on every business that uses their products. Nobody can be quite sure which of the various rocks and pebbles being kicked on this slope is going to set off the landslide, but there seems to be an increasing consensus that a legal and regulatory reckoning is coming for generative AI. Consequently, a lot of what's happening in that market right now has the feel of companies desperately trying to establish products and lock in revenue streams before that happens, because it'll be harder to regulate a technology that's genuinely integrated into the world's economic systems than it is to impose limits on one that's currently only clocking up relatively paltry sales and revenues. Keeping an eye on this is crucial for any industry that's started experimenting with AI in its workflows – none more than a creative industry like video games, where various forms of AI usage have been posited, although the enthusiasm and buzz so far massively outweighs any tangible benefits from the technology. Regardless of what happens in legal and regulatory contexts, AI is already a double-edged sword for any creative industry. Used judiciously, it might help to speed up development processes and reduce overheads. Applied in a slapdash or thoughtless manner, it can and will end up wreaking havoc on development timelines, filling up storefronts with endless waves of vaguely-copyright-infringing slop, and potentially make creative firms, from the industry's biggest companies to its smallest indie developers, into victims of impossibly large-scale copyright infringement rather than beneficiaries of a new wave of technology-fuelled productivity. The legal threat now hanging over the sector isn't new, merely amplified. We've known for a long time that AI generated artwork, code, and text has significant problems from the perspective of intellectual property rights (you can infringe someone else's copyright with it, but generally can't impose your own copyright on its creations – opening careless companies up to a risk of having key assets in their game being technically public domain and impossible to protect). Even if you're not using AI yourself, however – even if you're vehemently opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds (which is entirely valid given the highly dubious land-grab these companies have done for their training data), the Midjourney judgement and its fallout may well impact the creative work you produce yourself and how it ends up being used and abused by these products in future. This all has huge ramifications for the games business and will shape everything from how games are created to how IP can be protected for many years to come – a wind of change that's very different and vastly more unpredictable than those we're accustomed to. It's a reminder of just how much of the industry's future is currently being shaped not in development studios and semiconductor labs, but rather in courtrooms and parliamentary committees. The ways in which generative AI can be used and how copyright can persist in the face of it will be fundamentally shaped in courts and parliaments, but it's far from the only crucially important topic being hashed out in those venues. The ongoing legal turmoil over the opening up of mobile app ecosystems, too, will have huge impacts on the games industry. Meanwhile, the debates over loot boxes, gambling, and various consumer protection aspects related to free-to-play models continue to rumble on in the background. Because the industry moves fast while governments move slow, it's easy to forget that that's still an active topic for as far as governments are concerned, and hammers may come down at any time. Regulation by governments, whether through the passage of new legislation or the interpretation of existing laws in the courts, has always loomed in the background of any major industry, especially one with strong cultural relevance. The games industry is no stranger to that being part of the background heartbeat of the business. The 2020s, however, are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once, whether it's AI and copyright, app stores and walled gardens, or loot boxes and IAP-based business models. Rulings on those topics in various different global markets will create a complex new landscape that will shape the winds that blow through the business, and how things look in the 2030s and beyond will be fundamentally impacted by those decisions.

