By , August 04, 2023.

An AI Scraping Tool Is Overwhelming Websites With Traffic — “The people at the head of the new crop of AI companies believe that their technology could replace 80 percent of  jobs in the U.S. and pose ‘massive risks’ to society. We should be skeptical of these claims, but it’s also worth noting that the people building tools they consider to be so disruptive are doing so without ever asking the internet users whose efforts are powering AI if they wish to fuel that technology.”

AI ‘Authorship’ Muddies the Waters of Copyright Law Claims — Copyright expert Zvi Rosen asks, “Is it infringement to use copyrighted works to train AI? Does an AI-created work even have an author, as the Constitution requires for copyright protection? Must an author be a person, and what if the author uses a machine to create?”

Agence France-Presse pursues copyright case against X, formerly known as Twitter — “The news agency announced the legal action in a statement. It said it is seeking payment under European Union intellectual property rules that cover ‘neighboring rights,’ which allow news outlets and publishers to seek payment from digital platforms for the sharing of their work.”

Court Rejects Appeals of Copyright Royalty Board Decision on 2021-2025 Webcasting Royalties — “Three parties appealed the CRB’s June 2021 decision setting the royalties to be paid by webcasters for 2021-2025 (the CRB sets rates in 5-year increments). The NAB and the NRB-NMLC (i.e., the National Religious Broadcasters’ noncommercial music licensing committee) argued that the royalties set for their members should be lower than the rates set by the CRB. SoundExchange, on the other hand, argued that they should be higher.”

By , July 28, 2023.

Scuttling Blackbeard’s Law — Plagiarism Today’s Jonathan Bailey notes a recent law enacted in North Carolina that repealed the 2015 law that effectively placed any audiovisual footage of underwater shipwrecks into the public domain. The law arose out of a dispute between the state and photographer Rick Allen which ultimately led to the Supreme Court, which issued a March 2020 decision addressing copyright infringement and state sovereign immunity. The litigation continues; following the Supreme Court decision, the district court allowed Allen to amend his original complaint.

The Pen Is Mightier Than The Large Language Model — “AI regulation that protects America’s creatives would also preserve the quality of its journalism, poetry, television shows, movies, stories and books that the U.S. is known and admired for around the world. Without our written culture, the ground we stand on as an exemplar of speech that is not only free, but also high quality, will substantially weaken.”

Off the Charts: Derivative Work Copyright Registers All Material in Derivative Work — “In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit … agreed with other circuits that by registering a derivative work, an author registers all the material included in the derivative work, including any unregistered original works.”

YouTube Rippers’ Appeal of RIAA’s $83 Million Piracy Win Moves Forward — “While Mr. Kurbanov previously walked away from the U.S. court battle, he may choose to keep on fighting. In a new filing submitted yesterday, a challenge against the piracy liability ruling and damages award was docketed at the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal doesn’t come as a complete surprise. More than a year ago, Kurbanov’s legal team already signaled their intention to challenge the verdict. A notice of appeal was filed in March 2022, but it took more than a year before the case was formally docketed.”

The Impact of the Supreme Court’s Goldsmith Decision on Copyright Enforcement Against AI Tools — “The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith sent ripples through the legal and artistic communities. Months later, legal scholars and art journalists continue to debate whether the decision opens the door for federal courts to act as ‘art critics.’ Many, however, downplay how the Supreme Court’s decision impacts the ways in which copyright owners may enforce their rights against generative AI tools.”

By , July 21, 2023.

Judge lets art trio take another crack at suing AI devs over copyright — “The artists, represented by attorney Matthew Butterick and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, argued that each image generated by AI software was created by combining relevant images scraped from its training dataset. And since those original works are protected by copyright, they argued, all AI-generated knock-offs infringe upon the artists’ rights.”

Instagram dodges photographers’ copyright claims on appeal – but case likely continues — “A class of photographers whose Instagram photos were embedded by other websites failed on Monday to convince a three-judge panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside controversial precedent in order to hold Instagram liable for copyright infringement. But the panel also said that the photographers had raised ‘serious and well argued’ policy concerns about copyright holders’ ability to control and profit from their work. If lead plaintiffs Alexis Hunley and Matthew Scott Brauer want to challenge the precedent that controlled the outcome of this case, the panel said, they should petition the 9th Circuit for an en banc rehearing.”

