Creatives Battling AI Companies Over Copyright Turn to Congress; Bloomberg Law, January 29, 2024

Isaiah Poritz, Legal Reporter; Diego Areas Munhoz 

Reporter, Bloomberg Law ; Creatives Battling AI Companies Over Copyright Turn to Congress

"In 1908, the Supreme Court ruled that “piano rolls,” a new and increasingly popular technology that automatically played songs without a human musician, didn’t violate copyright law—a blow to the music industry. Songwriters and composers felt their livelihoods threatened but had no grounds to demand royalties from piano-roll makers that copied their sheet music.

That was until Congress stepped in the following year, amending the law to address piano rolls and ensure musicians were paid royalties.

More than a century later, musicians—along with other creatives—are yet again fearful an emerging technology could disrupt their industries: artificial intelligence."

AI starts a music-making revolution and plenty of noise about ethics and royalties; The Washington Times, December 26, 2023

 Tom Howell Jr. , The Washington Times ; AI starts a music-making revolution and plenty of noise about ethics and royalties

"“Music’s important. AI is changing that relationship. We need to navigate that carefully,” said Martin Clancy, an Ireland-based expert who has worked on chart-topping songs and is the founding chairman of the IEEE Global AI Ethics Arts Committee...

The Biden administration, the European Union and other governments are rushing to catch up with AI and harness its benefits while controlling its potentially adverse societal impacts. They are also wading through copyright and other matters of law.

Even if they devise legislation now, the rules likely will not go into effect for years. The EU recently enacted a sweeping AI law, but it won’t take effect until 2025.

“That’s forever in this space, which means that all we’re left with is our ethical decision-making,” Mr. Clancy said.

For now, the AI-generated music landscape is like the Wild West. Many AI-generated songs are hokey or just not very good."

The Patent Fight That Could Take Apple Watches Off the Market; The New York Times, October 30, 2023

 Peter Coy, The New York Times; The Patent Fight That Could Take Apple Watches Off the Market

"Masimo argues that Apple’s reputation for innovation is undeserved and that the company has made a practice of “efficient infringement” — using other companies’ technologies without permission and dealing with the legal fallout as necessary. The company points to something that Steve Jobs, Apple’s co-founder, said in 1996: “Picasso had a saying. He said, ‘Good artists copy; great artists steal.’ And we have, you know, always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

Apple, of course, rejects this characterization and says the company respects other companies’ intellectual property. In Apple’s defense, it’s fair to assume that Jobs was speaking metaphorically, and not copping to a crime, when he said that the company stole."

Google and YouTube are trying to have it both ways with AI and copyright; The Verge, August 22, 2023

 Nilay Patel,, The Verge; Google and YouTube are trying to have it both ways with AI and copyright

"There’s only one name that springs to mind when you think of the cutting edge in copyright law online: Frank Sinatra. 

There’s nothing more important than making sure his estate — and his label, Universal Music Group — gets paid when people do AI versions of Ol’ Blue Eyes singing “Get Low” on YouTube, right? Even if that means creating an entirely new class of extralegal contractual royalties for big music labels just to protect the online dominance of your video platform while simultaneously insisting that training AI search results on books and news websites without paying anyone is permissible fair use? Right? Right?

This, broadly, is the position that Google is taking after announcing a deal with Universal Music Group yesterday “to develop an AI framework to help us work toward our common goals.” Google is signaling that it will pay off the music industry with special deals that create brand-new — and potentially devastating! — private intellectual property rights, while basically telling the rest of the web that the price of being indexed in Search is complete capitulation to allowing Google to scrape data for AI training."

Grimes Endorses AI Songs And “Killing Copyright”; Stereogum, April 24, 2023

 TOM BREIHAN, Stereogum; Grimes Endorses AI Songs And “Killing Copyright”

"Earlier this month, an anonymous TikTok user shared a song called “Heart On My Sleeve,” which featured AI-generated vocals that sounded like Drake and the Weeknd. The song was pulled from streaming services for copyright infringement, but not before it racked up millions of plays. Plenty of people find this uncanny-valley thing to be weird and creepy, but Grimes is into it. 

Last night on Twitter, Grimes posted a screenshot of a New York Times article about the fake Drake/Weeknd song, and she tweeted that she wants people to try to use her voice for AI purposes: “I’ll split 50% royalties on any successful AI generated song that uses my voice. Same deal as I would with any artist i collab with. Feel free to use my voice without penalty. I have no label and no legal bindings… I think it’s cool to be fused w a machine and I like the idea of open sourcing all art and killing copyright.""

