Blake Brittain, Reuters ; OpenAI loses fight to keep ChatGPT logs secret in copyright case
"OpenAI must produce millions of anonymized chat logs from ChatGPT users in its high-stakes copyright dispute with the New York Times and other news outlets, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona Wang in a decision made public on Wednesday said that the 20 million logs were relevant to the outlets' claims and that handing them over would not risk violating users' privacy."
KLAUDIA JAŹWIŃSKA, Columbia Journalism Review; Lawsuit or License?
"Today, the Tow Center for Digital Journalism is releasing a tracker that monitors developments between news publishers and AI companies—including lawsuits, deals, and grants—based on publicly available information."
Erik Wemple, The New York Times ; New York Times Sues Pentagon Over First Amendment Rights
"The New York Times accused the Pentagon in a lawsuit on Thursday of infringing on the constitutional rights of journalists by imposing a set of new restrictions on reporting about the military.
In the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, The Times argued that the Defense Department’s new policy violated the First Amendment and “seeks to restrict journalists’ ability to do what journalists have always done — ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements.”
The rules, which went into effect in October, are a stark departure from the previous ones, in both length and scope. They require reporters to sign a 21-page form that sets restrictions on journalistic activities, including requests for story tips and inquiries to Pentagon sources. Reporters who don’t comply could lose their press passes, and the Pentagon has accorded itself “unbridled discretion” to enforce the policy as it sees fit, according to the lawsuit."
Sarah Cascone, artnet ; Es Devlin’s Towering Beachfront Library Illuminates Miami Art Week
"Es Devlin’s The Library of Us has emerged as one of Miami Art Week’s most dramatic spectacles. The 20-foot-tall rotating bookshelf housing 2,500 books invites visitors to read and reflect in a quiet counterpoint to the frenzy of Art Basel. By day, it towers over the sands of Miami Beach, a triangular wedge of a bookshelf set within a circular pool of water, slowly rotating in the Florida sun. By night, it glows like a beacon, offering a mesmerizing tribute to the power of the written word.
Designed to serve as sculpture, library, and public gathering space, the work invites visitors to step onto a circular platform that rotates them into shifting proximity with strangers. As the interior circle spins, viewers will face different people on the outside, creating a social experience. Set just feet from the Atlantic, the piece doubles as a meditation on fragility—of culture, of knowledge, and the environment.
“What would the resonance of 4,000 books with differing points of view revolving together without disagreement be in this place in Miami. What would happen if encircling that library were water, rising waters?,” Devlin told guests at the opening for the ambitious work.
The artist’s nearly 20-foot-tall bookshelf represents a remarkable vision. Sure, everyone loves to bring a beach read down to the shore, but there’s something poignantly fragile about seeing an entire library within a stone’s throw of the ocean waves, pages and spines open to the salty breeze. But this apparent vulnerability seems fitting for this city on a tiny strip of land, the colorful hotels and vibrant restaurants increasingly at risk of flooding due to climate change and intensifying storms...
The 2,500 titles included are those she considers formative to her philosophy, life, and practice.
Where libraries are traditionally places of reverent silence, Devlin has created an audio track to accompany her monumental sculpture. She reads various quotes from the many titles included in the display—some of which have been banned by Florida schools, according to the artist. She’ll donate all the books to Miami public schools and libraries after the installation ends."
Robert Booth , The Guardian; ‘The biggest decision yet’
"Humanity will have to decide by 2030 whether to take the “ultimate risk” of letting artificial intelligence systems train themselves to become more powerful, one of the world’s leading AI scientists has said.
Jared Kaplan, the chief scientist and co-owner of the $180bn (£135bn) US startup Anthropic, said a choice was looming about how much autonomy the systems should be given to evolve.
The move could trigger a beneficial “intelligence explosion” – or be the moment humans end up losing control...
He is not alone at Anthropic in voicing concerns. One of his co-founders, Jack Clark, said in October he was both an optimist and “deeply afraid” about the trajectory of AI, which he called “a real and mysterious creature, not a simple and predictable machine”.
