AI Developments at the U.S. Copyright Office in 2024; IP Watchdog, December 30, 2024

  BARRY WERBIN , IP Watchdog; AI Developments at the U.S. Copyright Office in 2024

"“The art challenges the technology, and the technology inspires the art.” Such is the conundrum facing the U.S Copyright Office in this era of rapidly expanding generative artificial intelligence technology. Human creativity has been the cornerstone of copyright protection for original works of authorship ever since the U.S. Constitution recognized copyright as a fundamental right to be protected for limited times. But the tenet that originality exists only when a human is primarily responsible for creating works of authorship is currently in flux and subject to extensive debate. Nowhere is this tension more visible than within the Copyright Office itself, which has been grappling with the core issue of what defines human creation when sophisticated technology like generative AI plays a significant role in creating works of authorship under the direction of a human creator."

Perlmutter Says Copyright Office Is Still Working to Meet ‘Ambitious Deadline’ for AI Report; IPWatchdog, November 14, 2024

 EILEEN MCDERMOTT , IPWatchdog; Perlmutter Says Copyright Office Is Still Working to Meet ‘Ambitious Deadline’ for AI Report

"Asked by Subcommittee Chair Chris Coons (D-DE) what keeps her up at night when it comes to the AI issue, Perlmutter said “the speed at which this is all developing.” In September during IPWatchdog LIVE 2024, Perlmutter told LIVE attendees that while she’s confident the issues around copyright and AI will eventually be solved, she’s “less comfortable about what it means for humankind.”

Perlmutter recently came under fire from Committee on House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil (R-WI), who sent a letter On Tuesday, October 29, to the Office asking for an update on the AI report, which Steil charged is no longer on track to be published by its stated target dates. Steil’s letter asked the Office to explain the delay in issuance of parts two and three, which Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter indicated in an oversight hearing by the Committee on House Administration would be published before the end of the summer and in the fall, respectively. “The importance of these reports cannot be overstated,” Steil wrote, explaining that copyright owners are relying on the Office to provide clear guidance. “The absence of these reports creates uncertainty for industries that are already grappling with AI-related challenges and hinders lawmakers’ ability to craft effective policy,” the letter added.

Perlmutter commented in the hearing that “we’ve been trying to set and follow our own ambitious deadlines” and the goal remains to get the rest of the report out by the end of the year, but that her key concern is to be “accurate and thoughtful.”

The forthcoming reports will include recommendations on how to deal with copyrightability of materials created using GAI and the legal implications of training on copyrighted works. The latter is most controversial and may in fact require additional legislation focusing on transparency requirements."

Public Knowledge, iFixit Free the McFlurry, Win Copyright Office DMCA Exemption for Ice Cream Machines; Public Knowledge, October 25, 2024

Shiva Stella , Public Knowledge; Public Knowledge, iFixit Free the McFlurry, Win Copyright Office DMCA Exemption for Ice Cream Machines

"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office partially granted an exemption requested by Public Knowledge and iFixit to allow people to circumvent digital locks in order to repair commercial and industrial equipment. The Office did not grant the full scope of the requested exemption, but did grant an exemption specifically allowing for repair of retail-level food preparation equipment – including soft serve ice cream machines similar to those available at McDonald’s. The Copyright Office reviewed the request as part of its 1201 review process, which encourages advocates and public interest groups to present arguments for exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass a digital lock that protects a copyrighted work, such as a device’s software, even when there is no copyright infringement. Every three years, the Copyright Office reviews exemption requests and issues recommendations to the Librarian of Congress on granting certain exceptions to Section 1201. The recommendations go into effect once approved by the Librarian of Congress."

The Fast-Moving Race Between Gen-AI and Copyright Law; Baker Donelson, July 10, 2024

 Scott M. Douglass and Dominic Rota, Baker Donelson ; The Fast-Moving Race Between Gen-AI and Copyright Law

"It is still an open question whether plaintiffs will succeed in showing that use of copyrighted works to train generative AI constitutes copyright infringement and be able to overcome the fair use defense or succeed in showing that generative AI developers are removing CMI in violation of the DMCA.

