Latest Copyright News

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has released a comprehensive report analyzing the intersection of generative AI technologies and copyright law. This landmark document addresses key questions that have emerged as AI systems become increasingly capable of producing content that rivals human creativity.

The report examines the legal status of AI-generated works, noting that under current EU copyright law, protection requires human authorship. This creates a significant gray area for content produced by AI systems, where the degree of human involvement may vary considerably. The EUIPO suggests that a spectrum approach may be necessary, where copyright protection depends on the extent of human creative input in the process.

Particularly relevant for rights holders is the report's analysis of training data usage. The EUIPO acknowledges that AI systems are typically trained on vast datasets that may include copyrighted works. While some jurisdictions have introduced text and data mining exceptions, the report emphasizes that these exceptions have limitations and may not cover all commercial AI applications.

The document also addresses the growing concern among photographers, artists, and content creators about AI systems reproducing their distinctive styles or even specific works. The EUIPO recommends enhanced transparency requirements for AI developers regarding training data sources and suggests exploring licensing frameworks that could provide fair compensation to creators whose works contribute to AI training.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is set to deliver a pivotal ruling that could fundamentally reshape the relationship between AI chatbots and copyright law in Europe. The case, involving Google's Gemini AI assistant, has drawn attention from technology companies, publishers, and rights holders worldwide.

At the heart of the dispute is whether AI chatbots that generate responses based on copyrighted training data constitute a form of reproduction or communication to the public under EU copyright directive. The plaintiff, a consortium of European publishers, argues that when Gemini provides detailed summaries or paraphrases of copyrighted articles, it effectively replaces the need for users to access the original content.

Google's defense centers on the argument that AI-generated outputs represent a transformative use that creates new value rather than merely copying existing works. The company also points to the text and data mining exception in the EU Copyright Directive, arguing that training AI models on publicly available content falls within these provisions.

Legal experts anticipate the ruling will establish important precedents for the AI industry. A decision favoring the publishers could require AI companies to negotiate licensing agreements with content creators, potentially transforming the economics of AI development. Conversely, a ruling supporting Google's position might accelerate AI adoption but could leave creators without compensation for their contributions to AI training datasets.

The decision is expected to influence similar cases pending in national courts across EU member states and may prompt legislative action to clarify the application of copyright law to AI technologies.

The U.S. Copyright Office has issued comprehensive guidance on the use of copyrighted works for AI training, drawing a clear distinction between how artificial intelligence systems and humans learn from existing content. This guidance marks a significant development in the ongoing debate about the legal boundaries of AI development.

The Office's position challenges the argument frequently made by AI companies that training AI models on copyrighted works is analogous to how humans learn by reading books and viewing art. According to the guidance, while human learning results in the development of individual knowledge and creativity, AI training involves the systematic reproduction and processing of copyrighted works at an industrial scale.

Key points from the guidance include recognition that copying works into AI training datasets constitutes reproduction under copyright law, that the fair use analysis for AI training must consider the commercial nature and market impact of the resulting AI systems, and that opt-out mechanisms for rights holders may be insufficient to protect their interests.

The guidance stops short of declaring all AI training infringement but establishes a framework that significantly strengthens the position of content creators seeking compensation or control over how their works are used. It suggests that licensing arrangements will likely be necessary for many AI training applications, particularly those involving commercial products.

Creators and rights holders have largely welcomed the guidance, viewing it as validation of their concerns about unauthorized use of their works. Technology companies, meanwhile, have expressed concern that overly restrictive interpretations could hamper AI innovation in the United States.

In a landmark legal action, Walt Disney Company and Universal Pictures have filed a joint lawsuit against Midjourney, the popular AI image generation platform. The lawsuit alleges massive copyright infringement and seeks both damages and injunctive relief that could significantly impact the AI art industry.

The complaint details how Midjourney's AI system was allegedly trained on millions of copyrighted images, including iconic Disney characters, Universal's film stills, and promotional materials from both studios. The plaintiffs argue that this unauthorized use of their intellectual property has caused substantial harm to their licensing businesses and brand integrity.

Particularly damaging to Midjourney's defense is evidence presented in the filing showing that the platform can generate images closely resembling copyrighted characters when prompted with their names. The studios argue this demonstrates that Midjourney has essentially created an unauthorized merchandise machine, allowing anyone to generate images that would traditionally require expensive licensing agreements.