Kaplan said he was very optimistic about the alignment of AI systems with the interests of humanity up to the level of human intelligence, but was concerned about the consequences if and when they exceed that threshold."
Thomas Barrabi , New York Post; Bannon, top conservatives urge White House to reject Big Tech’s ‘fair use’ push to justify AI copyright theft: ‘Un-American and absurd’
"Prominent conservatives including Steve Bannon are urging the Trump administration to reject an increasingly popular argument that tech giants are using to rip off copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence.
So-called “fair use” doctrine – which argues that the use of copyrighted content without permission is legally justified if it is done in the public interest – has become a common defense for AI firms like Google, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta and Microsoft who have been accused of ripping off work.
The argument’s biggest backers also include White House AI czar David Sacks, who has warned that Silicon Valley firms “would be crippled” in a crucial race against AI firms in China unless they can rely on fair use protection...
Bannon and his allies threw cold water on such claims in a Monday letter addressed to US Attorney General Pam Bondi and Michael Kratsios, who heads the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.
“This is un-American and absurd,” the conservatives argued in the letter, which was exclusively obtained by The Post. “We must compete and win the global AI race the American way — by ensuring we protect creators, children, conservatives, and communities.”...
The conservatives point to clear economic incentives to back copyright-protected industries, which contribute more than $2 trillion to the US GDP, carry an average annual wage of more than $140,000 and account for a $37 billion trade surplus, according to the letter...
The letter notes that money is no object for the companies leading the AI boom, which “enjoy virtually unlimited access to financing” and are each valued at hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars.
“In a free market, businesses pay for the inputs they need,” the letter said. “Imagine if AI CEOs claimed they needed free access to semiconductors, energy, researchers, and developers to build their products. They would be laughed out of their boardrooms.”...
The letter is the latest salvo in a heated policy divide as AI models gobble up data from the web. Critics accuse companies like Google, Microsoft, OpenAI and Meta of essentially seeking a “license to steal” from news outlets, artists, authors and others that produce original work."
Ronald Mann, SCOTUSblog; Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement
"My basic reaction to the argument is that the justices would be uncomfortable with accepting the broadest version of the arguments that Cox has presented to it (that the ISP is protected absent an affirmative act of malfeasance), but Sony’s position seems so unpalatable to them that a majority is most unlikely to coalesce around anything that is not a firm rejection of the lower court’s ruling against Cox. I wouldn’t expect that ruling to come soon, but I don’t think there is much doubt about what it will say."
Retraction Watch ; The case of the fake references in an ethics journal
"Many would-be whistleblowers write to us about papers with nonexistent references, possibly hallucinated by artificial intelligence. One reader recently alerted us to fake references in … an ethics journal. In an article about whistleblowing.
The paper, published in April in the Journal of Academic Ethics, explored “the whistleblowing experiences of individuals with disabilities in Ethiopian public educational institutions.”
Erja Moore, an independent researcher based in Finland, came across the article while looking into a whistleblowing case in that country. “I started reading this article and found some interesting references that I decided to read as well,” Moore told Retraction Watch. “To my surprise, those articles didn’t exist.”...
The Journal of Academic Ethics is published by Springer Nature. Eleven of the fabricated references cite papers in the Journal of Business Ethics — another Springer Nature title.
“On one hand this is hilarious that an ethics journal publishes this, but on the other hand it seems that this is a much bigger problem in publishing and we can’t really trust scientific articles any more,” Moore said."
Although the circumstances of the cases are slightly different, the heart of the issue was the same. Do AI models reproduce copyright-protected content in their training process and in generating outputs? The German court decided they do, whereas the UK court took a different view.
Both cases could be appealed and others are underway, so things may change. But the ending we want to see is one where AI and the creative industries come together in agreement. This would preferably happen with the use of copyright licences that benefit them both.
Importantly, it would also come with the consent of – and fair payment to – creators of the content that makes both their industries go round."
