How Hallucinatory A.I. Helps Science Dream Up Big Breakthroughs; The New York Times, December 23, 2024

 William J. Broad, The New York Times; How Hallucinatory A.I. Helps Science Dream Up Big Breakthroughs

"In the universe of science, however, innovators are finding that A.I. hallucinations can be remarkably useful. The smart machines, it turns out, are dreaming up riots of unrealities that help scientists track cancer, design drugs, invent medical devices, uncover weather phenomena and even win the Nobel Prize.

“The public thinks it’s all bad,” said Amy McGovern, a computer scientist who directs a federal A.I. institute. “But it’s actually giving scientists new ideas. It’s giving them the chance to explore ideas they might not have thought about otherwise.”

The public image of science is coolly analytic. Less visibly, the early stages of discovery can teem with hunches and wild guesswork. “Anything goes” is how Paul Feyerabend, a philosopher of science, once characterized the free-for-all.

Now, A.I. hallucinations are reinvigorating the creative side of science. They speed the process by which scientists and inventors dream up new ideas and test them to see if reality concurs. It’s the scientific method — only supercharged. What once took years can now be done in days, hours and minutes. In some cases, the accelerated cycles of inquiry help scientists open new frontiers."

Popeye, Tintin and more will enter the public domain in the new year; NPR, December 26, 2024

 Rachel Treisman, NPR; Popeye, Tintin and more will enter the public domain in the new year

"The main thing they have in common is their age — under U.S. copyright law, their terms all expire after 95 years. All of the works entering the public domain next year are from 1929, except for sound recordings, which (because they are covered by a different law) come from 1924.

"Copyright's awesome … but the fact that rights eventually expire, that's a good thing, too, because that's the wellspring for creativity," says Jennifer Jenkins, the director of Duke's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, which spends months poring over records to compile the most famous examples.

Once in the public domain, these works become fodder for remakes, spinoffs and other adaptations."

The Heart of the Matter: Copyright, AI Training, and LLMs; SSRN, November 1, 2024

Daniel J. Gervais, Vanderbilt University - Law School

Noam Shemtov, Queen Mary University of London, Centre for Commercial Law Studies

Haralambos Marmanis, Copyright Clearance Center

Catherine Zaller Rowland, Copyright Clearance Center 

SSRN; The Heart of the Matter: Copyright, AI Training, and LLMs

"Abstract

This article explores the intricate intersection of copyright law and large language models (LLMs), a cutting-edge artificial intelligence technology that has rapidly gained prominence. The authors provide a comprehensive analysis of the copyright implications arising from the training, fine-tuning, and use of LLMs, which often involve the ingestion of vast amounts of copyrighted material. The paper begins by elucidating the technical aspects of LLMs, including tokenization, word embeddings, and the various stages of LLM development. This technical foundation is crucial for understanding the subsequent legal analysis. The authors then delve into the copyright law aspects, examining potential infringement issues related to both inputs and outputs of LLMs. A comparative legal analysis is presented, focusing on the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, and Switzerland. The article scrutinizes relevant copyright exceptions and limitations in these jurisdictions, including fair use in the US and text and data mining exceptions in the EU. The authors highlight the uncertainties and challenges in applying these legal concepts to LLMs, particularly in light of recent court decisions and legislative developments. The paper also addresses the potential impact of the EU's AI Act on copyright considerations, including its extraterritorial effects. Furthermore, it explores the concept of "making available" in the context of LLMs and its implications for copyright infringement. Recognizing the legal uncertainties and the need for a balanced approach that fosters both innovation and copyright protection, the authors propose licensing as a key solution. They advocate for a combination of direct and collective licensing models to provide a practical framework for the responsible use of copyrighted materials in AI systems.

This article offers valuable insights for legal scholars, policymakers, and industry professionals grappling with the copyright challenges posed by LLMs. It contributes to the ongoing dialogue on adapting copyright law to technological advancements while maintaining its fundamental purpose of incentivizing creativity and innovation."

