Noh comments on copyright issues of AI art – Copyright

October 31, 2022 Pryor Cashman LLP To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com. Megan Noh, a partner at Pryor Cashman, who co-chairs the

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

Megan Noh, a partner at Pryor Cashman, who co-chairs the firm’s Art Law Group, spoke with clean art on how copyright protections may (or may not) apply to artificial intelligence (AI) image generators.

In “AI is Exploding the Illustration World. Here’s How Artists Are Racing to Catch Up,” Megan discusses the difficulties artists might face in suing AI generators for copyright infringement :

Legal experts say artists, illustrators and galleries seeking to challenge AI image generators would have an uphill battle in court. According to Megan Noh, attorney and co-chair of Pryor Cashman’s Art Law Group, there aren’t many precedents for copyright infringement and artificial intelligence.

“The field is very dynamic and evolving,” she said, explaining that plaintiffs would likely have to prove substantial similarity between an original artwork and a generated replica that goes beyond a familiar style. “An artist doesn’t have copyright protection over style,” Noh explained.

Read the full article using the link below.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Intellectual Property

When are mandatory copyright licenses mandatory?

McDermott Will & Emery

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit partially upheld a district court’s summary judgment order ruling that live concert audiovisual recordings are not within the scope of the law about copyright…

Earlier “trademark-like use” may win

Cowan Liebowitz & Latman PC

You may be able to assert “use analogous to use of a trademark” to claim priority over someone else who has actually made technical use of a trademark or service mark similar to confusion before you.