This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
11, 2025) examined three essential questions, 1) were the Westlaw headnotes and key number system taxonomy protected by copyright, 2) did Rosss copying of the headnotes to create legal memos used to train Rosss AI system infringecopyright, subject to the defense of fairuse, and 3) was Ross copying fairuse.…
This case has a clear piracy angle, as Meta used libraries of pirated books as training material. Meta admitted the use of these unofficial sources early on. At the same time, however, the company denied the copyrightinfringement allegations, noting that it would rely on a fairuse defense, at least in part.
On February 11, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware became the first to rule on whether the use of copyrighted materials to train an AI system qualifies as copyrightinfringement. In Thomson-Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., Ross Intelligence Inc.,
Earlier this week, various rightsholder groups submitted their recommendations for the 2025 Special 301 Report. copyright protection standards. Various groups stressed the importance of copyright protection when it comes to new AI technologies. Not just for copyright holders, but also for American tech giants.
Katfriend Paul England (Taylor Wessing) discussed the current state of Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) in the UK, questioning whether the system needs reform, by reviewing the recent English Court of Appeal decision in Merck Serono SA v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Mark s [2025] EWCA Civ 45 (28 January 2025).
Taking Stock of ANI vs OpenAI Copyright Litigation- Part II How exactly does a LLM learn from training data? Is training of GenAI models fairuse? Read the second part of Bharathwaj Ramakrishnans post on the ANI vs OpenAI Copyright Litigation, analysing the issues framed by the Delhi HC. 1 and respondent no.2,
It’s been a busy two weeks for copyright and AI cases. March 18, 2025) This case involved the completely AI-generated work, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”: The copyright applicant, Thaler, disclaimed any human involvement in the work’s creation. The district court ruled it wasn’t copyrightable.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein dismissed copyrightinfringement claims over a YouTube-hosted video embedded in the defendant’s article, finding that YouTube’s Terms of Service explicitly and unambiguously grant a sublicense that clearly extends to embedding. In Richardson v. Townsquare Media, Inc. Richardson v.
Copyright Office released Part 2 of its report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence on January 29, 2025. Part 2 focuses on the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI. By: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
The Court has granted summary judgment in respect of 2,830 headnotes belonging to Thomson Reuters and admittedly used by Ross Intelligence to train its Natural Language Processing and Artificial Enabled Legal Research tool, finding Direct CopyrightInfringement and rejecting fairuse. But, first, Some History!
On February 11, 2025, Judge Stephanos Bibas issued an opinion in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH v. 1:20-cv-613, a dispute regarding copyrightinfringement allegations stemming from the use of copyrighted data from the Westlaw legal database used in the training of an AI search tool. By: Venable LLP
Call for Applications: SpicyIP Tech Innovation Policy Fellowship 2025 (Apply by February 23) Attention IP and tech enthusiasts! We are very excited to announce the SpicyIP Tech Innovation Policy Fellowship 2025! vs Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr on 3 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court) Image from here. The deadline is February 23.
In light of Amazon’s decision to disable the ‘Download or Transfer via USB’ feature from their Kindle devices, Arnav Kaman discusses DRMs/TPMs, the rights of the user, what users can do with their ebooks within the fairuse doctrine, and the future of ebooks in this guest post.
Do robust defences such as freedom of speech, right to livelihood, public interest, and fairuse offer absolute protection against infringements? on 8 January, 2025 (Delhi HC) The rectification petition was filed seeking removal of trade mark registered in the name of respondent no. 5,00,000 against the defendant.
Potential for CopyrightInfringement The significant challenge created when AI systems are trained on copyrighted content is found when they accidentally copy parts of old works into new ones and, in turn, generate infringement. Meta Secretly Trained Its AI on a Notorious Piracy Database , 2025. Copyright Office.
by Dennis Crouch In a surprising decision today, Judge Stephanos Bibas ruled that ROSS Intelligence's use of Westlaw content to train its legal AI system constituted copyrightinfringement. 11, 2025). Most of these have favored the makers and users of AI over the owners of the IP (typically copyright holders).
