• About   |
  • Submit Guest Post |
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
The Second Angle (TSA Magazine)
Advertise
  • Infotainment
    • Sports
    • People
    • Inspiring
  • Entertainment
    • Lifestyle
    • Home & Decoration
  • Buzz
  • Education
  • Travel
  • Finance
  • Healthcare
  • Technology
The Second Angle
No Result
View All Result
  • Infotainment
  • Entertainment
  • Buzz
  • Education
  • Travel
  • Finance
  • Healthcare
  • Technology
Advertisement
ADVERTISEMENT
Lexitoto
Slot Demo
RTP SLOT
Lexitoto
Aplikasi Lexitoto
RTP Lexitoto
RTP IDN Slot
RTP PG Soft
RTP Habanero
RTP Microgaming
RTP TopTrend Gaming
RTP GMW
RTP Nolimit City
RTP Booster
Slot Demo Bambu4d
Slot Demo PG Soft
Slot Demo Habanero
Situ Togel Online
Situs Togel Amanah
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Prediksi Togel Lexitoto
Slot Demo PG Soft
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Tips dan Trik Slot Gacor
Prediksi Togel Lexitoto
Lexitoto
Vietnam Lottery
Syair HK
Octagon Lottery
Bandar Situs Togel
Situs Slot Gacor
Bocoran Slot Gacor
Lexitoto
Togel Toto Macau
Situs Togel Macau
Prediksi Macau
Bambu4d
Prediksi Togel Bambu4d
Slot Gacor Bet Kecil
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Situs Togel Online
Aplikasi Bambu4d
Aplikasi RTP Slot
Aplikasi RTP Booster
Aplikasi Slot Demo
Aplikasi Prediksi Togel
RTP Bambu4d
RTP IDN Slot
RTP PG Soft
RTP Habanero
RTP Microgaming
RTP TopTrend Gaming
RTP GMW
RTP Nolimit City
RTP Playstar
RTP Booster
Slot Demo Bambu4d
Slot Demo PG Soft
Slot Demo Habanero
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Prediksi Togel Bambu4d
Bambu4d
Toto Macau
Live Draw HK
Live Draw SDY
Toto Macau
Bandar Togel
https://bluewaveslogistics.com/
Prediksi Syair Taiwan
Situs Toto
Slot Gacor
RTP Slot Gacor
Prediksi Syair HK
Prediksi Syair HK
Prediksi SGP
Prediksi SGP
Prediksi Syair Cambodia
Prediksi Cambodia
Prediksi Cambodia
Prediksi Syair China
Prediksi Syair China
Prediksi Syair SDY
Prediksi PCSO
Syair SDY
SYAIR HK
Situs Togel
Paito SGP
Paito HK
Paito SDY
Prediksi Macau
Live Draw Cambodia
Prediksi Jepang
Situs Togel
Slot Thailand
Live Draw Cambodia
Live SGP
lexitoto
Live Macau
RTP SLOT
hinterlaces.com RTP Slot
Rtp Slot
situs toto
lexitoto
slot deposit pulsa
lexitoto
Data Pengeluaran HK
Prediksi Cambodia
Toto Slot
PREDIKSI SDY
Live Draw HK
Prediksi Macau
Prediksi Cambodia
SYAIR SDY
Prediksi Macau
Slot Pulsa
Prediksi Cambodia
Lexitoto
SYAIR SGP
Toto Slot
Prediksi HK
Situs Slot Gacor
SYAIR MACAU
RTP SLOT HARI INI
Slot Pulsa
Slot Thailand
Prediksi Cambodia
Home World News

Explained | Could a photography dispute in the U.S. affect ChatGPT and its cousins?

TSA Desk by TSA Desk
May 24, 2023
in World News
Reading Time: 6 mins read
Explained | Could a photography dispute in the U.S. affect ChatGPT and its cousins?
Share on FacebookShare on WhatsApp
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement
ADVERTISEMENT

[ad_1]

Copyright law protects the work of diverse artists, including photographers, as well as provides a set of exclusive rights for artists over their creative output. This includes controlling the manner in which others reproduce or modify their work. However, these exclusive rights are balanced with the rights of the users of such work, including other artists who might want to build on or comment on them, with the help of diverse exceptions under copyright law.

