Major record labels including Capitol Records and Sony Music Entertainment sued two music-focused generative artificial intelligence companies, accusing them of "willful copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale."
A "Spotify model" of licensing, regulation and royalties could be the answer to the recent slew of lawsuits and future litigation relating to generative artificial intelligence defined by rampant misappropriation of name, image and likeness of individuals, including high-profile celebrities.
Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.
A look at moves among attorneys, law firms, companies and other players in entertainment law.
Music Publishers' Nashville Lawsuit Over Alleged Use of Lyrics in AI Generative Program Is Sent to California Federal Court New York Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Fashion Model's Publicity Right Claim Over Ralph Lauren Documentary New York Federal Court Applies Written Contracts Clause to Determine Intent in Implied TV-Distribution License Dispute
Highlights some of the in-depth analysis and insights from lawyers and other practice area experts from the nine LJN Newsletters titles over the first quarter of 2024.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has decided that the termination by Mary Bono of grants made by her late husband Sonny Bono under the copyright-assignment termination provision of the Copyright Act didn't affect royalty rights under a 1978 marital settlement agreement between Sonny and ex-wife Cher.
Actress Scarlett Johansson has threatened the generative software company OpenAI with legal action. And intellectual property lawyers have many thoughts about who might win, whether there's even a legal claim to be made and what it all means.
LOVO, an artificial intelligence company focused on voice generation, has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit, with the plaintiff voice actors arguing they have not been properly compensated for the use of their voices.
In a 6-3 majority decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has resolved a copyright question that generated conflicting results in the U.S. Courts of Appeal for years. But as a forceful dissent pointed out, the court left open a more fundamental issue that could render the entire question moot.
