Writers Guild AI Deal Pushes Studios Down New Copyright Path; Bloomberg Law, October 12, 2023

Kyle Jahner, Bloomberg Law; Writers Guild AI Deal Pushes Studios Down New Copyright Path

"Movie and television studios will have to monitor their use of AI in the script-writing process or face copyright complications following the recent deal with the screenwriters’ union.

Provisions restricting—in some scenarios banning—use of AI in content fed to writers are embedded among other aspects of the collective bargaining agreement with Hollywood studios ratified by Writers Guild of America members Monday, less than two weeks after governing boards of the writers’ union ended the nearly five-month strike. The WGA also secured the right to bar the use of writers’ material to train AI models."

Bizarre AI-generated products are in stores. Here’s how to avoid them.; The Washington Post, September 18, 2023

 Heather Kelly, The Washington Post; Bizarre AI-generated products are in stores. Here’s how to avoid them.

"Copyright and intellectual property issues around AI are still in the air...

The Authors Guild, which represents many authors whose work has been used to train AI tools, is asking for legislation and pushing companies to disclose when a book is written by AI...

“We see it as consumer protection, but it’s also a way to insulate the book marketplace because otherwise, you’ll just see an influx of AI-generated content on a platform like Kindle,” said Mary Rasenberger, chief executive of the Authors Guild. “It will take away from the market [demand] for human creative works.”

Rasenberger said that she doesn’t think AI can be held off forever and even sees a place for it as a useful tool for writers. The guild’s goal is to make sure AI is regulated, licensed and legitimate, with money going back to authors, she said."

Studios’ Offer to Writers May Lead to AI-Created Scripts That Are Copyrightable; The Hollywood Reporter, August 23, 2023

 Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter; Studios’ Offer to Writers May Lead to AI-Created Scripts That Are Copyrightable

"But missing from the proposal, which was described as meeting the “priority concerns” of the guild, is how the studios need writers to exploit any work created by AI under existing copyright laws. That’s because works solely created by AI are not copyrightable. To be granted protection, a human would need to rewrite any AI-produced script...

By keeping AI on the table, the studios may be looking to capitalize on the intellectual property rights around works created by the tools. “If a human touches material created by generative AI, then the typical copyright protections will kick in,” a source close to the AMPTP says...

The studios may be looking toward producing of AI-generated scripts, but copyright protection is only possible for those works if they are revised by human writers. Material created solely by AI would enter the public domain upon release, potentially restricting opportunities for exploitation."

Neal Adams, Comic Book Artist Who Revitalized Batman and Fought for Creators’ Rights, Dies at 80; The Hollywood Reporter, April 29, 2022

Borys Kit, The Hollywood Reporter; Neal Adams, Comic Book Artist Who Revitalized Batman and Fought for Creators’ Rights, Dies at 80

"Adams also worked tirelessly to promote better working conditions and, radically at the time, creators’ rights, especially for their work. He early on recognized the value of creators and was a thorn in the side of publishers, demanding compensation for himself and others when their characters were adapted off the page.

He, along with Stan Lee, formed the Academy of Comic Book Arts, hoping to start a union that would fight for benefits and ownership on behalf of writers and artists. Lee wanted an organization that was more akin to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and the two parted ways.

In the late ’70s, when a new federal work-for-hire law was being enshrined, Marvel and then editor-in-chief Jim Shooter distributed contracts that stated freelancers could not assert copyright over their creations. As detailed in Reisman’s 2021 Lee biography, True Believer, Adams sent around a copy of the contract, scrawling on top, “Do Not Sign This Contract! You Will Be Signing Your Life Away!” While it caused a ruckus and awareness, the effort didn’t have its intended effect as Marvel flexed its muscle and threatened anyone who tried to unionize with a drying up of the freelance well."

So Much TV, Too Little IP Yields Writers Rich Rewards; Variety, January 31, 2019

Elaine Low, Variety; So Much TV, Too Little IP Yields Writers Rich Rewards

"The sheer volume of television out there is changing how precious intellectual property is foraged, acquired and ultimately used."

