Matt Dibble, Voice of America (VoA); AI copyright fight turns to disclosing original content
"Artists and other creators say their works have been used to build the multibillion-dollar generative AI industry without any compensation for them. Matt Dibble reports on a proposed U.S. law that would force AI companies to reveal their sources."
Mack DeGeurin, Popular Science; Angry Instagram posts won’t stop Meta AI from using your content
"Meta, the Mark Zuckerberg-owned tech giant behind Instagram, surprised many of the app’s estimated 1.2 billion global users with a shock revelation last month. Images, including original artwork and other creative assets uploaded to the company’s platforms, are now being used to train the company’s AI image generator. That admission, initially made public by Meta executive Chris Cox during an interview with Bloomberg last month, has elicited a fierce backlash from some creators. As of writing, more than 130,000 Instagram users have reshared a message on Instagram telling the company they do not consent to it using their data to train Meta AI. Those pleas, however, are founded on a fundamental misunderstanding of creators’ relationship with extractive social media platforms. These creators already gave away their work, whether they realize it or not."
Nico Grant and , The New York Times; Google’s A.I. Search Leaves Publishers Scrambling
"In May, Google announced that the A.I.-generated summaries, which compile content from news sites and blogs on the topic being searched, would be made available to everyone in the United States. And that change has Mr. Pine and many other publishing executives worried that the paragraphs pose a big danger to their brittle business model, by sharply reducing the amount of traffic to their sites from Google.
“It potentially chokes off the original creators of the content,” Mr. Pine said. The feature, AI Overviews, felt like another step toward generative A.I. replacing “the publications that they have cannibalized,” he added."
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."
Irina Tarsis , Center for Art Law Inc; Moral Rights of the Artist (Humans Only): an Updated US Perspective
"I Defining and codifying moral rights
Moral rights, or droit moral (having originated in France), describe rights of creators in their artistic work that are not necessarily pecuniary, yet still integral to and arise from the idea that an artist's very being is included in the work that they create. Recognition and evolution of visual artists' rights in the United States have been slow to develop, and the scope of moral rights enacted in the United States is limited.
Typically, moral rights are neither alienable nor waivable; they last for the duration of an artist's lifetime and can survive for the benefit and discretion of an artist's estate even after the original work is finished or changes ownership through the stream of public commerce.18 The basic moral rights are as follows:
These rights are enumerated in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (the Convention) under Articles 6 bis19 and 14 ter.20 While the US is a signatory to the Convention,21 according to the US Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the Convention's acts and protocols are not self-executing under the US Constitution, and they must be implemented through US legislation...
ii Space, the final frontier: back to the future
Statutorily, moral rights of artists in the United States are poorly protected and narrowly enforced; some seemingly substantive claims are dismissed on procedure failure to state a claim,114 as res judicata115 or on industrial design grounds.116 As soon as US artists die, the moral rights evaporate altogether. The cavalier rather than chivalrous attitude towards the vision and the will of the artist persists as tastes and emphasis change. Consider, for example, museums deaccessioning art that was once donated directly by an artist.117 Similarly, consider the trend of covering up or removing the New Deal-Era murals from schools and court houses,118 which is evocative of the problem posed by Serra's Tilted Arc in the 1980s. Until the US Supreme Court reviews a VARA case, or Congress amends the Copyright Law to include a resale royalty provision, artists and their advocates remain limited by the available moral rights protections, and they have to be creative in using public and private law to protect artists' rights. For digital artists, the ability to enforce some of their moral rights is becoming easier, at least on the screen.
As protest art and street art become mainstream, and AI-generated art attracts more fans, in real life and in the metaverse,119 moral rights of artists in the United States are still protected by a patchwork of case law, contracts and state and federal regulations. During the 'Some Like it Digital: Meet Me in the Metaverse' webinars hosted by the Center for Art Law in 2022,120 a guest speaker mentioned that the constitutional law for the metaverse is, or will be, the Copyright Law, for better or worse.
