Showing posts with label creators. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creators. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 10, 2024

"Stories Are Just Something That Can Be Eaten by an AI": Marvel Lashes Out at AI Content with a Mind-Blowing X-Men Twist; ScreenRant, January 9, 2024

TRISTAN BENNS, ScreenRant; "Stories Are Just Something That Can Be Eaten by an AI": Marvel Lashes Out at AI Content with a Mind-Blowing X-Men Twist

"Realizing the folly of her actions, Righteous laments her weakness against Enigma as a creature of stories, saying that “Stories are just something that can be eaten by an A.I. to make it more powerful. The only good story is a story that has been entirely and totally consumed and exploited.”.

While this isn’t the mutants’ first battle against artificial intelligence, this pointed statement has some sobering real-world applications. Since the Krakoan Age began, it’s been clear mutantkind's greatest battle would be against the concept of artificial intelligence as the final evolution of “life” in the Marvel Universe. With entities like Nimrod and the Omega Sentinel steering the forces of Orchis and other enemies of the X-Men against the mutant nation, this conflict has been painted as the ultimate fight for survival for mutants. However, with Enigma’s ultimate triumph over even the power of storytelling, it is clear that the X-Men aren’t just facing a comic’s interpretation of artificial intelligence – they’re battling the death of imagination.

In this way, the X-Men’s ultimate battle parallels a very real-world problem that both fans and creators must confront: the act of true creation versus the effects of generative artificial intelligence."

Sunday, December 17, 2023

Marvel Settles Fight Over Spider-Man, Doctor Strange Rights; The Hollywood Reporter, December 8, 2023

Ashley Cullins, The Hollywood Reporter; Marvel Settles Fight Over Spider-Man, Doctor Strange Rights

"It looks like Marvel won’t be bringing its battle over the rights to Spider-Man and Doctor Strange into the new year. Attorneys for the company and the estate of Steve Ditko on Wednesday notified the court that they’ve reached an amicable settlement and expect a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice to be filed in the coming weeks.

This all started back in 2021, when Marvel filed a series of lawsuits in response to copyright termination notices from Larry Lieber and the estates of Gene Colan, Steve Ditko, Don Heck and Don Rico. A very long list of characters were at issue, including Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, Hulk and Thor. In June, all but one of the matters settled."

Monday, December 5, 2022

Explainer: The Supreme Court, Fair Use and the Future of Protected Artistic Expression; Jurist, December 1, 2022

  , Jurist; Explainer: The Supreme Court, Fair Use and the Future of Protected Artistic Expression

"What’s at stake here?

The decision of the current Supreme Court case can shape the future of what does and does not constitute fair use. Goldsmith claimed that Warhol’s images based upon her copyrighted photographs constituted a derivative work. Thus, Goldsmith argued that the Warhol Foundation infringed her exclusive right to prepare derivative works and is therefore liable to her. The Warhol Foundation, however, argued that Warhol’s images were sufficiently transformative and thus constituted fair use. As such, the Warhol Foundation argued that it did not infringe Goldsmith’s copyright and is therefore not liable for its use of Goldsmith’s work in the Prince illustrations.

By finding in favor of Goldsmith, who owns copyright in the Prince photographs, the applicability of fair use may be limited. In this scenario, future content creators may face increased liability when creating new content based on copyrighted work. Because creativity is often inspired by some underlying work, such a decision may stifle creativity. As the Acuff-Rose case highlights, for example, works like parodies of a copyrighted work would constitute infringement without fair use. On the other hand, by finding in favor of the Warhol Foundation, which used Goldsmith’s copyrighted work in its work, future copyright owners may be denied a remedy when a user has unfairly used their creative work. Because the copyright regime has historically protected a creator’s financial incentive, such a decision may stifle creativity. In either scenario, creativity may be stifled: over-protecting a work may prevent others from using that work in their creative process, while under-protecting a work may prevent creators from entering the market without an assurance of monetary gain. As the Gerald Ford case highlights, for example, some uses may unfairly exploit the initial creator’s work. As the Supreme Court noted in that case, quoting in part an earlier decision, “The challenge of copyright is to strike the ‘difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society’s competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand.'”"

Friday, August 26, 2022

AI Creating 'Art' Is An Ethical And Copyright Nightmare; Kotaku, August 25, 2022

Luke Plunkett , Kotaku; AI Creating 'Art' Is An Ethical And Copyright Nightmare

If a machine makes art, is it even art? And what does this mean for actual artists?

"Basically, we now live in a world where machines have been fed millions upon millions of pieces of human endeavour, and are now using the cumulative data they’ve amassed to create their own works. This has been fun for casual users and interesting for tech enthusiasts, sure, but it has also created an ethical and copyright black hole, where everyone from artists to lawyers to engineers has very strong opinions on what this all means, for their jobs and for the nature of art itself."

