Testing Ethical Boundaries. The New York Times Sues Microsoft And OpenAI On Copyright Concerns; Forbes, December 29, 2023

 Cindy Gordon, Forbes; Testing Ethical Boundaries. The New York Times Sues Microsoft And OpenAI On Copyright Concerns

"We have at least seen Apple announce an ethical approach to discussing upfront with the US Media giants their interest in partnering on AI generative AI training needs and finding new revenue sharing models.

Smart Move by Apple...

The court’s rulings here will be critical to advance ethical AI practices and guard rails on what is “fair” versus predatory.

We have too many leadership behaviors that encroach on others Intellectual Property (IP) and try to mask or muddy the authenticity of communication and sources of origination of ideas and content.

I for one will be following these cases closely and this also sends a wake -up call to all technology titans, and technology industry leaders that respect, integrity and transparency on operating practices need an ethical overhauling.

One of the important leadership behaviors is risk management and looking at all stakeholder views and appreciating the risks that can be incurred. I am keen to see how Apple approaches these dynamics to build a stronger ethical brand profile."

The Washington Post; National Archives says it was wrong to alter images; The Washington Post, January 18, 2020

Steve Thompson and Joe Heim , The Washington Post; National Archives says it was wrong to alter images

 

"Officials at the National Archives on Saturday said they had removed from display an altered photo from the 2017 Women’s March in which signs held by marchers critical of President Trump had been blurred.

 

In tweets on Saturday, the museum apologized and said: “We made a mistake.”

“As the National Archives of the United States, we are and have always been completely committed to preserving our archival holdings, without alteration,” one of the tweets said.

“This photo is not an archival record held by the @usnatarchives, but one we licensed to use as a promotional graphic,” it said in another tweet. “Nonetheless, we were wrong to alter the image.”...

Marchers in the 2017 photograph by Mario Tama of Getty Images were shown carrying a variety of signs, at least four of which were altered by the museum. A placard that proclaimed “God Hates Trump” had Trump blotted out so that it read “God Hates.” A sign that read “Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women” had the word Trump blurred. Signs with messages that referenced women’s anatomy were also digitally altered."

Farting unicorn row: artist reaches settlement with Elon Musk; The Guardian, July 21, 2018

Damien Gayle, The Guardian; Farting unicorn row: artist reaches settlement with Elon Musk

"A Colorado artist says he has reached a settlement with Elon Musk after challenging the Tesla tycoon’s use of a farting unicorn motif that he had drawn as an ironic tribute to electric cars.

Musk used the cartoon image on Twitter, without attribution, to promote his Tesla electric car range, and ignored Tom Edwards’ attempts to come to a licensing arrangement, telling the artist’s daughter it would be “kinda lame” to sue."

Elon Musk drawn into farting unicorn dispute with potter; The Guardian, June 27, 2018

Sam Levin, The Guardian; Elon Musk drawn into farting unicorn dispute with potter 

[Kip Currier: Given the facts as presented in this article (and knowing that the U.S. only recognizes "moral rights" vis-a-vis the very narrow Visual Artists Right Act [VARA]), is there anyone who still doesn't think that at the very least the "decent" thing to do would have been for Elon Musk/Tesla to provide attribution (let alone some kind of compensation) when repeatedly using Tom Edwards' image? Imagine if the situation were reversed and someone was using Elon Musk's "original expressions" without attribution.]

"Edwards said he wanted to speak out in part because he often hears similar stories from artists. “I realize my farting unicorn is not as serious as whistleblowers,” he said, “but honestly, it’s all about integrity.”

He added: “I’d really like to get on Elon Musk’s good side … He’s really really interesting. But he isn’t above copyright law.""

Judge awards graffiti artists $6.7M in suit against building owner who whitewashed their art; ABA Journal, February 14, 2018

Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal; Judge awards graffiti artists $6.7M in suit against building owner who whitewashed their art

"A federal judge in Brooklyn, New York, awarded statutory damages of $6.7 million to 21 graffiti artists in a suit that contended a building owner violated federal law when he painted over their artwork.

