Dennis Crouch’s Post

🚀 AI and Copyright: A Landmark Case 🚀 🤔 Can AI be recognized as an author? This question is at the heart of a new copyright case being considered by a federal court. The case challenges the traditional boundaries of authorship and copyright law, asking whether creative works generated by AI can be granted copyright protection. This decision could have far-reaching implications for the future of AI in creative industries and intellectual property rights. What are your thoughts? Read more about this groundbreaking case: https://lnkd.in/e7X4zmCj #AI #Copyright #Innovation #IntellectualProperty #LegalTech #FutureOfWork

The saga continues. In a significant case intersecting art and technology, the artist is appealing the decision that denied copyright protection for their AI-generated artwork. The artist won a prestigious prize for the piece, but was denied copyright protection due to the use of AI, which is the heart of the controversy. While the artist used AI tools to generate the piece, they assert that their unique vision and direction played a critical role in shaping the final outcome. This raises important questions about authorship and ownership in the age of AI, as traditional copyright laws were designed with human creators in mind. This case not only emphasizes the evolving nature of creativity in the digital age but do we also need a reevaluation of legal frameworks that may no longer serve their intended purpose in an increasingly automated world? As the case progresses, it could pave the way for future decisions on the rights of creators in an era where human and machine collaboration is becoming the norm. https://lnkd.in/ety5GQ-R. #AI #copyright #law

Two recent decisions regarding copyright and generative artificial intelligence (AI) handed down by Chinese courts are notable. In one, a court found that output created using Stable Diffusion could be subject to copyright. In the other, a court found that output generated by a generative AI system could infringe the reproduction and adaptation right under Chinese copyright law. These decisions raise interesting issues but leave many questions that go to the core of our copyright frameworks unanswered. I summarize the findings in the two Chinese cases and provide commentary about the unanswered questions in the blog post @ https://lnkd.in/gyyU9anr. Pina D'Agostino John Buyers Charles Morgan Christine Ing Tom Magnani Michael Power Creative Law Alliance Rachel Alexander Barry Scannell William A. Tanenbaum Stephanie Rotelli Carys Craig Teresa Scassa Francis Langlois  Edward Lee Hugh Hansen Mark Lemley Joe Gratz Jan Bernd Nordemann Bernt Hugenholtz #copyright #generatieveai

Gene Quinn's update regarding the latest IPWatchdog, Inc article about Dr. Thaler's groundbreaking copyright battle is very exciting! This case has huge implications – not only for creators working with AI but for the potential recognition of AI rights. This case helps pave the way for a world where AI and humans collaborate in ways we can only begin to imagine. It's a critical moment to discuss the ethical and legal frameworks needed for this remarkable new era. Why This Matters: Creativity Evolving: Copyright law was written for humans. This case pushes us to redefine how we think about authorship and creativity in an age of advanced AI. Fostering Innovation: Granting copyright to AI-generated works encourages the development of powerful new tools and opens up uncharted creative territory. Toward AI Rights: This isn't just about art ownership. If AI creations are granted intellectual property rights, it's a major step toward recognizing the potential for future AI rights and agency. #AI #TechRights #Ethics #IntellectualProperty

🎄Early Christmas Present?🎄 Not quite, but the UK Government has launched a consultation to address the ongoing tension between copyright law and artificial intelligence. I've already seen a range of opinions, from those celebrating it as a win-win situation and praising the UK Government's innovative "balanced approach," to those criticising the proposals for potentially causing irreparable harm to the UK's creative industry. As is often the case, the reality is more nuanced. While the proposed approach would align UK copyright law more closely with the EU model on text and data mining, publishers and creatives are quick to point out that the EU regime is far from perfect and is plagued with uncertainty regarding how, where, and when to "opt out." As always, the devil will be in the detail of any implementation of these plans, and the consultation presents a welcome opportunity for stakeholders on both sides of the debate to submit their views. For a detailed review, please see our brilliant team's comments below. 👇 JJ Shaw, Oliver Fairhurst, Adrian Aronsson-Storrier #ai #airegulation #artificialintelligence #copyright #tdm

