Training Generative AI Models on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use; ARL Views, January 23, 2024

Katherine Klosek, Director of Information Policy and Federal Relations, Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and Marjory S. Blumenthal, Senior Policy Fellow, American Library Association (ALA) Office of Public Policy and Advocacy |, ARL Views; Training Generative AI Models on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use

"In a blog post about the case, OpenAI cites the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) position that “based on well-established precedent, the ingestion of copyrighted works to create large language models or other AI training databases generally is a fair use.” LCA explained this position in our submission to the US Copyright Office notice of inquiry on copyright and AI, and in the LCA Principles for Copyright and AI.

LCA is not involved in any of the AI lawsuits. But as champions of fair use, free speech, and freedom of information, libraries have a stake in maintaining the balance of copyright law so that it is not used to block or restrict access to information. We drafted the principles on AI and copyright in response to efforts to amend copyright law to require licensing schemes for generative AI that could stunt the development of this technology, and undermine its utility to researchers, students, creators, and the public. The LCA principles hold that copyright law as applied and interpreted by the Copyright Office and the courts is flexible and robust enough to address issues of copyright and AI without amendment. The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

On the question of whether ingesting copyrighted works to train LLMs is fair use, LCA points to the history of courts applying the US Copyright Act to AI."

Richard Prince to Pay Photographers Who Sued Over Copyright; The New York Times, January 26, 2024

 Matt Stevens, The New York Times; Richard Prince to Pay Photographers Who Sued Over Copyright

"The artist Richard Prince agreed to pay at least $650,000 to two photographers whose images he had incorporated in his own work, ending a long-running copyright dispute that had been closely monitored by the art world...

Brian Sexton, a lawyer for Prince, said the artist wanted to protect free expression and have copyright law catch up to changing technology...

Marriott said the judgments showed that copyright law still provided meaningful protection to creators and that the internet was not a copying free-for-all.

“There is not a fair use exception to copyright law that applies to the famous and another that applies to everyone else,” he said."

Artificial Intelligence Law - Intellectual Property Protection for your voice?; JDSupra, January 22, 2024

Steve Vondran, JDSupra ; Artificial Intelligence Law - Intellectual Property Protection for your voice?

"With the advent of AI technology capable of replicating a person's voice and utilizing it for commercial purposes, several key legal issues are likely to emerge under California's right of publicity law. The right of publicity refers to an individual's right to control and profit from their own name, image, likeness, or voice.

Determining the extent of a person's control over their own voice will likely become a contentious legal matter given the rise of AI technology. In 2024, with a mere prompt and a push of a button, a creator can generate highly accurate voice replicas, potentially allowing companies to utilize a person's voice without their explicit permission for example using a AI generated song in a video, or podcast, or using it as a voice-over for a commercial project. This sounds like fun new technology, until you realize that in states like California where a "right of publicity law" exists a persons VOICE can be a protectable asset that one can sue to protect others who wrongfully misuse their voice for commercial advertising purposes.

This blog will discuss a few new legal issues I see arising in our wonderful new digital age being fueled by the massive onset of Generative AI technology (which really just means you input prompts into an AI tool and it will generate art, text, images, music, etc."

Teaching kids about their intellectual property rights; KX.net, January 23, 2024

 Joe Rinaldi, KX.net; Teaching kids about their intellectual property rights

"Right now, our children are living in an ever-changing technological world. 

They are constantly posting and publishing all aspects of their lives, and just like adults, they need to understand their creative rights and intellectual property."

Kat Von D Wins Copyright Case, Fair Use of Miles Davis Photo; Bloomberg Law, January 26, 2024

Maia Spoto, Bloomberg Law; Kat Von D Wins Copyright Case, Fair Use of Miles Davis Photo

"A tattoo by celebrity artist Kat Von D of jazz legend Miles Davis is not substantially similar to the photo it was based on, a Los Angeles jury found Friday afternoon in a victory for the tattoo industry.

The tattoo, which Von D inked for free on her friend’s arm using photographer Jeffrey Sedlik’s portrait as a reference, is fair use, the jury ruled. The jurors deliberated for less than three hours, and about half of them talked to and hugged Von D in the courtroom after the trial concluded in the Central District of California."