U.S. District Judge Frederic Block ruled Monday that 45 works of graffiti art on the 5Pointz warehouses in the borough of Queens were protected under the Visual Artists Rights Act because of their “recognized stature,” report the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Dean Nicyper, a Withers Bergman partner who specializes in art law, told the New York Times that the decision is the first to find that graffiti and graffiti artists were protected by VARA.

The Visual Artists Rights Act amends copyright law to give artists the right to attribution and integrity of their visual work."

The Coat of Arms Said ‘Integrity.’ Now It Says ‘Trump.’; New York Times, May 28, 2017

Danny Hakim, New York Times; 

The Coat of Arms Said ‘Integrity.’ Now It Says ‘Trump.’

“Britain’s trademark office would not initially acknowledge the earlier application by Mr. Trump. It provided a copy last month only after The New York Times made a Freedom of Information request, and would not say why the application was rejected, citing a law restricting its ability to release information.

The College of Arms, which oversees coats of arms in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, provided more detail. The emblem originally submitted in 2007 by Mr. Trump to Britain’s trademark office matched one that had been granted to Mr. Davies, an American of Welsh descent who once served as ambassador to the Soviet Union.

“It couldn’t be a clearer-cut case, actually,” said Clive Cheesman, one of the college’s heralds, who oversee coats of arms, their design and their use.

“A coat of arms that was originally granted to Joseph Edward Davies in 1939 by the English heraldic authority ended up being used 10 or 15 years ago by the Trump Organization as part of its branding for its golf clubs,” said Mr. Cheesman, a lawyer by training. “This got them into difficulty.”"

Improving the Trademark Register; Director's Forum: A Blog from USPTO's Leadership, 10/5/16

Guest Blog from Commissioner for Trademarks Mary Boney Denison, Director's Forum: A Blog from USPTO's Leadership; Improving the Trademark Register:

"When selecting a mark for a new product or service, a business will search the USPTO database of registered marks to determine whether a particular mark is available. Registered trademarks that are not actually in use in commerce unnecessarily block someone else from registering the mark.

To ensure the accuracy of our trademark registry, in 2012, the USPTO launched a pilot program to gather data on whether registered marks were actually being used on the products and services listed on their registrations.

During the pilot, in 500 randomly-selected maintenance filings we required the registrant to submit proof of use for two additional items for each class listed on the registration. Although the registrant must submit one example of use per class in a maintenance filing, typically the registration will list multiple products or services for each class.

At the conclusion of the pilot, the USPTO determined that in more than half of the trademark registrations selected, the owner was unable to verify the actual use of the mark for the goods or services queried. This was in spite of the owner having recently sworn under penalty of perjury to such ongoing use as part of the maintenance filing. We issued a report on the results and held a roundtable to discuss the results and next steps. The consensus among roundtable participants was that the results of the pilot program indicated a need for some action to improve the accuracy and integrity of the register. As a result of these findings and input from the trademark community, we are now taking a three-pronged approach to tackling the so-called “deadwood” in our searchable database of registered marks."

[Webinar] Who Pays the Freight? Open Access: The Future of Funding, 5/25/16

[Webinar] Who Pays the Freight? Open Access: The Future of Funding:

Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Time: 11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Duration: 1 hour

"Who Pays the Freight? Open Access: The Future of Funding

Now in full flight, the Open Access movement promises to revolutionize the discipline of peer-reviewed research. Billed as a treasure trove for citizen scientists and major institutions alike, the benefits of Open Access still need to be paid for - but by who?

The attention on funding models has been increasing for years, as has discussion around journal transition and conversion. Best practices presume these models are continually refined through historical experience, policy and competition. But the iterative nature of OA can come with a cost in terms of implementation, integration, and aggregation performance. Questions remain about sustainability and integrity.

So, who pays the freight? In this webcast, our experts will highlight how librarians are tackling this important issue, and how the library can shape the future of funding Open Access.

Speakers

Ann Oakerson, Senior Adviser, The Center for Research Libraries

Rebecca Jozwiak, Analyst, The Bloor Group"