What is exempt from infringement liability?

Different jurisdictions follow different approaches to exceptions. Some, particularly countries in continental Europe, adopt the ‘enumerated exceptions approach’: the use in question needs to be specifically covered under the statute to be considered as an exception to infringement. Some others, including the U.S., follow an open-ended approach that doesn’t specify exemptions beforehand; instead, they have guidelines about the types of uses that can be exempted.

The U.S. courts primarily consider four factors when determining whether a particular use can be considered to be an instance of fair use: (1) purpose and character of the use; (2) nature of the copyrighted work; (3) amount and substantiality of the portion taken by the defendant, and (4) effect of the use on the potential market of the plaintiff’s work.

Of these, U.S. courts have been giving the highest importance to the first factor. In particular, whether the use of something can be considered “transformative” has often played the most critical role in determining the final outcome in a fair-use case.

This open-ended approach to exceptions provides U.S. copyright law considerable flexibility and strength to deal with challenges posed by emerging technologies on the copyright system. However, it has a major limitation: there is no way to know whether an activity will be exempted from liabilities until after litigation. That is, it is very hard to predict ex ante whether an activity will be exempted from copyright infringement liabilities.

The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc. v. Goldsmith et al. has just added more unpredictability to this process – with implications for how we regulate a powerful form of artificial intelligence.

What is the Andy Warhol Foundation case?

Andy Warhol with his pet dachshund, 1973.

Andy Warhol with his pet dachshund, 1973.
| Photo Credit:
Jack Mitchell, CC BY-SA 4.0

Known for her concert and portrait shots, Lynn Goldsmith photographed the famous musician Prince in 1981. One of those photos was licensed in 1984 to Vanity Fair magazine for use as an “artist reference”. The licence specifically said the illustration could appear once as a full page element and once as a one-quarter page element, in the magazine’s November 1984. Vanity Fair paid Ms. Goldsmith $400 for the licence.

It then hired the celebrated visual artist Andy Warhol to work on the illustration. Mr. Warhol made a silkscreen portrait of Prince using Goldsmith’s photo. It appeared in the magazine with appropriate credits to Ms. Goldsmith. But while the licence had authorised only one illustration, Mr. Warhol additionally created 13 screen prints and two pencil sketches.

In 2016, Condé Nast, the media conglomerate that publishes Vanity Fair, approached the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) to reuse the 1984 illustration as part of a story on Prince. But when they realised that there were more portraits available, they opted to publish one of them instead (an orange silkscreen portrait). And as part of the licence to use it, they paid $10,000 to AWF, and nothing to Ms. Goldsmith.

When AWF realised that Ms. Goldsmith may file a copyright infringement suit, it filed a suit for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Ms. Goldsmith then counter-sued AWF for copyright infringement.

What did the courts find?

The front façade of the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, DC, October 19, 2020.

The front façade of the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, DC, October 19, 2020.
| Photo Credit:
Ian Hutchinson/Unsplash

First, a district court summarily ruled in favour of AWF, opining that Mr. Warhol’s use of Ms. Goldsmith’s photo constituted fair-use. The court banked on the first factor and held that Mr. Warhol’s work was “transformative” as they “have a different character, give Goldsmith’s photograph a new expression, and employ new aesthetics with creative and communicative results distinct from Goldsmith’s”.

It also observed that Mr. Warhol’s work added something new to the world of art “and the public would be deprived of this contribution if the works could not be distributed”.

However, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed these findings and disagreed that Mr. Warhol’s use of the photograph constituted fair-use. The case subsequently went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which delivered its verdict on May 18, 2023.

The majority of judges concluded that if an original work and secondary work have more or less similar purposes and if the secondary use is of a commercial nature, the first factor may not favour a fair-use interpretation – unless there are other justifications for copying.

