JOSHUA M. DALTON, Partner, Boston; COLLEEN GANIN, Partner, New York; MICHAEL R. PFEUFFER, Senior Attorney, Pittsburgh, Morgan Lewis; Copyright and AI: Controlling Rights and Managing Risks
"The law on copyright and AI is still developing, with courts and policymakers testing the limits of authorship, infringement, and fair use. Companies should expect continued uncertainty and rapid change in this space."
Matt Enis, Library Journal ; AI Influencers: Libraries Guiding AI Use
"In addition to the field’s collective power, libraries can have a great deal of influence locally, says R. David Lankes, the Virginia and Charles Bowden Professor of Librarianship at the University of Texas at Austin and cohost of LJ’s Libraries Lead podcast.
“Right now, the place where librarians and libraries could have the most impact isn’t on trying to change OpenAI or Microsoft or Google; it’s really in looking at implementation policy,” Lankes says. For example, “on the public library side, many cities and states are adopting AI policies now, as we speak,” Lankes says. “Where I am in Austin, the city has more or less said, ‘go forth and use AI,’ and that has turned into a mandate for all of the city offices, which in this case includes the Austin Public Library” (APL).
Rather than responding to that mandate by simply deciding how the library would use AI internally, APL created a professional development program to bring its librarians up to speed with the technology so that they can offer other city offices help with ways to use it, and advice on how to use it ethically and appropriately, Lankes explains.
“Cities and counties are wrestling with AI, and this is an absolutely perfect time for libraries to be part of that conversation,” Lankes says."
Co-authors:James E. Malackowski and Eric T. Carnick , JD Supra; AI as Intellectual Property: A Strategic Framework for the Legal Profession
"The artificial intelligence revolution presents the legal profession with its most significant practice development opportunity since the emergence of the internet. AI spending across hardware, software, and services reached $279.22 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 35.9% through 2030, reaching $1.8 trillion.[i] AI is rapidly enabling unprecedented efficiencies, insights, and capabilities in industry. The innovations underlying these benefits are often the result of protectable intellectual property (IP) assets. The ability to raise capital and achieve higher valuations can often be traced back to such IP. According to data from Carta, startups categorized as AI companies raised approximately one-third of total venture funding in 2024. Looking only at late-stage funding (Series E+), almost half (48%) of total capital raised went to AI companies.[ii]Organizations that implement strategic AI IP management can realize significant financial benefits.
At the same time, AI-driven enhancements have introduced profound industry risks, e.g., disruption of traditional business models; job displacement and labor market reductions; ethical and responsible AI concerns; security, regulatory, and compliance challenges; and potentially, in more extreme scenarios, broad catastrophic economic consequences. Such risks are exacerbated by the tremendous pace of AI development and adoption, in some cases surpassing societal understanding and regulatory frameworks. According to McKinsey, 78% of respondents say their organizations use AI in at least one business function, up
from 72% in early 2024 and 55% a year earlier.[iii]
This duality—AI as both a catalyst and a disruptor—is now a feature of the modern global economy. There is an urgent need for legal frameworks that can protect AI innovation, facilitate the proper commercial development and deployment of AI-related IP, and navigate the risks and challenges posed by this new technology. Legal professionals who embrace AI as IP™ will benefit from this duality. Early indicators suggest significant advantages for legal practitioners who develop specialized AI as IP expertise, while traditional IP practices may face commoditization pressures."
Julia Romero, 8NewsNow ; Nevada Ethics Commission reaches agreement on F1 ticket case involving Clark County Commissioners
"Ethics commissioners decided the Clark County Commissioners were there on ceremonial duties; however, they didn’t disclose the gift properly.
The stipulated agreement includes an admonishment of the Clark County Commissioners as well as the following requirements: Establishing an Ethics Officer for Clark County to oversee ethics education and compliance, and the County Commissioners further agree to work with Clark County to establish an event attendance policy to provide specific policies to different types of events."
DEBRA CASSENS WEISS , ABA Journal; Suspended lawyer accused of citing hallucinated case in bid to reinstate law license
"A suspended Iowa lawyer cited at least one hallucinated case likely generated by artificial intelligence in his bid to return to law practice, according to a motion filed by the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board.