US Trademark Office cancels Marvel, DC's 'Super Hero' marks; Reuters, September 26, 2024

Blake Brittain , Reuters; US Trademark Office cancels Marvel, DC's 'Super Hero' marks

"A U.S. Trademark Office tribunal has canceled a set of "Super Hero" trademarks jointly owned by comic giants Marvel and DC at the request of a London-based comic book artist, according to a Thursday order.

The USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled for S.J. Richold's Superbabies Ltd after Disney's Marvel and Warner Bros' DC did not file an answer to Superbabies' request to invalidate the marks.

Spokespeople and attorneys for Marvel and DC did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Superbabies attorney Adam Adler of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg said in a statement that the ruling was "not just a win for our client but a victory for creativity and innovation."

"By establishing SUPER HEROES' place in the public domain, we safeguard it as a symbol of heroism available to all storytellers," Adler said."

Public domain, where there is life after copyright; CBS News, Sunday Morning, April 14, 2024

Lee Cowan , CBS News, Sunday Morning; Public domain, where there is life after copyright

"Jenkins said, "The public domain doesn't represent the death of copyright. It's just the second part of copyright's life cycle."

The concept of putting an expiration date on intellectual property was something the founding fathers actually put in the U.S. Constitution, "...to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." They left it to Congress, however, to decide just how long copyright terms should last...

Duke University's Jennifer Jenkins said, "Copyright gives rights to creators and their descendants that provide incentives to create. But the public domain really is the soil for future creativity."

There are surely more copyright clashes ahead. Characters like Bugs Bunny, Superman and Batman will all find themselves out of copyright protection soon enough.

Even Luke Skywalker will eventually find himself in the public domain, too, sometime around 2073. That sure seems like a galaxy far, far way."

On Copyright, Creativity, and Compensation; Reason, February 12, 2024

DAVID POST, Reason; On Copyright, Creativity, and Compensation

"Some of you may have seen the article by David Segal in the Sunday NY Times several weeks ago [available here] about a rather sordid copyright fracas in which I have been embroiled over the past few months...

What to make of all this? I am not oblivious to the irony of being confronted with this problem after having spent 30 years or so, as a lawyer and law professor, reflecting on and writing about the many mysteries of copyright policy and copyright law in the Internet Age.

Here are a few things that strike me as interesting (and possibly important) in this episode."

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."

AI Can Actually Help Protect Creativity and Copyrights: Guest Post by Reservoir Music CEO Golnar Khosrowshahi; Variety, June 28, 2023

Golnar Khosrowshahi, Variety ; AI Can Actually Help Protect Creativity and Copyrights: Guest Post by Reservoir Music CEO Golnar Khosrowshahi

"Used correctly, AI can actually help us preserve and protect copyright — versus the present fear of usurping it. Through audio fingerprinting, AI tools that verify authorship in real time will help reduce the unnecessary litigation that can be based on subjective interpretations or human error. AI will also equip both owners and distributors of content (i.e. streaming services) with significant changes in how we classify and catalog music (e.g., the micro categories that we can use to further define characteristics and attributes of songs). Not only can we then better understand the music, but we can also be more efficient at micro licensing, delving into why listeners love what they love, both in the moment in the context of a trend, and over time when it comes to standards and classics...

In any event, we first need to make sure that the ingestion of copyrights that enable AI is adequately policed and paid for, which is where a lot of important discussion and focus is today.  Advocating for rights holders and copyright protection is a routine part of our business, and regardless of whether an infringer is human or artificial doesn’t change our steadfast mission in upholding creators’ rights...

I have faith that the creators who have built this industry will continue to be the human driving force behind the art and connections we experience. I have faith the tools will help propel those creators and rights holders to new heights. I have faith in the protection of copyright through policy and legislation, and I have faith in the industry’s historic precedence of uncharted progress and success achieved in the face of technologic disruption.

So to those who fear the AI invasion, I say: keep calm, meet it head on and create something totally new, as only we humans can."

