Remove Definition Remove Derivative Work Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

Prompt Authorship and Ownership: Clarifying Rights and Responsibilities

Intepat

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.

article thumbnail

“Pearson v Chegg”: Is “Cheating” a Copyright Infringement?

IPilogue

Chegg works by hiring freelance workers to prepare step-by-step processes to answer the questions at the end of each chapter of Pearson textbooks. Many lawyers have commented on the possibility of Pearson winning their complaint as it does not quite match the previously mentioned definition. Code, subsection 101 , states: . “

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Judge Recommends Approving “New” Phanatic Mascot Despite Termination

Copyright Lately

In a 91-page report and recommendation, a magistrate judge finds that the new version of the Philadelphia Phillies’ mascot falls within the “derivative works exception” to copyright termination. The law permits the owner of a derivative work prepared before termination to continue using that new work even after termination.

article thumbnail

Not Past the Post Yet

BYU Copyright Blog

Post University claimed that Course Hero committed, among other things, multiple instances of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, violation of the DMCA, and unfair competition by posting and creating derivative works of educational materials owned by Post University without Post University's permission.

article thumbnail

Copyright, Education, and Generative AI: Getting with the programme?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Another much-discussed issue is whether AI-generated works meet the threshold of originality to merit copyright protection. A related question then arises as to who would be able to claim ownership of such a work: the person who provided the input prompt, or perhaps the AI tool itself? the third criterion).

Copyright 122
article thumbnail

How to Avoid Pitfalls on the Way to Decentralized Disney

Copyright Lately

Definitely. Want to Create New Derivative Works? This still wouldn’t necessarily have given the buyer carte blanche to create new derivative works featuring the characters, as opposed to, perhaps, digital screengrabs from individual episodes. It would have taken a bit of due diligence, but not much.

article thumbnail

Web Page Framing Isn’t Trespass to Chattels–Best Carpet Values v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Once we qualify the copies as “electronic,” it becomes unmistakable that this case deals with intangible items, not traditional “chattel” that are, by definition, tangible items. The Ninth Circuit takes this baffling approach in part due to the 20-year-old Sex.com case (Kremen v. ” That’s true.

Copying 83