In this particular instance, according to the majority decision, both Ms. Goldsmith’s photos and Mr. Warhol’s adaptations had more or less the same purpose: to portray Prince. The majority said that while copying may have helped convey a new meaning or message, that in itself did not suffice under the first factor.

The dissenting opinion focused extensively on how art is produced, particularly the fact that no artists create anything out of a vacuum. Justice Elena Kagan, author of this opinion, wrote of the need for a broader reading of ‘transformative use’ for the progress of arts and science. The dissenters also opined that Mr. Warhol’s addition of important “new expression, meaning and message” tilted the first factor in favour of a finding of fair-use.

How does this affect generative AI?

A view of the ChatGPT website.

A view of the ChatGPT website.
| Photo Credit:
Rolf van Root/Unsplash

While this dispute arose in the context of use of a photograph as an artistic reference, the implications of the court’s finding are bound to ripple across the visual arts at large. The majority position could challenge the manner in which many generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT4, MidJourney, and Stable Diffusion, have been conceived. These models’ makers ‘train’ them on text, photos, and videos strewn around the internet, copyrighted or not.

For example, if someone is using a generative AI tool to create pictures in the style of Mr. Warhol, and if the resulting images are similar to any of the work of Mr. Warhol, a court is likelier now to rule against this being described as fair use, taking the view that both the copyrighted work and the models’ output serve similar purposes.

The majority’s reliance on the commercial nature of the use may also result in substantial deviation from the established view: that the commercial nature of the use in itself cannot negate a finding of fair use. But the true extent of the implications of the verdict will be clear only when trial courts begin applying the ratio in this judgment to future cases.

What about Indian copyright law?

There may not be any direct implications for Indian copyright law, as the framework of exceptions here is different. India follows a hybrid model of exception in which fair dealing with copyrighted work is exempted for some specific purposes under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act 1957. India also has a long list of enumerated exceptions.

This said, the observations by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision could have a persuasive effect, particularly when determining ‘fairness’ as part of a fair-dealing litigation. Then again, only time will tell which one will have a more persuasive effect – the majority or the minority.

Arul George Scaria is an associate professor at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU).

[ad_2]

RelatedPosts

Top 10 Richest Athletes of 2024 - Highest Paid - RVCJ

Top 10 Richest Athletes of 2024 – Highest Paid

The Richest Woman In The World -

Who Is The Richest Woman In The World? Top 10 List – 2024

[ad_1]

Copyright law protects the work of diverse artists, including photographers, as well as provides a set of exclusive rights for artists over their creative output. This includes controlling the manner in which others reproduce or modify their work. However, these exclusive rights are balanced with the rights of the users of such work, including other artists who might want to build on or comment on them, with the help of diverse exceptions under copyright law.

What is exempt from infringement liability?

Different jurisdictions follow different approaches to exceptions. Some, particularly countries in continental Europe, adopt the ‘enumerated exceptions approach’: the use in question needs to be specifically covered under the statute to be considered as an exception to infringement. Some others, including the U.S., follow an open-ended approach that doesn’t specify exemptions beforehand; instead, they have guidelines about the types of uses that can be exempted.

The U.S. courts primarily consider four factors when determining whether a particular use can be considered to be an instance of fair use: (1) purpose and character of the use; (2) nature of the copyrighted work; (3) amount and substantiality of the portion taken by the defendant, and (4) effect of the use on the potential market of the plaintiff’s work.

Of these, U.S. courts have been giving the highest importance to the first factor. In particular, whether the use of something can be considered “transformative” has often played the most critical role in determining the final outcome in a fair-use case.

This open-ended approach to exceptions provides U.S. copyright law considerable flexibility and strength to deal with challenges posed by emerging technologies on the copyright system. However, it has a major limitation: there is no way to know whether an activity will be exempted from liabilities until after litigation. That is, it is very hard to predict ex ante whether an activity will be exempted from copyright infringement liabilities.