ChatGPT: what the law says about who owns the copyright of AI-generated content; The Conversation, April 17, 2023

Sercan Ozcan, University of Portsmouth; Joe Sekhon, Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law, University of Portsmouth; Oleksandra Ozcan, Lecturer, University of Portsmouth, The Conversation; , ChatGPT: what the law says about who owns the copyright of AI-generated content

"The AI chatbot ChatGPT produces content that can appear to have been created by a human. There are many proposed uses for the technology, but its impressive capabilities raise important questions about ownership of the content.

UK legislation has a definition for computer-generated works. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 they are “generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work”. The law suggests content generated by an artificial intelligence (AI) can be protected by copyright. However, the original sources of answers generated by AI chatbots can be difficult to trace – and they might include copyrighted works.

The first question is whether ChatGPT should be allowed to use original content generated by third parties to generate its responses. The second is whether only humans can be credited as the authors of AI-generated content, or whether the AI itself can be regarded as an author – particularly when that output is creative."

Rise of the machines: Copyright in a world of AI; Phoenix Business Journal, April 17, 2023

Daniel Restrepo – Fennemore, Phoenix Business Journal; Rise of the machines: Copyright in a world of AI

"Recognizing the blend of human and automated works

In remedying these conflicts, courts have a few options before them. Courts can declare all works using AI fall into the public domain on the grounds that they do not meet the creative, original or human-created requirements, or they could simply grant AI works copyright protection as a matter of course. However, the former would disincentivize AI development and the latter would disincentivize human creativity. 

The third and more likely solution is somewhere in the middle, granting limited protection in AI works based on the degree of human involvement. The Copyright Office has recently taken this approach regarding an application for the comic book “Zarya of the Dawn,” granting rights to the human author’s writing and arrangement of AI-generated drawings, but not to the AI drawings themselves. This gradient, while perhaps frustrating to those who want greater clarity, is useful in determining the rights in the final product."

Here’s How the Supreme Court Could Impact Creative Trademark Use; Bloomberg Law, December 29, 2022

Dorothy Auth, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Howard Wizenfeld, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Bloomberg Law; Here’s How the Supreme Court Could Impact Creative Trademark Use

"The upcoming term for the US Supreme Court includes an ambitious schedule of intellectual property cases, spanning patent, trademark, and copyright law...

Jack Daniel’s

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC addresses creative works in the context of trademark law, asking whether humorous use of another’s trademark is protected by the First Amendment. 

Under normal circumstances, a trademark infringement is determined based on whether the use of another’s mark is “likely to cause confusion” with that of the trademark owner.

However, when a mark is used in an artistic manner, courts instead use the Rogers test, which is intended to protect the free speech. Unlike the likelihood-of-confusion test in the Lanham Act (Trademark Act of 1946), the Rogers test allows use of another’s mark as an expressive work unless the use contains no artistic relevance or explicitly misleads about the source or content of the work.

As a result, the Rogers test narrows the scope of protection for the mark. Here, VIP created a squeaky toy named “Bad Spaniels,” closely resembling Jack Daniel’s famous whiskey bottle and label.

While the original bottle has the words “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the toy humorously proclaims, “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet” which is “43% Poo by Vol” and “100% Smelly.” 

Should the court affirm the squeaky toy is an expressive work, for being humorous, under the Rogers test, or should a traditional Lanham Act analysis be applied? The court’s answer may have significant implications for companies that sell items with a humorous message based on another’s trademark."

The Supreme Court meets Andy Warhol, Prince and a case that could threaten creativity; NPR, October 12, 2022

Nina Totenberg, NPR ; The Supreme Court meets Andy Warhol, Prince and a case that could threaten creativity

"You know all those famous Andy Warhol silk screen prints of Marilyn Monroe and Liz Taylor and lots of other glitterati? Now one of the most famous of these, the Prince series, is at the heart of a case the Supreme Court will examine on Wednesday. And it is a case of enormous importance to all manner of artists...

However the Supreme Court rules, its decision will have rippling practical consequences. So it is no surprise that some three dozen friend of the court briefs have been filed arguing on one side or the other, and representing everyone from the American Association of publishers and the Motion Picture Association of America to the Library Futures Institute, the Digital Media Licensing Association, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, the Recording Industry Association of America and even the union that represents NPR's reporters, editors and producers, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.