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works — “The list of more than 8,000 authors includes some of the world’s most celebrated writers, including Margaret Atwood, Dan Brown, Michael Chabon, Jonathan Franzen, James Patterson, Jodi Picoult and Philip Pullman, among others. In an open letter they signed, posted by the Authors Guild Tuesday, the writers accused AI companies of unfairly profiting from their work.”

House IP Subcommittee Mulls Copyright and Design Patent Revisions Amid Right-to-Repair Debate — “The sole pro-IP perspective on the witness panel was Devlin Hartline, Legal Fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Forum for Intellectual Property [and previous Copyhype contributor]. Hartline said there simply isn’t a right to repair in existing law, and that it is IP rights that ultimately protect the public good. ‘The right-to-repair movement isn’t based on a preexisting right; it’s instead asking lawmakers to create a new right at the expense of the existing rights of IP owners,’ Hartline explained.”

By , July 14, 2023.

Duct-taped bananas and copyright absurdity — Eleonora Rosati writes, “So, is the inherent blurriness, ambiguity or even absurdity of copyright’s foundational concepts a problem that needs to be rectified? I think not. For an exclusive IP right that regulates (and should stimulate) the production and dissemination of cultural objects and also serves as an instrument of technological governance, these very features have been both key and necessary to its survival and progressive evolution.”

The Art of Translation — The New York Times presents an interactive story from translator Sophie Hughes that walks the reader through the creative and intellectual exercise of translating prose. The process resembles authorship more than rote calculation; as Hughes observes, “Contrary to what I’d imagined, in my eagerness to be faithful to the original meaning above all else, translation didn’t turn out to be a subdued search for equivalence — for the closest possible ‘match’ for each word — but a playful pursuit of equilibrium across an entire work, an exhilarating and, yes, joyful balancing act of loyalties: to sense, to significance and to style.”

Senate IP Subcommittee Mulls Federal Right of Publicity at AI and Copyright Hearing — Steve Brachmann at IPWatchdog reports, “On July 12, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held its second hearing in two months on the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) developments and intellectual property rights. This most recent hearing focused on potential violations of copyright law by generative AI platforms, the impact of those platforms on human creators, and ways in which AI companies can implement technological solutions to protect copyright owners and consumers alike.”

Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement — “The suits alleges, among other things, that OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Meta’s LLaMA were trained on illegally-acquired datasets containing their works, which they say were acquired from ‘shadow library’ websites like Bibliotik, Library Genesis, Z-Library, and others, noting the books are ‘available in bulk via torrent systems.'”

Shein Named in Copyright, Racketeering Lawsuit Over Alleged Infringement Scheme — “According to the complaint that they filed in a California federal court on Tuesday, independent designers Krista Perry, Larissa Martinez, and Jay Baron claim that Shein and various related entities, including Roadget Business and Zoetop Business, (collectively, ‘Shein’) are on the hook for copyright and trademark infringement in connection with their practice of ‘produc[ing], distribut[ing], and selling exact copies of their creative works,’ which they allege is ‘part and parcel of Shein’s “design” process and organizational DNA.'”

By , July 07, 2023.

Two More Copyright Claims Board Cases Concluded — Jonathan Bailey has been closely watching the proceedings of the Copyright Claims Board, which recently entered its second year of operations. Here, Bailey reports on two more cases that have reached a resolution.

Amazon’s ebook charts are full of AI-generated spam — “This situation marks a real danger to the livelihoods of working authors. If the ebook market is flooded with spam, then it’s harder for readers to find real books. It’s already messing with Kindle’s genre categories, creating even more roadblocks for self-published writers to cultivate an audience.”

Generative AI in Games Will Create a Copyright Crisis — “Historically, claims of ownership to in-game creations or user-generated creations (IGCs or UGCs) have been rendered moot by ‘take it or leave it’ end-user license agreements—the dreaded EULAs that nobody reads. Generally, this means players surrender any ownership of their creations by switching on the game. (Minecraft is a rare exception here. Its EULA has long afforded players ownership of their IGCs, with relatively few community freakouts.) AI adds new complexities. Laws in both the US and the UK stipulate that, when it comes to copyright, only humans can claim authorship. So for a game like AI Dungeon, where the platform allows a player to, essentially, ‘write’ a narrative with the help of a chatbot, claims of ownership can get murky: Who owns the output? The company that developed the AI, or the user?”

