home.social

#iplaw — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #iplaw, aggregated by home.social.

fetched live
  1.  "Countering online piracy of sports and broadcast in the EU," via Giovanni Maria Riccio, Fabiola Iraci Gambazza and Gianmarco Marani.

    The report is here www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en... #piracy #copyright #europeancommission #euparliament #sports #tvrights #IPLaw #IntellectualProperty

  2. Purely AI-generated content does not have copyright protection in the US and "Prompts are Not Authorship".

    Federal law, rulings by the U.S. Copyright Office, and federal court decisions (like Thaler v. Perlmutter) have firmly established that human authorship is a mandatory baseline requirement for copyright.

    AI-Assisted Works: If a human uses AI as a tool to assist in the creative process, the work may qualify for copyright protection, but only for the human-authored components.

    The "Prompts are Not Authorship" Rule: The U.S. Copyright Office has clarified that simply writing a prompt (even a very detailed or creative one) does not give the user control over the expressive elements of the final output.
    copyright.gov/ai/ “Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.” copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/106

    In March 2, 2026, SCOTUS denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Copyright Act requires copyrightable works to be authored by a human being. scotusblog.com/cases/thaler-v-

    See also: Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Content Under U.S. Law
    ailegalauthority.com/ai-genera

    #law #copyright #LLM #AI #iplaw #intellectualProperty #US

  3. Purely AI-generated content does not have copyright protection in the US and "Prompts are Not Authorship".

    Federal law, rulings by the U.S. Copyright Office, and federal court decisions (like Thaler v. Perlmutter) have firmly established that human authorship is a mandatory baseline requirement for copyright.

    AI-Assisted Works: If a human uses AI as a tool to assist in the creative process, the work may qualify for copyright protection, but only for the human-authored components.

    The "Prompts are Not Authorship" Rule: The U.S. Copyright Office has clarified that simply writing a prompt (even a very detailed or creative one) does not give the user control over the expressive elements of the final output.
    copyright.gov/ai/ “Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.” copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/106

    In March 2, 2026, SCOTUS denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Copyright Act requires copyrightable works to be authored by a human being. scotusblog.com/cases/thaler-v-

    See also: Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Content Under U.S. Law
    ailegalauthority.com/ai-genera

    #law #copyright #LLM #AI #iplaw #intellectualProperty #US

  4. Purely AI-generated content does not have copyright protection in the US and "Prompts are Not Authorship".

    Federal law, rulings by the U.S. Copyright Office, and federal court decisions (like Thaler v. Perlmutter) have firmly established that human authorship is a mandatory baseline requirement for copyright.

    AI-Assisted Works: If a human uses AI as a tool to assist in the creative process, the work may qualify for copyright protection, but only for the human-authored components.

    The "Prompts are Not Authorship" Rule: The U.S. Copyright Office has clarified that simply writing a prompt (even a very detailed or creative one) does not give the user control over the expressive elements of the final output.
    copyright.gov/ai/ “Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.” copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/106

    In March 2, 2026, SCOTUS denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Copyright Act requires copyrightable works to be authored by a human being. scotusblog.com/cases/thaler-v-

    See also: Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Content Under U.S. Law
    ailegalauthority.com/ai-genera

    #law #copyright #LLM #AI #iplaw #intellectualProperty #US

  5. Purely AI-generated content does not have copyright protection in the US and "Prompts are Not Authorship".

    Federal law, rulings by the U.S. Copyright Office, and federal court decisions (like Thaler v. Perlmutter) have firmly established that human authorship is a mandatory baseline requirement for copyright.

    AI-Assisted Works: If a human uses AI as a tool to assist in the creative process, the work may qualify for copyright protection, but only for the human-authored components.

    The "Prompts are Not Authorship" Rule: The U.S. Copyright Office has clarified that simply writing a prompt (even a very detailed or creative one) does not give the user control over the expressive elements of the final output.
    copyright.gov/ai/ “Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.” copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/106

    In March 2, 2026, SCOTUS denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Copyright Act requires copyrightable works to be authored by a human being. scotusblog.com/cases/thaler-v-

    See also: Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Content Under U.S. Law
    ailegalauthority.com/ai-genera

    #law #copyright #LLM #AI #iplaw #intellectualProperty #US

  6. Purely AI-generated content does not have copyright protection in the US and "Prompts are Not Authorship".

    Federal law, rulings by the U.S. Copyright Office, and federal court decisions (like Thaler v. Perlmutter) have firmly established that human authorship is a mandatory baseline requirement for copyright.

    AI-Assisted Works: If a human uses AI as a tool to assist in the creative process, the work may qualify for copyright protection, but only for the human-authored components.

