Tennessee becomes the first state to protect musicians and other artists against AI; NPR, March 22, 2024

 Rebecca Rosman, NPR; Tennessee becomes the first state to protect musicians and other artists against AI

"Tennessee made history on Thursday, becoming the first U.S. state to sign off on legislation to protect musicians from unauthorized artificial intelligence impersonation.

"Tennessee (sic) is the music capital of the world, & we're leading the nation with historic protections for TN artists & songwriters against emerging AI technology," Gov. Bill Lee announced on social media.

The Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, or ELVIS Act, is an updated version of the state's old right of publicity law. While the old law protected an artist's name, photograph or likeness, the new legislation includes AI-specific protections."

Patent Poetry: Judge Throws Out Most of Artists’ AI Copyright Infringement Claims; JD Supra, November 20, 2023

 Adam Philipp, AEON Law, JD Supra; Patent Poetry: Judge Throws Out Most of Artists’ AI Copyright Infringement Claims

"One of the plaintiffs’ theories of infringement was that the output images based on the Training Images are all infringing derivative works.

The court noted that to support that claim the output images would need to be substantially similar to the protected works. However, noted the court,

none of the Stable Diffusion output images provided in response to a particular Text Prompt is likely to be a close match for any specific image in the training data.

The plaintiffs argued that there was no need to show substantial similarity when there was direct proof of copying. The judge was skeptical of that argument.

This is just one of many AI-related cases making its way through the courts, and this is just a ruling on a motion rather than an appellate court decision. Nevertheless, this line of analysis will likely be cited in other cases now pending.

Also, this case shows the importance of artists registering their works with the Copyright Office before seeking to sue for infringement."

‘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.”"

The Copyright Battle Over Artificial Intelligence; Hard Fork, The New York Times, November 3, 2023

Kevin Roose and Casey Newton, Hard Fork, The New York Times; The Copyright Battle Over Artificial Intelligence

"President Biden’s new executive order on artificial intelligence has a little bit of everything for everyone concerned about A.I. Casey takes us inside the White House as the order was signed.

Then, Rebecca Tushnet, a copyright law expert, walks us through the latest developments in a lawsuit against the creators of A.I.-image generation tools. She explains why artists may have trouble making the case that these tools infringe on their copyrights."

Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI; Reuters, October 30, 2023

Blake Brittain, Reuters; Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

"A judge in California federal court on Monday trimmed a lawsuit by visual artists who accuse Stability AI, Midjourney and DeviantArt of misusing their copyrighted work in connection with the companies' generative artificial intelligence systems.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick dismissed some claims from the proposed class action brought by Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz, including all of the allegations against Midjourney and DeviantArt. The judge said the artists could file an amended complaint against the two companies, whose systems utilize Stability's Stable Diffusion text-to-image technology." 

Artists, copyright law, and the battle over artificial intelligence; 1A, October 23, 2023

 Lauren Hamilton, 1A ; Artists, copyright law, and the battle over artificial intelligence

"Tech companies have spent billions of dollars this year alone investing in the future of generative artificial intelligence.  

Generative AI apps like ChatGPT, Stable  Diffusion and Bard, deliver brand new text, images and code results – of comparable quality to human outputs – from user prompts. 

But have you ever wondered how an AI bot knows how to process a user’s request? 

It gets trained, using millions of data points – like books, poems, photos, illustrations and song lyrics – from all over the internet, including copyrighted material. 

In recent months, several authors have sued companies like Meta and OpenAI, alleging that the companies used their copyrighted works to train their generative AI models, all without permission or compensation.

It’s an issue of concern for many who work creative jobs; from authors, to musicians, voice actors and graphic designers.

What’s to come of the legal battles between creatives and AI companies? What role does copyright law play in shaping the future of artificial intelligence?"

Scraping or Stealing? A Legal Reckoning Over AI Looms; Hollywood Reporter, August 22, 2023

 Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter ; Scraping or Stealing? A Legal Reckoning Over AI Looms

"Engineers build AI art generators by feeding AI systems, known as large language models, voluminous databases of images downloaded from the internet without licenses. The artists’ suit revolves around the argument that the practice of feeding these systems copyrighted works constitutes intellectual property theft. A finding of infringement in the case may upend how most AI systems are built in the absence of regulation placing guardrails around the industry. If the AI firms are found to have infringed on any copyrights, they may be forced to destroy datasets that have been trained on copyrighted works. They also face stiff penalties of up to $150,000 for each infringement.

AI companies maintain that their conduct is protected by fair use, which allows for the utilization of copyrighted works without permission as long as that use is transformative. The doctrine permits unlicensed use of copyrighted works under limited circumstances. The factors that determine whether a work qualifies include the purpose of the use, the degree of similarity, and the impact of the derivative work on the market for the original. Central to the artists’ case is winning the argument that the AI systems don’t create works of “transformative use,” defined as when the purpose of the copyrighted work is altered to create something with a new meaning or message."

The Ethics of Making (and Publishing) AI Art; Lifehacker, July 31, 2023

Brendan Hesse, Lifehacker; The Ethics of Making (and Publishing) AI Art

"This post is part of Lifehacker’s “Living With AI” series: We investigate the current state of AI, walk through how it can be useful (and how it can’t), and evaluate where this revolutionary tech is heading next. Read more here...