The lawsuit also raises concerns about brand dilution and consumer confusion, arguing that AI-generated images of varying quality and sometimes inappropriate content featuring beloved characters can damage the carefully cultivated brand image of these properties.

Midjourney has not yet filed its formal response but issued a statement defending its technology as transformative and expressing willingness to work with content owners on reasonable solutions. Industry observers note that this case could establish important precedents for the entire AI image generation industry, potentially requiring these platforms to obtain licenses or implement more robust content filtering systems.

HarperCollins, one of the world's largest book publishers, has announced a pioneering licensing framework that allows AI companies to use its catalog for training purposes at a rate of $5,000 per title. This arrangement represents one of the first formal agreements between a major publisher and the AI industry, potentially establishing a template for the broader publishing sector.

Under the terms of the framework, AI companies can license individual titles or package deals for bulk access. The agreement includes provisions for annual royalty payments based on the commercial success of AI products that utilize the licensed content, as well as requirements for AI companies to maintain records of how the licensed works are used in their training processes.

The deal has sparked debate within the publishing industry. Supporters argue it creates a sustainable revenue stream that acknowledges the value of creative works in AI development while allowing technological progress. Critics, however, suggest the per-title rate may undervalue the contribution of literary works to AI capabilities, particularly given the substantial profits being generated by AI companies.

Notably, the agreement includes an opt-out provision for authors who do not wish their works to be included in AI training, with HarperCollins promising to honor these requests through contractual mechanisms with AI partners. Authors whose works are licensed will receive a share of the licensing fees according to their existing royalty arrangements.

Other major publishers are closely watching the arrangement, with several reportedly in negotiations with AI companies to establish similar frameworks. Industry analysts suggest this could be the beginning of a more formalized relationship between the publishing and AI industries.

Recent court decisions in the United States and China have reached contradictory conclusions on whether AI-generated content can be protected by copyright, creating significant uncertainty for creators and businesses working with artificial intelligence. These diverging rulings highlight the urgent need for international dialogue on AI and intellectual property rights.

In the United States, federal courts have consistently held that copyright protection requires human authorship, rejecting registration attempts for works created entirely by AI systems. The U.S. Copyright Office has maintained this position, refusing registration for AI-generated images and texts unless they demonstrate sufficient human creative input in their creation.

China, however, has taken a different approach. A Beijing court recently ruled that AI-generated images could receive copyright protection, with the user who prompted the AI system recognized as the author. The court reasoned that the creative choices made in formulating prompts and selecting outputs constituted sufficient human involvement to warrant protection.

This divergence creates practical challenges for international content creators and businesses. A work that receives copyright protection in China may have no protection in the United States, complicating licensing arrangements and enforcement efforts across borders.

Legal experts suggest that some form of international harmonization will eventually be necessary, possibly through amendments to existing treaties like the Berne Convention or through new international agreements specifically addressing AI-generated content. Until then, creators and businesses must navigate a complex patchwork of national laws with potentially conflicting requirements.

The situation is particularly relevant for photographers and visual artists, as AI image generation has advanced rapidly and raised questions about the protection of both human-created works used for training and the AI outputs themselves.

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has issued a significant ruling regarding the copyright protection of product designs, using Birkenstock's iconic sandal design as the focal point. The decision clarifies the threshold for when functional product designs can qualify for copyright protection beyond registered design rights.

The case centered on whether the distinctive contoured footbed and strap configuration of Birkenstock sandals achieved sufficient artistic character to warrant copyright protection independent of design registration. The court ruled that while the Birkenstock design is distinctive and recognizable, its features are primarily dictated by ergonomic function rather than artistic expression.

This ruling reinforces the principle that for utilitarian objects to receive copyright protection, they must demonstrate artistic merit that goes beyond what is necessary for their functional purpose. The court noted that the curved footbed, toe grip, and arch support are designed primarily for comfort and foot health, not aesthetic expression.

However, the ruling is not a complete loss for design-conscious brands. The court acknowledged that certain decorative elements of product designs may still qualify for protection if they are not functionally necessary and demonstrate artistic originality. This could include distinctive patterns, ornamental details, or color schemes that go beyond functional requirements.

The decision has implications across multiple industries where functional and aesthetic design elements often overlap, including furniture, electronics, and automotive design. Legal experts suggest the ruling encourages brands to rely primarily on registered design protection and trademark law for functional products while reserving copyright claims for truly artistic elements.

