IIPRD

APRIL 8, 2024

This article delves into the ongoing debate around the issue of right of ownership of copyright by AI generators for their novel artwork. 2] This shift i.e. from assisting work to generating it has taken the legal regime of IPR by a storm of confusion and questions.

Art 52

Art Artwork Intellectual Property Copyright Law 52

LexBlog IP

APRIL 23, 2023

The guidelines offer clarification on copyright eligibility, authorship requirements, and the registration process for works that incorporate AI-generated material. Read Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence published on March 16, 2023 via the Federal Register or our summary below.

Copyright 52

Copyright Intellectual Property Derivative Work Editing 52

LexBlog IP

JULY 7, 2023

8] Second, as to the works’ purpose, the court found that it was unclear whether Prince intended to create a parody of the original photographs, a satire of society’s use of social media, or neither, pointing out Prince’s own contradictory testimony on the question. [9] Many derivative works. 2023) (slip op.,

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Art Licensing Copyright Infringement 52

Kluwer Copyright Blog

JULY 16, 2023

.” 3) How to Distinguish Transformative Fair Uses From Infringing Derivative Works? Vanity Fair magazine had commissioned Warhol’s artwork in 1984 to accompany an article about the singer’s rise to fame based on Goldsmith’s photograph under a one-time-use “artist reference” license between Vanity Fair and Goldsmith’s agent.

Blogging 52

Blogging Law IP Fair Use 52

LexBlog IP

JUNE 5, 2023

On May 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of famed rock photographer Lynn Goldsmith against the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.’s 13] AWF’s use was commercial because AWF licensed the artwork for a fee. [14] Goldsmith , 598 U.S. _ (2023). [2] 2] Slip op. 3] Slip op. 4] Slip op.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Licensing Cease and Desist Derivative Work 52

LexBlog IP

MAY 26, 2023

On May 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of famed rock photographer Lynn Goldsmith against the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.’s 13] AWF’s use was commercial because AWF licensed the artwork for a fee. [14] Goldsmith , 598 U.S. _ (2023). [2] 2] Slip op. 3] Slip op. 4] Slip op.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Licensing Cease and Desist Derivative Work 52

LexBlog IP

MAY 19, 2023

Upon failure to resolve the matter privately, AWF filed suit against Goldsmith, seeking a declaratory judgment that Warhol’s works did not infringe Goldsmith’s copyright in the original photograph, or, in the alternative, Warhol’s works constituted fair use of the subject photograph. [1] 1] See Andy Warhol Found.

Licensing 52

Licensing Fair Use Copyright Derivative Work 52

Intepat

MAY 17, 2024

This is because the resulting work is a new creation that depends on various factors, including the system’s programming and the input prompt. The generated work might be an original creation of the AI, or it could be considered a derivative work depending on the nature of the output and the input data used.

Ownership 52

Ownership Contracts Confidentiality Copyright 52

Kluwer Copyright Blog

MAY 9, 2023

Does such an output infringe on a copyrighted work of a third party, especially those works “ingested” during the training stage of the AI system? Under US law, is the output a “ derivative work ” of the “ingested” copyrighted works? There is disagreement among commentators whether this is a desirable development.

Copyright 138

Copyright Copyright Law Fair Use Law 138

LexBlog IP

APRIL 13, 2022

According to Miramax, the creation of the NFTs constituted copyright infringement because they were unauthorized derivative works of Pulp Fiction. [23] A trial is set to begin February 28, 2023. [were] far too narrow for him to unilaterally produce, market, and sell the Pulp Fiction NFTs.” [22]. Mason Rothschild.

Non-Fungible Tokens 52

Non-Fungible Tokens Social Media Contracts Brands 52