Showing posts with label licensing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label licensing. Show all posts

Saturday, May 23, 2026

It’s a Copyright Lawsuit, Charlie Brown; The New York Times, May 21, 2026

 , The New York Times; It’s a Copyright Lawsuit, Charlie Brown

"The owner of music used in “Peanuts” animated specials, including the memorable holiday classic “O Tannenbaum” and the unmistakable “Linus and Lucy” tunes, sued three companies and the U.S. Department of the Interior on Wednesday. It accused them of using its captivating bops in social media posts and a video game without permission.

Lee Mendelson Film Productions filed the copyright infringement suits in federal courts in New York and Washington, D.C. The songs are part of the programs that brought Charlie Brown, Snoopy and the rest of the gang from Charles Schulz’s comic strips off the page and into families’ living rooms...

According to the lawsuit, the Interior Department used “O Tannenbaum” from “A Charlie Brown Christmas” in a digital holiday card posted in December to social media without permission."

Sunday, May 17, 2026

How ‘learnrights’ would compensate creators for AI model training; MIT Sloan, May 12, 2026

 Brian Eastwood, MIT Sloan; How ‘learnrights’ would compensate creators for AI model training

"Human content creators are protected by copyright law, in part to ensure that they’re fairly compensated for their work. 

But whether these laws allow artificial intelligence models to learn from human-created content is up for debate — both in court and on Capitol Hill. Encyclopedia Britannica’s lawsuit against OpenAI, for example, is one of the latest allegations of misuse of reference materials. Meanwhile, the U.S. Copyright Office has not made a binding determination about whether using copyrighted works to train AI models is fair use.  

To deal with these issues, in 2023 MIT Sloan School of Management professor Thomas Malone proposed “learnright” laws that would give copyright holders the exclusive right to license their content to AI companies for model training. 

“Copyright law wasn’t designed for a world with generative AI, and without something like learnright laws, the incentives for people to create new content are likely to be greatly reduced,” said Malone, who is also the director of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence

In a more recent article, Malone and co-authors Frank Pasquale of Cornell Law School and Andrew Ting of George Washington University Law School outlined the argument for learnrights and described how they could work legally, economically, and practically...

Malone and his co-authors presented three arguments that support compensating copyright holders whose work is used to train generative AI. 

If AI models produce high-quality content quickly and cheaply without compensating the original creators of this content, that will decrease creators’ motivation to produce new content and thus reduce the volume of original work available to further improve AI models. “It would be unwise to risk such a decline in incentives for human expression,” the researchers write.

The researchers find it “troubling” that for-profit AI companies cry foul when others use their intellectual property — as was the case when U.S.-based AI firms accused China’s DeepSeek of stealing from them — given that the same companies use copyrighted content without compensating its creators. 

Properly acknowledging how other works influenced one’s own is the right thing to do and the foundation of a thoughtful creative process, the researchers write. Conversely, uncredited and uncompensated use of others’ work falls short of ethical standards and undermines what IP protection is supposed to mean."

Friday, May 15, 2026

Committee publishes Government response to AI and copyright report; UK Parliament, May 15, 2026

 UK Parliament; Committee publishes Government response to AI and copyright report

 "Chair’s response

Baroness Keeley, Chair of the Communications and Digital Committee, said:

“I am pleased that the Government’s response today confirms what it set out in March: that it no longer has a preference for introducing a broad copyright exception for AI training with an opt-out mechanism. It was clear that this approach would have been unworkable and placed an unfair burden on individual rightsholders. 

“The UK AI licensing market is emerging, and the Government now needs to create the conditions that will enable it to flourish. It can do this by ruling out any reform to copyright law that removes incentives to license, including proposals for a new commercial research exception, and committing to statutory transparency requirements for large AI developers. The Government says it will develop ‘best practice’ to encourage developers to be more transparent about the sources they use to train their models, but best practice alone will not promote licensing, drive compliance or enable robust enforcement. Only a mandatory framework will create the level playing field needed to foster responsible training data practices. 

“The coming months will be crucial in establishing a clear direction on AI and copyright for all stakeholders. The recently launched Sovereign AI Fund gives the Government the opportunity to insist on enhanced transparency and respect for copyright from the high-potential AI companies it supports. We will keep up a continued dialogue with Ministers to ensure that the Government is using all available levers, and demonstrating the necessary ambition, to drive meaningful progress on this issue.”