    The "Prompts are Not Authorship" Rule: The U.S. Copyright Office has clarified that simply writing a prompt (even a very detailed or creative one) does not give the user control over the expressive elements of the final output.
    copyright.gov/ai/ “Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.” copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/106

    In March 2, 2026, SCOTUS denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Copyright Act requires copyrightable works to be authored by a human being. scotusblog.com/cases/thaler-v-

    See also: Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Content Under U.S. Law
    ailegalauthority.com/ai-genera

    #law #copyright #LLM #AI #iplaw #intellectualProperty #US

  7. Does copyright protect your AI-generated content in EU? Apparently not. Content that is entirely generated by artificial intelligence is not protected by copyright. EU copyright law has strictly human-centric foundation.

    Daniel J. Gervais: 'When you put your name on an article that's written by ChatGPT or Claude, you're basically putting a provenance mark on it saying: I take responsibility for this. I haven't written it, but I'm putting my name on it. That doesn't give you copyright, but it does give you liability for the content' euobserver.com/232898/intervie

    Gervais, Daniel J. and Shemtov, Noam and Marmanis, Haralambos and Zaller Rowland, Catherine, The Heart of the Matter: Copyright, AI Training, and LLMs (September 21, 2024). Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=4963711 or dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4963711

    "Munich Local Court has held that AI generated logos do not enjoy copyright protection. Neither mere prompting nor the selection between several AI suggestions is sufficient as a human creative contribution. For businesses, this is ambivalent. On the one hand, content generated purely by AI can hardly be protected on an exclusive basis, which has implications for brand building and content strategies" germanlawinternational.com/int

    #law #copyright #LLM #AI #iplaw #intellectualProperty #EU

  8. Does copyright protect your AI-generated content in EU? Apparently not. Content that is entirely generated by artificial intelligence is not protected by copyright. EU copyright law has strictly human-centric foundation.

    Daniel J. Gervais: 'When you put your name on an article that's written by ChatGPT or Claude, you're basically putting a provenance mark on it saying: I take responsibility for this. I haven't written it, but I'm putting my name on it. That doesn't give you copyright, but it does give you liability for the content' euobserver.com/232898/intervie

    Gervais, Daniel J. and Shemtov, Noam and Marmanis, Haralambos and Zaller Rowland, Catherine, The Heart of the Matter: Copyright, AI Training, and LLMs (September 21, 2024). Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=4963711 or dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4963711

    "Munich Local Court has held that AI generated logos do not enjoy copyright protection. Neither mere prompting nor the selection between several AI suggestions is sufficient as a human creative contribution. For businesses, this is ambivalent. On the one hand, content generated purely by AI can hardly be protected on an exclusive basis, which has implications for brand building and content strategies" germanlawinternational.com/int

    #law #copyright #LLM #AI #iplaw #intellectualProperty #EU

  9. Does copyright protect your AI-generated content in EU? Apparently not. Content that is entirely generated by artificial intelligence is not protected by copyright. EU copyright law has strictly human-centric foundation.

    Daniel J. Gervais: 'When you put your name on an article that's written by ChatGPT or Claude, you're basically putting a provenance mark on it saying: I take responsibility for this. I haven't written it, but I'm putting my name on it. That doesn't give you copyright, but it does give you liability for the content' euobserver.com/232898/intervie

    Gervais, Daniel J. and Shemtov, Noam and Marmanis, Haralambos and Zaller Rowland, Catherine, The Heart of the Matter: Copyright, AI Training, and LLMs (September 21, 2024). Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=4963711 or dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4963711

    "Munich Local Court has held that AI generated logos do not enjoy copyright protection. Neither mere prompting nor the selection between several AI suggestions is sufficient as a human creative contribution. For businesses, this is ambivalent. On the one hand, content generated purely by AI can hardly be protected on an exclusive basis, which has implications for brand building and content strategies" germanlawinternational.com/int

    #law #copyright #LLM #AI #iplaw #intellectualProperty #EU

  10. Does copyright protect your AI-generated content in EU? Apparently not. Content that is entirely generated by artificial intelligence is not protected by copyright. EU copyright law has strictly human-centric foundation.

