Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts

Sunday, October 13, 2024

E.L.V.I.S. and the Trojan Horse

This is about your voice: your singing and speaking voice, not your writing voice. AI can steal either, or both.

As a writer, you may not have thought very much about your speaking voice, but if you are published, you have probably taken part in a vlog, or podcast, or been interviewed, or posted a recording of yourself reading a teaser scene, or a chapter of your book (aloud, obviously).

You probably have not copyrighted your voice. Voices cannot necessarily be copyrighted. Yet, banks and brokerage houses try to bully you into allowing your voice to be used as verification of your identity.

My advice is, never agree to it. Moreover --and I have said this before--never participate in any telephone call on a recorded line, unless you initiated the call and know with whom you are speaking. Don't answer polls on the telephone, especially if the self-described pollster wants you to answer "Yes" or "No" (and only those precise words will suffice).

They may tell you that the call is being recorded "for quality assurance", or "for your protection", or "for your convenience", don't speak up. Hang up. "Quality assurance" is to make you think twice about swearing, it's to protect the caller. "Your protection" is "their" protection at the very best, and could be the opposite.

Convenience is a Trojan Horse.

Beware of geeks bearing gifts. Or Greeks (a jingoist might say). 

Just to weave a little -- "weave" being a newly-envisioned synonym for an extended rhetorical digression which always returns to the original thought -- there are several stories in Greek mythology about toxically masculine men hiding inside a benign-seeming hollow statue in order to enter a fortress and wreak havok, and about one particular queen who was cursed by the gods with a specific taste for a love of animals and who is alleged to have hidden inside a hollow model of a cow in order to seduce a straight white bull.

The offspring from that mating resulted in the Minotaur, the labyrinth, and the ill fated flight of Daedalus and Icarus.

It has always baffled and amused me that a brand of short-term prophylactic wear is named Trojan... but not Trojan Horse. The mind continues to continue to boggle... and weave.
 
So, back to your voice, trojan horses, and E.L.V.I.S.; and, to be clear, ELVIS is an acronym. Elvis Presley probably inspired the acronym for a Tennessee law to protect an owner's right to their voice,
but I do not intend to imply that he had anything to do with Trojans or horses.
 
In E.L.V.I.S., the copyright cavalry may be coming, at least for Tennesseans.

Legal bloggers for the law firm Fredrikson & Byron PA , Luke P. de Leon and Anthony S. Mendoza
survey the legal landscape with a view to protecting your voice in the age of AI.
Protecting Voice in the Age of AI

Their interest was piqued, as they recount, when a client of theirs came to them with suspicions that this client's famously recognizeable voice had been snagged from other contexts, manipulated and published in a voiceover that gave viewers the impression that the client endorsed a cryptocurrency.

The article explains existing Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) "right of publicity" laws, which are state laws, not federal. Their article is worth reading for that alone. 

However, one's voice is not one's name or one's likeness. Enter E.L.V.I.S. in Tennessee.

"Tennessee’s Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security (ELVIS) Act of March 21, 2024, explicitly treats an individual’s voice as protected property in any medium. “Voice,” according to the act, means “sound in a medium that is readily identifiable and attributable to a particular individual, regardless of whether the sound contains the actual voice or a simulation of the voice.” The ELVIS Act guarantees post-mortem protection for 10 years if a voice is commercially exploited by the state; otherwise, protection terminates two years after death. The ELVIS Act provides for civil liability and equitable relief but makes exemptions for “fair use” — the right to use a copyrighted work under certain conditions without permission of the copyright owner — and for fleeting or incidental use."

Luke de Leon and Anthony Mendoza go on to examine other celebrities and public figures who live in other states, whose voices have been ripped off with impunity (my words). Or not!

They glance into Deep Fake territory, also music, and more. They also share potential legal avenues for their client in question, and the take-down of the advertisement... which I will not share. You will have to read their copyright-related blog. 
https://www.fredlaw.com/alert-protecting-voice-in-the-age-of-ai

With regard to anyone's voice, and the ability of AI technology to snag, misappropriate and manipulate it to mislead the many and profit the few, the lawyers conclude:

"From this experience, it is clear that the legal frameworks protecting an individual’s name, image, likeness and voice are inconsistent from state to state, and the advent of AI technology and its proliferation across the internet is going to test the effectiveness of those laws. We anticipate that there will be more legislation — and calls for legislation — in this evolving area. In the meantime, however, an individual should look to the right of publicity (if recognized in their state) and federal copyright law to protect their voice from being misappropriated in the age of AI."