Stuart Heritage, The Guardian; Sean Combs: The Reckoning review – you can see why the musician is fighting to ban this horrific documentary
"If its subject gets his way, the new documentary series Sean Combs: The Reckoning might not be available on Netflix for long. On Monday, lawyers on behalf of Combs sent a cease and desist letter to the streamer, demanding that the series be withdrawn based on the inclusion of footage that they claim violates copyright, and involves discussions of “legal strategy that were not intended for public viewing”."
, The New York Times; The ‘Race Against Time’ to Save Music Legends’ Decaying Tapes
Natasha Singer, The New York Times; College Students Flock to a New Major: A.I.
"Artificial intelligence is the hot new college major...
Now interest in understanding, using and learning how to build A.I. technologies is soaring, and schools are racing to meet rising student and industry demand.
Over the last two years, dozens of U.S. universities and colleges have announced new A.I. departments, majors, minors, courses, interdisciplinary concentrations and other programs.
In 2022, for instance, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology created a major called “A.I. and decision-making.” Students in the program learn to develop A.I. systems and study how technologies like robots interact with humans and the environment. This year, nearly 330 students are enrolled in the program — making A.I. the second-largest major at M.I.T. after computer science.
“Students who prefer to work with data to address problems find themselves more drawn to an A.I. major,” said Asu Ozdaglar, the deputy dean of academics at the M.I.T. Schwarzman College of Computing. Students interested in applying A.I. in fields like biology and health care are also flocking to the new major, she added."
Devon Dekuyper , Calgary Herald; 'Technology isn't neutral': Calgary bishop raises ethical questions around AI
"We, as human beings, use technology, and we also have to be able to understand it, but also to apply it such that it does not impact negatively the human person, their flourishing (or) society,' said Bishop McGrattan"
Blake Brittain , Reuters; US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels
"The U.S. Supreme Court grappled on Monday with a bid by Cox Communications to avoid financial liability in a major music copyright lawsuit by record labels that accused the internet service provider of enabling its customers to pirate thousands of songs.
The justices appeared skeptical of Cox's assertion that its mere awareness of user piracy could not justify holding it liable for copyright infringement. They also questioned whether holding Cox liable for failing to cut off infringers could impact a wide range of innocent internet users."
C-SPAN ; Cox Communications v. Sony Music Oral Argument
"The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, a case about Sony's lawsuit against internet service provider Cox Communications, and whether such companies may be held liable for their users' copyright infringements. Sony and other record companies and publishers sued Cox, alleging it was liable for its subscribers downloading and distributing copyrighted songs. A federal jury found Cox liable and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury's finding of willful infringement but vacated the damages award. The Trump administration supported Cox in the dispute and, along with attorney Joshua Rosenkranz, argued on behalf of the company. Veteran Supreme Court attorney Paul Clement argued on behalf of the respondent, Sony Music."
Ann E. Marimow , The New York Times; Supreme Court to Hear Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy
"The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a closely watched copyright clash testing whether internet providers can be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs online.
Leading music labels and publishers who represent artists ranging from Bob Dylan to Beyoncé sued Cox Communications in 2018, saying it had failed to terminate the internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music.
At issue is whether providers like Cox can be held legally responsible and be required to pay steep damages — a billion dollars or more — if it knows that customers are pirating the music but does not take sufficient steps to terminate their internet access."
Bruce E. Boyden, Marquette University Law School ; Contributory Copyright Liability Back Before the Supreme Court
"The case itself is no trifling matter. Cox, a cable company that provides broadband internet access to its subscribers, is appealing a $1 billion jury verdict holding it liable for assisting some of those subscribers in engaging in copyright infringement. The case arose from an effort by record labels and music publishers to stem the tide of peer-to-peer filesharing of music files by sending notices of infringement to access providers such as Cox. The DMCA bars liability for access providers as long as they reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy. But who’s a repeat infringer? The notices were an effort to get access providers to take action by giving them the knowledge of repeat infringements necessary to trigger the policies.
