"The legality of using copyrighted material to train AI is still very contentious and there has not yet been a precedent case that can be used to determine the validity of either side of the case."
Katharine Sanderson, Nature; Editors quit top neuroscience journal to protest against open-access charges
"More than 40 editors have resigned from two leading neuroscience journals in protest against what the editors say are excessively high article-processing charges (APCs) set by the publisher. They say that the fees, which publishers use to cover publishing services and in some cases make money, are unethical. The publisher, Dutch company Elsevier, says that its fees provide researchers with publishing services that are above average quality for below average price. The editors plan to start a new journal hosted by the non-profit publisher MIT Press.
The decision to resign came about after many discussions among the editors, says Stephen Smith, a neuroscientist at the University of Oxford, UK, and editor-in-chief of one of the journals, NeuroImage. “Everyone agreed that the APC was unethical and unsustainable,” says Smith, who will lead the editorial team of the new journal, Imaging Neuroscience, when it launches.
The 42 academics who made up the editorial teams at NeuroImage and its companion journal NeuroImage: Reports announced their resignations on 17 April. The journals are open access and require authors to pay a fee for publishing services. The APC for NeuroImage is US$3,450; NeuroImage: Reports charges $900, which will double to $1,800 from 31 May. Elsevier, based in Amsterdam, says that the APCs cover the costs associated with publishing an article in an open-access journal, including editorial and peer-review services, copyediting, typesetting archiving, indexing, marketing and administrative costs. Andrew Davis, Elsevier’s vice-president of corporate communications, says that NeuroImage’s fee is less than that of the nearest comparable journal in its field, and that the publisher’s APCs are “set in line with our policy [of] providing above average quality for below average price”."
TAREK FAHMY, Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement, U.S. Department of State; Celebrating Women Innovators on World Intellectual Property Day
"At the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, we advocate against unfair trade practices and push for a level playing field for U.S. businesses, workers, goods, and services. Success is protecting innovators around the world, regardless of race, social standing, or gender.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland chooses a theme that allows us to view intellectual property through a different lens. The event takes place every April 26, the same date on which the United Nations Convention establishing WIPO entered into force in 1970. The United States is a member of WIPO, and we also promote World IP Day across all our U.S. Missions around the world.
This year’s theme is “Women and IP: Accelerating Innovation and Creativity.”
Around the world, our embassies will host roundtables, panel discussions, events, lectures, forums with women innovators, debates on local TV and radio, and many other events highlighting the importance of intellectual property rights.
WIPO leaders chose this year’s theme to celebrate the “can do” attitude of women innovators, creators, and entrepreneurs around the world and their ground-breaking work. We’re also highlighting the role of IP rights in securing the new technologies, materials, and products patented by women."
Thania Garcia, Variety; Famous Music Copyright Cases Revisited: Ed Sheeran, Led Zeppelin, Katy Perry and More
"To help better understand the nuances of a copyright infringement trial, Variety revisits five of the most talked-about intellectual property lawsuits against musicians and songwriters that actually went all the way to a verdict… (and, in the case of appeals and judicial reversals, sometimes much further still)."
Edward Lee, The Washington Post; A terrible decision on AI-made images hurts creators
"The Copyright Office’s position is wrong. It misunderstands authorship and ignores the copyright clause’s goal of promoting “progress” by offering authors incentives to create new works, including with new technologies.
Its decision also misunderstands the creative process."
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.""
Reuters; EU proposes new copyright rules for generative AI
Ben Sisario, The New York Times ; Stolen or Original? Hear Songs From 7 Landmark Copyright Cases.
"Here is a guide to some of the most consequential music copyright cases in recent decades, along with excerpts from their recordings.
But remember: It can be tricky, and even misleading, to compare recordings alone. In cases like these, the only material in question are the songs’ underlying compositions: the melodies, chords and lyrics that can be notated on paper. Elements specific to the performance captured in a particular recording — like the tempo, or the timbre of an instrument — are irrelevant.
Juries must decide not only if one song copies another, but whether the earlier song was original and distinctive enough to be protected by copyright.
“The problem with cases like this is that people ask the wrong question,” said Joe Bennett, a professor at the Berklee College of Music who works as a forensic musicologist in legal cases. “They ask the question, ‘How similar is song B to song A,’ whereas what they should be asking is how original is song A.”
Got that? In that case, put your headphones on and judge for yourself."
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); World Intellectual Property Day – April 26, 2023
MADELINE ASHBY , Wired; The Andy Warhol Copyright Case That Could Transform Generative AI
"“Copyright is a monopoly, and fair use is the safety valve,” says Art Neill, director of the New Media Rights Program at California Western School of Law. Everything from true-crime podcasts to Twitter dunks rely on fair use. It’s the doctrine that makes possible every “ENDING EXPLAINED!!1!” video you’ve watched after killing a bottle of pinot on Sunday night. It’s also why Americans can share videos of police brutality. Cara Gagliano, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, calls it “a particularly important tool for anyone who speaks truth to power.” The EFF filed an amicus brief in the case, siding with the Warhol Foundation. “It protects your right to criticize and critique the works of others.”"