Court filings by suspended Des Moines lawyer Royce David Turner include “what appears to be at least one AI-generated citation to a case that does not exist or does not stand for the proposition asserted in the filings,” the board says in a July 9 motion. Turner cited the “imaginary case” In re Mears in a July 5 brief supporting his application for reinstatement and in two other court filings, according to motion to strike the three filings."
AI-driven slop is making its way upstream into people’s media diets as well. During Hurricane Helene, opponents of President Joe Biden cited AI-generated images of a displaced child clutching a puppy as evidence of the administration’s purported mishandling of the disaster response. Even when it’s apparent that content is AI-generated, it can still be used to spread misinformation by fooling some people who briefly glance at it.
AI slop also harms artists by causing job and financial losses and crowding out content made by real creators."
LARRY NEUMEISTER, AP; West Point is violating the First Amendment with a crackdown on professors, lawsuit says
"The U.S. Military Academy at West Point is banning opinions by professors in the classroom and some books and courses in a crackdown that violates the First Amendment, a law professor at the military school said in a lawsuit Monday seeking class action status.
Tim Bakken filed the lawsuit in Manhattan federal court and named the school and its leaders as defendants. He said he wants to protect free speech and the right to academic freedom at an institution where he has flourished despite his public criticisms of the academy and the U.S. military.
Bakken also noted in the lawsuit that he has a contract with a publisher for a book that is critical of some aspects of West Point and doesn’t want to seek approval from the school’s leadership prior to its publication because “it is very likely such approval will be withheld.”"
Amanda Silberling , TechCrunch; Screw the money — Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement sucks for writers
"But writers aren’t getting this settlement because their work was fed to an AI — this is just a costly slap on the wrist for Anthropic, a company that just raised another $13 billion, because it illegally downloaded books instead of buying them.
In June, federal judge William Alsup sided with Anthropic and ruled that it is, indeed, legal to train AI on copyrighted material. The judge argues that this use case is “transformative” enough to be protected by the fair use doctrine, a carve-out of copyright law that hasn’t been updated since 1976.
“Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different,” the judge said.
It was the piracy — not the AI training — that moved Judge Alsup to bring the case to trial, but with Anthropic’s settlement, a trial is no longer necessary."
Jake Spring, The Washington Post; National parks remove signs about climate, slavery and Japanese detention
"The National Park Service has removed signs at Acadia National Park in Maine that make reference to climate change amid the Trump administration’s wider effort to remove information that it says undermines “the remarkable achievements of the United States.” A sign has also been removed from at least one additional park that referred to slavery, the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II and conflicts with Native Americans.
The removals come after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in March seeking to remove “improper partisan ideology” from federal institutions, including the Smithsonian museums, that he says was perpetuated by the Biden administration. Park Service officials have broadly interpreted the order to apply to information on racism, sexism, Indigenous persecution, gay rights and climate change."
Johana Bhuiyan, The Guardian; Documents offer rare insight on Ice’s close relationship with Palantir
"Over the past decade, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (Ice) has amassed millions of data points that it uses to identify and track its targets – from social media posts to location history and, most recently, tax information.
And there’s been one, multibillion-dollar tech company particularly instrumental in enabling Ice to put all that data to work: Palantir, the data analytics firm co-founded by Peter Thiel, the rightwing mega-donor and tech investor.
For years, little was known about how Ice uses Palantir’s technology. The company has consistently described itself as a “data processor” and says it does not play an active role in any of its customers’ data collection efforts or what clients do with that information.
Now, a cache of internal Ice documents – including hundreds of pages of emails between Ice and Palantir, as well as training manuals, and reports on the use of Palantir products – offer some of the first real-world examples of how Ice has used Palantir in its investigations and during on-the-ground enforcement operations.
The documents, which were obtained by immigrant legal rights group Just Futures Law through a Freedom of Information Act request and reviewed by the Guardian, largely cover Palantir’s contract with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the investigative arm of Ice that is responsible for stopping the “illegal movement of people, goods, money, contraband, weapons and sensitive technology”."