Weave with the best of them!

Rowena Cherry 
SPACE SNARK™  
EPIC Award winner, Friend of ePublishing for Crazy Tuesday   


Thursday, July 04, 2024

Copyright and Fair Use

Here's a new article by Cory Doctorow about copyright takedowns and the intricacies of the "fair use" doctrine:

Copyright Takedown Cautionary Tale

Fair use is a subtle, context-dependent matter, and according to Doctorow, many of what are popularly thought to be firm rules about what constitutes fair use are simply untrue.

This essay focuses mainly on copyright enforcement by social media sites, which often delete content in a draconian manner and make successful appeals by innocent uploaders difficult to impossible. For example: "Google’s copyright enforcement system is a cod-legal regime with all the downsides of the law, and a few wrinkles of its own. . . . And a single mis-step can result in your video being deleted or your account being permanently deleted, along with every video you’ve ever posted. . . . So for the average Youtuber, Content ID is a kind of Kafka-as-a-Service system that is always avoided and never investigated."

Even in this short article, Doctorow goes into great detail, illustrating the complexity of the issue. So much of this material is new to me that I don't have anything substantive to say about it, just that it's a bit scary. Recommended reading.

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Pros and Cons of AI for Authors

Is AI good or bad for authors? AI (artificial intelligence) is such a broad term, and the technology included under its umbrella -- from little more than an enhanced variety of autocomplete to programs that almost appear to "think" -- is so diverse, that this question seems impossible to answer with a simple positive or negative. In this WRITER'S DIGEST article, Mike Trigg covers the most problematic and often discussed downsides, such as unauthorized use of written works for training generative AI, appropriation of copyrighted content without permission or payment, and the perceived market threat of AI-produced books. What he believes we should worry about most, however, is "discovery bias":

The Worst Is Yet to Come

How do potential audiences find creators' works? Through one form or another of advertising, changing as communication technologies advance. "AI will fundamentally change how we discover content," Trigg warns. Herein, he maintains, lies the greatest threat to authors. "In a future of AI-curated content, whose content do you think will be discoverable? Short answer: Whoever pays for that privilege." In this near-future scenario, "Rather than placing ads adjacent to Google search results or embedded in an Instagram feed, AI can just tell the user what to read, what to buy, what to do, without the pesky inconvenience of autonomous thought." Resulting feedback loops will lead to product recommendations, in books as in other commodities, that guide readers to content more and more similar to what they've purchased in the past. Niche markets will become progressively niche-er. "Discovery Bias will further concentrate the publishing industry into fewer and fewer bestselling authors -- the ones with the name recognition, publicity teams, and promotional budgets to generate a self-perpetuating consumption loop."

I'm not totally convinced the benefits will be restricted to bestselling authors. Mightn't lesser-known authors "similar" to the bestsellers in their subgenre also get a boost from the discovery process? But I can't deny the plausiblity of Trigg's warning.

His final paragraph offers hope, though. The unique gift of human authors, "crafting stories that are original, emotional, and compelling. . . .is still something that no technology can replicate."

Note the potential implications of "still," however.

For more on the pros and cons of cutting-edge artificial intelligence, you might want to get the AI-themed May/June 2024 issue of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER.

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.

Saturday, April 06, 2024

Clichés Don't Count

Clichés aren't copyrightable, and rightly so. It would be unjust and inconvenient to deprive the populace of the right to express an inoffensive idea (even an over-used and unoriginal idea) that has been in common use for generations.

Clichés are sayings that are true or may be received wisdom, but they have been repeated so often that there is no freshness or surprise to them. They are an intellectually lazy form of expression... unless twisted into the premise for a "fractured fairy tale", or a country song with clever "bent phrasing".

Examples of Fractured Fairy Tales for children. There are also adult fairy tales with a twist. Some are very fine indeed, but you will need to find links for yourself.

"He Stopped Loving Her Today" by George Jones is a fine example of a twisted Country trope or Country cliché.