‘Who Owns This Sentence?’ Increasingly, Who Knows?; The New York Times, January 24, 2024

Alexandra Jacobs, The New York Times ; ‘Who Owns This Sentence?’ Increasingly, Who Knows?

"David Bellos and Alexandre Montagu’s surprisingly sprightly history “Who Owns This Sentence?” arrives with uncanny timing...

They sort out the difference between plagiarism, a matter of honor debated since ancient times (and a theme, tellingly, of many recent novels); copyright, a concern of modern law and, crucially, lucre (“the biggest money machine the world has ever seen”); and trademark. If I wanted a picture of Smokey Bear to run with this article, for instance — and I very much do — The New York Times would have to fork up."...

They themselves have a wry way with technical material; this is less Copyright for Dummies, like that endlessly extended, imitatedand spoofed series, than for wits. Discouraged by their publisher from naming a chapter title after the Beatles’ “All You Need Is Love,” the authors deftly illustrate this “absurd” circumstance by only describing in close identifiable detail the band and the song."

A Stranger Bought a Set of Highly Personal Letters. Can I Call Him Out?; The Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, January 25, 2024

 Kwame Anthony Appiah, The Ethicist,The New York Times Magazine ; A Stranger Bought a Set of Highly Personal Letters. Can I Call Him Out?

"From the Ethicist:

It was thoughtless, I agree, to sell off a cache of letters that included some that were intimate and came from living people. The thought of strangers’ digging through letters written in the spirit of love and friendship can be upsetting. That the person who has acquired these letters has failed to grasp this suggests a certain lack of empathy. But it doesn’t establish that he lacks a moral sense, because you don’t really have any idea what he plans to do with this material. 

And there are constraints on this. When you acquire letters, you don’t thereby acquire the copyright in those letters, and copyright protection typically lasts until 70 years after the author’s death. So he has to deal with the murky issue of what counts as the “fair use” of such intellectual property. There are also a few privacy torts that individuals can try to pursue in the courts (e.g., intrusion upon seclusion; public disclosure of private facts). Even though he isn’t a party to a covenant of confidentiality, as someone in A.A. is, it remains true that, as you imply, exposing details of the intimate lives of private people is generally wrong."

George Carlin Estate Sues Creators of AI-Generated Comedy Special in Key Lawsuit Over Stars’ Likenesses; The Hollywood Reporter, January 25, 2024

 Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter ; George Carlin Estate Sues Creators of AI-Generated Comedy Special in Key Lawsuit Over Stars’ Likenesses

"The complaint seeks a court order for immediate removal of the special, as well as unspecified damages. It’s among the first legal actions taken by the estate of a deceased celebrity for unlicensed use of their work and likeness to manufacture a new, AI-generated creation and was filed as Hollywood is sounding the alarm over utilization of AI to impersonate people without consent or compensation...

According to the complaint, the special was created through unauthorized use of Carlin’s copyrighted works.

At the start of the video, it’s explained that the AI program that created the special ingested five decades of Carlin’s original stand-up routines, which are owned by the comedian’s estate, as training materials, “thereby making unauthorized copies” of the copyrighted works...

If signed into law, the proposal, called the No AI Fraud Act, could curb a growing trend of individuals and businesses creating AI-recorded tracks using artists’ voices and deceptive ads in which it appears a performer is endorsing a product. In the absence of a federal right of publicity law, unions and trade groups in Hollywood have been lobbying for legislation requiring individuals’ consent to use their voice and likeness."

The Sleepy Copyright Office in the Middle of a High-Stakes Clash Over A.I.; The New York Times, January 25, 2024

 Cecilia Kang, The New York Times; The Sleepy Copyright Office in the Middle of a High-Stakes Clash Over A.I.

"For decades, the Copyright Office has been a small and sleepy office within the Library of Congress. Each year, the agency’s 450 employees register roughly half a million copyrights, the ownership rights for creative works, based on a two-centuries-old law.

In recent months, however, the office has suddenly found itself in the spotlight. Lobbyists for Microsoft, Google, and the music and news industries have asked to meet with Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights, and her staff. Thousands of artists, musicians and tech executives have written to the agency, and hundreds have asked to speak at listening sessions hosted by the office.

