Remove 2003 Remove Copying Remove Derivative Work Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

New Tools, Old Rules: Is The Music Industry Ready To Take On AI?

Copyright Lately

The comments from Michael Nash quoted above really only speak to the input phase, during which audio recordings are copied to a dataset that’s then used to train a voice model. It isn’t human-readable and does not contain copies of any audio recordings. No wonder I’m getting flashbacks to 2003.

Music 85
article thumbnail

If “Trespass to Chattels” Isn’t Limited to “Chattels,” Anarchy Ensues–Best Carpet Values v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Plaintiffs want and expect Google to copy and display their websites in Chrome browser and Search App, and acknowledge that Google has license to do so.” Citing a 2003 Ninth Circuit case, Kremen v. ” Wait, what? We need to know more about this license. It didn’t.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

The clash of artistic rights: Warhol, Goldsmith, and the boundaries of copyright in Brazil and in the U.S.

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Thus, guided by the principle of equality, copyright operates as a spectrum of creativity, where the level of protection granted to a work corresponds to its level of originality. [2] 2] At one end of the spectrum, we find plagiarism: a completely derivative work that fails to contribute any creative elements to the original piece.

article thumbnail

WHAT, IN THE NAME OF GOD, …?: Intellectual Property Rights In Holy Names, Sacred Words, & Other Aspects of Creation

LexBlog IP

The report notes on page 11 that “In 2003, research estimates put the [U.S.] Patent and Trademark Office granted ownership of the word “Jesus” to Jesus Jeans, owned by a publicly traded Italian company, BasicNet, giving the company exclusive rights in America to sell clothing bearing the name “Jesus.”

article thumbnail

A Preliminary Analysis of Trump’s Copyright Lawsuit Over Interview Recordings (Trump v. Simon & Schuster) (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Based solely on the complaint that was filed, there are six major issues raised by the case: First, were the recorded interviews a copyright-eligible “work of authorship”? Third, is Trump’s claim of ownership barred by 17 U.S.C. 105 , as a “work of the United States Government”? Rural Telephone Service Co. ,

Copyright 120