Tag Archives: copyright

Copyright and AI; an update

Posted on by

In recent years, the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law has become a hot topic, especially as AI-generated content becomes more prevalent. The U.S. Copyright Office plays a crucial role in shaping the legal landscape for these emerging technologies. The U.S. Copyright Office administers the national copyright system and provides guidance on copyright law to Congress, federal agencies, the courts and the public. As AI technology advances, the office has been active in addressing the unique challenges it presents.

Historically, the U.S. Copyright Office has maintained that copyright protection is reserved for works created by humans. This means that purely AI-generated works, without any human involvement, are not eligible for copyright protection. However, the landscape is evolving. In March 2023, the Copyright Office issued formal guidance stating that if a human significantly contributes to the creation of a work in which AI was used, it may be eligible for copyright protection. The office has been receiving applications for the registration of works that include AI-generated content, reflecting the increasing integration of AI in creative processes. As a result, preliminary guidance has been issued for those seeking to copyright works that involve AI content and that guidance can be found here. The office has also received complaints regarding the use of copyright protected art and text in the training of AI tools.

Recognizing the growing importance of AI in content creation, the Copyright Office launched a new initiative in early 2023 to examine the copyright issues raised by AI. This initiative aims to explore the scope of copyright in AI-generated works and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training. As AI continues to transform the creative landscape, the U.S. Copyright Office’s efforts to adapt copyright law to these new realities are crucial. By providing clear guidelines and exploring the implications of AI in content creation, the Copyright Office helps ensure that copyright law remains relevant and effective in the digital age.

This blog post was written by Sylvia Watson, library law consultant and legal counsel, Indiana State Library.

Navigating the musical wonderland of Christmas songs and copyright

Posted on by

‘Tis the season to be jolly, and nothing sets the festive mood quite like Christmas music. From classics like “Jingle Bells” to contemporary hits like “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” these melodies are an integral part of the holiday experience. However, behind the joyous tunes lie complex copyright implications that shape the way we enjoy and share these festive songs.

Christmas songs are more than just music; they are a cultural phenomena that evoke nostalgia and bring people together. Many of these songs have been passed down through generations, becoming timeless classics that artists continue to reinterpret and reimagine.

Image courtesy of Pixabay.While many Christmas songs are in the public domain, allowing for unrestricted use and adaptation, others are protected by copyright. This means that the creators or rights holders have exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and perform the songs, subject to some exceptions set out in the Copyright Act. As a result, navigating the musical wonderland of Christmas songs involves understanding the copyright status of each tune.

Many of the so-called “classic” Christmas songs are in the public domain, which means everyone may use and enjoy them without fear of copyright infringement. Classics like “Jingle Bells,” “Deck the Halls,” “Up on the Housetop,” “Twelve Days of Christmas,” “We Wish You a Merry Christmas” and “O Christmas Tree,” as well as others, have transcended their original copyright protection and can be freely shared and adapted.

However, keep in mind that the public domain status can vary depending on the specific arrangement or adaptation of a song. For instance, a traditional version of a Christmas carol may be in the public domain, but a new arrangement by a contemporary artist could still be under copyright protection.

Many popular Christmas songs are still under copyright protection and using them without permission can lead to legal consequences. For example, if you plan to use a copyrighted Christmas song in a commercial project, such as a film, advertisement, or holiday event, you may need to obtain a license from the rights holder. Additionally, cover versions of copyrighted songs require a mechanical license, allowing artists to reproduce and distribute their own rendition.

Playing copyrighted Christmas music in the background at your home among a small audience of family and friends is likely not a copyright violation because you are likely streaming from a commercial service or the radio that permits such private use. However, piping copyright protected music publicly over a speaker for background music at the library or other public place would require a license.

