On Feb. 11, 2025, a federal judge granted summary judgment to a copyright holder, determining that a software company’s use of copyrighted content to train an AI legal research tool constituted direct copyright infringement and rejecting the AI tool company’s fair-use defense. Judge Bibas’s opinion departed from the seminal “intermediate copying” cases in Google and
The United States Copyright Office has released a watershed report on whether and how AI-generated outputs qualify for copyright protection under current United States copyright laws. Departing from its previous policy stance, the Copyright Office now states that AI-generated outputs are eligible for copyright protection but with a key caveat: the human author requirement remains intact.
Continue Reading Hello Hollywood: US Copyright Office Report Opens Floodgates For Seeking Copyright Protection On Ai-Generated Works (And The Prompts Used To Create Them)
Taft attorneys Marcus Harris and Joey Balthazor were profiled by the Cleveland Jewish News in the article “Legalities of artificial intelligence just starting to scratch the surface,” published on Aug. 11. In the article, the Taft attorneys discuss some of the issues that organizations encounter using Artificial Intelligence (AI), including the intersection of copyright law
The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari in Georgia et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., case number 18-1150, to address whether state statutory codes, including annotations, are protectable by copyright.
In October 2018, the 11th Circuit held that the annotations, while not having the force of law, were sufficiently law-like to be regarded
On March 26, 2019, the European Union voted in favor of making sweeping changes to its copyright law and passed the Copyright Directive (the “Directive”). While the existing laws have not always kept up with the Internet’s use and capabilities and a reassessment of the effectiveness of old regulations to protect intellectual property rights is
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit’s expanded view of “full costs” in copyright cases was improper, going beyond the “costs” typically available to litigants in federal court. Rimini Street, Inc. et al., v. Oracle USA, Inc., et al., No. 17-1625, slip op. (U.S. Mar. 4, 2019.) This
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a long-standing split among the circuits, making it impossible to sue for copyright infringement if the copyright is not registered. The Supreme Court held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until “registration has been made,” and clarified that “registration has been made”