Tag: copyright law

Voice Cloning

Painting of Nipper by Francis Barraud (1898-99); subsequently used as a trademark with “HIs Master’s Voice.”

Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc.

On July 10, 2025, the federal district court for the Southern District of New York issued an Order granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit that Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage commenced against Lovo, Inc. The lawsuit, Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc., alleges that Lovo used artificial intelligence to make and sell unauthorized “clones” of their voices.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are voice-over actors. For a fee, they read and record scripts for their clients. Lovo allegedly sells a text-to-speech subscription service that allows clients to generate voice-over narrations. The service is described as one that uses “AI-driven software known as ‘Generator’ or ‘Genny,'” which was “created using ‘1000s of voices.'” Genny allegedly creates voice clones, i.e., copies of real people’s voices. Lovo allegedly granted its customers “commercial rights for all content generated,” including “any monetized, business-related uses such as videos, audio books, advertising promotion, web page vlogging, or product integration.” (Lovo terms of service.) The complaint alleges that Lovo hired the plaintiffs to provide voice recordings for “research purposes only,” but that Lovo proceeded to exploit them commercially by licensing their use to Lovo subscribers.

This lawsuit ensued.

The complaint sets out claims for:

  • Copyright infringement
  • Trademark infringement
  • Breach of contract
  • Fraud
  • Conversion
  • Unjust enrichment
  • Unfair competition
  • New York civil rights laws
  • New York consumer protection laws.

The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The copyright claims

Sage alleged that Lovo infringed the copyright in one of her voice recordings by reproducing it in presentations and YouTube videos. The court allowed this claim to proceed.

Plaintiffs also claimed that Lovo’s unauthorized use of their voice recordings in training its generative-AI product infringed their copyrights in the sound recordings. The court ruled that the complaint did not contain enough factual detail about how the training process infringed one of the exclusive rights of copyright ownership. Therefore, it dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims of output infringement, i.e., claims that the “cloned” voices the AI tool generated infringed copyrights in the original sound recordings.

Copyright protection in a sound recording extends only to the actual recording itself. Fixation of sounds that imitate or simulate the ones captured in the original recording does not infringe the copyright in the sound recording.

This issue often comes up in connection with copyrights in music recordings. If Chuck Berry writes a song called “Johnny B. Goode” and records himself performing it, he will own two copyrights – one in the musical composition and one in the sound recording. If a second person then records himself performing the same song, and he doesn’t have a license (compulsory or otherwise) to do so, that person would be infringing the copyright in the music but not the copyright in the sound recording. This is true even if he is very good at imitating Berry’s voice and guitar work. For a claim of sound recording infringement to succeed, it must be shown that the actual recording itself was copied.

Plaintiffs did not allege that Lovo used Genny to output AI-generated reproductions of their original recordings. Rather, they alleged that Genny is able to create new recordings that mimic attributes of their voices.

The court added that the sound of a voice is not copyrightable expression, and even if it were, the plaintiffs had registered claims of copyright in their recordings, not in their voices.

The trademark claims

In addition to infringement, the Lanham Act creates two other potential bases of trademark liability: (1) false association; and (2) false advertising. 15 U.S.C. sec. 1125(a)(1)(A) and (B). Plaintiffs asserted both kinds of claims. The judge dismissed these claims.

False association

The Second Circuit court of appeals recently held, in Electra v. 59 Murray Enter., Inc. and Souza v. Exotic Island Enters., Inc., that using a person’s likeness to create an endorsement without the person’s permission can constitute a “false association” violation. In other words, a federally-protected, trademark-like interest in one’s image, likeness, personality and identity exists. (See, e.g., Jackson v. Odenat.)

Although acknowledging that this right extends to one’s voice, the judge ruled that the voices in this case did not function as trademarks. They did not identify the source of a product or service. Rather, they were themselves the product or service. For this reason, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to show that their voices, as such, are protectable trademarks under Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act.

False Advertising

Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. sec. 1125(a)(1)(B)) prohibits misrepresentations about “the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of . . . goods, services, or commercial activities.” The plaintiffs claimed that Lovo marketed their voices under different names (“Kyle Snow” and “Sally Coleman.”) The court determined that this was not fraudulent, however, because Lovo marketed them as what they were, namely, synthetic clones of the actors’ voices, not as their actual voices.

Plaintiffs also claimed that Lovo’s marketing materials falsely stated that the cloned voices “came with all commercial rights.” They asserted that they had not granted those rights to Lovo. The court ruled, however, that even if Lovo was guilty of misrepresentation, it was not the kind of misrepresentation that comes within Section 43(a)(1)(B), as it did not concern the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of the voices.

State law claims

Although the court dismissed the copyright and trademark claims, it allowed some state law claims to proceed. Specifically, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims for breach of contract, violations of sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, and violations of New York consumer protection law.

Both the common law and the New York Civil Rights Law prohibit the commercial use of a living person’s name, likeness or voice without consent. Known as “misappropriation of personality” or violation of publicity or privacy rights, this is emerging as one of the leading issues in AI law.

The court also allowed state law claims of false advertising and deceptive trade practices to proceed. The New York laws are not subject to the “nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin” limitation set out in Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

Conclusion

I expect this case will come to be cited for the rule that copyright cannot be claimed in a voice. Copyright law protects only expression, not a person’s corporeal attributes. The lack of copyright protection for a person’s voice, however, does not mean that voice cloning is “legal.” Depending on the particular facts and circumstances, it may violate one or more other laws.

It also should be noted that after the Joe Biden voice-cloning incident of 2024, states have been enacting statutes regulating the creation and distribution of voice clones. Even where a specific statute is not applicable, though, a broader statute (such as the FTC Act or a similar state law) might cover the situation.

Images and references in this blog post are for illustrative purposes only. No endorsement, sponsorship or affiliation with any person, organization, company, brand, product or service is intended, implied, or exists.

Official portrait of Vice President Joe Biden in his West Wing Office at the White House, Jan. 10, 2013. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)

Court Rules AI Training is Fair Use

Just days after the first major fair use ruling in a generative-AI case, a second court has determined that using copyrighted works to train AI is fair use. Kadrey et al. v. Meta Platforms, No. 3:23-cv-03417-VC (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025).

The Kadrey v. Meta Platforms Lawsuit

I previously wrote about this lawsuit here and here.

Meta Platforms owns and operates social media services including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. It is also the developer of a large language model (LLM) called “Llama.” One of its releases, Meta AI, is an AI chatbot that utilizes Llama.