The outcome could shift the law to favor more control by the original artist, but doing that could also inhibit artists and other content creators who build on existing work in everything from music and posters to AI creations and documentaries."

U.S. Copyright Office Celebrates 150 Years of Fostering American Creativity and Innovation; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, August 4, 2020

Frank Cullen, U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

U.S. Copyright Office Celebrates 150 Years of Fostering American Creativity and Innovation

"Today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) joins the U.S. Copyright Office in celebrating its 150th-anniversary as an essential leader in fostering American creativity and innovation.

The office was established during the wake of the Civil War when Librarian of Congress Ainsworth Spofford lobbied and convinced Congress to unify the copyright registration system in the Library of Congress."

Copyright Office Celebrates its 150th Anniversary with Virtual Event – August 5 at Noon; U.S. Copyright Office, July 8, 2020

U.S. Copyright Office; Copyright Office Celebrates its 150th Anniversary with Virtual Event – August 5 at Noon

"On July 8, 1870, Congress centralized the administration of copyright law in the Library of Congress. Join the U.S. Copyright Office for a virtual celebration in recognition of our 150th anniversary, and register for “Copyright Office Presents: Celebrating 150 Years of Creativity” on August 5 from noon to 1:00 p.m. eastern time.

This online event is free and open to the public; however, registration is required.

Since its establishment 150 years ago today, the Office has driven the evolution of copyright law and been a key player in copyright law revisions, from the Copyright Act of 1909 to the Copyright Act of 1976 to the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act and beyond. The Office also provides critical services, helping copyright owners protect their works and preserving a public record of the country’s creativity.

“Copyright Office Presents: Celebrating 150 Years of Creativity” will highlight the rich and sometimes surprising history of the Copyright Office and copyright itself, the importance of the Office’s connection with creators and users of copyright-protected works, and the role of the Office in engaging creativity through a conversation with Copyright Office experts, past and present. Presenters include:

• John Cole, Library of Congress historian and author
• Frank Evina, curator of prior Copyright Office exhibit and former senior information specialist, Copyright Office
• Heather Wiggins, supervisor in the Literary Division of the Registration Program, Copyright Office, and adjunct professor

“Copyright Office Presents: Celebrating 150 Years of Creativity” kicks off a yearlong celebration with special events and activities to mark this anniversary. To celebrate this milestone, the Copyright Office is building awareness of how copyright can "Engage Your Creativity.” For more resources and selected videos, visit our new Engage Your Creativity webpage."

Film and music festival celebrates student creatives and public domain; The Daily Universe, February 6, 2020

Whitney Bigelow, The Daily Universe; Film and music festival celebrates student creatives and public domain

"Student filmmakers and musicians walked away from Wednesday night’s Public Domain Film and Music Festival with over $3000 in cash prizes. 

The festival was put on by the BYU Copyright Licensing Office. Students had 48 hours to create a film based on one of ten pieces of literature from 1924 that entered the public domain at the start of this year. Entries in the music category were given audio recordings from that same year to incorporate into their compositions.

The winner of the evening’s prestigious Best Picture award and $1,000 was a group of students called RHEEL Productions, including Heather Moser, Avery Marshall, Laura Marshall and Emma Spears. Their entry was a dramatic short film entitled “What’ll I Do,” based on the 1924 novel “Some Do Not” by Ford Madox Ford."

It’s Copyright Week 2020: Stand Up for Copyright Laws That Actually Serve Us All; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 20, 2020

Katharine Trendacosta, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); It’s Copyright Week 2020: Stand Up for Copyright Laws That Actually Serve Us All

"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...

