Recognizing that U.S. "copyright law protects only works of human creation," the court determined that the Copyright Office "acted properly in denying copyright registration for a work created absent any human involvement."
Standing still and waiting to take action wasn't easy, but the patience paid off. Now, I understand some of AI's limitations and ways to leverage it to propel marketing and sales activities.
The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith sent ripples through the legal and artistic communities. Months later, legal scholars and art journalists continue to debate whether the decision opens the door for federal courts to act as "art critics." Many, however, downplay how the Supreme Court's decision impacts the ways in which copyright owners may enforce their rights against generative AI tools.
Termination is not automatic. It may be effected only through affirmative action on the part of the author or his or her statutory successors, who must serve an advance notice, signed by or on behalf of all of those entitled to terminate the grant, on the current copyright owner within specified time limits and under specified conditions.
Whether prompted to write a corporate slogan, create music, generate works of art and advertisements, or summarize a book — GAI can do it all. However, its increasing popularity means that users of GAI programs face substantial intellectual property risks — particularly when businesses use GAI for marketing and other public-facing purposes.
Generative AI can do it all. However, its increasing popularity means that users of GAI programs face substantial intellectual property risks — particularly when businesses use GAI for marketing and other public-facing purposes.
The Internet is still standing, but the Supreme Court's reasoning in theGonzalez opinion remains perplexing. Gonzalez and Taamneh are a story about how the Supreme Court "saved" the Internet from itself, and the Court needed both cases to do so.
Commentary The high court's decision's future application is anything but clear and clarification of the parameters of a "transformative" fair use is left open for another day.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear its view — that class-action plaintiffs' lawyers generally should not be awarded fees that exceed the amount their clients get from a settlement — as the court struck down a $1.7 million fee award in which a copyright plaintiffs' class received less than $53,000 in an infringement dispute settlement.
The lion's share of attention to copyright-infringement claims against Ed Sheeran over his song of the Year "Thinking Out Loud" recently focused on the trial in New York federal court in which a jury found in Sheeran's favor in the lawsuit brought by the heirs of a co-author of the 1970s soul-song classic "Let's Get It On." But in September 2022, a related infringement suit over the same songs' matching chord progression and harmonic rhythm was allowed to go forward.
