- Aug 2023
-
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
-
Cuthbertson, Anthony. “Musician Uses Algorithm to Generate Every Possible Melody to Prevent Copyright Lawsuits.” The Independent, February 28, 2020, sec. Tech. https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/music-copyright-algorithm-lawsuit-damien-riehl-a9364536.html.
-
At what point do we have the computing power to create the machine of "Shakespearean monkeys at typewriters" that generates all available combinations of text to end copyright of text? Compare with Melody/Music: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/music-cop
-
- Jul 2023
-
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
-
The lawsuit against OpenAI claims the three authors “did not consent to the use of their copyrighted books as training material for ChatGPT. Nonetheless, their copyrighted materials were ingested and used to train ChatGPT.”
-
- Apr 2023
-
certificates.creativecommons.org certificates.creativecommons.org
-
Recommended Resource
Since Unit 4 mentions some CC license infringement cases as examples, I recommend adding a court case from the Netherlands of a photographer suing a website for using their photo without permission or compensation. The name of the court case is below.
The court case ended with the judge awarding the photographer (plaintiff) the following damages (excerpt is from the court case records).
"5.4. orders [defendant] to pay to [plaintiff] against proof of discharge:
€ 450.00 in damages, increased by the statutory interest as referred to in Article 6:119 of the Dutch Civil Code, with effect from 11 June 2021 until the day of full payment,
€ 67.50 in extrajudicial collection costs,
5.5. orders [defendant] to pay the costs of the proceedings on the part of [plaintiff], estimated at € 2,036.30 until the judgment of this judgment, of which € 1,702.00 in salary for the authorized representative."
This case demonstrates the enforceability of the CC license in other countries, such as the Netherlands.
-
- Sep 2022
-
www.lexology.com www.lexology.com
-
Can copyright vest in an AI? The primary objective of intellectual property law is to protect the rights of the creators of intellectual property.10 Copyright laws specifically aim to: (i) promote creativity and encourage authors, composers, artists and designers to create original works by affording them the exclusive right to exploit such work for monetary gain for a limited period; and (ii) protect the creators of the original works from unauthorised reproduction or exploitation of those works.
Can copyright vest in an AI?
The primary objective of intellectual property law is to protect the rights of the creators of intellectual property.10 Copyright laws specifically aim to: (i) promote creativity and encourage authors, composers, artists and designers to create original works by affording them the exclusive right to exploit such work for monetary gain for a limited period; and (ii) protect the creators of the original works from unauthorised reproduction or exploitation of those works.
-
-
www.wipo.int www.wipo.int
-
To my knowledge, conferring copyright in works generated by artificial intelligence has never been specifically prohibited. However, there are indications that the laws of many countries are not amenable to non-human copyright. In the United States, for example, the Copyright Office has declared that it will “register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.” This stance flows from case law (e.g. Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. 499 U.S. 340 (1991)) which specifies that copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Similarly, in a recent Australian case (Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd), a court declared that a work generated with the intervention of a computer could not be protected by copyright because it was not produced by a human.
To my knowledge, conferring copyright in works generated by artificial intelligence has never been specifically prohibited. However, there are indications that the laws of many countries are not amenable to non-human copyright. In the United States, for example, the Copyright Office has declared that it will “register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.” This stance flows from case law (e.g. Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. 499 U.S. 340 (1991)) which specifies that copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Similarly, in a recent Australian case (Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd), a court declared that a work generated with the intervention of a computer could not be protected by copyright because it was not produced by a human.
-
-
www.americanbar.org www.americanbar.org
-
With the advent of AI software, computers — not monkeys — will potentially create millions of original works that may then be protected by copyright, under current law, for more than 100 years.
With the advent of AI software, computers — not monkeys — will potentially create millions of original works that may then be protected by copyright, under current law, for more than 100 years.
