EFF-Austin: Generative AI & Copyright; June 11, 2024

 EFF-Austin: Generative AI & Copyright

"Generative AI & Copyright

From the Organizers:

One of the key legal issues currently being debated around Generative AI is whether or not tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney are in violation of copyright; namely, whether the act of using existing artistic content as training data to produce new content is a derivative or transformational use of the training data. In this talk, Ed will walk us through both what current copyright law has to say about the legal status of AI art, as well as what he believes the legal framework around AI art should be going forward.

Our speaker this month is Ed Cavazos. Ed Cavazos is a technology attorney and the managing partner of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman’s Austin office. His practice focuses on intellectual property and cutting-edge issues in the internet, e-commerce, video game, and software industries. He has been involved in a wide variety of high-profile legal matters, including assisting on the Steve Jackson Games lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service while still a law student, successfully defending tech companies against patent and copyright trolls, and representing some of the earliest entrepreneurs developing NFT and Metaverse-related business models. His 1994 book, Cyberspace and the Law (MIT Press) was one of the first texts exploring internet legal issues and over the years he has written a number of law review articles exploring similar issues. Ed was one of the founders of EFF-Austin in the early 1990’s and has, since then, served in various officer, board and advisory board roles.

Talk will be livestreamed at https://www.youtube.com/user/austintechlive and will later be archived at https://www.youtube.com/user/effaustin. Questions for the speaker from virtual attendees may be submitted via the Youtube livestream chat, our Twitter account, @EFFaustin, or our Mastodon account, @effaustin."

Where AI and property law intersect; Arizona State University (ASU) News, April 5, 2024

 Dolores Tropiano, Arizona State University (ASU) News; Where AI and property law intersect

"Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that has the potential to be used to revolutionize education, creativity, everyday life and more.

But as society begins to harness this technology and its many uses — especially in the field of generative AI — there are growing ethical and copyright concerns for both the creative industry and legal sector.

Tyson Winarski is a professor of practice with the Intellectual Property Law program in Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. He teaches an AI and intellectual property module within the course Artificial Intelligence: Law, Ethics and Policy, taught by ASU Law Professor Gary Marchant.

“The course is extremely important for attorneys and law students,” Winarski said. “Generative AI is presenting huge issues in the area of intellectual property rights and copyrights, and we do not have definitive answers as Congress and the courts have not spoken on the issue yet.”"

Explainer: The Supreme Court, Fair Use and the Future of Protected Artistic Expression; Jurist, December 1, 2022

 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.'”"

BYU students compete to make new art out of old — and now copyright-free — works; The Salt Lake Tribune, February 2, 2020

Sean P. Means, The Salt Lake Tribune; BYU students compete to make new art out of old — and now copyright-free — works

"The entries in BYU’s second annual Public Domain Film and Music Festival will screen Wednesday, Feb. 5, at 7 p.m., at the Varsity Theater on the BYU campus. Admission is free.

The contest covers both film and music based on works whose copyright protection has lapsed. Musicians have a week to compose something based on public-domain music, and film crews of five or fewer have 48 hours to make a short film based on a public-domain book.

The contest is run by BYU’s Copyright Licensing Office, which secures licenses for copyrighted educational materials to be used by the university’s instructors, said Kenny Baldwin, the office’s director of operations.

The contest is a way to educate students about how copyright works, Baldwin said, and “inspire the community to embrace their own right as creators of creative content.”"

Disney lobbies Congress to change copyright laws; The Highlander, University of California Riverside, February 12, 2019

Robert Gold, University of California Riverside; Disney lobbies Congress to change copyright laws

"Copyright law is a tedious topic but it affects people in their daily lives."

To Boldly Go Where No Fan Production Has Gone Before; Slate, 7/13/16

Marissa Martinelli, Slate; To Boldly Go Where No Fan Production Has Gone Before:

"The issues at the heart of the Axanar case are complex—in addition to copyright infringement, CBS and Paramount are accusing the Axanar team of profiting from the production by paying themselves salaries, among other things. Abrams, who directed 2009’s Star Trek and 2013’s Star Trek Into Darkness, promised during a fan event back in May that the lawsuit would be going away at the behest of Justin Lin, the Beyond director who has sided, surprisingly, with Axanar over Paramount. But despite Abrams’ promise, the lawsuit rages on, and in the meantime, other Trekkie filmmakers have had to adapt. Federation Rising, the planned sequel to Horizon, pulled the plug before fundraising had even started, and Star Trek: Renegades, the follow-up to Of Gods and Men that raised more than $132,000 on Indiegogo, has dropped all elements of Star Trek from the production and is now just called Renegades. (Amusingly, this transition seems to have involved only slight tweaks, with the Federation becoming the Confederation, Russ’ character Tuvok becoming Kovok, and so on.) Other projects are stuck in limbo, waiting to hear from CBS whether they can boldly go forth with production—or whether this really does spell the end of the golden age of Star Trek fan films.

Axanar may very well have crossed a line, and CBS and Paramount are, of course, entitled to protect their properties. But in the process, they have suffocated, intentionally or otherwise, a robust and long-standing fan-fiction tradition, one that has produced remarkable labors of love like Star Trek Continues, which meticulously recreated the look and feel of the 1960s show, and an hourlong stop-motion film made by a German fan in tribute to Enterprise—a project almost eight years in the making. It’s a tradition that gave us web series like Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, which was exploring same-sex relationships in Star Trek well before the canon was ready to give us a mainstream, openly gay character."

