The Sleepy Copyright Office in the Middle of a High-Stakes Clash Over A.I.; The New York Times, January 25, 2024

 Cecilia Kang, The New York Times; The Sleepy Copyright Office in the Middle of a High-Stakes Clash Over A.I.

"For decades, the Copyright Office has been a small and sleepy office within the Library of Congress. Each year, the agency’s 450 employees register roughly half a million copyrights, the ownership rights for creative works, based on a two-centuries-old law.

In recent months, however, the office has suddenly found itself in the spotlight. Lobbyists for Microsoft, Google, and the music and news industries have asked to meet with Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights, and her staff. Thousands of artists, musicians and tech executives have written to the agency, and hundreds have asked to speak at listening sessions hosted by the office.

The attention stems from a first-of-its-kind review of copyright law that the Copyright Office is conducting in the age of artificial intelligence. The technology — which feeds off creative content — has upended traditional norms around copyright, which gives owners of books, movies and music the exclusive ability to distribute and copy their works.

The agency plans to put out three reports this year revealing its position on copyright law in relation to A.I. The reports are set to be hugely consequential, weighing heavily in courts as well as with lawmakers and regulators."

The Public Domain Benefits Everyone – But Sometimes Copyright Holders Won’t Let Go; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 22, 2024

 CARA GAGLIANO, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); The Public Domain Benefits Everyone – But Sometimes Copyright Holders Won’t Let Go

"Unlike copyright, trademark protection has no fixed expiration date. Instead, it works on a “use it or lose it” model. With some exceptions, the law will grant trademark protection for as long as you keep using that mark to identify your products. This actually makes sense when you understand the difference between copyright and trademark. The idea behind copyright protection is to give creators a financial incentive to make new works that will benefit the public; that incentive needn’t be eternal to be effective. Trademark law, on the other hand, is about consumer protection. The function of a trademark is essentially to tell you who a product came from, which helps you make informed decisions and incentivizes quality control. If everyone were allowed to use that same mark after some fixed period, it would stop serving that function.

So, what’s the problem? Since trademarks don’t expire, we see former copyright holders of public domain works turn to trademark law as a way to keep exerting control. In one case we wrote about, a company claiming to own a trademark in the name of a public domain TV show called “You Asked For It” sent takedown demands targeting everything from episodes of the show, to remix videos using show footage, to totally unrelated uses of that common phrase. Other infamous examples include disputes over alleged trademarks in elements from Peter Rabbit and Tarzan. Now, with Steamboat Willie in the public domain, Disney seems poised to do the same. It’s already alluded to this in public statements, and in 2022, it registered a trademark for Walt Disney Animation Studios that incorporates a snippet from the cartoon.

The news isn’t all bad: trademark protection is in some ways more limited than copyright—it only applies to uses that are likely to confuse consumers about the use’s connection to the mark owner. And importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that trademark law cannot be used to control the distribution of creative works, lest it spawn “a species of mutant copyright law” that usurps the public’s right to copy and use works in the public domain. (Of course, that doesn’t mean companies won’t try it.) So go forth and make your Steamboat Willie art, but beware of trademark lawyers waiting in the wings."

Computer scientist makes case for AI-generated copyrights in US appeal; Reuters, January 23, 2024

 Blake Brittain, Reuters; Computer scientist makes case for AI-generated copyrights in US appeal

"Creative works generated entirely by artificial intelligence should be eligible for copyright protection, computer scientist Stephen Thaler told a federal appeals court in Washington this week...

A separate U.S. appeals court rejected Thaler's bid for patents covering AI-generated inventions, in a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review last year. The UK Supreme Court ruled against Thaler in a similar case in December.

Thaler has several related cases still pending in other countries."

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.; The New York Times, January 25, 2024

Stuart A. Thompson, The New York Times ; We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.

"“Nobody knows how this is going to come out, and anyone who tells you ‘It’s definitely fair use’ is wrong,” said Keith Kupferschmid, the president and chief executive of the Copyright Alliance, an industry group that represents copyright holders. “This is a new frontier.”

A.I. companies could violate copyright in two ways, Mr. Kupferschmid said: They could train on copyrighted material that they have not licensed, or they could reproduce copyrighted material when users enter a prompt."

