Latest news with #ShiraPerlmutter
Reuters
6 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Judge sides with Trump again in fight over fired Copyright Office head
July 31 (Reuters) - In a preliminary win for the White House, a federal judge in Washington declined for the second time to reinstate U.S. Copyright Office director Shira Perlmutter as she challenges President Donald Trump's decision to fire her in May. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly rejected Perlmutter's request, opens new tab for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the administration from removing her while the court considers her case, ruling that failing to reinstate her would not cause "irreparable harm." Kelly denied Perlmutter's bid for an emergency restraining order against the administration in May on similar grounds. Several federal judges have ruled that Trump's firings of members of independent agencies were illegal and ordered officials to be reinstated. Appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have paused those rulings pending appeals, including a decision involving a consumer product safety board that the Supreme Court paused last week. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said on Thursday that the Perlmutter decision "reaffirms that the Trump Administration is lawfully exercising its authority to remove officers." Attorneys for Perlmutter did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. A spokesperson for the Copyright Office declined to comment. The administration fired Perlmutter by email on May 10. Her removal sparked a backlash from Democratic politicians who said that Congress had "purposely insulated" the Copyright Office, a department of the Library of Congress, from political influence. Perlmutter sued the administration on May 22, calling her removal "blatantly unlawful." The administration has countered that the Library of Congress is "not an autonomous organization free from political supervision." The administration also fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden on May 9, citing her advancement of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Kelly said on Wednesday that Perlmutter's loss of her job was not the type of irreparable harm that would justify a preliminary injunction against her firing. The case is Perlmutter v. Blanche, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:25-cv-01659. For Perlmutter: Don Verrilli, Ginger Anders and Kuruvilla Olasa of Munger Tolles & Olson; Brian Netter and Allyson Scher of Democracy Forward For the administration: Christopher Hall and Stanley Woodward of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: Trump fires head of U.S. Copyright Office US Copyright Office director sues Trump administration over firing Judge denies US Copyright Office director's request to halt her firing
Time of India
25-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Fired copyright chief sues Trump after explosive claim that AI firms are stealing from creators
Former US copyright chief Shira Perlmutter plans on suing Donald Trump after the POTUS fired her post a critical report on AI and copyright . Now, she's suing him, saying he had no right to remove her. This fight could change how copyright and AI are handled in the U.S. In May 2025, things changed when Shira Perlmutter, the longtime head of the office, was suddenly fired. She was told in an email from the White House that she was no longer the Register of Copyrights, effective right away, according to the Thar Tribune report. A day earlier, Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress who appointed Perlmutter in 2020, was also fired. These quick firings shocked the legal and creative world, with no clear reason given at first. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villa For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas in Dubai | Search ads Learn More Undo AI report and timing On May 9, the Copyright Office released a big report about AI and copyright after working on it for 2 years. The report said sometimes using copyrighted work to train AI is allowed, but not always. It depends on things like purpose, source, and impact, as per reports. The report didn't take sides—it was balanced and focused on details. But people noticed the report came out just one day after Hayden was fired, and that felt suspicious. Then Perlmutter got fired the very next day, on May 10, in a direct message from a White House assistant, as stated by the Thar Tribune report. Live Events New leaders and chaos Within 48 hours, both top copyright leaders were gone. Todd Blanche was made the new Librarian of Congress, and Paul Perkins became the new Register of Copyrights. The office had to pause all copyright registrations, delaying around 20,000 applications for 12 business days. When they resumed, the certificates didn't have the usual signature from the Register. Officials said the signature wasn't legally needed. Dave Hansen from Authors Alliance said the situation was 'extremely weird', as mentioned by the Thar Tribune report. ALSO READ: Jeff Bezos' lavish wedding secrets leaked: Who made the cut, dress designer and eye-popping price tag Lawsuit against Trump After being fired, Perlmutter sued President Trump. She says the president doesn't have the power to fire her because the Copyright Office is