-
-
kids-in-mind.com kids-in-mind.com
-
copyright laws (the Dwarfelles are used as substitutes for the original Dwarfs, since Disney owns the Dwarf characters, and this is not a Disney film).
-
- Apr 2021
-
law.stackexchange.com law.stackexchange.com
-
"an officer or employee of the United States Federal Government as part of that person’s official duties."
as part of that person’s official duties.
-
- Mar 2021
-
store.steampowered.com store.steampowered.com
-
infringing on Marvel's copyrights
-
- Feb 2021
-
en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
-
Because the Berne Convention in most countries by default grants copyright holders monopolistic control over their creations, copyright content must be explicitly declared free, usually by the referencing or inclusion of licensing statements from within the work.
-
-
copyheart.org copyheart.org
-
Instead of trying to educate everyone on the complexities of copyright law, we’d rather make our intentions clear with this simple statement:
-
-
www.stm-assoc.org www.stm-assoc.org
-
what is allowed
What is allowed = what is legal (i.e. copyright law) and what the journal is willing to publish or reject. If authors are told they should consult the journal and the only response is the journal's own policy, assuming it contradicts the right retention strategy (RRS), the Publisher/Editor/Production Editor will be misinforming the author and denying them their legal rights.
-
However, we are unable to support one route to compliance offered by Plan S,
The publishers below will not support the Plan S rights retention strategy (RRS). In its simplest form the RRS re-asserts the authors' rights as the rights holder to assign a copyright license of their choice (CC BY informed by their funding agency) to all versions of their research/intellectual output. In the case of the RRS states that the author should apply a CC BY license to their accepted manuscript (AAM) if they cannot afford to pay article processing charges or choose not to apply a CC BY license to the Version of Record (VoR), which they are free to do. Therefore, this statement is either saying the undersigned will not carry publications forward to publication (most appropriate approach), or they will not support the same copyright laws which fundamentally protects their rights and revenue after a copyright transfer agreement is signed by the rightsholder.
Academy of Dental Materials
Acoustical Society of America
AIP Publishing
American Academy of Ophthalmology
American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus
American Chemical Society
American Gastroenterological Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
American Medical Association
American Physical Society
American Society for Investigative Pathology
American Society for Radiation Oncology
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Hematology
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Association of Physicists in Medicine
American Association of Physics Teachers
AVS – The Society for Science and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing
Brill
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Budrich Academic Press
Cambridge Media
Cambridge University Press
Canadian Cardiovascular Society
De Gruyter
Duncker & Humblot
Elsevier
Emerald
Erich Schmidt Verlag
French Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Frommann-Holzboog Verlag
Future Science Group
Hogrefe
International Association for Gondwana Research
IOP Publishing
Journal of Nursing Regulation
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT).
Julius Klinkhardt KG
La Découverte
Laser Institute America
Materials Research Forum LLC
The Optical Society (OSA)
Pearson Benelux
SAGE Publishing
Society of Rheology
Springer Nature
Taylor & Francis Group
The Geological Society of America
Thieme Group
Uitgeverij Verloren
Verlag Barbara Budrich
Vittorio Klostermann
wbv Media
Wiley
Wolters Kluwer
-
- Jan 2016
-
-
Intellectual property law is not a strong motivation in the creation of art, science -- or even business. It tends to hinder progress more than it promotes progress.
The Eureka Myth: Creators, Innovators, and Everyday Intellectual Property<br> Prof. Jessica Silbey
-
- Dec 2015
-
www.techdirt.com www.techdirt.com
-
But, I still worry that some of the specific actions used to paint this picture are (1) potentially taken out of context, (2) are presented in a way that likely misrepresents the actual situation and (3) could come back to haunt other online services who are providing perfectly legitimate services.
-
- Feb 2014
-
s3.amazonaws.com s3.amazonaws.com
-
U.S. intellectual property law originates (as law) from the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes copyright and patent law possible (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 4 respective Writings and Discoveries”) ,
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 makes copyright and patent law possible.
-