The decision comes as the Supreme Court last month ruled unanimously in Cox v. Sony Music that internet service providers cannot be held liable for copyright infringement committed by their users, unless the provider actively induced the infringement or provided a service tailored to that infringement — meaning a service not capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
Source: After Cox ruling, Supreme Court wipes out Grande Communications’ $47M music piracy verdict
Australia’s government has unveiled new copyright reforms this week, specifically involving circumstances in which the copyright owner is unknown or unlocatable – ‘orphan works’. Expanding on the contents of the Copyright Act 1986, the Copyright Amendment Bill allows Australians new access to “orphaned” creative, historical and educational materials, some of which have been previously held indefinitely in the archives of cultural institutions across the country.
Source: Australia introduces new “orphan works” copyright legislation
Major music publishers and the NMPA are asking a Texas federal court to throw out X’s antitrust lawsuit, calling it a baseless attempt at retaliation. The music companies argue that X’s conspiracy theory rests on a single word in an email, while adding that their massive DMCA takedown campaign was not a sham but fully protected by the First Amendment.
Source: Music Publishers Ask Court to Dismiss X’s ‘Weaponized DMCA’ Antitrust Suit
On the facts of the case, the Chinese court, in a case of first impression, held that copyright did not subsist in six sets of prompts submitted to Midjourney and hence the copying of those prompts could not infringe copyright. However, the court suggested that there could be copyright in a more elaborate and specific set of prompts that meets copyright’s standard for originality.
Source: Copyright in AI Prompts: Chinese Court Ruling on Generative AI and Originality
The executive order’s instructed development of “best practice guidance for departments and agencies to appropriately watermark” all “AI-generated or significantly manipulated images or video.” Longer term, making AI watermarks the norm across the board would, of course, be a sweeping step – and a step with multiple considerations beneath the surface. How would doing so affect the growing collection of creations incorporating, but not solely resulting from, generative AI?
Source: CA’s Newsom Issues AI Executive Order After Trump Push Against ‘Cumbersome State AI Laws’
Four organizations representing various publishers and content creators have filed an amicus brief supporting Concord Music Group in its copyright infringement lawsuit against AI giant Anthropic. According to a joint statement from the leaders of the four organizations involved, “This case illuminates the critical, collaborative licensing markets that are developing among copyright owners and technology companies for consumer-facing AI products, driving better, safer, and fairer outcomes for all involved.”
The coalition, which also includes A2IM, SoundExchange, SONA, BMAC, the Music Artists Coalition, and the Artist Rights Alliance, filed an amicus brief on Monday (March 30) urging a federal court to reject Anthropic’s fair use defense in the case brought by Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord Music Group, and ABKCO in October 2023. Its core argument is twofold: that AI-generated music already acts as a direct market substitute for human-created works, and that a functioning licensing market for AI training already exists.
Source: RIAA, NMPA file amicus brief backing UMG, Concord and ABKCO in original Anthropic case
The Supreme Court justices ruled that ISPs and related platforms cannot be held liable for users’ copyright violations unless the service is specifically tailored for infringement or very actively encourages law-breaking piracy. X, which already defeated publishers’ direct infringement claims, now feels it has zero liability for secondary infringement. “If the Supreme Court had issued this opinion three years ago, X believes this court would have dismissed plaintiffs’ contributory infringement claim in its entirety,” X’s attorneys blasted less than 48 hours after the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Source: Did the Supreme Court Just Hand Elon Musk a Giant Victory Over Music Publishers?
The UK Government has released its long-awaited copyright report, framed as an attempt to reconcile the competing interests of creators, technology companies and the wider innovation ecosystem. Rightsholders will welcome it, while the UK’s AI sector will find less comfort. Two core policy decisions (on training data and on the ownership of AI-generated outputs) mark a shift away from earlier, more developer-friendly proposals. Both decisions leave significant questions unanswered.
Source: Q&A: The UK’s Copyright Report – A Gift to Creators, a Problem for AI
Looks like Meta is hoping the recent Supreme Court ruling that found Internet service providers aren’t liable for piracy on their networks will help the social media giant dodge liability claims over its torrenting of AI training data. In its statement, Meta said it would soon file a supplemental brief explaining why the ruling would support its motion to dismiss the Entrepreneur Media case.
Source: Authors’ lucky break in court may help class action over Meta torrenting