Features
Edward D. Lanquist
&
Dominic Rota
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.
Features
Thomas Kjellberg
&
Robert W. Clarida
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.
Features
Karl Zielaznicki, Victoria D. Summerfield
&
Eliza Cen
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.
Features
Karl Zielaznicki, Victoria D. Summerfield
&
Eliza Cen
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.
Features
Erick Franklund
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.
Features
Nicole D. Galli
&
Andrew J. Costa
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.
Features
Avalon Zoppo
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.
Features
Stan Soocher
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.
Features
Stan Soocher
The lion's share of attention to copyright-infringement claims against Ed Sheeran over his 2016 Grammy-winning Song of the Year "Thinking Out Loud" recently focused on the trial in New York federal court. But in September 2022, a related infringement suit over the same songs' matching chord progression and harmonic rhythm was allowed to proceed.
Features
Jonathan Moskin
A new balance must be struck between the new use and the exclusive right of authors to make derivative works, and part of that balance includes a clearer focus on the statutory fair use factors as well as the commercial nature or not of the new work. As a practical matter, how much the decision changes in this "troublesome" area remains to be seen.