It's Copyright Week 2024: Join Us in the Fight for Better Copyright Law and Policy; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 22, 2024

KATHARINE TRENDACOSTA , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); It's Copyright Week 2024: Join Us in the Fight for Better Copyright Law and Policy

"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, addressing what's at stake and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation."

Is A.I. the Death of I.P.?; The New Yorker, January 15, 2024

Louis Menand, The New Yorker ; Is A.I. the Death of I.P.?

"Intellectual property accounts for some or all of the wealth of at least half of the world’s fifty richest people, and it has been estimated to account for fifty-two per cent of the value of U.S. merchandise exports. I.P. is the new oil. Nations sitting on a lot of it are making money selling it to nations that have relatively little. It’s therefore in a country’s interest to protect the intellectual property of its businesses.

But every right is also a prohibition. My right of ownership of some piece of intellectual property bars everyone else from using that property without my consent. I.P. rights have an economic value but a social cost. Is that cost too high?

I.P. ownership comes in several legal varieties: copyrights, patents, design rights, publicity rights, and trademarks."

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."

Stephen Thaler’s Quest to Get His ‘Autonomous’ AI Legally Recognized Could Upend Copyright Law Forever; Art News, January 8, 2024

 Shanti Escalante-De Mattei, Art News; Stephen Thaler’s Quest to Get His  ‘Autonomous’ AI Legally Recognized Could Upend Copyright Law Forever

"Abbott and Thaler’s push for copyright brings up a very basic question for artists today: how do we locate agency and creativity when we make things with machines? When is it our doing, and when is it “theirs”? This question follows the arc of history as humans design increasingly complex tools that work independently of us, even if we designed them and set them into motion. Debates have raged in public forums and in lawsuits regarding to what extent a model like Midjourney can produce genuinely novel images or whether it is just randomly stitching together disparate pixels based on its training data to generate synthetic quasi-originality. But for those who work in machine learning, this process isn’t all that different from how humans work."

Lifecycle of Copyright: 1928 Works in the Public Domain; Library of Congress Blogs: Copyright Creativity at Work, January 8, 2024

Alison Hall , Library of Congress Blogs: Copyright Creativity at Work; Lifecycle of Copyright: 1928 Works in the Public Domain

"This blog also includes contributions from Jessica Chinnadurai, attorney-advisor, and Rafael Franco, writer-editor intern in the Copyright Office.

Over the last several years, we have witnessed a new class of creative works entering the public domain in the United States each January 1. This year, a variety of works published in 1928, ranging from motion pictures to music to books, joined others in the public domain. The public domain has important historical and cultural benefits in the lifecycle of copyright...

Below are just a few of the historical and cultural works that entered the public domain in 2024."

How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor; Reason, January 8, 2024

LUKE HOGG , Reason; How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor

"For nearly 25 years, Section 1201 has been hanging over the developers and distributors of tools that give users more control over the products they own. The ways in which John Deere and other corporations have used the copyright system is a glaring example of regulatory capture in action, highlighting the absurdity of a system where owning a product doesn't necessarily convey the right to fully control it. There are certainly circumstances where the manufacturers are justified in protecting their products from tampering, but such cases should be handled through warranty nullification and contract law, not through exorbitant fines and lengthy prison sentences."

Addressing the epidemic of high drug prices; Harvard Law Today, January 5, 2024

 Jeff Neal, Harvard Law Today; Addressing the epidemic of high drug prices

"The Biden administration is once again targeting high drug prices paid by Americans. This time, officials are focused on prescription medications developed with federal tax dollars. The United States government, through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), awards billions of dollars of research grants to university scientists each year to fund biomedical research, which is often patented. The universities in turn grant exclusive licenses to companies to produce and sell the resulting drugs to patients in need. But what happens if a drug company fails to make a medication available, or sets its price so high that it is out of reach for a significant percentage of patients?

To tackle this problem, the Biden administration recently released a “proposed framework” that specifies when and how the NIH can “march in” and award the rights to produce a patented drug to a third party if the patent licensee does not make it available to the public on “reasonable terms.” The plan is based on a provision included in the Bayh-Dole Act, a 1980 federal law which was designed to stimulate innovation by encouraging universities to obtain and license patents for inventions resulting from federally funded research.

