Music labels' AI lawsuits create copyright puzzle for courts; Reuters, August 4, 2024

Blake Brittain, Reuters; Music labels' AI lawsuits create copyright puzzle for courts

"Suno and Udio pointed to past public statements defending their technology when asked for comment for this story. They filed their initial responses in court on Thursday, denying any copyright violations and arguing that the lawsuits were attempts to stifle smaller competitors. They compared the labels' protests to past industry concerns about synthesizers, drum machines and other innovations replacing human musicians...

The labels' claims echo allegations by novelists, news outlets, music publishers and others in high-profile copyright lawsuits over chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude that use generative AI to create text. Those lawsuits are still pending and in their early stages.

Both sets of cases pose novel questions for the courts, including whether the law should make exceptions for AI's use of copyrighted material to create something new...

"Music copyright has always been a messy universe," said Julie Albert, an intellectual property partner at law firm Baker Botts in New York who is tracking the new cases. And even without that complication, Albert said fast-evolving AI technology is creating new uncertainty at every level of copyright law.

WHOSE FAIR USE?

The intricacies of music may matter less in the end if, as many expect, the AI cases boil down to a "fair use" defense against infringement claims - another area of U.S. copyright law filled with open questions."

‘The People’s Joker’ and the Perils of Playing With a Studio’s Copyright; The New York Times, April 1, 2024

 Eric Grode, The New York Times; ‘The People’s Joker’ and the Perils of Playing With a Studio’s Copyright

"The Joker may be the purview of DC Comics, not Marvel, but the fear of running afoul of copyright laws was no less of a concern.

“I kept myself very informed legally in terms of what qualifies as a parody and what fair use really is,” said Drew, referring to the legal doctrine that allows artists to use copyrighted material without permission or consequence depending on the circumstances. The “People’s Joker” poster calls it “A Fair Use Film by Vera Drew.”

Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School and an expert in fair use, said artistic works find themselves on safer legal ground when they comment on the original material in a transformative way.

“Favored use is critical in that it performs an interpretation,” said Tushnet, who has not seen the film but was willing to discuss it in the abstract. “A parody is the classic example, but it doesn’t have to be funny. If the metaphor that the Joker represents here is a different metaphor, then it might well fall under the category of transformative fair use."”

No Fair Use for Photo Used Without Required Attribution; The National Law Review, February 15, 2024

Timothy M. Dunker of McDermott Will & Emery, The National Law Review; No Fair Use for Photo Used Without Required Attribution

"The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the copyright on a photograph of an entertainment icon was the subject of a valid copyright registration and that use of the photograph in an article missing the author’s required attribution language was not otherwise “fair use.” Philpot v. Independent Journal Review, Case No. 21-2021 (4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2024) (King, Wynn, Rushing, JJ.)

Larry Philpot, a professional concert photographer, photographed Ted Nugent at a concert in July 2013. In August 2013, Philpot registered the photograph with the US Copyright Office and published the photograph on Wiki Commons under a Creative Commons License specifying that anyone could use the photograph for free as long as they provided the following attribution: “Photo Credit: Larry Philpot of www.soundstagephotography.com.”"

The Death of the Litmus Test; Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property Journal, December 20, 2023

Dale Cendali, Abbey Quigley , Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property Journal; The Death of the Litmus Test

Kat Von D Claims Miles Davis Tattoo Is ‘Fair Use’ at Unusual Copyright Trial; Rolling Stone, January 23, 2024

 NANCY DILLON, Rolling Stone; Kat Von D Claims Miles Davis Tattoo Is ‘Fair Use’ at Unusual Copyright Trial

"Jurors now hearing the case will have to decide whether Von D’s reproduction falls under the “fair use” doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission. Artistic representations of copyrighted work can be protected by fair use if they “transform” the subject work into something new, such as a parody, critique, or news report."

Copyright claim against Tolkien estate backfires on Lord of the Rings fanfiction author; The Guardian, December 18, 2023

 Safi Bugel, The Guardian; Copyright claim against Tolkien estate backfires on Lord of the Rings fanfiction author

"A Lord of the Rings fanfiction writer has lost a copyright lawsuit over the publication of his own sequel to the much-loved series after opening up a counterproductive legal battle against JRR Tolkien’s estate."

Scraping or Stealing? A Legal Reckoning Over AI Looms; Hollywood Reporter, August 22, 2023

Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter ; Scraping or Stealing? A Legal Reckoning Over AI Looms

"Engineers build AI art generators by feeding AI systems, known as large language models, voluminous databases of images downloaded from the internet without licenses. The artists’ suit revolves around the argument that the practice of feeding these systems copyrighted works constitutes intellectual property theft. A finding of infringement in the case may upend how most AI systems are built in the absence of regulation placing guardrails around the industry. If the AI firms are found to have infringed on any copyrights, they may be forced to destroy datasets that have been trained on copyrighted works. They also face stiff penalties of up to $150,000 for each infringement.

AI companies maintain that their conduct is protected by fair use, which allows for the utilization of copyrighted works without permission as long as that use is transformative. The doctrine permits unlicensed use of copyrighted works under limited circumstances. The factors that determine whether a work qualifies include the purpose of the use, the degree of similarity, and the impact of the derivative work on the market for the original. Central to the artists’ case is winning the argument that the AI systems don’t create works of “transformative use,” defined as when the purpose of the copyrighted work is altered to create something with a new meaning or message."

Prosecraft has infuriated authors by using their books without consent – but what does copyright law say?; The Conversation, August 9, 2023

Dilan Thampapillai Associate Professor, University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney , The Conversation; Prosecraft has infuriated authors by using their books without consent – but what does copyright law say?

"In amending its laws, Australia legislated that parody or satire could form the basis of a fair dealing exception. A specific transformative use exception was not created. 

So, it is significantly less clear as to whether the use contemplated by Prosecraft or Shaxpir would be considered fair dealing in Australia. 

Australia has either missed a trick or dodged a bullet by failing to include transformative use as a fair dealing exception. It depends where you stand in the ongoing conflict between AI tech and human authors. But Australia’s laws are less AI-friendly than the US.

For the moment, published human authors are banking on the idea that if they can knock out the shadow library, they can hobble the reach of AI tech."

AI learned from their work. Now they want compensation.; The Washington Post, July 16, 2023

 Gerrit De Vynck, The Washington Post; AI learned from their work. Now they want compensation.

"Artists say the livelihoods of millions of creative workers are at stake, especially because AI tools are already being used to replace some human-made work. Mass scraping of art, writing and movies from the web for AI training is a practice creators say they never considered or consented to.

But in public appearances and in responses to lawsuits, the AI companies have argued that the use of copyrighted works to train AI falls under fair use — a concept in copyright law that creates an exception if the material is changed in a “transformative” way."

Commentary: Warhol decision’s implications for creators, artists; Minnesota Lawyer, June 16, 2023

 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:

• If you have current works that are protected under copyright law, keep your eyes peeled for potentially infringing works. Speak with an experienced intellectual property attorney to see if you may have a valid infringement claim.
• If you build off of other creator’s work to create your own, speak to an intellectual property attorney who will walk you through the four factors of the Fair Use Doctrine and help determine if your work could be considered infringement and open you up to potential liability."

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."

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."

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."

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."