The purpose of cultivating works of authorship is to shed light on human experience, and the foundational purpose of the fair use doctrine in copyright law is to shed light on works of authorship. From its 18th century, English roots to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in AWF v. Goldsmith, the primary rationale for fair use is to permit ...
I have not added a copyright post here since March 19, when the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in Thaler v. Perlmutter that works produced autonomously by generative AI (GAI) are not protected under U.S. copyright law. Although it is good to see the human authorship doctrine in copyright left undisturbed, it is a fleeting moment of sanity within ...
Last week’s firing of the head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, along with his deputies, is one more reason to conclude that the United States is not led by serious people. As the administration waves off the implications of Signalgate and then fires Four-Star General Timothy D. Haugh et al. on the reported basis that Laura ...
In a decision that is unsurprising but important, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that “authors,” as defined in U.S. Copyright Act, are human beings and not machines that can autonomously generate works. I say unsurprising because nothing in history or statute should have led the court to any other conclusion, and indeed the opinion can be summed up ...
In the current political climate, it is important to clarify that no sensible Section 230 reformer proposes abolishing the statute or endorses threats to revoke the law on the basis of inapt and inaccurate allegations of “content bias.” Section 230 is not a content neutrality law, and statements to the contrary are political theater. Whether online platforms are too big ...
