La citazione in giudizio dell’associazione scrittori usa contro Open AI

E’ reperibile in rete (ad es qui) la citazione in giuidizio avanti il South. Dist. di New Yoerk contro Open AI per vioalzione di copyright proposta dalla importante Autorhs Guild e altri (tra cui scrittori notissimi) .

L’allenamento della sua AI infatti pare determini riproduzione e quindi (in assenza di eccezione/controdiritto) violazione.

Nel diritto UE l’art. 4 della dir 790/2019 presuppone il diritto  di accesso all’opera per  invocare l’eccezione commerciale di text and data mining:

<< 1. Gli Stati membri dispongono un’eccezione o una limitazione ai diritti di cui all’articolo 5, lettera a), e all’articolo 7, paragrafo 1, della direttiva 96/9/CE, all’articolo 2 della direttiva 2001/29/CE, all’articolo 4, paragrafo 1, lettere a) e b), della direttiva 2009/24/CE e all’articolo 15, paragrafo 1, della presente direttiva per le riproduzioni e le estrazioni effettuate da opere o altri materiali cui si abbia legalmente accesso ai fini dell’estrazione di testo e di dati.

2. Le riproduzioni e le estrazioni effettuate a norma del paragrafo 1 possono essere conservate per il tempo necessario ai fini dell’estrazione di testo e di dati.

3. L’eccezione o la limitazione di cui al paragrafo 1 si applica a condizione che l’utilizzo delle opere e di altri materiali di cui a tale paragrafo non sia stato espressamente riservato dai titolari dei diritti in modo appropriato, ad esempio attraverso strumenti che consentano lettura automatizzata in caso di contenuti resi pubblicamente disponibili online.

4. Il presente articolo non pregiudica l’applicazione dell’articolo 3 della presente direttiva>>.

Il passaggio centrale (sul se ricorra vioalzione nel diritto usa) nella predetta citazione sta nei §§ 51-64:

<<51. The terms “artificial intelligence” or “AI” refer generally to computer systems designed to imitate human cognitive functions.
52. The terms “generative artificial intelligence” or “generative AI” refer specifically to systems that are capable of generating “new” content in response to user inputs called “prompts.”
53. For example, the user of a generative AI system capable of generating images
from text prompts might input the prompt, “A lawyer working at her desk.” The system would then attempt to construct the prompted image. Similarly, the user of a generative AI system capable of generating text from text prompts might input the prompt, “Tell me a story about a lawyer working at her desk.” The system would then attempt to generate the prompted text.
54. Recent generative AI systems designed to recognize input text and generate
output text are built on “large language models” or “LLMs.”
55. LLMs use predictive algorithms that are designed to detect statistical patterns in the text datasets on which they are “trained” and, on the basis of these patterns, generate responses to user prompts. “Training” an LLM refers to the process by which the parameters that define an LLM’s behavior are adjusted through the LLM’s ingestion and analysis of large
“training” datasets.
56. Once “trained,” the LLM analyzes the relationships among words in an input
prompt and generates a response that is an approximation of similar relationships among words in the LLM’s “training” data. In this way, LLMs can be capable of generating sentences, p aragraphs, and even complete texts, from cover letters to novels.
57. “Training” an LLM requires supplying the LLM with large amounts of text for
the LLM to ingest—the more text, the better. That is, in part, the large in large language model.
58. As the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has observed, LLM “training” “almost
by definition involve[s] the reproduction of entire works or substantial portions thereof.”4
59. “Training” in this context is therefore a technical-sounding euphemism for
“copying and ingesting.”
60. The quality of the LLM (that is, its capacity to generate human-seeming responses
to prompts) is dependent on the quality of the datasets used to “train” the LLM.
61. Professionally authored, edited, and published books—such as those authored by Plaintiffs here—are an especially important source of LLM “training” data.
62. As one group of AI researchers (not affiliated with Defendants) has observed,
“[b]ooks are a rich source of both fine-grained information, how a character, an object or a scene looks like, as well as high-level semantics, what someone is thinking, feeling and how these states evolve through a story.”5
63. In other words, books are the high-quality materials Defendants want, need, and have therefore outright pilfered to develop generative AI products that produce high-quality results: text that appears to have been written by a human writer.
64. This use is highly commercial>>

Plagio di lettera da parte di un breve saggio: “The Kindest” in Larson v. Dorland Perry

La corte del Massachussets 14.09.2023 n. Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT, larson v. Dorland Perry, (segnalato e linkato dal prof. Edward Lee su X ).