The attention stems from a first-of-its-kind review of copyright law that the Copyright Office is conducting in the age of artificial intelligence. The technology — which feeds off creative content — has upended traditional norms around copyright, which gives owners of books, movies and music the exclusive ability to distribute and copy their works.

The agency plans to put out three reports this year revealing its position on copyright law in relation to A.I. The reports are set to be hugely consequential, weighing heavily in courts as well as with lawmakers and regulators."

The Public Domain Benefits Everyone – But Sometimes Copyright Holders Won’t Let Go; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 22, 2024

 CARA GAGLIANO, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); The Public Domain Benefits Everyone – But Sometimes Copyright Holders Won’t Let Go

"Unlike copyright, trademark protection has no fixed expiration date. Instead, it works on a “use it or lose it” model. With some exceptions, the law will grant trademark protection for as long as you keep using that mark to identify your products. This actually makes sense when you understand the difference between copyright and trademark. The idea behind copyright protection is to give creators a financial incentive to make new works that will benefit the public; that incentive needn’t be eternal to be effective. Trademark law, on the other hand, is about consumer protection. The function of a trademark is essentially to tell you who a product came from, which helps you make informed decisions and incentivizes quality control. If everyone were allowed to use that same mark after some fixed period, it would stop serving that function.

So, what’s the problem? Since trademarks don’t expire, we see former copyright holders of public domain works turn to trademark law as a way to keep exerting control. In one case we wrote about, a company claiming to own a trademark in the name of a public domain TV show called “You Asked For It” sent takedown demands targeting everything from episodes of the show, to remix videos using show footage, to totally unrelated uses of that common phrase. Other infamous examples include disputes over alleged trademarks in elements from Peter Rabbit and Tarzan. Now, with Steamboat Willie in the public domain, Disney seems poised to do the same. It’s already alluded to this in public statements, and in 2022, it registered a trademark for Walt Disney Animation Studios that incorporates a snippet from the cartoon.

The news isn’t all bad: trademark protection is in some ways more limited than copyright—it only applies to uses that are likely to confuse consumers about the use’s connection to the mark owner. And importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that trademark law cannot be used to control the distribution of creative works, lest it spawn “a species of mutant copyright law” that usurps the public’s right to copy and use works in the public domain. (Of course, that doesn’t mean companies won’t try it.) So go forth and make your Steamboat Willie art, but beware of trademark lawyers waiting in the wings."

Computer scientist makes case for AI-generated copyrights in US appeal; Reuters, January 23, 2024

 Blake Brittain, Reuters; Computer scientist makes case for AI-generated copyrights in US appeal

"Creative works generated entirely by artificial intelligence should be eligible for copyright protection, computer scientist Stephen Thaler told a federal appeals court in Washington this week...

A separate U.S. appeals court rejected Thaler's bid for patents covering AI-generated inventions, in a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review last year. The UK Supreme Court ruled against Thaler in a similar case in December.

Thaler has several related cases still pending in other countries."

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.; The New York Times, January 25, 2024

Stuart A. Thompson, The New York Times ; We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.

"“Nobody knows how this is going to come out, and anyone who tells you ‘It’s definitely fair use’ is wrong,” said Keith Kupferschmid, the president and chief executive of the Copyright Alliance, an industry group that represents copyright holders. “This is a new frontier.”

A.I. companies could violate copyright in two ways, Mr. Kupferschmid said: They could train on copyrighted material that they have not licensed, or they could reproduce copyrighted material when users enter a prompt."

It's Copyright Week 2024: Join Us in the Fight for Better Copyright Law and Policy; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 22, 2024

KATHARINE TRENDACOSTA , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); It's Copyright Week 2024: Join Us in the Fight for Better Copyright Law and Policy

"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, addressing what's at stake and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation."

Kat Von D Claims Miles Davis Tattoo Is ‘Fair Use’ at Unusual Copyright Trial; Rolling Stone, January 23, 2024

 NANCY DILLON, Rolling Stone; Kat Von D Claims Miles Davis Tattoo Is ‘Fair Use’ at Unusual Copyright Trial

"Jurors now hearing the case will have to decide whether Von D’s reproduction falls under the “fair use” doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission. Artistic representations of copyrighted work can be protected by fair use if they “transform” the subject work into something new, such as a parody, critique, or news report."