New Life for Old Classics, as Their Copyrights Run Out; The New York Times, December 29, 2018

Alexandra Alter, The New York Times; New Life for Old Classics, as Their Copyrights Run Out

"This coming year marks the first time in two decades that a large body of copyrighted works will lose their protected status — a shift that will have profound consequences for publishers and literary estates, which stand to lose both money and creative control.

But it will also be a boon for readers, who will have more editions to choose from, and for writers and other artists who can create new works based on classic stories without getting hit with an intellectual property lawsuit...

 

Still, many scholars and legal experts argue that American copyright law, which is mind-numbingly complex, has skewed toward enriching companies and the heirs of writers and artists at the expense of the public. When the first Copyright Act was passed in the United States in 1790, the maximum term was 28 years. Over the decades, lawmakers repeatedly prolonged the terms, which now stretch to over a century for many works. “It’s worse than the tax code,” said Rebecca Tushnet, an intellectual property expert at Harvard Law School. “The copyright term is way too long now.”"

Library offers workshop ‘Copyright and Fair Use for Graduate Students’; University of Delaware, 9/28/16

UDaily Staff, University of Delaware; Library offers workshop ‘Copyright and Fair Use for Graduate Students’ :

"The University of Delaware Library is offering a Nov. 17 workshop on “Copyright and Fair Use for Graduate Students,” which will deal with the practical application of copyright law and its fair use provisions.

Considering copyright at the beginning of the research process will simplify the completion of the degree requirements for graduate students. Attendees will learn why and when copyright is important to scholars – researchers, writers and teachers – and these important skills:

• How to determine when permission is needed to use an excerpt or image;

• How to obtain permission; what to do when permission to use an image or excerpt cannot be obtained; and

• How to evaluate if fair use may be an appropriate defense for your use of material protected by copyright...

The workshop is available at no charge is open to University of Delaware faculty, staff and students."

Aaron Swartz and copyright wars in the Internet age; Boston Globe, 1/28/16

Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe; Aaron Swartz and copyright wars in the Internet age:

"Swartz is a particularly tragic casualty of a conflict as old as the Gutenberg Bible. When copycats can easily republish the latest Charles Dickens novel or Adele CD, how will artists and publishers get paid? But laws to protect intellectual-property rights can cripple the free exchange of ideas.

Justin Peters seems as helpless as the rest of us to resolve this dilemma. But in his lucid and witty new book, he ably sketches the contours of the dilemma...

Peters places Swartz’s well-meant misdeeds in historical context, showing how this young man was one of many smart, ambitious combatants on both sides of the copyright wars.

"I can’t fault Peters’s sympathy for Swartz, and I share his opinion that the prosecutorial sledgehammer fell much too hard. But Peters seems a little too inclined to play the populist, sneering at the pro-copyright arguments of publishers. Yes, our current intellectual property statutes are absurdly restrictive. But apart from strong protections, how would artists and writers hope to make a decent living?

The conundrum continues, with activists on both sides engaged in constant efforts to redraw the boundaries. Peters’s new book is an excellent survey of the battlefield, and a sobering memorial to its most tragic victim."

Steal This Book (for $9.99); The New York Times, 5/17/09

Motoko Rich via The New York Times; Steal This Book (for $9.99):

"Publishers are caught between authors who want to be paid high advances and consumers who believe they should pay less for a digital edition, largely because the publishers save on printing and shipping costs. But publishers argue that those costs, which generally run about 12.5 percent of the average hardcover retail list price, do not entirely disappear with e-books. What’s more, the costs of writing, editing and marketing remain the same...

The doomsday scenario for publishing is that the e-book versions cannibalize higher-price print sales...

Another possibility is that the cheaper prices for e-books entice consumers to buy more titles...

There is some precedent for that theory. When the smaller-format mass-market paperbacks that now populate airport bookstores and grocery checkout racks were introduced, publishers expressed fears that the lower-priced books might destroy the market for hardcovers. They didn’t. Instead, they expanded demand for books beyond elite readers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/weekinreview/17rich.html?scp=3&sq=e-books%20motoko%20rich&st=cse

Q & A: Making Use of Public Domain, New York Times, 11/19/08

Via New York Times: Q & A: Making Use of Public Domain:

"Q. What does it mean when a Web site says a picture or document is in the public domain? Does that mean I can use it for my own purposes?"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/technology/personaltech/20askk-001.html?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse