Internet Archive Copyright Case Ends Without Supreme Court Review; Publishers Weekly, December 5, 2024

Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Internet Archive Copyright Case Ends Without Supreme Court Review

"After more than four years of litigation, a closely watched copyright case over the Internet Archive’s scanning and lending of library books is finally over after Internet Archive officials decided against exercising their last option, an appeal to the Supreme Court. The deadline to file an appeal was December 3.

With a consent judgment already entered to settle claims in the case, the official end of the litigation now triggers an undisclosed monetary payment to the plaintiff publishers, which, according to the Association of American Publishers, will “substantially” cover the publishers’ attorney fees and costs in the litigation."

Cuban citizen convicted in U.S. streaming piracy scheme; UPI, November 16, 2024

 Mike Heuer , UPI; Cuban citizen convicted in U.S. streaming piracy scheme

"A federal jury in Las Vegas found Yoany Vaillant guilty of conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement for his work on behalf of illegal streamer Jetflicks.

Vaillant, 43, is a Cuban citizen and knows 27 computer programming languages, which he used to streamline the subscription-based but illegal Jetflicks content for its subscribers who were located throughout the United States, the Department of Justice announced in a news release Friday...

Jetflicks is headquartered in Las Vegas and claimed to have 183,285 copyrighted episodes of television programming, which is much more than Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and any other streaming services.

Prosecutors provided evidence showing Vaillant and seven co-conspirators scoured pirate sites located around the world to access and download its extensive library of streaming titles without obtaining permission or paying respective copyright holders...

"The vast scale of Jetflicks' piracy affected every significant copyright owner of a television program in the United States," the DOJ said.

The illegal streaming caused "millions of dollars of losses to the U.S. television show and streaming industries," the agency said.

Vaillant was among eight defendants indicted in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in 2019."

Icelandic Fishing Giant Wins Copyright Case Against Artist; artnet, November 14, 2024

Jo Lawson-Tancred , artnet; Icelandic Fishing Giant Wins Copyright Case Against Artist

"The work by the artist known as Odee had publicly impersonated Iceland’s biggest fishing company Samherji, issuing a fake apology for its role in the so-called “fishrot” corruption scandal of 2019. In his ruling, the judge described the artwork as “an instrument of fraud, copyright infringement, and malicious falsehood.”

The case never went to trial but the artist said he plans to appeal the judgement. His defenders have argued that any punitive action taken against him could result in a “chilling effect” that discourages artist’s from daring to critique big corporations for fear of legal action.

Samherji sued Odee, the moniker for 41-year-old Icelandic artist Oddur Fridriksson, over We’re Sorry (2023), for which Odee created the website samherji.co.uk, imitating the company’s brand identity. On this platform, he issued the statement: “Samherji Apologizes, Pledges Restitution and Cooperation with Authorities.”

In Samherji’s complaint filed in London’s high court, it accused Odee of trademark infringement and malicious falsehood. The company’s lawyers applied for a summary judgement to avoid a trial."

What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law; JD Supra, November 4, 2024

AEON Law, JD Supra; What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law

"Not surprisingly, a lot is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law.

Here’s a roundup of some recent developments in the area of copyright law and AI.

Copyright Office Denies AI Security Research Exemption under DMCA...

Former OpenAI Employee Says It Violates Copyright Law...

Blade Runner Production Company Sues Tesla for AI-Aided Copyright Infringement"

Even Free Libraries Come With a Cost; The National Law Review, September 13, 2024

  Anisa Noorassa of McDermott Will & Emery , The National Law Review; Even Free Libraries Come With a Cost

"The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment of copyright infringement against an internet book archive, holding that its free-to-access library did not constitute fair use of the copyrighted books. Hachette Book Group Inc. v. Internet Archive, Case No. 23-1260 (2d Cir. Sept. 4, 2024) (Menashi, Robinson, Kahn, JJ.).

Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House (collectively, the publishers) brought suit against Internet Archive alleging that its “Free Digital Library,” which loans copies of the publishers’ books without charge, violated the publishers’ copyrights. Internet Archive argued that its use of the publishers’ copyrighted material fell under the fair use exception to the Copyright Act because Internet Archive acquired physical books and digitized them for borrowing (much like a traditional library) and maintained a 1:1 ratio of borrowed material to physical copies except for a brief period during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The district court reviewed the four statutory fair use factors set forth in § 107 of the Copyright Act:

• The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
• The nature of the copyrighted work.
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
• The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The district court found that Internet Archive’s use of the works was not covered by the fair use exception because its use was non-transformative, was commercial in nature due to its solicitation of donations, and was disruptive of the market for e-book licenses. Internet Archive appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed, addressing each factor in turn."

The Internet Archive Loses Its Appeal of a Major Copyright Case; Wired, September 4, 2024

 Kate Knibbs, Wired; The Internet Archive Loses Its Appeal of a Major Copyright Case

"THE INTERNET ARCHIVE has lost a major legal battle—in a decision that could have a significant impact on the future of internet history. Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the long-running digital archive, upholding an earlier ruling in Hachette v. Internet Archive that found that one of the Internet Archive’s book digitization projects violated copyright law.

Notably, the appeals court’s ruling rejects the Internet Archive’s argument that its lending practices were shielded by the fair use doctrine, which permits for copyright infringement in certain circumstances, calling it “unpersuasive.”"

Philip Glass Says Crimean Theater Is Using His Music Without Permission; The Daily Beast, July 25, 2024

Clay Walker, The Daily Beast; Philip Glass Says Crimean Theater Is Using His Music Without Permission

"Legendary American composer Philip Glass had some harsh words after learning that a theater in Russian-annexed Crimea plans to use his music and name as part of a new show. In a letter posted to X, Glass explained that he had learned a new ballet called Wuthering Heights is set to open at the Sevastopol Opera and Ballet Theater—using works he had penned without his consent. “No permission for the use of my music in the ballet or the use of my name in the advertising and promotion of the ballet was ever requested of me or given by me. The use of my music and the use of my name without my consent is in violation of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic works to which the Russian Federation is a signatory. It is an act of piracy,” Glass wrote."

Internet Archive forced to remove 500,000 books after publishers’ court win; Ars Technica, June 21, 2024

 ASHLEY BELANGER, Ars Technica; Internet Archive forced to remove 500,000 books after publishers’ court win

"As a result of book publishers successfully suing the Internet Archive (IA) last year, the free online library that strives to keep growing online access to books recently shrank by about 500,000 titles.

IA reported in a blog post this month that publishers abruptly forcing these takedowns triggered a "devastating loss" for readers who depend on IA to access books that are otherwise impossible or difficult to access.

To restore access, IA is now appealing, hoping to reverse the prior court's decision by convincing the US Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit that IA's controlled digital lending of its physical books should be considered fair use under copyright law."

Original sins and dirty secrets: GenAI has an ethics problem. These are the three things it most urgently needs to fix; Fortune, June 27, 2024

SAGE LAZZARO, Fortune; Original sins and dirty secrets: GenAI has an ethics problem. These are the three things it most urgently needs to fix

"The ethics of generative AI has been in the news this week. AI companies have been accused of taking copyrighted creative works without permission to train their models, and there’s been documentation of those models producing outputs that plagiarize from that training data. Today, I’m going to make the case that generative AI can never be ethical as long as three issues that are currently inherent to the technology remain. First, there’s the fact that generative AI was created using stolen data. Second, it’s built on exploitative labor. And third, it’s exponentially worsening the energy crisis at a pivotal time when we need to be scaling back, not accelerating, our energy demands and environmental impact."

How to Fix “AI’s Original Sin”; O'Reilly, June 18, 2024

  Tim O’Reilly, O'Reilly; How to Fix “AI’s Original Sin”

"In conversation with reporter Cade Metz, who broke the story, on the New York Times podcast The Daily, host Michael Barbaro called copyright violation “AI’s Original Sin.”

At the very least, copyright appears to be one of the major fronts so far in the war over who gets to profit from generative AI. It’s not at all clear yet who is on the right side of the law. In the remarkable essay “Talkin’ ’Bout AI Generation: Copyright and the Generative-AI Supply Chain,” Cornell’s Katherine Lee and A. Feder Cooper and James Grimmelmann of Microsoft Research and Yale note:

Copyright law is notoriously complicated, and generative-AI systems manage to touch on a great many corners of it. They raise issues of authorship, similarity, direct and indirect liability, fair use, and licensing, among much else. These issues cannot be analyzed in isolation, because there are connections everywhere. Whether the output of a generative AI system is fair use can depend on how its training datasets were assembled. Whether the creator of a generative-AI system is secondarily liable can depend on the prompts that its users supply.

