Kyle Jahner , Bloomberg Law; ABC, Kimmel Defeat George Santos Cameo Video Copyright Suit
"Jimmy Kimmel and ABC defeated former Rep. George Santos’ copyright lawsuit as a New York federal court found use of his Cameo videos on television constituted fair use."
MATT O’BRIEN, AP; Authors sue Claude AI chatbot creator Anthropic for copyright infringement
"A group of authors is suing artificial intelligence startup Anthropic, alleging it committed “large-scale theft” in training its popular chatbot Claude on pirated copies of copyrighted books.
While similar lawsuits have piled up for more than a year against competitor OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT, this is the first from writers to target Anthropic and its Claude chatbot.
The smaller San Francisco-based company — founded by ex-OpenAI leaders — has marketed itself as the more responsible and safety-focused developer of generative AI models that can compose emails, summarize documents and interact with people in a natural way...
The lawsuit was brought by a trio of writers — Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson — who are seeking to represent a class of similarly situated authors of fiction and nonfiction...
What links all the cases is the claim that tech companies ingested huge troves of human writings to train AI chatbots to produce human-like passages of text, without getting permission or compensating the people who wrote the original works. The legal challenges are coming not just from writers but visual artists, music labels and other creators who allege that generative AI profits have been built on misappropriation...
But the lawsuit against Anthropic accuses it of using a dataset called The Pile that included a trove of pirated books. It also disputes the idea that AI systems are learning the way humans do."
The Law Journal Editorial Board via Law.com; New ABA Rules on AI and Ethics Shows the Technology Is 'New Wine in Old Bottles'
On July 29, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 512 on generative artificial intelligence tools. The opinion follows on such opinions and guidance from several state bar associations, as well as similar efforts by non-U.S. bars and regulatory bodies around the world...
Focused on GAI, the opinion addresses six core principles: competence, confidentiality, communication, meritorious claims and candor to tribunal, supervision and fees...
What is not commonly understood, perhaps, is that GAI “hallucinates,” and generates content...
Not addressed in the opinion is whether GAI is engaged in the practice of law...
At the ABA annual meeting, representatives of more than 20 “foreign” bars participated in a roundtable on GAI. In a world of cross-border practice, there was a desire for harmonization."
Jonathan Limehouse, USA TODAY; The beats go on: Trump keeps dancing as artists get outraged over his use of their songs
"Here are some of the songs that have created issues for Trump on the campaign trail, and how music copyright laws impact these claims."
, Forbes; UC Berkeley Law School To Offer Advanced Law Degree Focused On AI
"The University of California, Berkeley School of Law has announced that it will offer what it’s calling “the first-ever law degree with a focus on artificial intelligence (AI).” The new AI-focused Master of Laws (LL.M.) program is scheduled to launch in summer 2025.
The program, which will award an AI Law and Regulation certificate for students enrolled in UC Berkeley Law’s LL.M. executive track, is designed for working professionals and can be completed over two summers or through remote study combined with one summer on campus...
According to Assistant Law Dean Adam Sterling, the curriculum will cover topics such as AI ethics, the fundamentals of AI technology, and current and future efforts to regulate AI. “This program will equip participants with in-depth knowledge of the ethical, regulatory, and policy challenges posed by AI,” Sterling added. “It will focus on building practice skills to help them advise and represent leading law firms, AI companies, governments, and non-profit organizations.”"
Reuters via The Guardian , The Guardian; Kim Dotcom to be extradited from New Zealand to US
"As well as copyright infringement, Dotcom faces more serious charges, including money laundering and racketeering. He has long argued that he should not be held liable for copyright infringement carried out using his site, a filesharing service that allowed users to upload content and share the link with others to download."
Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter; Artists Score Major Win in Copyright Case Against AI Art Generators
"Artists suing generative artificial intelligence art generators have cleared a major hurdle in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit over the uncompensated and unauthorized use of billions of images downloaded from the internet to train AI systems, with a federal judge allowing key claims to move forward.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick on Monday advanced all copyright infringement and trademark claims in a pivotal win for artists. He found that Stable Diffusion, Stability’s AI tool that can create hyperrealistic images in response to a prompt of just a few words, may have been “built to a significant extent on copyrighted works” and created with the intent to “facilitate” infringement. The order could entangle in the litigation any AI company that incorporated the model into its products."
