Washington Post staff , The Washington Post; Post owner Bezos announces shift in opinions section; Shipley to leave
"What readers are saying
Issues and developments related to IP, AI, and OM, examined in the IP and tech ethics graduate courses I teach at the University of Pittsburgh School of Computing and Information. My Bloomsbury book "Ethics, Information, and Technology" will be published in January 2026 and includes chapters on IP, AI, OM, and other emerging technologies (IoT, drones, robots, autonomous vehicles, VR/AR). Kip Currier, PhD, JD
Washington Post staff , The Washington Post; Post owner Bezos announces shift in opinions section; Shipley to leave
"What readers are saying
The Ink; Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, just sent out this email of total submission.
[Kip Currier: Nail by nail by nail by nail, the three richest persons on the planet -- Elon Musk (Twitter/X), Jeff Bezos (Amazon/Washington Post), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta/Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp/Threads) -- are erecting barriers to information and solidifying control of their versions of information.
Note what Bezos, in part, wrote today:
"We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We'll cover other topics too, of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others."
Point 1: Bezos's prior conduct tells us that he will decide how the two pillars of "personal liberties" and "free markets" are defined. That's censorship of ideas and free expression.
Point 2: Bezos will determine the parameters of "viewpoints opposing those pillars". That's also censorship of free speech.
Point 3: Bezos downplays the time-honored tradition of U.S. newspapers providing "a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views" by stating that "Today, the internet does that job." This is an abject abandonment of the historical role of one of the nation's foremost papers of record; indeed, the very newspaper that exposed the Watergate scandal that brought down the presidency of Richard Nixon. Bezos knows, too, that the internet is rife with misinformation and disinformation. A chief reason that readers seek out creditable, trusted news providers like The Washington Post is the expectation of fact-checking and responsible curation of opinions and facts. Bezos's statement amounts to disingenuous dissembling and the ceding of responsibility to the Internet and social media, which he well knows are highly flawed information ecosystems.
Point 4: Bezos states later that "freedom is ethical". But freedom always comes with ethics-grounded responsibilities. Nowhere in Bezos's statement does he talk about ethical responsibilities to truthfulness, free speech, accountability, transparency, the public/common good, constitutional checks and balances, or the rule of law, all of which are integral to informed citizenries and functioning democracies.
Bezos's actions and viewpoints are antithetical to free and independent presses like The Washington Post, as well as to the core principles of one of the world's oldest democracies.]
[Excerpt]
"Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, just sent out this email of total submission.
Bezos appears to have misread Timothy Snyder’s advice “Do not obey in advance” as “Obey in advance,” missing a couple words."
Martyn Landi, Independent; UK newspapers launch campaign against AI copyright plans
"Some of the UK’s biggest newspapers have used a coordinated campaign across their front pages to raise their concerns about AI’s impact on the creative industries.
Special wraps appeared on Tuesday’s editions of the Daily Express, Daily Mail, The Mirror, the Daily Star, The i, The Sun, and The Times – as well as a number of regional titles – criticising a Government consultation around possible exemptions being added to copyright law for training AI models.
The proposals would allow tech firms to use copyrighted material from creatives and publishers without having to pay or gain a licence, or reimbursing creatives for using their work."
Sam Tabahriti, Reuters; Musicians release silent album to protest UK's AI copyright changes
"More than 1,000 musicians, including Kate Bush and Cat Stevens, on Tuesday released a silent album to protest proposed changes to Britain's copyright laws, which could allow tech firms to train artificial intelligence models using their work."
Stacey M. Lantagne, JETLaw (The Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law); Goncharov (1973), Internet Folklore, and Corporate Copyright
"Goncharov (1973) is a meme, which is a term broadly used to refer to a species of viral internet creativity. Memes can be many different things, but Goncharov is an especially rich, complex, collaborative, and mutating one. It revolves around a movie that does not exist. Goncharov is a fictional Martin Scorsese film that the internet collectively pretends was produced in 1973. Over the course of a few feverish weeks in the fall of 2022, social media users, with no coordination and without knowledge of each other or the overall project, created a cast, storyline, soundtrack, reviews, fanfiction, and a promotional poster. And they did it all for free. Actually, they did it all for fun—a concept foreign to copyright law’s idea of what drives creativity.
