KATHERINE TULLY-MCMANUS, Politico ; Fired copyright chief loses first round in lawsuit over Trump powers
"A judge denied a request for reinstatement Wednesday from the ousted head of the national copyright office, rejecting for now her claims that President Donald Trump had no right to fire her."
"The Trump administration fired back Monday against ousted Copyright Office chief Shira Perlmutter’s lawsuit, arguing her emergency request for reinstatement should be denied because the president has sweeping authority to remove her."
Blake Brittain, Reuters; US Copyright Office director sues Trump administration over firing
"The U.S. Copyright Office director fired by the Trump administration sued President Donald Trump and other government officials on Thursday, arguing her firing was unconstitutional and should not be allowed to take effect.
Shira Perlmutter said in the lawsuit that her termination by email on May 10 was "blatantly unlawful," and that only the U.S. Congress can remove her from office."
Blake Montgomery , The Guardian; Trump strikes a blow for AI – by firing the US copyright supremo
"Over the weekend, Donald Trump fired the head of the US copyright office, CBS News reported. Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, was sacked after she issued a report questioning AI companies’ growing need for more data and casting doubt on their expressed need to circumvent current copyright laws.
In a statement, New York Democratic representative Joe Morelle pointed specifically to Trump’s booster-in-chief Elon Musk as a motivator for Perlmutter’s firing: “Donald Trump’s termination of register of copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, is a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis. It is surely no coincidence he acted less than a day after she refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models.”
Trump’s abrupt severing of the copyright chief from her job reminds me of the Gordian knot. Legend has it that Alexander the Great was presented with a knot in a rope tying a cart to a stake. So complex were its twistings that no man had been able to untie it of the hundreds who had tried. Alexander silently drew his sword and sliced the knot in two. The story is one of a great man demonstrating the ingenuity that would lead him to conquer the world. Alexander did solve the riddle. He also defeated its purpose. The cart is left with no anchor. Perhaps the riddle had taken on more significance than the original problem of keeping the cart in place, but that is a question for another day.
Trump may have cut through any thorny legal questions the copyright office had raised, but the vacuum at the head of the US’s copyright authority means that richer and better-connected players will run roughshod over copyright law in the course of their business. That may be what the president wants. The more powerful players in lawsuits over AI and copyright are undoubtedly the well capitalized AI companies, as much as I want artists to be paid in abundance for their creativity. These tech companies have cozied up to Trump in an effort to ensure a friendlier regulatory environment, which seems to be working if the firing of the copyright chief is any evidence. Lawsuits over how much AI companies owe artists and publishers for their surreptitious use of copyrighted material with an avowed lack of permission still abound, and both plaintiffs and defendants will be taking their cues from the US copyright office."
Simon Sherwood, The Register; US Copyright Office found AI companies sometimes breach copyright. Next day its boss was fired
"The head of the US Copyright Office has reportedly been fired, the day after agency concluded that builders of AI models use of copyrighted material went beyond existing doctrines of fair use.
The office’s opinion on fair use came in a draft of the third part of its report on copyright and artificial intelligence. The first part considered digital replicas and the second tackled whether it is possible to copyright the output of generative AI.
The office published the draft [PDF] of Part 3, which addresses the use of copyrighted works in the development of generative AI systems, on May 9th.
The draft notes that generative AI systems “draw on massive troves of data, including copyrighted works” and asks: “Do any of the acts involved require the copyright owners’ consent or compensation?”"