O'Dell Isaac , The Gazette; Pueblo artist seeking copyright protection for AI-generated work
"“We’re done with the Copyright Office,” he said. “Now we’re going into the court system.”
Allen said he believes his case raises two essential questions: What is art? And if a piece doesn’t belong to the artist, whom does it belong to?
Tara Thomas, director of the Bemis School of Arts at Colorado College, said the answers may not be clear-cut.
“There was a similar debate at the beginning of photography,” Thomas said. "Was it the camera, or was it the person taking the photos? Is the camera the artmaker, or is it a tool?”
Allen said it took more than two decades for photography to gain acceptance as an art form.
“We’re at a similar place in AI art,” he said.
“Right now, there is a massive stigma surrounding AI, far more so than there was with photography, so the challenge is much steeper. It is that very stigma that is contributing to the stifling of innovation. Why would anybody want to incorporate AI art into their workflow if they knew they couldn’t protect their work?”"
Lance Yarlott, a passionate musician, shared his thoughts on the matter...
His band prepared for their last rehearsal before recording in a studio on Middle Tennessee State University’s campus. Many songs come to life in a recording studio, however, they are no longer the only option.
There's been a surge of people using AI song generators from start-up companies like Suno and Udio...
MTSU copyright law professor and entertainment attorney Denise Shackelford explained the legal issues...
This year, Tennessee became the first state to protect musicians and other artists against AI, thanks to the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, or ELVIS Act for short."
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."
Mike Isaac and Nicole Sperling , The New York Times; Meta in Talks to Use Voices of Judi Dench, Awkwafina and Others for A.I.
"Meta is in discussions with Awkwafina, Judi Dench and other actors and influencers for the right to incorporate their voices into a digital assistant product called MetaAI, according to three people with knowledge of the talks, as the company pushes to build more products that feature artificial intelligence.
Apart from Ms. Dench and Awkwafina, Meta is in talks with the comedian Keegan-Michael Key and other celebrities, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions are private. They added that all of Hollywood’s top talent agencies were involved in negotiations with the tech giant."
Diana Kwon , Nature; AI is complicating plagiarism. How should scientists respond?
"From accusations that led Harvard University’s president to resign in January, to revelations in February of plagiarized text in peer-review reports, the academic world has been roiled by cases of plagiarism this year.
But a bigger problem looms in scholarly writing. The rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools — which create text in response to prompts — has raised questions about whether this constitutes plagiarism and under what circumstances it should be allowed. “There’s a whole spectrum of AI use, from completely human-written to completely AI-written — and in the middle, there’s this vast wasteland of confusion,” says Jonathan Bailey, a copyright and plagiarism consultant based in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, which are based on algorithms known as large language models (LLMs), can save time, improve clarity and reduce language barriers. Many researchers now argue that they are permissible in some circumstances and that their use should be fully disclosed.
But such tools complicate an already fraught debate around the improper use of others’ work. LLMs are trained to generate text by digesting vast amounts of previously published writing. As a result, their use could result in something akin to plagiarism — if a researcher passes off the work of a machine as their own, for instance, or if a machine generates text that is very close to a person’s work without attributing the source. The tools can also be used to disguise deliberately plagiarized text, and any use of them is hard to spot. “Defining what we actually mean by academic dishonesty or plagiarism, and where the boundaries are, is going to be very, very difficult,” says Pete Cotton, an ecologist at the University of Plymouth, UK."
Bruce Haring, Deadline; AI Startup Suno Claims “Fair Use” Copyright Doctrine Allows Training On Major Recordings
"Suno CEO and co-founder Mikey Shulman amplified that stance in a blog post today. “We train our models on medium- and high-quality music we can find on the open internet… Much of the open internet indeed contains copyrighted materials, and some of it is owned by major record labels.”
Schulman said such use is viewed by Suno as “early but promising progress. Major record labels see this vision as a threat to their business.” He added, “learning is not infringing. It never has been, and it is not now.”
Shulman also argued that training its AI model from data on the “open internet” is no different than a “kid writing their own rock songs after listening to the genre.”
The RIAA responded “It’s a major concession of facts they spent months trying to hide and acknowledged only when forced by a lawsuit. Their industrial scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use’. There’s nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals…Their vision of the ‘future of music’ is apparently one in which fans will no longer enjoy music by their favorite artists because those artists can no longer earn a living.”"