Cher’s Royalties Lawsuit Against Sonny Bono’s Widow Can Move Forward, Judge Says; Billboard, March 17, 2023

BILL DONAHUE, Billboard; Cher’s Royalties Lawsuit Against Sonny Bono’s Widow Can Move Forward, Judge Says

"Sonny and Cher started performing together in 1964 and married in 1967, rising to fame with major hits like “I Got You Babe,” “The Beat Goes On” and “Baby Don’t Go.” But the pair split up in 1974, finalizing their divorce with a settlement agreement in 1978. Under that deal, Sonny retained ownership of their music rights, but Cher was granted a half-share of all royalties.

Bono died in 1998 as the result of a skiing accident, leaving Mary in control of those copyrights. And in 2016, she invoked the termination right — a provision of the federal Copyright Act that allows creators or their heirs to win back control of rights they signed away decades prior. Mary sent such notices to Sonny and Cher’s publishers, taking back full control of those copyrights.

Five years later, Cher filed her lawsuit — seeking a ruling that the divorce agreement was still in effect and that she was still owed her 50% cut of royalties, regardless of who owns the copyrights now. Mary then fired back a few months later, arguing that the case should be dismissed. Her lawyers said that termination rights were designed to trump all preexisting agreements, including a divorce agreement.

“Cher’s position would subvert Congress’ intent in enacting the copyright termination provisions: to ensure that authors and authors’ heirs, not grantees or ex-spouses, would benefit from the extended term of copyright,” Bono’s attorneys wrote in December 2021."

Freedom Quilting Bee Legacy offering workshop on copyright in Alberta on Jan. 16; Selma Sun, January 4, 2023

Nathan Prewett, Selma Sun; Freedom Quilting Bee Legacy offering workshop on copyright in Alberta on Jan. 16

"Freedom Quilting Bee Legacy is offering a workshop for quilting artists and other artist on copyright on Jan. 16 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

"The workshop is designed for local and regional artists to learn about copyright and intellectual property, licensing, advocacy and artist representation," said a flyer for the event."

"Additionally, participants will learn about the legal concerns of artists' rights for planning for estates and/or incapacity, rights and royalties in the State of Alabama." 

The fee for the workshop is $15 and includes lunch. To register, call 334-573-2065."

Want to borrow that e-book from the library? Sorry, Amazon won’t let you.; The Washington Post, March 10, 2021

 Geoffrey A. Fowler, The Washington Post ; Want to borrow that e-book from the library? Sorry, Amazon won’t let you.

 

"Many Americans now recognize that a few tech companies increasingly dominate our lives. But it’s sometimes hard to put your finger on exactly why that’s a problem. The case of the vanishing e-books shows how tech monopolies hurt us not just as consumers, but as citizens...

 

Librarians have been no match for the beast. When authors sign up with a publisher, it decides how to distribute their work... 

 

In testimony to Congress, the American Library Association called digital sales bans like Amazon’s “the worst obstacle for libraries” moving into the 21st century. Lawmakers in New York and Rhode Island have proposed bills that would require Amazon (and everybody else) to sell e-books to libraries with reasonable terms. This week, the Maryland House of Delegates unanimously approved its own library e-book bill, which now heads back to the state Senate... 

 

Libraries losing e-books matters because they serve us as citizens. It’s easy to take for granted, but libraries are among America’s great equalizers."

Congress Introduces AM-FM Act to Revise Copyright Law for Terrestrial Radio; Variety, November 21, 2019

Jem Aswad, Variety; Congress Introduces AM-FM Act to Revise Copyright Law for Terrestrial Radio

"Senator Marsha Blackburn and Rep. Jerrold Nadler today introduced the Ask Musicians for Music Act (AM-FM), which aims to revise existing copyright law for radio stations and musicians.

Under the current copyright system, radio stations can use sound recordings over their airwaves without paying royalties to creators who own a stake in the sound recordings. The AM-FM Act would require all radio services to pay fair-market value for the music they use...

“When music creators share their wonderful gift with the world, we hear songs that inspire and unite us. We should encourage such thriving talent and ensure the music community is properly compensated for their work,” said Senator Blackburn, who introduced the bill in the Senate. “The AM-FM Act will reward singers, songwriters and musicians for their hard work when their music is played on the radio.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. “The United States is an outlier in the world for not requiring broadcast radio to pay artists when playing their music, while requiring satellite and internet radio to pay,” he said. “This is unfair to both artists and music providers. I’m proud to sponsor the Ask Musician for Music Act of 2019 which would give artists and copyright owners the right to make a choice to allow AM/FM radio to use their work for free or to seek compensation for their work. The bill would also allow them to negotiate rates with broadcasters in exchange for permission for it to be aired.”"

Faculty Council discusses intellectual property rights; The Ithacan, April 3, 2019

Ashley Stalnecker, The Ithacan; Faculty Council discusses intellectual property rights

"Costa said the current policy on student work at the college differs from the typical policies of higher-education institutions. Currently, the college deems any work created by a student in a class under the jurisdiction of a professor to be the property of the faculty member or the college. Costa said this means that if the faculty memberearned any royalties, they would be required to share it with the college but not with the student who created it.

