enric enrich muls

Abogado, derecho mercantil internacional y derecho del entretenimiento (PI e imagen). Profesor (de derecho y de yoga). Bike, bycicling, yoga, arts & music

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

Will the Kat Von D Tattoo Case Kill “Total Concept and Feel”? https://t.co/AeKdutzil3 via @copyrightlately

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

Nuevas leyes para adaptarse a la IA y los deepfakes https://t.co/0OXTmnzQuz

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

https://t.co/5zhBA06GqR

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

https://t.co/N3t3c55FJw

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

US Copyright Office evolves towards acceptance or registration of works AI assisted https://t.co/DZszup8L0i

[Instituto Autor @InstitutoAutor]

🇺🇸 EE.UU.: Se presenta un proyecto de Ley para regular una remuneración justa a favor de los artistas musicales ➡️ https://t.co/LggO7f3i9Q.

👉 La creación de un fondo de remuneraciones destinado directamente a los artistas.

#PropiedadIntelectual #Artista

[Instituto Autor @InstitutoAutor]

🇪🇸 España: Un tribunal de apelación se pronuncia sobre la titularidad de los derechos de propiedad intelectual de una obra realiza en el marco de una relación laboral ➡️ https://t.co/C6pNrleo3B.

👉 El tribunal analiza la originalidad de los proyectos.

#RelaciónLaboral

[Instituto Autor @InstitutoAutor]

🇬🇧 Reino Unido: La Agencia de Licencias de Derechos de Autor analiza el impacto de la inteligencia artificial en el sector cultural ➡️ https://t.co/S96gcIp3oA.

👉 El 79% de los encuestados señaló que su capacidad económica se verá afectada.

#PropiedadIntelectual

[Instituto Autor @InstitutoAutor]

🇫🇷 Francia: Un tribunal de apelación se pronuncia sobre la adaptación y comunicación al público de fotografías sin autorización ➡️ https://t.co/vnsSwKCrww

👉 Recuerda el tribunal que una recopilación de términos artísticos comunes no es una obra original

#fotografías #arte

[Aaron Moss @copyrightlately]

“What, Me Worry?”
https://t.co/wsRV6AQ4yG

[Ed Newton-Rex @ednewtonrex]

I’ve resigned from my role leading the Audio team at Stability AI, because I don’t agree with the company’s opinion that training generative AI models on copyrighted works is ‘fair use’.

First off, I want to say that there are lots of people at Stability who are deeply thoughtful about these issues. I’m proud that we were able to launch a state-of-the-art AI music generation product trained on licensed training data, sharing the revenue from the model with rights-holders. I’m grateful to my many colleagues who worked on this with me and who supported our team, and particularly to Emad for giving us the opportunity to build and ship it. I’m thankful for my time at Stability, and in many ways I think they take a more nuanced view on this topic than some of their competitors.

But, despite this, I wasn’t able to change the prevailing opinion on fair use at the company.

This was made clear when the US Copyright Office recently invited public comments on generative AI and copyright, and Stability was one of many AI companies to respond. Stability’s 23-page submission included this on its opening page:

“We believe that Al development is an acceptable, transformative, and socially-beneficial use of existing content that is protected by fair use”.

For those unfamiliar with ‘fair use’, this claims that training an AI model on copyrighted works doesn’t infringe the copyright in those works, so it can be done without permission, and without payment. This is a position that is fairly standard across many of the large generative AI companies, and other big tech companies building these models — it’s far from a view that is unique to Stability. But it’s a position I disagree with.

I disagree because one of the factors affecting whether the act of copying is fair use, according to Congress, is “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”. Today’s generative AI models can clearly be used to create works that compete with the copyrighted works they are trained on. So I don’t see how using copyrighted works to train generative AI models of this nature can be considered fair use.

But setting aside the fair use argument for a moment — since ‘fair use’ wasn’t designed with generative AI in mind — training generative AI models in this way is, to me, wrong. Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission, training generative AI models on creators’ works, which are then being used to create new content that in many cases can compete with the original works. I don’t see how this can be acceptable in a society that has set up the economics of the creative arts such that creators rely on copyright.

To be clear, I’m a supporter of generative AI. It will have many benefits — that’s why I’ve worked on it for 13 years. But I can only support generative AI that doesn’t exploit creators by training models — which may replace them — on their work without permission.

I’m sure I’m not the only person inside these generative AI companies who doesn’t think the claim of ‘fair use’ is fair to creators. I hope others will speak up, either internally or in public, so that companies realise that exploiting creators can’t be the long-term solution in generative AI.

[Aaron Moss @copyrightlately]

New: A Los Angeles federal court is set to decide the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Andy Warhol case on a long-running copyright infringement dispute involving celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D. Full story up now on Copyright Lately! https://t.co/uwtqsNsVdj

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

copyright concern on AI

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

Charla sobre la IA generativa para AADPC
https://t.co/vHUkfb9sRq

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

https://t.co/XO6QoRZSDQ

[Instituto Autor @InstitutoAutor]

🇪🇸 España: La Comisión de Cultura y Deporte aprueba el proyecto de ley de creación de la Oficina Española de Derecho de Autor ➡ https://t.co/cij5j6gsYJ.

👉 El texto deberá ser aprobado por el Congreso.

#PropiedadIntelectual #DerechodeAutor

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

https://t.co/8snGRI8Vih

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

The jury’s verdict may not prevent another plaintiff from filing a similar lawsuit, but it should prevent a thousand plaintiffs from filing a thousand similar lawsuits, and that’s a good thing.

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

https://t.co/aeCreoxiBu

[enric enrich muls @eenrich]

Thank God!
Today, a seven-person Manhattan federal jury today unanimously found that Sheeran “independently created” his 2014 hit “Thinking Out Loud,” and therefore didn’t infringe the copyright in the Marvin Gaye 1973 R&B classic “Let’s Get It On.”