Supreme Court sides against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright infringement case; NPR, May 18, 2023

 Chloe Veltman, NPR; Supreme Court sides against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright infringement case

"Soler added the Supreme Court's ruling is likely to have a big impact on cases involving the "sampling" of existing artworks in the future. 

"This supreme court case opens up the floodgates for many copyright infringement lawsuits against many artists," said Soler. "The analysis is going to come down to whether or not it's transformative in nature. Does the new work have a different purpose?"

Wu disagrees about the ruling's importance. "It's a narrow opinion focused primarily on very famous artists and their use of other people's work," Wu said. "I don't think it's a broad reaching opinion.""

The Ed Sheeran lawsuit is a threat to Western civilization. Really.; The Washington Post, May 2, 2023

 Elizabeth Nelson, The Washington Post; The Ed Sheeran lawsuit is a threat to Western civilization. Really.

"Imagine a painter in their studio, preparing for an exhibition. The painter is working on a landscape. The sky is midnight blue. The valley is Kelly green. Mountains loom in the back, a spectacular hue reflecting off a brilliant sunset. The painter reaches for vermillion and then pauses. Wait a second, they think: Does someone own the copyright to this shade of red? Am I going to get sued for this?

That would be crazy, right? Regrettably and amazingly, in the music industry the aesthetic equivalent of this thought process is no longer as insane as it sounds."

Music Creators Want Consent in the AI Age, But Developers Find Safe Havens Abroad; Billboard, April 20, 2023

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.”"

Copyright lawsuit over artist who used Ruth Bader Ginsburg photo dismissed; UPI, March 18, 2023

Adam Schrader, UPI ; Copyright lawsuit over artist who used Ruth Bader Ginsburg photo dismissed

"A federal judge has sided with an artist who used a photograph of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her art without the permission of the photo agency that sued her."

Opinion: To protect human artistry from AI, new safeguards might be essential; The Washington Post, March 13, 2023

T Bone Burnett

 and 

Jonathan Taplin

, The Washington Post ; Opinion: To protect human artistry from AI, new safeguards might be essential

"Yet a nation’s cultural life is not a minor matter, and preserving artists’ rights is essential to ensuring their continued contribution. Any reasonable interpretation of existing copyright law ought to protect against abuses, but that doesn’t always happen. A case now before the Supreme Court involving the artist Andy Warhol’s unauthorized use of a photographer’s image of the musician Prince could dictate the direction copyright law will take in the coming years.

But another solution may be needed: new laws and regulations governing AI and safeguarding the human core of creative artistry.

As the physicist Stephen Hawking wrote, “If a superior alien civilization sent us a message saying, ‘We’ll arrive in a few decades,’ would we just reply, ‘OK, call us when you get here – we’ll leave the lights on’? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.” That was nine years ago. It’s still happening."

Taylor Swift is a Pioneer of Intellectual Property Rights; American University Intellectual Property Brief, March 13, 2023

 Abigail Smith, American University Intellectual Property Brief; Taylor Swift is a Pioneer of Intellectual Property Rights

"Every time Taylor Swift walks out the door, she facilitates massive changes for the intellectual property rights of artists in the music industry.

Taylor Swift is one of the most popular artists in the world. Even if you don’t like her music, you have to admire her fighting spirit. Lately, she has been in a public battle with Ticketmaster over the availability of tickets for her upcoming tour. Before that, she fought with music streaming services to promote selling albums—thus, profiting off the work put into creating those albums—instead of allowing them to be streamed for free. Before that, she was fighting for her ownership rights over her music. Many of Taylor Swift’s battles have to do with her intellectual property rights, and the outcomes may impact all musicians."

The Supreme Court May Force Us to Rethink 500 Years of Art; The New York Times, March 1, 2023

  Blake Gopnik, The New York Times; The Supreme Court May Force Us to Rethink 500 Years of Art

"Any day now, the Supreme Court will hand down a decision that could change the future of Western art — and, in a sense, its history, too. Blame the appeals court judgment from 2021 declaring that Andy Warhol had no right to appropriate someone else’s photo of Prince into one of the Pop artist’s classic silk-screened portraits.

The art world quailed at the ruling."

On AI-Generated Works, Artists, and Intellectual Property; Lawfare, February 28, 2023

Ryan Merkley, Lawfare; On AI-Generated Works, Artists, and Intellectual Property 

"Today’s laws allow only humans to create a new copyright. So far, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has trod lightly to avoid declaring any wholly computer-generated work eligible for copyright. In the coming years, there will be enormous pressure on lawmakers to allow computer-generated works to be eligible for copyright. If there is a line in the sand to be drawn, it’s between humans and computers. Rather than allow computer art to devalue human works, one solution might be to elevate human art and decide that AI art should never have equal value. 

