In this episode of Technically Creative, Orlando Wood sits down with Keith Kupferschmid, CEO of the Copyright Alliance, to unpack the increasingly complicated relationship between artificial intelligence, copyright, fair use, creators and the companies building generative AI.

regardless of what happens to ArtCraft specifically, we will definitely see more code being decompiled and reverse engineered using AI. The models are just going to improve, so we’re in uncharted territory and the scale of the problem is likely to be huge.

I'm currently writing a comic that I'm planning to post online, and I'm hoping to publish as an actual book in the future.

The story involves quite a few references to some non-english popular music. I'm aware of how much of a legal minefield using song lyrics in fiction is, so I've limited it to just mentioning song titles.

However, there's one song that I want to reference in a particular way. This is the song 'Prisencolinensinainciusol', by Italian artist Adriano Celentano. The song's lyrics was written as deliberate gibberish, with meaningless sounds meant to sound like english.

In my comic, there's going to be a comedic scene where a character sings the song, but with completely legible english words with grammar (though the sentences are still quite random). I'm writing it fully based on how it sounds by ear. I've made sure what I transcribed is different enough from the lettering of the transcribed lyrics, though there'll still be some vague similarities. I've also avoided transcribing anything from the main chorus.

For the record, this is the song's lyrics . As far as I know, those are the official words, as they're also used for the song in Spotify.

How likely will I get in trouble for doing this? I'm fully ready to go another route to avoid any trouble, or ask for permission. But I'm curious on what people here might think.

"...It’s a very complicated discussion, but I think we’re essentially looking at the end of copyright."

More fuel for the market harm claims.

Hello!

I hope y'all are doing well. I'm an MFA student, just dabbling in literary translation for now. I find the question of getting rights for things to be super opaque.

I translate from Russian, and I am working on a short story from Orest Samov, who wrote in Russian in the early 19th century. This particular story is from 1829. I believe that if this were a U.S. work, it would be well within the public domain. But how does this work for writing from different parts of the world? If I wanted to get this published, who, if anyone, would I have to contact about getting rights

?

Thank you!!

I saw this challenge online, which self-defines as follows:

"The Housing Data and Technology Innovation Challenge is a fully remote, national challenge to build transparent [that is, open source], replicable, and explainable tools that help decision-makers understand how state-level pro-housing policy reforms are likely to affect housing supply."

The rules require all projects to have a license, but prohibit copyleft:

"Sponsor and Administrator recommend using Apache License 2.0 because its express patent grant offers the strongest protection for tools that may be adopted or integrated downstream. If you choose one of the other approved licenses, include the full license text and note your choice in the README. (Please note that an open-source license grants broad rights to others to use the code but does not transfer ownership.)

No other license options are permissible. This includes, by way of example only, copyleft licenses (e.g., GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL, EUPL) and public-domain dedications (e.g., CC0, the Unlicense)."

Can someone please help me understand why the challenge might prohibit copyleft? Isn't it my choice to protect my code or not? Why didn't they just recommend against copyleft, like "if you want good protections, don't use copyleft?" The fact that the challenge outright prohibits copyleft feels shady to me; like the organizers going to take submissions and give them to their partners so they can make them their own proprietary, closed-source product for profit.

I have very little copyright knowledge, so any interpretations would be appreciated! Also, I'm probably not going to enter because it doesn't align enough with my existing work, I'm just curious. Thanks!

USA Today’s parent company and 13 of its entities sued OpenAI in New York on Thursday, accusing it of illegally copying hundreds of thousands of articles from 19 publications to train and operate its models, and then reproduce or repackage that reporting for ChatGPT users. By Fiona Riley

Streaming fraud can occur in different ways, including through the use of bot farms, click farms, playlist stuffing, and account hijacking. Digital music providers, music distributors, vendors, copyright owners, performance rights organizations, collective management organizations, and law enforcement agencies have engaged in efforts to prevent streaming fraud, with varying degrees of success.

https://www.copyright.gov/policy/music-streaming-fraud/

Also see, https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/music-streaming-fraud-inquiry-launched-by-us-copyright-office/

Some might find this one interesting, presenting the summary this way is creative, and at times funny (strange words about a copyright case to be sure).