, The New York Times; Ed Sheeran Trial: Did He Copy Marvin Gaye? Here’s What to Know.
"A closely watched music copyright trial is set to begin Monday in federal court in Manhattan, where a jury will decide a lawsuit accusing Ed Sheeran of copying his Grammy-winning ballad “Thinking Out Loud” from Marvin Gaye’s soul classic “Let’s Get It On.”...
The music industry is keenly interested in the outcome. Over the last decade, the business has been rocked by a series of infringement suits that have involved questions of just how much or how little of the work of pop songwriters can be protected by copyright, and how vulnerable they are to legal challenges."
USPTO; World Intellectual Property (IP) Day 2023 – Capitol Hill, Wednesday, April 26, 2023
"Intellectual property, such as inventions, creative content and brands, is created by people. These are people with amazing ideas, creative passions, and desires to improve communities around the world. But it often takes time, money, and personal sacrifices to move these ideas, passions, and desired impacts from conception to reality. When we see these finished products, creative works, or impactful companies, what is their value?
During this year's World Intellectual Property Day celebration, with a global theme of "Women in IP: Accelerating Innovation and Creativity", we will revisit this idea about how we value intellectual property. We will look through the eyes of the women who have made countless sacrifices, overcame hurdles others did not have to face, and yet succeeded and made their companies, inventions and creative works into a thriving reality. This month we will feature incredible women across the U.S. and learn about their years of education, hours spent calling new customers, late nights researching after a full day of work, and money spent for studio time, all so that they can bring their intellectual property to us. These important sacrifices together equals The Value of Her IP!
The Value of Her IP event
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will celebrate World IP Day 2023, centering on the theme of "The Value of Her IP" on Wednesday, April 26, 2023, from 4:30-7:30 p.m. ET., at the U.S. Capitol building's Senate Visitors Center. The focus of the program will be hearing from women business owners, creators and inventors about the financial, time, and personal sacrifices that were necessary for them to create their intellectual property. Their stories will illustrate why it was critical to protect their investments through IP protections such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. The program will also stress the importance of increasing women's participation in the IP eco-system."
KRISTIN ROBINSON, Billboard; Music Creators Want Consent in the AI Age, But Developers Find Safe Havens Abroad
"Machine-learning is exponentially faster, though; it’s usually achieved by feeding millions, even billions of so-called “inputs” into an AI model to build its musical vocabulary. Due to the sheer scale of data needed to train current systems that almost always includes the work of professionals, and to many copyright owners’ dismay, almost no one asks their permission to use it.
Countries around the world have various ways of regulating what’s allowed when it comes to what’s called the text and data mining of copyrighted material for AI training. And some territories are concluding that fewer rules will lead to more business.
China, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Singapore are among the countries that have largely positioned themselves as safe havens for AI companies in terms of industry-friendly regulation. In January, Israel’s Ministry of Justice defined its stance on the issue, saying that “lifting the copyright uncertainties that surround this issue [of training AI generators] can spur innovation and maximize the competitiveness of Israeli-based enterprises in both [machine-learning] and content creation.”"
Riddhi Setty, Bloomberg Law ; Surge in Trademark Fraud Scams Overwhelms Regulators, Applicants
"An unprecedented surge in applications for US trademarks has unleashed an equally extraordinary rise in fraud schemes targeting applicants, leaving investigators struggling to keep up."
"Trademark scams: how to avoid them and what to do if you get fooled
Trademark scams are on the rise, and bad actors are using increasingly devious and creative means to fool USPTO customers. Whether you're a trademark owner, applicant, or practitioner, you'll want to register for this important webinar on April 27, from 2-3:30 p.m. ET.
During an engaging panel discussion, our experts will give you practical tips for protecting yourself, your brand, and your clients from bad actors who:
A 30-minute question-and-answer session will follow the panel discussion. You may submit your questions before the event to TMWebinar@uspto.gov
We'll post a recording of this event to this page within three weeks of the event. All registrants will receive an email with the video link when it is ready.
Foo Yun Chee, Reuters; Exclusive: German authors, performers call for tougher ChatGPT rules amid copyright concerns
"Forty-two German associations and trade unions representing more than 140,000 authors and performers on Wednesday urged the European Union to beef up draft artificial intelligence rules as they singled out the threat to their copyright from ChatGPT...
"The unauthorised usage of protected training material, its non-transparent processing, and the foreseeable substitution of the sources by the output of generative AI raise fundamental questions of accountability, liability and remuneration, which need to be addressed before irreversible harm occurs," the letter seen by Reuters said."
