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
A recent article by Austin Mace at Screenrant highlights comments made decades ago by Batman co-creator Bill Finger regarding Batman’s first appearance in Detective Comics #27, published in May 1939. . However, this raises an interesting question: Is Batman a plagiarism? The similarities are incredibly obvious. It happened in 1939.
Yesterday, news broke that Pearson Education, the largest publisher of textbooks in the world, has filed a lawsuit against the website Chegg alleging widespread copyright infringement of its content on the site. As a result, Pearson is suing Chegg alleging copyright infringement.
If you’re a researcher looking to publish your first article, one of the biggest choices that you will likely be confronted with is the choice of publishing in your work Open Access or going with a traditional, closed access publisher. How Traditional PublishingWorks. How Open Access is Different.
First off today, Andrew Albanese at Publishers Weekly Reports that a collection of publishers and authors have secured a default judgement against a piracy service named KISS Library, this one awarding them $7.8 Copyright Law, works lapse into the public domain on January First of the year their copyright expires.
Though every AI is different in how it operates, some feel that AIs are not creating new works, but creating derivativeworks based on existing images. Plagiarism: Though humans do direct AIs in the creation of art, humans are not doing the actual drawing, painting or creation of the work.
However, publishing companies had been continuing to collect royalties on behalf of songwriters even after the rights were reclaimed due to the law saying that publishers can continue licensing any existing derivativeworks. The post 3 Count: Royalty Redirection appeared first on Plagiarism Today.
Academic integrity and plagiarism issues in this context ultimately also lead us to copyright law. This blog post – based on our journal article published in the European Intellectual Property Review – takes a closer look at these questions, while also seeking to address the wider tension that exists between GenAI and copyright.
In 1984, Condé Nast, the publisher, obtained a license from Goldsmith to allow Andy Warhol to use her Prince portrait as the foundation for a single serigraphy to be featured in Vanity Fair magazine. 3] Regardless of the creative level of a work, copyright comes with limitations. A film based on a book serves as an example.
Copyright Office published a Notice of inquiry (“NOI”) and request for comments, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, Docket No. dismissed as implausible the class action plaintiffs’ claim for copyright infringement based on the theory that “every output of the LLaMA language models is an infringing derivativework.”
seems like this is going to have trouble with derivativeworks] Amanda Levendowski, Fairer Public Benefit Bias and harms of works aren’t taken into account in fair use analysis: recruits a legal tool typically aimed at one set of problems for the purpose of cleverly addressing a different set of problems.
Dorland alerted publishers, writing conferences, and journalists to what she considered Larson’s plagiarism and ethical betrayal. But this holding left the Court to consider whether Dorland’s efforts to publicize Larson’s “plagiarism” amounted to defamation or tortious interference.
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