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
In order to train their technologies, should AI companies be allowed to use works under copyright protection without consent? The lawsuits brought by the owners of such works, including artworks in the case of image-generators and journalism in the NYT case, claim that this should not be allowed. FairUse Precedent?
Many lament the extractive nature of accessible art outputs, where AI companies train first and ask for forgiveness (fairuse) later. The Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) provides some moralrights: non-economic rights personal to the author of a work.
Mango, in turn, sustained in its defence that (i) as the rightful owner of the physical Paintings, it was entitled to display them in public, and that (ii) the creation of digital works (i.e. Therefore, the moralright of “disclosure” had already been exhausted. an exploitation that caused them no harm).
Background As previously reported by the IPKat last year, VEGAP, a collective management organisation for intellectual property rights in Spain, brought a claim against Punto Na SA, the IP holding company for the well-known clothing brand Mango, seeking compensation in respect of the alleged infringement of copyright in certain artworks.
The growing popularity of art generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer just a question of whether it is morallyright to replace human artists. How can this be considered an original artwork and who is the author?
It emerges that brands should pay for the use of street artworks. The number of registrations with the US Copyright Office has been growing since the 1970s. The use of cease-and-desist letters is widespread too. Those artists are attached to their creations and to the right of attribution.
However, in 5Pointz the building owner consented to the artwork installation. What if the social media account is used to promote the account owner’s own goods or services, or a third party’s brand? Copyright Law grants the author the exclusive rights to exploit the work, subject to certain fairuse defenses.
Professor Lior Zemer, Dean at the Harry Radzyner Law School at Reichman University, began his presentation with Artwork of the Compiègne Concentration Camp by Abraham Joseph Berline created in 1941. Berline constructed it using egg shells from the scraps given to Jewish inmates as food and a wooden plate he found at the camp.
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