Legal frameworks worldwide rely on laws written sometimes hundreds of years ago before computers even existed. Beyond those laws, there are moral and ethical questions that remain unanswered. What is the good we hope to create, and what are the harms that might result? What kind of competitive market do we want, and who, or what, will we be competing with?... 

If copyright laws were bent to allow algorithms to become authors, it would upend one of the foundational principles of global intellectual property and just might unleash a torrent of new issues so overwhelming that it could spell the end of international treaties like the Berne Convention, already creaking under the weight of the internet."

What’s the Real Deal between AI Art & IP?; The Michelson Institute for Intellectual Property, February 22, 2023

Executive Editor: David Orozco, J.D., Bank of America Professor at Florida State University & Editor-in-Chief at American Business Law Journal, The Michelson Institute for Intellectual Property ; What’s the Real Deal between AI Art & IP?

"Can Creatives Fight Back Using IP? 

Artists and creatives may use U.S. copyright law to protect their works from unauthorized use or infringement, including works generated by AI. However, the exact extent of protection will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the application of relevant legal principles, such as fair use and the doctrine of originality.

For instance, if an AI-generated work is deemed to be a “derivative work” based on the original creative work of an artist, the artist may have the right to control the use and distribution of that derivative work. On the other hand, if the AI-generated work is considered a “transformative” use of the original work, it may qualify for protection under the doctrine of fair use, which would allow it to be used without permission from the original artist."

Artists file class-action lawsuit saying AI artwork violates copyright laws; NPR, February 3, 2023

Darian Woods, Adrian Ma, NPR; Artists file class-action lawsuit saying AI artwork violates copyright laws

"Artificial intelligence has advanced enough to create a seemingly original artwork in the style of living artists within minutes. Some artists argue that these AI models breach copyright law."

Are A.I. Image Generators Violating Copyright Laws?; Smithsonian Magazine, January 24, 2023

Ella Feldman,  Smithsonian Magazine; Are A.I. Image Generators Violating Copyright Laws?

"Both lawsuits argue that by scraping the web for images, A.I. image generators unjustly rob artists, using their work without crediting or rewarding them...

​​In response to the artists’ lawsuit, a spokesperson for Stability AI says the company takes “these matters seriously,” and that “anyone that believes that this isn’t fair use does not understand the technology and misunderstands the law,” per Reuters. Speaking with the Associated Press in December, before the lawsuits were filed, Midjourney CEO David Holz compared the process behind his image generating service to the process behind human creativity, which often entails drawing inspiration from other artists."

Do AI images violate copyright? A lawyer explains the Stable Diffusion lawsuit; Boing Boing, January 23, 2023

MARK FRAUENFELDER, Boing Boing; Do AI images violate copyright? A lawyer explains the Stable Diffusion lawsuit

"Three artists have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against several AI art generators, including Stability.ai and Midjourney. The lawsuit alleges that the artists' copyright was violated when Stability.ai and other art generators trained their software using billions of images, which included copyrighted art created by the artists. 

In this video, attorney Jake Watson breaks down the arguments in the lawsuit and compares them to related lawsuits and court decisions. He thinks the AI art companies have a good fair use argument for using copyrighted images in its training data."

AI Art Generators Spark Multiple Copyright Lawsuits; The Hollywood Reporter, January 17, 2023

 Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter; AI Art Generators Spark Multiple Copyright Lawsuits

"Whether AI programs, built on models that analyze the patterns of copyrighted works, violate the intellectual property rights of artists is up in the air. Engineers build AI art generators by feeding algorithms large databases of images downloaded from the internet without licenses. The artists’ suit asks whether the AI firms infringed on the copyrights of artists by using copyrighted works to train AI tools and when consumers used the art generators to create new works. It also asks whether the conduct is protected under fair use, which allows for use of protected works without permission as long as they are transformative."

DeviantArt, Midjourney Face Lawsuit for Using 'Billions of Copyrighted' Images in AI Art; CBR, January 15, 2023

BRIAN CRONIN, CBR ; DeviantArt, Midjourney Face Lawsuit for Using 'Billions of Copyrighted' Images in AI Art

"A lawsuit on behalf of a group of plaintiff artists has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against three companies: Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney, over the alleged infringement of the copyright of the artists in the creation of so-called "artificial intelligence" art."

Dr. Dre, Greene Feud Over Music Copyright in Politics: Explained; Bloomberg Law, January 11, 2023

Isaiah Poritz, Bloomberg Law; Dr. Dre, Greene Feud Over Music Copyright in Politics: Explained

"The dust up is the latest in a long history of musicians fighting politicians they say use their songs for political purposes—like campaign rallies and ads—without permission, and in violation of copyright law.