One of my "go to" --or favorite-- legal blogs is the Incontestable Blog. This last week, legal blogger Jenevieve J. Maerker of  Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP discusses the lack of copyrightability of a word such as "rock star" in the titles of musical works.

https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/incontestable/fifth-circuit-finds-speculation-and-cliches-not-enough-to-make-musician-plaintiff-a-copyright-rockstar.html#page=1

The Fifth Circuit, at least, will not count a similar song as presumptively copyright-infringing unless it meets the level of "strikingly similar", in other words, so similar that the similarities cannot be explained except by copying. More leeway would be given if the plaintiff could produce photographic proof that the defendents had access and opportunity. 

The Incontenstable article is well worth reading in full. I tried to avoid spilling all the beans.

I wonder how the Circuit would have reacted to "My Sweet Lord"/"He's So Fine".

Clichés that annoy me in television advertisements include "Game-changer". Watch out for the phrase. It suggests to me (but of course, I could be mistaken) that the same lazy-minded employee at an advertising company sold the same verbiage to different clients. 

Another entirely unnecessary cliche that distracts me so much that I have no idea what the product is, is the stopping of air-borne undesirables "in their tracks". So, here is my earworm:   

If you are able to master the Comments process, I'd love to know if there are cliches in TV adverts that annoy you. It seems that, in order to comment, you may be "Anonymous", but if you are anon, the moderators have to approve your remarks as being specific to the topic and not blatant self promotion; or you can give your name and your url; or you can be logged in to a Google account.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 
SPACE SNARK™  
EPIC Award winner, Friend of ePublishing for Crazy Tuesday   


Thursday, December 28, 2023

Celebrating Public Domain Day

January 1 is Public Domain Day for works still under copyright that were first released in 2028:

Public Domain Day 2024

The article includes selected lists of books, plays, films, and musical compositions being liberated, so to speak, in 2024. It also explains some of the intricacies of copyright law and explores the question, "Why Celebrate the Public Domain?"

Most famously, of course, the earliest version of Mickey and Minnie Mouse becomes available for public reproduction and reinterpretation in 2024 (with some qualifications and caveats -- trademark, for instance, has a longer and more tenacious life than copyright):

Mickey Mouse Will Soon Belong to You and Me

As an unintended side effect of what this essay labels "overlong" copyright protection under U.S. law, "many properties with less pedigree than Winnie [the Pooh] or Minnie can disappear or be forgotten with their copyrights murky." As Cory Doctorow is quoted as saying, the remarkable 95-year endurance of some classic works "makes you think about the stuff that we must have lost, that would still have currency," or might have, if that material had been freely available for reproduction and distribution.

As the first article cited above puts it, "Most older works are 'orphan works,' where the copyright owner cannot be found at all. Now that these works are in the public domain, anyone can make them available to the public. This enables access to our cultural heritage -- access to materials that might otherwise be forgotten. 1928 was a long time ago and the vast majority of works from 1928 are not commercially available. You couldn’t buy them, or even find them, if you wanted. When they enter the public domain in 2024, anyone can rescue them from obscurity and make them available, where we can all discover, enjoy, and breathe new life into them."

Having had the experience of editing two paperback fiction anthologies in the early 1970s, I've often mentally grumbled about the problems inherent in the "life of author plus seventy years" rule that reigned for several decades. An editor who wanted to "rescue" an undeservedly neglected story from obscurity would have to find out whether copyright was renewed under the older system, when the author died, and who holds reprint rights -- if they're still in force -- in the present. For a very old, little-known work, the latter information might be almost impossible to discover, as the above quote mentions. Nobody benefits from continuation of the copyright, and readers who might enjoy the story and appreciate the long-dead writer's creation are deprived of that opportunity.

As Cory Doctorow, again, says in an essay on the Medium site, "First in 1976, and then again in 1998, Congress retroactively extended copyright’s duration by 20 years, for all works, including works whose authors were unknown and long dead, whose proper successors could not be located. Many of these authors were permanently erased from history as every known copy of their works disappeared before they could be brought back into our culture through reproduction, adaptation and re-use."

Public Domain Is a Banger

His characterization of this process as "slow-motion arson" might be a bit extreme, but he makes a point well worth considering.

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.

Saturday, June 04, 2022

When You Die....

