Annelise Gilbert , Bloomberg Law; AI Training Study to Come This Year, Copyright Office Says

"The Copyright Office’s report on the legal implications of training artificial intelligence models on copyrighted works is still expected to publish by the end of 2024, the office’s director told lawmakers.

Director Shira Perlmutter on Wednesday said the office aims to complete the remaining two sections of its three-part AI report in the next two months—one on the copyrightability of generative AI output and the other about liability, licensing, and fair use in regards to AI training on protected works."

Artist sues after US rejects copyright for AI-generated image; Reuters, September 26, 2024

 Blake Brittain, Reuters; Artist sues after US rejects copyright for AI-generated image

"Artist Jason M. Allen asked a Colorado federal court on Thursday to reverse a U.S. Copyright Office decision that rejected copyright protection for an award-winning image he created with artificial intelligence...

A Copyright Office tribunal affirmed the decision last year, finding the image as a whole was not copyrightable because it contained more than a minimal amount of AI-created material.

The office has previously rescinded copyrights for images that artist Kris Kashtanova created using Midjourney. It also rejected a copyright application for an image that computer scientist Stephen Thaler said his AI system created autonomously. Thaler has since appealed...

The case is Allen v. Perlmutter, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, No. 1:24-cv-02665."

Pueblo artist seeking copyright protection for AI-generated work; The Gazette, August 8, 2024

O'Dell Isaac , The Gazette; Pueblo artist seeking copyright protection for AI-generated work

"“We’re done with the Copyright Office,” he said. “Now we’re going into the court system.”

Allen said he believes his case raises two essential questions: What is art? And if a piece doesn’t belong to the artist, whom does it belong to?

Tara Thomas, director of the Bemis School of Arts at Colorado College, said the answers may not be clear-cut.

“There was a similar debate at the beginning of photography,” Thomas said. "Was it the camera, or was it the person taking the photos? Is the camera the artmaker, or is it a tool?”

Allen said it took more than two decades for photography to gain acceptance as an art form.

“We’re at a similar place in AI art,” he said. 

“Right now, there is a massive stigma surrounding AI, far more so than there was with photography, so the challenge is much steeper. It is that very stigma that is contributing to the stifling of innovation. Why would anybody want to incorporate AI art into their workflow if they knew they couldn’t protect their work?”"

Copyright Office tells Congress: ‘Urgent need’ to outlaw AI-powered impersonation; TechCrunch, July 31, 2024

  Devin Coldewey, TechCrunch; Copyright Office tells Congress: ‘Urgent need’ to outlaw AI-powered impersonation

"The U.S. Copyright Office has issued the first part of a report on how AI may affect its domain, and its first recommendation out of the gate is: we need a new law right away to define and combat AI-powered impersonation

“It has become clear that the distribution of unauthorized digital replicas poses a serious threat not only in the entertainment and political arenas but also for private citizens,” said the agency’s director Shira Perlmutter in a statement accompanying the report. “We believe there is an urgent need for effective nationwide protection against the harms that can be caused to reputations and livelihoods.”

The report itself, part one of several to come, focuses on this timely aspect of AI and intellectual property, which as a concept encompasses your right to control your own identity."

Copyright Office Releases Part 1 of Artificial Intelligence Report, Recommends Federal Digital Replica Law; U.S. Copyright Office, July 31, 2024

  U.S. Copyright Office; Copyright Office Releases Part 1 of Artificial Intelligence Report, Recommends Federal Digital Replica Law

"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office is releasing Part 1 of its Report on the legal and policy issues related to copyright and artificial intelligence (AI), addressing the topic of digital replicas. This Part of the Report responds to the proliferation of videos, images, or audio recordings that have been digitally created or manipulated to realistically but falsely depict an individual. Given the gaps in existing legal protections, the Office recommends that Congress enact a new federal law that protects all individuals from the knowing distribution of unauthorized digital replicas. The Office also offers recommendations on the elements to be included in crafting such a law. 

“I am pleased to begin sharing the results of our comprehensive study of AI and copyright, with this first set of recommendations to Congress. It has become clear that the distribution of unauthorized digital replicas poses a serious threat not only in the entertainment and political arenas but also for private citizens. We believe there is an urgent need for effective nationwide protection against the harms that can be caused to reputations and livelihoods,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. “We look forward to working with Congress as they consider our recommendations and evaluate future developments.”