This Article uses Goncharov to illustrate how copyright law doctrines have developed to support a narrow, corporate conception of copyright. Copyright law depends heavily on an understanding of creativity as an economic venture mediated by contractual relationships. Sprawling collaborative and unmonetized memes like the Goncharov meme sit uneasily in the system because they are likely uncopyrightable as a type of folklore. However, positioning a meme like Goncharov as the equivalent of public domain folklore leaves it vulnerable to financial exploitation. This Article uses the vehicle of Goncharov to ask whether such a result is what copyright law should support, or whether we should rethink how we treat the new traditional knowledge being developed daily by our creative culture. This Article argues that copyright law dangerously focuses attention on a very small slice of human creativity, leaving vast amounts of creativity devalued as undeserving of legal protection. This hierarchy paints a watered-down picture of creativity. Creativity, as can be seen just in the single example of the Goncharov meme, is so much more complex, multi-faceted, unpredictable, and interesting than current copyright law posits. As we prepare to grapple with machine-generated creativity that may challenge copyright assumptions, we should not forget the vast swaths of human creativity that also challenge those assumptions.
Andy Behring , Daily Mail; Copyright 'sell-out' will silence British musicians, says BRIAN MAY
"No one will make music in Britain any more if Labour's AI copyright proposal succeeds, Sir Brian May warned last night as he backed the Daily Mail's campaign against it.
The Queen guitarist said he feared it may already be 'too late' because 'monstrously arrogant' Big Tech barons have already carried out an industrial-scale 'theft' of Britain's cultural genius.
He called on the Government to apply the brakes before the next chapter of Britain's rich cultural heritage – which includes Shakespeare, Chaucer, James Bond, The Beatles and Britpop – is nipped in the bud thanks to Sir Keir Starmer's copyright 'sell-out'...
Sir Brian said: 'My fear is that it's already too late – this theft has already been performed and is unstoppable, like so many incursions that the monstrously arrogant billionaire owners of Al and social media are making into our lives. The future is already forever changed."
Jacob Gallagher, The New York Times; Are Birkenstocks a Work of Art? A German Court Says No.
"On Thursday, the federal court of justice in Karlsruhe, Germany, ruled that Birkenstocks were not “copyrighted works of applied art,” making it harder for the 251-year-old German shoemaker to combat the widespread sale of duplicates of its sandals across the internet.
“For copyright protection to apply, there must be such a degree of design that the product displays some individuality,” the court wrote in its decision. Birkenstock’s sandals may be iconic enough for a “Barbie” movie cameo, but they do not display enough individuality for the German judiciary.
The case has been winding its way through the court system for years, as Birkenstock sought to copyright four of its orthopedic-rooted slip-ons: the Madrid, Arizona, Boston and Gizeh, which have inspired cheaper imitations."
TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); AI and Copyright: Expanding Copyright Hurts Everyone—Here’s What to Do Instead
[Kip Currier: No, not everyone. Not requiring Big Tech to figure out a way to fairly license or get permission to use the copyrighted works of creators unjustly advantages these deep pocketed corporations. It also inequitably disadvantages the economic and creative interests of the human beings who labor to create copyrightable content -- authors, songwriters, visual artists, and many others.
The tell is that many of these same Big Tech companies are only too willing to file copyright infringement lawsuits against anyone whom they allege is infringing their AI content to create competing products and services.]
[Excerpt]
"Threats to Socially Valuable Research and Innovation
Requiring researchers to license fair uses of AI training data could make socially valuable research based on machine learning (ML) and even text and data mining (TDM) prohibitively complicated and expensive, if not impossible. Researchers have relied on fair use to conduct TDM research for a decade, leading to important advancements in myriad fields. However, licensing the vast quantity of works that high-quality TDM research requires is frequently cost-prohibitive and practically infeasible.