David Shariatmadari, The Guardian; If Anyone Builds it, Everyone Dies review – how AI could kill us all
"“History,” they write, “is full of … examples of catastrophic risk being minimised and ignored,” from leaded petrol to Chornobyl. But what about predictions of catastrophic risk being proved wrong? History is full of those, too, from Malthus’s population apocalypse to Y2K. Yudkowsky himself once claimed that nanotechnology would destroy humanity “no later than 2010”.
The problem is that you can be overconfident, inconsistent, a serial doom-monger, and still be right. It’s important to be aware of our own motivated reasoning when considering the arguments presented here; we have every incentive to disbelieve them.
And while it’s true that they don’t represent the scientific consensus, this is a rapidly changing, poorly understood field. What constitutes intelligence, what constitutes “super”, whether intelligence alone is enough to ensure world domination – all of this is furiously debated.
At the same time, the consensus that does exist is not particularly reassuring. In a 2024 survey of 2,778 AI researchers, the median probability placed on “extremely bad outcomes, such as human extinction” was 5%. Worryingly, “having thought more (either ‘a lot’ or ‘a great deal’) about the question was associated with a median of 9%, while having thought ‘little’ or ‘very little’ was associated with a median of 5%”.
Yudkowsky has been thinking about the problem for most of his adult life. The fact that his prediction sits north of 99% might reflect a kind of hysterical monomania, or an especially thorough engagement with the problem. Whatever the case, it feels like everyone with an interest in the future has a duty to read what he and Soares have to say."
Rachel Fieldhouse, Nature; Can AI chatbots trigger psychosis? What the science says
"Accounts of people developing psychosis — which renders them unable to distinguish between what is and is not reality — after interacting with generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have increased in the past few months.
At least 17 people have been reported to have developed psychosis, according to a preprint posted online last month1. After engaging with chatbots such as ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot, some of these people experienced spiritual awakenings or uncovered what they thought were conspiracies.
So far, there has been little research into this rare phenomenon, called AI psychosis, and most of what we know comes from individual instances. Nature explores the emerging theories and evidence, and what AI companies are doing about the problem."
"John Oliver made a direct plea to Disney’s CEO to stand up to Donald Trump with “four key words” in the wake of ABC’s indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!
Oliver used his Last Week Tonight monologue on Sunday night to encourage viewers to cancel their Disney+ and Hulu subscriptions. He blasted the “laughably weak” reason for pulling Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air on Wednesday, after Kimmel had enraged MAGAworld and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr with his monologue about their reaction to Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week.
“At some point, you’re going to have to draw a line,” Oliver said directly to Iger. “So I’d argue, why not draw it right here? And when they come to you with stupid, ridiculous demands, picking fights that you know you could win in court, instead of rolling over, why not stand up and use four key words they don’t tend to teach you in business school. Not ‘OK, you’re the boss,’ not ‘Whatever you say goes,’ but instead, the only phrase that can only genuinely make a weak bully go away, and that is ‘F--- you! Make me!’”"
CLAIRE WOODCOCK , 404 Media; Librarians Are Being Asked to Find AI-Hallucinated Books
"Reference librarian Eddie Kristan said lenders at the library where he works have been asking him to find books that don’t exist without realizing they were hallucinated by AI ever since the release of GPT-3.5 in late 2022. But the problem escalated over the summer after fielding patron requests for the same fake book titles from real authors—the consequences of an AI-generated summer reading list circulated in special editions of the Chicago Sun-Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer earlier this year. At the time, the freelancer told 404 Media he used AI to produce the list without fact checking outputs before syndication.
“We had people coming into the library and asking for those authors,” Kristan told 404 Media. He’s receiving similar requests for other types of media that don’t exist because they’ve been hallucinated by other AI-powered features. “It’s really, really frustrating, and it’s really setting us back as far as the community’s info literacy.”
AI tools are changing the nature of how patrons treat librarians, both online and IRL. Alison Macrina, executive director of Library Freedom Project, told 404 Media early results from a recent survey of emerging trends in how AI tools are impacting libraries indicate that patrons are growing more trusting of their preferred generative AI tool or product, and the veracity of the outputs they receive. She said librarians report being treated like robots over library reference chat, and patrons getting defensive over the veracity of recommendations they’ve received from an AI-powered chatbot. Essentially, like more people trust their preferred LLM over their human librarian."
