Showing posts with label derivative works. Show all posts
Showing posts with label derivative works. Show all posts

Monday, December 18, 2023

Copyright claim against Tolkien estate backfires on Lord of the Rings fanfiction author; The Guardian, December 18, 2023

 , The Guardian; Copyright claim against Tolkien estate backfires on Lord of the Rings fanfiction author

"A Lord of the Rings fanfiction writer has lost a copyright lawsuit over the publication of his own sequel to the much-loved series after opening up a counterproductive legal battle against JRR Tolkien’s estate."

Friday, December 15, 2023

Copyright Board Upholds Latest Refusal to Register AI Generated Art; The Fashion Law (TFL), December 12, 2023

 ; Copyright Board Upholds Latest Refusal to Register AI Generated Art

"The Office primarily refused to register the work on the basis that it “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.” Specifically, the Office stated that despite Sahni’s claim that the work includes some human creative input, the work is not registrable, as “this human authorship cannot be distinguished or separated from the final work produced by the computer program.” 

Following an initial request for reconsideration, in which Sahni argued that “the human authorship requirement does not and cannot mean a work must be created entirely by a human author,” the Copyright Office again concluded that the work could not be registered, as it “is a derivative work that does not contain enough original human authorship to support a registration.” The Office found that “the new aspects of the [SURYAST] work were generated by ‘the RAGHAV app, and not Mr. Sahni – or any other human author,'” making it so that the “derivative authorship was not the result of human creativity or authorship” and therefore, not registrable."

Wednesday, September 20, 2023

Franzen, Grisham and Other Prominent Authors Sue OpenAI; The New York Times, September 20, 2023

 Alexandra Alter and Franzen, Grisham and Other Prominent Authors Sue OpenAI

"A group of prominent novelists, including John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen and Elin Hilderbrand, are joining the legal battle against OpenAI over its chatbot technology, as fears about the encroachment of artificial intelligence on creative industries continue to grow.

More than a dozen authors filed a lawsuit against OpenAI on Tuesday, accusing the company, which has been backed with billions of dollars in investment from Microsoft, of infringing on their copyrights by using their books to train its popular ChatGPT chatbot. The complaint, which was filed along with the Authors Guild, said that OpenAI’s chatbots can now produce “derivative works” that can mimic and summarize the authors’ books, potentially harming the market for authors’ work, and that the writers were neither compensated nor notified by the company."

Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Another group of writers is suing OpenAI over copyright claims; The Verge, September 11, 2023

Emma Roth , The Verge; Another group of writers is suing OpenAI over copyright claims

"A group of writers is suing OpenAI over claims the company illegally used their works to train its AI ChatGPT chatbot, as reported earlier by Reuters. In a lawsuit filed on Friday, Michael Chabon, David Henry Hwang, Rachel Louise Snyder, and Ayelet Waldman allege OpenAI benefits and profits from the “unauthorized and illegal use” of their copyrighted content.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status and calls out ChatGPT’s ability to summarize and analyze the content written by the authors, stating this “is only possible” if OpenAI trained its GPT large language model on their works. It adds that these outputs are actually “derivative” works that infringe on their copyrights."

Thursday, August 17, 2023

Judgment Entered in Publishers, Internet Archive Copyright Case; Publishers Weekly, August 14, 2023

  Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Judgment Entered in Publishers, Internet Archive Copyright Case

"More than four months after a federal judge found the Internet Archive liable for copyright infringement for its program to scan and lend library books, the parties have delivered a negotiated agreement for a judgment to be entered in the case. But a final resolution in the case could still be many months, if not years, away, as Internet Archive officials have vowed to appeal.

The jointly proposed agreement includes a declaration that cements the key finding from Judge John G. Koeltl’s March 24 summary judgment decision: that the IA's unauthorized scanning and lending of the 127 in-suit copyrighted books under a novel protocol known as “controlled digital lending” constitutes copyright infringement, including in the IA's controversial "National Emergency Library" (under which the IA temporarily allowed for simultaneous access to its collections of scans in the the early days of the pandemic, when schools and libraries were shuttered).

The proposed agreement also includes a permanent injunction that would, among its provisions, bar the IA’s lending of unauthorized scans of the plaintiffs' in-copyright, commercially available books, as well as bar the IA from “profiting from” or “inducing” any other party’s “infringing" copying, distribution, or display of the the plaintiffs' books "in any digital or electronic form.” Under the agreement, the injunction will not be stayed while the case is on appeal—essentially meaning that once notified the IA will have to stop making unauthorized scans of the plaintiff Publishers' copyrighted works available to be borrowed. Meanwhile, AAP officials said a "side agreement" with the IA will motivate the IA to similarly resolve issues with other non-plaintiff AAP member publishers. 