Aaron West, The Fashion Law; How OpenAI is Looking to Beat the Growing Pool of Copyright Cases
"The recent barrage of copyright infringement disputes that are being waged against OpenAI and Microsoft by major publishers, authors, and other plaintiffs continues to stack up, with various outcomes coming in early rounds from district courts. While most of the cases that the artificial intelligence (“AI”) company and its chief investor are facing are still in early stages, at least one major theme has started to emerge from the litigation: The two high-powered defendants are leaning on a defense that paints the plaintiffs’ claims as stemming from their manipulation of the AI-powered platforms at play – and thus, prompting allegedly unlikely and hypothetical outputs – and the harm they allege in their infringement cases as purely speculative."
Devin Coldewey, TechCrunch; Copyright Office tells Congress: ‘Urgent need’ to outlaw AI-powered impersonation
"The U.S. Copyright Office has issued the first part of a report on how AI may affect its domain, and its first recommendation out of the gate is: we need a new law right away to define and combat AI-powered impersonation
“It has become clear that the distribution of unauthorized digital replicas poses a serious threat not only in the entertainment and political arenas but also for private citizens,” said the agency’s director Shira Perlmutter in a statement accompanying the report. “We believe there is an urgent need for effective nationwide protection against the harms that can be caused to reputations and livelihoods.”
The report itself, part one of several to come, focuses on this timely aspect of AI and intellectual property, which as a concept encompasses your right to control your own identity."
, Forbes; Who Guards AI Ethics? Ending The Blame Game
"As AI becomes increasingly sophisticated and ubiquitous, a critical question has emerged: Who bears the responsibility for ensuring its ethical development and implementation?
According to a recent survey by Prosper Insights & Analytics, about 37% of US adults agree AI solutions need human oversight. However, corporations and governments are engaging in a frustrating game of hot potato, each pointing fingers and shirking accountability. This lack of clear responsibility poses significant risks.
On one hand, excessive government control and overregulation could stifle innovation, hindering AI's progress and potential to solve complex problems. Conversely, unchecked corporate influence and a lack of proper oversight could result in an "AI Wild West," where profit-driven motives supersede ethical considerations. This could result in biased algorithms, privacy breaches and the exacerbation of social inequalities."
U.S. Copyright Office; Copyright Office Releases Part 1 of Artificial Intelligence Report, Recommends Federal Digital Replica Law
"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office is releasing Part 1 of its Report on the legal and policy issues related to copyright and artificial intelligence (AI), addressing the topic of digital replicas. This Part of the Report responds to the proliferation of videos, images, or audio recordings that have been digitally created or manipulated to realistically but falsely depict an individual. Given the gaps in existing legal protections, the Office recommends that Congress enact a new federal law that protects all individuals from the knowing distribution of unauthorized digital replicas. The Office also offers recommendations on the elements to be included in crafting such a law.
“I am pleased to begin sharing the results of our comprehensive study of AI and copyright, with this first set of recommendations to Congress. It has become clear that the distribution of unauthorized digital replicas poses a serious threat not only in the entertainment and political arenas but also for private citizens. We believe there is an urgent need for effective nationwide protection against the harms that can be caused to reputations and livelihoods,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. “We look forward to working with Congress as they consider our recommendations and evaluate future developments.”
In early 2023, the Copyright Office announced a broad initiative to explore the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence. Since then, the Office has issued registration guidance for works incorporating AI-generated content, hosted public listening sessions and webinars, met with numerous experts and stakeholders, published a notice of inquiry seeking input from the public, and reviewed the more than 10,000 responsive comments.
The Report is being released in several Parts, beginning today. Forthcoming Parts will address the copyrightability of materials created in whole or in part by generative AI, the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, licensing considerations, and the allocation of any potential liability.
For more information about the Copyright Office’s AI Initiative, please visit the website."
According to reports published last week, the authors of the content do not appear to have been asked or even informed about the deal. What’s more, they say they had no opportunity to opt out of the deal, and will not see any money from it...
The types of agreements being reached between academic publishers and AI companies have sparked bigger-picture concerns for many academics. Do we want scholarly research to be reduced to content for AI knowledge mining? There are no clear answers about the ethics and morals of such practices."
Lisa Macpherson , Public Knowledge; The COPIED Act Is an End Run around Copyright Law
"Over the past week, there has been a flurry of activity related to the Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media (COPIED) Act. While superficially focused on helping people understand when they are looking at content that has been created or altered using artificial intelligence (AI) tools, this overly broad bill makes an end run around copyright law and restricts how everyone – not just huge AI developers – can use copyrighted work as the basis of new creative expression.