In DUNE, everyone had wealth in the form of bodily fluids, except that their water belonged to the tribe, and the dessicated remains to their family. There's a lot more inspiring (or not) matter about recycling, and also some sub plots that might relate to modern day discoveries about DNA, auras , bioenergy fields, and ghosts, and how the human mind can (perhaps) change or repair its own DNA.

But, most of us have wealth that we may never consider: intellectual property wealth. What might once have been included in ones estate as photograph albums, diaries, scrapbooks, reels of film and carousels of slides may now be stored and locked in a "cloud" or server farm belonging to a big tech entity. Without a password and a plan, ones beneficiaries might not be able to reclaim digitally stored NFTs, bitcoins, domain names, photographs, social media accounts and so forth.

Legal blogger Nicole L. Petrow of the law firm McGrath North Mullin & Kratz discusses the important steps one should take to ensure that ones loved ones are able to inherit ones sentimental and financial digital treasures... not to mention ones Facebook account.

Original Link: 
Lexology Link:  
 
Nicole L. Petrow's article seems comprehensive, thorough, and well worth doing. Also, it is by far the most recent and current article on the subject, so although I have reviewed other articles, I have not included links to articles from the two-thousand-and-teens.
 
Authors who have copyright registration documents for their books and trademarks etc should be sure to include mention of those and an assignment to an executor of ones copyrights in their wills. An article by Fred Rocafort of Harris Bricken about "shenanigans" on Amazon illustrates why one should be sure that ones loved ones have proof of copyright registration, not only for novels and other literary works, but also for ones blurbs and advertising copy!
 
Lexology Link: 
 
Original Link: 
 
All the best,
 
Rowena Cherry 
SPACE SNARK™ 

 

Saturday, May 21, 2022

For Art's Sake

For the purposes of today's blog, Art is not an alien god, although, given the evolving meaning of the word "icon", Art could be synonymous.

My title might also allude to Aestheticism..."art for art's sake", also to a line in the romantic song  Art For Art's Sake by 10cc. 

For some weeks, I have been accumulating copyright-related legal blogs to discuss Art Rights (not for the first time), and the Davis vs Pinterest result is a good hook. Pinterest is a great place to display ones cover art; I believe that I have also seen it used by book pirates to advertise their allegedly ill-gotten "collections".

Spoiler: Pinterest won the copyright infringement lawsuit brought against them by a photographer. 

Nevertheless, as with many stories (such as a romance novel), one knows how the story will end almost immediately; the interest lies in how the protagonists get there. 

Likewise, the summary of the court's reasoning in dismissing the photographer's suit, as provided by legal bloggers Frank D. D'Angelo and Marwa Abdulaziz for the multi-service, international law firm Loeb & Loeb LLP, is complex and interesting.

Original Link: 
 
Lexology Link:  

Possibly, and this is merely an opinion, the plaintiff was a tad too dog-in-the-mangerish.

In Europe, the courts are looking at (but have not resolved) the question of whether cloud services create duplicate copies of copyrighted work, and whether they have any responsibily to copyright owners depending on how cloud storage is used.

It appears that a cloud storage provider is covered by a sort of safe harbor where a lawful owner or licensee stores a copyrighted work for private use. The wrinkle emerges if the cloud product is used for "sharing" copyrighted works. 

Legal bloggers Patricia Ernst and Christiane Stuetzle for the law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP summarize the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice, and what it means for private copies stored in a cloud, and whether or not cloud storage providers might have to pay a levy for storing copies of copyrighted works... and who should decide how rights holders might be compensated for the reproductions of their works.

Original Link:  
 
Lexology Link: 

For a comprehensive, entertaining and thorough explanation of Art rights in the USA, I recommend the Q and A format shared, apparently exclusively, on Lexology by art-dispute expert Gabrielle C, Wilson,  looted-art specialist Yael M. Weitz, international litigator Lawrence M. Kaye, and the probably-storied* Howard N. Spiegler for Park Avenue law firm Kaye Spiegler PLLC

 

The team explains how a copyright owner proves ownership for the purposes of suing for copyright infringement; whether or not a copyrighted work of art can be displayed without the copyright owner's consent; whether or not copyrighted artwork can be copied for publication in catalogues and advertisements without the copyright owner's permisison... and much more.

Some of the Q and As are merely fascinating, others can be extrapolated to be useful advice to authors and bloggers.

*I opine "probably-storied" because the bio reminds me of at least one Daniel Silva novel sub-plot.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™