Remove 2023 Remove Article Remove Derivative Work Remove Intellectual Property
article thumbnail

Copyright Office Rejects Another Bid to Register Artwork “Co-Authored” by AI

LexBlog IP

On December 11, 2023, the Copyright Review Board affirmed the Copyright Office’s decision to reject Ankit Sahni’s application to register the AI-generated work depicted above. The Copyright Office opined that the work was a classic example of a derivative work in that it was a digitalization of a photograph.

Artwork 52
article thumbnail

U.S. Copyright Guidelines for Works Containing AI-Generated Material

LexBlog IP

The growing use of AI in various creative fields has necessitated a clear legal framework to protect intellectual property rights. The guidelines offer clarification on copyright eligibility, authorship requirements, and the registration process for works that incorporate AI-generated material.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

AI Generated Art and its conflict with IPR

IIPRD

This article delves into the ongoing debate around the issue of right of ownership of copyright by AI generators for their novel artwork. The ambit of IPR when it comes to recognizing these AI generators and whether they are also capable of copyright infringement by transforming other creators work has been discussed in detail in the article.

Art 52
article thumbnail

[Guest Post] Event report: AI Fringe, Protecting Creators in the Age of AI

The IPKat

This Kat was very happy to participate in the AI & Creativity: Protecting Creators in the Age of AI Panel which took place as part of the AI Fringe event on Friday, 3 November 2023 at the Knowledge Centre of the British Library, London. Mr Blackmore also raised the issue of copyright protection of AI created works.

article thumbnail

No Free Use in the Purple Rain – U.S. Supreme Court Finds License of Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Infringes Photographer’s Copyright

LexBlog IP

Upon failure to resolve the matter privately, AWF filed suit against Goldsmith, seeking a declaratory judgment that Warhol’s works did not infringe Goldsmith’s copyright in the original photograph, or, in the alternative, Warhol’s works constituted fair use of the subject photograph. [1] 1] See Andy Warhol Found.

article thumbnail

Some Thoughts on Five Pending AI Litigations – Avoiding Squirrels and Other AI Distractions

Velocity of Content

This article was originally published in The Scholarly Kitchen. It is somehow different from the right to make transformative derivative works (where the word “transformed” is used in Section 101 ) such as film adaptations of books, which clearly require copyright owner consent. Case 1- Doe 1 v. GitHub Inc.,

article thumbnail

What Goldsmith Means to AI Trainers

IP Intelligence

1258, (2023). Warhol created these silkscreens from a photograph of Prince taken by Lynn Goldsmith, who claimed copyright infringement when the Warhol estate licensed Orange Prince to Conde Nast after Prince’s passing in 2016 to illustrate an article about Prince’s life and music. See Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.

Fair Use 105