The government has made some moves in the past few months to resolve these issues. The U.S. Copyright Office started an inquiry in August 2023, seeking public comments on copyright law and policy issues raised by AI systems, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a new bill in April 2024, that would require people creating a training dataset for a generative AI system to submit to the Register of Copyrights a detailed summary of any copyrighted works used in training. These initiatives will most likely take some time, meaning that currently pending litigation is vitally important for defining copyright law as it applies to generative AI.

Recent licensing deals with news publishers appear to be anywhere from $1 million to $60 million per year, meaning that AI companies will have to pay an enormous amount to license all the copyrighted works necessary to train their generative AI models effectively. However, as potential damages in a copyright infringement case could be billions of dollars, as claimed by Getty Images and other plaintiffs, developers of generative AI programs should seriously consider licensing any copyrighted works used as training data."

You Can Create Award-Winning Art With AI. Can You Copyright It?; Bloomberg Law, June 5, 2024

 Matthew S. Schwartz, Bloomberg Law; You Can Create Award-Winning Art With AI. Can You Copyright It?

"We delved into the controversy surrounding the use of copyrighted material in training AI systems in our first two episodes of this season. Now we shift our focus to the output. Who owns artwork created using artificial intelligence? Should our legal system redefine what constitutes authorship? Or, as AI promises to redefine how we create, will the government cling to historical notions of authorship?

Guests:

• Jason M. Allen, founder of Art Incarnate
• Sy Damle, partner in the copyright litigation group at Latham & Watkins
• Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and director of the US Copyright Office"

Copyright Board Upholds Latest Refusal to Register AI Generated Art; The Fashion Law (TFL), December 12, 2023

 TFL ; Copyright Board Upholds Latest Refusal to Register AI Generated Art

"The Office primarily refused to register the work on the basis that it “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.” Specifically, the Office stated that despite Sahni’s claim that the work includes some human creative input, the work is not registrable, as “this human authorship cannot be distinguished or separated from the final work produced by the computer program.” 

Following an initial request for reconsideration, in which Sahni argued that “the human authorship requirement does not and cannot mean a work must be created entirely by a human author,” the Copyright Office again concluded that the work could not be registered, as it “is a derivative work that does not contain enough original human authorship to support a registration.” The Office found that “the new aspects of the [SURYAST] work were generated by ‘the RAGHAV app, and not Mr. Sahni – or any other human author,'” making it so that the “derivative authorship was not the result of human creativity or authorship” and therefore, not registrable."

Why Does the U.S. Copyright Office Require Libraries to Lie to Users about Their Fair Use Rights? They Won’t Say.; The Scholarly Kitchen, July 5, 2023

RICK ANDERSON, The Scholarly Kitchen; Why Does the U.S. Copyright Office Require Libraries to Lie to Users about Their Fair Use Rights? They Won’t Say.

"Let’s be clear about what the problem is here. It’s not that patrons who use library-provided copies of copyrighted works in a manner beyond the scope of “private study, scholarship, or research” are in legal danger if their use falls within the full range of the fair use provisions in section 107. Again, the language of section 108 makes it very clear that owners of such copies are entirely within their rights to make full (fair) use of them, regardless of what the copyright warning notice prescribed by the Copyright Office says. The problem is that the Copyright Office, under color of authority ostensibly assigned to it by statute, requires libraries to misinform patrons about their rights. Although library patrons are in reality free to make full fair use of copies we provide them (or copies they make on our premises), we must tell them – every time they make or request a copy from us – that they have only a small subset of those rights.

How much does this disinformation end up constraining patrons’ exercise of their full rights under the law? It’s impossible to know, of course. But as a profession that sees itself at the vanguard of the fight against both mis- and disinformation, it certainly should rankle us that we’ve been drafted into a disinformation campaign that affects so many information seekers so directly.