Anthropic has unveiled a custom collection of Claude AI models designed for US national security customers. The announcement represents a potential milestone in the application of AI within classified government environments. The ‘Claude Gov’ models have already been deployed by agencies operating at the highest levels of US national security, with access strictly limited to those working within such classified environments. Anthropic says these Claude Gov models emerged from extensive collaboration with government customers to address real-world operational requirements. Despite being tailored for national security applications, Anthropic maintains that these models underwent the same rigorous safety testing as other Claude models in their portfolio. Specialised AI capabilities for national security The specialised models deliver improved performance across several critical areas for government operations. They feature enhanced handling of classified materials, with fewer instances where the AI refuses to engage with sensitive information—a common frustration in secure environments. Additional improvements include better comprehension of documents within intelligence and defence contexts, enhanced proficiency in languages crucial to national security operations, and superior interpretation of complex cybersecurity data for intelligence analysis. However, this announcement arrives amid ongoing debates about AI regulation in the US. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently expressed concerns about proposed legislation that would grant a decade-long freeze on state regulation of AI. Balancing innovation with regulation In a guest essay published in The New York Times this week, Amodei advocated for transparency rules rather than regulatory moratoriums. He detailed internal evaluations revealing concerning behaviours in advanced AI models, including an instance where Anthropic’s newest model threatened to expose a user’s private emails unless a shutdown plan was cancelled. Amodei compared AI safety testing to wind tunnel trials for aircraft designed to expose defects before public release, emphasising that safety teams must detect and block risks proactively. Anthropic has positioned itself as an advocate for responsible AI development. Under its Responsible Scaling Policy, the company already shares details about testing methods, risk-mitigation steps, and release criteria—practices Amodei believes should become standard across the industry. He suggests that formalising similar practices industry-wide would enable both the public and legislators to monitor capability improvements and determine whether additional regulatory action becomes necessary. Implications of AI in national security The deployment of advanced models within national security contexts raises important questions about the role of AI in intelligence gathering, strategic planning, and defence operations. Amodei has expressed support for export controls on advanced chips and the military adoption of trusted systems to counter rivals like China, indicating Anthropic’s awareness of the geopolitical implications of AI technology. The Claude Gov models could potentially serve numerous applications for national security, from strategic planning and operational support to intelligence analysis and threat assessment—all within the framework of Anthropic’s stated commitment to responsible AI development. Regulatory landscape As Anthropic rolls out these specialised models for government use, the broader regulatory environment for AI remains in flux. The Senate is currently considering language that would institute a moratorium on state-level AI regulation, with hearings planned before voting on the broader technology measure. Amodei has suggested that states could adopt narrow disclosure rules that defer to a future federal framework, with a supremacy clause eventually preempting state measures to preserve uniformity without halting near-term local action. This approach would allow for some immediate regulatory protection while working toward a comprehensive national standard. As these technologies become more deeply integrated into national security operations, questions of safety, oversight, and appropriate use will remain at the forefront of both policy discussions and public debate. For Anthropic, the challenge will be maintaining its commitment to responsible AI development while meeting the specialised needs of government customers for crtitical applications such as national security. (Image credit: Anthropic) See also: Reddit sues Anthropic over AI data scraping Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here. The post Anthropic launches Claude AI models for US national security appeared first on AI News.

Additive Manufacturing UK (AMUK)’s first Members Forum of 2025 was held at Siemens’ UK headquarters in South Manchester earlier this year. The event featured presentations from AMUK members and offered attendees a chance to network and share insights.  Ahead of the day-long meetup, 3D Printing Industry caught up with Joshua Dugdale, Head of AMUK, to learn more about the current state of additive manufacturing and the future of 3D printing in Britain.  AMUK is the United Kingdom’s primary 3D printing trade organization. Established in 2014, it operates within the Manufacturing Technologies Association (MTA) cluster. Attendees at this year’s first meetup spanned the UK’s entire 3D printing ecosystem. Highlights included discussion on precious materials from Cookson Industrial, simulation software from Siemens, digital thread solutions from Kaizen PLM, and 3D printing services provided by ARRK.  