According to the evidence presented at trial, however, Cox was extremely resistant to receiving or taking action in response to the notices. The most colorful bit of evidence (and yet another example of how loose emails sink ships) was from the head of the Cox abuse and safety team in charge of enforcing user policies, who screamed in a team-wide email: “F the dmca!!!” (This was followed by an email from a higher-level executive on the chain: “Sorry to be Paranoid Panda here, but please stop sending out e-mails saying F the law….”) The Fourth Circuit ultimately held that because Cox didn’t reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy, it lost its statutory immunity, and then at trial the jury found Cox contributorily liable for the infringements that it had been notified about, which the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
The question before the Court is whether the lower courts applied the right test for contributory copyright liability, or applied it correctly. (There’s a second question, about the standard for willfulness in determining damages, but I didn’t address that one.) There’s a couple of things that make this issue difficult to disentangle; one has to do with the history of contributory infringement doctrine, and the other is a technical issue about what, exactly, is being challenged on appeal."
Maureen Groppe , USA TODAY; $1 billion Supreme Court music piracy case could affect internet users
"The entertainment industry’s seemingly losing battle to stop music from being illegally copied and shared in the digital age hits the Supreme Court on Dec. 1 in a case both sides say could have huge consequences for both the industry and internet users.
A decision by the high court that fails to hold internet service providers accountable for piracy on their networks would “spell disaster for the music community,” according to groups representing musicians and other entertainers.
But Cox Communications, the largest private broadband company in America, argues too tough a standard could “jeopardize internet access for all Americans.”"
MICHAEL P. GOODYEAR, Slate; The Supreme Court Is About to Hear a Case That Could Rewrite Internet Access
"Imagine losing internet access because someone in your household downloaded pirated music. We rely on the internet to learn, discover job opportunities, navigate across cities and the countryside, shop for the latest trends, file our taxes, and much more. Now all of that could be gone in an instant.
That is not a dystopian fantasy, but a real possibility raised by a case the Supreme Court will hear on Monday. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the justices will decide whether an internet provider can be held responsible for failing to terminate subscribers accused of repeat copyright infringements. The ruling could determine whether access to the internet—today’s lifeline for education, work, and civic life—can be taken away as punishment for digital misdeeds. Cox’s indifference to repeat infringement is condemnable, but a sweeping ruling could harshly punish thousands for one company’s bad faith."
Lecturer in Digital and Data Studies, Binghamton University, State University of New York, The Conversation ; More than half of new articles on the internet are being written by AI – is human writing headed for extinction?
If you set aside the more apocalyptic scenarios and assume that AI will continue to advance – perhaps at a slower pace than in the recent past – it’s quite possible that thoughtful, original, human-generated writing will become even more valuable.
Put another way: The work of writers, journalists and intellectuals will not become superfluous simply because much of the web is no longer written by humans."
Alex Williamson, Fordham Now; Fordham Offers Certificate Focused on AI Ethics
"As new technologies like artificial intelligence become increasingly embedded in everyday life, questions about how to use them responsibly have grown more urgent. A new advanced certificate program at Fordham aims to help professionals engage with those questions and build expertise as ethical decision-makers in an evolving technological landscape.
The Advanced Certificate in Ethics and Emerging Technologies is scheduled to launch in August 2026, with applications due April 1. The 12-credit program provides students with a foundation for understanding not only how technologies such as AI work, but also how to evaluate their social and moral implications to make informed decisions about their use.
Students will complete courses that examine ethical issues related to technology, as well as classes that provide technical grounding in the systems behind it. One required course, currently under development by the Department of Computer and Information Science, will cover artificial intelligence for non-specialists, Bogia said, helping students understand “all of the machinations of LLMs—large language models—so they can be fully informed interlocutors with the models.”
Other courses will explore questions of moral responsibility and social impact. Electives such as “Algorithmic Bias” and “Technology and Human Development” will allow students to dig more deeply into specialized areas.
Bogia said the program—which can be completed full-time or part-time, over the course of one or two years—was designed to be flexible and relevant for students across a wide range of fields and career stages. It may appeal to professionals working in areas such as business, education, human resources, health care, and law, as well as those in technology-focused fields like data science and cybersecurity.
