Posts Tagged: "fair use"

A spate of recent lawsuits is shining light on how some generative AI (GenAI) companies are using copyrighted materials, without permission, as a core part of their products. Among the most recent examples is the New York Times Company’s’ lawsuit against OpenAI, which alleges a variety of copyright-related claims. For their part, some GenAI companies like OpenAI argue that there is no infringement, either because there is no “copying” of protected materials or that the copyright principle of fair use uniformly applies to generative AI activities. These arguments are deeply flawed and gloss over crucial technical and legal issues. They also divert attention from the fact that it is not only possible but practical to be pro-copyright and pro-AI.

On February 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Philpot v. Independent Journal Review reversing a ruling that an online reproduction of a photograph of singer-songwriter Ted Nugent constituted fair use. The Fourth Circuit further found that professional photographer Larry Philpot was entitled to summary judgment on the validity of his copyright registration, vacating the Eastern District of Virginia’s determination that a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to the accuracy of Philpot’s registration application.

The training of artificial intelligence models using copyrighted material continues to stir debate and prompt litigation. In the latest salvo, the New York Times Company sued Microsoft and OpenAI – the creator of ChatGPT – for infringement under the federal Copyright Act. As often is the case with claims like these, the merits will center on the fair-use doctrine, a well-recognized legal principle in copyright law that aims to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public benefit of free speech and creative works. Fair use is a defense to a claim of copyright infringement that must be affirmatively invoked by the accused infringer.

On Thursday, final judgments were issued in a pair of copyright infringement cases that arose from a now infamous 2014/2015 project New Portraits, where appropriations artist Richard Prince displayed Instagram photos and user comments as a purported commentary on social media and art. The two nearly identical final judgments were entered in favor of the photographer plaintiffs’ claims that Prince and the exhibiting galleries willfully infringed on their photographs, and the court dismissed all the defenses raised – including the fair use defense – with prejudice.

Recently, Humans of Bombay (HOB), a storytelling platform, filed a suit seeking an injunction to prevent the unauthorized use of their copyrighted material by another organization, People of India (POI). This includes alleged infringement of content created by HOB, literary works, materials, films, and various creative expressions. HOB connects with individuals willing to share stories or experiences and creates audio-video content. This is subsequently shared on their website and Instagram account in various formats, such as interviews, written pieces, and posts. The current suit centers around the complaint that POI have launched a nearly identical Instagram account, featuring content that closely resembles what’s found on HOB’s account.

Last Saturday, my friends and I practically bounced our way to the movie theatre, joining throngs of pink-clad youngsters to watch the year’s biggest global blockbuster: ‘Barbie.’ Well, Barbie has done it all, honestly. She has not only achieved unparalleled success as a toy, with over a billion units sold worldwide, but now as a movie, amassing an impressive $365 million global opening. She has defied traditional stereotypes by promoting career-focus and self-sufficiency, challenged the motherhood-aspiration notion for young women, and inspired Greta Gerwig’s modern take on the iconic character. However, we often overlook the doll’s profound contributions to the evolution of intellectual property (IP) jurisprudence, from its genesis to its movie adaptation.

On May 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court answered an exceedingly narrow question of copyright law with potentially sweeping impact: did the purpose and character of Andy Warhol’s below ‘Orange Prince’ work—as used on a 2016 Condé Nast magazine cover—support fair use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph of famed musician Prince Rogers Nelson a/k/a Prince?  In a 7-2 decision, the Court found that it does not, calling into question nearly 30 years of fair use jurisprudence, arguably narrowing the scope of that doctrine, and potentially threatening disciplines that rely on it, e.g., appropriation art. The decision is also sure to impact generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), an emerging technology that is also likely to rely heavily on fair use.

In response to last week’s hearing of the House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on copyright law, former Copyright Office General Counsel, Jon Baumgarten, submitted a letter this week to the Subcommittee expressing his concerns with the testimony of one of the witnesses, Sy Damle of Latham & Watkins, who also formerly served as U.S. Copyright Office General Counsel. The letter was published in full on the Copyright Alliance website.

The Supreme Court ruled today in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, Lynn, et. al. that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was correct in holding that the Andy Warhol Foundation’s (AWF’s) licensing of an orange silkscreen portrait of the musician Prince, created by Andy Warhol using photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s photo, was not fair. Justices Gorsuch and Jackson authored a concurrence, while Justice Kagan, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, filed a 35-page dissent from Justice Sotomayor’s opinion, calling out the majority’s contradictory interpretation of similar facts in the recent Google v. Oracle case.

Several carefully watched copyright developments are combining to have a significant impact on the invention as well as the content landscape. A judgment from the Supreme Court of the United States is expected any day that will address the potentially shape-shifting Warhol Foundation “fair-use” suit against rock photographer, Lynn Goldsmith. This decision is also of concern to inventors and patent holders, few of whom see the writing on the IP wall: weaker intellectual property rights are gaining momentum, and lawmakers and the public don’t know enough to care.

Companies rely on copyright protections to shield their software, data sets, and other works that are licensed to their customers; however, a reframing of what constitutes a “transformative use,” and the extent a license can restrict such fair uses, may whittle away all avenues of protections. On October 22, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments for Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. The question before the Court is where does a copyright holder’s right to create derivative works stop and “fair use” of the work begin? Companies that license data sets or data feeds should pay close attention, as the Court’s decision could narrow contractual remedies. 

Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari filed by famed whiskey brand owner Jack Daniel’s Properties. The petition filed by Jack Daniel’s appealed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s March 2020 ruling that a “Bad Spaniels” dog toy marketed by VIP Products was an expressive work entitled to First Amendment protections against trademark infringement liability under the Rogers test. On January 18, a series of 16 amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court, the vast majority of which urged the nation’s highest court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and limit the application of the Rogers test to clearly artistic works and exclude consumer products that happened to have some humorous expression. Several amici also pushed back on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that VIP Products’ use of Jack Daniel’s marks was noncommercial.

The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in The Andy Warhol Foundation v. Lynn Goldsmith, a case asking the nation’s highest court to determine whether Warhol’s unlicensed use of Goldsmith’s photographs of pop superstar Prince was a fair use of that copyright-protected photo. Many of the Supreme Court’s questions focused on the scope of the use at issue in the case, as well as the extent of the new meaning or message that a purportedly derivative work must take on before it is considered transformative under factor one of the four-factor fair use test.

This morning, the full U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary convened an executive business meeting during which the committee advanced S. 673, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA). Though the bill was reported favorably with an amendment drawing support from the Republican members of the committee, others on the Senate Judiciary raised concerns that could presage further debate after it hits the floor of the Senate. The JCPA was first introduced into both houses of Congress last March, with Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) sponsoring the Senate version and Representatives David Cicilline (D-RI) and Ken Buck (R-NY) sponsoring the version introduced into the House of Representatives.