Going forward, will there be more artists expressing themselves in the other verse? In space, outside the boundaries of planet Earth, where their moral right will still need to be protected, for now only against other humans?
In Thaler, District of Columbia Court asked 'Must … originator be a human being to claim copyright protection?' and answered 'yes'; with a footnote: 'The issue of whether non-human sentient beings may be covered by “person” in the Copyright Act is only “fun conjecture for academics”',121 though useful in illuminating the purposes and limits of copyright protection as AI is increasingly employed. Nonetheless, delving into this debate is an unnecessary detour because “[t]he day sentient refugees from some intergalactic war arrive on Earth and are granted asylum in Iceland, copyright law will be the least of our problems”.122 With human-generated art being sent into space, though, the subject of protecting artists' rights (freedom of expression, attribution, etc) will increasingly abut against international treaties controlling the parameters of sending objects into and outside of our solar system, onto other planets and for display on space stations."
"Two of the most sought-after characters in film and television are set to enter the public domain on Jan. 1, which will allow creators to use the original versions of Mickey and Minnie Mouse to create new projects of any kind, likely adding to a lineup of films and books like “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey” and “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” based on other popular characters with expired copyrights."
Ashley Cullins, The Hollywood Reporter; Marvel Settles Fight Over Spider-Man, Doctor Strange Rights
"It looks like Marvel won’t be bringing its battle over the rights to Spider-Man and Doctor Strange into the new year. Attorneys for the company and the estate of Steve Ditko on Wednesday notified the court that they’ve reached an amicable settlement and expect a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice to be filed in the coming weeks.
This all started back in 2021, when Marvel filed a series of lawsuits in response to copyright termination notices from Larry Lieber and the estates of Gene Colan, Steve Ditko, Don Heck and Don Rico. A very long list of characters were at issue, including Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, Hulk and Thor. In June, all but one of the matters settled."
SAM WOLFE, MakeUseOf; How to Submit a Removal Request on YouTube Due to Copyright
BY WINSTON CHO , The Hollywood Reporter; “I Have a Problem With the Stealing of My Material”: A Common Rallying Cry Emerges On AI
"In a hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet examining the intersection of AI and copyright law, key players in Hollywood moved for guardrails to protect their work. “The rapid introduction of generative AI systems is seen as an existential threat to the livelihood and continuance of our creative professions unless immediate steps are taken on legal interpretive and economic fronts to address these emerging issues,” said Ashley Irwin, president of the Society of Composers and Lyricists (SCL), at the hearing on May 17. “It’s essential to prioritize policies and regulations to safeguard the intellectual property and copyright of creators and preserve the diverse and dynamic U.S cultural landscape.”"
Jack Amaral and Jon Farnsworth, Spencer Fane LLP, Minnesota Lawyer; Commentary: Warhol decision’s implications for creators, artists
"Impact on artists and copyright holders
This decision is a victory for copyright holders. Although copyright infringement and analysis of the Fair Use Doctrine is a case-by-case factual analysis where a judge determines whether fair use is a valid defense based on the four factors above, this decision sends a clear message that commercial uses of copyrighted works might be less likely to be considered fair use. This decision could have a significant impact on photographers, artists, and other creators such as software engineers.
Creators who build off copyrighted works should be aware of this decision and know the potential consequences of building off of other’s work. This decision will likely make it more difficult to show a work is “transformative” while leaving an artist open to liability...
Takeaways for creators and businesses:
"OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said Friday that last week's White House AI summit discussed laws mandating AIs reveal themselves, and added that his firm is working on new ChatGPT models that respect copyright...
On copyright, Altman positioned himself on the side of copyright systems that ensure creators are paid for the value they create: "We're trying to work on new models where if an AI system is using your content, or if it's using your style, you get paid for that," he said."
Edward Lee, The Washington Post; A terrible decision on AI-made images hurts creators
"The Copyright Office’s position is wrong. It misunderstands authorship and ignores the copyright clause’s goal of promoting “progress” by offering authors incentives to create new works, including with new technologies.