part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Her lawyers say this is a serious example of the president going too far and breaking the separation of powers. The White House replied using the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which says the president can remove certain federal officials. A judge already refused to stop the firing for now, but court hearings are coming in July, as per the Thar Tribune report. AI, artists, and big tech This all comes at a time when AI companies are being sued for stealing copyrighted work to train their models. OpenAI wants broader fair use rules. Elon Musk even supports an idea by Jack Dorsey to get rid of copyright laws completely, saying they don't work anymore. The AI report from the Copyright Office didn't fully support any side. It said human creativity is still the main thing that deserves copyright. It also rejected giving copyrights to things made only by machines. Earlier this year, Perlmutter wrote that copyright laws should only protect work with human creativity, according to the Thar Tribune report. Reactions and fallout People who worked with Perlmutter said she was fair, careful, and respected even by critics. Her careful approach in the AI report made her firing even more surprising. Democrats in Congress were very angry. Joe Morelle from New York said the firing was 'a brazen, unprecedented power grab.' Some believe the firing was political, to change copyright rules in favor of AI companies. Carla Hayden's firing added to the worry because she was a well-known, respected librarian. Inside the Copyright Office, things are now uncertain. Staff are working but don't feel clear on the leadership or direction, as stated by the Thar Tribune report. The sudden changes and weird timing made the office go from calm and quiet to full of confusion. The lawsuit will move ahead this summer, and the AI report may be used in many legal battles about fair use in AI. While courts and tech companies fight about AI, the Copyright Office itself is caught in a big power struggle, as per the reports. FAQs Q1. Why was Shira Perlmutter fired? Shira Perlmutter was fired right after releasing a detailed report on AI and copyright. Many believe it was politically motivated. Q2. What is the lawsuit against Trump about? Perlmutter says the president cannot fire her because the Copyright Office is part of Congress, not the White House.
Forbes
06-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Get Rid Of Music Copyrights: Jack Dorsey
Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter & CEO of Square, attends crypto-currency conference in Miami on ... More June 4, 2021. (Photo by MARCO BELLO) When Jack Dorsey tweeted 'Delete all IP law,' and Elon Musk endorsed the idea, the music biz dismissed it as idle and provocative nonsense, flexing a collective and sarcastic smile. But 'I'll Never Smile Again,' Tommy Dorsey's 1940 hit with a 25-year old Frank Sinatra, may be what they're singing now, after a federal judge ruled that the Trump Administration can go ahead with the firing of Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights. Perlmutter's firing came just after she issued a report saying AI companies training on tens of millions of songs and other creations may not do so free of charge and without permission, because the Fair Use defense to copyright infringement may not apply to them. Perlmutter is replaced by Paul Perkins, an assistant attorney general with no copyright law experience to speak of, per order of US District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, who may reconsider the issue later. Whether Perkins endorses the view that all IP law should be deleted is unknown. Jack Dorsey – no relation to the musical Dorsey brothers, and no friend to them either – elaborated on his tweet this way: 'Creativity is what currently separates us [from AI] In the case of music, Dorsey is rebuking record labels and applauding AI companies who would pay out more fairly, without being required to by law, he suggests. Companies like Suno and Udio, called the ChatGPTs of music, are reportedly attempting to settle litigation with major music companies. But they wouldn't need to pay anything for their use of vast troves of music if Dorsey had his way. Let's suppose Dorsey and Perkins are on the same page and are poised to press delete on all IP law. What does that even look like, especially for music? One answer is a time before copyright law existed (more on that later). Another answer is China. Almost 90 percent of counterfeit goods seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 2024 reportedly came from China (including Hong Kong), where there's comparatively little enforcement of intellectual property law. Musk loves how 'China rocks," saying "the energy in China is great. People there – there's like a lot of smart, hard working people. And they're really -- they're not entitled, they're not complacent, whereas I see in the United States increasingly much more complacency and entitlement ...' Why do complacent musicians and entitled music companies in the U.S. believe they need copyright law anyway? Tommy Dorsey might have had a note or two to blow about that? Tommy Dorsey playing the trombone. Undated photograph. Getty Images. Tommy Dorsey's hit, written by Ruth Lowe, premiered at number one on Billboard's first ever music chart in 1940 and