Fair use protects ML and TDM research for good reason. Without fair use, copyright would hinder important scientific advancements that benefit all of us. Empirical studies back this up: research using TDM methodologies are more common in countries that protect TDM research from copyright control; in countries that don’t, copyright restrictions stymie beneficial research. It’s easy to see why: it would be impossible to identify and negotiate with millions of different copyright owners to analyze, say, text from the internet."
Kielce Gussie, Vatican News; AI and ethics: No advancement can ever justify a human rights violation
"By 2028, global spending on artificial intelligence will skyrocket to $632 billion, according to the International Data Corporation. In a world where smartphones, computers, and ChatGPT continue to be the center of debate, it's no wonder the need for universal regulation and awareness has become a growing topic of discussion.
To address this issue, an international two-day summit focused on AI was held in Paris, France. The goal was to bring stakeholders from the public, private, and academic sectors together to begin building an AI ecosystem that is trustworthy and safe.
Experts in various areas of the artificial intelligence sphere gathered to partake in the discussion, including Australian professor and member of the Australian Government’s Artificial Intelligence Expert Group, Edward Santow. He described feeling hopeful that the summit would advance the safety agenda of AI.
Trustworthiness and safety
On the heels of this summit, the Australian Embassy to the Holy See hosted a panel discussion to address the ethical and human rights challenges in utilizing AI. There, Prof. Santow described his experience at the Paris summit, highlighting the difficulty in building an atmosphere of trust with AI on a global scale."
louise.lucas@ft.com, Financial Times ; Copyright battles loom over artists and AI
"Artists are the latest creative industry to gripe about the exploitative nature of artificial intelligence. More than 3,000 have written to protest against plans by Christie’s to auction art created using AI."
Kyle Wiggers, TechCrunch; Court filings show Meta paused efforts to license books for AI training
"According to one transcript, Sy Choudhury, who leads Meta’s AI partnership initiatives, said that Meta’s outreach to various publishers was met with “very slow uptake in engagement and interest.”
“I don’t recall the entire list, but I remember we had made a long list from initially scouring the Internet of top publishers, et cetera,” Choudhury said, per the transcript, “and we didn’t get contact and feedback from — from a lot of our cold call outreaches to try to establish contact.”
Choudhury added, “There were a few, like, that did, you know, engage, but not many.”
According to the court transcripts, Meta paused certain AI-related book licensing efforts in early April 2023 after encountering “timing” and other logistical setbacks. Choudhury said some publishers, in particular fiction book publishers, turned out to not in fact have the rights to the content that Meta was considering licensing, per a transcript.
“I’d like to point out that the — in the fiction category, we quickly learned from the business development team that most of the publishers we were talking to, they themselves were representing that they did not have, actually, the rights to license the data to us,” Choudhury said. “And so it would take a long time to engage with all their authors.”"
Danielle Coffey, USA Today; AI companies flaunt their theft. News media has to fight back – so we're suing. | Opinion
"Danielle Coffey is president & CEO of the News/Media Alliance, which represents 2,000 news and magazine media outlets worldwide...
This is not an anti-AI lawsuit or an effort to turn back the clock. We love technology. We use it in our businesses. Artificial intelligence will help us better serve our customers, but only if it respects intellectual property. That’s the remedy we’re seeking in court.
When it suits them, the AI companies assert similar claims to ours. Meta's lawsuit accused Bright Data of scraping data in violation of its terms of use. And Sam Altman of OpenAI has complained that DeepSeek illegally copied its algorithms.
Good actors, responsible technologies and potential legislation offer some hope for improving the situation. But what is urgently needed is what every market needs: reinforcement of legal protections against theft."
