Last week, Midjourney, the AI startup building image generators, made a small, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it change to its terms of service related to the company’s policy around IP disputes. It mainly served to replace jokey language with more lawyerly, doubtless case law–grounded clauses. But the change can also be taken as a sign of Midjourney’s conviction that AI vendors like itself will emerge victorious in the courtroom battles with creators whose works comprise vendors’ training data.

Source: This Week in AI: Midjourney bets it can beat the copyright police | TechCrunch

The EU law requires developers of “general purpose AI” (GPAI) models to keep track of and disclose what content is used in training. It further states that “any use of copyright protected content requires the authorization of the [rights holder] concerned, unless relevant copyright exceptions and limitations apply.” “Crucially, this appears to apply even if the training was carried out in another more lenient jurisdiction,” said Jonathan Coote, a music and AI lawyer at UK law firm Bray & Krais.

Source: As landmark AI Act passes EU parliament vote, rightsholders urge ‘meaningful and effective’ enforcement of copyright

A comprehensive 112-page study conducted jointly by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the U.S. Copyright Office has determined that existing intellectual property laws are sufficient to address concerns regarding copyright and trademark infringement related to non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

Source: “No NFT-Specific Legislation Required, Current Copyright Laws Sufficient, U.S. Government Study Finds”