The COPIED Act was introduced in the Senate two weeks ago by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA, and Chair of the Commerce Committee); Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); and Martin Heinrich (D-NM). By the end of last week, we learned there may be a hearing and markup on the bill within days or weeks. The bill directs agency action on standards for detecting and labeling synthetic content; requires AI developers to allow the inclusion of these standards on content; and prohibits the use of such content to generate new content or train AI models without consent and compensation from creators. It allows for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, and for private rights of action.
We want to say unequivocally that this is the wrong bill, at the wrong time, from the wrong policymakers, to address complex questions of copyright and generative artificial intelligence."
Jill Jacobson , The Federalist Society; Who Owns the Law? The Pro Codes Act’s Copyright Conundrum
"Voluntary consensus standards have become an essential but unseen part of everyday life. From ensuring your apartment building’s elevator is safe to enabling your router to get online, privately developed standards greatly impact modern life. A bill quietly percolating in Congress may impact this typically quiet intersection of law, policy, and regulation. The Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act (“Pro Codes Act” (H.R. 1631)) permits standards development organizations (SDOs) to retain copyright protection when their standards are incorporated by reference into law, so long as they make a free version of the code available online. I take no position on this legislation and acknowledge the thoughtful arguments on both sides of this debate. I instead write to highlight how this below-the-radar legislation raises interesting and unintended intellectual property and takings issues with potentially far-reaching consequences.
The key players here are SDOs—typically private groups of industry experts who draft technical standards. Given the expertise that goes into drafting these standards, local, state, and federal governments often incorporate them into regulations by reference. Often, SDOs do not write standards for government use; many standards are authored for private sector guidance. Many SDOs derive significant revenues from licensing or selling copies of the standards. For example, many standards are only available for private viewing behind paywalls. However, government agencies may incorporate these same standards into regulations without the SDOs’ knowledge or consent. This creates tension between SDOs’ understandable wish to be compensated for the fruits of their labor and the regulated public’s need for open access to these standards.
SDOs also face uncertainty about whether the government edicts doctrine—which denies copyright protection to works created by government officials—extends to private entities’ work when it is incorporated into government regulations. At least some cases suggest it may. As the D.C. Circuit stated in American Society for Testing and Materials v. Public.Resource.Org, legal text “falls plainly outside the realm of copyright protection.”
On the surface, the Pro Codes Act aims to strike a fair balance between competing concerns over fair compensation and public access."
J. D. WRIGHT, University of Pittsburgh University Times ; Teaching and the Legal Landscape: Primer on the Fair Use Doctrine in copyright law
"As the fall semester hurtles toward us, along with decisions about what readings and other materials we’ll assign as homework or present in class, think about the implications of posting copyrighted works on Canvas or presenting them in class. What is acceptable, and what trespasses beyond permissible bounds? Considerations like these are ripe for exploration as we engage in the regular ritual of preparing courses for a new term.
Our question is: Does the Fair Use Doctrine exempt a copyrighted work from the general rule requiring rights-holder approval before someone else can distribute that content?
Applying U.S. intellectual property law, including the Fair Use Doctrine, can be a maddeningly fact-specific process that makes broad generalizations incomplete, unreliable, or even dangerous. However, we can outline some basic principles and a set of steps to follow as you make important decisions about what to redistribute or duplicate—and what not to. In close cases, play it safe or seek legal guidance; this article provides background and context, not legal advice."
Clay Walker, The Daily Beast; Philip Glass Says Crimean Theater Is Using His Music Without Permission
"Legendary American composer Philip Glass had some harsh words after learning that a theater in Russian-annexed Crimea plans to use his music and name as part of a new show. In a letter posted to X, Glass explained that he had learned a new ballet called Wuthering Heights is set to open at the Sevastopol Opera and Ballet Theater—using works he had penned without his consent. “No permission for the use of my music in the ballet or the use of my name in the advertising and promotion of the ballet was ever requested of me or given by me. The use of my music and the use of my name without my consent is in violation of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic works to which the Russian Federation is a signatory. It is an act of piracy,” Glass wrote."
MATT GROWCOOT, PetaPixel; Data Owners Are Increasingly Blocking AI Companies From Using Their IP
"Training data for generative AI models like Midjourney and ChatGPT is beginning to dry up, according to a new study.