According to Harvard Law School intellectual property expert Ruth Okediji LL.M. ’91, S.J.D. ’96, although the Biden administration’s proposed framework for using government march-in rights to lower drug costs is an important development, whether it will be successfully implemented and result in meaningful drug price reductions remains to be seen. Harvard Law Today recently spoke to Okediji, the Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor of Law and faculty director of Global Access in Action(GAiA) at the Berkman Klein Center, about the new proposal and the legal challenges it might face."

AI’s future could hinge on one thorny legal question; The Washington Post, January 4, 2024

Will Oremus

 and 

Elahe Izadi

 , The Washington Post; AI’s future could hinge on one thorny legal question

"Because the AI cases represent new terrain in copyright law, it is not clear how judges and juries will ultimately rule, several legal experts agreed...

“Anyone who’s predicting the outcome is taking a big risk here,” Gervais said...

Cornell’s Grimmelmann said AI copyright cases might ultimately hinge on the stories each side tells about how to weigh the technology’s harms and benefits.

“Look at all the lawsuits, and they’re trying to tell stories about how these are just plagiarism machines ripping off artists,” he said. “Look at the [AI firms’ responses], and they’re trying to tell stories about all the really interesting things these AIs can do that are genuinely new and exciting.”"

Great, now we have to become digital copyright experts; TechCrunch+, January 2, 2024

 Alex Wilhelm, TechCrunch+; Great, now we have to become digital copyright experts

"How to balance the need to respect copyright and ensure that AI development doesn’t grind to a halt will not be answered quickly."

Copyright law is AI's 2024 battlefield; Axios, January 2, 2023

 Megan Morrone , Axios; Copyright law is AI's 2024 battlefield

"Looming fights over copyright in AI are likely to set the new technology's course in 2024 faster than legislation or regulation.

Driving the news: The New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft on December 27, claiming their AI systems' "widescale copying" constitutes copyright infringement.

The big picture: After a year of lawsuits from creators protecting their works from getting gobbled up and repackaged by generative AI tools, the new year could see significant rulings that alter the progress of AI innovation. 

Why it matters: The copyright decisions coming down the pike — over both the use of copyrighted material in the development of AI systems and also the status of works that are created by or with the help of AI — are crucial to the technology's future and could determine winners and losers in the market."

'Steamboat Willie' is now in the public domain. What does that mean for Mickey Mouse?; NPR, January 1, 2024

Neda Ulaby , NPR; 'Steamboat Willie' is now in the public domain. What does that mean for Mickey Mouse?

""You know, he's evolved so much and become more 3D and colorful," observes Ryan Harmon, a former Disney Imagineer, of the character today. He remembers anxious talk, when he worked at the company in the 1990s, about the beloved icon eventually entering the public domain.

But that's not happening, says Kembrew McLeod, a communications professor and intellectual property scholar at the University of Iowa.

"What is going into the public domain is this particular appearance in this particular film," he says.

That means people can creatively reuse only the Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willie. Not the Mickey Mouse in the 1940 movie Fantasia. Nor the one on Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, a kids' show that aired on the Disney Channel for a decade starting in 2006.

New versions of Mickey Mouse remain under copyright. Copyright applies to creative characters, movies, books, plays, songs and more. And as it happens, Mickey Mouse is also trademarked.

"Trademark law is entirely about protecting brands, logos and names — like Mickey Mouse as a logo, or the name Mickey Mouse," McLeod says.

"And of course, trademark law has no end," adds Harvard Law School professor Ruth Okediji. Disney and other corporations, she says, use trademarks to extend control over intellectual property.""

Mickey Mouse Gets First Horror Parody Film as Steamboat Willie Enters Public Domain; CBR, January 1, 2024

JEREMY DICK, CBR ; Mickey Mouse Gets First Horror Parody Film as Steamboat Willie Enters Public Domain

"Filmmakers are not wasting any time with putting a dark spin on Mickey Mouse following the character entering the public domain.

As of Jan. 1, 2024, Mickey's very first cartoon, Steamboat Willie, became part of the public domain. While modern versions of Mickey Mouse are still protected by copyright, the classic black-and-white version seen in the Steamboat Willie cartoon is now available to be used by filmmakers outside of the Disney umbrella. On the very day that the copyright lifted for Steamboat Willie, it was announced that the character will be spoofed in an upcoming horror movie titled Mickey's Mouse Trap. The first trailer and poster have also been released for the film, which can be viewed below."