Friday, May 1, 2020

How to find copyright-free images (and avoiding a stock photo subscription); TNW, April 29, 2020

 , TNW; How to find copyright-free images (and avoiding a stock photo subscription)

"If you search for any term and head to the Images section in Google, you’ll instantly find thousands of images. There’s one issue, though: Some of them might be copyrighted and you might be putting yourself (or your employer) at risk. Fortunately, you can filter images by usage rights, which will help you avoid that...

Here are a couple of our favorite free stock photo sites:
If you’re looking for copyright-free PNG cutouts, you should check out PNGPlayIcon8, and PNGimg.
Even though a lot of these images are free to use without any attribution, you can support the creators by giving them credit, which in turn gives their work more exposure. You might not have the resources to purchase their images, but someone else might be interested in hiring them. Crediting them for their work helps with that.
You get to save some money by avoiding buying a Shutterstock subscription, they get free exposure. It’s a win-win."

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

WHAT IF ‘STAR TREK’ WERE FREE? HOW THE STORIED SCI-FI FRANCHISE COULD INSPIRE COPYRIGHT REFORM; Newsweek, March 5, 2018

Andrew Whalen, Newsweek; 

WHAT IF ‘STAR TREK’ WERE FREE? HOW THE STORIED SCI-FI FRANCHISE COULD INSPIRE COPYRIGHT REFORM


"CBS and Paramount are unlikely to see things the same way. While Star Trek: Discovery press releases trumpet the “ideology and hope for the future that inspired a generation of dreamers and doers,” plans for streaming market domination depend upon exclusivity. The metaphor equating artistic expression and property has become so ingrained that companies regularly reduce their consumers to provisional licensees, subject to whatever controls the copyright holder decides upon, even long after the point of purchase.

Star Trek stands on the shoulders of giants. It exists because they plundered some of the most interesting stories and memes of science fiction, just as all science fiction writers do, to tell their own story. And to argue that when they did it that was the legitimate progress of art and whenever anyone else does it, it's theft, is pretty self-serving and kind of obviously bullshit,” Doctorow said. “It's a ridiculous thing for a law to ban something that ancient and fundamental to how we experience art.”

Countering the monopoly exercised by copyright holders will require a broader social realignment, under which people come to understand art as a shared cultural endowment, rather than product—a mindset beyond capital."

Manhattan teen cartoonist prompts review of Scholastic awards’ copyright rules; amNewYork, March 5, 2018

Nicole Brown, amNewYork; Manhattan teen cartoonist prompts review of Scholastic awards’ copyright rules

"“How come the @Scholastic @artandwriting award requires kids to sign over ‘irrevocable copyright’ if they win?! And why is it hidden in the ‘Terms & Conditions’ link that no one reads? Is it weird that I think that’s wrong?” [Sasha Matthews] wrote in December...

...[T]he ability to display the work could be granted through a license, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig said.

“Once you enter into a license to promote the work, you have all the permissions you need,” he told amNewYork. “That’s exactly what they could have done here, but rather than entering a license, they just grabbed the copyright.”

Matthews wrote about the copyright issue for a school assignment and got it published in February on the blog Boing Boing."

Monday, June 5, 2017

How a rigid fair-use standard would harm free speech and fundamentally undermine the Internet; Los Angeles Times, June 1, 2017

Art Neill, Los Angeles Times; How a rigid fair-use standard would harm free speech and fundamentally undermine the Internet

"In a recent Times op-ed article, Jonathan Taplin of the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab claimed that an “ambiguous“ fair use definition is emboldening users of new technologies to challenge copyright infringement allegations, including takedown notices. He proposes rewriting fair use to limit reuses of audio or video clips to 30 seconds or less, a standard he mysteriously claims is “widely accepted.”

In fact, this is not a widely accepted standard, and weakening fair use in this way will not address copyright infringement concerns on the Internet. It would hurt the music, film and TV industries as much as it would hurt individual creators...

Fair use is inextricably linked to our 1st Amendment right to free speech. We are careful with fair use because it’s the primary way consumers, creators and innovators share new ideas. It’s a good thing, and it is worth protecting."

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

It's Copyright Week: Join Us in the Fight for a Better Copyright Law; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 1/16/17

Kerry Sheehan, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 

It's Copyright Week: Join Us in the Fight for a Better Copyright Law


"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of the law, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation...