DEBRA CASSENS WEISS, ABA Journal; No. 42 law firm by head count could face sanctions over fake case citations generated by AI
"Updated: Lawyers from plaintiffs law firm Morgan & Morgan are facing possible sanctions for a motion that cited eight nonexistent cases, at least some of which were apparently generated by artificial intelligence.
In a Feb. 6 order, U.S. District Judge Kelly H. Rankin of the District of Wyoming told lawyers from Morgan & Morgan and the Goody Law Group to provide copies of the cited cases, and if they can’t, to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned."
"More than a dozen major U.S. news organizations on Thursday said they were suing Cohere, an enterprise AI company, claiming the tech startup illegally repurposed their work and did so in a way that tarnished their brands.
Why it matters: The lawsuit represents the first official legal action against an AI company organized by the News Media Alliance — the largest news media trade group in the U.S...
Between the lines: The complaint was filed shortly after the U.S. Copyright Office changed its copyright registration processes to make them faster for digital publishers.
Because of those changes, Coffey explained, NMA and the publishers who are suing Cohere were able to identify thousands of specific examples of Cohere verbatim copying their copyright-protected works."
MATT GROWCOOT, PetaPixel; This is the First-Ever AI Image to Be Granted Copyright Protection
"A company has secured the first-ever copyright protection for an artwork entirely generated by AI from the U.S. Copyright Office.
Kent Keirsey, CEO of Invoke, demonstrated to the U.S. Copyright Office that he had inputted enough human creativity into the image to warrant protection.
Invoke is a generative AI platform for professional studios to create visual media. Keirsey used Invoke’s inpainting features to iterate upon an AI-generated image, coordinating and arranging where to inpaint and then selecting from multiple options to create a composite work which he calls A Single Piece of American Cheese. He added roughly 35 AI edits to the AI image."
Romain Dillet, TechCrunch ; As US and UK refuse to sign the Paris AI Action Summit statement, other countries commit to developing ‘open, inclusive, ethical’ AI
"The Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris was supposed to culminate with a joint declaration on artificial intelligence signed by dozens of world leaders. While the statement isn’t as ambitious as the Bletchley and Seoul declarations, both the U.S. and the U.K. have refused to sign it.
It proves once again that it is difficult to reach a consensus around artificial intelligence — and other topics — in the current (fraught) geopolitical context.
“We feel very strongly that AI must remain free from ideological bias and that American AI will not be co-opted into a tool for authoritarian censorship,” U.S. vice president, JD Vance, said in a speech during the summit’s closing ceremony.
“The United States of America is the leader in AI, and our administration plans to keep it that way,” he added.
In all, 61 countries — including China, India, Japan, Australia, and Canada — have signed the declaration that states a focus on “ensuring AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy.” It also calls for greater collaboration when it comes to AI governance, fostering a “global dialogue.”
Early reactions have expressed disappointment over a lack of ambition."
Joseph A. Meckes, Joseph Grasser of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP - Global IP and Technology Law Blog, The National Law Review; Court: Training AI Model Based on Copyrighted Data Is Not Fair Use as a Matter of Law
"In what may turn out to be an influential decision, Judge Stephanos Bibas ruled as a matter of law in Thompson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence that creating short summaries of law to train Ross Intelligence’s artificial intelligence legal research application not only infringes Thompson Reuters’ copyrights as a matter of law but that the copying is not fair use. Judge Bibas had previously ruled that infringement and fair use were issues for the jury but changed his mind: “A smart man knows when he is right; a wise man knows when he is wrong.”
At issue in the case was whether Ross Intelligence directly infringed Thompson Reuters’ copyrights in its case law headnotes that are organized by Westlaw’s proprietary Key Number system. Thompson Reuters contended that Ross Intelligence’s contractor copied those headnotes to create “Bulk Memos.” Ross Intelligence used the Bulk Memos to train its competitive AI-powered legal research tool. Judge Bibas ruled that (i) the West headnotes were sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable, and (ii) some of the Bulk Memos used by Ross were so similar that they infringed as a matter of law...