Luke Broadwater, The New York Times; Trump Says Critical Coverage of Him Is ‘Really Illegal’
[Kip Currier: The most objective (and nicest) way to respond to Trump's assertion that critical reporting on him is "really illegal" is that it is legally incorrect and factually untrue. Whether Trump is regrettably misinformed in stating this falsehood or intentionally uttering this inaccuracy is less material than the fact that he is objectively wrong.
There are countries where it is illegal to say critical things about heads of nations: Russia. China. North Korea. Iran. Saudi Arabia. Turkey. Thailand. Others. Indeed, criticizing the head of state will likely get one defenestrated (as tragically happens all too often in Russia), killed in other ways, tortured, jailed, or disappeared.
Fortunately, it is not (yet) illegal to say negative things about U.S. Presidents at present. And it never has been, since the founding of the country in 1776 when the monarchical dictates of England's King George III were soundly declined by the American colonists. The t-shirt below proudly (and wholly truthfully) proclaims that historical truth that occurred in America 249 years ago:
[Excerpt]
"President Trump said Friday that news reporters who cover his administration negatively have broken the law, a significant broadening of his attacks on journalists and their First Amendment right to critique the government.
A day after asserting that broadcasters should potentially lose their licenses over negative news coverage of him, Mr. Trump escalated his condemnations of the press, suggesting reporters were lawbreakers.
“They’ll take a great story and they’ll make it bad,” he said, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office. “See, I think that’s really illegal.”
Mr. Trump did not cite a specific law he said he believed had been violated. It remained unclear Friday why Mr. Trump believed negative news coverage, which every president has faced and is protected by the Constitution, would be “really illegal.” The White House did not respond to a request for comment Friday evening."
Eyal Brook, Partner, Head of Artificial Intelligence, S. Horowitz & Co , WIPO Magazine;The 18th-century legal case that changed the face of music copyright law
"As we stand at the threshold of the AI revolution in music creation, perhaps the most valuable lesson from this history is not any particular legal doctrine but rather the recognition that our conceptions of musical works and authorship are not fixed but evolving.
Imagine what would have happened had Berne negotiators decided to define the term in 1886. The “musical work” as a legal concept was born from Johann Christian Bach’s determination to assert his creative rights – and it continues to transform with each new technological development and artistic innovation.
The challenge for copyright law in the 21st century is to keep fulfilling copyright’s fundamental purpose: to recognize and reward human creativity in all its forms. This will require not just legal ingenuity but also a willingness to reconsider our most basic assumptions about what music is and how it comes into being.
Bach’s legacy, then, is not just the precedent that he established but the ongoing conversation he initiated – an unfinished symphony of legal thought that continues to evolve with each new technological revolution and artistic movement.
As we face the challenges of AI and whatever technologies may follow, we would do well to remember that the questions we ask today about ownership and creativity echo those first raised in a London courtroom almost 250 years ago by a composer determined to claim what he believed was rightfully his."
, The Daily Beast; Trump Snaps at Ted Cruz’s Shock Warning About Free Speech
[Kip Currier: The President of the United States takes the oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Does the individual quoted below -- in his own verbatim words -- sound like someone who understands the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?]
[Excerpt]
"But speaking in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon, Trump described Carr as “an incredible American patriot” who had shown courage for taking on broadcast networks that criticized him.
“I disagree with Ted Cruz,” he told reporters.
“I think Brendan Carr doesn’t like to see the airwaves be used illegally and incorrectly, and purposely horribly.
“He doesn’t like to see a person that won the election in a landslide get 97% bad publicity before the election.
“(The networks) have to show honesty and integrity... When they take a great success, like you often do, and you make it into like it’s a loser, or you put a negative spin on it, I don’t think that’s right. So I think Brendan Carr is a great American.”
, CNN; ‘Dangerous as hell’: Ted Cruz compares FCC chair’s threats against ABC to mob tactics
"GOP Sen. Ted Cruz on Friday denounced Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s threats to pull ABC’s broadcast license as “unbelievably dangerous” and compared some of his rhetoric to “mafioso” tactics.
