Remove Fair Use Remove Litigation Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

AI Training, Fair Use, and the Burdens of Being First

Copyright Lately

Ross Intelligence will get plenty of second looks from courts deciding fair use in generative AI copyright cases. Those were some of the phrases legal commentators used to describe Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith in the days following the Supreme Courts 2023 landmark fair use decision.

article thumbnail

Tattoos and Copyright: A Potent Combination

Plagiarism Today

However, the important thing to know is that there was no doubt that Take-Two did copy the tattoos in question and there was no question of Alexander’s ownership of them. Fair Use – That the use of the tattoos was a fair use, meaning that the use was transformative enough to not be an infringement of the original work.

Copyright 246
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

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 27 – February 2)

SpicyIP

(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.

article thumbnail

Some Thoughts on Five Pending AI Litigations – Avoiding Squirrels and Other AI Distractions

Velocity of Content

After all, while we are pondering the weighty issue of future ownership, we are not focusing on the fundamental issue of wholesale copying of works to train AI in a wide variety of situations. Each of these cases is unique, fact dependent, and likely, if fully litigated on the merits, to shed light on different aspects of copyright law.

article thumbnail

Copyright and Generative AI: What Can We Learn from Model Terms and Conditions?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

On the first, substantial litigation has already been launched concerning whether the data used to train these models requires payment or opt-in from creatives whose work has been ingested, often without consent. Is it a proper copyright ownership or an assigned license? user, service)?

Copyright 135
article thumbnail

Court Quashes 512(h) Subpoena on First Amendment Grounds–In re 512(h) Subpoena to Twitter

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Soon after, an entity called Bayside asserted copyright ownership of the photos and sent 512(c)(3) takedown notices to Twitter followed by a 512(h) subpoena to unmask CallMeMoneyBags. ” Second, Bayside said that copyright already accommodates First Amendment considerations via the fair use defense (citing the Reddit case ).

Fair Use 115
article thumbnail

Viral DRM Awarded Damages for Its 512(f) Claims, But At What Cost?

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a copyright ownership dispute that spilled over to Spotify, who received takedown notices. Barrett Financial * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership DisputeShande v. Heldman * Another 512(f) Claim FailsNingbo Mizhihe v Doe * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)Hughes v.