It should rankle us even more that the U.S. Copyright Office, the very entity that has created this issue and is uniquely empowered to fix it, seems to have no interest in doing so. I hope my library colleagues (and everyone else who cares about libraries and archives, and about fair use) will join me in calling on the Copyright Office to change the language of its prescribed copyright warning notice, bringing it into full conformity with what the law actually says. (I’ve created an online petition for this purpose, and encourage all interested to sign it.)"

AI-Created Comic Has Been Deemed Ineligible for Copyright Protection; CBR, December 20, 2022

BRIAN CRONIN, CBR; AI-Created Comic Has Been Deemed Ineligible for Copyright Protection

"The United States Copyright Office (USCO) reversed an earlier decision to grant a copyright to a comic book that was created using "A.I. art," and announced that the copyright protection on the comic book will be revoked, stating that copyrighted works must be created by humans to gain official copyright protection. 

In September, Kris Kashtanova announced that they had received a U.S. copyright on his comic book, Zarya of the Dawn, a comic book inspired by their late grandmother that she created with the text-to-image engine Midjourney. Kashtanova referred to herself as a "prompt engineer" and explained at the time that she went to get the copyright so that she could “make a case that we do own copyright when we make something using AI.”"

The CASE Act for Libraries and Archives; Library of Congress; May 2, 2022

 Holland Gormley, Library of Congress ; The CASE Act for Libraries and Archives

"Calling all libraries and archives! You may have heard about the CASE Act and the establishment of the Copyright Claims Board, or CCB for short, a new forum for resolving copyright disputes involving damages of up to $30,000, staffed by experts in copyright law. But did you know that qualifying libraries and archives can preemptively opt out of participating in the CCB even before any claim is brought against them? Here is what you need to know.

The Basics 

The Copyright Office respects the important roles that libraries and archives play in our society. In fact, libraries and archives enjoy certain exemptions under copyright law, like lending hard copies of works to patrons or to other libraries. Libraries and archives also enjoy the unique opportunity to preemptively opt out of future CCB proceedings if they so choose. In other words, these organizations can decide that they will not participate in any claims brought against them in the CCB, so that copyright claims against them can only be brought in federal court. Libraries and archives are not required to preemptively opt out of proceedings. In fact, they may wish to not preemptively opt out, since the CCB is more cost-effective than federal court, and all claims are decided by three officers with copyright law expertise.

Who Is Covered 

Libraries or archives that qualify under 17 USC § 108 can elect to preemptively opt out. The preemptive opt out will apply not only to the institution but also to any employees acting within the scope of their employment. This means, if the institution has preemptively opted out, the CCB will not allow copyright claims against them or their employees to proceed.

How to Preemptively Opt Out

The process is simple. To preemptively opt out, libraries and archives must submit a form on ccb.gov and self-certify their qualifying status. Afterward, the institution will be added to a publicly available list on ccb.gov and will never be asked to participate in any future CCB proceedings. There is no fee associated with doing so, and the status does not need to be renewed. However, it should be noted that if a claimant serves a claim before the preemptive opt-out is posted online, the institution should then follow the directions provided in the served notice to opt out of that claim.

If the Library or Archives Does Not Preemptively Opt Out

Participation in a CCB proceeding is voluntary for everyone. Libraries and archives that do not preemptively opt out can still opt out of participating in a CCB proceeding on a claim-by-claim basis. Libraries and archives, like any other potential CCB participant, should consider the pros and cons of using the CCB as an alternative to federal court litigation. You can learn more about the claim-by-claim opt-out process at ccb.gov.

Ready for more? Visit ccb.gov for more information on the preemptive opt-out option."

Even in the digital age, Only human-made works are copyrightable in the U.S.; March 21, 2022

K&L Gates LLP - Susan Kayser and Kristin Wells , Lexology; Even in the digital age, Only human-made works are copyrightable in the U.S. 

