Intellectual Property

  • IP

    EFF to Copyright Office: Copyright Is Indeed a Hammer, But Don’t Be Too Hasty to Nail Generative AI

    Electronic Frontier Foundation, 10/31/23. In recent court rulings, important decisions have been made regarding copyright infringement and fair use. A federal appeals court ruled that technical standards incorporated into public law can be freely disseminated without liability for copyright infringement. This is a significant victory for open access to information. Additionally, a decision by the Supreme Court affirmed fair use precedents in a case involving commercial artists. These rulings support the rights and obligations of artists and creators in the digital age. It is encouraging to see the courts protecting freedom of expression and innovation. READ THE ARTICLE

  • IP

    Court Refuses to Dismiss Artist’s Copyright Claim Against Stability AI

    The Fashion Law, 10/31/23. In a recent AI-centric lawsuit, a federal judge in California has ruled in favor of Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney, dismissing most of the claims made against them by three artists. However, the judge allowed the artists to amend their complaint and clarified that one artist’s direct copyright infringement claim against Stability AI can proceed. The court also dismissed claims of vicarious copyright infringement, Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations, right of publicity, unfair competition, and breach of contract. This ruling provides insight into how courts may handle future cases involving generative AI platforms and copyright infringement. READ THE ARTICLE

  • IP

    Copyright-Free Sandbox: Implications of AI-Generated Content

    Patent, 10/21/23. The proliferation of synthetic works in our digital landscape is challenging the conventional wisdom of presuming all online content as protected by copyright. While some of these AI-generated works may lack originality, a significant portion could meet the originality standard if not for the absence of a human author. This emerging copyright-free realm presents opportunities for innovation and creation, but also challenges in discerning uncopyrighted works from copyrighted ones. It may be prudent to shift the burden back onto copyright claimants to explicitly mark their works. Additionally, legal mechanisms like contracts could play a role in safeguarding the interests of AI-generated works. READ THE ARTICLE

  • IP

    How will use of copyrighted content in artificial intelligence be evaluated after the Supreme Court’s Warhol decision?

    Lexology, 10/15/23. The US Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc v Goldsmith does not provide clear guidance on the use of copyrighted material in artificial intelligence (AI) content. AI developers and users must consider the specific factors involved in the use of copyrighted content in the AI space. Under the Copyright Act, using copyrighted material as input to teach AI software, or creating unauthorized derivative output, can violate the rights of copyright holders. However, liability can be avoided if the unlicensed use of copyrighted material constitutes fair use, which is determined by factors such as the purpose and character of the use. The recent Warhol decision focused on whether the purpose and character of the use favors fair use, considering factors like commercial nature and adding something new or different. Whether AI use of copyrighted material constitutes fair use will depend on the specific facts of each case. READ THE ARTICLE

  • IP

    Google to defend generative AI users from copyright claims

    Reuters, 10/12/23. Google has announced that it will defend users of its generative artificial-intelligence systems against intellectual property claims. This move aligns Google with other major technology companies like Microsoft and Adobe that have made similar pledges. These companies have been investing heavily in generative AI and incorporating it into their products. However, this has resulted in lawsuits from copyright owners who claim that their work is being used without permission. Google’s new policy aims to protect its users from such claims, but it does not apply if users intentionally infringe on the rights of others. READ THE ARTICLE