US appeals court curbs Copyright Office's mandatory deposit policy; Reuters, August 29, 2023

 Blake Brittain, Reuters; US appeals court curbs Copyright Office's mandatory deposit policy

"The U.S. Constitution bars the U.S. Copyright Office from demanding that a publisher deposit physical copies of its books with the office or pay a fine, a Washington, D.C., federal appeals court said on Tuesday.

In a ruling for Richmond, Virginia-based Valancourt Books, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the Copyright Office's demand amounted to an unconstitutional government taking of Valancourt's property."

Copyright Office Issues Notice of Inquiry on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence; U.S. Copyright Office, August 30, 2023

U.S. Copyright Office ; Copyright Office Issues Notice of Inquiry on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) in the Federal Register on copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). The Office is undertaking a study of the copyright law and policy issues raised by generative AI and is assessing whether legislative or regulatory steps are warranted. The Office will use the record it assembles to advise Congress; inform its regulatory work; and offer information and resources to the public, courts, and other government entities considering these issues.

The NOI seeks factual information and views on a number of copyright issues raised by recent advances in generative AI. These issues include the use of copyrighted works to train AI models, the appropriate levels of transparency and disclosure with respect to the use of copyrighted works, the legal status of AI-generated outputs, and the appropriate treatment of AI-generated outputs that mimic personal attributes of human artists.

The NOI is an integral next step for the Office’s AI initiative, which was launched in early 2023. So far this year, the Office has held four public listening sessions and two webinars. This NOI builds on the feedback and questions the Office has received so far and seeks public input from the broadest audience to date in the initiative.

“We launched this initiative at the beginning of the year to focus on the increasingly complex issues raised by generative AI. This NOI and the public comments we will receive represent a critical next step,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. “We look forward to continuing to examine these issues of vital importance to the evolution of technology and the future of human creativity.”

Initial written comments are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, October 18, 2023. Reply comments are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, November 15, 2023. Instructions for submitting comments are available on the Office’s website. Commenters may choose which and how many questions to respond to in the NOI.

For more general information about the Copyright Office’s AI initiative, please visit our website."

The sound of science: AI can ID musical copyright infringement better than human ears, WVU law experts say; WVU Today, August 28, 2023

WVU Today; The sound of science: AI can ID musical copyright infringement better than human ears, WVU law experts say

"Artificial intelligence could help determine the verdicts of future court cases involving musical copyright, according to West Virginia University College of Law researchers.

Law student Angelyn Gemmen and Professor Sean Tu said they believe using AI to verify the originality of a piece of music would allow courts to stop relying on “a battle of the experts” and the human ear in cases of copyright infringement.

In an Innovate Magazine article, Gemmen and Tu explain how use of AI may have helped in a recent case involving singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran. AI could have made the Sheeran musical copyright case more fact-driven, less biased and might have prevented litigation."

Introduction to Intellectual Property; West Virginia Libraries (WVU) , Tuesday, August 29, 2023

West Virginia Libraries (WVU) ; Introduction to Intellectual Property

"Curious about Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, & Trade Secrets? Join us for an overview of intellectual property.

 Intellectual Property by Marian Armour-Gemmen"

Studios’ Offer to Writers May Lead to AI-Created Scripts That Are Copyrightable; The Hollywood Reporter, August 23, 2023

 Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter; Studios’ Offer to Writers May Lead to AI-Created Scripts That Are Copyrightable

"But missing from the proposal, which was described as meeting the “priority concerns” of the guild, is how the studios need writers to exploit any work created by AI under existing copyright laws. That’s because works solely created by AI are not copyrightable. To be granted protection, a human would need to rewrite any AI-produced script...

By keeping AI on the table, the studios may be looking to capitalize on the intellectual property rights around works created by the tools. “If a human touches material created by generative AI, then the typical copyright protections will kick in,” a source close to the AMPTP says...

The studios may be looking toward producing of AI-generated scripts, but copyright protection is only possible for those works if they are revised by human writers. Material created solely by AI would enter the public domain upon release, potentially restricting opportunities for exploitation."

Our Summer of Artificial Intelligence: Copyright Office Hosts Two Webinars on Copyright and AI; U.S. Copyright Office, August 23, 2023

Nora Scheland, U.S. Copyright Office; Our Summer of Artificial Intelligence: Copyright Office Hosts Two Webinars on Copyright and AI

"Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a significant new focal point for the Copyright Office in 2023. The Office launched an AI initiativein mid-March, which was followed by four comprehensive listening sessions in April and May and then, most recently, by two very popular webinars in June and July.