Mickey Mouse Copyright Expiration Has Internet Scrambling For Steamboat Willie Horror Movie; ScreenRant, January 1, 2024

HANNAH GEARAN , ScreenRant; Mickey Mouse Copyright Expiration Has Internet Scrambling For Steamboat Willie Horror Movie

"The copyright for a specific version of Mickey Mouse has expired, which is leaving the internet urging for a Steamboat Willie-based horror movie. Mickey Mouse first became copyrighted by the Walt Disney Company in 1928 through the movie Steamboat Willie.

At the dawn of the new year, the Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse has entered the public domain, and the internet is pushing for a horror movie based on the character."

Mickey Mouse is finally in the public domain. Here’s what that means.; The Washington Post, January 1, 2024

 Michael Cavna, The Washington Post; Mickey Mouse is finally in the public domain. Here’s what that means.

"Jennifer Jenkins, a law professor and director of Duke University’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain, says that from a copyright angle — trademark considerations are a different matter — “You can use Mickey and Minnie 1.0 from ‘Steamboat Willie’ and ‘Plane Crazy,’ but you cannot use the aggregated later Mickey that, for example, appears in one of my favorite films, ‘Fantasia.’ You cannot use the copyrightable aspect of the character from later, still-in-copyright works.”"

These Classic Characters Are Losing Copyright Protection. They May Never Be the Same.; The New York Times, January 1, 2024

 Sopan Deb, The New York Times; These Classic Characters Are Losing Copyright Protection. They May Never Be the Same.

"In 2024, thousands of copyrighted works published in 1928 are entering the public domain, after their 95-year term expires...

The crème de la crème of this year’s public domain class are Mickey Mouse and, of course, Minnie, or at least black-and-white versions of our favorite squeaky rodents that appeared in “Steamboat Willie.” Disney is famously litigious, and this copyright only covers the original versions of the character.

The New York Times reached out to some writers, producers and directors to give you a taste of what might be unleashed in this strange new world."

Meet the 2024 I Love My Librarian Award Honorees; American Libraries, December 18, 2023

 Chase Ollis, American Libraries; Meet the 2024 I Love My Librarian Award Honorees

"Gladys E. López-Soto

Patent and Trademark Resource Center Librarian
University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus

At the University of Puerto Rico Mayagüez’s (UPRM) Patent and Trademark Resource Center, López-Soto helps students, inventors, and entrepreneurs turn ideas into reality.

Her knowledge of intellectual property—recognized across Puerto Rico and beyond—and the dedication she brings to educating her community have made her a “pillar of the innovation and entrepreneur ecosystem,” according to one of her nominators. López-Soto has brought many educational opportunities covering intellectual property to the university community and the public, including organizing the annual Innovation and Entrepreneurship Cycle—a virtual conference attended by hundreds of participants—and creating a website designed to help Spanish-language speakers understand intellectual property rights and how to protect them."

Photographer Sues Church Over Copyright Infringement; Fstoppers, December 28, 2023

 Alex Cooke, Fstoppers; Photographer Sues Church Over Copyright Infringement

"A photographer is taking legal action against a small church in South Carolina for allegedly using his photograph without consent.

Erin Paul Donovan, a photographer from New Hampshire, has initiated a federal lawsuit against Wightman United Methodist Church in Prosperity, South Carolina. Donovan claims that his photograph, depicting New Hampshire’s White Mountains, was used on the church's website without his permission, specifically as a thumbnail for a sermon video dated June 2021...

The suit further alleges that the church not only used the image without authorization but also removed Donovan's copyright notice, name, and watermark from the photograph as it originally appeared on his website."

Photographer Sues Church Over Copyright Infringement; Fstoppers, December 28, 2023

Alex Cooke, Fstoppers; Photographer Sues Church Over Copyright Infringement

"A photographer is taking legal action against a small church in South Carolina for allegedly using his photograph without consent.

Erin Paul Donovan, a photographer from New Hampshire, has initiated a federal lawsuit against Wightman United Methodist Church in Prosperity, South Carolina. Donovan claims that his photograph, depicting New Hampshire’s White Mountains, was used on the church's website without his permission, specifically as a thumbnail for a sermon video dated June 2021...

The suit further alleges that the church not only used the image without authorization but also removed Donovan's copyright notice, name, and watermark from the photograph as it originally appeared on his website."

Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last; The Art Newspaper, December 29, 2023

Bendor Grosvenor , The Art Newspaper; Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last

"A recent judgement on copyright in the Court of Appeal (20 November) heralds the end of UK museums charging fees to reproduce historic artworks. In fact, it suggests museums have been mis-selling “image licences” for over a decade. For those of us who have been campaigning on the issue for years, it is the news we’ve been waiting for.

The judgement is important because it confirms that museums do not have valid copyright in photographs of (two-dimensional) works which are themselves out of copyright. It means these photographs are in the public domain, and free to use.

Museums use copyright to restrict the circulation of images, obliging people to buy expensive licences. Any thought of scholars sharing images, or using those available on museum websites, was claimed to be a breach of copyright. Not surprisingly, most people paid up. Copyright is the glue that holds the image fee ecosystem in place.

What has now changed? Museums used to rely on the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which placed a low threshold on how copyright was acquired; essentially, if some degree of “skill and labour” was involved in taking a photograph of a painting, then that photograph enjoyed copyright. But subsequent case law has raised the bar, as the new Appeal Court judgement makes clear."

Boom in A.I. Prompts a Test of Copyright Law; The New York Times, December 30, 2023

J. Edward Moreno , The New York Times; Boom in A.I. Prompts a Test of Copyright Law

"The boom in artificial intelligence tools that draw on troves of content from across the internet has begun to test the bounds of copyright law...

Data is crucial to developing generative A.I. technologies — which can generate text, images and other media on their own — and to the business models of companies doing that work.

“Copyright will be one of the key points that shapes the generative A.I. industry,” said Fred Havemeyer, an analyst at the financial research firm Macquarie.

A central consideration is the “fair use” doctrine in intellectual property law, which allows creators to build upon copyrighted work...

“Ultimately, whether or not this lawsuit ends up shaping copyright law will be determined by whether the suit is really about the future of fair use and copyright, or whether it’s a salvo in a negotiation,” Jane Ginsburg, a professor at Columbia Law School, said of the lawsuit by The Times...

Competition in the A.I. field may boil down to data haves and have-nots...

“Generative A.I. begins and ends with data,” Mr. Havemeyer said."

Disney loses famous Mickey Mouse copyright in 2024, along with many others; CBS News, December 30, 2023

CBS News ; Disney loses famous Mickey Mouse copyright in 2024, along with many others

"Copyright protections on many well-known books, films and musical compositions are set to expire in 2024. Disney's Mickey Mouse is getting a lot of attention as one famous iteration of the classic mouse is set to enter the public domain. CBS News' Jo Ling Kent has the story."

Testing Ethical Boundaries. The New York Times Sues Microsoft And OpenAI On Copyright Concerns; Forbes, December 29, 2023

 Cindy Gordon, Forbes; Testing Ethical Boundaries. The New York Times Sues Microsoft And OpenAI On Copyright Concerns

"We have at least seen Apple announce an ethical approach to discussing upfront with the US Media giants their interest in partnering on AI generative AI training needs and finding new revenue sharing models.

Smart Move by Apple...

The court’s rulings here will be critical to advance ethical AI practices and guard rails on what is “fair” versus predatory.

We have too many leadership behaviors that encroach on others Intellectual Property (IP) and try to mask or muddy the authenticity of communication and sources of origination of ideas and content.

I for one will be following these cases closely and this also sends a wake -up call to all technology titans, and technology industry leaders that respect, integrity and transparency on operating practices need an ethical overhauling.

One of the important leadership behaviors is risk management and looking at all stakeholder views and appreciating the risks that can be incurred. I am keen to see how Apple approaches these dynamics to build a stronger ethical brand profile."

Complaint: New York Times v. Microsoft & OpenAI, December 2023

 Complaint:

THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, OPENAI, INC., OPENAI LP, OPENAI GP, LLC, OPENAI, LLC, OPENAI OPCO LLC, OPENAI GLOBAL LLC, OAI CORPORATION, LLC, and OPENAI HOLDINGS, LLC,

Defendants

AI starts a music-making revolution and plenty of noise about ethics and royalties; The Washington Times, December 26, 2023

 Tom Howell Jr. , The Washington Times ; AI starts a music-making revolution and plenty of noise about ethics and royalties

"“Music’s important. AI is changing that relationship. We need to navigate that carefully,” said Martin Clancy, an Ireland-based expert who has worked on chart-topping songs and is the founding chairman of the IEEE Global AI Ethics Arts Committee...