In early 2023, the Copyright Office announced a broad initiative to explore the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence. Since then, the Office has issued registration guidance for works incorporating AI-generated content, hosted public listening sessions and webinars, met with numerous experts and stakeholders, published a notice of inquiry seeking input from the public, and reviewed the more than 10,000 responsive comments.

The Report is being released in several Parts, beginning today. Forthcoming Parts will address the copyrightability of materials created in whole or in part by generative AI, the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, licensing considerations, and the allocation of any potential liability. 

For more information about the Copyright Office’s AI Initiative, please visit the website."

AI Copyright Issues ‘on Shifting Sands’ but Legal Protections Are Coming, Experts Tell PGA Produced By Conference; The Wrap, June 9, 2024

 Sharon Knolle, The Wrap; AI Copyright Issues ‘on Shifting Sands’ but Legal Protections Are Coming, Experts Tell PGA Produced By Conference

"Renard T. Jenkins — a former Warner Bros. Discovery exec who’s now president and CEO of I2A2 Technologies, Labs and Studios — said his company is working to help create an infrastructure to help with authenticating content.

“Back in the old days, you had watermarks,” he said, noting that file-based content can be altered to remove information about the original creator. “What we are attempting to do is create an infrastructure and ecosystem that would allow us to track every single iteration of a piece of content from its origins all the way through the distribution.” 

For that to happen, the PGA and other organizations would have to agree to a new standard. “It’s a very heavy lift,” he said, comparing the necessary level of cooperation to a cross-mafia agreement, describing it as the “five families of Hollywood coming together.”

He also suggested that blockchain technology could be used to “audit and track” every change to a piece of content. It’s the same tech used for Bitcoin and the much-maligned NFT digital assets." 

The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024: Balancing Innovation and IP Rights; The National Law Review, May 13, 2024

  Danner Kline of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, The National Law Review; The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024: Balancing Innovation and IP Rights

"As generative AI systems become increasingly sophisticated and widespread, concerns around the use of copyrighted works in their training data continue to intensify. The proposed Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024 attempts to address this unease by introducing new transparency requirements for AI developers.

The Bill’s Purpose and Requirements

The primary goal of the bill is to ensure that copyright owners have visibility into whether their intellectual property is being used to train generative AI models. If enacted, the law would require companies to submit notices to the U.S. Copyright Office detailing the copyrighted works used in their AI training datasets. These notices would need to be filed within 30 days before or after the public release of a generative AI system.

The Copyright Office would then maintain a public database of these notices, allowing creators to search and see if their works have been included. The hope is that this transparency will help copyright holders make more informed decisions about licensing their IP and seeking compensation where appropriate."

Public Symposium on AI and IP; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10 AM - 3 PM PT/1 PM - 6 PM ET

 United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); Public Symposium on AI and IP

"The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Emerging Technologies (ET) Partnership will hold a public symposium on intellectual property (IP) and AI. The event will take place virtually and in-person at Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University, in Los Angeles, California, on March 27, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. PT. 

The symposium will facilitate the USPTO’s efforts to implement its obligations under the President’s Executive Order (E.O.) 14110 “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.” The event will include representation from the Copyright Office, build on previous AI/Emerging Technologies (ET) partnership events, and feature panel discussions by experts in the field of patent, trademark, and copyright law that focus on:

1. A comparison of copyright and patent law approaches to the type and level of human contribution needed to satisfy authorship and inventorship requirements;
2. Ongoing copyright litigation involving generative AI; and 
3. A discussion of laws and policy considerations surrounding name, image, and likeness (NIL) issues, including the intersection of NIL and generative AI.

This event is free and open to the public, but in-person attendance is limited, so register early"

The Sleepy Copyright Office in the Middle of a High-Stakes Clash Over A.I.; The New York Times, January 25, 2024

  Cecilia Kang, The New York Times; The Sleepy Copyright Office in the Middle of a High-Stakes Clash Over A.I.

"For decades, the Copyright Office has been a small and sleepy office within the Library of Congress. Each year, the agency’s 450 employees register roughly half a million copyrights, the ownership rights for creative works, based on a two-centuries-old law.

In recent months, however, the office has suddenly found itself in the spotlight. Lobbyists for Microsoft, Google, and the music and news industries have asked to meet with Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights, and her staff. Thousands of artists, musicians and tech executives have written to the agency, and hundreds have asked to speak at listening sessions hosted by the office.

The attention stems from a first-of-its-kind review of copyright law that the Copyright Office is conducting in the age of artificial intelligence. The technology — which feeds off creative content — has upended traditional norms around copyright, which gives owners of books, movies and music the exclusive ability to distribute and copy their works.