Ninth Circuit agrees fight over Nirvana’s use of ‘Upper Hell’ belongs in UK — “According to Bundy’s 2021 lawsuit, the late Scott-Giles drew the illustration for the English translation of the first volume of the Dante’s trilogy, ‘Inferno,’ by his close friend Dorothy Sayers. The U.K. citizen sued after she discovered that Nirvana LLC, a company that handles the licensing and sale of Nirvana-branded merchandise, and Live Nation Merchandise were selling T-shirts, hoodies, key fobs, and mugs with the image.”

Jeff Koons, sculptor each claim advantage after Warhol copyright decision — “Koons told the court on Friday that his use of the bench as ‘raw material’ for ‘creative and communicative objectives entirely distinct from plaintiff’s utilitarian purpose of creating a platform for sexually explicit performances’ favored a fair-use finding. Hayden said the decision ‘shatters’ Koons’ defense because the purpose of his use of the sculpture was ‘exactly the same as Hayden’s original purpose: to serve as a creative set piece on which Ilona Staller would engage in sexually explicit poses and performances.'”

By , June 30, 2023.

Authors Sue OpenAI Claiming Mass Copyright Infringement of Hundreds of Thousands of Novels — “Later versions of OpenAI’s large language models were trained on larger quantities of copyright-protected works, according to the complaint. In a 2020 paper introducing GPT-3, the company disclosed that 15 percent of its training dataset came from ‘two internet-based books corpora’ that it simply called ‘Books1’ and ‘Books2.’ While it never revealed what works were part of those datasets, the authors claim they came from ‘notorious shadow library websites,’ like Library Genesis, Z-Library, Sci-Hub and Bibliotik.”

Genius’s Attempts to Sue Google Over Song Lyrics Are Basically Dead — This week, the Supreme Court denied cert in ML Genius Holdings v. Google, consistent with the position argued by the US Solicitor General. The petition had asked the Court to review whether the Copyright Act preempted Genius’s breach of contract claims against Google, based on Genius’s allegations that Google copied lyric transcriptions for millions of songs from the Genius site.

The Copyright Claims Board Celebrates Its First Year — The US Copyright Office’s own Holland Gormley reviews some of the milestones reached by the small copyright claims tribunal after one year of operations.

U.S. Copyright Office Generative AI Event: Three Key Takeaways — Franklin Graves reviews the three key takeaways from a US Copyright Office webinar held earlier this week regarding how to register works containing material generated by artificial intelligence.

By , June 23, 2023.

Copyright Claims Board Celebrates First Anniversary Without a Troll Party — “When the Copyright Claims Board was first introduced, there was quite a lot of pushback. Several opponents feared that ‘copyright trolls’ would abuse the system to launch a wave of claims against alleged online pirates. That fear didn’t materialize.”

Bad Bunny and music stars want a copyright case over reggaeton beats thrown out — “Bad Bunny’s lawyers argue the plaintiffs are attempting to ‘monopolize practically the entire reggaeton musical genre for themselves’ by claiming copyright ownership of musical compositions sampled by over 100 artists in more than 1,600 songs. Bad Bunny himself is accused in the lawsuit of copyright infringement for 77 songs, the motion said. The foundational drum beats come from Jamaican dancehall duo Steely & Clevie, composed of Wycliffe Johnson and Cleveland Browne, who co-wrote ‘Fish Market’ in 1989. The heavily sampled ‘Dem Bow’ rhythm comes from a song of the same name co-authored with Shabba Ranks, which itself takes from ‘Fish Market.’ Johnson passed away in 2009.”

Online News Act receives Royal Assent — “Millions of Canadians now access their news online. Digital platform act as the gatekeepers in today’s digital news marketplace. The Online News Act levels the playing field between news businesses and large digital platforms to create greater fairness to ensure sustainability of the news industry. Through a market-based approach, it encourages voluntary commercial agreements between platforms and news businesses with minimal government intervention, as well as crucial safeguards to preserve the independence of the press.”