To train its AI, Meta obtained data from a wide variety of sources. The company initially pursued licensing deals with book publishers. It turned out, though, that in many cases, individual authors owned the copyrights. Unlike music, no organization handles collective licensing of rights in book content. Meta then downloaded shadow library databases. Instead of licensing works in the databases, Meta decided to just go ahead and use them without securing licenses. To download them more quickly, Meta torrented them using BitTorrent.

Meta trained its AI models to prevent them from “memorizing” and outputting text from the training data, with the result that no more than 50 words and punctuation marks from any given work were reproduced in any given output.

The plaintiffs named in the Complaint are thirteen book authors who have published novels, plays, short stories, memoirs, essays, and nonfiction books. Sarah Silverman, author of The Bedwetter; Junot Diaz, author of The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao; and Andrew Sean Greer, author of Less, are among the authors named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that Meta downloaded 666 copies of their books without permission and states claims for direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, removal of copyright management information in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and various state law claims. All claims except the ones for direct copyright infringement and violation of the DMCA were dismissed in prior proceedings.

Both sides moved for summary judgment on fair use with respect to the claim that Meta’s use of the copyrighted works to train its AI infringed copyrights. Meta moved for summary judgment on the DMCA claims. Neither side moved for summary judgment on a claim that Meta infringed copyrights by distributing their works (via leeching or seeding).

On June 25, 2025 Judge Chhabria granted Meta’s motion for summary judgment on fair use with respect to AI training; reserved the motion for summary judgment on the DMCA claims for decision in a separate order, and held that the claim of infringing distribution via leeching or seeding “will remain a live issue in the case.”

Judge Chhabria’s Fair Use Analysis

Judge Chhabria analyzed each of the four fair use factors. As is the custom, he treated the first (Character or purpose of the use) and fourth (Effect on the market for the work) factors as the most important of the four.

He disposed of the first factor fairly easily, as Judge Alsup did in Bartz v. Anthropic, finding that the use of copyrighted works to train AI is a transformative use. This finding weighs heavily in favor of fair use. The purpose of Meta’s AI tools is not to generate books for people to read. Indeed, in this case, Meta had installed guardrails to prevent the tools from generating duplicates or near-duplicates of the books on which the AI was trained. Moreover, even if it could allow a user to prompt the creation of a book “in the style of” a specified author, there was no evidence that it could produce an identical work or a work that was substantially similar to one on which it had been trained. And writing styles are not copyrightable.

Significantly, the judge held that the use of shadow libraries to obtain unauthorized copies of books does not necessarily destroy a fair use defense. When the ultimate use to be made of a work is transformative, the downloading of books to further that use is also transformative, the judge wrote. This ruling contrasts with other judges who have intimated that using pirated copies of works weighs against, or may even prevent, a finding of fair use.

Unlike some judges, who tend to consider the fair use analysis over and done if transformative use is found, Judge Chhabria recognized that even if the purpose of the use is transformative, its effect on the market for the infringed work still has to be considered.

3 Ways of Proving Adverse Market Effect

The Order lays out three potential kinds of arguments that may be advanced to establish the adverse effect of an infringing use on the market for the work:

  1. The infringing work creates a market substitute for the work;
  2. Use of the work to train AI without permission deprives copyright owners of a market for licenses to use their works in AI training;
  3. Dilution of the market with competing works.

Market Substitution

In this case, direct market substitution could not be established because Meta had installed guardrails that prevented users from generating copies of works that had been used in the training. Its AI tools were incapable of generating copies of the work that could serve as substitutes for the authors’ works.

The Market for AI Licenses

The court refused to recognize the loss of potential profits from licensing the use of a work for AI training purposes as a cognizable harm.

Market Dilution

The argument here would be that the generation of many works that compete in the same market as the original work on which the AI was trained dilutes the market for the original work. Judge Chhabria described this as indirect market substitution.

The copyright owners in this case, however, focused on the first two arguments. They did not present evidence that Meta’a AI tools were capable of generating books; that they do, in fact, generate books; or that the books they generate or are capable of generating compete with books these authors wrote. There was no evidence of diminished sales of their books.

Market harm cannot be assumed when generated copies are not copies that can serve as substitutes for the specific books claimed to have been infringed. When the output is transformative, as it was in this case, market substitution is not self-evident.

Judge Chhabria chided the plaintiffs for making only a “half-hearted argument” of a significant threat of market harm. He wrote that they presented “no meaningful evidence on market dilution at all.”

Consequently, he ruled that the fourth fair use factor favored Meta.

Conclusion

The decision in this case is as significant for what the court didn’t do as it is for what it did. It handed a fair use victory to Meta. At the same time, though, it did not rule out a finding that training AI tools on copyrighted works is not fair use in an appropriate case. The court left open the possibility that a copyright owner might prevail on a claim that training AI on copyrighted works is not fair use in a different case. And it pointed the way, albeit in dictum, namely, by making a strong showing of market dilution.

That claim is not far-fetched. https://www.wired.com/story/scammy-ai-generated-books-flooding-amazon/

AI OK; Piracy Not: Bartz v. Anthropic

A federal judge has issued a landmark fair use decision in a generative-AI copyright infringement lawsuit.

In a previous blog post, I wrote about the fair use decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS. As I explained there, that case involved a search-and-retrieval AI system, so the holding was not determinative of fair use in the context of generative AI. Now we finally have a decision that addresses fair use in the generative-AI context.

Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC

Anthropic is an AI software firm founded by former OpenAI employees. It offers a generative-AI tool called Claude. Like other generative-AI tools, Claude mimics human conversational skills. When a user enters a text prompt, Claude will generate a response that is very much like one a human being might make (except it is sometimes more knowledgeable.) It is able to do this by using large language models (LLMs) that have been trained on millions of books and texts.

Adrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson are book authors. In August 2024, they sued Anthropic, claiming the company infringed the copyrights in their works. Specifically, they alleged that Anthropic copied their works from pirated and purchased sources, digitized print versions, assembled them into a central library, and used the library to train LLMs, all without permission. Anthropic asserted, among other things, a fair use defense.

Earlier this year, Anthropic filed a motion for summary judgment on the question of fair use.

On June 23, 2025, Judge Alsup issued an Order granting summary judgment in part and denying it in part. It is the first major ruling on fair use in the dozens of generative-AI copyright infringement lawsuits that are currently pending in federal courts.

The Order includes several key rulings.

Digitization

Anthropic acquired both pirated and lawfully purchased printed copies of copyright-protected works and digitized them to create a central e-library. Authors claimed that making digital copies of their works infringed the exclusive right of copyright owners to reproduce their works. (See 17 U.S.C. 106.)

