article thumbnail

Prince, Prince, Prints: Will the Supreme Court Revisit Fair Use?

LexBlog IP

13] Instead, the Second Circuit held that the differences between the works are more akin to the differences between a novel and an adaptation of that novel—“a paradigmatic example” of a derivative work that would require a license. [14]. It found that all four fair use factors weighed against fair use. [12] at 36, 43. [14]

article thumbnail

New Tools, Old Rules: Is The Music Industry Ready To Take On AI?

Copyright Lately

The comments from Michael Nash quoted above really only speak to the input phase, during which audio recordings are copied to a dataset that’s then used to train a voice model. It isn’t human-readable and does not contain copies of any audio recordings. No wonder I’m getting flashbacks to 2003.

Music 85
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

The clash of artistic rights: Warhol, Goldsmith, and the boundaries of copyright in Brazil and in the U.S.

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Thus, guided by the principle of equality, copyright operates as a spectrum of creativity, where the level of protection granted to a work corresponds to its level of originality. [2] 2] At one end of the spectrum, we find plagiarism: a completely derivative work that fails to contribute any creative elements to the original piece.

article thumbnail

If “Trespass to Chattels” Isn’t Limited to “Chattels,” Anarchy Ensues–Best Carpet Values v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Plaintiffs want and expect Google to copy and display their websites in Chrome browser and Search App, and acknowledge that Google has license to do so.” Citing a 2003 Ninth Circuit case, Kremen v. ” Wait, what? We need to know more about this license. It didn’t.

article thumbnail

WHAT, IN THE NAME OF GOD, …?: Intellectual Property Rights In Holy Names, Sacred Words, & Other Aspects of Creation

LexBlog IP

The report notes on page 11 that “In 2003, research estimates put the [U.S.] Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy(ies) state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit.

article thumbnail

A Preliminary Analysis of Trump’s Copyright Lawsuit Over Interview Recordings (Trump v. Simon & Schuster) (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

. §202(a) ] “Fixed” means that the work is embodied in a material object in some permanent form. A work is fixed in either a “copy” or a “phonorecord.” “Phonorecords” are defined as material objects in which only sounds are fixed, while “copies” are defined as material objects in which any other kind of work is fixed. [ 17 U.S.C.

Copyright 122