The Biden administration, the European Union and other governments are rushing to catch up with AI and harness its benefits while controlling its potentially adverse societal impacts. They are also wading through copyright and other matters of law.

Even if they devise legislation now, the rules likely will not go into effect for years. The EU recently enacted a sweeping AI law, but it won’t take effect until 2025.

“That’s forever in this space, which means that all we’re left with is our ethical decision-making,” Mr. Clancy said.

For now, the AI-generated music landscape is like the Wild West. Many AI-generated songs are hokey or just not very good."

Classical Musicians Victimized by Erroneous Copyright Claims; Violinist.com, December 19, 2023

Laurie Niles, Violinist.com; Classical Musicians Victimized by Erroneous Copyright Claims

""One or more actions were applied to your video because of a copyright match."

This was just one of two copyright claims that Amy Beth Horman received from Facebook Thursday, disputing ownership of videos of her daughter's violin performances. First, she received a copyright claim for a video of Ava's live performance of the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto this week. Then, she got another for video she had posted in 2020 of then-10-year-old Ava performing "Meditation from Thais." These are both classical works that are in the public domain - not subject to copyright.

Nonetheless, classical musicians receive these kinds of dreaded messages on a regular basis if they post videos of their performances on social media outlets such as Facebook, Instagram or YouTube.

Has the musician violated anyone's copyright? Almost never. These are automated copyright claims created by bots on behalf of big companies like Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group or Universal Music. If the bot finds that your performance has approximately the same notes and timing as one in their catalogue, they then claim that they own rights to your recording. But musicians have every right to perform and post a public domain work. Even so, musicians often find their recordings muted, earnings from ads on their performances given instead to the company filing the erroneous claim, and threats of having their accounts suspended or banned."

The Times Sues OpenAI and Microsoft Over A.I. Use of Copyrighted Work; The New York Times, December 27, 2023

 Michael M. Grynbaum and Ryan Mac, The New York Times; The Times Sues OpenAI and Microsoft Over A.I. Use of Copyrighted Work

"The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement on Wednesday, opening a new front in the increasingly intense legal battle over the unauthorized use of published work to train artificial intelligence technologies.

The Times is the first major American media organization to sue the companies, the creators of ChatGPT and other popular A.I. platforms, over copyright issues associated with its written works. The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, contends that millions of articles published by The Times were used to train automated chatbots that now compete with the news outlet as a source of reliable information.

The suit does not include an exact monetary demand. But it says the defendants should be held responsible for “billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages” related to the “unlawful copying and use of The Times’s uniquely valuable works.” It also calls for the companies to destroy any chatbot models and training data that use copyrighted material from The Times."

Big law firms gobble up intellectual property firms in consolidation push; Reuters, December 12, 2023

 David Thomas, Reuters; Big law firms gobble up intellectual property firms in consolidation push

"At least half a dozen firms that specialize in intellectual property law and litigation have been absorbed by larger U.S. law firms this year, as bigger firms seek to expand their IP benches and the niche firms face pressure to match their rivals' resources."

Column: Mickey Mouse and ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ enter the public domain on Jan. 1, a reminder of our crazy copyright laws; Los Angeles Times, December 26, 2023

MICHAEL HILTZIK, Los Angeles Times ; Column: Mickey Mouse and ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ enter the public domain on Jan. 1, a reminder of our crazy copyright laws

"Once a work enters the public domain, Jenkins says, “community theaters can screen the films. Youth orchestras can perform the music publicly, without paying licensing fees. Online repositories such as the Internet Archive, HathiTrust, Google Books, and the New York Public Library can make works fully available online. This helps enable access to cultural materials that might otherwise be lost to history. ... Anyone can rescue them from obscurity and make them available, where we can all discover, enjoy, and breathe new life into them.”

In some cases, extended copyright seems to work against the public interest. Consider the stringent control exercised by the estate of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. — mostly his children — over his speeches and writings such as the “I Have a Dream” speech he delivered in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 28, 1963...

The irony of the term extension is that Disney, which pushed so hard to keep its own creations out of the public domain, is perhaps our most assiduous exploiter of, yes, the public domain.

The core material of some of its most successful and profitable movies comes from Hans Christian Andersen, Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll and Charles Perrault — often freely reimagined and rewritten by Disney artists and writers. 