In an episode of his podcast, “Verdict with Ted Cruz,” released on Friday, the Texas Republican said he was “thrilled” Jimmy Kimmel was pulled off the air by ABC over his comments about conservative influencer Charlie Kirk. But he said he strongly disagreed with the government policing speech, asserting it could come back to bite conservatives when Democrats retake power.
“I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said. I am thrilled that he was fired,” Cruz said. “But let me tell you: If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said. We’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives.”
Though Carr’s comments have drawn widespread condemnation on the left, Cruz’s remarks represent one of the strongest denunciations of the threats against broadcasters by an elected conservative. Cruz also chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has broad authority over the FCC."
Jonathan Yerushalmy , The Guardian; Americans are ‘deer in the headlights’ in face of Trump assault on free speech, Maria Ressa tells Jon Stewart
[Kip Currier: How smart for Jon Stewart to talk with 2021 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Maria Ressa at this break-the-glass and Call-911 moment, when American free speech and independent non-state-run media are under attack by the Trump 2.0 administration. Ressa was awarded the 2021 Peace Prize with Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov for free speech advocacy in their respective Philippines and Russia.
Ressa's phone number should be on speed dial for any American reporter, politician, and civil watchdog group committed to championing freedom of the press and free speech by learning from her first-hand experiences with authoritarianism and dictators, like the Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte. Her 2022 book How To Stand Up To A Dictator serves as a battle-seasoned anti-totalitarianism fighter's counter-playbook to the now-predictable authoritarian playbooks of autocrats like Hungary's Viktor Orban and Russia's Vladimir Putin.
The notes feature on my phone is full of practical insights from Ressa, too, on the dangers of unchecked social media and disinformation, which are more recent tools for opponents of democracy and informed citizenries:
"By design social media divides and radicalizes." Fresh Air, 12/1/22
"Disinformation is like cocaine."
"Silence is consent."
"Cynicism and hopelessness are the tools of a tyrant."
"Inspiration spreads as fast as anger". Ressa gave the example of Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy choosing not to flee when Russia invaded Ukraine on 2/24/22.
"What are you willing to sacrifice for the truth?"]
[Excerpt]
"The Nobel prize winner Maria Ressa has said Americans are like “deer in the headlights” amid the collapse of US institutions and free speech under the Trump administration, particularly after Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension.
Speaking to Jon Stewart on the satirical news programme The Daily Show, the journalist and author of How to Stand Up to a Dictator said the speed at which Donald Trump had “collapsed” US institutions happened much faster than she anticipated.
She drew comparisons between the Trump administration and the government of the former president Rodrigo Duterte in her home country of the Philippines, saying: “If you don’t move and protect the rights you have, you lose them. And it’s so much harder to reclaim them.”...
Ressa, who won the 2021 Nobel peace prize for her fight for freedom of expression in the Philippines, told Stewart people the world over were electing “illiberal leaders democratically because of insidious manipulation … [which] starts with the manipulation and corruption of our public information ecosystem”.
She said “there is a ‘dictator’s playbook’”, comparing the Trump administration’s attacks on alleged Venezuelan drug boats to former president Rodrigo Duterte’s brutal crackdown on drug-dealing in the Philippines.
When asked by Stewart what happens next, Ressa pointed to her own work as a journalist in the Philippines, saying: “We just kept doing our jobs, we kept putting one foot in front of the other.”"
, The Daily Beast; Jon Stewart Goes Full State TV to Nail Trump on Kimmel
"Jon Stewart showed the world what it would be like if Donald Trump got his wish to remake all media in his image Thursday night with a 23-minute satirical rebranding of The Daily Show as full-on state TV.
In a last-minute return to the desk outside of his usual Monday night gig, Stewart introduced the “new government-approved Daily Show.” It was his unique way of commenting on ABC’s decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel from the air following direct threats from Trump’s FCC Chair Brendan Carr.
“We have another fun, hilarious, administration-compliant show,” Stewart said, surrounded by Trumpian gold flourishes. Throughout a monologue dominated by MAGA talking points, the host repeatedly shushed the laughing crowd, telling them, “You’re gonna blow this for us!”...
