Category: Creative Content

Computing, Content Development, Copyright, Creative Content, Entertainment, Internet, Strategy

Ping® by Adlerlaw October 2025 – Navigating AI in Creative Contracts

Third-party generative artificial intelligence systems (AI) are rapidly transforming creative work, introducing new opportunities and real legal and business risks. Many contracts do not yet cover how AI tools are used, who owns resulting intellectual property, or what happens if errors or unlicensed materials are incorporated into your final product. Creative professionals should strongly consider reviewing their contracts and adding provisions for AI use to tackle evolving risks and responsibilities for your industry. This article looks at contractual issues affected by use of AI tools and suggests specific terms to consider. While not exhaustive, the topics in this article target major areas for attention.

Copyright & Intellectual Property (IP) Rights

AI-generated work can pose challenges for copyright protection, licensing, and third-party rights. Many platforms and tools have uncertain or shifting approaches to ownership and proper licensing.

Read more here.

Contracts, Copyright, Creative Content

Ping® by Adlerlaw – More AI-Related Legal Issues For Creative Professionals

The Commercial Use of AI in Voiceovers: Legal Considerations and Implications

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has revolutionized various industries, including the field of voiceovers. As AI-generated voices become increasingly sophisticated and indistinguishable from human voices, their commercial use has raised significant legal questions and concerns. This article examines the key legal considerations surrounding the commercial use of AI in voiceovers, including copyright and intellectual property issues, privacy and consent requirements, licensing and usage rights, disclosure and transparency obligations, and industry-specific considerations.

To learn more, read the full article here.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions, comments or concerns you may have around this issue.

Advertising, Business, Creative Content, Ecommerce, Entertainment, Internet, Marketing

Ping® by Adlerlaw – Ultimate Guide to Google Ads Suspension Solutions

Has your Google Ads account been suspended? Do you find the suspension notice to be vague and unsubstantiated? You’re not alone! Do you want to know what to do when Google Ads shuts you down? Here are some suggestions.

First, read the Notice! Google’s Policies are intentionally vague and cover a broad range of conduct.

Second, review the response guidelines. Determine what type of response is required and gather “evidence” in support of your position before you respond.

Third, Consult your lawyer!. It’s easy to make mistakes. Presenting your best case in the first instance will improve efficiency and effectiveness.

To learn more about specific steps and responses to Google Ads Account Suspension Notices, please read the full article on the Adler Law website here.

For more information, contact an attorney at the Adler Law Group.

Business, Copyright, Creative Content, Entertainment, Law, Media, Music

Ping® by Adlerlaw – The Copyright Implications Of AI-Generated Music

Do you feel like the subject of AI has entered almost every conversation?

This month’s issue of the Ping® Newsletter looks at the Copyright Implications of AI-Generated Music.

For creative professionals and especially musicians, trying to evaluate the impact of AI on both creative and commercial rights and music, raises more questions than it answers. For our quick and by no means exhaustive summary of some of these questions, read more below.

The Copyright implications of AI-generated music is fast becoming a major issue as AI tools capable of creating music that mimics human artists have proliferated. Some key questions include whether AI-generated music can be copyrighted, who owns the rights to AI-generated music, and whether using copyrighted works to train AI models constitutes infringement.

For a discussion of four questions on this topic, visit the Ping® post on adler-law.com. Those questions are:

1. What Is The Current Legal Stance?

2. How Much Human Involvement is Necessary?

3. What Is The The Originality Requirement.

4. What Is Shaping The Ongoing Debate?

Read the full article here.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions, comments or concerns you may have around this issue.

Copyright, Creative Content, Entertainment, Photography

Ping® by Adlerlaw – Warhol Loses Copyright Fair Use Defense of Photo at SCOTUS

In Warhol v. Goldsmith, Opinion located here, the estate of deceased pop artist Andy Warhol argued its use of the photo at issue was fair use under the first of the four Fair Use test factors (the “purpose and character of the use”), because Warhol’s contributions were transformative, adding new expression, meaning, or message. The Court countered that while relevant to whether a copying use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character, it is not, without more, dispositive. It must be weighed against other considerations, like commercialism. Here, the specific use of Goldsmith’s photograph alleged to infringe her copyright is AWF’s licensing of Orange Prince to Condé Nast. As portraits of Prince used to depict Prince in magazine stories about Prince, the original photograph and AWF’s copying use of it share substantially the same commercial purpose.

