Search

This article explores the concerns and issues surrounding the use of generative AI in relation to copyright infringement on literary works. The Authors Guild has expressed concerns about copyrighted books being used to train AI models without permission or compensation. There are debates about whether generative AI can infringe on copyright, as it lacks human creativity and authorship. The fair use doctrine is complex in the context of generative AI and could potentially hinder AI progress or disenfranchise human authors. Authors also worry about the power of large corporations that own generative AI models and the lack of protection and remedies available to them under current copyright law. The U.S. Copyright Office is conducting an inquiry to address these issues and hopes to develop comprehensive guidance on the intersection of generative AI and copyright law. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright law generally prohibits copying. Contemporary art has increasingly come to rely on copying. Thus, the two are on a collision course-or so the traditional argument goes. This purported clash between the law and creative practice seemed to reach its apex in the Supreme Court's recently decided Warhol v. Goldsmith, which refused to find that Warhol's famous brand of unlicensed appropriations constituted fair use. The dissent, and much of the commentary published after the decision, largely replicated the traditional argument, warning that the Court's holding will have existential consequences-striking at the very heart of the way in which artists today have been raised to make and understand art. This Article presents qualitative empirical evidence that calls the traditional argument into question for two reasons. First, because the traditional argument overestimates the role of law in artists' day to day practice, and second, because artistic practice may be moving away from the type of wholesale copying (often called "appropriation art") that characterized much of postmodern artistic practice. Through twenty interviews with leading contemporary artists, museum curators, and gallerists, this Article highlights an art world more attuned to the problematic politics and potential inequities in using others' copyrighted works. Artists who engaged in appropriation (incorporating materials from other sources) often sought licenses or informal permissions-not because of any threatened legal consequences, but for ethical or moral reasons. Other artists disavowed appropriative practices altogether, citing the power and capital imbalances that often attend such takings. Where artists did take without asking, it was from corporations rather than individuals, and they did so to comment on how the appropriated image specifically perpetuates systems of unequal power and capital-a form of critical appropriation that Warhol leaves, hopefully, intact. This Article outlines how contemporary artists are developing an ethics of appropriation almost entirely independent from the law-but one that may be more consonant with copyright law than the traditional argument has assumed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Korea introduced the fair use provision into the Korean Copyright Act following the model of the US system. Despite its adoption into the Korean Copyright Act, it has not been significantly relied upon by the courts of Korea. This article asserts that strong and robust fair use is crucial for achieving the objectives of Korean copyright law, which is a cultivating culture through copyright protection and facilitating the fair use of copyrighted works. Particularly important in the digital era, fair use serves as a pivotal tool for adapting the copyright system to rapid technological changes. Taking a legal transplant theory perspective, this paper evaluates the process of transplanting US fair use into Korean copyright law. It contends that the oversight of essential considerations during this process has led to a lack of balance between certainty and flexibility in Korean fair use. Following this analysis, this article offers recommendations to refine Korean fair use within the context of successful legal transplants. These recommendations will cover legislative revision, the roles of the courts and the involvement of legal experts to enhance legal certainty, ensure appropriate flexibility, and ultimately, promote the widespread use of Korean fair use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores alternatives to terminating a franchise agreement when a franchisee is in default. It discusses contractual provisions that franchisors can include in their agreements, such as remedial training and restrictions on access to financial measures, to facilitate compliance and cure defaults. The article also examines the use of step-in rights, which allow the franchisor to assume operation and management of the franchisee's business under certain circumstances. It emphasizes the importance of considering statutory provisions and balancing legal and business factors when deciding whether to terminate a franchise agreement or exercise contractual alternatives to termination. The authors recommend including permissive provisions in franchise agreements that allow for the exercise of contractual alternatives to termination. [Extracted from the article]