The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc. v. Goldsmith et al. has just added more unpredictability to this process – with implications for how we regulate a powerful form of artificial intelligence.

What is the Andy Warhol Foundation case?

Andy Warhol with his pet dachshund, 1973.

Andy Warhol with his pet dachshund, 1973.
| Photo Credit:
Jack Mitchell, CC BY-SA 4.0

Known for her concert and portrait shots, Lynn Goldsmith photographed the famous musician Prince in 1981. One of those photos was licensed in 1984 to Vanity Fair magazine for use as an “artist reference”. The licence specifically said the illustration could appear once as a full page element and once as a one-quarter page element, in the magazine’s November 1984. Vanity Fair paid Ms. Goldsmith $400 for the licence.

It then hired the celebrated visual artist Andy Warhol to work on the illustration. Mr. Warhol made a silkscreen portrait of Prince using Goldsmith’s photo. It appeared in the magazine with appropriate credits to Ms. Goldsmith. But while the licence had authorised only one illustration, Mr. Warhol additionally created 13 screen prints and two pencil sketches.

In 2016, Condé Nast, the media conglomerate that publishes Vanity Fair, approached the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) to reuse the 1984 illustration as part of a story on Prince. But when they realised that there were more portraits available, they opted to publish one of them instead (an orange silkscreen portrait). And as part of the licence to use it, they paid $10,000 to AWF, and nothing to Ms. Goldsmith.

When AWF realised that Ms. Goldsmith may file a copyright infringement suit, it filed a suit for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Ms. Goldsmith then counter-sued AWF for copyright infringement.

What did the courts find?

The front façade of the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, DC, October 19, 2020.

The front façade of the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, DC, October 19, 2020.
| Photo Credit:
Ian Hutchinson/Unsplash

First, a district court summarily ruled in favour of AWF, opining that Mr. Warhol’s use of Ms. Goldsmith’s photo constituted fair-use. The court banked on the first factor and held that Mr. Warhol’s work was “transformative” as they “have a different character, give Goldsmith’s photograph a new expression, and employ new aesthetics with creative and communicative results distinct from Goldsmith’s”.

It also observed that Mr. Warhol’s work added something new to the world of art “and the public would be deprived of this contribution if the works could not be distributed”.

However, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed these findings and disagreed that Mr. Warhol’s use of the photograph constituted fair-use. The case subsequently went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which delivered its verdict on May 18, 2023.

The majority of judges concluded that if an original work and secondary work have more or less similar purposes and if the secondary use is of a commercial nature, the first factor may not favour a fair-use interpretation – unless there are other justifications for copying.

In this particular instance, according to the majority decision, both Ms. Goldsmith’s photos and Mr. Warhol’s adaptations had more or less the same purpose: to portray Prince. The majority said that while copying may have helped convey a new meaning or message, that in itself did not suffice under the first factor.

The dissenting opinion focused extensively on how art is produced, particularly the fact that no artists create anything out of a vacuum. Justice Elena Kagan, author of this opinion, wrote of the need for a broader reading of ‘transformative use’ for the progress of arts and science. The dissenters also opined that Mr. Warhol’s addition of important “new expression, meaning and message” tilted the first factor in favour of a finding of fair-use.

How does this affect generative AI?

A view of the ChatGPT website.

A view of the ChatGPT website.
| Photo Credit:
Rolf van Root/Unsplash

While this dispute arose in the context of use of a photograph as an artistic reference, the implications of the court’s finding are bound to ripple across the visual arts at large. The majority position could challenge the manner in which many generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT4, MidJourney, and Stable Diffusion, have been conceived. These models’ makers ‘train’ them on text, photos, and videos strewn around the internet, copyrighted or not.

For example, if someone is using a generative AI tool to create pictures in the style of Mr. Warhol, and if the resulting images are similar to any of the work of Mr. Warhol, a court is likelier now to rule against this being described as fair use, taking the view that both the copyrighted work and the models’ output serve similar purposes.