The webinars, which continued to break attendance records for the Copyright Office, provided an opportunity for the Office to dive deeper into the copyright registration guidance for AI-generated works and perspectives on how AI impacts copyright systems both domestically and across the globe. The webinars were open to the public, and everyone from copyright experts to those curious about copyright could take something away.

The Office’s first webinar in June, Registration Guidance for Works Containing AI-generated Content, was hosted by Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Registration Policy and Practice Rob Kasunic and deputy director of registration policy and practice Erik Bertin. Kasunic and Bertin walked attendees through the Office’s registration guidance and discussed a variety of hypothetical examples of copyright registration claims featuring some amount of AI-generated content and how the Office would evaluate them. Through the detailed examples, Kasunic and Bertin offered key insights and recommendations for how applicants can navigate registration applications as they register their own creative works.

The webinar wrapped up with a moderated Q&A session. Attendees were encouraged to submit questions during the presentation, and we received nearly 250 questions by the end of the webinar. The attendance climbed to nearly 2,000 people over the 75-minute webinar, a new record for the Office.

If you missed the webinar on registration guidance in June, you can check out a full recording and transcript on our website.

The Office’s second webinar, International Copyright Issues and Artificial Intelligence, was hosted by Office of Policy and International Affairs attorneys and featured two hour-long panels with international copyright experts. Attendance at the second webinar also reached nearly 2,000 people, demonstrating the sustained excitement and curiosity concerning the global conversation around AI and copyright.

Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter provided opening remarks and explained why she thought this international conversation was integral to the Office’s AI initiative:

“We know that AI’s use and its impact are not bound by any national borders. . . . [G]overnments around the world are confronting similar legal and policy questions. . . . Looking at the global copyright landscape, several questions have begun to emerge. First, how do international copyright treaties apply to determining authorship and scope of subject matter protection and exceptions and limitations? Second, what actions are other countries or regions starting to take on AI and copyright issues? In what respects are these approaches similar to or different from ours in the United States? Can consensus approaches be found, and if so, through what mechanisms? And finally, to the extent there is divergence, what are the international implications?”

The first panel kicked off with four exciting presentations on developments in AI and copyright legislation and litigation outside the United States.

• Peter Yu, from Texas A&M University School of Law, presented on copyright and artificial intelligence across Asia, particularly in China, Singapore, Japan, and Korea.
• Marcus von Welser, from Vossius in Germany, walked attendees through the European Union’s proposed AI Act and existing text and data mining exceptions from the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive.
• Luca Schirru, from KU Leuven in Belgium, presented perspectives on text and data mining developments, including from the global south.
• Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, from Ono Academic College in Israel, spoke about the effects of language and bias in generative AI technologies on non-English speaking countries and communities.

The second panel featured a lively moderated discussion on authorship, training, exceptions, and limitations of generative AI. The panel was moderated by two Copyright Office attorneys and comprised Jane Ginsburg from Columbia Law School, Andres Guadamuz from the University of Sussex, Bernt Hugenholtz from the University of Amsterdam, and Matthew Sag from Emory University School of Law. The panelists answered questions from the moderators and engaged directly with each other’s perspectives.

If you missed the webinar on international perspectives on copyright and AI in July, you can check out a full recording and transcript on our website.

The Office’s two webinars wrapped up a busy spring and summer season of listening, information gathering, and direct outreach on AI and copyright. Between April and July, nearly 8,000 people participated in or attended the Office’s AI listening sessions and webinars. This fall, the Office will receive public comments on a notice of inquiry as the work continues on our AI initiative. Follow copyright.gov/ai for updates and events, and sign up for email notifications on our website."

Internet Archive’s digital library has been found in breach of copyright. The decision has some important implications; The Conversation, August 22, 2023

Agata Mrva-Montoya, Lecturer, Department of Media and Communications, University of Sydney, The Conversation; Internet Archive’s digital library has been found in breach of copyright. The decision has some important implications

"The outcome of the court case may affect the fate of controlled digital lending more broadly."

Scraping or Stealing? A Legal Reckoning Over AI Looms; Hollywood Reporter, August 22, 2023

Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter ; Scraping or Stealing? A Legal Reckoning Over AI Looms

"Engineers build AI art generators by feeding AI systems, known as large language models, voluminous databases of images downloaded from the internet without licenses. The artists’ suit revolves around the argument that the practice of feeding these systems copyrighted works constitutes intellectual property theft. A finding of infringement in the case may upend how most AI systems are built in the absence of regulation placing guardrails around the industry. If the AI firms are found to have infringed on any copyrights, they may be forced to destroy datasets that have been trained on copyrighted works. They also face stiff penalties of up to $150,000 for each infringement.