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") has been a flashpoint during most of its twenty-five-year existence. One of the most controversial parts of the DMCA is section 1201. Among other things, section 1201 prohibits third parties from circumventing certain controls to copyrighted content or trafficking in tools that enable circumvention of technological controls. However, despite its nearly quarter-of-a-century lifespan, we know very little about section 1201 empirically. While empiricists have assessed parts of the DMCA, they have left section 1201 largely untouched. Our understanding of section 1201 is largely based on anecdotal evidence, in the form of leading opinions from historically prominent copyright circuits. In this Article, we seek to bolster these anecdotes with greater empirical evidence for ongoing discussions about how section 1201 is performing and whether it needs revising. To do so, we conducted a broad-based search of Westlaw to collect every issued opinion, whether reported or not, where a court purported to apply some part of section 1201. We then reviewed these cases to glean as much information about section 1201 as possible. This review led to a number of important and, in some cases, surprising results. First, section 1201 opinions are a relative rarity. In the nearly quarter of a century since the DMCA's enactment, we could find only a little over 200 opinions, with only about sixty of those being published. The average number of opinions during the DMCA's existence has been around nine annually, which pales in comparison to other types of copyright cases. Second, despite the Second Circuit receiving much attention in anecdotal accounts of section 1201, courts within it issue section 1201 opinions infrequently. The Ninth Circuit is the dominant section 1201 court, both in terms of citations to its opinions and overall number of opinions, and the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits both issue more section 1201 opinions than the Second Circuit. This result stands in contrast to other types of copyright litigation, where the Second Circuit is a behemoth. Third, the most common subject matter in dispute in section 1201 cases is computer software, followed distantly by audiovisual material such as movies. Music stands in last place, showing up in only a couple issued opinions. Debates at the time of the DMCA's enactment were informed by widespread fears of copyright infringement relating to digital music and other types of digital content. Yet section 1201 litigation has resulted in but few written opinions involving those subject matters. Fourth, suits and defaults against individuals happen relatively frequently in the section 1201 context, with courts often assessing large statutory damages against those individuals. As we discuss in this Article, this result raises important equity issues. Fifth, despite section 1201 including a number of statutory exemptions, these exemptions basically never make their way into issued opinions. Fair use, too, only infrequently enters courts' section 1201 discussions. This means, effectively, that the primary way to escape section 1201 liability is through administrative exemptions granted by the Library of Congress on a triennial basis. But as we shall see, this process has significant holes. Finally, plaintiffs disproportionately win section 1201 cases. This result is somewhat bloated because of the frequency of defaults against individuals. Setting these aside, plaintiffs still enjoy tremendous success under section 1201. However, when looking at opinions only outside of the Ninth Circuit, win rates become mostly even. I conclude with several calls for DMCA reform. These include bolstering statutory exemptions and more closely tying section 1201 to copyright infringement. Pursuing these reforms will more faithfully align section 1201 with its purported objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates how instructors consider resource cost and availability when compiling assignments in their course syllabi. It uses the academic planning model from Lattuca and Stark to frame the influences on instructional material selection. It employs a critical incident technique method, asking instructors to take into account one course syllabus when making assignments. Findings address differences across formats including books, chapters, articles, and video. Findings show differences between disciplines and concerning lack of familiarity with fair use. It concludes that increased consultation with library personnel regarding course books would help provide students with affordable materials in compliance with fair use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, together with text and data mining (TDM), introduce complex challenges at the junction of data utilization and copyright laws. The inherent reliance of AI on large quantities of data, often encompassing copyrighted materials, results in multifaceted legal quandaries. Issues surface from the unfeasible task of securing permission from each copyright holder for AI training, further muddled by ambiguities in interpreting copyright laws and fair use provisions. Adding to the conundrum, the clandestine practices of data collection in proprietary AI systems obstruct copyright owners from detecting unauthorized use of their materials. The paper explores the exceptions to copyright laws for TDM in the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Japan, recognizing their crucial role in fostering AI development. The EU has a two‐pronged approach under the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, with one exception catering specifically to research organizations, and another, more generalized one, that can be restricted by rightsholders. The UK allows noncommercial TDM research without infringement but rejected a broader copyright exception due to concerns from the creative sector. Japan has the broadest TDM exception globally, permitting the nonenjoyment use of works without permission, though this can potentially overlook the rights of copyright owners. Notably, the applicability of TDM exceptions to AI‐produced copies remains unclear, creating potential legal challenges. Furthermore, an exploration of the fair use doctrine in the United States provides insight into its potential application in AI development. It focuses on the transformative aspect of usage and its impact on the original work's potential market. This exploration underscores the necessity for clear, practical guidelines. In response to these identified challenges, this paper proposes a hybrid model for TDM exceptions emerges, along with recommended specific mechanisms. The model divides exceptions into noncommercial and commercial uses, providing a nuanced solution to complex copyright issues in AI training. Recommendations incorporate mandatory exceptions for noncommercial uses, an opt‐out clause for commercial uses, enhanced transparency measures, and