Christopher T. Zirpoli, legislative attorney at the U.S. Congressional Research Service suggests that while AI users might be considered the authors of specific outputs, the creative process behind coding and training AI gives its creators a stronger claim to authorship than a traditional toolmaker. The creative choices involved in coding and training the AI “might give an AI’s creator a stronger claim to some form of authorship than the manufacturer of a camera.”

Source: Who Owns AI Output? Why Recent Cases Against OpenAI Could Redefine Copyright

The House of Lords voted 145 to 126 in favor of amendments to a bill in a bid to strengthen copyright protections in AI development. The development came just weeks after Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government received a report proposing a sweeping national AI strategy. The reforms were championed by digital rights campaigner and crossbench (independent) peer Baroness Kidron, and backed by the Creative Rights In AI Coalition.

Source: UK’s House of Lords votes to strengthen copyright protections in AI, dealing blow to government’s plans

In her decision on Wednesday, Judge Analisa Torres said that federal royalty rate rules clearly allowed Spotify to legally claim the lower rate, rejecting MLC’s argument that the company was not actually offering a “bundle” of services. “Audiobook streaming is a product or service that is distinct from music streaming and has more than token value,” the judge wrote, alluding to the specific wording of the federal rule. “Premium is, therefore, properly categorized as a Bundle.”

Source: Spotify Beats MLC Audiobook Lawsuit After Judge Calls Federal Royalty Rules ‘Unambiguous’