In the process of scanning print books to create digital versions of them, the print copies were destroyed. Book bindings were stripped so that each individual page could be scanned. The print copies were then discarded. The digital copies were not distributed to others. Under these circumstances, the court ruled that making digital versions of print books is fair use.

The court likened format to a frame around a work, as distinguished from the work itself. As such, a digital version is not a new derivative work. Rather, it is a transformative use of an existing work. So long as the digital version is merely a substitute for a print version a person has lawfully acquired, and so long as the print version is destroyed and the digital version is not further copied or distributed to others, then digitizing a printed work is fair use. This is consistent with the first sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. 109(a)), which gives the purchaser of a copy of a work a right to dispose of that particular copy as the purchaser sees fit.

In short, the mere conversion of a lawfully acquired print book to a digital file to save space and enable searchability is transformative, and so long as the print version is destroyed and the digital version is not further copied or distributed, it is fair use.

AI Training Is Transformative Fair Use

The authors did not contend that Claude generated infringing output. Instead, they argued that copies of their works were used as inputs to train the AI. The Copyright Act, however, does not prohibit or restrict the reading or analysis of copyrighted works. So long as a copy is lawfully purchased, the owner of the purchased copy can read it and think about it as often as he or she wishes.

[I]f someone were to read all the modern-day classics because of their exceptional expression, memorize them, and then emulate a blend of their best writing, would that violate the Copyright Act? Of course not.

Order.

Judge Alsup described AI training as “spectacularly” transformative.” Id. After considering all four fair use factors, he concluded that training AI on lawfully acquired copyright-protected works (as distinguished from the initial acquisition of copies) is fair use.

Pirating Is Not Fair Use

In addition to lawfully purchasing copies of some works, Anthropic also acquired infringing copies of works from pirate sites. Judge Alsup ruled that these, and uses made from them, are not fair use. The case will now proceed to trial on the issue of damages resulting from the infringement.

Conclusion

Each of these rulings seems, well, sort of obvious. It is nice to have the explanations laid out so clearly in one place, though.

The Copyright Discovery Rule Stands

Last year, the United States Supreme Court held that as long as a claim is timely filed, damages may be recovered for any loss or injury, including losses incurred more than three years before the claim is filed (Warner Chappell Music. v. Nealy). The Court expressed no opinion about whether the Copyright Act’s three-year limitation period begins to run when the infringing act occurs or when the victim discovers it, leaving that question for another day. “Another day” arrived, but the Court still declined to address it. What, if anything, can be made of that?

Statute of Limitations for Copyright Infringement

The Copyright Act imposes a 3-year limitations period for copyright infringement claims. Specifically:

No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

17 U.S.C. 507(b).

But when does a claim accrue? That is the (potentially) million-dollar question.

According to the “incident of injury” rule, an infringement claim accrues when an infringing act occurs. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U. S. 663, 670 (2014). Under this rule, an infringement victim who did not learn about an infringing act until three years after it occurred would be out luck.

Courts in many circuits, however, apply an alternative rule. Known as the “discovery rule,” it holds that a copyright infringement claim accrues when “the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the injury that forms the basis for the claim.” William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F. 3d 425, 433 (CA3 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). According to Patry on Copyright, this is the majority rule.

If a court applies the discovery rule, then the infringement complaint must be filed within three years after the victim learns or should reasonably have learned of the infringing act, even if that act occurred more than three years earlier.


The Look-Back Period for Damages

As I explained in a previous blog post, the United States Supreme Court did not have the question about the validity of either accrual theory before it in Warner Chappell Music. Accordingly, it did not address the issue. Instead, the Court limited itself to deciding only the specific question before it, namely, whether damages can be claimed for all injuries that occurred before the victim learned (or reasonably should have learned) of an infringing act. The Court held that they can be. And this is true even for losses occurring more than three years before the infringement was discovered. Statutes of limitations only determine when a claim may be filed; they do not limit the look-back period for recovering damages for injury. “The Copyright Act contains no separate time-based limit on monetary recovery.” Warner Chappell Music, supra.

It must be kept in mind that the discovery rule has an important proviso. The clock starts clicking on a claim from the first date a victim actually knew or should have known of an infringement. In many cases, it may become more difficult to convince a judge that the victim’s unawareness of the infringing act was reasonable if a lot of time has gone by since the infringement occurred. Reasonableness, however, depends on all the facts and circumstances, so it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

RADesign, Inc. v. Ruthie Davis et al.

Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. sued RADesign, Inc. and others for copyright infringement. The complaint alleged that the defendant’s infringing use of a copyright-protected photograph began on August 16, 2017, and that the plaintiff discovered it on February 8, 2021. The complaint was filed in October, 2021. As a result, the claim would be barred under the “incident of injury” rule because it was filed more than three years after the alleged infringement occurred. The complaint, however, was filed in the Second Circuit, a jurisdiction that recognizes the discovery rule. Therefore, the question became whether the failure to discover the infringement within three years was reasonable. The district court held that it was not. The court described the copyright owner in this case as “sophisticated” in detecting and litigating infringements and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the discovery rule.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, declaring, “This ‘sophisticated plaintiff’ rationale has no mooring to our cases.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Denial of Certiorari

RADesign, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The sole question presented was “Whether a claim ‘accrue[s]’ under the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations for civil actions, 17 U.S.C. 507(b), when the infringement occurs (the ‘injury rule’) or when a plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the infringement (the ‘discovery rule’).” The petition argued that the Copyright Act does not explicitly provide for a discovery rule and asserted that the courts of appeal should not have adopted one.

Unlike in Warner Chappell Music, the Court now had the validity of the discovery rule in copyright infringement cases squarely before it. The Court, however, declined the invitation to review that question. On June 16, 2025, it denied certiorari.

What a Denial of Certiorari Means

Really, the only legal effect of a denial of certiorari is that the lower court’s decision stands. In this case, that would mean that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision remains in effect for that specific case. For the time being, anyway, attorneys can cite the reasoning and holding of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision as legal precedent in other cases.

What a Denial of Certiorari Does Not Mean

A denial of certiorari does not mean that the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeal’s decision sets a precedent in the Second Circuit, but the denial of certiorari does not have that effect. It simply means the Supreme Court has decided not to trouble itself with the question at this time.