Stephen Thaler’s Quest to Get His ‘Autonomous’ AI Legally Recognized Could Upend Copyright Law Forever; Art News, January 8, 2024

 Shanti Escalante-De Mattei, Art News; Stephen Thaler’s Quest to Get His  ‘Autonomous’ AI Legally Recognized Could Upend Copyright Law Forever

"Abbott and Thaler’s push for copyright brings up a very basic question for artists today: how do we locate agency and creativity when we make things with machines? When is it our doing, and when is it “theirs”? This question follows the arc of history as humans design increasingly complex tools that work independently of us, even if we designed them and set them into motion. Debates have raged in public forums and in lawsuits regarding to what extent a model like Midjourney can produce genuinely novel images or whether it is just randomly stitching together disparate pixels based on its training data to generate synthetic quasi-originality. But for those who work in machine learning, this process isn’t all that different from how humans work."

Lifecycle of Copyright: 1928 Works in the Public Domain; Library of Congress Blogs: Copyright Creativity at Work, January 8, 2024

Alison Hall , Library of Congress Blogs: Copyright Creativity at Work; Lifecycle of Copyright: 1928 Works in the Public Domain

"This blog also includes contributions from Jessica Chinnadurai, attorney-advisor, and Rafael Franco, writer-editor intern in the Copyright Office.

Over the last several years, we have witnessed a new class of creative works entering the public domain in the United States each January 1. This year, a variety of works published in 1928, ranging from motion pictures to music to books, joined others in the public domain. The public domain has important historical and cultural benefits in the lifecycle of copyright...

Below are just a few of the historical and cultural works that entered the public domain in 2024."

How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor; Reason, January 8, 2024

LUKE HOGG , Reason; How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor

"For nearly 25 years, Section 1201 has been hanging over the developers and distributors of tools that give users more control over the products they own. The ways in which John Deere and other corporations have used the copyright system is a glaring example of regulatory capture in action, highlighting the absurdity of a system where owning a product doesn't necessarily convey the right to fully control it. There are certainly circumstances where the manufacturers are justified in protecting their products from tampering, but such cases should be handled through warranty nullification and contract law, not through exorbitant fines and lengthy prison sentences."

AI’s future could hinge on one thorny legal question; The Washington Post, January 4, 2024

Will Oremus

 and 

Elahe Izadi

 , The Washington Post; AI’s future could hinge on one thorny legal question

"Because the AI cases represent new terrain in copyright law, it is not clear how judges and juries will ultimately rule, several legal experts agreed...

“Anyone who’s predicting the outcome is taking a big risk here,” Gervais said...

Cornell’s Grimmelmann said AI copyright cases might ultimately hinge on the stories each side tells about how to weigh the technology’s harms and benefits.

“Look at all the lawsuits, and they’re trying to tell stories about how these are just plagiarism machines ripping off artists,” he said. “Look at the [AI firms’ responses], and they’re trying to tell stories about all the really interesting things these AIs can do that are genuinely new and exciting.”"

Great, now we have to become digital copyright experts; TechCrunch+, January 2, 2024

 Alex Wilhelm, TechCrunch+; Great, now we have to become digital copyright experts

"How to balance the need to respect copyright and ensure that AI development doesn’t grind to a halt will not be answered quickly."

Copyright law is AI's 2024 battlefield; Axios, January 2, 2023

 Megan Morrone , Axios; Copyright law is AI's 2024 battlefield

"Looming fights over copyright in AI are likely to set the new technology's course in 2024 faster than legislation or regulation.

Driving the news: The New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft on December 27, claiming their AI systems' "widescale copying" constitutes copyright infringement.

The big picture: After a year of lawsuits from creators protecting their works from getting gobbled up and repackaged by generative AI tools, the new year could see significant rulings that alter the progress of AI innovation. 

Why it matters: The copyright decisions coming down the pike — over both the use of copyrighted material in the development of AI systems and also the status of works that are created by or with the help of AI — are crucial to the technology's future and could determine winners and losers in the market."