was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame in 1982. The musical gem will likely drop into the public domain in 2035, after a prosperous copyright duration of 95 years, as per the current US Copyright Act. Likewise, famous rock n' roll songs from the '60s will fall into the PD beginning in the early 2060s, and so on. But 'delete all IP laws' means all music and other creations go into the public domain now, and no more need to get permissions or pay royalties. Sounds preposterous … but also prosperous … for tech billionaires and their companies, who would no longer need to obtain permissions and pay license fees to content owners. But if they delete copyright law, how would musicians be paid for creating new music? Presumably just as they were paid (or not) by lords and monarchs who commissioned musical works for weddings and entertainments before copyright law was a thing. Mozart and Beethoven's financial ruin was common for composers who had no property rights in their valuable music. The 'delete all IP law" rally cry sounds like something from Curtis Yarvin, a software engineer and blogger praised by Musk, who advocates a shift from democracy to a CEO-style dictatorship like a monarchy. So when Musk becomes Emperor of Earth and Mars, we may only have Musk Musik and he'll decide whether to pay for it. Look, there's room for criticism of copyright law, especially in the music space, where some might monopolize music for monetary gain, if they could, as in the 'Blurred Lines" case in 2018, when the Ninth Circuit upheld a terrible copyright infringement verdict for the Marvin Gaye estate. Terrible because Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams' song shared no copyrightable elements whatsoever with Gaye's 'Got To Give It Up,' just a similar 'vibe.' But the jury decided you can copyright a 'vibe' and the Gaye estate was awarded $5.3 million in damages. The Gaye's expert witnesses effectively pulled the wool over the jurors' ears and that verdict turned the music world on its ear. Thankfully, copyright law has since climbed out of the 'Blurred Lines' hole … on a 'Stairway to Heaven." Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, along with Warner Chappell Music, prevailed against a copyright infringement claim based on a generic musical progression that goes back to Bach and before. Since that win was upheld on appeal in 2020, other music defendants have similarly prevailed, including Ed Sheeran ("Thinking Out Loud'), Dua Lipa ("Levitating"), and Katy Perry ("Dark Horse"). So copyright law lately has been striking the right balance when it comes to music. 'The limits on copyright are as important as the rights themselves,' says litigator Peter Anderson, who won the 'Stairway' case. 'Because you have to limit the protection to allow other people to use the basic unprotected elements in the same or different ways, as long as they're not that exact same particular design. 'I think there can be a legitimate debate of where the balance lies,' adds Anderson, "but the idea of no copyright law at all just doesn't recognize that we are where we are today as a world leader of creativity because of patent law, copyright law and other IP laws.' Indeed IP, including music, is a cornerstone of US economic strength and soft power, and the US has enjoyed an IP trade surplus for the past two decades while China has suffered a trade deficit during that time, says a May 2025 dispatch from the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). Moreover, don't Dorsey and Musk need IP law to run their own businesses? 'I can't believe that [Dorsey and Musk] would not recognize that the entirety of the arts, media, gaming, and entertainment industries would absolutely collapse … including, by the way, their own companies that rely on IP all the time,' says Aaron Moss, an IP litigator at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp and author of the CopyrightLately blog. Sure, but Bach, Shakespeare and Da Vinci didn't let a lack of IP law stop them from creating. It wasn't until 1710 that copyright law first took hold in a very limited way in England with the Statute of Anne. But it didn't protect authors' rights until the first Berne Convention of 1886 and it wasn't until the 20th century that robust protection of music copyright arrived. Jack Dorsey's tweet suggests he'd rewind history a few centuries when it comes to IP law, because we've made a mistake protecting creators' rights. 'Sure there's the argument that we had creativity before the first copyright law came into the world,' says Anderson. 'At the time of Shakespeare, there was no copyright law. But copyright law in today's world is necessary for music, books, art, photos, it's a big incentive to being creative. Now maybe a few would, without any financial reward, create a really good song, but for most, having the financial reward has got to be there as an incentive." 'I'll Never Smile Again' was a really good song. Imagine if Frank Sinatra, a fighter for IP rights for musicians on Capitol Hill, bumped into Jack Dorsey at the Polo Lounge, where Sinatra famously threw a punch or two at that point in his life. What if Jack Dorsey told him he wanted to 'delete all IP laws.' 'I'll Never Smile Again' might take on particular meaning for someone missing a couple teeth. Peter Anderson and Aaron Moss discuss music copyright issues on my podcast The Music Law Beat.
