Recently, a federal judge in D.C. agreed with the Copyright Office that artwork generated wholly by artificial intelligence is not eligible for copyright protection for lack of human authorship. The decision leaves unaddressed the more nuanced question of what level of human involvement is sufficient for a work that is generated in part through artificial intelligence to be copyrightable.

What happens when a copyright application contains a mistake? Will that mistake invalidate a copyright registration? Fortunately, the Copyright Act contains a safe-harbor provision protecting registrations from invalidation based on innocent errors. In this blog post, we discuss the safe-harbor provision and a recent case interpreting that statute.

When is a copyright infringement case ripe for dismissal at the outset because the secondary work clearly made fair use of the first-in-time work? And, if a court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss, should the judge then award the defendant its attorneys’ fees in defending the case? These issues were explored in a recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision – Yang. v. Mic Network Inc. Here’s what you need to know.

Barbara Kruger, Robert Storr, the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, Brooklyn Museum, and others recently filed amici curiae (“friends of the court”) briefs, urging the Supreme Court to grant The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts’ petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the nation’s highest court should reconsider the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision against the Foundation in a well-publicized copyright case. We discuss these amici briefs here.

In this blog post, we cover the Second Circuit's August 2021 amended opinion in the fair use case involving the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts and photographer Lynn Goldsmith.

Recently, Roc-A-Fella Records, Inc. (“RAF”), which owns the rights to Jay-Z’s debut album Reasonable Doubt, sued one of the company’s three owners, Damon Dash, to block an NFT (non-fungible token) sale of the copyright to the album. RAF claims that, because it owns the copyright in the album, Dash has no right to sell it on his own. Shortly after filing suit, RAF obtained a court order temporarily barring Dash from selling any rights in the album. The case is a reminder that: (a) a rightsholder can block an improper NFT sale, and (b) minters and sales platforms should precisely identify the assets conveyed by any NFT.

Recently, visual artists have minted non-fungible tokens (NFTs) of their artwork and offered the NFTs for sale in curated online exhibitions. What copyright interest, if any, is the artist selling to the NFT buyer? What is in the contract between the auction house and the artist? Below we discuss some copyright considerations in connection with such NFT sales.

Recently, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling that the Metropolitan Museum of Art did not infringe a photographer’s copyright in an image of Eddie Van Halen because the museum’s use of the image in its online exhibition catalogue constituted fair use.  This decision is relevant to all galleries and museums that exhibit artworks digitally, which has only increased since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.  Here’s what you need to know.

Recently, a federal appeals court in New York held that artwork by Andy Warhol, a leading figure of the Pop Art movement, is not “transformative” and that the artist’s foundation committed copyright infringement when it licensed the reproduction of one of his works. Does the decision represent a shift in the copyright law? Here’s what you need to know.