But it seems less important to get into the fine points of copyright law and arguments over liability for infringement, and instead to explore the political economy of copyrighted content in the emerging world of AI services: Who will get what, and why?"

Amicus Briefs Filed in Internet Archive Copyright Case; Publishers Weekly, March 25, 2024

 Andrew Albanese , Publishers Weekly; Amicus Briefs Filed in Internet Archive Copyright Case

"Internet Archive lawyers filed their principal appeal brief on December 15, and 11 amicus briefs were filed in support of the Internet Archive a week later, in December, representing librarians and library associations, authors, public advocacy groups, law professors, and IP scholars, although some of the IA amicus briefs are presented as neutral.

The briefs are the latest development in the long-running copyright infringement case and come a year after a ruling by judge John G. Koeltl on March 24, 2023 that emphatically rejected the IA’s fair use defense, finding the scanning and lending of print library books under a protocol known as “controlled digital lending” to be copyright infringement.

The Internet Archive’s reply brief is now due on April 19, and oral arguments are expected to be set for this fall."

Introducing CopyrightCatcher, the first Copyright Detection API for LLMs; Patronus AI, March 6, 2024

 Patronus AI; Introducing CopyrightCatcher, thefirst Copyright Detection API for LLMs

"Managing risks from unintended copyright infringement in LLM outputs should be a central focus for companies deploying LLMs in production.

• On an adversarial copyright test designed by Patronus AI researchers, we found that state-of-the-art LLMs generate copyrighted content at an alarmingly high rate 😱
• OpenAI’s GPT-4 produced copyrighted content on 44% of the prompts.
• Mistral’s Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1 produced copyrighted content on 22% of the prompts.
• Anthropic’s Claude-2.1 produced copyrighted content on 8% of the prompts.
• Meta’s Llama-2-70b-chat produced copyrighted content on 10% of the prompts.
• Check out CopyrightCatcher, our solution to detect potential copyright violations in LLMs. Here’s the public demo, with open source model inference powered by Databricks Foundation Model APIs. 🔥

LLM training data often contains copyrighted works, and it is pretty easy to get an LLM to generate exact reproductions from these texts1. It is critical to catch these reproductions, since they pose significant legal and reputational risks for companies that build and use LLMs in production systems2. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft have all faced copyright lawsuits on LLM generations from authors3, music publishers4, and more recently, the New York Times5.

To check whether LLMs respond to your prompts with copyrighted text, you can use CopyrightCatcher. It detects when LLMs generate exact reproductions of content from text sources like books, and highlights any copyrighted text in LLM outputs. Check out our public CopyrightCatcher demo here!

Researchers tested leading AI models for copyright infringement using popular books, and GPT-4 performed worst; CNBC, March 6, 2024

 Hayden Field, CNBC; Researchers tested leading AI models for copyright infringement using popular books, and GPT-4 performed worst

"The company, founded by ex-Meta researchers, specializes in evaluation and testing for large language models — the technology behind generative AI products.

Alongside the release of its new tool, CopyrightCatcher, Patronus AI released results of an adversarial test meant to showcase how often four leading AI models respond to user queries using copyrighted text.

The four models it tested were OpenAI’s GPT-4, Anthropic’s Claude 2, Meta’s Llama 2 and Mistral AI’s Mixtral.

“We pretty much found copyrighted content across the board, across all models that we evaluated, whether it’s open source or closed source,” Rebecca Qian, Patronus AI’s cofounder and CTO, who previously worked on responsible AI research at Meta, told CNBC in an interview.

Qian added, “Perhaps what was surprising is that we found that OpenAI’s GPT-4, which is arguably the most powerful model that’s being used by a lot of companies and also individual developers, produced copyrighted content on 44% of prompts that we constructed.”"

On Copyright, Creativity, and Compensation; Reason, February 12, 2024

 DAVID POST, Reason; On Copyright, Creativity, and Compensation

"Some of you may have seen the article by David Segal in the Sunday NY Times several weeks ago [available here] about a rather sordid copyright fracas in which I have been embroiled over the past few months...