With a background in mechanical engineering, Dugdale is “responsible for everything and anything AMUK does as an organization.” According to the Loughborough University alumnus, who is also Head of Technology and Skills at the MTA, AMUK’s core mission is to “create an environment in the UK where additive manufacturing can thrive.” He elaborated on how his organization is working to increase the commercial success of its members within the “struggling” global manufacturing environment. Dugdale shared his perspective on the key challenges facing 3D printing in the UK. He pointed to a “tough” operating environment hampered by global financial challenges, which is delaying investments.  Despite this, AMUK’s leader remains optimistic about the sector’s long-term potential, highlighting the UK’s success in R&D and annual 3D printing intellectual property (IP) output. Dugdale emphasized the value of 3D printing for UK defense and supply chain resilience, arguing that “defense will lead the way” in 3D printing innovation.  Looking ahead, Dugdale called on the UK Government to create a unified 3D printing roadmap to replace its “disjointed” approach to policy and funding. He also shared AMUK’s strategy for 2025 and beyond, emphasizing a focus on eductaion, supply chain visibility, and standards. Ultimately, the AMUK figurehead shared a positive outlook on the future of 3D printing in the UK. He envisions a new wave of innovation that will see more British startups and university spinouts emerging over the next five years.          Siemens’ Manchester HQ hosted the first AMUK Members Forum of 2025. Photo by 3D Printing Industry. What is the current state of additive manufacturing in the UK? According to Dugdale, the 3D printing industry is experiencing a challenging period, driven largely by global economic pressures. “I wouldn’t describe it as underperforming, I’d describe it as flat,” Dugdale said. “The manufacturing sector as a whole is facing significant challenges, and additive manufacturing is no exception.” He pointed to increased competition, a cautious investment climate, and the reluctance of businesses to adopt new technologies due to the economic uncertainty.  Dugdale specifically highlighted the increase in the UK’s National Insurance contribution (NIC) rate for employers, which rose from 13.8% to 15% on April 6, 2025. He noted that many British companies postponed investment decisions ahead of the announcement, reflecting growing caution within the UK manufacturing sector. “With additive manufacturing, people need to be willing to take risks,” added Dugdale. “People are holding off at the moment because the current climate doesn’t favor risk.”  Dugdale remains optimistic about the sector’s long-term potential, arguing that the UK continues to excel in academia and R&D. However, for Dugdale, commercializing that research is where the country must improve before it can stand out on the world stage. This becomes especially clear when compared to countries in North America and Asia, which receive significantly greater financial support. “We’re never going to compete with the US and China, because they have so much more money behind them,” he explained. In a European context, Dugdale believes the UK “is doing quite well.” However, Britain remains below Spain in terms of financial backing and technology adoption. “Spain has a much more mature industry,” Dugdale explained. “Their AM association has been going for 10 years, and it’s clear that their industry is more cohesive and further along. It’s a level of professionalism we can learn from.” While the Iberian country faces similar challenges in standards, supply chain, and visibility, it benefits from a level of cohesion that sets it apart from many other European countries. Dugdale pointed to the Formnext trade show as a clear example of this disparity. He expects the Spanish pavilion to span around 200 square meters and feature ten companies at this year’s event, a “massive” difference compared to the UK’s 36 square meters last year. AMUK’s presence could grow to around 70 square meters at Formnext 2025, but this still lags far behind. Dugdale attributes this gap to government support. “They get more funding. This makes it a lot more attractive for companies to come because there’s less risk for them,” he explained.   Josh Dugdale speaking at the AMUK Members Forum in Manchester. Photo by 3D Printing Industry. 3D printing for UK Defense  As global security concerns grow, the UK government has intensified efforts to bolster its defense capabilities. In this context, 3D printing is emerging as a key enabler. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) released its first Defence Advanced Manufacturing Strategy, outlining a plan to “embrace 3D printing,” with additive manufacturing expected to play a pivotal role in the UK’s future military operations.  Dugdale identified two key advantages of additive manufacturing for defense: supply chain resilience and frontline production. For the former, he stressed the importance of building localized supply chains to reduce lead times and eliminate dependence on overseas shipments. This capability is crucial for ensuring that military platforms, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, remain operational.  3D printing near the front lines offers advantages for conducting quick repairs and maintaining warfighting capabilities in the field. “If a tank needs to get back off the battlefield, you can print a widget or bracket that’ll hold for just five miles,” Dugdale explained. “It’s not about perfect engineering; it’s about getting the vehicle home.”  The British Army has already adopted containerized 3D printers to test additive manufacturing near the front lines. Last year, British troops deployed metal and polymer 3D printers during Exercise Steadfast Defender, NATO’s largest military exercise since the Cold War. Dubbed Project Bokkr, the additive manufacturing capabilities included XSPEE3D cold spray 3D printer from Australian firm SPEE3D.     