AI there is insufficient human creativity involved to qualify for copyright unlike photography for instance One recentlyfiled generative AI case to watch in pits the New York Times against codefendant heavyweights Microsoft and OpenAI As alleged in the complaint Defendants were using copyrighted content without prior authorization or license to train AI models which would then compete with Plaintiffs original content resulting in a loss of subscriptions advertising and other revenue Defendants will likely mount an unsuccessful fair use defense though
Further on the copyright front Mouse will finally be slipping into the public domain as Congress failed to come to his rescue this time In fact the original Bambi and Winnie the Pooh stories each suffered a similar fate exactly two years ago as noted in our India Phone Number prior piece When Past Meets Future The Year in ReviewPreview However creatives should take note these various copyright expirations are limited to just the sera renderings and in some instances written materials only As for the visual representations
Disney also maintains a deep portfolio of various character logos and could potentially allege trademark infringement andor dilution Finally the Supreme Court ruled against the pioneering pop artists estate in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc v Goldsmith rejecting Warhols fair use defense for his adaptations of the copyright owners original photograph of the performing artist Prince Whether this decision has farreaching implications especially in regard to AI remains to be seen as the ruling may be limited to this specific fact pattern only As we opined in the Yahoo Entertainment piece Big AI Implications Lurk in the Supreme .
發表於 2024-3-4 18:02:14