What to make of all this? I am not oblivious to the irony of being confronted with this problem after having spent 30 years or so, as a lawyer and law professor, reflecting on and writing about the many mysteries of copyright policy and copyright law in the Internet Age.

Here are a few things that strike me as interesting (and possibly important) in this episode."

An AI engine scans a book. Is that copyright infringement or fair use?; Columbia Journalism Review, October 26, 2023

MATHEW INGRAM, Columbia Journalism Review; An AI engine scans a book. Is that copyright infringement or fair use?

"Determining whether LLMs training themselves on copyrighted text qualifies as fair use can be difficult even for experts—not just because AI is complicated, but because the concept of fair use is, too."

The Dream Was Universal Access to Knowledge. The Result Was a Fiasco.; The New York Times, August 13, 2023

 David Streitfeld, The New York Times; The Dream Was Universal Access to Knowledge. The Result Was a Fiasco.

"In the middle of this mess are writers, whose job is to produce the books that contain much of the world’s best information. Despite that central role, they are largely powerless — a familiar position for most writers. Emotions are running high...

It’s rarely this nasty, but free vs. expensive is a struggle that plays out continuously against all forms of media and entertainment. Neither side has the upper hand forever, even if it sometimes seems it might.

“The more information is free, the more opportunities for it to be collected, refined, packaged and made expensive,” said Stewart Brand, the technology visionary who first developed the formulation. “The more it is expensive, the more workarounds to make it free. It’s a paradox. Each side makes the other true.”"

The Generative AI Battle Has a Fundamental Flaw; Wired, July 25, 2023

 WILL BEDINGFIELD, Wired; The Generative AI Battle Has a Fundamental Flaw

"At the core of these cases, explains Sag, is the same general theory: that LLMs “copied” authors’ protected works. Yet, as Sag explained in testimony to a US Senate subcommittee hearing earlier this month, models like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 do not “copy” work in the traditional sense. Digest would be a more appropriate verb—digesting training data to carry out their function: predicting the best next word in a sequence. “Rather than thinking of an LLM as copying the training data like a scribe in a monastery,” Sag said in his Senate testimony, “it makes more sense to think of it as learning from the training data like a student.”...

Ultimately, though, the technology is not going away, and copyright can only remedy some of its consequences. As Stephanie Bell, a research fellow at the nonprofit Partnership on AI, notes, setting a precedent where creative works can be treated like uncredited data is “very concerning.” To fully address a problem like this, the regulations AI needs aren't yet on the books."

Poet and translator to sue British Museum for copyright and moral rights infringement; The Art Newspaper, July 7, 2023

Anny Shaw, The Art Newspaper; Poet and translator to sue British Museum for copyright and moral rights infringement

"Sharples notes that the legal case will not only focus on copyright, but also Wang’s moral rights, in particular the right to attribution—or the right to be named or identified as the author."

Copyright Fair Use: How Much Copying is Too Much Copying?; Lexology, August 15, 2022

Goodell DeVries Leech & Dann LLP - Jim Astrachan, Lexology; Copyright Fair Use: How Much Copying is Too Much Copying?

"...no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate.” These words were written by Judge Learned Hand in 1936. His point was that a taking of someone else’s expression will not be excused merely because it is insubstantial in quantity when held up for comparison to the infringing work.

Years back a copyright defendant client related copyright lore as a defense to his actions. He swore up and down that copying was permissible as long as not more than 10 percent of the source work was taken. Many times that belief has been mistakenly repeated. Many of the older, bedrock, principles of copyright practice are worth repeating. Perhaps this repetition comes from being the teacher that I suspect is part of my DNA.

The “ancient” case of Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) should absolutely disabuse anyone of this silly notion." 

A professor found his exam questions posted online. He’s suing the students responsible for copyright infringement.; The Washington Post, March 16, 2022

Jaclyn Peiser, The Washington Post ; A professor found his exam questions posted online. He’s suing the students responsible for copyright infringement.

"Now, Berkovitz is suing the unknown students from the Orange, Calif., university for copyright infringement. In a lawsuit filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the professor alleges the students “infringed Berkovitz’s exclusive right to reproduce, make copies, distribute, or create derivative works by publishing the Midterm Exam and Final Exam on the Course Hero website without Berkovitz’s permission.”"