Here are this year’s Copyright Week principles:
  • Monday: Building and Defending the Public Domain. The public domain is our cultural commons and a crucial resource for innovation and access to knowledge. Copyright policy should strive to promote, and not diminish, a robust, accessible public domain.
  • Tuesday: You Bought It, You Own It, You Fix It. Copyright law shouldn't interfere with your freedom to truly own your stuff: to repair it, tinker with it, recycle it, use it on any device, lend it, and then give it away (or re-sell it) when you're done.
  • Wednesday: Transparency and Representation. Copyright policy must be set through a participatory, democratic, and transparent process. It should not be decided through back room deals, secret international agreements, or unilateral attempts to apply national laws extraterritorially.
  • Thursday: 21st Century Creators. Copyright law should account for the interests of all creators, not just those backed by traditional copyright industries. YouTube creators, remixers, fan artists and independent musicians (among others) are all part of the community of creators that encourage cultural progress and innovation.
  • Friday: Copyright and Free Speech. Freedom of expression is fundamental to our democratic system. Copyright law should promote, not restrict or suppress free speech.
Every day this week, we’ll be sharing links to blog posts and actions on these topics at https://www.eff.org/copyrightweek and at #CopyrightWeek.
If you’ve followed Copyright Week in past years, you may note that this year, we didn’t designate a specific day to focus on fair use. Fair use—the legal doctrine that permits many important uses of copyrighted works without permission or payment—is critical to the law’s ability to promote creativity, innovation, and freedom of expression. Fair use is a part of each of this year’s principles."

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Elena Ferrante’s Right to a Pseudonym; Atlantic, 11/15/16

Atlantic; Elena Ferrante’s Right to a Pseudonym:
"Curiously, the United States remains possibly the only country in the world not to recognize an author’s right to be named as the creator of his or her own work, despite huge pressure from authors’ groups and legal experts to do so. American law provides for a limited “right of attribution,” as it is called in the U.S. Copyright Act, but only in relation to works of fine art. Writers, musicians, and creators working in other disciplines have no such right at all. Establishing one would bring the United States into line with the rest of the world—a good thing when creative works literally circulate without borders, and reputations must stand or fall on the global stage.
In Italy, the copyright law says that a pseudonym will be treated as equivalent to the author’s true name, unless (and until) the author chooses to reveal his or her identity. Both the language of the law, and its silences, are arguably significant. In no way is any outsider empowered to reveal an author’s “true” identity when the author has chosen to publish under a pseudonym. Italian law wouldn’t seem to condone a concerted effort such as Gatti’s to uncover Ferrante’s identity."

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Maria Pallante's Departure From the Copyright Office: What It Means, And Why It Matters; Billboard, 10/25/16

Robert Levine, Billboard; Maria Pallante's Departure From the Copyright Office: What It Means, And Why It Matters:
"Although Hayden spoke about the importance of copyright during her confirmation hearings, she is perceived to favor looser copyright laws, since she previously served as president of the American Library Association, an organization that lobbies for greater public access to creative works, sometimes as the expense of creators. The Obama Administration also has close ties to technology companies, which would like to see a Copyright Office that values fair use and other exceptions to copyright over the rights of creators and copyright owners.
Hillary Clinton is thought to be view copyright more favorably, but she hasn’t said much about the topic, and she initially addressed it in her “Initiative on Technology & Innovation” -- not an encouraging sign for creators. Donald Trump doesn’t appear to have said much about the topic."

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Marvel Artist Complains After 'X-Men: Apocalypse' Giveaway Uses His Work; Hollywood Reporter, 7/29/16

Graeme McMillan, Hollywood Reporter; Marvel Artist Complains After 'X-Men: Apocalypse' Giveaway Uses His Work:
"Bill Sienkiewicz, known for work on such Marvel titles as X-Men spin-off New Mutants and Elektra: Assassin, took to Facebook to complain after discovering that Fox was giving away limited edition promotional replicas of an album cover used as a prop in the movie, using artwork he had created three decades earlier. Previously unaware of the promo item, he discovered its existence at Comic-Con itself when fans asked him to sign them, he explained.
"I've been doing this comic-book thing for years. I'm aware most everything is Work-Made-for-Hire," Sienkiewicz wrote on his post. "Still, I received no prior notification (a common courtesy), no thank you (ditto), no written credit in any form whatsoever either on the piece or in connection with the premium, absolutely no compensation and no comp copies of the album. It's like two losing trifectas wrapped in an altogether indifferent f--- you."
The artist, who originally created the image as part of a cover for Marvel's Dazzler No. 29 in 1983, in collaboration with Marvel's in-house designer Eliot R. Brown, went on to say that he had to be physically restrained by colleagues from "making a scene" at the Fox booth during the show about the giveaway.
"Am I over-reacting here?" he continued. "Do I have the right — at least on behalf of fellow creators — to, at the very least expect decent treatment and some kind of minuscule, even boilerplate, acknowledgment?"