Group items tagged

"Getty points to images produced by Stable Diffusion which contain its copyright watermark, suggesting that Stable Diffusion has ingested and is reproducing copyrighted material without permission (Stability AI has not yet commented publicly on the lawsuit). The same level of evidence is harder to come by when examining ChatGPT's text output, but there is no doubt that it has been trained on copyrighted material. OpenAI will be hoping that its text generation is covered by "fair use", a provision in copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material for "transformative" purposes. That idea will probably one day be tested in court."

"Needless to say, AI-generated accidents and AI-generated artworks are viewed differently under the law. As far as art goes, be it a video, an image, a script, a song, or any medium that the AI can work with, the (US) law is pretty straightforward - According to copyright law, only humans can be granted copyrights. If it's created by AI, nobody can claim ownership of it or copyright it."

"On Mar 16, 2023, The Copyright Office initiated an effort to investigate copyright law and policy concerns related to Generative AI. "This initiative is in direct response to the recent striking advances in generative AI technologies and their rapidly growing use by individuals and businesses. The Copyright Office has received requests from Congress and members of the public, including creators and AI users, to examine the issues raised for copyright, and it is already receiving applications for registration of works including AI-generated content.""

""The Supreme Court's decision shows that we have a copyright law that is behind the times and insufficient faced with the digital reality we all live in," it said in a statement. It noted that tourists who take selfies of themselves at famous landmarks and spread them on the Internet could be deemed in violation of copyright laws."

"EFF's Legal Director Corynne McSherry offers five lessons to keep in mind: 1. (Lots of) mistakes will be made: copyright takedowns result in the removal of tons of legitimate content. 2. Robots won't help: automated filtering tools like Content ID have been a disaster, and policing copyright with algorithms is a lot easier than policing "bad speech." 3. These systems need to be transparent and have due process. A system that allows for automated instant censorship and slow, manual review of censorship gives a huge advantage to people who want to abuse the system. 4. Punish abuse. The ability to censor other peoples' speech is no joke. If you're careless or malicious in your takedown requests, you should pay a consequence: maybe a fine, maybe being barred form using the takedown system. 5. Voluntary moderation quickly becomes mandatory. Every voluntary effort to stem copyright infringement has been followed by calls to make those efforts mandatory (and expand them)."

"In 1998, the US Congress retroactively extended the copyright on US works, placing public domain works back into copyright and forestalling the entry into the public domain of a great mass of works that were soon to become public domain; now, 20 years later with no copyright term extension in sight, the US public domain is about to receive the first of many annual infusions to come, a great mass of works that will be free for all to use. "

""Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists," Hawley said in a press release. "It's time to take away Disney's special privileges and open up a new era of creativity and innovation." His proposal would apply retroactively to copyright owners with a market capitalization of more than $150 billion in the motion pictures and videos or arts, entertainment, and recreation industries."

Fabulous website to checkout if you are unsure of what copyright laws exist in which countries?

"Under the proposal, online platforms would have to spend hundreds of millions of euros on algorithmic copyright filters that would compare everything users tried to post with a database of supposedly copyrighted works, which anyone could add anything to, and block any suspected matches. This would snuff out all the small EU competitors to America's Big Tech giants, and put all Europeans' communications under threat of arbitrary censorship by balky, unaccountable, easily abused algorithms."

"Because YouTube is the dominant player in the online video market, its choices dictate the norms of the whole industry. And unfortunately for independent creators, YouTube has proven to be more interested in appeasing large copyright holders than protecting free speech or promoting creativity. Through its automatic copyright filter, Content ID, YouTube has effectively replaced legal fair use of copyrighted material with its own rules."

"The Authors' Guild originally sued Google, saying that serving up search results from scanned books infringes on publishers' copyrights even though the search giant shows only restricted snippets of the work. The writers also claimed that Google's book search snippets provide an illegal free substitute for their work and that Google Books infringes their "derivative rights" in revenue they could gain from a "licensed search" market."

"That's right, they're coming after us literally for a few splotches of ink. What companies like this do is broker works of art on behalf of actual photographers, but then engage in copyright trolling by threatening anyone who uses even a small piece of them. Increased computing power and more sophisticated algorithms allow them to do this with improved speed and "efficiency.""

"The police are attempting to use YouTube's stringent copyright system to keep people from posting recordings of encounters with law enforcement. In a video posted Thursday by the Anti Police-Terror Project (APTP), a community organization dedicated to defunding the Oakland Police Department, Alameda County Sheriff's deputy David Shelby pulled out his phone and began playing Taylor Swift's "Blank Space" during an encounter. He openly admitted, "it can't be posted to YouTube.""

"Mickey Mouse will enter the public domain in the year 2024, almost 95 years after his creation on 1 October 1928 - the length of time after which the copyright on an anonymous or pseudo-anonymous body of artistic work expires."

"Wooldridge says copyright is a "coming storm" for AI companies. LLMs are likely to have accessed copyrighted material, such as news articles. Indeed the GPT-4-assisted chatbot attached to Microsoft's Bing search engine cites news sites in its answers. "I didn't give explicit permission for my works to be used as training data, but they almost certainly were, and now they contribute to what these models know," he says. "Many artists are gravely concerned that their livelihoods are at risk from generative AI. Expect to see legal battles," he adds."

"Copyright and Creation, a policy brief from a collection of respected scholars at the rock-ribbed London School of Economics, argues that the evidence shows that piracy isn't causing any grave harm to the entertainment industry, and that anti-piracy measures like the three-strikes provision in Britain's Digital Economy Act don't work. They call on lawmakers to take an evidence-led approach to Internet and copyright law, and to consider the interests of the public and not just big entertainment companies looking for legal backstops to their profit-maximisation strategies. "

"Corellium's actions fell under an exception to copyright law because it "creates a new, virtual platform for iOS and adds capabilities not available on Apple's iOS devices," District Court Judge Rodney Smith in West Palm Beach ruled on Tuesday."

"Hayleigh Bosher, associate dean of intellectual property law at Brunel University, who researches the music industry, said "the law needs to move with the times" as "making music is so different to how it was 50 years ago". She added: If Sheeran loses, I imagine we will see even more cases. I don't think copyright is doing its job properly if songwriters are afraid, that's stifling creativity.""

"The company has called for Australian policymakers to promote "copyright systems that enable appropriate and fair use of copyrighted content to enable the training of AI models in Australia on a broad and diverse range of data, while supporting workable opt-outs for entities that prefer their data not to be trained in using AI systems". The call for a fair use exception for AI systems is a view the company has expressed to the Australian government in the past, but the notion of an opt-out option for publishers is a new argument from Google."