Remove 2023 Remove Artwork 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. In effect, Sanhi was attempting to register the artwork as a derivative of his photograph. 16, 2023) (quoting U.S.

Artwork 52
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. With the development of latest technologies like the Creative Adversarial Network (“CAN”), many areas which were yet unexplored in the realm of Intellectual Property Rights have arisen.

Art 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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.

article thumbnail

Use of Warhol’s Prince Image Found Not to Be Sufficiently Transformative for Fair Use 

LexBlog IP

On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court found that artistic changes to a pre-existing work, alone, not necessarily sufficient to make a derivative work fair use. Applying a new lens on how to view the purpose of a derivative work under U.S. copyright law.

article thumbnail

Fair Use: Graham v. Prince and Warhol v. Goldsmith

LexBlog IP

8] Second, as to the works’ purpose, the court found that it was unclear whether Prince intended to create a parody of the original photographs, a satire of society’s use of social media, or neither, pointing out Prince’s own contradictory testimony on the question. [9] Many derivative works. 2023) (slip op.,

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

Supreme Court Finds Warhol’s Commercial Licensing of “Orange Prince” to Vanity Fair Is Not Fair Use and Infringes Goldsmith’s Famed Rock Photo

Intellectual Property Law Blog

On May 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of famed rock photographer Lynn Goldsmith against the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.’s 13] AWF’s use was commercial because AWF licensed the artwork for a fee. [14] Goldsmith , 598 U.S. _ (2023). [2] 14] Justice Sotomayor noted that Campbell v.

Fair Use 130