Remove Content Creation Remove Copyright Law Remove IP Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

Generative AI: the US class action against Google Bard (and other AI tools) for web scraping

Kluwer Copyright Blog

It could also undercut the commercial market for books and works already created; this is because, on demand, the Products are able not only to summarize books in detail, chapter by chapter, but also to regenerate the text of books (§ I.B.110-111). 110-111). 4th 1149 (9th Cir.

Fair Use 136
article thumbnail

Copyright Evidence: 21 for 2021 (a year in review)

Kluwer Copyright Blog

In this post, we offer an overview of the project to date, stratified across CREATe’s core research themes : Creative Industries , the Public Domain , and Competition and Markets. The digital revolution has moved legal questions about copyright, information, and competition law to the regulatory centre of the creative industries.

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

Social Media Giants and Copyright: Instagram’s Ninth Circuit Win Sets Precedent Against Photographers

The IP Law Blog

the website displaying that copyrighted image cannot be held liable for infringement. The concept of “embedding” content is not a new phenomenon. This ultimately means that when a copy of an image is not stored on a computer’s servers but merely “embedded” onto a website, search engine, etc.,

article thumbnail

The Potential Risks of ChatGPT and Other Generative AI

LexBlog IP

1997) (holding that “some element of human creativity must have occurred in order for the [b]ook to be copyrightable” because “it is not creations of divine beings that the copyright laws were intended to protect”). [5] Kristen Maaherra , 114 F.3d 3d 955, 957-59 (9th Cir.

article thumbnail

Court Says No Human Author, No Copyright (but Human Authorship of GenAI Outputs Remains Uncertain) (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

18, 2023), affirming the Copyright Office’s position that “a work generated entirely by an artificial system absent human involvement [is not] eligible for copyright.” That’s because the court repeatedly says numerous times in different ways: no human creation = no copyright. The slides.