In other words, even if a work is selected entirely from the public domain, the simple act of selection is enough to give rise to copyright protection."
U.S. Copyright Office, Issue No. 1062; U.S. Copyright Office Releases Publication Produced by Group of Economic Scholars Identifying the Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence for Copyright Policy
"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office is releasing Identifying the Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence for Copyright Policy: Context and Direction for Economic Research. The publication, produced by a group of economic scholars, discusses the economic issues at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright policy. The group engaged in several months of substantive discussions, consultation with technical experts, and research, culminating in a daylong roundtable event. Participants spent the subsequent months articulating and refining the roundtable discussions, resulting in today’s publication. The group’s goal was identifying the most consequential economic characteristics of AI and copyright and what factors may inform policy decisions.
"Development of AI technology has meaningful implications for the economic frameworks of copyright policy, and economists have only just begun to explore those," said Copyright Office Chief Economist Brent Lutes. "The Office convened an economic roundtable on AI and copyright policy with experts to help expediate research and coordinate the research community. The goal of this group’s work is to provide the broader economic research community a structured and rigorous framework for considering economic evidence."
This publication serves as a platform for articulating the ideas expressed by participants as part of the roundtable. All principal contributors submitted written materials summarizing the group’s prior discussions on a particular topic, with editorial support provided by the Office of the Chief Economist. The many ideas and views discussed in this project do not necessarily represent the views of every roundtable participant or their respective institutions. The U.S. Copyright Office does not take a position on these ideas for the purposes of this project."
UNESCO; UNESCO Holds Workshop on AI Ethics in Cuba
"During the joint UNESCO-MINCOM National Workshop "Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Equity, Rights, Inclusion" in Havana, the results of the application of the Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) for the ethical development of AI in Cuba were presented.
Similarly, there was a discussion on the Ethical Impact Assessment (EIA), a tool aimed at ensuring that AI systems follow ethical rules and are transparent...
The meeting began with a video message from the Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences, Gabriela Ramos, who emphasized that artificial intelligence already has a significant impact on many aspects of our lives, reshaping the way we work, learn, and organize society.
Technologies can bring us greater productivity, help deliver public services more efficiently, empower society, and drive economic growth, but they also risk perpetuating global inequalities, destabilizing societies, and endangering human rights if they are not safe, representative, and fair, and above all, if they are not accessible to everyone.
"Facebook parent-company Meta is currently fighting a class action lawsuit alleging copyright infringement and unfair competition, among others, with regards to how it trained LLaMA. According to an X (formerly Twitter) post by vx-underground, court records reveal that the social media company used pirated torrents to download 81.7TB of data from shadow libraries including Anna’s Archive, Z-Library, and LibGen. It then used this information to train its AI models.
The evidence, in the form of written communication, shows the researchers’ concerns about Meta’s use of pirated materials. One senior AI researcher said way back in October 2022, “I don’t think we should use pirated material. I really need to draw a line here.” While another one said, “Using pirated material should be beyond our ethical threshold,” then they added, “SciHub, ResearchGate, LibGen are basically like PirateBay or something like that, they are distributing content that is protected by copyright and they’re infringing it.”"
"Within days, DeepSeek’s app surpassed ChatGPT in new downloads and set stock prices of tech companies in the United States tumbling. It also led OpenAI to claim that its Chinese rival had effectively pilfered some of the crown jewels from OpenAI’s models to build its own.
In a statement to the New York Times, the company said:
We are aware of and reviewing indications that DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our models, and will share information as we know more. We take aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology and will continue working closely with the US government to protect the most capable models being built here.
The Conversation approached DeepSeek for comment, but it did not respond.
But even if DeepSeek copied – or, in scientific parlance, “distilled” – at least some of ChatGPT to build R1, it’s worth remembering that OpenAI also stands accused of disrespecting intellectual property while developing its models."