Caveats

Copyright owners and practitioners should not read too much into this decision. Even if the discovery rule forecloses a finding of untimeliness on the face of a complaint, a defendant may still be able to assert untimeliness as an affirmative defense. Again, the reasonableness of delayed acquisition of knowledge of infringement must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Copyright owners and their attorneys should be vigilant in detecting infringement of protected works and diligent in timely filing claims.


When Your Car Is a Character

Carroll Shelby Licensing v. Halicki et al.

If you’re like me, you’ve probably owned a car with character, or even several cars with character, at some time in your life. A used Volkswagen Jetta with a replacement alternator that was held in place with washers. An old Plymouth Duster with a floor and doors that rusted clean through before the slant-6 ever had a problem. A Honda Fit that . . . well, this is probably a good place to stop dredging up memories. This post isn’t about cars with character. It’s about cars as characters. Specifically, the question whether it is possible to claim copyright protection in a car that appears in a book, movie, song, or other work.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had occasion to address this very question in Carroll Shelby Licensing et al. v. Halicki et al, No. 23-3731 (9th Cir., May 27, 2025).

Gone in 60 Seconds and Sequela

In the 1974 movie, Gone in 60 Seconds, the protagonist is tasked with stealing forty-eight types of cars. He and his colleagues assign them names. They call the Ford Mustang with black stripes “Eleanor.” Action ensues.

Three movies incorporating elements of this one were made and released thereafter — The Junkman, Deadline Auto Theft, and a year 2000 remake of Gone in 60 Seconds. A car that was made to look like the Mustang in the original Gone in 60 Seconds appeared in these movies, as well. The message, “‘Eleanor’ from the movie Gone in 60 Seconds” was painted on its side.

Shelby contracted with Classic Recreations to produce “GT-500CR” Mustangs. Without going into all of the contractual and procedural details, the owner of the copyright in the first three movies eventually asserted a claim of copyright infringement, raising the question whether copyright can be claimed in “Eleanor,” the Ford Mustang car that appeared in the movies.

Character Copyrights

Fictional works generally are eligible for copyright protection. Sometimes copyright protection will extend to fictional characters within one as well. Mickey Mouse and Godzilla are examples.

NOTE: This blog post was not produced, sponsored or endorsed by Disney, and is not affiliated with Disney or any person, company or organization affiliated or associated with Disney.

The test for independent character copyright protection is set out in DC Comics v. Towle. In sum, the character must:

  1. have both physical and conceptual qualities;
  2. be “sufficiently delineated” to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears; and
  3. be “especially distinctive” with “some unique elements of expression.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that “Eleanor” failed to meet any of these criteria.

1. Physical and conceptual qualities

Eleanor had physical qualities, but the Court held that it lacked conceptual qualities. Conceptual qualities include “anthropomorphic qualities, acting with agency and volition, displaying sentience and emotion, expressing personality, speaking, thinking, or interacting with other characters or objects.” Shelby, supra. The character does not have to be human. It can be almost anything, so long as it has some of the above traits. Thus, the Batmobile could qualify.

The Court determined, however, that Eleanor the car lacked any of these conceptual qualities, likening her to prop rather than a character.

2. Sufficient delineation

Here, the Court determined that Eleanor lacked consistent traits. In some iterations, Eleanor appeared as a yellow and black Fastback Mustang; in others, as a gray and black Shelby GT-500 Mustang, or a rusty, paintless Mustang. The Court concluded that Eleanor was too lightly sketched to satisfy the “sufficient delineation” test.

3. Unique elements of expression

Having no regard at all for Eleanor’s feelings, the Court declared, “Nothing distinguishes Eleanor from any number of sports cars appearing in car-centric action films.” According to the Court, she was just a run-of-the-mill automobile. Accordingly, she failed the distinctiveness test.

Quiz

Just for fun, try your hand at applying the Towle test to determine which of these might qualify for copyright protection and which ones don’t:

  1. Chuck Berry’s Maybeline
  2. My Mother the Car
  3. Prince’s Little Red Corvette
  4. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
  5. Christine
  6. KITT in Knight Rider
  7. The Magic School Bus
  8. Thomas the Tank Engine
  9. Gumdrop
  10. Dick Turpin
  11. Truckster in National Lampoon’s Vacation
  12. The Bluesmobile in The Blues Brothers
  13. The Hearse
  14. Herbie in The Love Bug
  15. The DeLorean in Back to the Future
  16. The Gnome-Mobile
  17. Ecto-1 in Ghostbusters
  18. Bessie in Doctor Who
  19. General Lee in The Dukes of Hazzard
  20. The Munster Coach in The Munsters
  21. Shellraiser in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
  22. Benny the Cab in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
  23. Lightning McQueen in Cars
  24. The Mystery Machine in Scooby-Doo
  25. The Gadgetmobile in Inspector Gadget
  26. Mustang Sally
  27. Killdozer
  28. Ivor the Engine
  29. Tootle
  30. Roary the Racing Car.

Give yourself 3,500 extra points if you are familiar with all of these references.

Points are not redeemable for value.

Concluding Thought

Even if a fictional character does not qualify for copyright protection, it might be protected as a trademark in some cases. The requirements for trademark protection are a subject for another day.

Photographers’ Rights

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial judge’s dismissal of a photographer’s copyright infringement complaint, holding that because “fair use” was not clearly established on the face of the complaint, the district court should not have dismissed the complaint sua sponte. Romanova v. Amilus, Inc.

Romanova v. Amilus, Inc., No. 23-828 (2nd Cir., May 23, 2025)

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial judge’s dismissal of a photographer’s copyright infringement complaint, holding that because “fair use” was not clearly established on the face of the complaint, the district court should not have dismissed the complaint sua sponte.

Photographer Jana Romanova created a photograph of a woman with a snake wrapped around her left hand and another snake crawling up her torso. (Not the one pictured here.) She licensed it to National Geographic Magazine for a single use. According to the complaint, Amilus, Inc. allegedly made a copy of the photograph and published it to its website. Romanova allegedly sent notifications demanding the removal of the photograph from the website. The defendant allegedly did not respond. This lawsuit followed.

The defendant allegedly did not appear or respond to the complaint, so Romanova moved for the entry of default judgment. Rather than grant a default judgment, however, the district court judge sua sponte ordered Romanova to show cause why the court should not dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant’s use of the photograph was fair use. Although fair use is an affirmative defense, which defendants have the burden of asserting and proving, the judge opined that the fair use defense did not need to be pleaded because the judge believed the fair use defense was “clearly established on the fact of the complaint.”

Romanova appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, effectively allowing the infringement claim to go forward.

