A whole host of creators have filed suit in the U.S. alleging that AI companies improperly used the creators’ content to train AI programs (if you need to catch up on these lawsuits, we recommend our video blog here). In most cases, the creators don’t know for sure whether the AI companies copied their
Tennessee has joined the ranks of states regulating, in various ways, the use of artificial intelligence to manipulate an individual’s likeness. On March 21, 2024, Gov. Bill Lee said “thank you very much” to the Tennessee legislature and signed into law the Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security (“ELVIS”) Act of 2024, HB 2091/SB 2096
Last week, we asked for your input on whether certain images generated by AI programs were substantially similar to the Plaintiffs’ original artworks, as alleged in Andersen v. Stability AI.
Orders issued in the Andersen case (and other, similar cases) to date suggest that the success of the plaintiffs’ claims hinges on being able
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, an appeal of the Eleventh Circuit’s determination that a copyright plaintiff can recover damages for infringement occurring more than three years prior to filing suit. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision was based on the discovery accrual rule, which begins the limitations period at the moment a plaintiff becomes aware of or should reasonably learn of the infringement upon which a claim is based.
Sherman Nealy and Music Specialist, Inc. brought the underlying lawsuit against Warner and others based upon the alleged unauthorized licensing and use of songs owned by the plaintiffs. Much of alleged infringement occurred while Nealy was incarcerated, and he alleged that he did not become aware of the infringement until 2016. Nealy filed suit in 2018, within three years of the date he allegedly discovered the infringement. The district court held that Nealy’s claims were timely, but that he could only obtain damages for the three years prior to the filing of his lawsuit. The Eleventh Circuit overturned the finding that such a limit on damages existed, holding that Nealy could potentially recover damages outside the three-year period.Continue Reading Skeptical of the Second Circuit: U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Copyright Damages
You might recall that the judge in Andersen v. Stability AI —the case in which a group of visual artists sued the makers of several different generative AI platforms for copyright infringement—tossed most of the plaintiffs’ claims last year. However, the court allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to replead. Specifically, the judge said that for their vicarious copyright infringement claims to remain viable, the plaintiffs would have to at least allege that derivative works created using AI programs that generate images in response to user prompts are “substantially similar” to their original copyright-protected works.
The plaintiffs took the judge’s ruling to heart. They filed an amended complaint, adding new plaintiffs and using statements by the AI companies’ employees on social media to bolster their claims that the AI programs are copying their art. Most interesting to us, however, was the images the plaintiff artists inserted into their amended pleading providing a side-by-side comparison of their original visual works and what they allege is substantially similar AI-generated output. (Plaintiffs in other cases involving written works have been taking notes on the Stability AI decision and similar decisions too, which we’ll be writing about in the coming weeks).Continue Reading Reader Survey: Tell Us Whether You Think Stability AI Outputs are Substantially Similar to Andersen Plaintiffs’ Original Works
The class of plaintiff authors seeking to hold OpenAI liable for copyright infringement has faced yet another setback. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has knocked out the majority of their claims, refusing to accept the blanket allegation that “every output of the OpenAI Language Model is an infringing derivative work.” However, the court has allowed the plaintiffs another chance to cure many of the deficiencies in their pleadings, so the battle is not yet over.
As we’ve previously reported, named plaintiffs including Paul Tremblay, Sarah Silverman, and Michael Chabon have filed class action lawsuits against several companies associated with popular Large Language Model tools like ChatGPT. The lawsuits claim that because the defendants copied their original works of authorship to use as training material for the LLMs, the AI companies are liable under the federal Copyright Act and various state tort laws. For a quick recap of the theories they are asserting, check out our recent AI Update.Continue Reading The Latest Chapter in Authors’ Copyright Suit Against OpenAI: Original Pleadings Insufficient
‘Twas a day in December, when all through the blog, we were writing ‘bout trademarks, as if in a fog. When, what to our wondering eyes should appear, but holiday trademarks, so lovely and dear. The PTO said, as it reviewed the files, we’ve got holiday trademarks, we’ve got ‘em in piles!
Have Yourself a
In the latest skirmish between Sarah Silverman and other authors against Chat GPT-maker OpenAI, OpenAI submitted a new decision from a California federal court in support of its attempt to dismiss the Silverman plaintiffs’ claims. According to OpenAI, that other court rejected theories and claims that are nearly identical to Silverman’s claims against OpenAI. If the court hearing Silverman’s claims agrees, copyright holders looking to sue AI companies in the future may find themselves facing long odds on certain claims.
The new California decision cited by OpenAI comes in the wake of a similar decision in a case involving an AI image generator. Like the court in that image-generator case, the new decision cited by OpenAI dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ copyright claims and other claims, although it did so with leave to amend all but one state-law negligence claim. The court in this new decision rejected as “nonsensical” the plaintiffs’ argument that large language models (or LLMs) “are themselves infringing derivative works,” holding that “[t]here is no way to understand the [LLMs] themselves as a recasting or adaptation of any of the plaintiffs’ books.” Similarly, the court rejected the notion that “every output of the [LLMs] is an infringing derivative work,” stating that “the complaint offers no allegation of the contents of any output, let alone of one that could be understood as recasting, transforming, or adapting the plaintiffs’ books. Without any plausible allegation of an infringing output, there can be no vicarious infringement.”Continue Reading “The Plaintiffs Are Wrong”: OpenAI Submits New Authority in Attempt to Knock Out Sarah Silverman’s Claims
Thanksgiving is the start of the holiday season, a beloved time of the year where family and friends gather over delicious meals to share and create memories and to express love and gratitude. Thanksgiving also commences the annual Thanksgiving showdown, when silent (or not so silent) competitiveness emerges in the kitchen and beyond.