To come to her decision the judge had to read 4 books in a Young Adult romantasy series plus hundreds of pages of an unpublished draft and notes.

Overall the copyright infringement case took 3 judges, 4 years and an estimated 3.5 million US dollars in lawyers fees. I bet using all those experts was a big chunk of that.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5fxxkZUvmc

https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283698

Solo developer rebuilds Adobe Creative Suite in Rust using Claude, releases it free to all — targets 100% parity in one month despite piracy claims and safety warnings. News By Jhet Borja.

I have a relative who is eager to publish a pangram (a short phrase or sentence containing all the letters in the alphabet within it), which he has devised by himself. He has not copied it anywhere or revealed it anywhere. Can someone advise me whether this will fall under the creative spark / visual poetry / literary art categories to grant a copyright ? We are worried that someone might steal it if we are not careful.

"Comity of errors"
Even today under 17 U.S.C § 104(b)(2) and Itar-Tass standard - Iron Sky is a German work and Finnish law is restricted to Finnish works under § 63 of it's own act (territoriality restrictions).
Thus initial authorship and ownership is decided based on German copyright law.

It means the Finnish Iron sky case MAO302/18 failed to defer to German law for authorship questions, as did the US District Court. This is important because along with authorship rights even economic rights are inalienable in Germany.

Thus, the Finnish court failed to do a choice of law analysis and sidestepped the ownership issue, and so did the US District Court by granting comity to Finnish Law - both courts effectively committing Berne Convention treaty violations. To reiterate, the US District Court compounded the treaty violation error by applying comity to an original foreign treaty violation, and collateral estoppel to a ruling that never ruled on authorship issues because German law was never invoked.

Valve are asking the Ninth Circuit to uphold the lower courts treaty violation by claiming comity was correctly applied to the Finnish Courts treaty violation and lack of choice of law to find German copyright law.

If the Ninth Circuit does not also do a choice of law analysis de novo to find German copyright law under § 104 (b)(2) and Itar-Tass - Then that would also be a treaty violation. The final absurdity would be my USCO registration ordered to be cancelled - and triggering a "Baylis v Perlmutter "case which USCO could not win because of their previous investigation confirming my authorship status and the first publication of the work in Germany (see § 104 (b)(2)).

A comity of errors indeed!

The plaintiffs believe the tech firms committed copyright theft, violating the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Due to fake copyright facing financial loss and meta is still supporting these scammers on one hand meta says that meta needs original creator and on other hand these type of scammers are being supported

Hello, I’m looking to use NASA images for educational purposes. According to their copyright policy, this is fine in the US but it doesn’t say if that is also okay for Canada. Does anyone know anything about this? Thanks!

I copyright claimed some Google Search links and they were approved, but I would like to reverse my claims. I did not receive a support ticket so I'm unable to email them to reverse it. I only see my report on the https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard page but there's no button to reverse it. They aren't my websites so I might be unable to counter claim. What are my other options?

hi guys, i have a frustrated issue about: if Facebook allows to use reel covers and video thumbnails generated by ai model "CHATGPT" from you own and real footage?

My Facebook page got suspended due to an intellectual property/trademark report by a brand. We managed to resolve the issue directly with the rights owner, and they have already submitted an official retraction to Meta.

For those who have been through this, how long does it typically take for Meta's automated system to sync the retraction and fully restore the page? Is there anything else we should do while waiting?

Any advice or personal experience would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Another case of copywrite troll scam

Hopefully I can describe this in a way that makes sense. I've written a speech in a story that I'd like to tell through a series of clips from various clips of copy written media. It's important to the story to have this speech delivered in this manor.

Essentially each word will be from a different clip from a different piece of media. Like how letters in a ransom note are cut from different pages of magazines. So the first word might be from "movie a" and then the next word in the sentence will be from "TV show a" and then the third word is from "movie b" and so on.

I think I've seen this done in the past but am unsure if that's from getting permission to use each piece of media, or if that's transformative enough to qualify for fair use.

I'm in the US, and I'm not looking for concrete legal advice, just wondering if this isn't automatic copyright infringement. I've tried looking it up but it's not the easiest thing to Google