©-LAW

Can a work entirely created by a machine be protected by copyright? On Valentine’s Day, the US Copyright Office (Review Board)  answered  this question with a heartbreaking ‘no’, holding that “copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind”” and consequently refusing to register the two-dimensional artwork 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise' below (the ‘Work’): Creativity Machine's A Recent Entrance to Paradise Background In 2018, Stephen Thaler (if the name rings an  AI inventor-bell  then you’re hearing it right) applied to register a copyright claim in the Work, indicating “Creativity Machine” as the author and Thaler as the owner of such machine. The application stated that the Work had been autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine. Registration was sought as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine. In 2019, the Copyright Office rejected the applicatio...

Are tattoos protected by copyright? If so, can a person give a third party permission to use their likeness (which includes displaying the tattoos attached to their body) without the consent of the tattoo artist who realized said tattoos? These intriguing questions have been raised in a number of jurisdictions  [see IPKat posts  here ,  here ,  here ,  here ,  here ,  here ,  here ; see also  here  for the (in)famous tattoo copyright headache surrounding  The Hangover - Part II ]  though conclusive answers were not really provided … at least until very recently. Earlier this week, in fact, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued its  much-awaited summary judgment opinion (16-CV-724-LTS-SDA)  in the (long-standing) proceedings initiated by a company (Solid Oak), which seemingly holds an exclusive copyright licence in the tattoos of NBA players  Eric Bledsoe ,  LeBron James...

Naruto  😍 If you thought that the infamous Monkey Selfie case was over, well, you were ... wrong! A few weeks ago IP enthusiasts were in fact 'thrilled' to learn that - despite the out-of-court settlement agreement concluded in 2017 - the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit would rule anyway on the case brought by PETA (as next friend) against  now economically struggling  wildlife photographer David Slater over copyright ownership of a series of selfies taken by Celebs crested macaque Naruto. Today, the Court has  ruled  that 'an animal ha[s] constitutional standing  [ Article III standing ]  but lack[s] statutory standing to claim copyright infringement of photographs known as the "Monkey Selfies."'  More specifically, the panel confirmed that the "[US] Copyright Act does not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits." Background But what happened before today's ruling? Here's a quick recap. In ...

Charging Bull and Fearless Girl A little over a year ago The IPKat  reported  that  Italian-born sculptor  Arturo Di Modica , ie the author of  the well-known  Charging Bull   in Manhattan's Financial District, intended to file a formal complaint with the Office of the New York City Mayor over the decision of the latter to allow the positioning (and stay for a few months) of   Kristen Visbal 's   Fearless Girl  right just opposite the famous bull. Initially an advertisement  for an  index fund  which comprises gender diverse companies that have a higher percentage of women among their senior leadership,  Fearless Girl  has become a popular sight in Manhattan.  The reason why Di Modica was unhappy about the positioning of  Fearless Girl  is explained in his  complaint  to the Mayor.  His sculpture was meant to symbolize, initially, the 'strength and power of the American peopl...

A day in the life of a Kat: from Playboy bunny to ... In late 2017 The IPKat  reported  that, after Europe, it appeared that the interplay between linking and copyright protection had re-surfaced also in the US  [use of the term 're-surfaced' is justified in light of the fact that US courts have already had the chance to address these issues, eg in the well-known  Perfect 10  case ] . After a few months, earlier this week two decisions have been issued on this matter ... with two rather different outcomes. Linking to unlicensed content Round #1: KO -  Playboy v Boing Boing First, on 14 February  US District Judge Fernando Olguin (US District Court for the Central District of California)  dismissed  (but with leave to amend) Playboy's complaint against Boing Boing. What is (was?) at stake here? Basically Playboy  [European readers will promptly recall that indeed the landmark decision of the Court of Justice of the European Unio...

Fearless Girl Readers will be aware that last month a sculpture by  Kristen Visbal , entitled  Fearless Girl ,   was unveiled in   Manhattan 's  Financial District  as an advertisement for an  index fund  which comprises gender diverse companies that have a higher percentage of women among their senior leadership  [read the Wikipedia entry  here ] .  Fearless Girl  was placed opposite the well-known (originally guerrilla art)  Charging Bull  by Italian-born sculptor  Arturo Di Modica . It is arguable that it is indeed because of this particular positioning that Visbal's artwork appears so powerful. Initially  Fearless Girl  was expected to stay in place just for a few weeks, but in late March it was announced that the sculpture would not be removed until February 2018. Despite some criticisms, one of the reasons of the success of  Fearless Girl  appears to be its perception as a symbo...