Are there ethical uses of AI art?

Despite the ethical and legal issues, some argue there is a place for these tools, and that they can even be helpful to professional artists...

Given all these concerns, it’s hard to recommend AI art creators, even if the intent to use them is innocent. Nevertheless, these tools are here, and unless some future regulations force them to change, we can’t stop folks from giving them a try. But, if you do, please keep in mind the legal and ethical issues associated with making and sharing AI art, think twice about sharing it, and never claim an AI-generated image as your own work."

Your selfies are helping AI learn. You did not consent to this.; The Washington Post, December 9, 2022

 Shira Ovide, The Washington Post; Your selfies are helping AI learn. You did not consent to this.

"My colleague Tatum Hunter spent time evaluating Lensa, an app that transforms a handful of selfies you provide into artistic portraits. And people have been using the new chatbot ChatGPT to generate silly poems or professional emails that seem like they were written by a human. These AI technologies could be profoundly helpful but they also come with a bunch of thorny ethical issues.

Tatum reported that Lensa’s portrait wizardly comes from the styles of artists whose work was included in a giant database for coaching image-generating computers. The artists didn’t give their permission to do this, and they aren’t being paid. In other words, your fun portraits are built on work ripped off from artists. ChatGPT learned to mimic humans by analyzing your recipes, social media posts, product reviews and other text from everyone on the internet...

Hany Farid, a computer science professor at the University of California at Berkeley, told me that individuals, government officials, many technology executives, journalists and educators like him are far more attuned than they were a few years ago to the potential positive and negative consequences of emerging technologies like AI. The hard part, he said, is knowing what to do to effectively limit the harms and maximize the benefits."

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

  Jaimee Francis | Boston University School of Law, 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.'”"

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."

Neal Adams, Comic Book Artist Who Revitalized Batman and Fought for Creators’ Rights, Dies at 80; The Hollywood Reporter, April 29, 2022

 Borys Kit, The Hollywood Reporter; Neal Adams, Comic Book Artist Who Revitalized Batman and Fought for Creators’ Rights, Dies at 80

"Adams also worked tirelessly to promote better working conditions and, radically at the time, creators’ rights, especially for their work. He early on recognized the value of creators and was a thorn in the side of publishers, demanding compensation for himself and others when their characters were adapted off the page.

He, along with Stan Lee, formed the Academy of Comic Book Arts, hoping to start a union that would fight for benefits and ownership on behalf of writers and artists. Lee wanted an organization that was more akin to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and the two parted ways.

In the late ’70s, when a new federal work-for-hire law was being enshrined, Marvel and then editor-in-chief Jim Shooter distributed contracts that stated freelancers could not assert copyright over their creations. As detailed in Reisman’s 2021 Lee biography, True Believer, Adams sent around a copy of the contract, scrawling on top, “Do Not Sign This Contract! You Will Be Signing Your Life Away!” While it caused a ruckus and awareness, the effort didn’t have its intended effect as Marvel flexed its muscle and threatened anyone who tried to unionize with a drying up of the freelance well."

Russian artist faces jail over peace protest using supermarket price labels; The Guardian, April 13, 2022

AFP in Saint Petersburg , The Guardian; Russian artist faces jail over peace protest using supermarket price labels

"A Russian court has ordered an artist to be held behind bars for allegedly replacing supermarket price labels with messages protesting against Moscow’s military campaign in Ukraine.

Alexandra Skochilenko faces up to a decade in jail for her stealth protest, after she was charged under a new law banning “fake news” about Russia’s armed forces...

Investigators accused her of “putting fragments of paper in place of price tags, containing knowingly false information about the use of the Russian armed forces” in a Perekryostok supermarket on 31 March.

They described her motive as “political hatred for Russia”, which means she faces a harsh sentence if found guilty, ranging from a fine of 3m roubles (£27,000) to between five and 10 years in jail."

How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits; The Rolling Stone, January 9, 2020

Amy X. Wang, The Rolling Stone;

How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits

 "Artists, songwriters, producers, and labels are now awaiting the next Zeppelin verdict, with many hoping that a judgment in Page and Plant’s favor could unwind some of the headache-inducing ambiguity introduced by the “Blurred Lines” ruling. Others see the case, which has a chance of going all the way up to the Supreme Court, as a reopening of Pandora’s box. Will the latest ruling clarify the scope of music copyright — or muddy it even further? “At what point is an element of creative expression protectable?” says media intellectual-property attorney Wesley Lewis. “Litigators are all hoping for more clarity.”"

A university gallery showed art with Confederate imagery. Then students called to remove it.; The Washington Post, February 26, 2019

Mark Lynn Ferguson, The Washington Post; A university gallery showed art with Confederate imagery. Then students called to remove it.