Generative AI is a Minefield for Copyright Law — “As generative AI art tools like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion have been thrust into the limelight, so too have questions about ownership and authorship. These tools’ generative ability is the result of training them with scores of prior artworks, from which the AI learns how to create artistic outputs. Should the artists whose art was scraped to train the models be compensated? Who owns the images that AI systems produce? Is the process of fine-tuning prompts for generative AI a form of authentic creative expression?”

By , June 21, 2023.

In taking on the concept of “transformative use” for the first time in just shy of thirty years, the Supreme Court’s decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith provides a critical recalibration of the doctrine, restoring the importance of “justification” to transformative use.1Although the more recent Google v. Oracle decision addresses transformative use within its broader discussion of fair use, the Court’s treatment was superficial—little more than a rote recitation of the standard articulated in Campbell along with its application to the specific facts of the case. The decision thus tethers fair use closer to the overall purpose of copyright.

Justification has long underlied transformative use. It was central to the Court’s holding in its previous transformative use decision, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, serving as the dividing line between favorable-to-fair-use parody and unfavorable-to-fair-use satire. As the Court said there, “Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing.”2Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 580-581 (1994). The idea has surfaced in lower court decisions since then, such as Authors Guild v. Google, where Judge Leval wrote,

[T]he would-be fair user of another’s work must have justification for the taking. A secondary author is not necessarily at liberty to make wholesale takings of the original author’s expression merely because of how well the original author’s expression would convey the secondary author’s different message. Among the best recognized justifications for copying from another’s work is to provide comment on it or criticism of it. A taking from another author’s work for the purpose of making points that have no bearing on the original may well be fair use, but the taker would need to show a justification.3Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 215 (2d Cir. 2015).

But many have noted that since Campbell, transformative use has caused fair use to grow overly expansive and unbalanced.4See, e.g., Jane Ginsburg, Fair Use in the United States: Transformed, Deformed, Reformed? 2020 Sing. J. Legal Stud. 265 (2020); Patricia Cohen, Photographers Band Together to Protect Work in ‘Fair Use’ Cases, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2014; Hearing on Fair Use, Statement of June Besek, House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet (Jan. 28, 2014). At the same time, a finding by courts of transformativeness has increasingly become dispositive, with one researcher finding that, in recent fair use decisions, a finding of transformativeness is correlated with a finding of fair use 94% of the time.5Jiarui Liu, An Empirical Study of Transformative Use in Copyright Law, 22 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 163 (2019).

The concern about an unbalanced fair use doctrine is that it will undermine the goals of copyright itself.

Generally speaking, the purpose of copyright is advanced by, well, copyright. The exclusive, divisible, and marketable rights protected under copyright law facilitate a market for expressive works that encourages and rewards authorship, creativity, and innovation. The Supreme Court has previously explained how this works by saying,

The economic philosophy behind the Copyright Clause is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors. Accordingly, copyright law celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge. The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of science.6Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 n.18 (2003) (cleaned up).

Fair use is an exception to these exclusive rights. The Warhol Court notes that fair use “permits courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster.” Indeed, the doctrine has long been described as a reinforcement of copyright’s very purpose. In his foundational study of fair use that prefaced the 1976 Copyright Act revision effort, Alan Latman wrote, “It has often been stated that a certain degree of latitude for the users of copyrighted works is indispensable for the ‘Progress of Science and useful Arts.'”7Alan Latman, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works, pg. 7, Copyright Law Revision Study No. 14, US Copyright Office (1958). Campbell reiterated this principle, saying, “From the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill copyright’s very purpose, ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. . . .'”8Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 US 569, 575 (1994).

An astute reader will recognize a potential paradox here: the purpose of copyright is served both by protecting expression against copying and by permitting expression to be copied. How do courts make sense of this seeming incongruity?