Saturday, May 9, 2026

Court Revives Copyright Lawsuit Over Annie Leibovitz’s ‘Star Wars’ Photos; PetaPixel, May 8, 2026

 Pesala Bandara, PetaPixel; Court Revives Copyright Lawsuit Over Annie Leibovitz’s ‘Star Wars’ Photos

"An appeals court has revived Annie Leibovitz’s agency’s copyright lawsuit against an online magazine over its use of her photographs from the Star Wars movie set.

On Tuesday, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court wrongly dismissed the lawsuit brought by licensing company Great Bowery Inc. against online outlet Consequence Sound LLC based on a lower court’s misunderstanding of copyright law.

The dispute centers on a group of Star Wars cast photographs taken by Leibovitz for Vanity Fair. In 2014, Leibovitz signed an “Artist Agreement” with Trunk Archive, a business operated by Great Bowery, granting the company the “exclusive worldwide right to license, market, and promote” certain images from the shoot."

Thursday, May 7, 2026

Scott Turow's latest real-life legal thriller: Suing Meta for copyright infringement; NPR, May 5, 2026

 , NPR ; Scott Turow's latest real-life legal thriller: Suing Meta for copyright infringement

""All Americans should understand that the bold future promised by A.I., has been, to paraphrase the investigative writer Alex Reisner, created with stolen words," said Turow in a statement to NPR. "It is all the more shameful that these violations of the law were undertaken by one of the richest corporations in the world."

According to the complaint, Meta "briefly considered licensing deals with major publishers" but changed its strategy in April 2023. The question of whether to license or pirate moving forward was "escalated" to Zuckerberg, after which, the complaint alleges, Meta's business development team received verbal instructions to stop licensing efforts. "If we license once [sic] single book, we won't be able to lean into the fair use strategy," a Meta employee is quoted as saying in the complaint.

"It's the most flagrant copyright breach in history," said Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger in a statement to NPR. "And these voracious tech companies need to be held accountable.""

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

Publishers sue Meta, claiming it violated copyrights in training AI with their books; The Washington Post, May 5, 2026

 , The Washington Post; Publishers sue Meta, claiming it violated copyrights in training AI with their books

"The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is the latest in a string of lawsuits brought by publishers, authors, artists, photographers and news outlets aimed at forcing tech companies to compensate them for using their works to train their AI models. The plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that the AI model’s ability to quickly produce knockoffs and summaries of copyrighted books threatens the livelihoods of publishers and authors.

A Meta spokesperson said in a statement that the company would “fight this lawsuit aggressively.”

“AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use,” the spokesperson said.

The publishers’ complaint states Meta distributed millions of copyrighted works without authorization and without compensating authors or publishers, claiming that Zuckerberg “personally authorized and actively encouraged the infringement.” They also claim that Meta removed copyright notices and copyright management information from the works used to train the AI model, known as Llama."

Even More Authors, Publishers Sue Meta Over Copyright in AI Training: What's Different Now; CNET, May 5, 2026

 Katelyn Chedraoui , CNET; Even More Authors, Publishers Sue Meta Over Copyright in AI Training: What's Different Now

Meta won a previous AI lawsuit brought by authors. Publishers are taking a different route this time.

"New lawsuit, same questions

Copyright is one of the most contentious legal issues around AI. Tech companies like Meta need high-quality, human-created data to build and refine their AI models. Nearly all of this material is protected by copyright. That means tech companies have to enter into licensing agreements or defend their use of the content as fair use under a provision of copyright law.

Meta and Anthropic have both won previous cases in lawsuits brought by authors, successfully defending their fair use. Anthropic agreed to settle some piracy claims with authors for $1.5 billion, or about $3,000 per pirated work. Both judges warned in their decisions that this won't be the result in every lawsuit...

One of the biggest considerations in these cases is whether tech companies' use of copyrighted books will make it harder for human authors to sell their work or otherwise affect the marketplace."

Tuesday, May 5, 2026

Intellectual Property and Brainpower Versus AI in Academic Publish; Academe Magazine, AAUP, Spring 2026

 Kelly Hand , Academe Magazine, AAUP; Intellectual Property and Brainpower Versus AI in Academic Publish

"The concept of transformation is central to US copyright law—which privileges “transformative” uses of copyrighted material in evaluating “fair use”—and emerging case law on AI. It’s worth thinking about what kind of transformation we value as human readers and writers and as beneficiaries of published academic research—particularly as we reckon with piracy in the training of LLMs and the unchecked growth of the AI industry. Considerations about how academic publications enable AI’s transformative processes extend beyond concerns about emotional authenticity important in creative writing to those about intellectual integrity and factual accuracy. 