"Joy Garnett, program associate for the National Coalition Against Censorship, said the school had other options than taking the art down. It could have provided more context around the exhibit, such as temporary dividers to conceal the art and signs cautioning visitors on the difficult subject matter. After the exhibit closed, Baldwin did hold listening sessions, but only students and faculty were allowed to attend, according to school spokeswoman Liesel Crosier. The sessions, argued Jonathan Friedman, project director for campus free speech at PEN America, a nonprofit devoted to defending freedom of speech, “would have likely been much richer if the exhibit were able to continue.”

Garnett also found fault with the artists, who she said need to understand the communities where they are showing their work. More than half of Baldwin’s residential students are not white. “It’s not about avoiding offending people,” Garnett said. “It’s about how do you couch the offense in a way that’s productive.”

Their Art Raised Questions About Technology. Chinese Censors Had Their Own Answer.; The New York Times, December 14, 2018

Amy Qin, The New York Times; Their Art Raised Questions About Technology. Chinese Censors Had Their Own Answer.

Artificial intelligence bots. 3-D printed human organs. Genomic sequencing. 

These might seem to be natural topics of interest in a country determined to be the world’s leader in science and technology. But in China, where censors are known to take a heavy hand, several artworks that look closely at these breakthroughs have been deemed taboo by local cultural officials.

The works, which raise questions about the social and ethical implications of artificial intelligence and biotechnology, were abruptly pulled last weekend from the coming Guangzhou Triennial on the orders of cultural authorities in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong...

“Isn’t contemporary art meant to raise questions, and start discussions about important subjects in actuality and those of our near future?” he wrote. “What are China’s reasons for organizing all these big expensive ‘contemporary art’ manifestations if these questions, the core of contemporary art, freedom of speech, freedom of mind, are ignored and undermined?”"

How Aretha Franklin’s ‘Respect’ Became a Battle Cry for Musicians Seeking Royalties; The New York Times, August 17, 2018

Ben Sisario, The New York Times;How Aretha Franklin’s ‘Respect’ Became a Battle Cry for Musicians Seeking Royalties

"It was Aretha Franklin’s first No. 1 hit, the cry of empowerment that has defined her for generations: “Respect.”

But for the roughly seven million times the song has been played on American radio stations, she was paid nothing.

When Ms. Franklin died on Thursday at age 76, fans celebrated the song all over again as a theme for the women’s rights movement. But in the music industry, “Respect” has also played a symbolic role in a long fight over copyright issues that, advocates say, have deprived artists like Ms. Franklin of fair royalty payments...

[Aretha Franklin] also added what became the song’s signature line: “R-E-S-P-E-C-T / Find out what it means to me.” 

Ms. Franklin’s reinvention of Mr. Redding’s song has continued to fascinate critics. Peter Guralnick, the author of books like “Sweet Soul Music: Rhythm and Blues and the Southern Dream of Freedom,” noted that she transformed the original meaning “not so much by changing the lyrics, as by the feeling that she imparted on the song — so that ‘Respect’ became a proclamation of freedom, a proclamation of feminism, a proclamation of an independent spirit.”"

‘Remix’ or plagiarism? Artists battle over a Chicago mural of Michelle Obama.; Washington Post, April 24, 2017

Derek Hawkins, Washington Post; ‘Remix’ or plagiarism? Artists battle over a Chicago mural of Michelle Obama.

"Devins’s mural had only been up for a matter of hours when word got back to Mesfin. She objected to the use of her work without permission in a widely circulated Instagram post that triggered a wave of outrage online, saying she felt like Devins stole her piece.

“I was very disheartened when he did that,” Mesfin told The Washington Post. “There’s a common code among all artists that you can get inspired by someone’s work but you have to pay homage and you have to give credit for it.”...

Devins said he never intended to take credit for Mesfin’s creation, which itself was based off a portrait in the New York Times by photographer Collier Schorr. Mesfin credited Schorr’s work on her Instagram post...

Devins said he came across Mesfin’s drawing on the sharing site Pinterest and was unable to track down the artist. He explained his decision to use the image without permission in an analogy, saying he was creating a “remix” of a piece of art in the way that a DJ remixes songs."

Aaron Swartz and copyright wars in the Internet age; Boston Globe, 1/28/16

Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe; Aaron Swartz and copyright wars in the Internet age:

"Swartz is a particularly tragic casualty of a conflict as old as the Gutenberg Bible. When copycats can easily republish the latest Charles Dickens novel or Adele CD, how will artists and publishers get paid? But laws to protect intellectual-property rights can cripple the free exchange of ideas.

Justin Peters seems as helpless as the rest of us to resolve this dilemma. But in his lucid and witty new book, he ably sketches the contours of the dilemma...

Peters places Swartz’s well-meant misdeeds in historical context, showing how this young man was one of many smart, ambitious combatants on both sides of the copyright wars.

"I can’t fault Peters’s sympathy for Swartz, and I share his opinion that the prosecutorial sledgehammer fell much too hard. But Peters seems a little too inclined to play the populist, sneering at the pro-copyright arguments of publishers. Yes, our current intellectual property statutes are absurdly restrictive. But apart from strong protections, how would artists and writers hope to make a decent living?

The conundrum continues, with activists on both sides engaged in constant efforts to redraw the boundaries. Peters’s new book is an excellent survey of the battlefield, and a sobering memorial to its most tragic victim."