A federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled that Mariah Carey did not steal her perennial megahit “All I Want for Christmas Is You" from other songwriters. @abc reports:
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/judge-mariah-carey-steal-christmas-writers-119999772
AI-Generated Works Are Public Domain, Court Affirms https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2025/03/20/ai-generated-works-are-public-domain-court-affirms/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_content=muz4now%2Fmagazine%2FCopyright%20and%20other%20IP&utm_medium=mastodon #Copyright
Wait. Is this reading correct?
"Under current law, content produced entirely by AI immediately enters the public domain, allowing unrestricted commercial use."
https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2025/03/20/ai-generated-works-are-public-domain-court-affirms/
Other news coverage:
"Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration."
Miley Cyrus must face Flowers' lawsuit, Limp Bizkit's lawsuit against UMG survives, and Mariah Carey wins dismissal of "Christmas" lawsuit.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2025/03/20/3-count-christmas-blues/
DC Circuit Affirms Human Authorship Required for Copyright - The Illusion of More https://illusionofmore.com/dc-circuit-affirms-human-authorship-required-for-copyright/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_content=muz4now%2Fmagazine%2FCopyright%20and%20other%20IP&utm_medium=mastodon #Copyright
Do AI robo-authors qualify for copyright? It's still no, says appeals court https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/18/appeals_court_says_ai_authors/ #copyright #authorship #AI #art
US appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creator https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-rejects-copyrights-ai-generated-art-lacking-human-creator-2025-03-18/
Decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-5233.pdf
The #law also refers to other elements that can’t be attributed to a #machine, Millet said, when it requires an #author’s “signature” to transfer, talks about co-authors’ “intention,” & refers to an author’s “nationality or domicile.”
“Machines do not have property, traditional human lifespans, family members, domiciles, nationalities, mentes reae, or signatures,” Millet said, later adding that “the #Copyright Act makes no sense if an ‘author’ is not a human being.”
Millet wrote that the text of the #Copyright Act of 1976, “taken as a whole, is best read as making humanity a necessary condition for authorship.” That #law treats copyright as a heritable #property right, suggesting an entity that can’t own property or have heirs can’t be an #author. It also couches copyright terms to a #human lifespan, she noted.
The panel declined to rule more broadly on whether or when creating an #AI or prompting it could give rise to #copyright protection, instead simply rejecting the concept of entirely autonomous authorship. It also said it didn’t need to reach the Copyright Office’s argument that the constitution itself requires #human authorship.
The opinion by Circuit Judge Patricia A. Millett lays down the first precedential marker regarding how #copyright #law treats works created by #AI. While it sided w/the US Copyright Office’s operating position by finding #human authorship is required for registration, it could create or reinforce perceptions in creative industries that AI’s contributions to a work represent unprotectable creative choices that can be freely copied.
#Human authorship is required for #copyright protection, a DC Circuit panel ruled in a landmark opinion that represents a setback for a push to award #IntellectualProperty protections to #AI creations.
Computer scientist Stephen Thaler argued a copyright should be registered to his AI program for 2D art titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.”But copyright protects human creation, & Thaler waived his alt argument that he created the work through creating the…program…
#law
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/human-authorship-required-to-register-copyright-d-c-cir-rules
The DC Circuit's decision in #ThalerVPerlmutter is out, ruling that #copyright #law requires that #authors be #human, not #AI, reasoning to this conclusion from the structure of the copyright statute (e.g., duration is based on the lifetime of the author)
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-5233.pdf
via NYU Law’s Jeanne Fromer
Users report that Google's new AI model, Gemini 2.0 Flash, is exceptionally good at removing watermarks. Here's why it isn't a major shift.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2025/03/18/why-ai-watermark-removal-is-not-a-game-changer/
Oh, the humanity—or lack thereof! A US court just confirmed that your beloved AI-generated masterpieces will remain in the public domain. Apparently, #copyright is reserved for 'real' artists with 'actual' brains. 
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-rejects-copyrights-ai-generated-art-lacking-human-creator-2025-03-18/ #AIart #PublicDomain #Law #Creativity #HackerNews #ngated
US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
Hollywood members ask for protection against AI training, Webtoon companies seek max penalty for pirate and Cardi B wins Enough Miami case.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2025/03/18/3-count-hollywood-unity/
Sad to say, I think I agree with the EFF’s position here. Those of you who follow me know that I’m almost vehemently against #AI, especially in the way they are deployed today, which impoverishes humanity.
But #copyright enforcement is the wrong way to curtail this phenomenon. The damage is not done because of the way AI is trained, but in how it is wielded. Make no mistake: using copyright to limit what AI can train on won’t stop AI; it will enrich companies who own a ton of copyrighted materials as they *further abuse* copyright laws to extract money from the AI industry.
I wrote about this some time ago here: https://www.humancode.us/2024/05/15/copyright-ai.html https://mastodon.social/@eff/114180299139460854
Oh look, billion-dollar AI companies want to "train" on creative works without paying!
400+ Hollywood creators just said "Not so fast!" to OpenAI & Google's attempt to get free content. Funny how "disrupting industries" always seems to mean "getting stuff for free." 
In a blog post, Carl Svensson takes a look at the demo scene and its relationship to copyright, including a foray into the history of the (Amiga) scene.
