In February 2024, the Fourth Circuit addressed a jury’s 2020 damages award of $1 billion finding Cox secondarily liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringement through illegal copying of copyrighted songs. Both Cox and Sony filed petitions for certiorari.
CLE sponsored by the Copyright Society of the South, Nashville, TN, Dec. 12, 2024.
Most of the federal circuit courts that have addressed what qualifies either as a "compilation" or as a single creative work apply an "independent economic value" analysis that looks at the market worth of the single creation as of the time when an infringement occurs. But in a recent ruling of first impression, the Fifth Circuit rejected the "independent economic value" test in determining which individual sound recordings are eligible for their own statutory awards and which are part of compilation.
Copyright law has long struggled to keep pace with advances in technology, and the debate around the copyrightability of AI-assisted works is no exception. At issue is the human authorship requirement: the principle that a work must have a human author to be eligible for copyright protection. While the Copyright Office has previously cited this "bedrock requirement of copyright" to reject registrations, recent decisions have focused on the role of human authorship in the context of AI.
While the Copyright Office has previously cited the "bedrock requirement of copyright" that that a work must have a human author to be eligible for copyright protection to reject registrations, recent decisions have focused on the role of human authorship in the context of AI.
When something is referred to as a "knockoff" it typically implies that the knockoff product is similar in appearance to an earlier product and is unlawful. But that is not always the case. Indeed, there can be infringing knockoffs and noninfringing knockoffs. It depends on the facts and circumstances. To appreciate the difference, a look into the general rules and some specific cases is needed.
A federal appeals court departed from five sister circuits determining damages in a copyright infringement case, taking a position the Copyright Alliance called "a cruel joke."
A wide range of tools have been developed to perform vocal cloning, leading to vocal deepfakes becoming a common source of scams and misinformation. And these issues have only been exacerbated by a lack of appropriate laws and regulations to rein in the use of AI and protect an individual's right to their voice.
The adoption of the DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system is promising. But vocal artists will likely need greater protections on the improper or unauthorized use of their voice, and stronger regulations requiring the disclosure of any use of AI in advertising, promotions or other digital or audio content placed on the Internet.
The suit raises the issue of whether "response" songs can have legal protection from copyright owners of the song that generated the response composition.
