Why Courts Should Dismiss Challenges to Copyright Registrations Issued in the Interregnum — Former U.S. Copyright Office General Counsel Jon Baumgarten argues that trial courts should dismiss or decline to hear challenges to copyright registrations issued since May 22, when competing claims as to who is the Register of Copyrights arose, under the authority of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Reed Elsevier v Muchnick.
Ottawa weighs plans on AI, copyright as OpenAI fights Ontario court jurisdiction — “Canada’s artificial intelligence minister is keeping a close watch on court cases in Canada and the U.S. to determine next steps for Ottawa’s regulatory approach to AI. Some AI companies have claimed early wins south of the border, and OpenAI is now fighting the jurisdiction of an Ontario court to hear a lawsuit by news publishers.”
Transformative Use Analysis in Bartz v. Anthropic AI Case Marred by Fatal Flaws — “The court in Bartz v. Anthropic arrived at the conclusion that the unauthorized use of the plaintiffs’ works for training a generative AI model qualifies as fair use, but the order’s analyses of transformative use has many fatal flaws. The disregard for Ninth Circuit precedent and misapplication of the Supreme Court’s Warhol decision is nothing short of alarming, so much so that it’s hard to see how this decision will not be corrected on appeal.”
Trump Loses Copyright Fight Over Woodward Interview Recordings — “Trump’s primary theory—that he and Woodward were joint authors of the interviews—collided with both Second Circuit precedent and his own pleadings. Under Childress v. Taylor and Thomson v. Larson, joint authorship requires both independently copyrightable contributions and mutual intent to be co-authors at the time of creation.”
New York Court Tackles the Legality of AI Voice Cloning — “The court dismissed plaintiffs’ infringement claim with respect to the use of the plaintiffs’ voice recordings to train Lovo’s AI model, but with leave to amend. The court held that there was insufficient factual detail in the complaint regarding how the AI training process allegedly infringed the plaintiffs’ exclusive rights, but that it would be straightforward for plaintiffs to amend their complaint to make the appropriate allegations. In a footnote, the court noted that Lovo asserted in a single sentence that its training was fair use, but that if plaintiffs amended their complaint, and defendants again moved to dismiss, a more thorough fair-use defense would need to be articulated.”