The agency plans to put out three reports this year revealing its position on copyright law in relation to A.I. The reports are set to be hugely consequential, weighing heavily in courts as well as with lawmakers and regulators."

Lifecycle of Copyright: 1928 Works in the Public Domain; Library of Congress Blogs: Copyright Creativity at Work, January 8, 2024

 Alison Hall , Library of Congress Blogs: Copyright Creativity at Work; Lifecycle of Copyright: 1928 Works in the Public Domain

"This blog also includes contributions from Jessica Chinnadurai, attorney-advisor, and Rafael Franco, writer-editor intern in the Copyright Office.

Over the last several years, we have witnessed a new class of creative works entering the public domain in the United States each January 1. This year, a variety of works published in 1928, ranging from motion pictures to music to books, joined others in the public domain. The public domain has important historical and cultural benefits in the lifecycle of copyright...

Below are just a few of the historical and cultural works that entered the public domain in 2024."

How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor; Reason, January 8, 2024

 LUKE HOGG , Reason; How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor

"For nearly 25 years, Section 1201 has been hanging over the developers and distributors of tools that give users more control over the products they own. The ways in which John Deere and other corporations have used the copyright system is a glaring example of regulatory capture in action, highlighting the absurdity of a system where owning a product doesn't necessarily convey the right to fully control it. There are certainly circumstances where the manufacturers are justified in protecting their products from tampering, but such cases should be handled through warranty nullification and contract law, not through exorbitant fines and lengthy prison sentences."

Marybeth Peters: Renaissance Woman of Copyright; New York City Bar Association Podcasts, December 13, 2023

 New York City Bar Association Podcasts; Marybeth Peters: Renaissance Woman of Copyright

"Lawyer. Leader. Public Servant. Trailblazer. Friend.

Marybeth Peters, the second-longest serving Register of Copyrights (1994 - 2010), died on September 29, 2022, in Washington, D.C., at the age of 83. With her passing, Register Peters left behind a lasting and far-reaching legacy in her storied 40-plus year career as a distinguished attorney, respected copyright law expert, and the director of the U.S. Copyright Office, where she helped shape and implement critical new laws, including the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act among others. In addition, Register Peters was remembered as a mentor, teacher, and friend who touched the lives of everyone around her with grace and her unforgettable laugh.

Presented by the New York City Bar Copyright and Literary Property Committee, committee member Theodora Fleurant, a trademark attorney based in New York City, and Jose Landivar, an Associate at Coates IP, lead an unforgettable series of conversations with some of the people closest to Register Peters to look back on her life and legacy, including:

•	Shira Perlmutter, the current Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office
•	Maria Pallante, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers who formerly served as the 12th Register of Copyrights
•	Richard Dannay, Counsel at Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.
•	Eric Schwartz, Partner at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, and former Acting General Counsel and Senior Legal Advisor to the Register of Copyrights
•	David Carson, current Copyright Office Claims Officer who, formerly served as head of the Copyright Policy Team in the Office of Policy and International Affairs at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and as General Counsel of the U.S. Copyright Office

This podcast paints a fascinating portrait of a leading U.S. and international copyright law expert. It seeks to inspire listeners with lessons in leadership, courage, innovation, and dedicated public service.

This podcast would not have been possible without the support of the U.S. Copyright Office (https://www.copyright.gov/) and audio provided by the Copyright Clearance Center.

Photo: Courtesy of the U.S. Copyright Office.

Access a transcript of this episode here: https://bityl.co/MvSf"

Beijing Internet Court Recognizes Copyright in AI-Generated Images; The National Law Review, November 29, 2023

Aaron Wininger of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A., The National Law Review; Beijing Internet Court Recognizes Copyright in AI-Generated Images

"On November 27, 2023 the Beijing Internet Court issued a decision recognizing copyright in AI-generated images. The plaintiff, Mr. Li, used Stable Diffusion (an artificial intelligence) to generate the image involved in the case and published it on the Xiaohongshu platform; the defendant, a blogger on Baijiahao, used the image generated by the plaintiff’s AI to accompany the article, and the plaintiff sued. The Court held that the artificial intelligence-generated image involved in the case met the requirements of “originality” and reflected a human’s original intellectual investment and should be recognized as works and protected by copyright law. This is the opposite of the decision reached by the U.S. Copyright Office in Zarya of the Dawn (Registration # VAu001480196) that did not recognize copyright in AI-generated images. Note this Beijing case is also different from the recent Thaler v. Perlmutter decision (Civil Action No. 22-1564 (BAH)) because Thaler was trying to recognize the AI as the author and not the person using the AI as a tool as author."