Authors, editors, and publishers will need to make consequential IP decisions—including those about settlements in lawsuits over AI piracy, invitations to enter into licensing agreements with AI companies seeking to avoid future lawsuits, and editorial policies and guidelines to prevent the misuse of AI in academic research and writing. Some individuals and organizations, including scholarly publications and presses, will encounter opportunities to “cash in.” However, their relatively modest financial gains facilitate the disproportionate enrichment of AI companies that use copyrighted material for training LLMs. Even if that use is transformative in the strict legal sense, it fails to effect the kind of transformation that depends on the uniquely human capacities for thinking, feeling, and complex analysis. Academic journals and university presses must also protect IP—by upholding ethical standards and principles of copyright law—and commit to publishing human-authored works."

Monday, May 4, 2026

Planning a World Cup Watch Party at a Bar? The ‘FIFA Police’ Are Lurking; The New York Times, May 2, 2026

 , The New York Times; Planning a World Cup Watch Party at a Bar? The ‘FIFA Police’ Are Lurking

Some businesses advertising watch parties in Canada’s two host cities are wary of running afoul of FIFA’s trademark, which protects advertising “World Cup” events.

"Sports teams and athletic organizations, such as FIFA, the International Olympic Committee and others, are aggressive about protecting their intellectual property because their names, logos and brands are considered commercial assets."

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

Printify Releases Guide on How to Avoid Copyright Infringement with T-shirts; The National Law Review, April 28, 2026

 Press Release, The National Law Review; Printify Releases Guide on How to Avoid Copyright Infringement with T-shirts

"Printify, a leading print-on-demand platform, has announced the release of a comprehensive new guide designed to help entrepreneurs understand how to avoid copyright infringement when creating and selling custom apparel. As the t-shirt business continues to attract new creators, the risk of legal missteps—ranging from cease-and-desist letters to costly lawsuits—has become a major concern across the industry.

The guide delivers a clear, practical breakdown of intellectual property rules, helping sellers navigate the complexities of copyright, trademark, and publicity rights. By combining legal fundamentals with actionable advice, Printify aims to give entrepreneurs the confidence to create and scale their businesses without unnecessary risk.

Launching a t-shirt business has never been more accessible, but legal awareness remains one of the most overlooked aspects of success. With this release, Printify places itself at the center of a safer, more informed approach to building apparel brands."

Saturday, April 25, 2026

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright- Where Does the UK Stand?; The National Law Review, April 23, 2026

 Serena TotinoSimon CasinaderK&L Gates LLP , The National Law Review; Artificial Intelligence and Copyright- Where Does the UK Stand?

"The UK Government’s report on the copyright and AI consultation was recently published. While the report confirms that balancing the interests of copyrights holders and AI developers is a complex exercise, it also provides an indication of likely scenarios to consider in this fast-evolving environment.

The consultation focused on whether AI developers should be permitted to use copyright protected works for training purposes without prior authorisation and, if so, under what conditions...

Takeaways

Rights holders should continue to assess how their content is accessed and used, consider technical or contractual mechanisms for licensing and rights reservation.

AI developers should remain cautious when sourcing training data, ensure governance and record keeping processes are robust, and factor copyright risk into product development and deployment strategies."

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

The Onion Has a New Plan to Take Over Infowars; The New York Times, April 21, 2026

 Benjamin Mullin and , The New York Times; The Onion Has a New Plan to Take Over Infowars 

"When Infowars, the website founded by the right-wing conspiracist Alex Jones, came up for sale two years ago, an unlikely suitor stepped up. The Onion, a satirical news outlet, planned to convert the site into a parody of itself.

That sale was scuttled by a bankruptcy court. Now, The Onion has re-emerged with a new plan: licensing the website from Gregory Milligan, the court-appointed manager of the site.

On Monday, Mr. Milligan asked Maya Guerra Gamble, a judge in Texas’ Travis County District Court overseeing the disposition of Infowars, to approve that licensing agreement in a court filing. Under the terms, The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, would pay $81,000 a month to license Infowars.com and its associated intellectual property — such as its name — for an initial six months, with an option to renew for another six months.

The licensing deal has been agreed to by The Onion and the court-appointed administrator. But it is not effective until Judge Guerra Gamble approves it, and Mr. Jones could appeal any ruling. That means the fate of Infowars remains in limbo until the court rules, probably sometime in the next two weeks. Mr. Jones continues to operate Infowars.com and host its weekday program, “The Alex Jones Show.”

