Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Exploring Gen AI’s Impact on Intellectual Property
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly reaching into nearly all areas of everyday life, quickly becoming some of the most exciting new tools for creativity. These tools, known as Generative AI (GenAI), advance innovation and efficiency by producing images, text, video, audio, and other forms of content. For some, GenAI is the latest and greatest innovation, while for others, it is an existential threat. In this emerging technological landscape, there are many implications and unanswered questions regarding the protection of intellectual property rights. This article highlights some of the challenges GenAI presents, and recent developments in copyright law and trademark law in this quickly evolving space.
Copyright Law Implications for GenAI
Copyright law protects an author’s exclusive right to exploit their original works through reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution, public performance and public display. See, 17 U.S.C. §106. As can be seen from recent headlines, copyright law is implicated by GenAI in at least three ways: 1) the use of copyrighted works to train AI models; 2) the risk that a specific AI-generated work infringes a prior copyrighted work; and 3) the protection of AI-generated works under copyright law.
Using Copyrighted Works to Train AI
GenAI platforms are powered by large amounts of content inputted into a training system, with the goal of teaching the AI model to produce outputs that mimic the outputs humans would create based on similar prompts. To train these platforms, the content must come from somewhere, and often that content is subject to copyright protection. In December of 2023, the New York Times Company (The Times) filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York against OpenAI, Inc.and Microsoft Corporation (the developers of ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot, respectively). The Times alleged that the defendants’ GenAI tools copied and used millions of The Times’ copyrighted journalistic content to train their platforms without permission, and to compete against The Times in the journalistic market. Complaint filed with Jury Demand, The New York Times Company v. Microsoft, Corporation, OpenAI, Inc. et al., No. 1:23-CV-11195, Dkt. No. 1 (S.D.N.Y.Dec. 27, 2023). Just a few months prior, a putative class action complaint was filed against OpenAI in the Northern District of California alleging copyright infringement as to works authored by a class of authors without the authors’ consent to train ChatGPT. See, Class Action Complaint, Tremblay et al v. OpenAI, Inc. et al, No. 3:23-CV-03223, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D.Cal. June 28, 2023). The complaint was later amended and consolidated in March of 2024, and now names as plaintiffs Paul Tremblay, Sarah Silverman, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and others. See, First Consolidated Amended Complaint, Tremblay et al v. OpenAI, Inc. et al, No. 3:23-CV-03223, Dkt. No. 120 (N.D.Cal. March 13, 2024).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?