The complaints go back decades. Bruce Springsteen famously demanded that Republican President Ronald Reagan stop using his “Born in the U.S.A.” for his re-election campaign. The soul duo Sam & Dave in 2008 requested that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama stop playing “Hold On, I’m Comin’” at his campaign events."

This Year is Poised to Be a Landmark One for Tattoo Copyright Litigation; IP Watchdog, January 7, 2023

ADRIENNE KENDRICK, IP Watchdog; This Year is Poised to Be a Landmark One for Tattoo Copyright Litigation

"Tattoos have been around for millennia, but their popularity is increasing significantly. According to 2021 data, roughly 13% of Baby Boomers had at least one tattoo, compared to 32% of Generation X and 41% of Millennials. Other than disagreements about the appropriateness of visible tattoos in certain workplaces, tattoos generally cause few headaches for their owners, and certainly not legal headaches. That may no longer be the case, however, as tattoos become more common among celebrities and other high-profile individuals whose likenesses are commonly portrayed in digital media.

While there has been relatively little litigation concerning tattoo copyrights, 2023 could be the year that changes."

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."

Artists fed up with AI-image generators use Mickey Mouse to goad copyright lawsuits; daily dot, December 16, 2022

Mikael Thalen, daily dot; Artists fed up with AI-image generators use Mickey Mouse to goad copyright lawsuits

"The issue surrounding AI art has already led to widespread protest and pushback from the art community. Just this week, artists on the art-hosting platform ArtStation began uploading identical images en masse that featured the caption “NO TO AI GENERATED IMAGES.”

Given just how new the technology is, it remains unclear what guidelines, if any, will be created to balance the rights of artists against the ever-expanding capabilities of AI."

Your selfies are helping AI learn. You did not consent to this.; The Washington Post, December 9, 2022

Shira Ovide, The Washington Post; Your selfies are helping AI learn. You did not consent to this.

"My colleague Tatum Hunter spent time evaluating Lensa, an app that transforms a handful of selfies you provide into artistic portraits. And people have been using the new chatbot ChatGPT to generate silly poems or professional emails that seem like they were written by a human. These AI technologies could be profoundly helpful but they also come with a bunch of thorny ethical issues.

Tatum reported that Lensa’s portrait wizardly comes from the styles of artists whose work was included in a giant database for coaching image-generating computers. The artists didn’t give their permission to do this, and they aren’t being paid. In other words, your fun portraits are built on work ripped off from artists. ChatGPT learned to mimic humans by analyzing your recipes, social media posts, product reviews and other text from everyone on the internet...

Hany Farid, a computer science professor at the University of California at Berkeley, told me that individuals, government officials, many technology executives, journalists and educators like him are far more attuned than they were a few years ago to the potential positive and negative consequences of emerging technologies like AI. The hard part, he said, is knowing what to do to effectively limit the harms and maximize the benefits." 

Explainer: The Supreme Court, Fair Use and the Future of Protected Artistic Expression; Jurist, December 1, 2022

 Jaimee Francis | Boston University School of Law, Jurist; Explainer: The Supreme Court, Fair Use and the Future of Protected Artistic Expression

"What’s at stake here?

The decision of the current Supreme Court case can shape the future of what does and does not constitute fair use. Goldsmith claimed that Warhol’s images based upon her copyrighted photographs constituted a derivative work. Thus, Goldsmith argued that the Warhol Foundation infringed her exclusive right to prepare derivative works and is therefore liable to her. The Warhol Foundation, however, argued that Warhol’s images were sufficiently transformative and thus constituted fair use. As such, the Warhol Foundation argued that it did not infringe Goldsmith’s copyright and is therefore not liable for its use of Goldsmith’s work in the Prince illustrations.

By finding in favor of Goldsmith, who owns copyright in the Prince photographs, the applicability of fair use may be limited. In this scenario, future content creators may face increased liability when creating new content based on copyrighted work. Because creativity is often inspired by some underlying work, such a decision may stifle creativity. As the Acuff-Rose case highlights, for example, works like parodies of a copyrighted work would constitute infringement without fair use. On the other hand, by finding in favor of the Warhol Foundation, which used Goldsmith’s copyrighted work in its work, future copyright owners may be denied a remedy when a user has unfairly used their creative work. Because the copyright regime has historically protected a creator’s financial incentive, such a decision may stifle creativity. In either scenario, creativity may be stifled: over-protecting a work may prevent others from using that work in their creative process, while under-protecting a work may prevent creators from entering the market without an assurance of monetary gain. As the Gerald Ford case highlights, for example, some uses may unfairly exploit the initial creator’s work. As the Supreme Court noted in that case, quoting in part an earlier decision, “The challenge of copyright is to strike the ‘difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society’s competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand.'”"