Forbes
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Trump 2.0 Takes Aim At Copyrights
Protestor arrives outside The Library Of Congress in response to Trump's firings of Carla Hayden and ... More Shira Perlmutter. President Trump's executive orders become hard to keep up with as they are so fast moving and disruptive, affecting on tariffs, immigration, universities, and so much more. Now it seems the administration has its eye on copyright. If copyrights and copyright law become a target of partisan politics, it is a cause for concern for the rights of authors and artists. As a copyright law practitioner, I wasn't expecting that the executive branch's stream of executive orders was going to directly affect my clients (artists and filmmakers) or my area of practice. Then I learned that, on May 8, the administration had fired the Librarian of Congress, which oversees the U.S. Copyright Office. No reason was cited, nor any notice given, just a simple two sentence note: 'On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as the Librarian of Congress is terminated effective immediately. Thank you for your service.' And then on May 10, Trump abruptly fired the Register of Copyrights and Director of the Copyright Office, Shira Perlmutter, in similar fashion. On May 22, Perlmutter sued the Trump administration over her firing. She also moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) effectively asking to be reinstated in her role as Register. The hearing on that motion occurred on May 28. The TRO request was denied for failure to show irreparable harm to Perlmutter. The legal issue in this dispute is whether the executive branch has the authority to fire the Librarian or the Register, or whether these actions are exclusively within Congress' power, and thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. The more important issue, in my view, is the consequential one, addressed below: if the executive branch can control the leadership and the functioning of the Copyright Office, this could put copyright creators – such as authors, filmmakers, photographers and fine artists – at risk of having their works and creations put at the behest of political ideologies, rather than within the proper boundaries of copyright law. Let's take a closer look at the parties' positions on the legal issue, which helps inform the consequential issue. Perlmutter, formerly the head of copyright and international policy at the US Patent and Trademark Office, Chief IP Counsel at Time Warner, and copyright advisor to the Clinton Administration, among other accomplishments, is widely highly regarded in the copyright law field. I've worked with her in the past and can attest to her deep expertise and integrity. She asserts in her complaint that Congress vested the Librarian of Congress, not the President, with the power to appoint, and therefore to remove, the Register of Copyrights. Her position is that the Library of Congress is, statutorily and functionally, under control of the legislative branch, and argued at the TRO hearing that 'just logically, Congress wouldn't give the President sole and unreviewable authority to appoint an acting Librarian of Congress to oversee an agency that performs critical legislative functions and cut itself entirely out of that process.' The White House argues that the Library of Congress is 'part of the Executive Branch and is subject to presidential control.' Its position is that the President has the authority to name an acting Librarian and Register of Copyrights who can serve temporarily under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act — much as the president can name acting leaders for any other federal agency with a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed chief. Perlmutter asserts that Congress vested the Librarian of Congress, not the President, with the power ... More to appoint, and therefore to remove, the Register of Copyrights. Let's review the relevant statutory scheme: The Library of Congress is an agency that Congress has designated as a part of the legislative branch of the U.S. government. The Library of Congress is led by the Librarian of Congress, who is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by a vote of the Senate. The Register of Copyrights leads the Copyright Office, is appointed by the Librarian of Congress, and acts under the Librarian's general direction and supervision. The Register is the principal advisor to Congress on national and international copyright matters, testifying upon request and providing ongoing leadership and impartial expertise on copyright law and policy. The Register of Copyrights is statutorily required to perform the following functions and duties, among others: • 'Advise Congress on national and international issues relating to copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters'; • 'Provide information and assistance to Federal departments and agencies and the Judiciary on national and international issues relating to copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters'; • 