Fair Use

In its decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals clarified how courts are to interpret and apply the four-factor “fair use” test outlined in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (purpose and character of the use; nature of the work; amount and substantiality of the portion copied; and the effect on the market for the work.)

The district court concluded that the defendant’s publication of the photograph communicated a different message than what the photographer intended. According to the district court, the purpose of the publication in the National Geographic was “to showcase persons in [her] home country of Russia that kept snakes as pets, specifically to capture pet snakes in common environments that are more associated with mainstream domesticated animals.” The district court found that the purpose of the defendant’s publication was to communicate a message about “the ever-increasing amount of pet photography circulating online.”

Apparently the district court was under the impression that the use of a copyright-protected work for any different purpose, or to communicate any different message, is “transformative” and therefore “fair use.” The Court of Appeals clarified that is not the case. In addition to alleging and proving the use was for a different purpose or conveyed a different meaning, a defendant seeking to establish a fair use defense must also allege and prove a justification for the copying.

Examples of purposes that may justify copying a work include commentary or criticism of the copied work, or providing information to the public about the copied work, in circumstances where the copy does not become a substitute for the work. (See, e.g., Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 212 (2d Cir. 2015).) Copying for evidentiary purposes (such as to support a claim that the creator of the work published a defamatory statement) can also be a valid justification to support a fair use defense. Creating small, low-resolution copies of images (“thumbnails”) may be justified when the purpose is to facilitate Internet searching. (Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007). Facilitating blind people’s access to a work may provide a justification for converting it into a format that blind people can read. (Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87, 97 (2d Cir. 2014).

The Court cited other examples of potential justifications for copying. The Court admonished, however, that the question whether justification exists is a fact-specific determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis.

[J]ustification is often found when the copying serves to critique, or otherwise comment on, the original, or its author, but can also be found in other circumstances, such as when the copying provides useful information about the original, or on other subjects, usually in circumstances where the copying does not make the expressive content of the original available to the public.

Romanova, supra.

The only “justification” the district court cited for the copying was that it believed the defendant merely wanted to illustrate its perception of a growing trend to publish photographs of people with pets. “Little could remain of an author’s copyright protection if others could secure the right to copy and distribute a work simply by asserting some fact about the copied work,” the Court observed. The defendant’s publication of the copy did not communicate criticism or commentary on the original photograph or its author, or any other subject, the Court held.

The Court held that the remaining three fair use factors also militated against a finding of fair use.

Sua Sponte Dismissal for “Fair Use”

Justice Sullivan filed a concurring opinion. He would have reversed on procedural grounds without reaching the substantive issue. Specifically, Justice Sullivan objected to the trial judge’s raising of the fair use defense sua sponte on behalf of a non-appearing defendant. Normally, if a complaint establishes a prima case for relief, the court does not consider affirmative defenses (such as fair use) unless the defendant asserts them. That is to say, fair use is an affirmative defense; the defendant, not the plaintiff, bears the burden of proof.

Conclusion

Appeals courts continue to rein in overly expansive applications of “transformative” fair use by the lower courts. Here, the Court of Appeals soundly reasoned that merely being able to articulate an additional purpose served by publishing an author’s entire work, unchanged, will not, by itself, suffice to establish either transformative use or fair use.

AI Lawsuits Roundup

A status update on 24 pending lawsuits against AI companies – what they’re about and what is happening in court – prepared by Minnesota copyright attorney Thomas James.

A very brief summary of where pending AI lawsuits stand as of February 28, 2024. Compiled by Minnesota attorney Thomas James.

Thomson Reuters v. Ross, (D. Del. 2020)

Filed May 6, 2020. Thomson Reuters, owner of Westlaw, claims that Ross Intelligence infringed copyrights in Westlaw headnotes by training AI on copies of them. The judge has granted, in part, and denied, in part, motions for summary judgment. The questions of fair use and whether the headnotes are sufficiently original to merit copyright protection will go to a jury to decide.

Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. 2022).

Complaint filed June 2, 2022. Thaler created an AI system called the Creativity Machine. He applied to register copyrights in the output he generated with it. The Copyright Office refused registration on the ground that AI output does not meet the “human authorship” requirement. He then sought judicial review. The district court granted summary judgment for the Copyright Office. In October, 2023, he filed an appeal to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals (Case no. 23-5233).

Doe v. GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI (N.D. Cal. 2022)

Complaint filed November 3, 2022. Software developers claim the defendants trained Codex and Copilot on code derived from theirs, which they published on GitHub. Some claims have been dismissed, but claims that GitHub and OpenAI violated the DMCA and breached open source licenses remain. Discovery is ongoing.

Andersen v. Stability AI (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed January 13, 1023. Visual artists sued Midjourney, Stability AI and DeviantArt for copyright infringement for allegedly training their generative-AI models on images scraped from the Internet without copyright holders’ permission. Other claims included DMCA violations, publicity rights violations, unfair competition, breach of contract, and a claim that output images are infringing derivative works. On October 30, 2023, the court largely granted motions to dismiss, but granted leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 29, 2023. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Hearing on the motion is set for May 8, 2024.

Getty Images v. StabilityAI (U.K. 2023)

Complaint filed January, 2023. Getty Images claims StabilityAI scraped images without its consent. Getty’s complaint has survived a motion to dismiss and the case appears to be heading to trial.

Getty Images v. Stability AI (D. Del.)

Complaint filed February 3, 2023. Getty Images alleges claims of copyright infringement, DMCA violation and trademark violations against Stability AI. The judge has dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss or transfer on jurisdictional grounds. The motion may be re-filed after the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery, which is ongoing.

Flora v. Prisma Labs (N.D. Cal.)

Complaint filed February 15, 2023. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act in connection with Prisma Labs’ collection and retention of users’ selfies in AI training. The court has granted Prisma’s motion to compel arbitration.

Kyland Young v. NeoCortext (C.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed April 3, 2023. This complaint alleges that AI tool Reface used a person’s image without consent, in violation of the person’s publicity rights under California law. The court has denied a motion to dismiss, ruling that publicity rights claims are not preempted by federal copyright law. The case has been stayed pending appeal.

Walters v. OpenAI (Gwinnett County Super. Ct. 2023), and Walters v. OpenAI (N.D. Ga. 2023)

Gwinnett County complaint filed June 5, 2023.

Federal district court complaint filed July 14, 2023.

Radio talk show host sued OpenAI for defamation. A reporter had used ChatGPT to get information about him. ChatGPT wrongly described him as a person who had been accused of fraud. In October, 2023, the federal court remanded the case to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.  On January 11, 2024, the Gwinnett County Superior Court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss.

