Latest news with #DesignsandPatentsAct1988
Arabian Post
a day ago
- Business
- Arabian Post
AI Copyright Quietly Redrawing Legal Lines
Twelve consolidated copyright suits filed by US authors and news outlets against OpenAI and Microsoft have landed in the Southern District of New York, elevating the question of whether the extent of human input in AI training crosses the threshold of lawful fair use. The judicial panel cited shared legal and technical claims involving unauthorised use of copyrighted material, notably books and newspapers, as justifying centralised legal proceedings. The US Copyright Office added its authoritative voice in May, questioning whether AI training on copyrighted texts can be deemed fair use, particularly in commercial contexts. The Office clarified that while transformative use may be permissible in research, mass replication or competition with original works likely exceeds established boundaries. Its report highlighted that the crux lies in purpose, source, market impact and guards on output — variables which may render AI models liable under copyright law. A pivotal case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers early legal clarity: a court ruled that Ross improperly used Westlaw content, rejecting its fair use defence. The judgement centred on the need for AI systems to 'add something new' and avoid copying wholesale, reinforcing the rights of content owners. This ruling is being cited alongside the US Copyright Office's latest guidance as foundational in shaping how courts may assess generative AI. ADVERTISEMENT Legal practitioners are now navigating uncharted terrain. Lawyers such as Brenda Sharton from Dechert and Andy Gass of Latham & Watkins are at the cutting edge in helping judges understand core AI mechanics — from training data ingestion to output generation — while balancing copyright protection and technological progress. Their work emphasises that this lifetime of litigation may not be resolvable in a single sweeping judgment, but will evolve incrementally. At the heart of many discussions lies the condition for copyright protection: human authorship. The US Copyright Office reaffirmed in a February report that merely issuing a prompt does not satisfy the originality requirement. It stated that current systems offer insufficient control for human authors to claim sole credit, and that copyright should be considered case‑by‑case, grounded in Feist's minimum creativity standard. Critics argue this stance lacks clarity, as no clear threshold for the level of human input has been defined. Certain jurisdictions are taking diverse approaches. China's Beijing Internet Court recently ruled in Li v Liu that an AI–generated image was copyrightable because the plaintiff had provided substantial prompts and adjustments — around 30 prompts and over 120 negative prompts — demonstrating skill, judgment and aesthetic choice. In the United Kingdom, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 attributes authorship to the person who undertakes 'arrangements necessary' for a computer‑generated work, hinting that both programmers and users may qualify as authors depending on context. In contrast, India's legal framework remains unsettled. Courts have emphasised human creativity in ruling on computer‑generated works, as seen in Rupendra Kashyap v Jiwan Publishing and Navigators Logistics Ltd v Kashif Qureshi. ANI, India's largest news agency, has brought forward a high‑profile case against OpenAI, with hearings held on 19 November 2024 and 28 January 2025. The Delhi High Court has appointed an amicus curiae to navigate this untested area of copyright, with Indian lawyers emphasising that the outcome could shape licensing practices and data‑mining norms. India reserves copyright protection for creations exhibiting 'minimal degree of creativity' under its Supreme Court rulings such as Eastern Book Co v Modak. In February 2025, experts noted that determining whether AI training qualifies as fair dealing or whether generative AI outputs amount to derivative works will be pivotal. Currently, scraping content for AI training falls outside clear exemptions under Indian law, though the Delhi case could catalyse policy reform. ADVERTISEMENT Amid these legal fires, signs point toward statutory intervention. In the US, the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act would require developers to notify the Copyright Office of copyrighted works used in training models at least 30 days before public release. While UK policymakers are consulting on a specialised code of practice, India lacks similar formal mechanisms. The evolving legal framework confronts a fundamental philosophical and commercial dilemma: making space for generative AI's potential innovation without undermining creators' rights. AI developers contest that mass text and data mining fuels advanced models, while authors and journalists argue such training must be controlled to safeguard original expression. Courts appear poised to strike a balance by scrutinising the nuance of human input, purpose and impact — not by enacting sweeping exclusions.