'Participate in meetings of international intergovernmental organizations and meetings with foreign government officials relating to copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters, including as a member of United States delegations as authorized by the appropriate Executive branch authority'; • 'Conduct studies and programs regarding copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters, the administration of the Copyright Office, or any function vested in the Copyright Office by law, including educational programs conducted cooperatively with foreign intellectual property offices and international intergovernmental organizations'; and • 'Perform such other functions as Congress may direct, or as may be appropriate in furtherance of the functions and duties specifically set forth in this title.' It seems clear that in founding, function, and practice, the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office are part of the legislative branch. The name seems to say it all; as one senator put it: 'It's the Library of Congress, after all, not the Library of the President.' From this point of view, the fact that Todd Blanche, a high-ranking DOJ official and Trump's former criminal defense lawyer, has been named as the acting Librarian of Congress "offends the constitutional separation of powers," says Perlmutter in her complaint. Trump Administration argues that if the President has the power to appoint the Librarian, who in ... More turn has the power to appoint the Register, both institutions could be subjected to executive branch authority. On the other hand, if the President has the power to appoint the Librarian, who in turn has the power to appoint the Register, does that mean both institutions are subject to executive branch authority? At the hearing on the TRO, presiding Judge Timothy J. Kelly, indicated that maybe the answer wasn't so clear, and that both sides had good points. 'I think there's a sprinkling of evidence on both sides, and maybe some evidence points to the fact that the Library of Congress is sort of a unicorn in that it has some functions that are properly part of different branches,' he said. The case will go on, with each side providing more law, and more clues, as to how the Library and the Copyright office should be treated under our doctrine of separation of powers. But let's be mindful of the practical consequences that may befall Congress, the public and content creators, from the court's decision on this interesting constitutional question. A change in leadership in the Copyright Office could adversely affect creators. The job of the Register of the Copyright Office is complex. The Office examines, grants or denies applications for registration of copyrighted works, which are required for copyright enforcement. Some copyright practitioners has pointed out that the Copyright Act suggests that only the Register can finalize registrations—raising questions about whether certificates issued without a lawfully-designated Register's stamp of approval while this dispute is pending would be valid. In addition, the Office, among other things, runs a complex system for the recordation of copyright transfers, terminations, and renewals of copyrights, leads a project to transition the aforesaid system to digital online access, runs the Copyright Claims Board (a small claims court for small copyright infringement matters), runs the Copyright Royalty Board (which determines rates and distribution of statutory licenses), provides a triennial rule-making process for certain DMCA exceptions, promulgates regulations relating to copyright, and renders reports and advisory opinions on copyright law issues to Congress for domestic matters and international treaties. In short, the Copyright Office functions to serve and secure the rights of authors as guaranteed by the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. The US Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the power to safeguards those rights. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. As mentioned above, the President gave no reason for the firings. Many have speculated, however, that the motivation for firing Perlmutter was in retaliation for the Copyright Office's report, released the day before her firing, which was the third installment in a series of reports exploring issues at the intersection of AI and copyright law. In that report, the Copyright Office said that many uses of training AI with copyrighted materials would be viewed as fair use (and thus not requiring the permission of the copyright owners), noting that outputs from using AI research or analysis systems likely won't serve as market replacements for the creative works used to train the models. "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries," the report added. Could this be the motivation? Because perhaps Elon Musk's xAI takes issue with this view? And although the government did not elaborate during the hearing on the TRO, it is telling that the government argued: "This Court should not enter an order forcing someone into office that the President has now said, "I do not think that you can pursue my policy prerogatives moving forward." Follow me on LinkedIn and check out my website for further insights.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
