Adobe Responds to AI Fears With Plans for Updated Legal Terms; Bloomberg Law, June 12, 2024

Cassandre Coyer and Aruni Soni, Bloomberg Law; Adobe Responds to AI Fears With Plans for Updated Legal Terms

"“As technology evolves, we have to evolve,” Dana Rao, Adobe’s general counsel, said in an interview with Bloomberg Law. “The legal terms have to evolve, too. And that’s really the lesson that we’re sort of internalizing here.”

Over the weekend, some Adobe customers revolted on social media, crying foul at updated terms of use they claimed allowed Adobe to seize their intellectual property and use their data to feed AI models. 

The Photoshop and Illustrator maker responded with multiple blog posts over several days seeking to reassure users it wasn’t stealing their content, including a pledge to quickly rewrite its user agreement in clearer language. Rao said Tuesday that Adobe will be issuing updated terms of use on June 18 in which it will specifically state the company doesn’t train its Firefly AI models on its cloud content.

The unexpected online storm around the updates is the latest example of how sweeping technological changes—such as the rise of generative AI—have bolstered users’ fears of copyright violations and privacy invasions. That sentiment is part of the landscape the tech industry must navigate to serve a creator community increasingly on edge.

What happened is “more of a lesson in terms of how to present terms of use and roll out updates in a way that can address or alleviate customer concerns, especially in the era of AI and increased concern over privacy,” said Los Angeles-based advertising attorney Robert Freund."

Google promises to take the legal heat in users’ AI copyright lawsuits; The Verge, October 12, 2023

Emilia David , The Verge; Google promises to take the legal heat in users’ AI copyright lawsuits

"Google will protect customers who use some of its generative AI products if they get sued for copyright infringement, the company says.

In a blog post, Google said customers using products that are now embedded with generative AI features will be protected, attempting to assuage growing fears that generative AI could run afoul of copyright rules. It specifically mentioned seven products it would legally cover: Duet AI in Workspace (including text generated in Google Docs and Gmail and images in Google Slides and Google Meet), Duet AI in Google Cloud, Vertex AI Search, Vertex AI Conversation, Vertex AI Text Embedding API, Visual Captioning on Vertex AI, and Codey APIs. Google’s Bard search tool was not mentioned.

If you are challenged on copyright grounds, we will assume responsibility for the potential legal risks involved,” the company said."

Microsoft to defend customers on AI copyright challenges; Reuters, September 7, 2023

Reuters ; Microsoft to defend customers on AI copyright challenges

"Microsoft (MSFT.O) will pay legal damages on behalf of customers using its artificial intelligence (AI) products if they are sued for copyright infringement for the output generated by such systems, the company said on Thursday.

Microsoft will assume responsibility for the potential legal risks arising out of any claims raised by third parties so long as the company's customers use "the guardrails and content filters" built into its products, the company said. It offers functionality meant to reduce the likelihood that the AI returns infringing content."

Explainer: who owns the copyright to your tattoo?; The Conversation, August 10, 2020

Marie Hadley, The Conversation; Explainer: who owns the copyright to your tattoo?

"So, why don’t tattooists sue over copying?

In some art industries, there can be a big gap between holding rights and exercising them. 

To tattooists, appropriation is mostly seen as a matter of ethics or manners rather than law...

These norms aside, copyright law does apply to tattoos. Whether or not more tattoo enthusiasts will seek an appropriate licence, as occurred in the case of Jarrangini (buffalo), or a copyright owner will sue for a rights violation, is another matter."

The Second Circuit Shuts Down Resale of Digital Music Files in Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc., Lexology, December 18, 2018

Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP - Samuel J. Zeitlin and Bruce Rich, Lexology; The Second Circuit Shuts Down Resale of Digital Music Files in Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc.

 

"If you purchase a copy of music in physical form--like a CD or vinyl record-- you own your copy even though you do not own the underlying songs. Although the law reserves to the copyright owner the right to make more copies, she cannot stop you from selling your copy or giving it away. This rule is called the right of first sale, and it enables all secondhand sales of copyrighted material, from the smallest used bookstore to eBay and Amazon Marketplace. The right of first sale began as judge-made law in the early 20th century, and today is part of the copyright statute at 17 U.S.C. 109(a). In technical terms, Section 109(a) creates an exception for the owners of legal copies to the copyright owner's exclusive right to distribute her work, although not to her exclusive right to reproduce her work.

 

But what happens if you purchase a digital music file? Digital copying unravels the balance between the rights of copyright owners and customers set by the first sale doctrine. Section 109(a) only allows the owner of a copy to distribute it, not to make more copies. In a digital environment, however, distributing a file is done by making a copy of that file in a new location. When the distinction between copying and distributing collapses, is it still possible to exercise the right of first sale?