A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000; Washington Post, 5/25/15

Jessica Contrera, Washington Post; A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000:

"This month, painter and photographer Richard Prince reminded us that what you post is public, and given the flexibility of copyright laws, can be shared — and sold — for anyone to see. As a part of the Frieze Art Fair in New York, Prince displayed giant screenshots of other people’s Instagram photos without warning or permission...

The collection, “New Portraits,” is primarily made up of pictures of women, many in sexually charged poses. They are not paintings, but screenshots that have been enlarged to 6-foot-tall inkjet prints. According to Vulture, nearly every piece sold for $90,000 each.

How is this okay?

First you should know that Richard Prince has been “re-photographing” since the 1970s. He takes pictures of photos in magazines, advertisements, books or actors’ headshots, then alters them to varying degrees. Often, they look nearly identical to the originals. This has of course, led to legal trouble. In 2008, French photographer Patrick Cariou sued Prince after he re-photographed Cariou’s images of Jamaica’s Rastafarian community. Although Cariou won at first, on appeal, the court ruled that Prince had not committed copyright infringement because his works were “transformative.”"

Q&A: Troubleshooting Video Problems in Facebook; New York Times, 10/26/12

J.D. Biersdorfer, New York Times; Q&A: Troubleshooting Video Problems in Facebook: "Q.I recently uploaded a video I had shot to Facebook. It took forever to finish uploading and I got a screen that said it was “processing” my file — but then the whole thing disappeared. What’s the deal? A.Check Facebook’s technical requirements for uploaded videos first to make sure your clip is in a compatible format. Although random technical difficulties on either end may have caused a problem with the file or the uploading process, Facebook does note that videos can be removed after uploading if they contain copyrighted material. This includes video clips copyrighted by other people or organizations that you may have uploaded."

Fair use for poets, demystified; BoingBoing.net, 1/29/11

Cory Doctorw, BoingBoing.net; Fair use for poets, demystified:

"Pat [Aufderheide] from American University's Center for Social Media sez, "We're excited to announce the launch of a Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Poetry, cofacilitated by WCL-AU's Peter Jaszi, UCB's Jennifer Urban, Kate Coles from the Poetry Foundation, and Center for Social Media's Pat Aufderheide. The hashtag is #fairusepoetry"

[Podcast] Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Public Imagination; On the Media, 1/14/11

[Podcast] On the Media; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Public Imagination:

"On August 28, 1963 Martin Luther King Jr. did what he’d done countless times before, he began building a sermon. And in his sermons King relied on improvisation - drawing on sources and references that were limited only by his imagination and memory. It’s a gift – and a tradition - on full display in the 'I Have A Dream' speech but it’s also in conflict with the intellectual property laws that have been strenuously used by his estate since his death. OTM producer Jamie York speaks with Drew Hansen, Keith Miller, Michael Eric Dyson and Lewis Hyde about King, imagination and the consequences of limiting access to art and ideas."

The 373-Hit Wonder; New York Times, 1/9/11

Zachary Lazar, New York Times; The 373-Hit Wonder:

"You might expect that Girl Talk’s success has made Gillis a legal target. His sound collages are radically different from their sources, far more than the sum of their parts, but to an entertainment lawyer they might look like a lawsuit. Or, in the words of Lawrence Lessig, author of “Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy,” “a gold mine.”

To secure permission to use the 373 samples on “All Day” would cost, Gillis estimates, millions of dollars. Some labels would refuse, others would draw him into endless negotiation. But he has never been sued. No one has ever asked him to stop doing what he’s doing. One of the acts he samples on “All Day,” the Toadies, proudly put a link to Girl Talk on their home page.

“We don’t realize how much the notion of creation has changed for people under the age of 25,” Lessig says. He suggests that in 20 years the sampling issue will seem “completely bizarre.”"

Selling Lessons Online Raises Cash and Questions; New York Times, 11/15/09

Winnie Hu, New York Times; Selling Lessons Online Raises Cash and Questions:

"Between Craigslist and eBay, the Internet is well established as a marketplace where one person’s trash is transformed into another’s treasure. Now, thousands of teachers are cashing in on a commodity they used to give away, selling lesson plans online for exercises as simple as M&M sorting and as sophisticated as Shakespeare.

While some of this extra money is going to buy books and classroom supplies in a time of tight budgets, the new teacher-entrepreneurs are also spending it on dinners out, mortgage payments, credit card bills, vacation travel and even home renovation, leading some school officials to raise questions over who owns material developed for public school classrooms.

“To the extent that school district resources are used, then I think it’s fair to ask whether the district should share in the proceeds,” said Robert N. Lowry, deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents.

The marketplace for educational tips and tricks is too new to have generated policies or guidelines in most places. In Fairfax County, Va., officials had been studying the issue when they discovered this fall that a former football coach was selling his playbook and instructional DVDs online for $197; they investigated but let him keep selling.

A high school English teacher in upstate New York said her bosses barred her from selling plans used in her classroom; she spoke on the condition that she not be named.

Beyond the unresolved legal questions, there are philosophical ones."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/education/15plans.html