Costa said that normally among higher-education institutions, student-created work is the copyright of the student. In this case, the student would earn any royalties associated with the work. For commissioned work, the person who made the commission would own the copyright. Because the work was paid for, the person who paid for it owns the work."

Merck Falls After $2.54 Billion Gilead Verdict Is Tossed; Bloomberg, February 20, 2018

Susan Decker and Christopher Yasiejko, Bloomberg; Merck Falls After $2.54 Billion Gilead Verdict Is Tossed

"Merck & Co. fell after a federal judge tossed a record $2.54 billion verdict it had won against Gilead Sciences Inc. over a hepatitis treatment.

A federal jury in 2016 had said that Gilead owed Merck 10 percent of the sales of its Sovaldi and Harvoni hepatitis C drugs. District Court Judge Leonard Stark in Wilmington, Delaware, agreed Friday with Gilead’s argument that the Merck patent was invalid...

The verdict was the largest patent-infringement verdict in U.S. history, dwarfing the next biggest, a $1.67 billion verdict won by Johnson & Johnson against Abbott Laboratories that was later thrown out on appeal, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The case is Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences Inc., 14-846, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington)."

APPLE VS. QUALCOMM: EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW; Digital Trends, June 20, 2017

Christian de Looper, Digital Trends, APPLE VS. QUALCOMM: EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW

"Update: We revised this post to reflect the content of Apple’s amended court filings, which allege that Qualcomm’s licensing practices are “illegal” and push back against Qualcomm’s counterclaims. 

Apple and Qualcomm are engaged in what will likely be a yearslong and epic battle. Following news that Qualcomm had been charging heightened royalties for use of its tech, as well as reports indicating Qualcomm required Apple to pay a percentage of the iPhone’s revenue in return for the use of Qualcomm patents, Apple has sued the company in three countries.

In the United States, Apple is suing Qualcomm for a hefty $1 billion — but it has also filed a lawsuit in China for $145 million, as well as in the United Kingdom. Now, Qualcomm is following with its own countersuit (but losing quite a bit of money).

Here’s everything you need to know about the lawsuit battle so far."

Apple and Nokia Battle Over Cellphone Patents; New York Times, 12/22/16

Vindu Goel and Mark Scott, New York Times; Apple and Nokia Battle Over Cellphone Patents:

"Central to the latest dispute between Apple and Nokia is what is a fair and reasonable fee to use Nokia technology that is now part of every smartphone. Patent lawyers say there has been a tradition of charging a modest royalty for patents on standard technologies. Previously, Nokia fought bitter legal battles with other smartphone makers, including Samsung and LG, over how they used its patents.

As Nokia seeks to require Apple to pay to license more of its patents, some of its recent claims may be hard to justify. In one of its lawsuits filed on Wednesday, it says Apple is violating a patent Nokia received two months ago for an electronic device case that includes a hole for a camera lens in the back and room for a battery beneath the display, features that have been common to smartphones for many years.

Still, Mr. Roberts said American courts have been skeptical of patent-related antitrust claims like those by Apple. “The whole point of the government granting these patents is that it was giving the inventor a monopoly over that invention,” he said.

But Apple and Nokia are fighters, and too much is at stake for either to give up easily.

“What is a fair return on technology that has been shared with everyone?” Mr. Brismark of Ericsson said. “You have to create the right incentives for tech pioneers.”"

How the CRISPR Patent Dispute Became So Heated; The Atlantic, 12/6/16

Sarah Zhang, The Atlantic; How the CRISPR Patent Dispute Became So Heated:

"This week, the biggest science-patent dispute in decades is getting a hearing at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office headquarters. The invention in dispute is the gene-editing technique CRISPR, and at stake are millions, maybe even billions, of dollars for the winning side. CRISPR is the hugely hyped technology that could launch life-saving therapies, novel genetically modified crops, new forms of mosquito control, and more. It could—without much exaggeration—change the world.

Any company that wants to use CRISPR will have to license it from the patent dispute’s winner. Both parties embroiled in this fight are universities: MIT and the University of California, Berkeley, whose lawyers represent rival groups of scientists with claims to have first invented CRISPR. The Berkeley group published their work and filed for a patent first, by a few months—but the patent office ended up awarding a patent to the MIT group, due to some complicated procedural rules. The legal and scientific details of the dispute get pretty arcane pretty fast, but you can read some excellent reporting here, here, and here."

Michael James Delligatti, Creator of the Big Mac, Dies at 98; New York Times, 11/30/16

Kevin Rawlinson, New York Times; Michael James Delligatti, Creator of the Big Mac, Dies at 98:

"Most memorable was the ad campaign, begun in 1974, in which actual customers tried to recite the ingredients in a Big Mac, with comic results, before a chorus jumped in and smoothly sang the now-famous jingle.