    Daniel J. Gervais: 'When you put your name on an article that's written by ChatGPT or Claude, you're basically putting a provenance mark on it saying: I take responsibility for this. I haven't written it, but I'm putting my name on it. That doesn't give you copyright, but it does give you liability for the content' euobserver.com/232898/intervie

    Gervais, Daniel J. and Shemtov, Noam and Marmanis, Haralambos and Zaller Rowland, Catherine, The Heart of the Matter: Copyright, AI Training, and LLMs (September 21, 2024). Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=4963711 or dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4963711

    "Munich Local Court has held that AI generated logos do not enjoy copyright protection. Neither mere prompting nor the selection between several AI suggestions is sufficient as a human creative contribution. For businesses, this is ambivalent. On the one hand, content generated purely by AI can hardly be protected on an exclusive basis, which has implications for brand building and content strategies" germanlawinternational.com/int

    #law #copyright #LLM #AI #iplaw #intellectualProperty #EU

  11. Does copyright protect your AI-generated content in EU? Apparently not. Content that is entirely generated by artificial intelligence is not protected by copyright. EU copyright law has strictly human-centric foundation.

    Daniel J. Gervais: 'When you put your name on an article that's written by ChatGPT or Claude, you're basically putting a provenance mark on it saying: I take responsibility for this. I haven't written it, but I'm putting my name on it. That doesn't give you copyright, but it does give you liability for the content' euobserver.com/232898/intervie

    Gervais, Daniel J. and Shemtov, Noam and Marmanis, Haralambos and Zaller Rowland, Catherine, The Heart of the Matter: Copyright, AI Training, and LLMs (September 21, 2024). Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=4963711 or dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4963711

    "Munich Local Court has held that AI generated logos do not enjoy copyright protection. Neither mere prompting nor the selection between several AI suggestions is sufficient as a human creative contribution. For businesses, this is ambivalent. On the one hand, content generated purely by AI can hardly be protected on an exclusive basis, which has implications for brand building and content strategies" germanlawinternational.com/int

    #law #copyright #LLM #AI #iplaw #intellectualProperty #EU

  12. 📢 The program for the Third MPI/EUI Conference on IP, Competition and Innovation is now online — and registration is open!

    🗓 15–16 October 2026 | Munich

    🎤 Keynote: Prof. David J. Teece (UC Berkeley Haas)

    📋 Topics: SEPs, FRAND, AI & copyright, data governance, pharma patents & more

    Register now (€150):
    🔗 ip.mpg.de/en/mpi-eui

    #IPLaw #CompetitionLaw #Innovation #OpenAccess

  13. 📢 The program for the Third MPI/EUI Conference on IP, Competition and Innovation is now online — and registration is open!

    🗓 15–16 October 2026 | Munich

    🎤 Keynote: Prof. David J. Teece (UC Berkeley Haas)

    📋 Topics: SEPs, FRAND, AI & copyright, data governance, pharma patents & more

    Register now (€150):
    🔗 ip.mpg.de/en/mpi-eui

    #IPLaw #CompetitionLaw #Innovation #OpenAccess

  14. EU General Court (15 July 2026, T-555/25): "OPENAI" is descriptive and can't be an EU trade mark for AI software & services. "open AI" = accessible/unrestricted AI under Art. 7(1)(c) EUTMR. Reputation doesn't cure it — only the Art. 7(3) acquired-distinctiveness route remains.

    nicfab.eu/en/posts/openai-eu-t

    #EUTradeMark #AIAct #OpenSource #IPLaw #EUIPO #AI

  15. EU General Court (15 July 2026, T-555/25): "OPENAI" is descriptive and can't be an EU trade mark for AI software & services. "open AI" = accessible/unrestricted AI under Art. 7(1)(c) EUTMR. Reputation doesn't cure it — only the Art. 7(3) acquired-distinctiveness route remains.

    nicfab.eu/en/posts/openai-eu-t

  16. EU General Court (15 July 2026, T-555/25): "OPENAI" is descriptive and can't be an EU trade mark for AI software & services. "open AI" = accessible/unrestricted AI under Art. 7(1)(c) EUTMR. Reputation doesn't cure it — only the Art. 7(3) acquired-distinctiveness route remains.

    nicfab.eu/en/posts/openai-eu-t

    #EUTradeMark #AIAct #OpenSource #IPLaw #EUIPO #AI

  17. EU General Court (15 July 2026, T-555/25): "OPENAI" is descriptive and can't be an EU trade mark for AI software & services. "open AI" = accessible/unrestricted AI under Art. 7(1)(c) EUTMR. Reputation doesn't cure it — only the Art. 7(3) acquired-distinctiveness route remains.

    nicfab.eu/en/posts/openai-eu-t

    #EUTradeMark #AIAct #OpenSource #IPLaw #EUIPO #AI

  18. EU General Court (15 July 2026, T-555/25): "OPENAI" is descriptive and can't be an EU trade mark for AI software & services. "open AI" = accessible/unrestricted AI under Art. 7(1)(c) EUTMR. Reputation doesn't cure it — only the Art. 7(3) acquired-distinctiveness route remains.

    nicfab.eu/en/posts/openai-eu-t

    #EUTradeMark #AIAct #OpenSource #IPLaw #EUIPO #AI

  19. What happens when a digital twin stops mirroring reality and begins to shape it?

    Our new article in Law and Philosophy uses Baudrillard’s theory of simulacra to rethink IP protection for AI-driven digital twins.