P.M. v. OpenAI (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Complaint filed June 28, 2023. Users claim OpenAI violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California wiretapping laws by collecting their data when they input content into ChatGPT. They also claim violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case on September 15, 2023. See now A.T. v. OpenAI (N.D. Cal. 2023) (below).

In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed June 28, 3023. Originally captioned Tremblay v. OpenAI. Book authors sued OpenAI for direct and vicarious copyright infringement, DMCA violations, unfair competition and negligence. Both input (training) and output (derivative works) claims are alleged, as well as state law claims of unfair competition, etc. Most state law and DMCA claims have been dismissed, but claims based on unauthorized copying during the AI training process remain. An amended complaint is likely to come in March. The court has directed the amended complaint to consolidate Tremblay v. OpenAI, Chabon v. OpenAI, and Silverman v. OpenAI.  

Battle v. Microsoft (D. Md. 2023)

Complaint filed July 7, 2023. Pro se defamation complaint against Microsoft alleging that Bing falsely described him as a member of the “Portland Seven,” a group of Americans who tried to join the Taliban after 9/11.

Kadrey v. Meta (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed July 7, 2023. Sarah Silverman and other authors allege Meta infringed copyrights in their works by making copies of them while training Meta’s AI model; that the AI model is itself an infringing derivative work; and that outputs are infringing copies of their works. Plaintiffs also allege DMCA violations, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The court granted Meta’s motion to dismiss all claims except the claim that unauthorized copies were made during the AI training process. An amended complaint and answer have been filed.

J.L. v. Google (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed July 11, 2023. An author filed a complaint against Google alleging misuse of content posted on social media and Google platforms to train Google’s AI Bard. (Gemini is the successor to Google’s Bard.) Claims include copyright infringement, DMCA violations, and others. J.L. filed an amended complaint and Google has filed a motion to dismiss it. A hearing is scheduled for May 16, 2024.

A.T. v. OpenAI (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed September 5, 2023. ChatGPT users claim the company violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and California Penal Code section 631 (wiretapping). The gravamen of the complaint is that ChatGPT allegedly accessed users’ platform access and intercepted their private information without their knowledge or consent. Motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration are pending.

Chabon v. OpenAI (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed September 9, 2023. Authors allege that OpenAI infringed copyrights while training ChatGPT, and that ChatGPT is itself an unauthorized derivative work. They also assert claims of DMCA violations, unfair competition, negligence and unjust enrichment. The case has been consolidated with Tremblay v. OpenAI, and the cases are now captioned In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation.

Chabon v. Meta Platforms (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed September 12, 2023. Authors assert copyright infringement claims against Meta, alleging that Meta trained its AI using their works and that the AI model itself is an unauthorized derivative work. The authors also assert claims for DMCA violations, unfair competition, negligence, and unjust enrichment. In November, 2023, the court issued an Order dismissing all claims except the claim of unauthorized copying in the course of training the AI. The court described the claim that an AI model trained on a work is a derivative of that work as “nonsensical.”

Authors Guild v. OpenAI, Microsoft, et al. (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Complaint filed September 19, 1023. Book and fiction writers filed a complaint for copyright infringement in connection with defendants’ training AI on copies of their works without permission. A motion to dismiss has been filed.

Huckabee v. Bloomberg, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, and EleutherAI Institute (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Complaint filed October 17, 2023. Political figure Mike Huckabee and others allege that the defendants trained AI tools on their works without permission when they used Books3, a text dataset compiled by developers; that their tools are themselves unauthorized derivative works; and that every output of their tools is an infringing derivative work.  Claims against EleutherAI have been voluntarily dismissed. Claims against Meta and Microsoft have been transferred to the Northern District of California. Bloomberg is expected to file a motion to dismiss soon.

Huckabee v. Meta Platforms and Microsoft (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed October 17, 2023. Political figure Mike Huckabee and others allege that the defendants trained AI tools on their works without permission when they used Books3, a text dataset compiled by developers; that their tools are themselves unauthorized derivative works; and that every output of their tools is an infringing derivative work. Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint. Plaintiffs have stipulated to dismissal of claims against Microsoft without prejudice.

Concord Music Group v. Anthropic (M.D. Tenn. 2023)

Complaint filed October 18, 2023. Music publishers claim that Anthropic infringed publisher-owned copyrights in song lyrics when they allegedly were copied as part of an AI training process (Claude) and when lyrics were reproduced and distributed in response to prompts. They have also made claims of contributory and vicarious infringement. Motions to dismiss and for a preliminary injunction are pending.

Alter v. OpenAI and Microsoft (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Complaint filed November 21, 2023. Nonfiction author alleges claims of copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that reproducing copies of their works in datasets used to train AI infringed copyrights. The court has ordered consolidation of Author’s Guild (23-cv-8292) and Alter (23-cv-10211). On February 12,2024, plaintiffs in other cases filed a motion to intervene and dismiss.

New York Times v. Microsoft and OpenAI (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Complaint filed December 27, 2023. The New York Times alleges that their news stories were used to train AI without a license or permission, in violation of their exclusive rights of reproduction and public display, as copyright owners. The complaint also alleges vicarious and contributory copyright infringement, DMCA violations, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. The Times seeks damages, an injunction against further infringing conduct, and a Section 503(b) order for the destruction of “all GPT or other LLM models and training sets that incorporate Times Works.” On February 23, 2024, plaintiffs in other cases filed a motion to intervene and dismiss this case.  

Basbanes and Ngagoyeanes v. Microsoft and OpenAI (S.D.N.Y. 2024)

Complaint filed January 5, 2024. Nonfiction authors assert copyright claims against Microsoft and OpenAI. On February 6, 2024, the court consolidated this case with Authors Guild (23-cv-08292) and Alter v. Open AI (23-cv-10211), for pretrial purposes.  

Caveat

This list is not exhaustive. There may be other cases involving AI that are not included here. For a discussion of bias issues in Google’s Gemini, have a look at Scraping Bias on Medium.com.

Nontransformative Nuge

A reversal in the 4th Circuit Court demonstrates the impact the Supreme Court’s decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Arts v. Goldsmith is already having on the application of copyright fair use doctrine in federal courts.