"The U.S. Copyright Office Review Board refused copyright protection of a two-dimensional artwork created by artificial intelligence, stating that “[c]urrently, ‘the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work,’” see recent letter. The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices does not explicitly address AI, but precedent, policy, and practice makes human authorship currently a prerequisite.

A “Creativity Machine,” authored the work titled “A Recent Entrance into Paradise.” The applicant, Steven Thaler, an advocate for AI IP rights, named himself as the copyright claimant. Thaler’s application included a unique transfer statement: “ownership of the machine,” and further explained that the work “was autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.” Thaler sought to register the work as a work-for-hire because he owns the Creativity Machine.

AI’s “kill switch” at the U.S. Copyright Office? AI isn’t human. The Review Board relied on the Office’s compendium of practices and Supreme Court precedent dating back to 1879—long before computers were a concept—to hold that the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.

The Review Board also denied Thaler’s argument that the work made for hire doctrine allows non-human persons like companies to be authors of copyrighted material. The Board explained that works made for hire must be prepared by “an employee” or by “parties” who “expressly agree in a written instrument” that the work is for hire.

Because Thaler did not claim any human involvement in the work, the Board did not address under which circumstances human involvement in machine-created works might meet the statutory requirements for copyright protection. This is an issue that may soon arise."

U.S. Copyright Office Consultation Triggers Massive “Upload Filter” Opposition; TorrentFreak, February 16, 2022

Ernesto Van der Sar, TorrentFreak; U.S. Copyright Office Consultation Triggers Massive “Upload Filter” Opposition

"Late 2020, Senator Thom Tillis released a discussion draft of the “Digital Copyright Act” (DCA), which aims to be a successor to the current DMCA.

The DCA hints at far-reaching changes to the way online intermediaries approach the piracy problem. Among other things, these services would have to ensure that pirated content stays offline after it’s taken down once.

This “takedown and staydown’ approach relies on technical protection tools, which include upload filters. This is a sensitive subject that previously generated quite a bit of pushback when the EU drafted its Copyright Directive.

To gauge the various options and viewpoints, the Copyright Office launched a series of consultations on the various technical tools that can help to detect and remove pirated content from online platforms.

This effort includes a public consultation where various stakeholders and members of the public were invited to share their thoughts, which they did en masse."

Copyright Law and Machine Learning for AI: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?; Co-Sponsored by the United States Copyright Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10 AM - 3 PM EDT

 Copyright Law and Machine Learning for AI: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?

Co-Sponsored by the United States Copyright Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office

"The U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are hosting an October 26, 2021, conference that will explore machine learning in practice, how existing copyright laws apply to the training of artificial intelligence, and what the future may hold in this fast-moving policy space. The event will comprise three one-hour sessions, with a lunch break, and is expected to run from 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. eastern time. 

Due to the state of the COVID-19 pandemic, the on-site portion of the program initially scheduled to take place at the Library of Congress's Montpelier Room has been canceled. All sessions will still take place online as planned. Participants must register to attend this free, public event.

Download the agenda here."

Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking'; Guardian, July 12, 2017

Julia Carrie Wong, Guardian; Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking'

"The one consolation for Slater is that he believes that his photograph has helped to save the crested black macaque from extinction.

“These animals were on the way out and because of one photograph, it’s hopefully going to create enough ecotourism to make the locals realize that there’s a good reason to keep these monkeys alive,” Slater said. “The picture hopefully contributed to saving the species. That was the original intention all along.”"

US Finds Existing Copyright Law Suited For Software Embedded In Everyday Products; Intellectual Property Watch, 12/16/16

Intellectual Property Watch; US Finds Existing Copyright Law Suited For Software Embedded In Everyday Products:

"The United States Copyright Office has released a study that finds that existing copyright laws are sufficient to cover issues arising over software embedded in everyday consumer products. But it does call for some flexibility for consumers to tinker with their devices.

The report, which followed hearings and research in the field, is available here. The report was requested by Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee."

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."