OpenAI’s vision for a fair AI ecosystem The ADAI mentions copyright only in passing, but it is fairly obvious that the desire to ‘deal’ with pending copyrightinfringement claims (largely in the US) lies at the core of this ambitious statement. OpenAI adds that new features will be added in the future.
Ross Intelligence The recent US District Court opinion in Thomson Reuters (TR) v Ross Intelligence, which allowed TR’s motion of copyrightinfringement against Ross for its usage of TR’s headnotes, has caught the attention of genAI and copyright enthusiasts around the world. Read the post for more.
Ross Intelligence The recent US District Court opinion in Thomson Reuters (TR) v Ross Intelligence, which allowed TR’s motion of copyrightinfringement against Ross for its usage of TR’s headnotes, has caught the attention of genAI and copyright enthusiasts around the world. Read the post for more.
Harris claims that, in taking these actions, the University has not protected students' copyrights and fairuse rights. In 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the University which alleged, among other claims, copyrightinfringement. The University has yet to answer the 2025 Complaint.
The plaintiff sued the defendant (and others) for copyrightinfringement. Copyrightability The case sets up one of the longstanding open questions in copyright law: when are form contracts copyrightable, and when is sharing them infringing? .” 2025 WL 485493 (D. Fireline Farms, Inc.
A copyright claim appears. Welcome to the rollercoaster world of YouTube and copyright, where creativity collides with boundaries, and fairuse lines get blurred faster than a TikTok trend. COPY RIGHT BASICS So the good news: copyright laws were established to help protect creators. That’s often fair game.
Copyright owners across industries are fighting back, and the courts are starting to weigh in. The most notable signal came in early 2025, when a federal judge in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence rejected a fairuse defense in an AI training context. Nature of the copyrighted work Is the original factual or creative?
Images from here and here After ANI, Bollywood Music Labels Have a Faceoff with OpenAI By Anjali Tripathi As we already know, organisations around the world are now taking the initiative to sue Gen AI models, alleging copyrightinfringement for using their material to train their models. and now, there is a new development.
In those circusmtances, copyright law is an especially attractive tool to the pugilists, with its strict liability standards, amorphous fairuse boundaries, high defense costs, and effectiveness of takedown notices. Levy argued that Kilgore didn’t consider fairuse before sending the takedown notices.
Photo by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash On 14 January 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) heard oral arguments in the much-anticipated case C-590/23 Pelham II , where the German Federal Court submitted a request for preliminary ruling on the interpretation of pastiche. 3d 1257 (11th Cir. 3d 1257 (11th Cir.
As we enter a new year, we would like to take this opportunity to pass on our best wishes for 2025 to all of our readers, as well as reflect on developments in copyright over the past year. Is Generative AI FairUse of Copyright Works? Such uses, they argue, constitute copyrightinfringement.
The last source, scraping internet data, has been the most controversial so far and given rise to concerns from both intellectual property and data protection perspectives, and nascent litigation in various jurisdictions when the scraping has been done without permission of the copyright/database right holders.
Breaking Down the Controversy and IP Laws Role In It While most spent their time waiting on ChatGPT to finish generating their familys Studio Ghibli-field photographs (read Miyazaki, the creator of Studio Ghiblis thoughts on AI here ), Kunal Kamra blessed YouTube with his comedy special Naya Bharat on 26 th March 2025. In RG Anand v.
This part explains why pastiche will have a decisive power over how copyright is conceived, even outside the exceptions framework. Indeed, he cited that it appears that the Notice makes reference to free use of copyright works, which might refer to the old German catch-all exception to copyrightinfringement.
In 2025, forecasters predict humans will create 175 zetabytes of new data. What has changed is that creators are now directly expressing the need for consent prior to use. Uniquely, under EU copyright law, silence implies consent to that specific exception. First, lets get this out of the way. Thats 175 followed by 21 zeros.
Capitol Records (the successor to EMI) sent its first cease-and-desist letter to Vimeo in 2008 and sued Vimeo for copyrightinfringement in 2009. Plaintiffs argument goes too far; it would require Vimeo employees to assume that uses of copyrighted material are never fairuse.” ” (emphasis added).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content