Daniel Restrepo – Fennemore, Phoenix Business Journal; Rise of the machines: Copyright in a world of AI
"Recognizing the blend of human and automated works
In remedying these conflicts, courts have a few options before them. Courts can declare all works using AI fall into the public domain on the grounds that they do not meet the creative, original or human-created requirements, or they could simply grant AI works copyright protection as a matter of course. However, the former would disincentivize AI development and the latter would disincentivize human creativity.
The third and more likely solution is somewhere in the middle, granting limited protection in AI works based on the degree of human involvement. The Copyright Office has recently taken this approach regarding an application for the comic book “Zarya of the Dawn,” granting rights to the human author’s writing and arrangement of AI-generated drawings, but not to the AI drawings themselves. This gradient, while perhaps frustrating to those who want greater clarity, is useful in determining the rights in the final product."
Ephrat Livni, Lauren Hirsch and The New York Times; Who Owns a Song Created by A.I.?
"Who owns the output of generative A.I.? For now, only a human’s work can be copyrighted, but what about work that partly relies on generative A.I.? Some tool developers have said they won’t assert copyright over content generated by their machines. In February, the Copyright Office rejected a copyright for A.I.-generated images in a graphic novel, though the writer argued that she had made the images via “a creative, iterative process” that involved “composition, selection, arrangement, cropping and editing for each image.” The government compared use of the A.I. tool to hiring an artist. But the lines may blur as the use of such tools becomes more common. Like the tools, the intellectual property issues are a work in progress that will only get more complex."
Kane Russell Coleman Logan PC - Richard Hathaway, Lexology; Keeping Your Trade Secrets a Secret: Three Common Myths about Trade Secret Protection that could put your Business's Trade Secrets at Risk
"This blog post will address three common myths many business leaders have about protecting their trade secrets.
Myth Number One: All Confidential Information is a Trade Secret.
Not all of your business's confidential information qualifies for trade secret protection. It's essential to understand the distinction between confidential information and trade secrets. While all trade secrets contain confidential information, not all confidential information qualifies as a trade secret. If you graphed these concepts as a Venn diagram, your business's trade secrets would be the smaller circle inside the more prominent "confidential information" circle.
Under most Uniform Trade Secret Acts adopted by individual states and the federal Defense of Trade Secrets Act, to be considered a trade secret, the business information must:
Common examples of legally recognized trade secrets include proprietary formulas, manufacturing processes, pricing lists, and customer lists. However, general business information, employee data, or other information your business keeps from prying eyes may only meet the criteria for trade secret protection if it has a competitive economic use for your business. Knowing the difference between these essential concepts is critical to understanding where your business should focus its limited resources to protect its trade secrets."
KIT WALSH, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); How We Think About Copyright and AI Art
"Currently, copyright law protects artists who are influenced by colleagues and mentors and the media they admire by permitting them to mimic elements of others’ work as long as their art isn’t “substantially similar” and/or is a fair use. Thus, the same legal doctrines that give artists the breathing room to find inspiration in others’ works also protect diffusion models. Rewriting those doctrines could cause harm far beyond any damage Stable Diffusion is causing.
In our companion blog post, we explore some of the other consequences. In particular, we discuss who would likely benefit from such a regime (spoiler: it’s not individual creators). We also discuss some alternative approaches that might actually help creators.
Done right, copyright law is supposed to encourage new creativity. Stretching it to outlaw tools like AI image generators—or to effectively put them in the exclusive hands of powerful economic actors who already use that economic muscle to squeeze creators—would have the opposite effect."
CASON SCHMIT & JENNIFER WAGNER, Undark Magazine; To Ingrain AI Ethics, We Should Get Creative About Copyrights
"What’s clear, however, is that the risk of doing nothing is tremendous. AI is rapidly evolving and disrupting existing systems and structures in unpredictable ways. We need disruptive innovation in AI policy perhaps even more than we need disruption in the technology itself — and AI creators and users must be willing participants in this endeavor. Efforts to grapple with the ethical, legal, social, and policy issues around AI must be viewed not as a luxury but as a necessity, and as an integral part of AI design. Otherwise, we run the risk of letting industry set the terms of AI’s future, and we leave individuals, groups, and even our very democracy vulnerable to its whims."
Gil Appel, Juliana Neelbauer, David A. Schweidel, Harvard 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."
Haven’t We Been Here Before: A Panel Discussion on Banning LGBTQIA+ Books. Wednesday, April 5. 12:30 PM - 1:30 PM EDT. University of Pittsburgh
https://calendar.pitt.edu/event/been_here_before#.ZCgmRi-B2_U
[This session will be live via Zoom and also recorded for asynchronous viewing, following processing by Pitt. See registration link.]