AI's Napster Moment May Be Next
Two years ago this month, the Writers Guild of America went on strike for, among other key issues, a set of landmark AI protections to safeguard our writing and our finished work. It took six months of sustained solidarity, picketing and an outpouring of public support — everyone from fellow unions, politicians and yes, even Elon Musk — before the studios finally met our demands. Today, writers, journalists and creatives across every medium are facing a new kind of existential threat to their professions from the interests of Silicon Valley. Tech companies have been openly lobbying the White House to rewrite copyright law to freely train their models on films, television shows, articles, books and beyond without paying so much as a dime to studios, publishers or writers. OpenAI has been referring to this as 'the freedom to learn.' In New Jersey, it's just called theft. More from The Hollywood Reporter New Report Portrays California's Film and TV Production Environment as Uniquely Burdensome and Expensive Kevin Costner Sued By 'Horizon 2' Stunt Performer Over Unscripted Rape Scene Will Smith Music Video Makes Union Deal With IATSE After Strike Three weeks ago, Shira Perlmutter, the Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, was fired shortly after publishing a new report on Generative AI Training. The release advocated for preserving current copyright law and signaled a setback for Sam Altman's craven attempt to expand the Fair Use doctrine into a smash and grab campaign on decades of copyrighted material. In other words, tech companies cannot use stolen intellectual property in their models. In the meantime, dozens of ongoing lawsuits against OpenAI (ChatGPT), Anthropic (Claude), Google (Gemini) and Meta (Llama) making their way through the courts. Without a sympathetic judge willing to distort fair use, these companies could find themselves liable in billions of theft, potentially even more in damages, and in some cases, face total bankruptcy. But we've been down this road before with Napster. The company launched as a free file-sharing app in 1999. Almost overnight people around the world could download entire music libraries in seconds. It was a groundbreaking use of technology that, at the time, felt too good to be true. And that's because it was. Napster was quickly sued out of existence for copyright infringement and racketeering. Since then, every major media tech platforms — YouTube, Spotify and even OpenAI until recently — have been making deals with studios, publishers and labels to compensate them for using their copyrighted work. While many of these agreements have been deeply flawed and exploitive, the firing of Shira Perlmutter represents a pivot to something much worse. Silicon Valley is now asking the government for permission to steal our copyright in order to escape their pending lawsuits. They are knowingly trying to de-value our professions and countless others in order to freely enrich themselves without caring about the consequences. In the case of screenwriters, copyright of an original script is sold to the studios in exchange for core benefits like health care, pension and residuals. This is one of the bedrock principles that has helped sustain writers during the highs and lows of this business. But if copyright protections were to be stripped away, then so begins the unraveling of the entire value proposition that union members past and present have fought so hard to maintain in the film and television industry. In April, Sam Altman appeared on stage with Chris Anderson, the head of TED, who pointed out, 'At first glance, this (ChatGPT) looks like I.P. theft.' The audience erupted in applause until Sam fired back, 'Clap about that all you want. Enjoy.' And then Sam said something far more revealing, 'We do need to figure out some new model around the economics for compensating creative output. Exactly what that looks like I'm not sure.' But the copyright system isn't broken. Companies like OpenAI simply don't want to negotiate consent and pay. So, Sam can shrug about 'the economics for compensating creative output' all he wants. Enjoy. The solution will always be the same. Stop stealing writers work and follow the law. Larry J. Cohen and Sarah Montana are the co-chairs of the Writers Guild of America East AI Task Force. Cohen is a writer, producer and director who currently serves on the WGAE council. Montana is a writer and public speaker who currently serves on WGAE council. Best of The Hollywood Reporter How the Warner Brothers Got Their Film Business Started Meet the World Builders: Hollywood's Top Physical Production Executives of 2023 Men in Blazers, Hollywood's Favorite Soccer Podcast, Aims for a Global Empire