We continue to fight for a version of copyright that does what it is supposed to. And so, every year, EFF and a number of diverse organizations participate in Copyright Week. Each year, we pick five copyright issues to highlight and advocate a set of principles of copyright law. This year’s issues are:

• Monday: Fair Use and Creativity
  Copyright policy should encourage creativity, not hamper it. Fair use makes it possible for us to comment, criticize, and rework our common culture.
• Tuesday: Copyright and Competition
  Copyright should not be used to control knowledge, creativity, or the ability to tinker with or repair your own devices. Copyright should encourage more people to share, make, or repair things, rather than concentrate that power in only a few players.
• Wednesday: Remedies
  Copyright claims should not raise the specter of huge, unpredictable judgments that discourage important uses of creative work. Copyright should have balanced remedies that also provide a real path for deterring bad-faith claims.
• Thursday: The Public Domain
  The public domain is our cultural commons and a crucial resource for innovation and access to knowledge. Copyright should strive to promote, and not diminish, a robust, accessible public domain.
• Friday: Copyright and Democracy
  Copyright must be set through a participatory, democratic, and transparent process. It should not be decided through back-room deals, secret international agreements, unaccountable bureaucracies, or unilateral attempts to apply national laws extraterritorially.

Every day this week, we’ll be sharing links to blog posts and actions on these topics at https://www.eff.org/copyrightweek and at #CopyrightWeek on Twitter.

As we said last year, and the year before that, if you too stand behind these principles, please join us by supporting them, sharing them, and telling your lawmakers you want to see copyright law reflect them."

A Tool That Removes Copyrighted Works Is Not a Substitute for Fair Use; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 20, 2020

Katharine Trendacosta, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);

A Tool That Removes Copyrighted Works Is Not a Substitute for Fair Use

"By making eliminating material flagged by Content ID so easy—just click here!—and making challenging matches so perilous, YouTube has put its thumb on the scale against fair use and in favor of copyright abuse. That thumb gets especially heavy given how few real alternatives to YouTube exist.

Hosting creative content should mean a robust commitment to fair use. Fair use enriches our culture and our understanding of it. It is what ensures that copyright doesn’t strangle free expression and creativity. Subtle reinforcement of anti-fair use ideas enacted by private companies, done by the largest players in the ecosystem, does real damage."

EU approves tougher EU copyright rules in blow to Google, Facebook; Reuters, April 15, 2019

Foo Yun Chee, Reuters; EU approves tougher EU copyright rules in blow to Google, Facebook

"Under the new rules, Google and other online platforms will have to sign licensing agreements with musicians, performers, authors, news publishers and journalists to use their work.

The European Parliament gave a green light last month to a proposal that has pitted Europe’s creative industry against tech companies, internet activists and consumer groups."

‘Blurred Lines’ on Their Minds, Songwriters Create Nervously; The New York Times, March 31, 2019

Ben Sisario, The New York Times; ‘Blurred Lines’ on Their Minds, Songwriters Create Nervously

"“There’s no question in my mind that there has been a chilling effect,” Ms. Lepera said. “People have thrown a lot of weight behind this — more weight than it deserves. Defendants may be more inclined not to put up a fight.”

And for songwriters, the impact is still often felt when thoughts about the courtroom intrude in the studio.

“I’m not going to stop writing songs,” said Busbee, who has written hits for Keith Urban and Lady Antebellum. “But it puts a massive damper on the process, if you’re concerned that you will be sued.”"

How the public domain offers new life to these poetry classics; PBS NewsHour, January 21, 2019

PBS NewsHour; How the public domain offers new life to these poetry classics

"Literary works in the public domain have inspired countless homages, spinoffs and reimaginings. Broadway hit musical “Wicked” was based on Frank L. Baum’s “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” which entered the public domain in 1956. New York Times bestseller “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” mixed 2009’s undead craze with Jane Austen’s 18th-century romantic comedy. Tony-award winner Lin Manuel Miranda used several public domain works in “Hamilton,” avoiding copyright infringement for his contemporary take on one of the Founding Fathers.

For more on the various ways the public domain serves today’s poets, writers and other literary fans, the PBS NewsHour interviewed Adam Green, editor-in-chief of The Public Domain Review, Robert Casper, head of the Library of Congress’ Poetry and Literature Center, and Karyn A. Temple, director of the library’s U.S. Copyright Office. 

These conversations have been combined and edited for length. A list of works entering the public domain in 2019 is available here."