Metro
29-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Metro
Famous anti-piracy advert ‘used pirated font'
You wouldn't steal a car. You wouldn't steal a handbag. You wouldn't steal a television. You wouldn't steal a DVD. You would steal a… font?! An amazingly ironic claim has been made about the most famous piracy ad of all time, alleging that it used a pirated font itself. The advert is well known after being played before the film every time people went to the cinema in the early 2000s, and later rolling out to DVDs too. Made in 2004, it's now in the spotlight again 21 years later after a user on Bluesky analysed the font used in campaign material and saw it was not the official version. While the typeface appears to be the licensed font FF Confidential, it's allegedly an identical bootlegged version called Xband-Rough. User on Bluesky wrote: 'By using FontForge on a PDF from the website for the campaign, I can confirm that they are indeed using the illegal clone version of the font, rather than the licensed one!' By using FontForge on a PDF from the website for the campaign ( I can confirm that they are indeed using the illegal clone version of the font, rather than the licensed one! — Rib (@ 2025-04-23T16:13:40.893Z It is understood that the making of the ad predates those currently working at FACT (the Federation Against Copyright Theft), the UK-based organisation involved with its production. While some jurisdictions do not allow fonts to be copyrighted, in the UK typefaces are protected under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which considers them artistic works. Metro put the claim to FACT and the Motion Picture Association, which also made the ad, and they declined to comment. At the time the advert was made, the pirated version of the font was widely circulating, so there is no suggestion that those who made the ad intentionally used an unofficial version. It is also possible that the video itself used the licensed font, even if campaign leaflets about it did not; analysing the video is more difficult than simple text. But it illustrates how prevalent bootleg content was at the time, and rather undermines the central premise of the advert which equated watching a downloaded film with burgling someone's house. Up Next The ad became a meme and was even parodied in the IT Crowd, who memorably made a version whereby film piracy was compared to shooting a policeman dead, defecating in his helmet, sending the soiled helmet to his widow, and then stealing it again. If you try to visit the original URL of the ad, you'll actually be redirected to that parody clip. The creator of the original font, Just Van Rossum, told Torrent Freak: 'I knew my font was used for the campaign and that a pirated clone named XBand-Rough existed. 'I did not know that the campaign used XBand-Rough and not FF Confidential, though. So this fact is new to me, and I find it hilarious.' But he said he no longer has the rights to the font and will not be pursuing the matter. If you do want to use it legally, it's currently licensed by Monotype and is available on MyFonts for £59.99. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, which also collaborated to make the ad, has been contacted for comment. check our news page.
Metro
29-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Metro
Famous anti-piracy advert 'used pirated font'
You wouldn't steal a car. You wouldn't steal a handbag. You wouldn't steal a television. You wouldn't steal a DVD. You would steal a… font?! An amazingly ironic claim has been made about the most famous piracy ad of all time, alleging that it used a pirated font itself. The advert is well known after being played before the film every time people went to the cinema in the early 2000s, and later rolling out to DVDs too. Made in 2004, it's now in the spotlight again 21 years later after a user on Bluesky analysed the font used in campaign material and saw it was not the official version. While the typeface appears to be the licensed font FF Confidential, it's allegedly an identical bootlegged version called Xband-Rough. User on Bluesky wrote: 'By using FontForge on a PDF from the website for the campaign, I can confirm that they are indeed using the illegal clone version of the font, rather than the licensed one!' By using FontForge on a PDF from the website for the campaign ( I can confirm that they are indeed using the illegal clone version of the font, rather than the licensed one! — Rib (@ 2025-04-23T16:13:40.893Z It is understood that the making of the ad predates those currently working at FACT (the Federation Against Copyright Theft), the UK-based organisation involved with its production. While some jurisdictions do not allow fonts to be copyrighted, in the UK typefaces are protected under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which considers them artistic works. Metro put the claim to FACT (the Federation Against Copyright Theft), the UK-based organisation involved in making the ad, and they declined to comment. At the time the advert was made, the pirated version of the font was widely circulating, so there is no suggestion that those who made the ad intentionally used an unofficial version. It is also possible that the video itself used the licensed font, even if campaign leaflets about it did not; analysing the video is more difficult than simple text. But it illustrates how prevalent bootleg content was at the time, and rather undermines the central premise of the advert which equated watching a downloaded film with burgling someone's house. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The ad became a meme and was even parodied in the IT Crowd, who memorably made a version whereby film piracy was compared to shooting a policeman dead, defecating in his helment, sending the soiled helmet to his widow, and then stealing it again. If you try to visit the original URL of the ad, you'll actually be redirected to that parody clip. The creator of the original font, Just Van Rossum, told Torrent Freak: 'I knew my font was used for the campaign and that a pirated clone named XBand-Rough existed. More Trending 'I did not know that the campaign used XBand-Rough and not FF Confidential, though. So this fact is new to me, and I find it hilarious.' But he said he no longer has the rights to the font and will not be pursuing the matter. If you do want to use it legally, it's currently licensed by Monotype and is available on MyFonts for £59.99. The Motion Picture Association and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, which also collaborated to make the ad, have been contacted for comment. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Pair 'filmed themselves on moronic mission to chop down Sycamore Gap tree, court hears MORE: 'Mushroom killer' has attempted murder charges against ex-husband dropped MORE: Prison officer, 23, 'had sexual relationships with two inmates at the same time'
Sky News
21-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Sky News
Birkenstock sandals are not works of art, German court rules
The Birkenstock sandal is recognisable for its big buckles, wide-straps, and cork-made sole. But the shoes do not qualify as works of art, Germany's highest civil court has ruled. The German shoe company had filed a lawsuit against three competitors who sold sandals that were similar to their own, by claiming its products "are copyright-protected works of applied art" that may not be imitated. But the case was dismissed, with Federal Court of Justice judge Thomas Koch calling the claims "unfounded" because the sandals are not copy-right protected. In his ruling, he wrote that for copyright protection to apply, "a level of design must be achieved that reveals individuality". Under German law, copyright protection is valid for 70 years after the creator's death, while design protection hinges on the product's lifespan and ends after 25 years. The legal distinction between design and art in German law lies in a product's purpose. Design serves a practical function, while works of applied art require a discernible level of individual artistic creativity. Birkenstock creator and shoemaker Karl Birkenstock, who was born in 1936, is still alive, but since he crafted his initial designs in the 1970s, some sandals no longer enjoy design protection. As a result, lawyers for the company asked the court to classify the shoes as art. Lawyer Konstantin Wegner argued the sandals had an "iconic design" and said there would be further litigation after the federal court of justice's decision was announced. The case has proved contentious, having been heard at two lower courts previously, which disagreed on the issue. A regional court in Cologne initially recognised the shoes as works of applied art and granted the orders, but Cologne's higher regional court overturned the orders on appeal, according to German news agency DPA. The appeals court said it was unable to establish any artistic achievement in the sandal. Once popular with hippies, tech enthusiasts and medical professionals, Birkenstock gained widespread attention after Australian actress Margot Robbie wore a pair of pink Birkenstocks in the final scene of the 2023 hit movie Barbie. Has this happened before? Historically, it is tricky for fashion pieces to be deemed as original works of art. In the UK, to obtain copyright protection, works of fashion need to fall into one of the eight categories set out in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Copyright is also different to trademark, the first protects the original creative elements of a design, like unique patterns, prints, or graphic designs, while the latter protects a brand's identity like logos, names, and symbols that distinguish it from competitors. One rare example of success happened in the Netherlands in 2004, and centred on perfume, not clothing. Small Dutch firm Kecofa Cosmetics was ordered by a court in 2004 in the city of Maastricht to stop producing, selling, stocking, importing and exporting its perfume Female Treasure, as its smell replicated Tresor, made by French perfume and cosmetics maker Lancome. The court ruled at the time that Tresor is original and carries a personal stamp from the maker, and could therefore be considered a copyrighted work under the country's Copyright Act of 1912. Kecofa was also ordered to pay €16,398 to Lancome, plus all its profits from the sale of Female Treasure, according to court documents.