Philpot v. Independent Journal Review, No. 21-2021 (4th Circ., Feb. 6, 2024)

Philpot, a concert photographer, registered his photograph of Ted Nugent as part of a group of unpublished works. Prior to registration, he entered into a license agreement giving AXS TV the right to inspect his photographs for the purpose of selecting ones to curate. The agreement provided that the license would become effective upon delivery of photographs for inspection. After registration, Philpot delivered a set of photographs, including the Nugent photograph, to AXS TV. He also published the Nugent photograph to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons (“CC”) license. The CC license allows free use on the condition that attribution is given. LJR published an article called “15 Signs Your Daddy Was a Conservative.” Sign #5 was He hearts the Nuge. LJR used Philpot’s photograph of Ted Nugent as an illustration for the article, without providing an attribution of credit to Philpot.

Philpot sued IJR for copyright infringement.  IJR asserted two defenses: (1) invalid copyright registration; and (2) fair use. The trial court did not decide whether the registration was valid or not, but it granted summary judgment for IJR based on its opinion that the news service’s publication of the photograph was fair use. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling in Philpot’s favor on both issues. The Court held that the copyright registration was valid and that publication of the photograph without permission was not fair use.

The copyright registration

Published and unpublished works cannot be registered together. Including a published work in an application for registration of a group of unpublished works is an inaccuracy that might invalidate the registration, if the applicant was aware of the inaccuracy at the time of applying. Cf. Unicolors v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, 595 U.S. 178 (2022). LJR argued that Philpot’s pre-registration agreement to send photographs to AJX TV to inspect for possible curation constituted “publication” of them so characterizing them as “unpublished” in the registration application was an inaccuracy known to Philpot.

17 U.S.C. § 101 defines publication as “the distribution of copies . . . to the public” or “offering to distribute copies . . . to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution . . . or public display.” The Court of Appeals held that merely entering into an agreement to furnish copies to a distributor for possible curation does not come within that definition. Sending copies to a limited class of people without concomitantly granting an unrestricted right to further distribute them to the public does not amount to “publication.”

Philpot’s arrangement with AXS TV is analogous to an author submitting a manuscript to a publisher for review for possible future distribution to the public. The U.S. Copyright Office has addressed this. “Sending copies of a manuscript to prospective publishers in an effort to secure a book contract does not [constitute publication].” U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 1905.1 (3d ed. 2021). Philpot had provided copies of his work for the limited purpose of examination, without a present grant of a right of further distribution. Therefore, the photographs were, in fact, unpublished at the time of the application for registration. Since no inaccuracy existed, the registration was valid.

Fair use

The Court applied the four-factor test for fair use set out in 17 U.S.C. § 107.

(1) Purpose and character of the use. Citing Andy Warhol Found. For the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 , 527–33 (2023), the Court held that when, as here, a use is neither transformative nor noncommercial, this factor weighs against a fair use determination. LJR used the photograph for the same purpose as Philpot intended to use it (as a depiction of Mr. Nugent), and it was a commercial purpose.

(2) Nature of the work. Photographs taken by humans are acts of creative expression that receive what courts have described as “thick” copyright protection.” Therefore, this factor weighed against a fair use determination.

(3) Amount and substantiality of the portion used. Since all of the expressive features of the work were used, this factor also weighed against a fair use determination.

(4) Effect on the market for the work. Finally, the Court determined that allowing free use of a copyrighted work for commercial purposes without the copyright owner’s permission could potentially have a negative impact on the author’s market for the work. Therefore, this factor, too, weighed against a fair use determination.

Since all four factors weighed against a fair use determination, the Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to IJR and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Conclusion

This decision demonstrates the impact the Warhol decision is having on copyright fair use analysis in the courts. Previously, courts had been interpreting transformativeness very broadly. In many cases, they were ending fair use inquiry as soon as some sort of transformative use could be articulated. As the Court of Appeals decision in this case illustrates, trial courts now need to alter their approach in two ways: (1) They need to return to considering all four fair use factors rather than ending the inquiry upon a defendant’s articulation of some “transformative use;” and (2) They need to apply a much narrower definition of transformativeness than they have been. If both the original work and an unauthorized reproduction of it are used for the purpose of depicting a particular person or scene (as distinguished from parodying or commenting on a work, for example), for commercial gain, then it would no longer appear to be prudent to count on the first of the four fair use factors supporting a fair use determination.

Photo: Photograph published in a July, 1848 edition of L’Illustration. Believed to be the first instance of photojournalism, it is now in the public domain.

What Is In the Public Domain?

How to determine what is in the public domain in the United States, explained by attorney Thomas B. James

Creative expressions generally are protected by copyright law. Sometimes, however, they are not. When that is the case, a work is said to be in “the public domain.”

The rules specifying the conditions for copyright protection vary from country to country. In the United States, they are set out in the Copyright Act, which is codified in Title 17 of the United States Code. The fact that a work is or is not in the public domain in the United States, however, is not determinative of its public domain status in another country. A work that is in the public domain in the United States might still be protected by copyright in another country.

This blog post focuses on the public domain rules set out in U.S. copyright law.

The 3 ways a work enters the public domain

There are three reasons a work may be in the public domain:

  • It was never protected by copyright. Some kinds of expression do not receive copyright protection. Federal government publications created by federal employees, for example, are not protected by copyright.
  • Failure to comply with a formal requirement. At one time, it was possible to lose copyright protection by failing to comply with a legal requirement, such as the requirement to display a copyright notice on a published work.
  • Expiration of the copyright term. Unlike trademarks, copyrights are time-limited. That is to say, the duration of a copyright is limited to a specified term. Congress has altered the durations of copyrights several times.

It is important to keep in mind that once a work enters the public domain, the copyright is gone. This is true even if copyright was lost only because of failure to comply with a formal requirement that has since been abolished. For example, if a work was published in 1976 without a copyright notice, it entered the public domain. The elimination of the copyright notice requirement in 1989 did not have the effect of reviving it. A few very limited exceptions exist, but in general, the elimination of a formal requirement does not have the effect of reviving copyrights in works that have already entered the public domain.

Guidelines for determining the copyright term

The following rules may be used for determining whether a work of a kind that is protected by copyright is in the public domain or not.

Different sets of rules apply to sound recordings, architectural works, and works first published outside the United States by a foreign national or a U.S. citizen living abroad. They are not covered in this blog post.

Note that the term of a copyright runs through the end of the calendar year in which it would otherwise expire. That is to say, a work enters the public domain on the first day of the year following the expiration of its term.

Unpublished and unregistered works

General rule: Life of the author + 70 years. If the author’s date of death is not known, then the term is 120 years from the date of creation.

Anonymous or pseudonymous works: 120 years from the date of creation.

Works made for hire: 120 years from the date of creation.