a searchable portal for copyright owners. In conclusion, striking a delicate equilibrium between technological progress and the incentive for creative expression is of paramount importance. These suggested solutions aim to establish a harmonious foundation that nurtures innovation and creativity while honoring creators' rights, facilitating AI development, promoting transparency, and ensuring fair compensation for creators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present research was conducted with the aim of examining and analyzing the role of preservation of works in Iranian libraries, and specifically, the National Library of Iran as an authority among Iranian libraries. Methodology: The current research is practical in terms of its purpose and was conducted with a qualitative research approach. The method of documentary analysis was suitable for the current research. Therefore, 36 selected national, academic, medical sciences, public and digital libraries inside and outside Iran were investigated and in some cases through e-mail and communication with libraries, the desired information received. Also, in data analysis, primary, secondary and classification coding has been used. Findings: The analysis of data from the research and open coding indicates that 116 primary codes, 188 conceptual codes, 227 categories and 5 classes were obtained. The analysis of data from the research and open coding indicates that 116 primary codes, 188 conceptual codes, 227 categories and 5 classes were obtained. The findings of the research show that the solutions and recommended policies of copyright in libraries can be classified into five classes. The moral and economic; non-profit use, license and agreement, fair use and violation of copyright are the most important in the development of copyright policy of printed and digital resources in libraries. Conclusion: The libraries can provide legal and authorized services to users by having a copyright policy and a legal framework. Also, libraries can use the solutions proposed in the current research, such as creating the "rights and access" field in library software, using permission to access certain resources, and using technical control measures. Copy and access to protect the intellectual rights of the owners of the works, use the form "copyright registration of works", create a copyright office/center and the like to provide proper services to the users and protect the rights of the creators. In addition, it is suggested to the legislators to prioritize the approval of the bill of literary and artistic property rights and related rights, which has been compiled since 2005. This bill has tried to resolve some of the ambiguities in The Iranian Law for the Protection of Authors, Composers and Artists Rights (1970), and to resolve some ambiguities related to libraries and its exceptions. Also, the ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty, which Iran has accepted since 2014, can take a small step in providing optimal services to the target users of the treaty. Because this is the only treaty that has paid attention to the access of the mentioned groups to the resources by considering the author's right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Inteligencia Artificial: Revista Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial is the property of Sociedad Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial (IBERAMIA) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) DEPLOYED FOR customer relationship management (CRM), digital rights management (DRM), content recommendation, and content generation challenge longstanding truths about listening to and making music. CRM uses music to surveil audiences, removes decision-making responsibilities from consumers, and alters relationships among listeners, artists, and music. DRM overprotects copyrighted content by subverting Fair Use Doctrine and privatizing the Public Domain thereby restricting human creativity. Generative AI, often trained on music misappropriated by developers, renders novel music that seemingly represents neither the artistry present in the training data nor the handiwork of the AI's user. AI music, as such, appears to be produced through AI cognition, resulting in what some have called ''machine folk'' and contributing to a ''culture in code.'' A philosophical analysis of these relationships is required to fully understand how AI impacts music, artists, and audiences. Using metasynthesis and grounded theory, this study considers physical reductionism, metaphysical nihilism, existentialism, and modernity to describe the quiddity of AI's role in the music ecosystem. Concluding thoughts call researchers and educators to act on philosophical and ethical discussions of AI and promote continued research, public education, and democratic/ laymen intervention to ensure ethical outcomes in the AI music space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Synchronization (sync) licenses are required for works in which music is synchronized to video and generally have high transaction costs because they must be individually negotiated. Traditionally, sync licenses were obtained by sophisticated parties for movies, television, commercials, and the like. But digital platforms like TikTok have brought sync licenses from obscurity into the hands of every person with a smartphone. This transformative innovation has created new issues for copyright law. First, usergenerated content (UGC) created by individuals and shared on the internet via social media platforms or websites may require sync licenses that are cumbersome to negotiate and overinclusive. Private agreements between platforms like TikTok and record labels and publishers usually fill the gap, allowing most users to play music with their videos free from concern about copyright infringement. However, these licenses do not account for copyright's fundamental balance between access and exclusivity because they are overinclusive: Some content on TikTok may be covered by the doctrine of fair use, in which case no license is required. Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement that permits the defendant to use the copyrighted work without paying the rightsholder. Second, TikTok's agreements with labels and publishers could be eroding fair use. The ex-post nature of fair use means that risk-averse parties, when confronted by a situation in which the viability of their claim is unclear, are likely to obtain a license not required by law. This in turn can narrow the scope of fair use because the existence of an active licensing market makes it less likely that a court will find a use is fair. Future parties then become less likely to rely on an increasingly dubious fair use defense. In the TikTok context, doctrine about fair use and sync is especially uncertain. The scant precedent in UGC fair use cases appears to be highly fact-dependent, there are few cases that specifically deal with sync rights, and none of those have decided fair use as applied to sync. This Note proposes a blanket, compulsory license for noncommercial UGC sync as an imperfect solution to help correct the balance of copyright in the digital platform era. The compulsory license would return review of public copyright law back to Congress and courts and prevent private ordering from curtailing fair use. Further, valuable creativity would be protected because rightsholders would not be able to withhold permission for use of copyrighted material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of ChatGPT and other related artificial intelligence systems has posed many questions upon the impact that such tools could have on some jobs, including media workers. Serious legal concerns have arisen regarding the learning practices of AI-related companies such as OpenAI and Google. These concerns involve crawling and extracting presumably unauthorized copyright works from news repositories, whose rightholders are often media companies. In this article, we aim to categorize the newsroom practices and routines affected by artificial intelligence. We also explore copyright-law related issues, including AI-assisted reporting, its impact on journalists and the media workforce, SEO and commercial strategies, as well as training and blocking AI engines. The legal solutions applied to solve those questions are also addressed, including technical solutions, fair use guidelines and legal solutions (litigation, legislative reform, and negotiation). Our conclusion is twofold: first, in the unequal fight against artificial intelligence systems, a utilitarian and entrepreneurial conception of intellectual property is enforced; and second, the position of journalists as authors is weakening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the use of movies in an interdisciplinary physics course called "The Impact of the Atomic Bomb." The author explains how movies can be used to teach physics concepts, explore the interconnectedness of science and society, and relate science to students' experiences. The article provides a list of movies that have been used in the course, along with their topics and how they address the course's learning outcomes. The author also describes the pedagogy of using movies, including prompts for watching the movies, class discussions, essays, and a final survey. The article concludes by highlighting the benefits of using movies in science courses and encouraging educators to consider incorporating movies in their teaching. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the rise of cheating and academic integrity violations in higher education, particularly in online learning environments. It highlights the issue of "contract cheating," where students hire others to complete assignments for them. The article also mentions the reluctance of faculty to pursue academic integrity charges due to the time commitment and administrative burdens involved. The author, an academic and attorney, provides recommendations for instructors to strengthen their cases when filing charges, including being specific in syllabi about prohibited behaviors, conducting due diligence to prevent unauthorized use of materials, and maintaining a personal and empathetic approach when addressing students involved in misconduct. [Extracted from the article]

The legislative report titled "Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020" discusses the Act's goal of combatting unlawful streaming of copyrighted material by increasing criminal penalties. It allows the Department of Justice to bring felony charges against those who illegally stream copyrighted material for commercial advantage or financial gain. The report emphasizes the need for public education about the consequences of digital piracy and illegal streaming. It examines previous acts and legal frameworks related to copyright infringement and acknowledges the challenges of keeping up with evolving technology. The report suggests a combined approach of legal measures and educational initiatives to create a cultural shift and reduce the demand for pirated content. [Extracted from the article]

The article explores the legality of using parody in Brazil, specifically in the context of elections and advertising. It discusses a legal case where the court ruled that altering a song for political campaign purposes did not constitute parody and required authorization from the copyright holder. The article emphasizes the importance of protecting parody as a form of freedom of expression and highlights the need for creativity and respect for the original work in order for a parody to be considered lawful. It also mentions other cases and legal precedents related to parody in advertising and concludes by discussing the ethical considerations of using parodies in political campaigns. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the complex and often contentious relationship between content creators who produce Let's Play videos and the video game developers who own the rights to the games being played. It highlights the challenges creators face due to YouTube's automated Content ID system, which frequently flags and removes videos for alleged copyright violations, and the lack of clear legal guidelines governing the fair use of video game content.

