Showing posts with label 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Show all posts

Monday, September 30, 2024

OpenAI Faces Early Appeal in First AI Copyright Suit From Coders; Bloomberg Law, September 30, 2024

 Isaiah Poritz , Bloomberg Law; OpenAI Faces Early Appeal in First AI Copyright Suit From Coders

"OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft Corp.‘s GitHub will head to the country’s largest federal appeals court to resolve their first copyright lawsuit from open-source programmers who claim the companies’ AI coding tool Copilot violates a decades-old digital copyright law.

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the programmers’ request for a mid-case turn to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which must determine whether OpenAI’s copying of open-source code to train its AI model without proper attribution to the programmers could be a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act...

The programmers argued that Copilot fails to include authorship and licensing terms when it outputs code. Unlike other lawsuits against AI companies, the programmers didn’t allege that OpenAI and GitHub engaged in copyright infringement, which is different from a DMCA violation."

Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Instagram dodges photographers' copyright claims on appeal – but case likely continues; Reuters, July 18, 2023

 , Reuters; Instagram dodges photographers' copyright claims on appeal – but case likely continues

"A class of photographers whose Instagram photos were embedded by other websites failed on Monday to convince a three-judge panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside controversial precedent in order to hold Instagram liable for copyright infringement.

But the panel also said that the photographers had raised “serious and well argued” policy concerns about copyright holders’ ability to control and profit from their work. If lead plaintiffs Alexis Hunley and Matthew Scott Brauer want to challenge the precedent that controlled the outcome of this case, the panel said, they should petition the 9th Circuit for an en banc rehearing."

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Monkey can't sue for copyright infringement of selfies, 9th Circuit rules; The Los Angeles Times, April 23, 2018

Maura Dolan, The Los Angeles Times; Monkey can't sue for copyright infringement of selfies, 9th Circuit rules

"A federal appeals court decided unanimously Monday that animals may not sue for copyright protection.

The ruling came in the case of a monkey that took selfies with a wildlife photographer's camera. The photographer later published the photos."

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Warner Bros. Claims "Significant Victory" In Superman Lawsuit; ComicBookResources.com, 4/17/12

ComicBookResources.com; Warner Bros. Claims "Significant Victory" In Superman Lawsuit:

"In a significant victory for Warner Bros. in its lengthy and increasingly bitter battle over the rights to the Man of Steel, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the attorney representing the estates of Superman co-creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster must turn over documents stolen from his office in 2008.

The sensitive papers, which lawyer Marc Toberoff had argued were protected by attorney-client privilege, were taken from his office by disgruntled former associate David Michaels and delivered anonymously to Warner Bros. in December 2008."

Monday, July 12, 2010

Can you sell your imported gadgets? Court guts "First Sale", 7/12/10

Matthew Lasar, ArsTechnica.com; Can you sell your imported gadgets? Court guts "First Sale":

"Let's say a relative gave you an imported Omega watch over the holidays. It's a nice piece, but it's not exactly your style, so after agonizing over the issue for the appropriate number of months, you decide to sell it over eBay.

Not so fast. Thanks to a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that might not be so easy. In fact, the store that sold it, Costco, shouldn't have sold it in the first place, the court recently ruled, because the doctrine of "First Sale" has limits. Section 109 of the Copyright Act says that a copyright owner of a product has the sole initial right to distribute it. Then the subsequent buyers have the right to "to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy"—in other words, sell it again.

But now the Ninth Circuit says this doesn't necessarily apply to items in which a company's copyrighted logo was inscribed on a product made abroad, as in this case. The Public Knowledge advocacy group calls this decision "a terrible idea," and has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, which is reviewing the case.

"What happens to Netflix, Amazon and eBay," PK's Anjali Bhat worries, "if they have to find out where each item was made, whether it has a copyrighted logo made outside the US (if the item itself isn't a copyrighted work), and then buy licensing rights from the copyright owner if the item was made abroad? That's an enormous economic burden to put on businesses who follow that model."...

The implications of this decision are huge, creating potential liabilities for anyone who distributes anything en masse: libraries, booksellers, or your local DVD or video game rental store."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/if-you-buy-an-imported-watch-do-you-really-own-it.ars