Works registered or first published in the US

Before 1929

All works registered or first published in the United States before 1929 are in the public domain now.

1929 to 1963

  • Published without a copyright notice: In the public domain.
  • Published with a copyright notice, but not renewed: In the public domain.
  • Published with a copyright notice, and renewed: 95 years after the first publication date.

1964 to 1977

  • Published without a copyright notice: In the public domain.
  • Published with a copyright notice: 95 years after the first publication date.

1978 to March 1, 1989

  • Created before 1978 and first published, with a copyright notice, between 1978 and March 1, 1989: Either 70 years after the death of the author or December 31, 2047, whichever occurs later. (For works made for hire, it is (a) 95 years after the date of first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever occurs first, or (b) December 31, 2047, whichever occurs later.
  • Created after 1977 and published with a copyright notice: 70 years after the death of the author (For works made for hire, it is 95 years after the date of first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever occurs first.)
  • Published without a copyright notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years: In the public domain.
  • Published without a copyright notice but with subsequent registration within 5 years: Life of the author + 70 years (For works made for hire, it is 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever occurs first.)

March 1, 1989 to 2002

  • Created before 1978 and first published between March 1, 1989 and 2002: The greater of (a) The life of the author + 70 years (For works made for hire, it is 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever occurs first); or (b) December 1, 2047.
  • Created after 1977: Life of the author + 70 years (For works made for hire, it is 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever occurs first.)

after 2002

  • Life of the author + 70 years
  • Works made for hire: 95 years after the date of publication or 120 years after the date of creation, whichever occurs first.

Sound recordings, architecture, and foreign works

The foregoing rules do NOT apply to sound recordings, architectural works, and works that were first published outside the United States by a foreign national or a U.S. citizen living abroad. Special sets of rules apply when determining the public domain status of those kinds of works.

Contact attorney Tom James for copyright help

Contact Tom James (“The Cokato Copyright Attorney) for copyright help.

Case Update: Andersen v. Stability AI

Artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz filed a class action lawsuit against Stability AI, DeviantArt, and MidJourney in federal district court alleging causes of action for copyright infringement, removal or alteration of copyright management information, and violation of publicity rights. (Andersen, et al. v. Stability AI Ltd. et al., No. 23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Calif. 2023).) The claims relate to the defendants’ alleged unlicensed use of their copyright-protected artistic works in generative-AI systems.

On October 30, 2023, U.S. district judge William H. Orrick dismissed all claims except for Andersen’s direct infringement claim against Stability. Most of the dismissals, however, were granted with leave to amend.

The Claims

McKernan’s and Ortiz’s copyright infringement claims

The judge dismissed McKernan’s and Ortiz’s copyright infringement claims because they did not register the copyrights in their works with the U.S. Copyright Office.

I criticized the U.S. requirement of registration as a prerequisite to the enforcement of a domestic copyright in a U.S. court in a 2019 Illinois Law Review article (“Copyright Enforcement: Time to Abolish the Pre-Litigation Registration Requirement.”) This is a uniquely American requirement. Moreover, the requirement does not apply to foreign works. This has resulted in the anomaly that foreign authors have an easier time enforcing the copyrights in their works in the United States than U.S. authors do. Nevertheless, until Congress acts to change this, it is still necessary for U.S. authors to register their copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office before they can enforce their copyrights in U.S. courts.  

Since there was no claim that McKernan or Ortiz had registered their copyrights, the judge had no real choice under current U.S. copyright law but to dismiss their claims.

Andersen’s copyright infringement claim against Stability

Andersen’s complaint alleges that she “owns a copyright interest in over two hundred Works included in the Training Data” and that Stability used some of them as training data. Defendants moved to dismiss this claim because it failed to specifically identify which of those works had been registered. The judge, however, determined that her attestation that some of her registered works had been used as training images sufficed, for pleading purposes.  A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint to state a claim; it does not test the truth or falsity of the assertions made in a pleading. Stability can attempt to disprove the assertion later in the proceeding. Accordingly, Judge Orrick denied Stability’s motion to dismiss Andersen’s direct copyright infringement claim.

Andersen’s copyright infringement claims against DeviantArt and MidJourney

The complaint alleges that Stability created and released a software program called Stable Diffusion and that it downloaded copies of billions of copyrighted images (known as “training images”), without permission, to create it. Stability allegedly used the services of LAION (LargeScale Artificial Intelligence Open Network) to scrape the images from the Internet. Further, the complaint alleges, Stable Diffusion is a “software library” providing image-generating service to the other defendants named in the complaint. DeviantArt offers an online platform where artists can upload their works. In 2022, it released a product called “DreamUp” that relies on Stable Diffusion to produce images. The complaint alleges that artwork the plaintiffs uploaded to the DeviantArt site was scraped into the LAION database and then used to train Stable Diffusion. MidJourney is also alleged to have used the Stable Diffusion library.

Judge Orrick granted the motion to dismiss the claims of direct infringement against DeviantArt and MidJourney, with leave to amend the complaint to clarify the theory of liability.

DMCA claims

The complaint makes allegations about unlawful removal of copyright management information in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Judge Orrick found the complaint deficient in this respect, but granted leave to amend to clarify which defendant(s) are alleged to have done this, when it allegedly occurred, and what specific copyright management information was allegedly removed.

Publicity rights claims

 Plaintiffs allege that the defendants used their names in their products by allowing users to request the generation of artwork “in the style of” their names. Judge Orrick determined the complaint did not plead sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. Accordingly, he dismissed the claim, with leave to amend. In a footnote, the court deferred to a later time the question whether the Copyright Act preempts the publicity claims.

In addition, DeviantArt filed a motion to strike under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. The court deferred decision on that motion until after the Plaintiffs have had time to file an amended complaint.

Unfair competition claims

The court also dismissed plaintiffs’ claims of unfair competition, with leave to amend.

Breach of contract claim against DeviantArt

Plaintiffs allege that DeviantArt violated its own Terms of Service in connection with their DreamUp product and alleged scraping of works users upload to the site. This claim, too, was dismissed with leave to amend.

Conclusion

Media reports have tended to overstate the significance of Judge Orrick’s October 30, 2023 Order. Reports of the death of the lawsuit are greatly exaggerated. It would have been nice if greater attention had been paid to the registration requirement during the drafting of the complaint, but the lawsuit nevertheless is still very much alive. We won’t really know whether it will remain that way unless and until the plaintiffs amend the complaint – which they are almost certainly going to do.

Need help with copyright registration? Contact attorney Tom James.

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%