“It wasn’t like discovering the light bulb,” Mr. Delligatti told John F. Love, the author of “McDonald’s: Behind the Arches” (1986). “The bulb was already there. All I did was screw it in the socket.”...

...[T]he sales remain huge, leading many to believe that Mr. Delligatti, as its inventor, must have reaped a windfall worth billions.

Not so. “All I got was a plaque,” he told The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2007."

Led Zeppelin faces copyright case for ‘Stairway to Heaven’; PBS NewsHour, 6/19/16

[Podcast and Transcript] Phil Hirschkorn, PBS NewsHour; Led Zeppelin faces copyright case for ‘Stairway to Heaven’ :

"This week in Los Angeles federal court, a jury began hearing evidence and testimony on whether rock band Led Zeppelin may have lifted part of their iconic song, “Stairway to Heaven.” At stake is the band’s reputation and millions of dollars. NewsHour Weekend’s Phil Hirschkorn reports."

New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800; New York Times, 6/10/16

Tim Cushing, TechDirt; New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800:

"Fair use is apparently the last refuge of a scofflaw. Following on the heels of a Sony rep's assertion that people could avail themselves of fair use for the right price, here comes the New York Times implying fair use not only does not exist, but that it runs more than $6/word.

Obtaining formal permission to use three quotations from New York Times articles in a book ultimately cost two professors $1,884. They’re outraged, and have taken to Kickstarter — in part to recoup the charges, but primarily, they say, to “protest the Times’ and publishers’ lack of respect for Fair Use.”

These professors used quotes from other sources in their book about press coverage of health issues, but only the Gray Lady stood there with her hand out, expecting nearly $2,000 in exchange for three quotes totalling less than 300 words.

The professors paid, but the New York Times "policy" just ensures it will be avoided by others looking to source quotes for their publications. The high rate it charges (which it claims is a "20% discount") for fair use of its work will be viewed by others as proxy censorship. And when censorship of this sort rears its head, most people just route around it. Other sources will be sought and the New York Times won't be padding its bottom line with ridiculous fees for de minimis use of its articles.

The authors' Kickstarter isn't so much to pay off the Times, but more to raise awareness of the publication's unwillingness to respect fair use."

Do You Love Music? Silicon Valley Doesn’t; New York Times, 5/20/16

Jonathan Taplin, New York Times; Do You Love Music? Silicon Valley Doesn’t:

"Unfortunately, there is a sad history of undervaluing musicians in the United States. Terrestrial radio, a $17 billion industry, pays publishing rights (payments to songwriters) but has never paid artists or record companies for music. In addition, the satellite radio company, SiriusXM, pays below-market royalties, thanks to a giveaway it first wrested from Congress 20 years ago. Conglomerates like iHeartMedia (formerly Clear Channel Communications) and other online services like Pandora, which are required to pay artists for digital streams, have exploited federal copyright law to deny payments for work recorded before 1972 (songwriters are paid; performers are not). This means artists like Aretha Franklin, Ella Fitzgerald, Chuck Berry and John Coltrane never received a dime from AM/FM radio and or from many digital services for some of their greatest music.

The last meaningful legislation in this area was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, which was based on the idea that creators should monitor the Internet for illegal copies of their works and give “notice” to websites and services to take pirated material down. Under the act’s “safe harbor” provisions, any service or site that makes a minimal effort to address these notices is immune from liability for piracy or theft."

Happy Together' Copyright Dispute in NY Top Court; Associated Press via New York Times, 5/3/16

Associated Press via New York Times; Happy Together' Copyright Dispute in NY Top Court:

"New York's highest court has agreed to rule on a case pitting the owner of The Turtles' 1967 hit "Happy Together" against Sirius XM Radio.

The issue is whether the copyright owners of recordings made before 1972 have a common law right to make radio stations and others pay for their use."

‘Happy Birthday’ Copyright Case Reaches a Settlement; New York Times, 12/9/15

Ben Sisario, New York Times; ‘Happy Birthday’ Copyright Case Reaches a Settlement:

"After more than two years of litigation, “Happy Birthday to You” — often called the most popular song in the world, but one that has long been under copyright — is one step closer to joining the public domain.

In September, a federal judge ruled that Warner Music, the song’s publisher, did not have a valid copyright claim to “Happy Birthday,” which has been estimated to collect $2 million a year in royalties. But what that ruling meant for the future of the song — and Warner’s liability — was unclear, and a trial had been set to begin next week.

In a filing on Tuesday in United States District Court in Los Angeles, the parties in the case said they had agreed to a settlement to end the case. The terms of that deal are confidential. But if the settlement is approved by the court, the song is expected to formally enter the public domain, meaning that it will not be covered by copyright and can be performed freely."