The article discusses the need for a federal right of publicity in the United States to address inconsistencies and lack of uniformity in state laws. Currently, different states have different definitions and protections for the right of publicity, leading to inconsistent results and forum shopping. A federal law would provide clarity and consistency by defining what is protected and for how long. The article proposes that a federal right of publicity should protect a person's name, image, likeness, voice, and signature from unauthorized use in endorsing or promoting commercial endeavors. It argues against dividing the right into categories based on the level of fame achieved. The article suggests that a federal right of publicity should have an initial period of exclusivity, followed by a requirement for use to maintain the right. It also proposes exceptions for news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, and political campaigns, as well as general First Amendment and fair use defenses. The article concludes that a federal right of publicity would protect individuals' rights while promoting creativity and public discourse. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of IDP: Revista de Internet, Derecho y Politica is the property of Universitat Oberta de Catalunya and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The study aims to assess the level of copyright knowledge among library staff and law students at the University of Venda (UNIVEN) library in Thohoyandou, Limpopo province, South Africa. The study used a quantitative research approach using a survey to gather data on understanding and awareness of copyright laws on campus. Google Forms was used to collect data. The population consisted of 38 library staff selected using a census sampling method and 112 final-year and postgraduate law students selected using a stratified random sampling method. The results of the study show that UNIVEN law students are more knowledgeable about basic copyright matters such as policies, copyright protection, public domain, copyright limitations, and fair dealing, copyright ownership than library staff. The research findings provided insight into the current level of copyright knowledge among library staff and law students and suggested strategies to improve copyright education and training in libraries. The results of this study will be useful to librarians, academics, and policymakers interested in promoting copyright literacy and compliance in academic libraries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI's GitHub Copilot for alleged copyright violations. The lawsuit claims that the AI tool, which generates code suggestions, infringes on copyrighted code. The plaintiffs argue that the tool reproduces and distributes their copyrighted work without permission. The article explores the legal issues surrounding AI-generated content and the potential impact of this lawsuit on the future of AI copyright. [Extracted from the article]

The article explores the application of copyright protections to architectural works in the metaverse, a virtual world where users create and interact with online personas. It argues that existing copyright laws can be applied to virtual buildings in the metaverse, including original and recreated virtual buildings, as well as hybrid buildings that combine virtual and real-world elements. The article discusses the requirements for establishing copyright infringement and the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders. It also addresses the issue of fair use and the application of copyright protections to virtual and hybrid buildings. The article concludes that current copyright protections are sufficient and do not require significant changes to accommodate the metaverse. [Extracted from the article]

In the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress unequivocally considered computersoftware to be a work of authorship. As a work of authorship, computer programs were to receive the same copyright protection as other literary works. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in Google v. Oracle disagreed with this treatment. Being unable to declare that software lacks Feist-type creativity, the Court turned to the fair use defense. Using a fair use analysis that is strikingly different than had been used for any other copyrighted work, the Court effectively attempted to end copyright protection for computer programs. Recognizing the deficiencies in the opinion and in line with a central concept of fair use law that it is always fact specific, future courts should use the holding in Google v. Oracle only where smartphone operating systems are being developed. In all other cases, fair use for computer programs should be evaluated as it is for any other work of authorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The courts and legal frameworks across the globe have not been unanimous as to whether the right against destruction should be a moral right or not for artists in general and for architects in particular. Both common law and civil law countries have been non-committal and lack uniformity in their approach in this regard. The right against destruction has been distinguished from other rights on the premise that there is no loss/detriment caused to the artist by the destruction of the creation. Despite its beneficent presence in the Copyright Act, 1957 the recent denial of moral rights against destruction to architects in the buildings envisioned and realised by them by the Delhi High Court needs a sound diagnosis and correction as it could have a cascading effect. In this, it deviates from a former ruling of the same (Delhi high court) court without making a substantial reference to it. It raises the issue of whether the basis for anti-destructive sentiment can be placed on the plank of public interest in the preservation of artistic works rather than on personality rights upon which the right to integrity is anchored. An assessment of these contexts will be useful to identify the limits on the right to destroy property particularly intellectual property in architecture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 copyright decision on "fair use" in the visual arts, focusing on Andy Warhol's works based on Lynn Goldsmith's photograph of Prince. It explores fair use, its historical background, and the legal dispute between Warhol and Goldsmith. The Court's decision, emphasizing the purpose and character of the use, commercial nature, and the specific use of a copyrighted work, is highlighted for its impact on fair use law.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (AWF). It explores the legal aspects of copyright's fair use doctrine and its intersection with privacy and intellectual property, particularly the right of publicity. It emphasizes the case's central figure, the iconic musician Prince and discusses the absence of Prince's interests in legal discussions.