The majority’s reliance on the commercial nature of the use may also result in substantial deviation from the established view: that the commercial nature of the use in itself cannot negate a finding of fair use. But the true extent of the implications of the verdict will be clear only when trial courts begin applying the ratio in this judgment to future cases.

What about Indian copyright law?

There may not be any direct implications for Indian copyright law, as the framework of exceptions here is different. India follows a hybrid model of exception in which fair dealing with copyrighted work is exempted for some specific purposes under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act 1957. India also has a long list of enumerated exceptions.

This said, the observations by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision could have a persuasive effect, particularly when determining ‘fairness’ as part of a fair-dealing litigation. Then again, only time will tell which one will have a more persuasive effect – the majority or the minority.

Arul George Scaria is an associate professor at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU).

[ad_2]

ShareSendTweet

Related Posts

Top 10 Richest Athletes of 2024 - Highest Paid - RVCJ
Infotainment

Top 10 Richest Athletes of 2024 – Highest Paid

Ever wondered about how your favourite athletes earn? Let's find out. We have compiled a list of the top 10...

Read moreDetails
The Richest Woman In The World -
World News

Who Is The Richest Woman In The World? Top 10 List – 2024

According to Forbes' 2024 data, 369 out of 2,781 billionaires, or 13.3% are women, up from 337 last year. But...

Read moreDetails
At least 25 killed in rebel attack on Ugandan school near Congo border
World News

At least 25 killed in rebel attack on Ugandan school near Congo border

The Allied Democratic Forces, or ADF, is accused of launching many attacks on civilians in recent years, notably on civilian...

Read moreDetails
Chinese president Xi Jinping stresses U.S.-China cooperation in meeting with Bill Gates
World News

Chinese president Xi Jinping stresses U.S.-China cooperation in meeting with Bill Gates

In this photo released by China’s Xinhua News Agency, Bill Gates, left, meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing,...

Read moreDetails
U.S. guided-missile submarine arrives in South Korea amid North Korea’s missile tests
World News

U.S. guided-missile submarine arrives in South Korea amid North Korea’s missile tests

The nuclear-powered submarine USS Michigan approaches a naval base in Busan, South Korea | Photo Credit: AP The United States...

Read moreDetails
Morning Digest | Heavy rains pound Gujarat coast as cyclone Biparjoy makes landfall; South Manipur cut off as women-led vigilante groups block roads, and more
World News

Morning Digest | Heavy rains pound Gujarat coast as cyclone Biparjoy makes landfall; South Manipur cut off as women-led vigilante groups block roads, and more

Policemen stand guard on the Arabian Sea coast ahead of cyclone Biparjoy’s landfall at Mandvi in Kutch district of Gujarat...

Read moreDetails
Load More

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest

Teamology Bags PR and Media Mandate for Premium Eyewear Brand Rawbare

Teamology Bags PR and Media Mandate for Premium Eyewear Brand Rawbare

20 Interesting Facts About New Orleans That You Should Know

20 Interesting Facts About New Orleans That You Should Know

10 Bollywood Films That Created Extremely Unrealistic College Expectations For Us

10 Bollywood Films That Created Extremely Unrealistic College Expectations For Us

ADVERTISEMENT

About

The Second Angle

The Second Angle (TSA) Magazine covers a broad spectrum of topics including Entertainment, Lifestyle, education, Crypto, iGaming, Technology, fashion, beauty, relationships, celebrities, wellness, travel, and food. It also features user-generated content in the form of tips, guest post, forums, polls, contests and other interactive articles.

Important Links

  • About
  • Guest Post
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
ADVERTISEMENT

© 2017-23. The Second Angle. All Rights Reserved. Developed and Managed by SquareBase.io

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Infotainment
    • Sports
    • People
    • Inspiring
  • Entertainment
    • Lifestyle
    • Home & Decoration
  • Buzz
  • Education
  • Travel
  • Finance
  • Healthcare
  • Technology

© 2017-23. The Second Angle. All Rights Reserved. Developed and Managed by SquareBase.io

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.