Elsewhere in 2024, the British Army participated in Additive Manufacturing Village 2024, a military showcase organized by the European Defence Agency. During the event, UK personnel 3D printed 133 functional parts, including 20 made from metal. They also developed technical data packs (TDPs) for 70 different 3D printable spare parts. The aim was to equip Ukrainian troops with the capability to 3D print military equipment directly at the point of need. Dugdale believes success in the UK defense sector will help drive wider adoption of 3D printing. “Defense will lead the way,” he said, suggesting that military users will build the knowledge base necessary for broader civilian adoption. This could also spur innovation in materials science, an area Dugdale expects to see significant advancements in the coming years.     A British Army operator checks a part 3D printed on SPEE3D’s XSPEE3D Cold Spray 3D printer. Photo via the British Army. Advocating for a “unified industrial strategy” Despite promising growth in defence, Dugdale identified major hurdles that still hinder the widespread adoption of additive manufacturing (AM) in the UK.  A key challenge lies in the significant knowledge gap surrounding the various types of AM and their unique advantages. This gap, he noted, discourages professionals familiar with traditional manufacturing methods like milling and turning from embracing 3D printing. “FDM is not the same as WAAM,” added Dugdale. “Trying to explain that in a very nice, coherent story is not always easy.” Dugdale also raised concerns about the industry’s fragmented nature, especially when it comes to software compatibility and the lack of interoperability between 3D printing systems. “The software is often closed, and different machines don’t always communicate well with each other. That can create fear about locking into the wrong ecosystem too early,” he explained.  For Dugdale, these barriers can only be overcome with a clear industrial strategy for additive manufacturing. He believes the UK Government should develop a unified strategy that defines a clear roadmap for development. This, Dugdale argued, would enable industry players to align their efforts and investments.  The UK has invested over £500 million in AM-related projects over the past decade. However, Dugdale explained that fragmented funding has limited its impact. Instead, the AMUK Chief argues that the UK Government’s strategy should recognize AM as one of “several key enabling technologies,” alongside machine tooling, metrology, and other critical manufacturing tools.  He believes this unified approach could significantly boost the UK’s productivity and fully integrate 3D printing into the wider industrial landscape. “Companies will align themselves with the roadmap, allowing them to grow and mature at the same rate,” Dugdale added. “This will help us to make smarter decisions about how we fund and where we fund.”    AMUK’s roadmap and the future of 3D printing in the UK    When forecasting 3D printing market performance, Dugdale and his team track five key industries: automotive, aerospace, medical, metal goods, and chemical processes. According to Dugdale, these industries are the primary users of machine tools, which makes them crucial indicators of market health. AMUK also relies on 3D printing industry surveys to gauge confidence, helping them to spot trends even when granular data is scarce. By comparing sector performance with survey-based confidence indicators, AMUK builds insights into the future market trajectory. The strong performance of sectors like aerospace and healthcare, which depend heavily on 3D printing, reinforces Dugdale’s confidence in the long-term potential of additive manufacturing. Looking ahead to the second half of 2025, AMUK plans to focus on three primary challenges: supply chain visibility, skills development, and standards. Dugdale explains that these issues remain central to the maturation of the UK’s AM ecosystem. Education will play a key role in these efforts.  AMUK is already running several additive manufacturing upskilling initiatives in schools and universities to build the next generation of 3D printing pioneers. These include pilot projects that introduce 3D printing to Key Stage 3 students (aged 11) and AM university courses that are tailored to industry needs.  In the longer term, Dugdale suggests AMUK could evolve to focus more on addressing specific industry challenges, such as net-zero emissions or automotive light-weighting. This would involve creating specialized working groups that focus on how 3D printing can address specific pressing issues.  Interestingly, Dugdale revealed that AMUK’s success in advancing the UK’s 3D printing industry could eventually lead to the organization being dissolved and reabsorbed into the MTA. This outcome, he explained, would signal that “additive manufacturing has really matured” and is now seen as an integral part of the broader manufacturing ecosystem, rather than a niche technology. Ultimately, Dugdale is optimistic for the future of 3D printing in the UK. He acknowledged that AMUK is still “trying to play catch-up for the last 100 years of machine tool technology.” However, additive manufacturing innovations are set to accelerate. “There’s a lot of exciting research happening in universities, and we need to find ways to help these initiatives gain the funding and visibility they need,” Dugdale urged. As the technology continues to grow, Dugdale believes additive manufacturing will gradually lose its niche status and become a standard tool for manufacturers. “In ten years, we could see a generation of workers who grew up with 3D printers at home,” he told me. “For them, it will just be another technology to use in the workplace, not something to be amazed by.”  With this future in mind, Dugdale’s vision for 3D printing is one of broad adoption, supported by clear strategy and policy, as the technology continues to evolve and integrate into UK industry.  Take the 3DPI Reader Survey — shape the future of AM reporting in under 5 minutes. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.