Its decision also misunderstands the creative process."
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); World Intellectual Property Day – April 26, 2023
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); USPTO introduces new tool to help creators identify their intellectual property
"Today at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Women’s Entrepreneurship (WE) event in Naples, Florida, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Kathi Vidal announced the launch of the agency’s new Intellectual Property (IP) Identifier tool. This user-friendly, virtual resource— designed for those who are less familiar with IP—enables users to identify whether they have IP and the IP protections they need to support and advance their business, invention, or brand. The IP Identifier serves as an important foundation for an innovator, entrepreneur or creator’s IP journey. In addition to the tool helping identify a person’s or company’s intellectual property, it provides easily digestible information on intellectual property – patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.
“Protecting your IP is a smart and necessary business strategy, and the IP Identifier is a great starting point for those new to IP,” Director Vidal told the audience at the WE event. “This resource will equip entrepreneurs with a basic understanding of the IP they have and will lead them to resources to protect it. We encourage everyone who is considering starting a business or trying to grow one to utilize this tool. It’s another example of our work to bring more people into the innovation ecosystem to increase American competitiveness, grow the economy, and solve world problems.”
The IP Identifier is comprised of two modules: The Basic IP Identifier; and the Advanced IP Identifier. The Basic IP Identifier module consists of six simple questions that allow users to quickly assess the type of IP they should protect. The Advanced IP Identifier module allows users to learn about their specific type of IP and obtain links to additional resources, including how to file an application for protection. A third module, Managing your IP assets, is currently under development.
Companies benefit from having IP protection. When used as collateral, a company’s first patent increases venture capital funding by 76 percent over three years and increases funding from an initial public offering by 128 percent. It can also help serve as a recruiting tool: The approval of a startup’s first patent application increases its employee growth by 36 percent over the next five years. Further, protecting your IP can also increase your market share – a new company with a patent increases its sales by a cumulative 80 percent more than companies that do not have a patent.
The IP Identifier was announced as part of USPTO’s recently-launched Women’s Entrepreneurship (WE) initiative, a community-focused, collaborative, and creative initiative to inspire women and tap their potential to meaningfully increase equity, job creation, and economic prosperity. WE includes a new online hub for aspiring women entrepreneurs that provides key information on how to get started, how to identify and protect their intellectual property, and how to secure options for funding and how to build and maintain a network."
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.'”"
Luke Plunkett , Kotaku; AI Creating 'Art' Is An Ethical And Copyright Nightmare
If a machine makes art, is it even art? And what does this mean for actual artists?
"Basically, we now live in a world where machines have been fed millions upon millions of pieces of human endeavour, and are now using the cumulative data they’ve amassed to create their own works. This has been fun for casual users and interesting for tech enthusiasts, sure, but it has also created an ethical and copyright black hole, where everyone from artists to lawyers to engineers has very strong opinions on what this all means, for their jobs and for the nature of art itself."
Leader-Telegram; Our View: Copyright absurdity must come to an end
"It’s far easier to argue that today’s copyright laws are largely beneficial to corporations who don’t want the money from the merchandising spigot turned off. Those companies are the true beneficiaries of 95-year coverage.
Protecting authors and creators is one thing. Ad infinitum extensions for wealthy corporate interests are quite another. It’s time to end this nonsense. We’re not advocating a rollback of the current terms, but we do oppose further extensions.
Absurd laws create contempt for all laws, and the absurdity of the current copyright approach is clear. It should not be compounded."
Bill Donahue, Billboard; Sonny Bono’s Widow Strikes Back in Cher Copyright Fight
"Cher’s legal battle with Sonny Bono’s widow is heating up, with Mary Bono arguing that the legendary singer should not be allowed to claim that her divorce agreement trumps important provisions of federal copyright law.
Cher sued Mary Bono last month, seeking to block her from taking control of Sonny’s music. The case is one of several closely-watched music lawsuits over copyright law’s “termination right” — a provision that allows creators or their heirs to win back control of rights they signed away decades prior."