The parties left one final dispute for Koeltl to clean up, however: what books will be “covered” by the proposed injunction?"

Wednesday, August 2, 2023

Dua Lipa faces new copyright lawsuit over hit Levitating; BBC, August 2, 2023

Riyah Collins , BBC; Dua Lipa faces new copyright lawsuit over hit Levitating

"The legal action, which was filed in Los Angeles on Monday, claims Bosko is entitled to more than $20m (£15.6m).

It says British-Albanian star Dua Lipa had permission to use the talk box on the original recording but not on any remixes, Reuters reported.

It alleges the 27-year-old reused the work without permission on further releases, including The Blessed Madonna remix, which featured Madonna and Missy Elliott, another remix featuring DaBaby and a performance by Dua Lipa at the American Music Awards."

Monday, July 3, 2023

Bestselling authors Mona Awad and Paul Tremblay sue OpenAI over copyright infringement; The Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2023

EMILY ST. MARTIN, The Los Angeles Times; Bestselling authors Mona Awad and Paul Tremblay sue OpenAI over copyright infringement

"Two bestselling novelists filed a suit against OpenAI in a San Francisco federal court on Wednesday, claiming in a proposed class action that the company used copyright-protected intellectual property to “train” its artificial intelligence chatbot.

Authors Mona Awad and Paul Tremblay claim that ChatGPT was trained in part by “ingesting” their novels without their consent."

Friday, May 26, 2023

Supreme Court Rules That Andy Warhol Violated a Photographer’s Copyright; Smithsonian Magazine, May 24, 2023

Christopher Parker, Smithsonian Magazine; Supreme Court Rules That Andy Warhol Violated a Photographer’s Copyright

"Reactions to the Supreme Court ruling are mixed. Noah Feldman, a scholar of law at Harvard, writes in Bloomberg that the decision helps artists but harms creativity. 

“The upshot is that little-guy artists win, because they now have more rights than they had before to claim credit for works reused by others,” he writes. “But art as a whole loses, because the decision restricts how artists generate creativity by sampling and remixing existing works.”

Carroll tells the Times that the ruling leaves a lot of room for conflicting interpretations, and the legal battle has only just begun.

“Is it really just about competitive licensing use, or is it more broadly about creating derivative works?” he adds. “I think what you’ll see is lower courts reading it each way, and then eventually this issue is going to find its way back to the Supreme Court.”"

Monday, April 10, 2023

Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem; Harvard Business Review, April 7, 2023

Gil Appel, Juliana Neelbauer, and David A. SchweidelHarvard Business Review; Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem

"This isn’t the first time technology and copyright law have crashed into each other. Google successfully defended itself against a lawsuit by arguing that transformative use allowed for the scraping of text from books to create its search engine, and for the time being, this decision remains precedential.

But there are other, non-technological cases that could shape how the products of generative AI are treated. A case before the U.S. Supreme Court against the Andy Warhol Foundation — brought by photographer Lynn Goldsmith, who had licensed an image of the late musician, Prince— could refine U.S. copyright law on the issue of when a piece of art is sufficiently different from its source material to become unequivocally “transformative,” and whether a court can consider the meaning of the derivative work when it evaluates that transformation. If the court finds that the Warhol piece is not a fair use, it could mean trouble for AI-generated works.

All this uncertainty presents a slew of challenges for companies that use generative AI. There are risks regarding infringement — direct or unintentional — in contracts that are silent on generative AI usage by their vendors and customers. If a business user is aware that training data might include unlicensed works or that an AI can generate unauthorized derivative works not covered by fair use, a business could be on the hook for willful infringement, which can include damages up to $150,000 for each instance of knowing use. There’s also the risk of accidentally sharing confidential trade secrets or business information by inputting data into generative AI tools."

Monday, December 5, 2022

Explainer: The Supreme Court, Fair Use and the Future of Protected Artistic Expression; Jurist, December 1, 2022

 , Jurist; Explainer: The Supreme Court, Fair Use and the Future of Protected Artistic Expression

"What’s at stake here?

The decision of the current Supreme Court case can shape the future of what does and does not constitute fair use. Goldsmith claimed that Warhol’s images based upon her copyrighted photographs constituted a derivative work. Thus, Goldsmith argued that the Warhol Foundation infringed her exclusive right to prepare derivative works and is therefore liable to her. The Warhol Foundation, however, argued that Warhol’s images were sufficiently transformative and thus constituted fair use. As such, the Warhol Foundation argued that it did not infringe Goldsmith’s copyright and is therefore not liable for its use of Goldsmith’s work in the Prince illustrations.