The world of artificial intelligence moves fast. While court cases attempt to decide whether using copyrighted text, images, and video to train AI models is “fair use”, as tech companies argue, those same firms are already running out of new data to harvest.
As generative AI has proliferated and become well-known, there has been a well-documented backlash and many have taken action by denying access to their online data — including photographers.
An MIT research group led the study which looked at 14,000 web domains that are included in three major AI training data sets.
The study, published by the Data Provenance System, discovered an “emerging crisis in consent” as online publishers pull up the drawbridge by not giving permission to AI crawlers.
The researchers looked at the C4, RefineWeb, and Dolma data sets and found that five percent of all the data is now restricted. But that number jumps to 25 percent when looking at the highest-quality sources. Generative AI needs a good caliber of data to produce good models."
Sam Altman, The Washington Post; Who will control the future of AI?
"Who will control the future of AI?
That is the urgent question of our time. The rapid progress being made on artificial intelligence means that we face a strategic choice about what kind of world we are going to live in: Will it be one in which the United States and allied nations advance a global AI that spreads the technology’s benefits and opens access to it, or an authoritarian one, in which nations or movements that don’t share our values use AI to cement and expand their power?"
Kevin Roose , The New York Times; The Data That Powers A.I. Is Disappearing Fast
"For years, the people building powerful artificial intelligence systems have used enormous troves of text, images and videos pulled from the internet to train their models.
Now, that data is drying up.
Over the past year, many of the most important web sources used for training A.I. models have restricted the use of their data, according to a study published this week by the Data Provenance Initiative, an M.I.T.-led research group.
The study, which looked at 14,000 web domains that are included in three commonly used A.I. training data sets, discovered an “emerging crisis in consent,” as publishers and online platforms have taken steps to prevent their data from being harvested.
The researchers estimate that in the three data sets — called C4, RefinedWeb and Dolma — 5 percent of all data, and 25 percent of data from the highest-quality sources, has been restricted. Those restrictions are set up through the Robots Exclusion Protocol, a decades-old method for website owners to prevent automated bots from crawling their pages using a file called robots.txt."
, Forbes; What Is The Future Of Intellectual Property In A Generative AI World?
"Taking a More Sophisticated and Nuanced Approach to GenAI IP Issues
Clearly we’re at a crossroads when it comes to intellectual property and the answers aren’t cut and dry. Simply preventing IP protection of AI-generated works might not be possible if AI systems are used in any significant portion of the creation process. Likewise, prohibiting AI systems from making use of pre-existing IP-protected works might be a Pandora’s box we can’t close. We need to find new approaches that balance the ability to use AI tools as part of the creation process with IP protection of both existing works and the outputs of GenAI systems.
This means a more sophisticated and nuanced approach to clarifying the legal status of data used in AI training and developing mechanisms to ensure that AI-generated outputs respect existing IP rights, while still providing protection for creative outputs that have involved significant elements of human creativity in curation and prompting, even if the outputs are transformative recombinations of training data. Clearly we’re in the early days of the continued evolution of what intellectual property means."
Lakshmi Varanasi , Business Insider; This might be the most important job in AI
"Generative AI can hallucinate, spread misinformation, and reinforce biases against marginalized groups if it's not managed properly. Given that the technology relies on volumes of sensitive data, the potential for data breaches is also high. At worst, though, there's the danger that the more sophisticated it becomes, the less likely it is to align with human values.
With great power, then, comes great responsibility, and companies that make money from generative AI must also ensure they regulate it.
That's where a chief ethics officer comes in...
Those who are successful in the role ideally have four areas of expertise, according to Mills. They should have a technical grasp over generative AI, experience building and deploying products, an understanding of the major laws and regulations around AI, and significant experience hiring and making decisions at an organization."
Scott M. Douglass and Dominic Rota, Baker Donelson ; The Fast-Moving Race Between Gen-AI and Copyright Law
"It is still an open question whether plaintiffs will succeed in showing that use of copyrighted works to train generative AI constitutes copyright infringement and be able to overcome the fair use defense or succeed in showing that generative AI developers are removing CMI in violation of the DMCA.
The government has made some moves in the past few months to resolve these issues. The U.S. Copyright Office started an inquiry in August 2023, seeking public comments on copyright law and policy issues raised by AI systems, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a new bill in April 2024, that would require people creating a training dataset for a generative AI system to submit to the Register of Copyrights a detailed summary of any copyrighted works used in training. These initiatives will most likely take some time, meaning that currently pending litigation is vitally important for defining copyright law as it applies to generative AI.
