Generative AI Debate Braces for Post-Warhol Fair Use Impact; Bloomberg Law, May 30, 2023

Isaiah Poritz , Bloomberg Law; Generative AI Debate Braces for Post-Warhol Fair Use Impact

"While the courts may take years to decide whether generative AI models are fair use, the litigation underway is many steps ahead of Congress, which hasn’t yet enacted legislation to regulate the burgeoning technology. In the meantime, some observers see peril for the AI industry.

“Copyright law is the only law that’s already in existence that could bring generative AI systems to their knees,” Pamela Samuelson, a copyright law professor at the University of California Berkeley, said at a lecture on AI last month. “If the court says ingesting is infringement, the whole thing can be destroyed.”

Supreme Court Rules That Andy Warhol Violated a Photographer’s Copyright; Smithsonian Magazine, May 24, 2023

Christopher Parker, Smithsonian Magazine; Supreme Court Rules That Andy Warhol Violated a Photographer’s Copyright

"Reactions to the Supreme Court ruling are mixed. Noah Feldman, a scholar of law at Harvard, writes in Bloomberg that the decision helps artists but harms creativity. 

“The upshot is that little-guy artists win, because they now have more rights than they had before to claim credit for works reused by others,” he writes. “But art as a whole loses, because the decision restricts how artists generate creativity by sampling and remixing existing works.”

Carroll tells the Times that the ruling leaves a lot of room for conflicting interpretations, and the legal battle has only just begun.

“Is it really just about competitive licensing use, or is it more broadly about creating derivative works?” he adds. “I think what you’ll see is lower courts reading it each way, and then eventually this issue is going to find its way back to the Supreme Court.”"

Canvas is half-blank for artists after Warhol's Supreme Court copyright loss; The Denver Gazette, May 20, 2023

John Moore, The Denver Gazette ; Canvas is half-blank for artists after Warhol's Supreme Court copyright loss 

"That’s why, Sink believes, “I don’t think this is going to open any floodgates of artistic repression,” he said. “I feel like that this case falls into its own category because it was a work-for-hire situation.”

The Andy Warhol Foundation issued a statement saying it was important to note that the ruling “did not question the legality of Andy Warhol's creation of the Prince series."

The case is, to put it mildly, “a very complicated, double-edge sword for artists,” Sink said. But two things he’s sure of: 1. “It really is the Wild West out there now” when it comes to these quickly evolving issues. And 2. Warhol (who died in 1987) would be loooooving this."

After the Warhol Decision, Another Major Copyright Case Looms; The New York Times, May 22, 2023

Matt Stevens, The New York Times; After the Warhol Decision, Another Major Copyright Case Looms

"Many thought the latest Supreme Court decision might more clearly delineate what qualifies a work as transformative. But the justices chose instead to focus on how the Warhol portrait had been used, namely to illustrate an article about the musician. The court found that such a use was not distinct enough from the “purpose and character” of Goldsmith’s photo, which had been licensed to Vanity Fair years earlier to help illustrate an article about Prince.

“It was the licensing use, not the creative use, that was at issue,” said Michael W. Carroll, a professor at American University Washington College of Law."

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.""

Andy Warhol’s Iconic Prince Silkscreens Violated Copyright Rules, Supreme Court Says; Forbes, May 18, 2023

Molly Bohannon, Forbes ; Andy Warhol’s Iconic Prince Silkscreens Violated Copyright Rules, Supreme Court Says

"KEY FACTS

Photographer Lynn Goldsmith alleged copyright infringement, after the Andy Warhol Foundation granted Vanity Fair a license to use one of the pop artist’s Prince silkscreens in 2016, decades after the images were first created using her photograph.

The court rejected arguments made by the Andy Warhol Foundation that the artist didn’t violate copyright laws because he sufficiently transformed Goldsmith’s original shot.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that Goldsmith’s “original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists.”

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that the court’s decision against Warhol “will stifle creativity of every sort” and “will impede new art and music and literature.”"

Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Art is Copyright Infringement; PetaPixel, May 18, 2023

 JARON SCHNEIDER, PetaPixel; Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Art is Copyright Infringement

"Breaking Down the Ruling

Both the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and the ASMP are celebrating the ruling as a win for photographers. 

“The importance here cannot be overstated,” Thomas Maddrey, Chief Legal Officer and Head of National Content and Education at ASMP, says.

“The last case that the US Supreme Court fully opined on transformation and fair use was more than 25 years ago in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. Here, the Court has added much needed guidance to when a use is truly ‘fair’ and when it is an impermissible usurpation of the rights of the copyright holder.”

Maddrey says that the case will likely have wide-ranging implications in not only the arts community, but also across all intellectual property areas. 

“Copyright practitioners have long sought clarification on what “transformation” actually means in the context of a fair use analysis.”

'The court has clearly identified the boundaries of what constitutes transformation in the context of fair use analysis.""

In Historic Decision, Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Images of Prince Violated Photographer’s Copyright; Variety, May 18, 2023

 Jem Aswad, Variety; In Historic Decision, Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Images of Prince Violated Photographer’s Copyright

"In a ruling that could have vast implications in the copyright world, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that images of Prince created by Andy Warhol that were based on photos taken by Lynn Goldsmith violated her copyright, according to CNN and multiple news outlets.

The ruling was 7-2.

The court rejected arguments made by the late Warhol’s foundation that the work was sufficiently transformative and did not violate copyright laws. While the work was created in the 1980s, Thursday’s ruling arrives against the backdrop of AI, which has created vast copyright implications over what constitutes originality. Warhol freely coopted many photographs, logos and other forms of artwork — ranging from soap boxes to iconic photos — into his works."

Supreme Court Rules Against Andy Warhol in Copyright Case; The New York Times, May 18, 2023

Adam Liptak, The New York Times ; Supreme Court Rules Against Andy Warhol in Copyright Case

"The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Andy Warhol was not entitled to draw on a prominent photographer’s portrait of Prince for an image of the musician that his estate licensed to a magazine, limiting the scope of the fair-use defense to copyright infringement in the realm of visual art.

The vote was 7 to 2. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, said the photographer’s “original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists.”"

Photographers Score Early Victories in Copyright Lawsuits Against Artist Richard Prince; PetaPixel, May 16, 2023

 PESALA BANDARA, PetaPixel; Photographers Score Early Victories in Copyright Lawsuits Against Artist Richard Prince

"Two professional photographers have scored early victories in a pair of long-running copyright lawsuits against artist Richard Prince for his controversial Instagram-sourced New Portraits series."

OpenAI's ChatGPT may face a copyright quagmire after 'memorizing' these books; The Register, May 3, 2023

Thomas Claburn, The Register; OpenAI's ChatGPT may face a copyright quagmire after 'memorizing' these books

"Tyler Ochoa, a professor in the Law department at Santa Clara University in California, told The Register he fully expects to see lawsuits against the makers of large language models that generate text, including OpenAI, Google, and others.

Ochoa said the copyright issues with AI text generation are exactly the same as the issues with AI image generation. First: is copying large amounts of text or images for training the model fair use? The answer to that, he said, is probably yes.

Second: if the model generates output that's too similar to the input – what the paper refers to as "memorization" – is that copyright infringement? The answer to that, he said, is almost certainly yes.

And third: if the output of an AI text generator is not a copy of an existing text, is it protected by copyright?

Under current law, said Ochoa, the answer is no – because US copyright law requires human creativity, though some countries will disagree and will protect AI-generated works. However, he added, activities like selecting, arranging, and modifying AI model output makes copyright protection more plausible."

Stolen or Original? Hear Songs From 7 Landmark Copyright Cases.; The New York Times, April 27, 2023

Ben Sisario, The New York Times ; Stolen or Original? Hear Songs From 7 Landmark Copyright Cases.

"Here is a guide to some of the most consequential music copyright cases in recent decades, along with excerpts from their recordings.

But remember: It can be tricky, and even misleading, to compare recordings alone. In cases like these, the only material in question are the songs’ underlying compositions: the melodies, chords and lyrics that can be notated on paper. Elements specific to the performance captured in a particular recording — like the tempo, or the timbre of an instrument — are irrelevant.

Juries must decide not only if one song copies another, but whether the earlier song was original and distinctive enough to be protected by copyright.

“The problem with cases like this is that people ask the wrong question,” said Joe Bennett, a professor at the Berklee College of Music who works as a forensic musicologist in legal cases. “They ask the question, ‘How similar is song B to song A,’ whereas what they should be asking is how original is song A.”

Got that? In that case, put your headphones on and judge for yourself."

The Andy Warhol Copyright Case That Could Transform Generative AI; Wired, April 25, 2023

MADELINE ASHBY , Wired; The Andy Warhol Copyright Case That Could Transform Generative AI

"“Copyright is a monopoly, and fair use is the safety valve,” says Art Neill, director of the New Media Rights Program at California Western School of Law. Everything from true-crime podcasts to Twitter dunks rely on fair use. It’s the doctrine that makes possible every “ENDING EXPLAINED!!1!” video you’ve watched after killing a bottle of pinot on Sunday night. It’s also why Americans can share videos of police brutality. Cara Gagliano, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, calls it “a particularly important tool for anyone who speaks truth to power.” The EFF filed an amicus brief in the case, siding with the Warhol Foundation. “It protects your right to criticize and critique the works of others.”"

Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem; Harvard Business Review, April 7, 2023

Gil Appel, Juliana Neelbauer, and David A. Schweidel, Harvard Business Review; Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem

"This isn’t the first time technology and copyright law have crashed into each other. Google successfully defended itself against a lawsuit by arguing that transformative use allowed for the scraping of text from books to create its search engine, and for the time being, this decision remains precedential.

But there are other, non-technological cases that could shape how the products of generative AI are treated. A case before the U.S. Supreme Court against the Andy Warhol Foundation — brought by photographer Lynn Goldsmith, who had licensed an image of the late musician, Prince— could refine U.S. copyright law on the issue of when a piece of art is sufficiently different from its source material to become unequivocally “transformative,” and whether a court can consider the meaning of the derivative work when it evaluates that transformation. If the court finds that the Warhol piece is not a fair use, it could mean trouble for AI-generated works.

All this uncertainty presents a slew of challenges for companies that use generative AI. There are risks regarding infringement — direct or unintentional — in contracts that are silent on generative AI usage by their vendors and customers. If a business user is aware that training data might include unlicensed works or that an AI can generate unauthorized derivative works not covered by fair use, a business could be on the hook for willful infringement, which can include damages up to $150,000 for each instance of knowing use. There’s also the risk of accidentally sharing confidential trade secrets or business information by inputting data into generative AI tools."

Why the Internet Archive’s copyright battle is likely to come to a very bad end; Media Nation, March 21, 2023

DAN KENNEDY, Media Nation ; Why the Internet Archive’s copyright battle is likely to come to a very bad end

"The Archive ramped up its lending during the COVID-19 pandemic and has not cut back even though life has more or less returned to normal. The Archive argues that it’s doing what any library does — it’s lending books that it owns, and it’s controlling how many people can borrow a book at any given time. In other words, it’s not simply making electronic versions of its books available for mass download. That may show some desire to act responsibly on the Archive’s part, but that doesn’t make it legal."

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."

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."

New Copyright Claims Board Rules in Favor of Photographer in First Case; PetaPixel, March 6, 2023

 MATT GROWCOOT, PetaPixel; New Copyright Claims Board Rules in Favor of Photographer in First Case

"In a judgment on February 28, 2023, the CCB ruled in favor of the plaintiff, David Oppenheimer, who sued a lawyer named Douglas Prutton for using one of his photographs on his website without permission. 

The CCB was set up in 2021 to help small copyright infringement claims of lower value giving photographers an alternative to hiring pricey copyright attorneys who generally balk at smaller monetary payouts of this kind."

Can You Spot the Copyright Infringement?; The New York Times, March 1, 2023

 Jason M. Bailey, The New York Times; Can You Spot the Copyright Infringement?

"It can be difficult to predict the outcome of copyright cases, some dealing with parody, that reach the courts. Judges must parse precedent and the Copyright Act of 1976, which outlines how to decide whether something is the “fair use” of a creative work. In the cases below, guess which way the judges ruled."

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."