By finding in favor of Goldsmith, who owns copyright in the Prince photographs, the applicability of fair use may be limited. In this scenario, future content creators may face increased liability when creating new content based on copyrighted work. Because creativity is often inspired by some underlying work, such a decision may stifle creativity. As the Acuff-Rose case highlights, for example, works like parodies of a copyrighted work would constitute infringement without fair use. On the other hand, by finding in favor of the Warhol Foundation, which used Goldsmith’s copyrighted work in its work, future copyright owners may be denied a remedy when a user has unfairly used their creative work. Because the copyright regime has historically protected a creator’s financial incentive, such a decision may stifle creativity. In either scenario, creativity may be stifled: over-protecting a work may prevent others from using that work in their creative process, while under-protecting a work may prevent creators from entering the market without an assurance of monetary gain. As the Gerald Ford case highlights, for example, some uses may unfairly exploit the initial creator’s work. As the Supreme Court noted in that case, quoting in part an earlier decision, “The challenge of copyright is to strike the ‘difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society’s competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand.'”"

Wednesday, May 4, 2022

Find Star Wars in Copyright; Library of Congress, May 4, 2022

 , Library of Congress; Find Star Wars in Copyright

"If you’ve ever watched The Big Bang Theory, you know that the guys are obsessed with Star Wars. In one episode, Leonard suggests a Star Wars marathon weekend to Sheldon, who replies with “Movies or video games? Or board games? Or trading card games? Or Legos? Or dress up? Or comic books? Or dramatic readings of novelizations? Yes to all!” They settle on the online game. The scene just scratches the surface of all the Star Wars derivative works, many of which I owned “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. . . .” (or, more accurately, forty-some years ago in Pittsburgh).

So, just how many hits do you think searching “Star Wars” gets in the Copyright Public Records System? On this Star Wars Day, I got more than 8,400. Now, not all of them are related to the first Star Wars movie, registered by Twentieth Century-Fox in 1977—for example, some are about the star wars defense system from the 1980s. But most are on topic, and several can be seen in the Find Yourself in Copyright exhibit."

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Did a Typo Accidentally Make Rudolph's TV Special Public Domain?; Comic Book Resources, December 15, 2018

Brian Cronin, Comic Book Resources; Did a Typo Accidentally Make Rudolph's TV Special Public Domain?

"Not so fast.

You see, the main character in the film, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, WAS under copyright (in one of the sweetest stories of corporate generosity ever, Montgomery Ward gave the copyright to the character to the employee who created Rudolph as part of a store Christmas giveaway). Rudolph is also currently protected by federal trademark, meaning that you couldn't name any project "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" without permission from the Rudolph trademark owners (I think there's a company specifically set up just to handle this Rudolph-related intellectual property stuff). Similarly, all of the songs in the film were independently copyrighted, so you couldn't use any of them."

Friday, August 11, 2017

Can You Change Two Words To A Song And Claim A New Copyright?; Above The Law, August 10, 2017

Krista L. Cox, Above The Law; 

Can You Change Two Words To A Song And Claim A New Copyright?


"In order to be copyrightable as a derivative work, the new work must “add new original copyrightable authorship.” We will (shall?) see whether these small changes were big enough to warrant copyright protection. And if a court indeed finds that it is, well, I guess that means it’s time for me to start marketing “Ringing Bells.”"

Thursday, July 14, 2016

To Boldly Go Where No Fan Production Has Gone Before; Slate, 7/13/16

Marissa Martinelli, Slate; To Boldly Go Where No Fan Production Has Gone Before:
"The issues at the heart of the Axanar case are complex—in addition to copyright infringement, CBS and Paramount are accusing the Axanar team of profiting from the production by paying themselves salaries, among other things. Abrams, who directed 2009’s Star Trek and 2013’s Star Trek Into Darkness, promised during a fan event back in May that the lawsuit would be going away at the behest of Justin Lin, the Beyond director who has sided, surprisingly, with Axanar over Paramount. But despite Abrams’ promise, the lawsuit rages on, and in the meantime, other Trekkie filmmakers have had to adapt. Federation Rising, the planned sequel to Horizon, pulled the plug before fundraising had even started, and Star Trek: Renegades, the follow-up to Of Gods and Men that raised more than $132,000 on Indiegogo, has dropped all elements of Star Trek from the production and is now just called Renegades. (Amusingly, this transition seems to have involved only slight tweaks, with the Federation becoming the Confederation, Russ’ character Tuvok becoming Kovok, and so on.) Other projects are stuck in limbo, waiting to hear from CBS whether they can boldly go forth with production—or whether this really does spell the end of the golden age of Star Trek fan films.
Axanar may very well have crossed a line, and CBS and Paramount are, of course, entitled to protect their properties. But in the process, they have suffocated, intentionally or otherwise, a robust and long-standing fan-fiction tradition, one that has produced remarkable labors of love like Star Trek Continues, which meticulously recreated the look and feel of the 1960s show, and an hourlong stop-motion film made by a German fan in tribute to Enterprise—a project almost eight years in the making. It’s a tradition that gave us web series like Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, which was exploring same-sex relationships in Star Trek well before the canon was ready to give us a mainstream, openly gay character."

