Latest news with #U.S.CopyrightAct
The Hindu
18-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Copyright's tryst with generative AI
Copyright law has always been a product of technology. It was created in 1710 to deal with the outcome of the invention of the printing press, to protect publishers against any unauthorised publication while encouraging learning, and to further their economic interests. Since inception, copyright law has adapted itself to various technologies from the time of the printing press to the photocopying machine, to the recording device, and to the Internet. In each stage, the law has worked its way around technology. However, today there is a belief that generative AI has the potential to upset the copyright law. Such a debate is not new: it surfaces roughly every 20 years with each technological advent. So far, copyright law has been successful in forbidding commercial reproduction of works protected by copyright; currently, the law faces the task of prohibiting AI platforms from training on the works of the creators. There is a shift in the approach of using copyright law. In the past, the law dealt with copies of the original works; now, it has to deal with training of copyrighted material by AI platforms and not with the reproduction of copies itself. At a crossroads Generative AI companies, specifically Open AI, have found themselves at a crossroads with copyright law across countries. AI platforms employ a technology called Internet scraping by which Large Language Models (LLM) train the platform on all available knowledge. For training purposes, the platform accesses both copyrighted and non-copyrighted content. The copyright infringement cases are fought on subject matters such as literature, music, and photographs. Recently, the Federation of Indian Publishers as well as the Asian News International initiated copyright infringement claims against Open AI before the Delhi High Court for training the AI platform with the works of the publishers without their prior consent. Similar cases are pending before the American courts, where the respondents have taken the claim of 'fair learning' and 'fair use in education' as an exception provided by the U.S. Copyright Act. In these cases, Open AI has developed an opt-out mechanism which allows the publishers to opt-out from the data set training. But this strategy applies only to future and not past training. In the ongoing case in India, Professor Dr. Arul George Scaria, amicus curiae, has suggested that the court should address the issue of whether unlearning the information from the content used during training is technically and practically feasible. Further, he has also underscored the need for keeping in mind the effect of the future of AI development in India; access to legitimate information including copyrighted materials; and a direction from the court to Open AI to address falsely attributable sources. Among other things related to Open AI, it has been argued that the Indian courts lack competence to hear the case. Leaving that aside, the LLM platforms may find themselves in an uncharted territory in India, as the Indian Copyright Act adopts a different exception test and not the 'fair use' test established in the U.S. It adopts the enumerated approach, where the exact exceptions are already stated, the scope to manoeuvre is limited, and education exceptions are confined within classrooms and not beyond. In India, this could be effectively used by the right- holders in their favour. However, the law could potentially be used to prohibit access to books, much against the original purpose for which it was created. The opt-out mechanism developed by Open AI may also have a huge impact on the future of generative AI, as the efficiency of the AI depends on the material that it is trained upon. If in future, the technology is not trained on quality material, that could obfuscate the budding AI platforms, which will not have the benefit that Open AI has. The court should ensure a level playing field between generative AI with deep pockets and generative AI without deep pockets so as to strike the right balance. Solutions to the problem The claims by parties have the potential to impact the core of creation, art, and copyright law, since any creation stands on the shoulders of its predecessors. Generative AI/human creativity functions on the basis of learning from existing creativity, which acts as a nourishment to churn further creativity. Copyright law should not be turned on its head to prohibit future creators from having access to this benefit. Further, the arguments of the publishers in the case at hand has a potential of viewing human creation and machine creation differently in future and setting different consequences for both. It is pertinent to remember that a human being is not expected to create further without learning; at the same time, the law as it stands does not make any differentiation between human creation and machine creation. The foundational norms of copyright law offers solutions to the existing problem. Copyright in a work does not apply to the idea/information; rather, it is applicable only to the expression of the information. As long as the AI platform only uses the existing information for learning purposes, and does not thieve on the expression of the idea, it does not amount to infringement as per the law. When AI robs the copyright protected content, the existing norms of copyright law has its net in place to catch the infringements. The founding doctrine should not be compromised for the best interests of creativity as it acts as a medium between generative AI and creativity.