Churchill Downs strikes $85m deal for Preakness intellectual property rights; The Guardian, April 21, 2026

  , The Guardian; Churchill Downs strikes $85m deal for Preakness intellectual property rights

"Churchill Downs has reached a deal to acquire the intellectual property rights to the Preakness Stakes, the company announced Tuesday, in a move that brings one of US thoroughbred racing’s most celebrated events under the same corporate umbrella as the Kentucky Derby.

Churchill Downs Inc said it will pay $85m to buy the trademarks and associated rights to the Preakness and the Black-Eyed Susan Stakes from 1/ST Maryland LLC, an affiliate of 1/ST Racing.

The agreement covers the intellectual property tied to the races, not the events themselves. Under a separate licensing arrangement, Churchill Downs will grant the state of Maryland the rights needed to continue staging the races in exchange for an annual fee.

The transaction follows a 2024 agreement in which Maryland bought Pimlico Race Course from 1/ST Racing but allowed the company to retain the intellectual property rights to the Preakness and Black-Eyed Susan Stakes. Under that arrangement, 1/ST received annual payments and a share of wagering revenue tied to the races.

The Preakness Stakes, first run in 1873, is the second leg of US horse racing’s Triple Crown, held two weeks after the Kentucky Derby and followed by the Belmont Stakes. The Black-Eyed Susan Stakes, a major race for three-year-old fillies, is traditionally run the day before the Preakness at Pimlico Race Course in northwest Baltimore."

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

I broke up with my Kindle. My new e-reader treats me better.; The Washington Post, March 31, 2026

, The Washington Post; I broke up with my Kindle. My new e-reader treats me better.

After Amazon’s Kindle removed my ability to download and back up my own e-books, I went in search of an alternative.


"As corporate walled gardens have replaced the freewheeling, open internet of the 1990s and 2000s, we’ve ceded control over almost everything about our online experience. Nearly every keystroke, swipe and tap is now monitored, recorded and analyzed for potential profit.


The Kindle ecosystem is perhaps the apotheosis of this shift. One Guardian reporter found Amazon had recorded every title, highlight and page turn on her Kindle app (40,000 entries over two years). The company’s dominance sets the terms for everyone in the marketplace.


Including me. Like tens of millions of others, I have owned a Kindle (a Paperwhite). Last year, it started to feel as if it owned me. The final straw was when Kindle removed my ability to download and back up my own e-books. So I went in search of an alternative.


I bought a Kobo.


Was it the bibliophile Eden some Kobo fans described? Not quite. The reality was messier than I expected. It turns out we can’t escape Big Brother on our e-readers just yet. But a more open society is coming into view for book lovers — and perhaps all of us.


Here’s how to turn the page."

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

‘AN IMPORTANT STEP’: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ADOPTS REPORT ON COPYRIGHT AND GENERATIVE AI; Billboard, March 11, 2026

Lars Brandle , Billboard; ‘AN IMPORTANT STEP’: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ADOPTS REPORT ON COPYRIGHT AND GENERATIVE AI

"Two years after the European Parliament passed the Artificial Intelligence Act, MEPs this week finally adopted a report on copyright and generative AI.

On Tuesday, March 10, Parliament passed its resolution on “Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges” with an overwhelming majority of 460 votes to 71, and with 88 abstentions.

The report calls for the EU and its 27 member states to focus on the crucial issues of how AI and tech companies engage with copyright-protected music in the digital age, and explores a licensing system as a solution, paving the way for fair compensation for the use of creative works."

Tuesday, March 10, 2026

Nielsen's Gracenote sues OpenAI for copyright infringement; Axios, March 10, 2026

 Sara Fischer, Axios; Nielsen's Gracenote sues OpenAI for copyright infringement

"How it works: Gracenote employs hundreds of editors who use human insight and judgment to create millions of narrative descriptions, original video descriptors, unique identifiers and other program identifiers that TV providers and other clients can use to help customers discover content. 

For example, Gracenote editors described HBO's "Game of Thrones" as "the depiction of two power families — kings and queens, knights and renegades, liars and honest men — playing a deadly game of control of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros, and to sit atop the Iron Throne."

In the lawsuit, Gracenote alleges OpenAI scraped and used a near-exact copy of that descriptor when prompted by a ChatGPT user to describe "Game of Thrones." 

It provides several other examples where, with minimal prompting, OpenAI's various ChatGPT models recite large portions of Gracenote's program descriptions verbatim. 

Between the lines: Gracenote's entire Programs Database, which includes its metadata and the proprietary relational map its editors use to connect that data, is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office."

Thursday, February 12, 2026

Pitt climbed in the National Academy of Inventors’ global patent ranking; PittWire, February 12, 2026

 PittWire ; Pitt climbed in the National Academy of Inventors’ global patent ranking

"The University of Pittsburgh climbed two spots on the list of the Top 100 Worldwide Universities Granted U.S. Utility Patents, according to the most recent list issued by the National Academy of Inventors (NAI).