‘Please regulate AI:' Artists push for U.S. copyright reforms but tech industry says not so fast; AP, November 18, 2023

MATT O’BRIEN, AP; ‘Please regulate AI:' Artists push for U.S. copyright reforms but tech industry says not so fast

"Most tech companies cite as precedent Google’s success in beating back legal challenges to its online book library. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 let stand lower court rulings that rejected authors’ claim that Google’s digitizing of millions of books and showing snippets of them to the public amounted to copyright infringement.

But that’s a flawed comparison, argued former law professor and bestselling romance author Heidi Bond, who writes under the pen name Courtney Milan. Bond said she agrees that “fair use encompasses the right to learn from books,” but Google Books obtained legitimate copies held by libraries and institutions, whereas many AI developers are scraping works of writing through “outright piracy.”

Perlmutter said this is what the Copyright Office is trying to help sort out.

“Certainly this differs in some respects from the Google situation,” Perlmutter said. “Whether it differs enough to rule out the fair use defense is the question in hand.”"

U.S. Copyright Office Extends Deadline for Reply Comments on Artificial Intelligence Notice of Inquiry; U.S. Copyright Office, November 15, 2023

U.S. Copyright Office, Issue No. 1026; U.S. Copyright Office Extends Deadline for Reply Comments on Artificial Intelligence Notice of Inquiry

"The U.S. Copyright Office is extending the deadline to submit reply comments in response to the Office’s August 30, 2023, notice of inquiry regarding artificial intelligence and copyright. The deadline will ensure that members of the public have sufficient time to prepare responses to the Office’s questions and submitted comments and that the Office can proceed on a timely basis with its inquiry of the issues identified in its notice with the benefit of a complete record.

Reply comments are now due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, December 6, 2023.

The Federal Register notice announcing this extension and additional information, including instructions for submitting comments, are available on the  Artificial Intelligence Study webpage."

Copyright Office Issues Notice of Inquiry on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence; U.S. Copyright Office, August 30, 2023

 U.S. Copyright Office ; Copyright Office Issues Notice of Inquiry on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) in the Federal Register on copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). The Office is undertaking a study of the copyright law and policy issues raised by generative AI and is assessing whether legislative or regulatory steps are warranted. The Office will use the record it assembles to advise Congress; inform its regulatory work; and offer information and resources to the public, courts, and other government entities considering these issues.

The NOI seeks factual information and views on a number of copyright issues raised by recent advances in generative AI. These issues include the use of copyrighted works to train AI models, the appropriate levels of transparency and disclosure with respect to the use of copyrighted works, the legal status of AI-generated outputs, and the appropriate treatment of AI-generated outputs that mimic personal attributes of human artists.

The NOI is an integral next step for the Office’s AI initiative, which was launched in early 2023. So far this year, the Office has held four public listening sessions and two webinars. This NOI builds on the feedback and questions the Office has received so far and seeks public input from the broadest audience to date in the initiative.

“We launched this initiative at the beginning of the year to focus on the increasingly complex issues raised by generative AI. This NOI and the public comments we will receive represent a critical next step,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. “We look forward to continuing to examine these issues of vital importance to the evolution of technology and the future of human creativity.”

Initial written comments are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, October 18, 2023. Reply comments are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, November 15, 2023. Instructions for submitting comments are available on the Office’s website. Commenters may choose which and how many questions to respond to in the NOI.

For more general information about the Copyright Office’s AI initiative, please visit our website."

Our Summer of Artificial Intelligence: Copyright Office Hosts Two Webinars on Copyright and AI; U.S. Copyright Office, August 23, 2023

 Nora Scheland, U.S. Copyright Office; Our Summer of Artificial Intelligence: Copyright Office Hosts Two Webinars on Copyright and AI

"Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a significant new focal point for the Copyright Office in 2023. The Office launched an AI initiativein mid-March, which was followed by four comprehensive listening sessions in April and May and then, most recently, by two very popular webinars in June and July.

The webinars, which continued to break attendance records for the Copyright Office, provided an opportunity for the Office to dive deeper into the copyright registration guidance for AI-generated works and perspectives on how AI impacts copyright systems both domestically and across the globe. The webinars were open to the public, and everyone from copyright experts to those curious about copyright could take something away.