The Warhol Court explains the role of justification in the first fair use factor. The task for courts there is to assess “whether and to what extent the use at issue has a purpose or character different from the original.” The majority identified two important points to keep in mind: first, “the fact that a use is commercial as opposed to nonprofit is an additional ‘element of the first factor,'” and second, of relevance here, the first factor relates to “the justification for the use.” It elaborated, “In a broad sense, a use that has a distinct purpose is justified because it furthers the goal of copyright, namely, to promote the progress of science and the arts, without diminishing the incentive to create.” And, “In a narrower sense, a use may be justified because copying is reasonably necessary to achieve the user’s new purpose.”

Congress has provided courts with an illustrative list of those uses which are justified in the broad sense in § 107: “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.” Courts can further assess the fairness of a particular use by considering justification in the narrow sense; that is, asking to what extent the copying is reasonably necessary to achieving the new purpose.

Warhol provides a couple examples to help. Parody, for one, “needs to mimic an original to make its point.” A book review may also have a compelling reason to borrow from the original because it “targets the material for comment or criticism.”

Again, Warhol did not create this idea of justification; it has long been present in fair use decisions. For example, in rejecting a fair use defense for a defendant who had used photographs of a pop star’s secret wedding ceremony to illustrate a magazine article reporting on the ceremony, the Ninth Circuit remarked, “the controversy here has little to do with photos; instead, the photos here depict the couple’s clandestine wedding. The photos were not even necessary to prove that controverted fact—the marriage certificate, which is a matter of public record, may have sufficed to inform the public that the couple kept their marriage a secret for two years.”9Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc., 688 F.3d 1164, 1175 (9th Cir. 2012).

Similarly, in rejecting fair use for the inclusion of plaintiff’s copyrighted comedy routine in defendant’s play, the Second Circuit said,

The “dramatic” purpose served by the Routine in the Play appears to be as a “McGuffin,” that is, as a theatrical device that sets up the plot, but is of little or no significance in itself. To advance the plot of the Play, specifically, to have the puppet Tyrone take on a persona distinct from that of Jason, defendants needed Jason to lie about something and for Tyrone to call him on it. But the particular subject of the lie—the Routine—appears irrelevant to that purpose.10TCA TV Corp. v. McCollum, 839 F.3d 168, 182 (2d Cir. 2016).

The court went on to note that “Such unaltered use of an allegedly copyrighted work, having no bearing on the original work, requires justification to qualify for a fair use defense” and concluded that nothing in the record showed such justification.

In short, justification asks if the original work is necessary to the secondary use, or if it is fungible—that is, are there substitutes or alternatives that can be used to achieve the same purpose. When an original work is necessary to a secondary use (one that has a distinct purpose), then there is a risk that copyright protections may stifle such uses absent fair use. But where it is not necessary, because there are substitutes or alternatives available, then the risk of copyright blocking a new work disappears. The secondary creator could instead “work[] up something fresh,”11510 U.S. at 580. find a work with favorable license terms, or turn to the public domain. As I’ve said previously, “Copyright’s purpose is to create a commercial market for creative works, and these outcomes are consistent with a functioning marketplace. When fair use privileges uses of original works that are not necessary to the creation of new works, it undermines this market, and, consequently, undermines copyright.”


1 Although the more recent Google v. Oracle decision addresses transformative use within its broader discussion of fair use, the Court’s treatment was superficial—little more than a rote recitation of the standard articulated in Campbell along with its application to the specific facts of the case.
2 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 580-581 (1994).
3 Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 215 (2d Cir. 2015).
4 See, e.g., Jane Ginsburg, Fair Use in the United States: Transformed, Deformed, Reformed? 2020 Sing. J. Legal Stud. 265 (2020); Patricia Cohen, Photographers Band Together to Protect Work in ‘Fair Use’ Cases, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2014; Hearing on Fair Use, Statement of June Besek, House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet (Jan. 28, 2014).
5 Jiarui Liu, An Empirical Study of Transformative Use in Copyright Law, 22 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 163 (2019).
6 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 n.18 (2003) (cleaned up).
7 Alan Latman, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works, pg. 7, Copyright Law Revision Study No. 14, US Copyright Office (1958).
8 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 US 569, 575 (1994).
9 Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc., 688 F.3d 1164, 1175 (9th Cir. 2012).
10 TCA TV Corp. v. McCollum, 839 F.3d 168, 182 (2d Cir. 2016).
11 510 U.S. at 580.
By , June 16, 2023.

