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?
One of the practices that has generated a sizeable number of disputes and rulings is the use of photos to illustrate articles. These three cases address fairuse in this context. McGucken moved for summary judgment on the fairuse defense. The second factor weighs slightly against fairuse.
Just three short years ago, copyright litigation discussions centered around whether it is fairuse to copy declaring code or make unlicensed use of Lynn Goldsmiths photographs of Prince. Most of these involve the unauthorized use of third-party copyrighted works to fuel generative AI systems.
This is what I call a “commercial editorial use”–ad-supported editorial content. Courts routinely split on whether commercial editorial use is commercial for fairuse purposes. Independent Journal Review , No. 6, 2024) The post Fourth Circuit Issues a Bummer FairUse Ruling–Philpot v.
The defendant published a bio on Sewell and included one of McDermott’s photos–apparently sourced from an unrelated Instagram account (possibly another infringer, or perhaps that account has a fairuse defense?). However we get there, the overall litigation enterprise here makes no economic sense.
Independent Journal Review reversing a ruling that an online reproduction of a photograph of singer-songwriter Ted Nugent constituted fairuse. On February 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Philpot v.
(This post has been co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Aditi Agrawal and Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan) Here is our recap of last weeks top IP developments including summary of the posts on taking stock of ANI vs OpenAI copyright litigation (Part I and II), and Machine Unlearning and the ANI vs OpenAI case. Drop a comment below to let us know.
2] They contended that the defendants are perpetuating gross misinformation by running fraudulent medicinal drug advertisement campaigns through wrongful use of Artificial Intelligence and are creating deepfakes by distorting images, voice, and other personality traits of Rajat Sharma, also infringing upon the registered trademarks of his company.
The full article can be read in the Journal of the Copyright Society. The fairuse debate in the United States is likely to continue for several years until one or more Supreme Court opinions shed additional light on the issue. Nevertheless, some uses of LLMs and their training may be found to be fairuse.
The complaint raised concerns that Dolezal was using copyright law to purge the historical record of her controversial past, while seeking substantial monetary damages in the process. The defendant, CBS Interactive, had a solid fairuse defense, but never needed to assert it.
Discussing the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Hachette Book Group v. Internet Archive, our fellowship applicant Tanishka Goswami explains the implication of the decision on fairuse. Through this post, I shall: firstly , examine the Appellate Court’s “fairuse” analysis w.r.t.
An analogous situation involving open software licenses (GNU and the like) is now being litigated. I don’t find this argument convincing given the ability today to license many content types at scale for TDM, including images, music and yes, journal articles (See “Full disclosure” above), but it is an argument often offered by infringers.
Although the Supreme Court eventually sided with Google on fairuse grounds, it did not disturb the Federal Circuit’s copyrightability decision that strongly supported copyright protection even for functional software. Law Journal Reading List from the Briefs: Paul Goldstein, Infringement of Copyright in Computer Programs , 47 U.
The Constitutionality of Mandating Editorial Transparency , 73 Hastings Law Journal 1203 (2022). How FairUse Helps Bloggers Publish Their Research , Association of Research Libraries blog, Feb. Gellis [a standard post, but it has generated extra interest because the two litigants are locked in a noisy death grip).
The full article can be read in the Journal of the Copyright Society. In addition to copyright liability for using copyrighted works as inputs without permission, there is a lot of discussion about how to treat outputs—those things generated by the AI systems built on training involving copyrighted works.
It is interesting to note the possible shape that the litigation would have taken if the defendants had disputed the ownership of copyright by the plaintiffs from the time of initiation of the suit. Therefore, the court dismissed the application by the defendant. A hypothetical : What if ownership had been disputed earlier on?
There are several possible reasons why a de minimis litigation is still pursued. De minimis in copyright can be used for different reasons such as for fairuse analysis, substantial similarity analysis [7] , among its other such uses. JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS. Viacom 18 Motion Picture & Ors [6].,
The Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled, however, that making and displaying thumbnail images to facilitate an image search engine was a fairuse. ” In practice, the CJPA would impose payment obligations on some embedders for some works, even though this case would hold that those uses are not infringing. 3d at 1160.
Answer: may need to be litigated. YT agreed not to consider fairuse in content takedowns from a major movie studio—a concession that affected other users. Journalism that tells people only what they want to hear is a known risk; so are there uses of data which you must not make? They don’t have to honor flags.
What has changed is that creators are now directly expressing the need for consent prior to use. Data or, as we like to call it, books, journals, songs, and other creations of human ingenuity, creativity, and culture is continuously being created. Does restrictive language mean materials can never be used in AI applications?
See Business Standard article entitled Spring cleaning in the Supreme Court: The new Chief Justice swats frivolous litigation but more measures are needed. ” Then, as I noted , the US Supreme Court decided a few days later, “in Google v. So, with that background, let’s turn to our own cleaning. ’ (Op.
If not, the court may have to address several other interesting, rarely-litigated issues concerning the proper scope of copyright in recorded interviews. Sixth, assuming Woodward published copyrighted material without Trump’s authorization, was he permitted to do so, either as a fairuse, or by the First Amendment? 2d at 206.
And if Musk ever flips any of Twitter’s long-standing legal or policy positions in litigation or lobbying, he could truly melt down the industry. JCPA (Journalism Competition and Preservation Act). Basically, Musk’s mistakes pour gasoline on the regulatory fires for everyone. Still, the news was bad for hiQ.
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