This article explores the issue of copyright protection for video games without narratives. The author argues that granting copyright protection to game mechanics and rules may hinder the growth of the video game industry and suggests that patents should be used instead. The article discusses the purpose of intellectual property rights, the principles behind copyright and patent protection, and the potential implications of current copyright law on the video game industry. It also examines the challenges of determining copyrightable elements in video games, the ambiguity surrounding copyright and patent protection, and the use of patents as an alternative to copyrights for games without narratives. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of providing economic incentives to video game developers while avoiding oppressive monopolies. [Extracted from the article]

The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, particularly the deployment of generative AI in the creation of short videos, has exposed the anachronistic and incomplete nature of the copyright limitations and exceptions (L&E) within the Copyright Law of China. The US jurisprudential approach, characterized by the four-factor fair use analysis and the doctrine of transformative use, has been embraced in China by courts as 'general legal principles'. These principles have been localized within the restrictive framework of the Berne Convention's three-step test. However, the application of these principles to China's burgeoning AI and AI-generated content industry, exemplified by the short video sector, reveals a complex landscape. The purposes behind the utilization of copyrighted works are multifaceted, and the intense rivalry between 'long' and 'short' videos that represent established and emerging giant Internet platform enterprises further muddies the waters in the application of the American 'purpose transformation' concept. A better alternative would be to seek guidance from the Copyright Law of Japan. By grounding decisions in pre-existing, enumerated copyright exceptions, systematically categorizing L&E scenarios, and delineating key considerations for various categories, the judiciary can be steered towards a more nuanced and equitable resolution of individual cases and strike a balance between the interest of copyright holders, Internet users, and the emerging Internet platform enterprises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the intersection of transformative uses and the right to prepare derivative works in copyright law, examining the potential conflicts and commonalities between these concepts. Topics include the evolving definition of "transformative" uses, the impact of the Supreme Court's decisions in Google v. Oracle and Andy Warhol Found. v. Goldsmith, and a proposal to refocus on the fourth fair use factor.