Monday, July 4, 2016

Episode 709: The Quiet Old Lady Who Whispers "Fair Use"; Planet Money, NPR, 7/1/16

[Podcast] Planet Money, NPR; Episode 709: The Quiet Old Lady Who Whispers "Fair Use" :
"...[A]fter writing his own Goodnight Moon spinoff, Keith wanted to know: Could he sell it? Is that even legal?
Today on the show, we dive into the world of copyright and fair use. Just where is the line between inspiration and stealing?"

Monday, November 2, 2015

Appeals Court Rules 'Point Break' Parody Is Entitled to Copyright Protection; Hollywood Reporter, 10/30/15

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; Appeals Court Rules 'Point Break' Parody Is Entitled to Copyright Protection:
"On Friday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals took up a dispute that is a bit of a mind-bender and delivered an opinion that determines that a parody is entitled to copyright protection.
The dispute concerns playwright Jamie Keeling's theatrical adaptation of the 1991 film Point Break, which starred Keanu Reeves as a federal agent who goes undercover as a surfer. In the film, Reeves is unintentionally hysterical, so Keeling got the bright idea to have an audience member chosen at random to recite his lines.
The production company behind the live version stopped paying Keeling, did its own version, and took the position that that Keeling had no right to her script since it was based on the film. This set up the fascinating question of whether someone who creates a parody of copyrighted material could sue someone else who also is doing a parody.
In December 2012, after a judge said absolutely, a jury returned a $250,000 verdict in favor of Keeling. What followed was the appeal where 2nd Circuit judge Jose Cabranes decides that even an unauthorized work that makes fair use of source material is protected."

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Iranian publisher purchases copyright of Persian translation of George R. R. Martin’s works; 11/11/13, Tehran Times

Tehran Times; Iranian publisher purchases copyright of Persian translation of George R. R. Martin’s works: "An Iranian publisher has purchased the Persian translation copyright of all works by American master of modern fantasy George R. R. Martin (1948). Based on a recent agreement, Behnam Publications will have the rights in Iran and all Persian-speaking countries to translate and distribute books by Martin, an author of fantasy, horror, and science fiction prose, the translator of his books in Iran, Milad Fashtami, told the Persian service of ISNA on Sunday. Since Iran has not joined the Universal Copyright Convention yet, this will help respect and observe the rights of the writer, Fashtami said."

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Star Characters, Spun Anew, May Live Well More Than Twice; New York Times, 10/22/13

Sarah Lyall, New York Times; Star Characters, Spun Anew, May Live Well More Than Twice: "Authors’ estates that still hold copyright — in the case of Fleming, this will last until 2034, 70 years after his death — stand to make tidy profits from licensing the rights for sequels, and can also lure new readers to old franchises. “This is bringing a fresh, new interesting life to Bond,” said Corinne Turner, managing director of Ian Fleming Publications. It’s “about the heritage,” she said, not the money... As for Mr. McCall Smith’s plans to rework “Emma,” various commenters groused on the BBC Web site that if there was ever a case to be made for not tampering with perfection, this was it. Mr. McCall Smith, though, said his assignment was simply to use “Emma” as a starting point for his own imagination. Austen has developed into a cottage industry, with reimagined books and movies — “Clueless,” “The Jane Austen Book Club,” “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” to name a few — appearing all the time. And the publishing world is littered with the entrails of authorized sequels to Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone With the Wind,” including Emma Tennant’s “Tara” (the book fell apart when she fell out with the Mitchell estate) and Alexandra Ripley’s “Scarlett,” a commercial success but a critical disaster."

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Youth-Culture Photographer Ryan McGinley Sued for Copyright Violation; New York Times, 7/13/11

Randy Kennedy, New York Times; Youth-Culture Photographer Ryan McGinley Sued for Copyright Violation:

"Janine Gordon, who is known as JahJah and is also a musician and multimedia artist, has filed suit against Mr. McGinley in federal court in Manhattan, saying that at least 150 of his photographs are “substantially based” on her work and are violations of her copyright protections."