Last week, in response to the Executive Order referred to as the “AI Action Plan,” various stakeholders submitted comments to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). OpenAI, for its part, submitted one of the finest examples of tech-bro bombast we have seen in some time. Not even Google’s comments, which names copyright, privacy, and patents as barriers to ...
One of many challenges with adoption of generative AI (GAI) tools is whether creators are willing to demonstrate a degree of solidarity on the matter—i.e., apply the principle we generally call fair trade. If Creator A uses a GAI that might be harmful to Creator B in a different field, and so on, will most creators take this broader perspective ...
That title riffs on the term of art in trademark law known as “likelihood of confusion.” It refers to a foundational test, which asks whether the average consumer will confuse a particular mark (words, design, or both) with a product or service that is not produced or distributed by the company associated with a known mark. Thus, beware the Rollex, ...
“Where AI merely assists an author in the creative process, its use does not change the copyrightability of the output. At the other extreme, if content is entirely generated by AI, it cannot be protected by copyright.” – Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Part 2, Copyrightability, USCO – Last week, the U.S. Copyright Office released Part 2 of a planned three-part ...
Many copyright scholars refer to England’s Statute of Anne (1710) as the “first authors’ copyright law,” but I quarrel with that summary. In that year, and for many decades to follow, English “rights” for authors were too intertwined with the Crown’s authority to sanction publication of works for us to think of the Statute of Anne as affirming copyright rights ...
