Remove 2023 Remove Artistic Work Remove Designs Remove Public Domain
article thumbnail

Generative AI, Digital Constitutionalism and Copyright: Towards a Statutory Remuneration Right grounded in Fundamental Rights – Part 1

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Image from DALL-E 3 Introduction Generative AI is disrupting the creative process(es) of intellectual works on an unparalleled scale. More and more AI systems offer services that push users’ production capacity for new literary and artistic works beyond unforeseen barriers. ChatGPT , Smodin ), to perform music (i.e.,

Copyright 118
article thumbnail

Copyright for AI-generated works: a task for the internal market?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Better Regulation The EU has committed itself to designing policies and laws with a greater level of transparency and evidence , backed up with the views of citizens and stakeholders. AI processes can generate a large number of literary, musical and artistic works in the span of several seconds.

Marketing 106
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Evolution of Tests of Creativity in Copyrights

IP and Legal Filings

The word “originality” is frequently used in conjunction with the creativity of writers, thinkers, and artists. The Copyright , Designs and Patents Act of 1988 in the United Kingdom specifies in Section (1)(1)(a) that copyright exists in “original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works.” 1] [1916] 2 Ch 601. [2]

article thumbnail

The Modern Copyright Dilemma: Digital Content Ownership and Access

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction The Intellectual property laws are designed in such a way that not only reward the creator of his intellectual creation thereby incentivising other creators for further innovation, while balancing the rights of the creator with the right of the society to access information or knowledge. Zafar Mahfooz Nomani, 2023).

article thumbnail

Resolving Conflicts Between Trademark and Free Speech Rights After Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

1125(c)(3)(C) by claiming its humorous use of the Jack Daniel’s marks was not pure commercial speech because it poked fun at the company in the Bad Spaniels design. The other issue in Jack Daniel’s was whether VIP could invoke the “noncommercial use of a mark” exemption from dilution liability in 15 U.S.C.

Trademark 101