Pitt innovators were issued 107 U.S. patents in 2025 for a No. 26 ranking, up from No. 28 in 2024, when they were issued 102 patents.

Released annually by the NAI since 2013, the Top 100 Worldwide Universities List spotlights the universities holding U.S. utility patents to showcase the important research and innovation taking place within academic institutions.

Nine institutions outside the U.S. and several multicampus statewide university systems were among those ranked ahead of Pitt.

“Pitt’s climb in the NAI patent ranking underscores the determination of our faculty and student innovators to turn research into real-world impact,” said Evan Facher, vice chancellor for innovation and entrepreneurship and associate dean for commercial translation at the School of Medicine. “Our innovators are submitting discoveries to the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at a record pace, and securing intellectual property is a crucial step in translating those breakthroughs into technologies that improve lives.”

In the last fiscal year, Pitt innovators had their intellectual property licensed or optioned 137 times, including the formation of 15 startup companies, with technologies ranging from AI platforms for diagnosing macular degeneration, aortic aneurysms and ear infections, to a gene therapy to treat hearing loss, and more."

Why are copyright problems plaguing figure skating at the Milan Cortina Olympics?; AP, February 11, 2026

 DAVE SKRETTA , AP; Why are copyright problems plaguing figure skating at the Milan Cortina Olympics?

"One of the recurring issues during the opening week of the figure skating program at the Milan Cortina Olympics has been copyright problems, which have forced some athletes to scramble for approval and others to ditch their planned programs entirely...

Why are copyright problems happening?

The International Skating Union long forbade the use of lyrics in any discipline besides ice dance, forcing athletes to perform to older pieces of music — often classical tunes, such as piano concertos. Those pieces were considered part of the public domain, which meant that they could be used or modified freely and without permission.

That changed in 2014, when the ISU lifted its ban on lyrics in the hope of appealing to younger audiences. Suddenly, skaters had the choice of just about any musical genre, from pop to hip-hop to hard rock and even heavy metal.

The problem is that modern music is not part of the public domain, which means athletes must obtain permission to use it. During the 2018 Pyeongchang Games, the first Olympics in which lyrics were allowed, American skaters Alexa Knierim and Brandon Frazier used a cover of “House of the Rising Sun,” and the indie rock band ultimately sued them for using it without its permission."

Monday, February 9, 2026

Essential Knowledge for Journalists Reporting on AI, Creativity and Copyright; Webinar, National Press Foundation: Thursday, February 19, 2026 12 PM - 1 PM EST

 Webinar, National Press Foundation: Essential Knowledge for Journalists Reporting on AI, Creativity and Copyright 

"Generative AI is one of the biggest technological and cultural stories of our time – and one of the hardest to explain. As AI companies train models on news articles, books, images and music, reporters face tough questions about permission, transparency and fair use. Should AI companies pay when creative works are used to train their AI models? Where’s the line between innovation and theft?

The National Press Foundation will host a webinar to help journalists make sense of the evolving AI licensing landscape and report on it with clarity and confidence. We’ll unpack what “AI licensing” really means, how early one-off deals are turning into structured revenue-sharing systems, and why recent agreements in media and entertainment could shift the conversation from conflict to cooperation.

Join NPF and a panel of experts for a free online briefing from 12-1 p.m. ET, Feb. 19, 2026. The practical, forward-looking discussion examines how trust, creativity, and innovation can coexist as this new era unfolds and will equip journalists with plain-language explanations, real-world examples, and story angles that help readers understand why AI licensing matters to culture, innovation and the creative ecosystem they rely on every day."

Russian figure skater changes Olympic music over copyright; Associated Press via ESPN, February 8, 2026

 Associated Press via ESPN; Russian figure skater changes Olympic music over copyright

"Russian figure skater Petr Gumennik has been forced to change his short program music two days before the men's program at the Milan Cortina Olympics after joining a growing list of figure skaters dealing with copyright issues.

Gumennik, who is participating as a neutral athlete at the Winter Games, had been working all season to music from "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer," a psychological thriller film. But the 23-year-old Russian national champion learned in the past few days that he did not have proper permission to perform to the music, leaving him in limbo as the Winter Games began.

Given such a tight timeframe, Gumennik was unable to get clearance for his music from last season, which came from the space opera film "Dune." So he pivoted to "Waltz 1805" by Edgar Hakobyan, for which Gumennik was able to get permission."