Part Two of a Two-Part Article A report on the September panel discussion sponsored by the Miami Dade Bar Association Law and Technology Committee, on AI and how to effectively use it in law firms.
In August, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia affirmed the U.S. Copyright Office's denial of a copyright application for a visual piece of art generated entirely by an artificial intelligence-driven computer called the "Creativity Machine." 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."
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently upheld a final refusal by the U.S. Copyright Office to register a visual work that was "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine," which the plaintiff called the Creativity Machine and identified as the "author" of the work.
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.