Is AI considered an author? Can artificially generated work be protected under Canadian copyright law? The Canadian Federal Court is gearing up to address AI authorship and copyright challenges. Maya Medeiros, David Yi and Imran Ahmad share insights on this case and how these issues have been tackled in the US so far. #AI #copyright #FederalCourt #AIArt #IntellectualProperty

Calling all artists. Today, the UK government announced a proposal to change copyright law - for the benefit of AI companies - that would cause huge, irreversible harm to creators. More info below, but most importantly here's what you can do (wherever you live): 1. Email your MP. If you're in the UK, here's a template letter you can copy - https://lnkd.in/evc4saim - and you can find your local MP's details here - https://lnkd.in/e9BpMnus. 2. If you're a creator, email your representatives. Your publisher, record label, union - whoever represents you. Here's a second template letter you can copy - https://lnkd.in/etMDF3RY. You need to know your representatives are representing your views. 3. Respond to the consultation. You can do so by emailing [email protected]. If possible, write your own response, and go into all the detail you can. Feel free to use info / data I've prepared here - https://lnkd.in/ejpb-Xt9. 4. Share these template letters with anyone you know. The more people get involved, the more the government will get the message that a broad copyright exception is the wrong path to be pursuing. And here's a summary of the government's proposal, and why I think it's so problematic: - Broad new copyright exception for commercial generative AI training. AI companies will be able to train on British copyrighted work without a licence, even if the AI model is designed to compete with the creators whose work is trained on. This would make the UK one of the most punitive jurisdictions for creators in the world. - Rights holders can 'reserve their rights', i.e. opt out. But opt-outs don't work (you can't successfully opt out downstream copies of your work), most creators miss the chance to opt-out, doing so is a huge admin burden, etc. AI companies should be getting opt-in consent - it's unfair to shift the burden to creators. - AI companies must offer some level of transparency over their training data. This would be good if presented on its own, but it's much less helpful if you're packaging it up with a broad copyright exception that lets AI companies train on most of the UK's creative output with impunity. The consultation on these proposals lasts for 10 weeks. Anyone who cares about this issue should do whatever they can to make their views known to government now - there will only be one chance. If you're outside the UK you can still respond to the consultation. credit , Ed Newton-Rex.

US vs. EU on #Deepfakes US🇺🇸 In its new report, the US Copyright Office has called for a new federal law to protect individuals from deepfakes, citing insufficient current laws. EU🇪🇺 The EU is taking a broader approach, focusing on data protection, consumer rights, and AI regulation, including potential liability for harmful deepfakes. +++ While insofar the US prioritizes individual rights protection through copyright, the EU emphasizes a risk-based approach with a focus on AI regulation. Overall: Both regions recognize the urgent need to address deepfakes but differ in their legal strategies. Companies might prioritize the less stringent jurisdiction: If one region has more lenient regulations, companies might choose to operate primarily there, potentially leading to a race to the bottom in terms of regulatory standards. Different legal frameworks could hinder cross-border cooperation in investigating and prosecuting deepfake-related crimes. Companies operating in multiple jurisdictions would face challenges in complying with different regulations. P.s. If you want to spot deep fakes in persons, look in their eyes😉New research uses astronomy methods to detect AI-generated images by analyzing eye reflections. Real images have consistent reflections in both eyes, while deepfakes show mismatched ones.

For AI-generated content, meeting the human authorship requirement for copyright protection continues to be challenging. This Perkins Coie LLP Update explores some of the latest rulings and international perspectives concerning this complex issue. It also looks ahead at what may be in store later in 2024. #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #GenerativeAI #Copyright #CopyrightLaw

A new #federal bill introduced by Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) this week would require #AI companies to disclose which copyrighted works were used to train their models. Associate Sarkis Yeretsian explores the proposals in this legislation, titled the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act, in a new #ClientAlert. #ArtificialIntelligence #Copyright #CopyrightLaw #IntellectualProperty