In 2016, the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) licensed an image of “Orange Prince”—an orange silkscreen portrait of the musician Prince created by pop artist Andy Warhol to Condé Nast for $10,000 to appear on a magazine cover. The image is one of 16 works (the Prince Series) derived from a copyrighted photograph taken in 1981 by Lynn Goldsmith, who had been commissioned by Newsweek in 1981 to photograph musician named Prince Rogers Nelson.

Years later, Goldsmith granted a limited license to Vanity Fair for use of one of her Prince photos as an “artist reference for an illustration.” The terms of the license included that the use would be for “one time” only. Vanity Fair hired Warhol to create the illustration, and Warhol used Goldsmith’s photo to create a purple silkscreen portrait of Prince, which appeared with an article about Prince in Vanity Fair’s November 1984 issue. The magazine credited Goldsmith for the “source photograph” and paid her $400. 

After Prince died in 2016, Vanity Fair’s parent company (Condé Nast) asked AWF about reusing the 1984 Vanity Fair image for a special edition magazine that would commemorate Prince. When Condé Nast learned about the other Prince Series images, it opted instead to purchase a license from AWF to publish Orange Prince. Goldsmith did not know about the Prince Series until 2016, when she saw Orange Prince on the cover of Condé Nast’s magazine. Goldsmith notified AWF of her belief that it had infringed her copyright. AWF then sued Goldsmith for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement or in the alternative, fair use. Goldsmith counterclaimed for infringement. 

The District Court granted AWF summary judgment on its defense of fair use. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that all four fair use factors favored Goldsmith. In this Court, the sole question presented is whether the first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,” §107(1), weighs in favor of AWF’s recent commercial licensing to Condé Nast.Held: The “purpose and character” of AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph in commercially licensing Orange Prince to Condé Nast does not favor AWF’s fair use defense to copyright infringement. Pp. 12–38.

Business, Copyright, Creative Content, Entertainment, Scriptwriting

Ping® by AdlerLaw – Important Reasons To Register Your Copyright

Copyright law protects the expression not the idea.

Many writers worry about “idea theft,” using it as the reason they don’t tell people about their projects, won’t publicaly post their loglines, or won’t apply for contests and fellowships. But the fact is, copyright law only protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Lots of films and television shows have similar concepts.

But what do you do if you believe your actual script or deck, or other materials were stolen? I recently received a call from a prospective client with that very concern. Read more here.

Advertising, Affiliate Marketing, Branding, Business, Content Development, Creative Content, Design, Entertainment, Evidence, furniture, Law, Marketing, Patent, Strategy, Trademarks

Ping® – Arts, Entertainment, Media and Advertising Law News – Protecting Furniture Design Keeps Getting Harder

Herman Miller, Inc. – a leading furniture brand and purveyor of the iconic Eames Chair Design – suffered a loss at US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in its bid to protect as “trade dress” the design of the chair. The case involves a well-known chair design dating from the 1940’s, by designers Ray and Charles Eames. The chair ultimately was recognized by Time Magazine as the Best Design of the 20th Century, and now is in the design collections of numerous museums. Herman Miller sought registration of most of the chair’s configuration as a mark, depicted in more than one view, for “furniture, namely, chairs.”

The court weighed each of the Morton-Norwich factors, concluding that the proposed three-dimensional product configuration as a whole indicates that it is functional. The court found that patent evidence, the advertisements touting utilitarian advantages of the design, and the limited availability of alternative designs that would work equally well, proved functionality.

Key Take Aways:

  1. Beware of patent evidence in trade dress protection due to risk that distinctive design elements be treated as de jure functional. In general, examining attorneys no longer make this distinction in Office actions that refuse registration based on functionality. De facto functionality is not a ground for refusal. In re Ennco Display Sys. Inc., 56 USPQ2d 1279, 1282 (TTAB 2000); In re Parkway Mach. Corp., 52 USPQ2d 1628, 1631 n.4 (TTAB 1999).
  2. Ensure that advertising promotes the nonfunctional design elements, such “look for” advertising. Examples include evidence, including SEO data, that connected the applicant’s efforts to promote the applied-for mark as a trademark and consumers’ ability to conceive of the applied-for mark as such, and examples of unsolicited media coverage

Advertising, Branding, Business, Copyright, Creative Content, Fashion Law, Law, Legislation, Photography, Uncategorized

Is It Necessary To Register A Design Copyright?

A client was asking “is it necessary to fill out all the paperwork to register a design even though the law says you already own it?”

It’s a good question. Technically, under the Copyright Act as amended in 1976, the author (creator) of a work owns the copyright. The 1976 Act states that copyright protection extends to original works that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. This wording broadens the scope of federal statutory copyright protection from the previous “publication” standard to a “fixation” standard. No further action is necessary. Under previous versions of the law, there were publication requirements to perfect ownership.