Understanding the copyright implications of Christmas songs is crucial for musicians, content creators, and anyone looking to share the joy of the season. Here are a few tips for navigating the legal copyright landscape:

  1. Familiarize yourself with the public domain status of Christmas songs. Traditional carols and older compositions are more likely to be in the public domain, but it’s essential to verify the status of specific versions.
  2. If you plan to use a copyrighted Christmas song in a commercial project or performance, or to play publicly in a public space, obtain the necessary licenses. This ensures that you have legal permission to use the music and supports the artists and rights holders.
  3. Consider creating original holiday music to avoid copyright complications. This allows you to share your festive spirit without navigating the legal intricacies of existing Christmas songs.

As we celebrate the season with joyous melodies and festive cheer, it’s essential to be mindful of the copyright implications surrounding Christmas songs. Whether a timeless classic or a contemporary hit, each melody carries its own legal considerations that shape how we can enjoy and share the magic of the holidays. So, as you deck the halls with boughs of holly, remember to deck your playlists with awareness of copyright rights, ensuring a harmonious and legal celebration of the most wonderful time of the year.

This blog post was written by Sylvia Watson, library law consultant and legal counsel, Indiana State Library. For more information, email Sylvia.

Small claims court for copyright

Posted on by

In December 2020, a new law was signed into effect that established an easier way for individuals and businesses to sue for copyright infringement. The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act – the CASE Act – established a small claims court process within the U.S. Copyright office. A copyright claims board was established to hear copyright claims with damages totaling $30,000 or less. The CCB is a three-member tribunal staffed with attorneys who have significant copyright experience. The CCB began presiding over small claims copyright cases in June of this year.

It can be expensive to litigate a copyright claim in federal court. The CCB provides a lower cost alternative to resolve claims. Claims are capped at $30,000 which provides some protection from the possibility of a higher damage award if the claim is heard in federal court. Also, the process has been designed to facilitate self-representation, which saves the parties the cost of legal fees. Although parties still have the option of retaining legal counsel if they so choose. The process is designed to be quicker and more streamlined than a regular court proceeding. Much of the case could be decided based on written submissions. There may or may not be a hearing. Discovery is limited and the proceedings are virtual so no travel is required.

The CCB hears three types of small claims copyright cases. They can preside over copyright infringement claims, requests seeking a declaration of non-infringement and claims related to takedown notices and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Libraries and archives enjoy special treatment under the CASE Act. They may pre-emptively opt out from CCB jurisdiction altogether which would require any and all copyright claimants to proceed with suit in federal court. Libraries may alternatively just opt out from CCB jurisdiction on individual cases, which would mean the claimants in those particular cases would have to sue the library in federal court but other potential later claimants on other copyright claims could still sue the library under the CCB process. If a library opts out from the CCB process, the exemption would apply to all employees involved in the claim as well as the library as an entity. It is free to file the exemption at ccb.org. If a library wants to opt out of a CCB proceeding, the library must take action within 60 days of notice that the claim was filed.

There may be times when it would be beneficial for a library to opt out of suit under the CCB process. If the legal issues are complex, require expert witnesses, third parties or depositions, then it might be better for the case to be heard in federal court as the CCB does not typically allow depositions or expert witnesses. Additionally, the CCB does not have the authority to force third parties to testify or produce documents. There may also be strategic legal reasons for forcing the claimant to file in federal court. Conversely, there does not appear to be a mechanism for a defendant/respondent in a federal court case to opt to have a copyright case transferred to the CCB when they are sued in federal court.

A CCB determination is binding as to the parties involved but does not serve as precedence for any other case. If one of the parties disagrees with the CCB determination, that party may request reconsideration by the CCB. However, if reconsideration is denied, the losing party may seek review by the Register of Copyrights. A review by the Register of Copyrights will only be related to whether the CCB abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. In limited circumstances, the decision can be appealed to a federal court, but only under the following circumstances:

  • If the determination was issued as a result of fraud, corruption, misrepresentation, or other misconduct;
  • If the CCB exceeded its authority or failed to render a final decision in the matter; or
  • In the case of a default determination or determination based on failure to prosecute, if it is established that the default or failure was due to excusable neglect.

More information is available in the CCB handbook. Litigants can also email with their procedural questions.

This blog post was written by Sylvia Watson, library law consultant and legal counsel, Indiana State Library. For more information, email Sylvia.