    The claim: do not protect the simulacrum as a “work”; protect the human-directed machine performance that produces it.

    DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s10982-026-095

    #LegalTheory #AI #IPLaw #digital twins

  20. What happens when a digital twin stops mirroring reality and begins to shape it?

    Our new article in Law and Philosophy uses Baudrillard’s theory of simulacra to rethink IP protection for AI-driven digital twins.

    The claim: do not protect the simulacrum as a “work”; protect the human-directed machine performance that produces it.

    DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s10982-026-095

    #LegalTheory #AI #IPLaw #digital twins

  21. What happens when a digital twin stops mirroring reality and begins to shape it?

    Our new article in Law and Philosophy uses Baudrillard’s theory of simulacra to rethink IP protection for AI-driven digital twins.

    The claim: do not protect the simulacrum as a “work”; protect the human-directed machine performance that produces it.

    DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s10982-026-095

    #LegalTheory #AI #IPLaw #digital twins

  22. What happens when a digital twin stops mirroring reality and begins to shape it?

    Our new article in Law and Philosophy uses Baudrillard’s theory of simulacra to rethink IP protection for AI-driven digital twins.

    The claim: do not protect the simulacrum as a “work”; protect the human-directed machine performance that produces it.

    DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s10982-026-095

    #LegalTheory #AI #IPLaw #digital twins

  23. What happens when a digital twin stops mirroring reality and begins to shape it?

    Our new article in Law and Philosophy uses Baudrillard’s theory of simulacra to rethink IP protection for AI-driven digital twins.

    The claim: do not protect the simulacrum as a “work”; protect the human-directed machine performance that produces it.

    DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s10982-026-095

    #LegalTheory #AI #IPLaw #digital twins

  24. SECTION 8 (continued)
    archives.gov/founding-docs/con

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; // #IPLaw

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; // #BombingCivilians #boats

    #antifa #USConstitution #USCongress #war #Iran

  25. SECTION 8 (continued)
    archives.gov/founding-docs/con

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; // #IPLaw

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; // #BombingCivilians #boats

    #antifa #USConstitution #USCongress #war #Iran

  26. SECTION 8 (continued)
    archives.gov/founding-docs/con

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; // #IPLaw

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; // #BombingCivilians #boats

    #antifa #USConstitution #USCongress #war #Iran

  27. SECTION 8 (continued)
    archives.gov/founding-docs/con

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; // #IPLaw

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; // #BombingCivilians #boats

    #antifa #USConstitution #USCongress #war #Iran

  28. SECTION 8 (continued)
    archives.gov/founding-docs/con

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; // #IPLaw

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; // #BombingCivilians #boats

    #antifa #USConstitution #USCongress #war #Iran

  29. RE: tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116102

    This is an excellent piece and I encourage you to read it in full.

    I agree completely. We see these arguments all the time, and @tante has done a great service in highlighting and walking through the holes so we can better address these straw-man arguments.

    #AI #LLM #Copyright #IntellectualProperty #IPLaw

  30. RE: tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116102

    This is an excellent piece and I encourage you to read it in full.

    I agree completely. We see these arguments all the time, and @tante has done a great service in highlighting and walking through the holes so we can better address these straw-man arguments.

    #AI #LLM #Copyright #IntellectualProperty #IPLaw

  31. RE: tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116102

    This is an excellent piece and I encourage you to read it in full.

    I agree completely. We see these arguments all the time, and @tante has done a great service in highlighting and walking through the holes so we can better address these straw-man arguments.

    #AI #LLM #Copyright #IntellectualProperty #IPLaw

  32. RE: tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116102

    This is an excellent piece and I encourage you to read it in full.

    I agree completely. We see these arguments all the time, and @tante has done a great service in highlighting and walking through the holes so we can better address these straw-man arguments.

  33. RE: tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116102

    This is an excellent piece and I encourage you to read it in full.

    I agree completely. We see these arguments all the time, and @tante has done a great service in highlighting and walking through the holes so we can better address these straw-man arguments.

    #AI #LLM #Copyright #IntellectualProperty #IPLaw

  34. Landmark Ruling | #TV #Piracy "described as a turning point for the audiovisual industry – the definitive closure of the websites servicio-iptv, servicioiptvccam and servicioiptvpremium for serious breaches of Spain’s #IPLaw." www.advanced-television.com/2026/01/20/s... ©️ #audiovisual