The Office’s first webinar in June, Registration Guidance for Works Containing AI-generated Content, was hosted by Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Registration Policy and Practice Rob Kasunic and deputy director of registration policy and practice Erik Bertin. Kasunic and Bertin walked attendees through the Office’s registration guidance and discussed a variety of hypothetical examples of copyright registration claims featuring some amount of AI-generated content and how the Office would evaluate them. Through the detailed examples, Kasunic and Bertin offered key insights and recommendations for how applicants can navigate registration applications as they register their own creative works.

The webinar wrapped up with a moderated Q&A session. Attendees were encouraged to submit questions during the presentation, and we received nearly 250 questions by the end of the webinar. The attendance climbed to nearly 2,000 people over the 75-minute webinar, a new record for the Office.

If you missed the webinar on registration guidance in June, you can check out a full recording and transcript on our website.

The Office’s second webinar, International Copyright Issues and Artificial Intelligence, was hosted by Office of Policy and International Affairs attorneys and featured two hour-long panels with international copyright experts. Attendance at the second webinar also reached nearly 2,000 people, demonstrating the sustained excitement and curiosity concerning the global conversation around AI and copyright.

Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter provided opening remarks and explained why she thought this international conversation was integral to the Office’s AI initiative:

“We know that AI’s use and its impact are not bound by any national borders. . . . [G]overnments around the world are confronting similar legal and policy questions. . . . Looking at the global copyright landscape, several questions have begun to emerge. First, how do international copyright treaties apply to determining authorship and scope of subject matter protection and exceptions and limitations? Second, what actions are other countries or regions starting to take on AI and copyright issues? In what respects are these approaches similar to or different from ours in the United States? Can consensus approaches be found, and if so, through what mechanisms? And finally, to the extent there is divergence, what are the international implications?”

The first panel kicked off with four exciting presentations on developments in AI and copyright legislation and litigation outside the United States.

• Peter Yu, from Texas A&M University School of Law, presented on copyright and artificial intelligence across Asia, particularly in China, Singapore, Japan, and Korea.
• Marcus von Welser, from Vossius in Germany, walked attendees through the European Union’s proposed AI Act and existing text and data mining exceptions from the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive.
• Luca Schirru, from KU Leuven in Belgium, presented perspectives on text and data mining developments, including from the global south.
• Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, from Ono Academic College in Israel, spoke about the effects of language and bias in generative AI technologies on non-English speaking countries and communities.

The second panel featured a lively moderated discussion on authorship, training, exceptions, and limitations of generative AI. The panel was moderated by two Copyright Office attorneys and comprised Jane Ginsburg from Columbia Law School, Andres Guadamuz from the University of Sussex, Bernt Hugenholtz from the University of Amsterdam, and Matthew Sag from Emory University School of Law. The panelists answered questions from the moderators and engaged directly with each other’s perspectives.

If you missed the webinar on international perspectives on copyright and AI in July, you can check out a full recording and transcript on our website.

The Office’s two webinars wrapped up a busy spring and summer season of listening, information gathering, and direct outreach on AI and copyright. Between April and July, nearly 8,000 people participated in or attended the Office’s AI listening sessions and webinars. This fall, the Office will receive public comments on a notice of inquiry as the work continues on our AI initiative. Follow copyright.gov/ai for updates and events, and sign up for email notifications on our website."

Copyright Office: Sorry, but you probably can’t protect your AI-generated art; Fast Company, June 30, 2023

 JESUS DIAZ, Fast Company; Copyright Office: Sorry, but you probably can’t protect your AI-generated art

"Well, there’s nothing to see here, folks. You don’t need any of the generative AI tools in our weekly roundup because they will produce stuff you don’t really own. At least that’s what the United States Copyright Office (USCO) says. The federal agency doubled down on its AI doctrine during a recent webinar, labeling anything produced by AI as “unclaimable material.”

In other words, anything that comes out of an AI program can’t be protected under copyright law and will not be accepted even if it’s included in a work created by a human. So those extra trees and mountains you added to your landscape photo with Photoshop Firefly beta? They are not yours, sorry.”

Robert Kasunic of the USCO says, “The Office will refuse to register works entirely generated by AI. Human authorship is a precondition to copyrightability.” But it’s more complicated than that. As Petapixel reports, USCO will register your images if they are modified with AI, but you will have to declare which parts are made using AI, making them “unclaimable, essentially discounting them” from the copyright protection. Kasunic went on to say that USCO believes that using any AI to generate content is akin to giving instructions to a commissioned artist.

How will USCO enforce this policy in a world where generative AI work is practically undetectable? It’s a question that only has one obvious answer: LOL."