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
Such uses, they argue, constitute copyright infringement. FairUse Precedent? Google Books and Transformative Use The past two decades have seen a wealth of technological developments, but generative AI is qualitatively different from everything that has come before.
The 1976 Act brought in many aspects of copyright with which we are now familiar, including codifying fairuse in Section 107 (it previously had been applied on a common law basis). Harper & Row brought suit and The Nation argued that publishing the excerpts was a fairuse.
To further develop this excursus on the US case law, in this post we consider two recent class actions against Meta launched by copyright holders (mainly book authors), for alleged infringement of IP in their books and written works through use in training materials for LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI).
Does the increasing use or distribution of AI-generated material raise any unique issues for your sector or industry as compared to other copyright stakeholders? In sectors such as science, news, and book publishing, poor quality AI materials can generate bad science, promote misinformation, and lead to harmful results.
In 2012, US NASA’s robotic rover touched down on Mars. It was taken down after one hour, as it was subject to a copyrightnotice by a news channel relying on the US DMCA. We are naturally drawn to extreme examples, and they are so easy to recall”, says Hans Rosling in his book Factfulness (2018, p.
Here’s a quick rundown on the court’s decision as to each of these claims: Direct copyright infringement (Count I) – SURVIVES OpenAI did not move to dismiss on this claim (we suspect this is because they plan to assert a fairuse defense at summary judgment).
Fairuse provides some exceptions to copyright protection, allowing limited use of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner. Understanding legal and fairuse is especially important in academic settings because dissemination of information often requires the use of evidence.
Trump’s lawsuit alleges, however, that the consent he granted to Woodward was limited to publishing excerpts from the interviews in book form, and that he did not consent to publication of the sound recordings or of full transcripts thereof. If the work was published with proper copyrightnotice, it received a federal statutory copyright.
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