Despite the over-the-top MAGA-friendly act, Stewart still managed to use clips to catch Trump and his cohort in all sorts of blatant hypocrisy when it comes to the type of free speech they used to defend when it was targeted at the other side...
The Daily Show closed out its marathon opening segment with all seven co-hosts and correspondents reciting a pro-free speech message in terrified unison."
Mark D. White Ph.D., Psychology Today ; How Do the Fantastic Four Solve the Trolley Problem?
Kate Padgett Walsh, Des Moines Register ; Looking for reasons to hope? Ethics Bowl is an antidote to toxic discourse.
"At a time when political conversations too often devolve into shouting matches, personal attacks, or worse, there's a new model taking root in high schools and colleges across Iowa. It's called Ethics Bowl, and it points the way forward to heal our fractured public discourse.
Since co-founding the Iowa High School Ethics Bowl in 2019, I have seen hundreds of Iowa teenagers thoughtfully grapple with real-world moral dilemmas and respectfully present arguments. Teams succeed by demonstrating careful reasoning, genuinely listening to their opponents, and engaging with questions from judges and fellow competitors in a civil manner. Students learn that acknowledging complexity isn't weakness—it's part of how people disagree productively."
Jonny Geller, The Guardian ; AI could never replace my authors. But, without regulation, it will ruin publishing as we know it
[Kip Currier: This is a thought-provoking piece by literary agent Jonny Geller. He suggests an "artists’ rights charter for AI that protects two basic principles: permission and attribution". His charter idea conveys some aspects of the copyright area called "moral rights".
Moral rights provide copyright creators with a right of paternity (i.e. attribution) and a right of integrity. The latter can enable creators to exercise some levels of control over how their copyrighted works can be adapted. The moral right of integrity, for example, was an argument in cases involving whether black and white films (legally) could be or (ethically) should be colorized. (See Colors in Conflicts: Moral Rights and the Foreign Exploitation of Colorized U.S. Motion Pictures) Moral rights are not widespread in U.S. copyright law because of tensions between the moral right of integrity and the right of free expression/free speech under the U.S. Constitution (whose September 17, 1787 birthday was yesterday). The Visual Artists Rights Act (1990) is a narrow example of moral rights under U.S. copyright law.
To Geller's proposed Artists' Rights Charter for AI I'd suggest adding the word and concept of "Responsibilities". Compelling arguments can be made for providing authors with some rights regarding use of their copyrighted works as AI training data. And, commensurately, persuasive arguments can be made that authors have certain responsibilities if they use AI at any stage of their creative processes. Authors can and ethically should be transparent about how they have used AI, if applicable, in the creation stages of their writing.
Of course, how to operationalize that as an ethical standard is another matter entirely. But just because it may be challenging to initially develop some ethical language as guidance for authors and strive to instill it as a broad standard doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted or done.]
[Excerpt]
"The single biggest threat to the livelihood of authors and, by extension, to our culture, is not short attention spans. It is AI...
As a literary agent and CEO of one of the largest agencies in Europe, I think this is something everyone should care about – not because we fear progress, but because we want to protect it. If you take away the one thing that makes us truly human – our ability to think like humans, create stories and imagine new worlds – we will live in a diminished world.
AI that doesn’t replace the artist, or that will work with them transparently, is not all bad. An actor who is needed for reshoots on a movie may authorise use of the footage they have to complete a picture. This will save on costs, the environmental impact and time. A writer may wish to speed up their research and enhance their work by training their own models to ask the questions that a researcher would. The translation models available may enhance the range of offering of foreign books, adding to our culture.
All of this is worth discussing. But it has to be a discussion and be transparent to the end user. Up to now, work has simply been stolen and there are insufficient guardrails on the distributors, studios, publishers. As a literary agent, I have a more prosaic reason to get involved – I don’t think it is fair for someone’s work to be taken without their permission to create an inferior competitor.
What can we do? We could start with some basic principles for all to sign up to. An artists’ rights charter for AI that protects two basic principles: permission and attribution."