AI companies maintain that their conduct is protected by fair use, which allows for the utilization of copyrighted works without permission as long as that use is transformative. The doctrine permits unlicensed use of copyrighted works under limited circumstances. The factors that determine whether a work qualifies include the purpose of the use, the degree of similarity, and the impact of the derivative work on the market for the original. Central to the artists’ case is winning the argument that the AI systems don’t create works of “transformative use,” defined as when the purpose of the copyrighted work is altered to create something with a new meaning or message."

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."

At a Jersey Shore bar, Taco Tuesday’s soul lives on in a trademark; The Washington Post, August 21, 2023

Timothy Bella, The Washington Post; At a Jersey Shore bar, Taco Tuesday’s soul lives on in a trademark

"Taco Bell’s legal push to liberate the phrase, which has included the marketing help of NBA great and Taco Tuesday enthusiast LeBron James, has left Gregory with the last trademark of its kind in the country in what he described as a modern-day David vs. Goliath story.

“I just want everybody to know that we started Taco Tuesday,” he said."

'The ghosts are not happy': 2 Fall River businesses clash over use of Lizzie Borden name; The Herald News, August 21, 2023

  Audrey Cooney, The Herald News; 'The ghosts are not happy': 2 Fall River businesses clash over use of Lizzie Borden name

"Zaal’s company US Ghost Adventures, which operates ghost tours in dozens of cities across the U.S., bought the house in 2021.

Miss Lizzie’s Coffee opened two weeks ago, on the anniversary of the Borden murders. The Lizzie-themed coffee shop features bloody axes in the decor and other nods to the slayings, like a "Lizspresso" menu item. Owner Joe Pereira bills it as "the most haunted coffee shop in the world."

Now, Zaal says the coffee shop violates his intellectual property."

As Fight Over A.I. Artwork Unfolds, Judge Rejects Copyright Claim; The New York Times, August 21, 2023

 Zachary Small , The New York Times; As Fight Over A.I. Artwork Unfolds, Judge Rejects Copyright Claim

"“Plaintiff can point to no case in which a court has recognized copyright in a work originating with a nonhuman,” Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in her decision on Friday, adding that “we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put A.I. in their toolbox.”

Similar rules about “human authorship” have been used in deciding who owned a monkey’s selfie."

AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause; The Hollywood Reporter, August 18, 2023

Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter ; AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause

"A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection. The ruling was delivered in an order turning down Stephen Thaler’s bid challenging the government’s position refusing to register works made by AI. Copyright law has “never stretched so far” to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found."

Record Labels File $412 Million Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Internet Archive; Rolling Stone, August 12, 2023

 ALTHEA LEGASPI, Rolling Stone; Record Labels File $412 Million Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Internet Archive

"UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, Sony Music Entertainment, Capitol, and other record labels filed a copyright lawsuit on Friday against Internet Archive, founder Brewster Kahle, and others over the organization’s “Great 78 Project,” accusing them of behaving as an “illegal record store.” The suit lists 2,749 pre-1972 musical works available via Internet Archive by late artists, including Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Chuck Berry, Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong, and Bing Crosby, among others.

The suit, which was filed in federal court and reviewed by Rolling Stone, claims the Internet Archive’s “Great 78 Project” — launched by Internet Archive as a community project for “the preservation, research and discovery of 78rpm records,” according to its blog — has violated copyright laws. By “transferring copies of those files to members of the public, Internet Archive has reproduced and distributed without authorization Plaintiffs’ protected sound recordings,” the suit alleges.

The nonprofit Internet Archive began in 1996, stating its mission is to “provide Universal Access to All Knowledge.” It purports to be a digital library that provides free access to researchers, historians, scholars, and the general public. Its “Great 78 Project” follows suit; the community project dedicates itself to “the preservation, research and discovery of 78rpm records” per a post about the project. It provides free access to “over 400,000 recordings” as Internet Archive estimates in its post."