We propose a revised definition of "argument scheme" that focuses on describing argumentative performances and normative assessments that occur within an argumentative context, the social context in which the scheme arises. Our premise-and-conclusion structure identifies the typical instantiation of an argument in the argumentative context, and our critical framework describes a set of normative assessments available to participants in the context, what we call practically normative assessments. We distinguish this practical normativity from the rationally or universally normative assessment that might be imposed from outside the argumentative context. Thus, the practical norms represented in an argument scheme may still be subject to rational critique, and the scheme avoids the is/ought fallacy. We ground our theoretical discussion and observations in an empirical study of US district court opinions resolving legal questions about copyright fair use and the lawyers' briefs that led to them, instantiating our definition of argument scheme in the "argument for classification by precedent." Our definition addresses some criticisms the argument-scheme construct has received. For example, using our data, we show that a minimally well formed instance of this type of argument does not shift any conventional burden from the proponent of the argument to its skeptics. We also argue that these argument schemes need not be seen as dialogical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The digital revolution has launched myriad new technologies in the field of art and cultural heritage law, including digital art, NFTs (non-fungible tokens), artificial intelligence (AI)-generated art, virtual reality and reality augmentation, online viewing rooms and auctions, holograms, immersive experiences, and more. As a $67.8 billion industry, the art market is a global driver of innovation, international collaboration, and national economies, given its cross-border transactions. However, given the extremely rapid development of these new technologies, regulators have struggled to keep pace and implement legal measures that are fit for purpose in this field. Limited oversight has resulted in several claims that have the potential to change the legal landscape. For instance, claims over the theft/misappropriation of NFTs and the related fraud and money laundering that may ensue, as well as a recent class action copyright infringement suit against the creators of a popular AI algorithm and infringement claims over immersive installation and light technologies, demonstrate how new ways of thinking are required to assess cases involving digital property (distinguished from other types of non-tangible property). Moreover, the US Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling on fair use within the copyright context, which will be relied upon in the future to determine whether (and to what extent) the appropriation of existing copyrighted material is permitted. This includes both the digital use of physical artworks and the use of born-digital works. Although jurisprudential decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, factual patterns involving online media, digital art, and related technologies could serve as guidance for legislators and other decision-makers when considering what limits should be imposed on Web 3.0. This article will focus on recent US-based claims and regulations and dovetail with existing art market regulations in this jurisdiction (e.g., anti-money-laundering statutes) to determine their impact on new technologies, whether directly or indirectly. Finally, the article highlights ongoing trends and preoccupations to provide an overview of the shifting legal landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three copyright doctrines focus more than any others on the contributions of authors to visual artworks: originality, substantial similarity, and fair use. Questions regarding the aesthetics of works of authorship filter into judicial determinations under each of these doctrines. This Article comments on a trend among courts hearing visual arts cases to de-emphasize substantial similarity analyses and shift infringement determinations almost entirely to the fair use defense. The trend has troubling procedural fairness consequences. Without a full evidentiary record about the artworks they encounter in infringement cases, courts' ability to properly evaluate whether the use of appropriated material in a second work is justified, or whether expression has been taken from the first work for some other (infringing) purpose, is compromised. If courts fail to properly understand works because they do not fully analyze basic infringement claims, it can also affect later users and owners of artworks. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith illustrates the conflicts appellate courts face when they are forced to analyze cases solely through the lens of fair use. This Article embraces Warhol's majority opinion but suggests that the dissent's concerns about judicial reluctance to engage with and understand creative works aesthetically are not entirely misplaced. Such engagement should happen earlier in the infringement inquiry, however--not merely as part of a fair use analysis. This Article expands the 2022 Meyer Lecture delivered by this Author shortly after oral arguments concluded in the Warhol litigation. It urges that to ensure the best outcomes for all artists, courts should apply a procedurally conscious approach to analyzing copyright infringement cases involving visual artworks. Specifically, district courts should establish a solid record that the first work is original; then inquire whether the second work infringes, applying the test for substantial similarity. Only if they find infringement should courts consider the affirmative defense of fair use. Following the proper procedural path is crucial to balancing all parties' interests--particularly when the works of two artists are involved. Allowing both the first and the second artists equal voice in representing the originality of their contributions is necessary to ensure an adequate factual record in copyright litigation. Courts require this record to anticipate the impact of their rulings on future litigants and the art world at large. These goals are consistent with copyright jurisprudence, which encourages creativity and original contributions to the creative lexicon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research is a peer-reviewed journal that welcomes research articles from scholars around the world. The journal uses Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for each article and is published four times a year. The editorial review process relies on the cooperation of authors and reviewers. The journal has policies in place for retraction of articles, digital preservation, handling complaints, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, and peer review. The double-blind review process is used, and referees are selected based on their expertise in the field. The acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is based on the evaluations of the referees. The journal also accepts comments on previously published articles, and there are technology-based quality assurance measures in place, such as readability tests, plagiarism detection, and appropriate citation formats. Contributors are encouraged to perform word count, spelling, and grammar checks before submission. [Extracted from the article]

The article offers information on the challenges Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents under existing laws in the USA and the EU, particularly in the context of Copyright Law, focusing on the recognition of AI as an "author." Topics include the characteristics of AI systems and their creative capabilities, the impact of quantum computing on AI, and the question of whether AI can be considered an author under the Copyright Act.