For photographers and content creators, this case underscores the importance of understanding the different forms of intellectual property protection available for their work.

European courts are increasingly confronting questions about how traditional copyright concepts apply to drone photography, particularly the scope of panorama freedom exceptions. A recent series of cases has highlighted the tension between established legal frameworks and the capabilities of modern aerial imaging technology.

Panorama freedom is a copyright exception recognized in many European countries that allows the photography and reproduction of buildings, sculptures, and other works permanently located in public places. However, this exception was developed in an era when photographs were taken from ground level, and courts are now wrestling with whether it extends to aerial perspectives.

In a notable German case, a photographer challenged the unauthorized use of his drone image of a famous public sculpture. The defendant argued that panorama freedom applied, but the court ruled that the exception was limited to perspectives achievable from publicly accessible locations. Since the aerial viewpoint required a drone flying at heights not accessible to the general public, the exception did not apply.

This ruling creates interesting implications for architectural and urban photography. Drone photographers may have stronger copyright claims for aerial images of otherwise freely photographable subjects, as their unique perspectives may not be covered by panorama freedom exceptions.

The situation varies significantly across EU member states, as panorama freedom provisions are not harmonized under EU copyright directives. Some countries interpret the exception broadly, while others impose strict limitations. Photographers working across borders must be aware of these differences when licensing or protecting their work.

For professional photographers, this developing area of law presents both opportunities and challenges. Aerial images may command premium licensing fees due to their potentially stronger copyright protection, but photographers must also navigate complex regulations governing drone operation and airspace.

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith has fundamentally reshaped how courts analyze fair use in cases involving transformative artistic works. The decision, centered on Warhol's famous silkscreen portraits of Prince based on Lynn Goldsmith's photograph, has far-reaching implications for artists, photographers, and content creators.

The court held that when an original work and the secondary work share the same purpose, specifically licensing for commercial magazine use, the first fair use factor weighs against a finding of fair use regardless of how artistically transformative the secondary work may be. This represented a significant departure from lower courts' emphasis on artistic transformation.

Justice Sotomayor, writing for the majority, emphasized that the degree of transformation required depends on the purpose and character of the use. A work that transforms an original for commentary, criticism, or parody serves different purposes and may qualify as fair use. But when both works compete in the same licensing market, transformation alone is insufficient.

For photographers, this ruling strengthens their position in disputes over unauthorized artistic adaptations of their work. The decision makes clear that artists cannot simply transform a photograph stylistically and claim fair use when licensing it for the same commercial purposes the original could serve.

However, the ruling's scope remains subject to interpretation. The court was careful to limit its holding to the specific commercial licensing context at issue, and lower courts continue to grapple with how to apply its principles to different factual scenarios.

Content creators should carefully consider market competition when evaluating potential fair use claims. Works that serve substantially different purposes or markets may still qualify for fair use protection, but direct commercial competition significantly weakens such claims.

The print-on-demand marketplace sector continues to face scrutiny over its handling of copyright infringement, with platforms like Pixels at the center of ongoing discussions about platform responsibility and creator protection. Recent legal developments and industry practices highlight both progress and persistent challenges in this space.

Print-on-demand platforms enable users to upload designs that can be printed on various products including wall art, apparel, and home goods. While these services provide valuable opportunities for artists and photographers to monetize their work, they also create risks when users upload copyrighted material without authorization.

The legal framework governing platform liability varies by jurisdiction. In the United States, platforms may invoke safe harbor provisions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) if they implement proper notice-and-takedown procedures. European law under the Digital Services Act imposes additional obligations on larger platforms to proactively detect and remove infringing content.

For photographers and visual artists, the proliferation of print-on-demand platforms has created new enforcement challenges. Images can appear on multiple platforms simultaneously, requiring constant monitoring and repeated takedown requests. Some platforms have responded by implementing image recognition technology to detect potential infringements before products go live.

Rights holders have also pursued direct legal action against platforms that fail to adequately address repeat infringers or that profit from systematic infringement. These cases often focus on whether platforms have actual or constructive knowledge of infringement and whether their business models incentivize inadequate enforcement.

Creators are advised to register their works with copyright offices to strengthen enforcement options, use watermarks and image tracking services, and maintain documentation of their original works. Working with rights management services like COPYTRACK can help identify unauthorized uses across multiple platforms and pursue appropriate remedies.