Judge Approves Final Injunction in Publishers, Internet Archive Copyright Case; Publishers Weekly, August 15, 2023

 Andrew Albanese , Publishers Weekly; Judge Approves Final Injunction in Publishers, Internet Archive Copyright Case

"After more than three years of litigation, it took judge John G. Koeltl just hours to sign off on the parties’ negotiated consent judgment—but not without a final twist. In a short written opinion made public yesterday, Koeltl sided with the Internet Archive in a final dispute, limiting the scope of the permanent injunction to cover only the plaintiffs’ print books that also have electronic editions available."

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?"

New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl; NPR, August 16, 2023

Bobby Allyn , NPR; New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl

"The New York Times and OpenAI could end up in court. 

Lawyers for the newspaper are exploring whether to sue OpenAI to protect the intellectual property rights associated with its reporting, according to two people with direct knowledge of the discussions. 

For weeks, The Times and the maker of ChatGPT have been locked in tense negotiations over reaching a licensing deal in which OpenAI would pay The Times for incorporating its stories in the tech company's AI tools, but the discussions have become so contentious that the paper is now considering legal action."

Photo Agencies Publish Open Letter Demanding AI Copyright Protection; petaPixel, August 10, 2023

 MATT GROWCOOT, PetaPixel; Photo Agencies Publish Open Letter Demanding AI Copyright Protection

"The world’s leading photo agencies and photographer associations have co-signed an open letter calling for legal protections against artificial intelligence (AI).

Getty Images, the Associated Press, Agence France-Press, the European Pressphoto Agency, and the National Press Photographers Association are among the organizations calling for intellectual property (IP) rights to be respected. 

While praising generative AI technology and its potential benefits to society, the signees warn that a flood of synthetic content into the public sphere has the potential to undermine the public’s trust in the media."

Taylor Swift fans were right: Her next album is ‘1989 (Taylor’s Version)’; The Washington Post, August 10, 2023

Emily Yahr, The Washington Post ; Taylor Swift fans were right: Her next album is ‘1989 (Taylor’s Version)’

"This will be Swift’s fourth rerecorded album in her quest to own her masters after a dispute with her former Nashville record label."

Prosecraft has infuriated authors by using their books without consent – but what does copyright law say?; The Conversation, August 9, 2023

Dilan Thampapillai Associate Professor, University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney , The Conversation; Prosecraft has infuriated authors by using their books without consent – but what does copyright law say?

"In amending its laws, Australia legislated that parody or satire could form the basis of a fair dealing exception. A specific transformative use exception was not created. 

So, it is significantly less clear as to whether the use contemplated by Prosecraft or Shaxpir would be considered fair dealing in Australia. 

Australia has either missed a trick or dodged a bullet by failing to include transformative use as a fair dealing exception. It depends where you stand in the ongoing conflict between AI tech and human authors. But Australia’s laws are less AI-friendly than the US.

For the moment, published human authors are banking on the idea that if they can knock out the shadow library, they can hobble the reach of AI tech."

Film and music industries on edge: AI's growing influence stirs fear of job displacement, copyright issues; KATU2ABC, August 8, 2023

KONNER MCINTIRE and JANAE BOWENS , KATU2ABC; Film and music industries on edge: AI's growing influence stirs fear of job displacement, copyright issues

"Currently, the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act provides some protection to musicians. It was made law in 2018 and helps to ensure musicians are fairly compensated by publishers.

The law directly addresses piracy which has cost artists billions of dollars.

Five years later, Congressional leaders, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.,who serves as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, are concerned the law will not protect musicians against AI.

“For Congress, we’re now looking at old challenges with new dangers, including the ever-present threat of piracy as well as artificial intelligence, which pose still unknown questions for intellectual property protection efforts even as they open doors to a new world of technological capability that is, at present, limitless,” the congressman recently wrote in an op-ed.“If we don’t get AI right, it could very well render not only the Music Modernization Act obsolete – but also the policy choices we make next.”"

Meta launches AudioCraft, an open-source AI music generator; Mashable, August 3, 2023

Cecily Mauran  , Mashable; Meta launches AudioCraft, an open-source AI music generator

"Meta's new AI music generator is the latest in a slew of AI products recently released by the tech company. 

On Wednesday, Meta announced the release of AudioCraft, an open-source generative AI that creates audio and music from text prompts. AudioCraft has three models, MusicGen for composing music, AudioGen for creating sound effects, and EnCodec, which uses AI to assist in audio compression that outperforms the MP3 format. 

In case you were wondering about copyright issues, MusicGen was trained on Meta-owned and licensed music."