 

The Second Circuit has just confronted this issue in its December 12, 2018 ruling on the legality of ReDigi, an online marketplace designed to let people resell digital music files purchased from iTunes. In a unanimous decision in Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc. penned by the Second Circuit's preeminent copyright expert, Judge Pierre Leval, the court upheld the conclusion of the district court that ReDigi's business model violated the law."

Steve Jobs licensed Amazon’s one-click patent for $1 million in one phone call; Quartz, September 17, 2018

Kabir Chibber, Quartz; Steve Jobs licensed Amazon’s one-click patent for $1 million in one phone call

"“Licensing Amazon.com’s 1-Click patent and trademark will allow us to offer our customers an even easier and faster online buying experience,” Steve Jobs said at the time.

A Wired magazine oral history of Infinite Loop, Apple’s corporate offices in Cupertino, California for most of its existence, tells the behind-the-scenes story of that decision."

A trademark can protect that clever slogan; Houston Chronicle, July 2, 2018

Jacqueline Taylor, Houston Chronicle; A trademark can protect that clever slogan

"Q: I’ve come up with a catchy and distinctive slogan for my new small business, and I’d like to make sure no one else uses it. Would a trademark legally protect it?

A: Good timing on your question. The UH Bauer College Small Business Development Center is offering a special workshop on “Protecting Your Business With Trademarks” from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on July 17. It will provide the answer and walk you through the process. You’ll learn how a strong trademark can not only protect your brand but also help customers find your business.

The workshop will be led by Anne Cullotta of the Culotta Law Firm. Register for the $29 class, which will be held at the SBDC’s Midtown office on Fannin Street, at sbdc.uh.edu.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website, uspto.gov, also is a helpful resource. Find a detailed explanation of the trademark process; an explanation of the difference between patent, trademark and copyright protection; and the difference between registering a domain name, business name and trademark. The information will help you determine if trademark protection is what you’re looking for and what the process entails.

You should be aware that there’s a difference between what’s known as a “common law” trademark and a federally registered trademark."

Nearly Every English Word Is Trademarked; How Stuff Works, February 26, 2018

John Perritano, How Stuff Works; Nearly Every English Word Is Trademarked

"The two professors, Barton Beebe and Jeanne C. Fromer, looked at the 6.7 million trademark applications filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office between 2003 and 2016. They then studied a database of the 100,000 most frequently used words in American English — the Corpus of Contemporary American English. They also reviewed a U.S. Census list of the 151,672 most frequently occurring surnames in the United States.

What they found will knock your socks off, which, by the way is also trademarked. "The data present compelling evidence of substantial word-mark depletion," they write in the Feb. 9, 2018 issue of the Harvard Law Review, "particularly with respect to the sets of potential marks that businesses prefer most: standard English words, short neologisms that are pronounceable by English speakers and common American surnames."...

The result of so many trademarks is that new businesses have to strain their noggins (yes, variations of "noggin" are already taken) to come up with monikers that aren't already claimed, or resort to what's called a "parallel registration." That's when two companies use the exact same name as long as it won't confuse consumers (for example, Delta Faucets and Delta Airlines)."

Amazon has a patent to keep you from comparison shopping while you’re in its stores; Washington Post, June 16, 2017

Brian Fung, Washington Post; Amazon has a patent to keep you from comparison shopping while you’re in its stores

"Amazon was awarded a patent May 30 that could help it choke off a common issue faced by many physical stores: Customers’ use of smartphones to compare prices even as they walk around a shop. The phenomenon, often known as mobile “window shopping,” has contributed to a worrisome decline for traditional retailers.

But Amazon now has the technology to prevent that type of behavior when customers enter any of its physical stores and log onto the WiFi networks there. Titled “Physical Store Online Shopping Control,” Amazon’s patent describes a system that can identify a customer’s Internet traffic and sense when the smartphone user is trying to access a competitor’s website. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos is also the owner of The Washington Post.)...

Just because a company wins a patent doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll use it. Sometimes companies file for patents to ensure they have the option to put the idea into practice later, or to keep other companies from implementing the concept. So, a system such as the kind Amazon’s envisioning might never be rolled out. And even if it is, chances are shoppers could still get around the system by staying off the in-store WiFi."

Wal-Mart's DRM Nightmare Just Won't End - Wired.com, 10/10/08

Wal-Mart's DRM Nightmare Just Won't End:

"Wal-Mart has decided to keep the music that it sold wrapped in a layer of copyright protection playable, following a flurry of customer complaints about legally purchased music becoming unplayable...

An e-mail sent to Wal-Mart digital music store customers said the company will continue to support the DRM-ed song files sold on walmart.com starting in 2003. The e-mail reversed last month's announcement that Wal-Mart would shut down the servers that authenticate the copyright protected music it no longer sells. Unfortunately, doing so would render all protected music purchased from the store in the past five years unplayable."
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/10/wal-mart-will-c.html