The emerging cases by authors and copyright owners challenging various generative AI programs for using copyrighted materials are certain to create new troubles for the courts being asked to apply the fair use doctrine to this important new technology.
Artificial intelligence has dominated intellectual property news since the public introduction of OpenAI's ChatGPT, the generative AI chatbot, in November 2022. Now, 2024 starts off with court decisions and procedural rulings having taken shape in 2023 lawsuits that were filed over the collision of creative content with generative AI programs.
The FTC said that the misuse of training data like infringing on a work's copyright license is tantamount to unfair competition, thus implicating consumer protection with copyright policy and securing the agency's jurisdiction in the regulatory space.
Reversing and remanding, the Ninth Circuit emphasized: "The district court's approach of reducing choreography to 'poses' is fundamentally at odds with the way we analyze copyright claims for other art forms, like musical compositions."
Ninth Circuit Upholds Copyright Infringement Dismissal In 'Jangle Vision Twins' Case
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.