“These ethical questions are everywhere,” Bogia said. “We’ll have learning environments that meet students where they’re at and allow them to develop fluency in a way that’s most useful for them.”
She added that Fordham is an especially fitting place to pursue this kind of inquiry.
“As a Jesuit institution, Fordham is well-positioned to be concerned and compassionate in the face of hard problems,” said Bogia.
To learn more, visit the program’s webpage."
Laura J. Nelson , The Wall Street Journal; Tech Titans Amass Multimillion-Dollar War Chests to Fight AI Regulation: Some are battling state AI laws and threatening to punish candidates who oppose rapid deployment of the technology
Intellectual property (IP) rights and IP-related rights, such as trade secrets and regulatory exclusivities, play a crucial role in the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. However, possible interactions may be anticipated when comparing the legal relationships formed by these rights with those established by human rights. This study synthesises 53 laws and treaties illustrating the IP landscape for AI in health systems across Europe and examines their intersections with health-focused human rights. Our analysis reveals that a great variety of datasets, software, hardware, output, AI model architecture, data bases, and graphical user interfaces can be subject to IP protection. Although codified limitations and exceptions on IP and IP-related rights exist, interpretation of their conditions and scope permits for diverse interpretations and is left to the discretion of courts. Comparing these rights to health-focused human rights highlights tensions between promoting innovation and ensuring accessibility, quality, and equity in health systems, as well as between human rights ideals and the protection of European digital sovereignty. As these rights often pursue conflicting objectives and may involve trade-offs, future research should explore new ways to reconcile these objectives and foster solidarity in sharing the risks and benefits among stakeholders."
Ann E. Marimow, The New York Times ; Supreme Court Defers Ruling on Trump’s Effort to Oust Copyright Official
"The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred a decision about whether President Trump could remove the government’s top copyright official until after the justices resolved a pair of related cases testing the president’s power to fire independent regulators.
The court’s order is a placeholder and means that Shira Perlmutter, the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, can remain in her role as an adviser to Congress at least until January. The order represents a rare departure from recent cases in which the conservative majority has allowed Mr. Trump to immediately remove agency leaders while litigation over their status continues in the lower courts.
The justices said they were putting off a decision in Ms. Perlmutter’s case until after the court heard arguments in December and January in cases testing the president’s authority to fire other government officials, despite laws generally prohibiting their dismissals that were meant to protect them from political interference."
Shaila Dewan, The New York Times ; Prosecutor Used Flawed A.I. to Keep a Man in Jail, His Lawyers Say
"On Friday, the lawyers were joined by a group of 22 legal and technology scholars who warned that the unchecked use of A.I. could lead to wrongful convictions. The group, which filed its own brief with the state Supreme Court, included Barry Scheck, a co-founder of the Innocence Project, which has helped to exonerate more than 250 people; Chesa Boudin, a former district attorney of San Francisco; and Katherine Judson, executive director of the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences, a nonprofit that seeks to improve the reliability of criminal prosecutions.
The problem of A.I.-generated errors in legal papers has burgeoned along with the popular use of tools like ChatGPT and Gemini, which can perform a wide range of tasks, including writing emails, term papers and legal briefs. Lawyers and even judges have been caught filing court papers that were rife with fake legal references and faulty arguments, leading to embarrassment and sometimes hefty fines.
The Kjoller case, though, is one of the first in which prosecutors, whose words carry great sway with judges and juries, have been accused of using A.I. without proper safeguards...
Lawyers are not prohibited from using A.I., but they are required to ensure that their briefs, however they are written, are accurate and faithful to the law. Today’s artificial intelligence tools are known to sometimes “hallucinate,” or make things up, especially when asked complex legal questions...
Westlaw executives said that their A.I. tool does not write legal briefs, because they believe A.I. is not yet capable of the complex reasoning needed to do so...
Damien Charlotin, a senior researcher at HEC Paris, maintains a database that includes more than 590 cases from around the world in which courts and tribunals have detected hallucinated content. More than half involved people who represented themselves in court. Two-thirds of the cases were in United States courts. Only one, an Israeli case, involved A.I. use by a prosecutor."
