Oversight of the U.S. Copyright Office — On Wednesday, the House Intellectual Property Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the U.S. Copyright Office. A video of the hearing is available at the link, featuring Register Shira Perlmutter testifying on artificial intelligence, music licensing, Copyright Office modernization, and more. Read Register Perlmutter’s written testimony here.
Of Artificial Intelligence and Untidy Facts: Federal District Court Denies Summary Judgment in AI Copyright Case — Perhaps the first US court decision on the merits to address copyright and AI training, but this one largely leaves the big questions for another day. Read the expert analysis of the decision here, then check out the decision itself here.
Fair Imitation or Infringement? Analyzing the Humans of Bombay Copyright Case — Analysis of a recently filed lawsuit in India by storytelling platform Humans of Bombay against competitor People of India, covering core concepts of India’s copyright law, including fair dealing.
Hollywood’s AI Compromise: Writers Get Protection, Studios Aim for Copyright — Hollywood Reporter’s Winston Cho looks at the AI related terms of the tentative deal reached yesterday between the AMPTP, representing film and TV producers, and the Writers Guild of America. Writes Cho, “Included in the agreement were provisions placing guardrails around the use of generative AI that not only protect writers but also the studios, which are signaling they plan to pursue copyrights of works created in part by AI tools. The deal doesn’t bar the use of AI but restricts how it can be credited and utilized.”
Music publishers double down on copyright claims against X — “If the case gets to court, the dispute will likely focus on the good old copyright safe harbour. X can avoid liability for copyright infringing content uploaded by its users providing it has takedown system in place to deal with infringement and infringers when made aware of such things by copyright owners. X does have a takedown system, but the publishers argue that it is insufficient for the social media company to avoid liability via the safe harbour in the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This means that X would have to demonstrate how its takedown system is, in fact, super duper.”