Duane Morris partner Aleksander J. Goranin authored the Art Business News article, “The Future of Digital Art as Training Material For Generative Artificial Intelligence Models,” which provides a reader-friendly introduction to the copyright and right-of-publicity issues raised by such AI model training, and offers practical tips about what art owners can do, currently, if they want to keep their works away from such training uses. Read the full article.
The Copyright Registration Guidance published by the United States Copyright Office in March mainly addressed whether a human providing simple prompts or other input to an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm could obtain a copyright registration for the output that the AI algorithm generated based on the human input. … Now a few months later, a court has handed out a decision on whether to grant a copyright registration to the AI algorithm in Thaler v. Perlmutter, 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C).
On March 16, 2023, the United States Copyright Office (USCO) published Copyright Registration Guidance (Guidance) on generative AI. In the Guidance, the USCO reminded us that it “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.” This statement curiously conjures the notion of a machine creating copyrightable works autonomously.
It’s good to be an Internet Service Provider. While content owners worry about piracy and erosion of copyright, and thus revenue, ISP’s (the companies that provide us with Internet access) do not have substantial copyright worries. They are considered, in effect, common carriers and as a result are generally no more liable for copyright infringement by its customers than the telephone company would be liable if you slander someone during a phone call. The concern is the copyright misbehavior of ISP customers, namely people like us.
Click here to read Mark Fischer’s blog entry on ISP’s and copyright issues.
It’s a little-known fact that the Librarian of Congress has the power to determine if you can “unlock” your mobile phone/PDA in order to change the telephone/ISP service accessible on the device. You might not think a librarian could be that powerful, but it’s the law.
Learn more about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) and the Librarian of Congress’ role in unlocking mobile phones in this blog entry from partner Mark Fischer on the New Media and Entertainment Law Blog.
Is the information you post via social media of potential governmental interest? Probably not, but still, it’s possible.
To bring home the point, Twitter just issued its first Transparency Report. That report details the number of government demands it has received for user information in the first six months of 2012.
What do the numbers reveal?
A new Second Circuit decision could change the way some service providers conduct business on the internet, imposing a greater burden to assess specific infringing activity.
In Viacom v. YouTube, Viacom sought $1 billion in damages for direct and secondary copyright infringement based on claims that its users improperly uploaded thousands of Viacom’s videos. The district previously held that YouTube was protected against claims of copyright infringement under the DMCA safe harbor primarily because it had insufficient notice of the particular infringement at issue. Essentially, it held that under the DMCA, service providers did not have a responsibility to identify which of its users’ postings infringed a copyright.