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Superman Creator's Estate Sues DC and Warner Bros. Over Foreign Copyrights Ahead of James Gunn Reboot
The estate of Superman co-creator Joe Shuster sued DC Comics and Warner Bros. on Friday, seeking to invalidate the companies' copyrights in several foreign markets. The suit revives a long-running dispute that was last addressed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal in 2013. The court rejected the Shuster estate's attempt to cancel the Superman copyright, finding that Shuster's sister had signed away his termination right after his death in 1992. More from Variety TCL Chinese Theatre To Host Benefit Screenings For California Wildfire Victims - Film News in Brief Why Would Warner Bros. Fire Its Marketing Chief Ahead of Its Riskiest Movie Slate in Years? Box Office 2025 Predictions: Can 'Jurassic World 4,' Leonardo DiCaprio and a New Superman Help Theaters Return to Glory? In the new case, the estate's attorney, Marc Toberoff, asserts claims under copyright laws in the U.K., Canada, Ireland and Australia. The suit comes months before Warner Bros. Discovery will release 'Superman' this summer, relaunching the valuable franchise and starting a planned cinematic universe of DC characters. In the suit, filed in the Southern District of New York, Toberoff argues that the copyright reverted to the Shuster estate in most of those countries in 2017, and in Canada in 2021. 'Yet Defendants continue to exploit Superman across these jurisdictions without the Shuster Estate's authorization — including in motion pictures, television series, and merchandise — in direct contravention of these countries' copyright laws, which require the consent of all joint copyright owners to do so,' Toberoff wrote. Through a spokesperson, Warner Bros., which owns DC, said it will fight in court. 'We fundamentally disagree with the merits of the lawsuit, and will vigorously defend our rights,' the spokesperson said. Shuster and Jerome Siegel created Superman and sold the rights for $130 in 1938. Siegel died in 1996; the heirs of both creators have sought to reclaim the rights since then. Toberoff has been involved in those efforts since 2001. DC sued him in 2010, accusing him of seeking to enrich himself by wrongfully working with the creators' estates to try to wrest control of Superman. The company ultimately prevailed in a 2-1 ruling at the 9th Circuit. Toberoff argues in the complaint that the previous litigation was limited to termination rights under the U.S. Copyright Act, and does not affect the estate's overseas copyrights. The suit states that under the copyright laws in the U.K. and the other countries at issue, the rights to Superman automatically reverted to the estates 25 years after the creators' deaths. Toberoff argues that the U.S. District Court has jurisdiction over the dispute in part due to the Berne Convention, the international treaty which the U.S. joined in 1988. Best of Variety New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week What's Coming to Netflix in February 2025 What's Coming to Disney+ in February 2025
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
‘Superman' Estate Sues Warner Bros. Discovery, DC Comics To Block Release In Key Territories
The estate of Superman creator Joseph Schuster is suing Warner Bros. Discovery and its DC Comics, claiming it lacks the rights to release the upcoming summer tentpole in a handful of key territories. Plaintiff Mark Warren Peary, executor to the estate, filed the suit today in Federal Court in the Southern District of New York seeking 'damages and injunctive relief for Defendants' ongoing infringement in Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia, as well as declaratory relief establishing the Shuster Estate's ownership rights across relevant jurisdictions. More from Deadline Michael Crichton's Widow & Warner Bros Discovery's Battle Over 'The Pitt' Sees Judge Offer "Soft" Punt On Breach-Of-Contract Suit Eurosport To Be Replaced By TNT In The UK As Warner Bros. Discovery Shakes Up Sports Portfolio Warner Bros. Games President David Haddad Stepping Down After 12 Years The matter is ripe for adjudication, it said, 'as Defendants are actively planning a major new Superman motion picture and other derivative works for imminent worldwide release.' The latest Superman starring David Corenswet in the title role, is fact, set for release on July 11. The cast includes Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane, Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor and María Gabriela de Faría as The Engineer. Warner and Peary and his longtime legal team have been in court before, most recently regarding termination rights under the U.S. Copyright Act. But The automatic foreign copyright reversion issue in this case did not occur until years later, said Marc Toberoff, attorney for the estate, and was never actually litigated. Now it will be. 'We fundamentally disagree with the merits of the lawsuit, and will vigorously defend our rights,' said a WBD spokesman. At issue are foreign copyrights to the original Superman character and story, coauthored by Jerome Siegel and Shuster. Though Siegel and Shuster assigned worldwide Superman rights to DC's predecessor in 1938 'for a mere $130 ($65 each), the copyright laws of countries with the British legal tradition—including Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia—contain provisions automatically terminating such assignments 25 years after an author's death, vesting in the Shuster Estate the co-author's undivided copyright interest in such countries,' the suit said. 'Shuster died in 1992 and Siegel in 1996. By operation of law, Shuster's foreign copyrights automatically reverted to his estate in 2017 in most of these territories (and in 2021 in Canada). Yet Defendants continue to exploit Superman across these jurisdictions without the Shuster Estate's authorization—including in motion pictures, television series, and merchandise—in direct contravention of these countries' copyright laws, which require the consent of all joint copyright owners to do so.' This is bound to be most unwelcome as DC and parent WBD start to gear up for the release. The trailer was the most viewed and the most talked about in the history of both DC and Warner Bros' when it hit in December, said DC Studios co-head James Gunn on X at the time. Watch it below. The lawsuit requests a jury trial, claiming 'defendants' acts of direct infringement have been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in wholesale disregard of and indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.' 'As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' infringement of the Work's copyrights and exclusive rights, Plaintiff has been injured in an amount to be determined at trial, inclusive of Plaintiff's actual damages and Defendants' profits,' it said. Meanwhile, the estate is asking the court for an cease and desist order — 'enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, and those acting in concert with them, preliminarily during the pendency of this action and permanently thereafter from: (a) infringing, or contributing to or participating in the infringement by others the copyright in the Work or acting in concert with, aiding, or abetting others to infringe said copyright in any way; (b) copying, duplicating, selling, licensing, displaying, distributing, preparing derivative works of the Work, or otherwise using or exploiting the Work, which Plaintiff jointly owns, without Plaintiff's prior written consent or license to do so. Best of Deadline 'Bridgerton' Season 4: Everything We Know So Far 'Knives Out 3': Everything We Know About The Second Rian Johnson Sequel 2025 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Oscars, Spirits, Grammys, Tonys, Guilds & More