Recent licensing deals with news publishers appear to be anywhere from $1 million to $60 million per year, meaning that AI companies will have to pay an enormous amount to license all the copyrighted works necessary to train their generative AI models effectively. However, as potential damages in a copyright infringement case could be billions of dollars, as claimed by Getty Images and other plaintiffs, developers of generative AI programs should seriously consider licensing any copyrighted works used as training data."
, Forbes; The Media Industry’s Race To License Content For AI
"AI content licensing initiatives abound. More and more media companies have reached license agreements with AI companies individually. Several startups have formed to aggregate content into large collections for AI platforms to license in one-stop shopping arrangements known in the jargon as blanket licenses. There are now so many such startups that last month they formed a trade association—the Dataset Providers Alliance—to organize them for advocacy.
Ironically, the growing volume of all this activity could jeopardize its value for copyright owners and AI platforms alike.
It will take years before the panoply of lawsuits yield any degree of clarity in the legal rules for copyright in the AI age; we’re in the second year of what is typically a decade-long process for copyright laws to adapt to disruptive technologies. One reason for copyright owners to organize now to provide licenses for AI is that—as we’ve learned from analogous situations in the past—both courts and Congress will consider is how easy it is for the AI companies to license content properly in determining whether licensing is required."
Cody Mello-Klein, Northeastern Global News; Can Donald Trump or Joe Biden play whatever music they want at a rally or convention? Legal expert says it’s more complicated
"It turns out that what music gets played at a political rally or campaign event involves more consideration –– and legal know-how –– than you might think. It’s an area where the law, performing arts and politics intersect in sometimes uncomfortable ways, particularly for a politician like Trump, who has an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to listing musicians who oppose his use of their music.
So, what rights do politicians have when it comes to playing music during rallies, conventions or campaign events? The answer, says Alexandra Roberts, a professor of law and media at Northeastern University, is a little complicated."
Mike Murphy, IBM Research; IBM reaffirms its commitment to the Rome Call for AI ethics
"There have been moments throughout history where the impacts of a new technology have been world-altering. Perhaps this is why the Vatican, along with leaders from most major religions across the world, chose to host a gathering to discuss the implications for future development of AI in Hiroshima, Japan.
Last year, representatives from the Abrahamic religions came together at the Vatican to sign the Rome Call for AI Ethics, which IBM first signed with other industry and government leaders when it was launched by the Vatican in 2020. It's a document where the signatories committed to pursue an ethical approach to AI development and promote the human-centric and inclusive development of AI, rather than replacing humanity.
At Hiroshima this year, the Rome Call was signed by representatives of many of the great Eastern religions, and past signees like IBM reaffirmed their commitment."
Ed Nawotka , Publishers Weekly; CCC Launches Collective Licensing for AI
"Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) has launched a collective licensing solution for the internal use of copyrighted materials in AI systems. The new service, which became available July 1, is an addition to CCC's existing Annual Copyright Licenses (ACL) service and aims to provide a streamlined method for companies to access a consistent set of rights across multiple rightsholders, while ensuring compensation for content creators...
Lauren Tulloch, VP and managing director of CCC, clarified that the license covers internal, not public, use of the copyrighted materials. “Use cases could include people doing article summarization, literature review, and market surveillance,” Tulloch said...
While there has been progress with direct licenses in the past two years since the introduction of AI, and all publishing companies are employing AI internally, a general solution has been lacking.
CCCs solution aims to go some way toward rectifying the situation. “We now have a situation where you can litigate, legislate or license,” Armstrong said. “Litigating can take years, legislating can take decades, a quarter of a century in some cases…licensing is efficient, effective and time tested.”"
KYODO NEWS ; Japanese media say AI search infringes copyright, urge legal reform
"Artificial intelligence-powered search engines provided by U.S. tech giants like Google LLC and Microsoft Corp. likely infringe on copyright, an association run by Japanese mass media said Wednesday.
The Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association, in a statement, called for companies operating such services to obtain consent from news organizations as search responses often resemble articles that are sourced without permission.
The association analyzed that AI search engines sometimes return inaccurate responses as they inappropriately reuse or modify articles and stressed that the companies should ensure the accuracy and reliability of their services before launch.
The association also urged the Japanese government to review and revise laws related to intellectual property, such as the copyright act, as a matter of urgency."