Under section 102 of the Act, copyright protection extends to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”

Until the ’76 statutory revision to U.S. copyright law the Copyright Act of 1909 governed, under which federal copyright protection attached only when those works were 1) published and 2) had a notice of copyright affixed. In addition, state copyright law governed protection for unpublished works creating inconsistencies.

Despite the successful streamlining and efficiency of rights creation and enforcement, some challenges and inconsistencies remained. Most noticeably, there had been spit in the federal courts. Some courts required the certificate to litigate, some courts only required proof that an application had been filed.

Last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that in order for a copyright owner to enforce its rights against infringers, the copyright owner must have a registration certificate for the works that are being infringed.

In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. ___ (2019) (PDF here) decided March 4, 2019, the US Supreme Court resolved this split among courts around the country by holding that the mere filing of a copyright application is not sufficient to allow a copyright owner to file suit – actual approval of a copyright application by the United States Copyright Office is required before suit can be filed. Approval comes only in the form of a Registration Certificate.

Returning to the client’s question, while it is true that the Copyright Act says  one owns the copyright in a work when it is fixed, it is no longer true that one can ignore the registration requirements. Yes, one does not have to do anything formal to own a copyright in a work one creates. However, one cannot enforce those rights without the registration certificate in hand. For all practical purposes, there is no reason not to register the copyright in any design, pattern or other distinctive element you create. The fees are relatively low ($65.00) and completing/filing the form can be done electronically.

A word to the wise, like all areas of Intellectual Property, there are nuances that are easily overlooked by the uninitiated. You should always consult with an experienced copyright lawyer when evaluating any individual situation.

Business, Compliance, Computing, Content Development, Contracts, Copyright, Creative Content, cyber risk, Ecommerce, Entertainment, Entrepreneurs, Infringement, Litigation, Ownership

Declaratory Judgment Action for Copyright Infringement

At a time when #media creation & consumption is traveling across a growing number of devices, at increasing speeds, and without care for for borders whether physical, digital, or geographic, licensing, distribution and use of digital content can cause problems.

The case of Fastcase, Inc. v. Lawriter, LLC, Case No. 17-14110 (11th Cir. Oct. 29, 2018) (Tjoflat, J), involved a dispute between two legal publication service companies over the right to re-publish the Georgia Regulations.

The Declaratory Judgment defendant and presumptive rights owner had no enforceable copyright or contract rights in the Regulations. Defendant updated the terms so that unauthorized re-publication of the Regulations would result in liquidated damages of $20,000 per instance, which was relevant to the jurisdictional issues of whether § 411(a) is a jurisdictional bar.

From The National Law Review, source for this story: “Practice Note: A demand letter alleging infringement under the Copyright Act—or even alleging state law claims that would arguably be preempted by the Copyright Act—confers jurisdiction on a federal court to hear the recipient’s declaratory judgment action.”

Copyright, Creative Content, Entertainment, Infringement, Litigation, Uncategorized

Copyright Must Read: SKIDMORE V. LED ZEPPELIN reversed, remanded for prejudicially erroneous Jury Instructions.

Hat tip to Joshua L. Simmons, Copyright Division Council Liaison from KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP in New York for keeping the #Copyright Bar up to date on important developments.

From this week’s news letter is the decision in Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin involving a claim by Michael Skidmore, a Trustee, alleging Led Zeppelin copied key portions of its timeless hit “Stairway to Heaven” from the song “Taurus.” At trial, the jury found in favor of the Defendants. Skidmore appealed on the grounds of alleged trial errors. He also disputed the district court’s determination that the scope of the copyright for unpublished works under the Copyright Act of 1909 (“1909 Act”) is defined by the deposit copy.

The appellate court made several key holdings. First, the failure to instruct the jury that the “selection and arrangement of unprotectable musical elements are protectable” was prejudicial error.  Second, a jury instruction incorrectly stated that copyright does not protect “chromatic scales, arpeggios or short sequences of three notes.” Third, a jury instruction on originality  incorrectly omitted a statement that “any elements from prior works or the public domain are not considered original parts and not protected by copyright.” “In copyright law, the ‘original’ part of a work need not be new or novel.”  Lastly, the district court must revisit the issue whether as a matter of law, that Skidmore’s “evidence as to proof of access is insufficient to trigger the inverse ratio rule.”

For more more information:

SKIDMORE V. LED ZEPPELIN
No. 16-56057, 16-56287, 2018 WL 4654729 (9th Cir. Sep. 28, 2018)