Ninth Circuit Holds that Registration of a Single Photography Database Supports Award of Statutory Damages for Each Individual Photo in the Database — “Because ‘photographers can create hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of photographs per day,’ the Ninth Circuit reasoned that allowing them simply to register a single database will protect the financial interests of the photographers and keep the Copyright Office from facing a deluge of copyright applications from prolific photographers. Thus, going forward, content owners can protect countless photographic works through a single registration and still enforce their rights with the threat of statutory damages.”

Google licenses content from news publishers under the EU Copyright Directive — In a blog post discussing the remarkable success of the EU Copyright Directive’s press publisher right, Google reports, “As of today, we have agreements in place covering over 1,500 publications across 15 countries.” A US bill aimed at addressing the same issue by allowing news publishers to collectively negotiate with online platforms advanced out of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee yesterday.

Twitter sued for $250 million by music publishers over ‘massive’ copyright infringement — “The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) is suing Twitter on behalf of 17 music publishers representing the biggest artists in the business. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Tennessee, claims the company ‘fuels its business with countless infringing copies of musical compositions, violating Publishers’ and others’ exclusive rights under copyright law.'”

GitHub accused of varying Copilot output to avoid copyright allegations — “This assertion appeared on Thursday in the amended complaint against Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI over Copilot’s documented penchant for reproducing developers’ publicly posted, open source licensed code. The lawsuit, initially filed last November on behalf of four unidentified (“J. Doe”) plaintiffs, claims that Copilot – a code suggestion tool built from OpenAI’s Codex model and commercialized by Microsoft’s GitHub – was trained on publicly posted code in a way that violates copyright law and software licensing requirements and that it presents other people’s code as its own.”

A Judge Ruled Against an Artist Who Claimed Maurizio Cattelan Copied His Duct-Taped Banana, Deciding the Two Works Are Apples and Oranges — ” In his decision, Judge Scola outlined various features that distinguished the two works. Most notably, Banana and Orange has a green background and a border of masking tape and the banana was placed at only a slight angle from horizontal. By contrast, Cattelan’s Comedian has no specified background, no border and a much stronger angle.”

By , June 09, 2023.

The Supreme Court Case of Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith: What, if Anything, Does it Mean to Artificial Intelligence? — “The most obvious impact will be on the image cases brought by artists and Getty images, respectively, against Stability AI. These are cases where the AI developers allegedly (1) used works of artists and photographers without consent and (2) enable the creation of works that compete directly with the infringed works. Leaving aside procedural issues and focusing on the copyright merits, attorneys in these cases are likely making happy noises.”

Dua Lipa’s Copyright Accusers Drop ‘Levitating’ Infringement Lawsuit — “A Florida reggae band has decided to drop a copyright case accusing Dua Lipa of copying her smash hit song ‘Levitating’ from their earlier track, two days after a federal judge cast serious doubt on the lawsuit’s allegations.”

Adobe is so confident its Firefly generative AI won’t breach copyright that it’ll cover your legal bills — “Adobe Firefly, the software giant’s AI-powered image generation and expansion tool, is being rolled out to businesses today. At its flagship Adobe Summit event, the company is unveiling an expansion of Firefly for enterprise users that will include ‘full indemnification for the content created through these features,’ says Claude Alexandre, VP of digital media at Adobe.”

Museum Wins Lawsuit Over Photo of Michelangelo’s David — “An Italian museum has won a lawsuit against a magazine publisher which used a photo of Michelangelo’s sculpture David without permission — despite the 500-year-old artwork belonging in the public domain. In August 2020, GQ Italia superimposed a photograph of 16th-century statue David’s face onto an image of model Pietro Boselli for its cover.”

Opinion: Making Google and Meta pay for news they profit from — “The California Assembly recently voted in favor of journalism by supporting the proposed California Journalism Preservation Act (Assembly Bill 886), which would require social media companies to pay a ‘usage fee’ to publishers for the news content that the platforms benefit from. The publishers, in turn, would have to spend at least 70% of the fees they receive on journalists or support staff. The money would come out of the platforms’ advertising revenue and the amount would be determined by arbitration.”