Disney’s “Fantasia” mined musical history for compositions by Bach and Beethoven, but if the copyright terms Disney pushed for in 1998 were in place when the film was made in 1940, the compositions used in the film by Stravinsky, Ponchielli, Dukas, Tchaikovsky and Mussorgsky would still be under copyright protection. If Disney had to pay licensing fees to those creators, the film probably could not have been made."

Whose “It’s a Wonderful Life” Is It Anyway?; The Nation, December 25, 2023

 RAY NOWOSIELSKI and DAVID CASSIDY, The Nation; Whose “It’s a Wonderful Life” Is It Anyway?

"The broad outlines of the Wonderful Life copyright story have been known for decades, though the details have remained murky until now. It goes something like this: The movie underperformed at the box office in 1947 and was largely forgotten—until a copyright renewal “whoops” in 1974 saw the movie seemingly fall into the public domain. Local television stations began playing the free content, only to discover a strangely receptive audience among Americans of the early 1980s—when the film become a cultural behemoth. Then, somehow, Republic Pictures found a way to reclaim the rights and make a TV deal with NBC, where it has aired ever since...

The ironic parallels to the story in the movie are hard to ignore. All-time American movie villain Henry F. Potter’s great vice is not being a banker or a business man or a capitalist—it’s his urge towards monopoly.

“He’s already got charge of the bank,” explains George Bailey to his community during the famous “bank run” scene. “He’s got the bus line. He’s got the department stores. And now he’s after us. Why? Well, it’s very simple. Because we’re cutting in on his business, that’s why. And because he wants to keep you living in his slums and paying the kind of rent he decides.”

The full story of Wonderful Life’s journey is detailed in our new podcast George Bailey Was Never Born. Merry Christmas!"

AI cannot patent inventions, UK Supreme Court confirms; BBC, December 20, 2023

BBC ; AI cannot patent inventions, UK Supreme Court confirms

"The UK Supreme Court has upheld earlier decisions in rejecting a bid to allow an artificial intelligence to be named as an inventor in a patent application.

Technologist Dr Stephen Thaler had sought to have his AI, called Dabus, recognised as the inventor of a food container and a flashing light beacon."

Mickey Mouse, Long a Symbol in Copyright Wars, to Enter Public Domain: ‘It’s Finally Happening’; Variety, December 22, 2023

 Gene Maddaus, Variety; Mickey Mouse, Long a Symbol in Copyright Wars, to Enter Public Domain: ‘It’s Finally Happening’

"Every Jan. 1, Jenkins celebrates Public Domain Day, publishing a long list of works that are now free for artists to remix and reimagine. This year’s list includes Tigger, who, like Mickey Mouse, made his first appearance in 1928. Other 1928 works include “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” “All Quiet on the Western Front” and Buster Keaton’s “The Cameraman.” 

The celebrations are relatively recent. After Congress extended copyright terms in 1998, 20 years went by when nothing entered the public domain. Works began to lose copyright protection again in 2019, and since then, it’s been open season on “The Great Gatsby,” “Rhapsody in Blue” and Winnie the Pooh...

Lessig fought the extension all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that Congress might keep granting extensions, thwarting the constitutional mandate that copyrights be “for limited times.” He lost, 7-2, but the debate helped advance the movement for Creative Commons and an appreciation for the benefits of “remix culture.”

“That movement awoke people to the essential need for balance in this,” Lessig said. “At the beginning of this fight, it was a simple battle between the pirates and the property owners. And by the end of that period, people recognized that there’s a much wider range of interests that were involved here, like education and access to knowledge.”...

He continues to support reforms that would free up a vast body of cultural output that remains inaccessible because it lacks commercial value and its ownership cannot be determined."

Original Mickey And Minnie Mouse Will Enter Public Domain Next Week—Here’s What It Means For Creators; Forbes, December 22, 2023

 Mary Whitfill Roeloffs, Forbes; Original Mickey And Minnie Mouse Will Enter Public Domain Next Week—Here’s What It Means For Creators

"Two of the most sought-after characters in film and television are set to enter the public domain on Jan. 1, which will allow creators to use the original versions of Mickey and Minnie Mouse to create new projects of any kind, likely adding to a lineup of films and books like “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey” and “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” based on other popular characters with expired copyrights."