Academic Book About Emojis Can’t Include The Emojis It Talks About Because Of Copyright; Techdirt, August 4, 2023

Mike Masnick, Techdirt ; Academic Book About Emojis Can’t Include The Emojis It Talks About Because Of Copyright

"Sounds interesting enough, but as Goldman highlights with an image from the book, Kiaer was apparently unable to actually show examples of many of the emoji she was discussing due to copyright fears. While companies like Twitter and Google have offered up their own emoji sets under open licenses, not all of them have, and some of the specifics about the variations in how different companies represent different emoji apparently were key to the book...

Now, my first reaction to this is that using the emoji and stickers and whatnot in the book seems like a very clear fair use situation. But… that requires a publisher willing to take up the fight (and an insurance company behind the publisher willing to finance that fight). And, that often doesn’t happen. Publishers are notoriously averse to supporting fair use, because they don’t want to get sued.

But, really, this just ends up highlighting (once again) the absolute ridiculousness of copyright in the modern world. No one in their right mind would think that a book about emoji is somehow harming the market for whatever emoji or stickers the professor wished to include. Yet, due to the nature of copyright, here we are. With an academic book about emoji that can’t even include the emoji being spoken about."

Agence France-Presse pursues copyright case against X, formerly known as Twitter; AP, August 3, 2023

AP; Agence France-Presse pursues copyright case against X, formerly known as Twitter

"AP; Agence France-Presse pursues copyright case against X, formerly known as Twitter  "France’s international news agency, Agence France-Presse, says it is pursuing a copyright case against X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, in an effort to secure potential payment for its news content."

Inside The Anti-Ownership Ebook Economy; Library Journal, August 3, 2023

 Claire Woodcock  , Library Journal; Inside The Anti-Ownership Ebook Economy

"Most libraries don’t own their own ebooks. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to LJ readers, yet it’s a statement that continues to confound elected officials and administrators who get an astounding amount of say in how much money public and academic libraries are allotted.

This is one of the reasons I, along with my coauthors Sarah Lamdan, Michael Weinberg, and Jason Schultz at the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy at New York University (NYU) Law, published our recent report, The Anti-Ownership Ebook Economy: How Publishers and Platforms Have Reshaped the Way We Read in the Digital Age. In nearly 60 pages, this report takes a hard look at how license agreements dictate what consumers—both individual and institutional—get to do with their digital book collections."

Can You Copyright a Photograph of Your AI Art?; Make Use Of, August 3, 2023

CRAIG BOEHMAN, Make Use Of; Can You Copyright a Photograph of Your AI Art?

"So you've created an AI-generated artwork. You've used only prompts. And by law, you can't copyright it, so what do you do?

You take a picture of it!

By taking a picture of the work, not only do you own the copyright of the photo, but you also enjoy all the other protections of copyright, including the right to use your photo commercially."

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."

Webb Wright , The Drum; What you need to know about the copyright issues surrounding generative AI; The Drum, August 1, 2023

Webb Wright , The Drum; What you need to know about the copyright issues surrounding generative AI

"“The basic question of whether or not an AI using copyrighted work constitutes copyright infringement is for now an open issue,” says patent attorney Robert McFarlane. Ultimately, McFarlane believes that some uses of generative AI will be deemed to constitute copyright infringement, while others won’t. “These cases that are just starting now are going to try to draw that line,” he says."

Judgment Phase of Internet Archive Copyright Case Appears Imminent; Publishers Weekly, August 1, 2023

 Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Judgment Phase of Internet Archive Copyright Case Appears Imminent

"It's now been more than four months since a federal judge found the Internet Archive liable for copyright infringement for its program to scan and lend library books. But after a court order late last week, the parties finally appear headed toward the judgment phase of the litigation.

Since the verdict, the parties have (per the court's order) been conferring over the contours an "appropriate procedure to determine the judgment to be entered in the case." And after numerous extensions through the spring and summer, judge John G. Koeltl appears to have run out of patience. In a July 28 order, Koeltl gave the parties until August 11 to deliver their recommendations, adding "no more extensions."

New AI systems collide with copyright law; BBC News, July 31, 2023

 Suzanne Bearne, BBC News; New AI systems collide with copyright law

""I remember thinking, if this can happen on a small scale, it can happen on a giant scale," says the artist from Zandvoort in the Netherlands.

Aggrieved by the lack of protection for artists, she grouped together with five other artists to set up the European Guild of Artificial Intelligence Regulation.

"The aim is to create legislation and regulation to protect copyright holders and artists from predatory AI companies," she says."