Qui la peculiarità fattuale è che il lavoro plagiario si è evoluto in tre versioni, sempre più lontane dal lavoro originale.

Sulla substantial similarity : <<“Substantial similarity is an elusive concept, not subject to precise definition.” Concrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600, 606 (1st Cir. 1988). The inquiry is a “sliding scale”: If there are many ways to express a particular idea, then the burden of proof on  the plaintiff to show substantial similarity is lighter. Id. at 606-07. Here, there are many ways to write a letter, even one dealing specifically with kidney donations. Larson Mem. SJ, Ex. 8 [Doc. No. 189-8] (examples of sample letters from organ donors/family members of organ donors to recipients); Id., Ex. 1 ¶ 7 (Larson Aff.) [Doc. No. 189-1]>>.

Sulle parti non originali:

<<However, “[n]o infringement claim lies if the similarity between two works rests necessarily on non-copyrightable aspects of the original—for example, ‘the underlying ideas, or expressions that are not original with the plaintiff.’” TMTV, Corp. v. Mass. Prods., Inc., 645 F.3d 464, 470 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted). “[I]t is only when ‘the points of dissimilarity not only exceed the points of similarity, but indicate that the remaining points of similarity are (within the context of plaintiff’s work) of minimal importance either quantitatively or qualitatively, [that] no infringement results.’” Segrets, Inc., 207 F.3d at 66. “‘The test is whether the accused work is so similar to the plaintiff’s work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff’s protectible expression by taking material of substance and value.’” Id. at 62. “While summary judgment for a plaintiff on these issues is unusual,” it may be warranted based on the factual record. Id.; accord T-Peg, Inc. v. Vt. Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, 112 (1st Cir. 2006)>>.

Sui dati fattuali sostenenti il giudizio di accertato plagio nella prima versione:

<<The 2016 Brilliance Audio Letter.8 As Larson concedes, the undisputed evidence mandates a conclusion that the 2016 Letter is substantially similar to the Dorland Letter. The Dorland Letter is approximately 381 words long, Dorland Mem. SJ, Ex. C [Doc. No. 181-3]; of those 381 words, the 2016 Letter copies verbatim approximately 100, and closely paraphrases approximately 50 more, Larson Mem. SJ, Appendix I [Doc. No. 193-1]. Many of these verbatim or near-verbatim lines gave the Dorland Letter its particular character, including: “My gift…trails no strings”; “I [focused/channeled] [a majority of] my [mental] energ[y/ies] into imagining and celebrating you”; “I accept any level of involvement,…even if it is none”; “To me the suffering of strangers is just as real”; and “I [wasn’t given/didn’t have] the opportunity to form secure attachments with my family of origin.” Id. The 2016 Letter also follows an identical structure to the Dorland Letter: a paragraph introducing the donor, including information on race, age, and gender; a paragraph explaining how the donor discovered the need for kidney donation; a paragraph explaining the donor’s traumatic childhood; a paragraph expressing the donor’s focus on the future recipient; a paragraph wishing the recipient health and happiness; and a concluding paragraph expressing a desire to meet. Id. Based on the documents before the court, the 2016 Letter took “material of substance and value” from the Dorland Letter in such a quantity and in such a manner that the points of similarity outweigh the points of dissimilarity. See Segrets, Inc., 207 F.3d at 62, 66.>>

Con analitico esame ravvisa comunque fair use.

Il giudice esclude tortiuous interference nelle continue dichiaraizoni dell’asserito plagiato verso le contriopati contrattiuali dell’asserito plagiante

Esclude anche che ricorra diffamazione.

Contraffazione musicale di Marvin Gaye da parte di Ed Sheeran ancora negata per improteggibilità della canzone azionata

Il 16 maggio 2023 giudice Stanton,  US district -southern dist. of NY, 18 Civ . 5839 (LLS ), STRUCTURED ASSET SALES , LLC v. Sheeran, Atlantic Recordings +altri,  nega la contraffazione di Let’s get it on di Marving Gaywe dsa parte di Thinking Out di Sheeran (v. link al testo dal sito del Tribunale).

Il ragionameto interessante sotto il profilo sostanziale è sub Analysis 2. Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted , p. 9 ss., e si concentra sulla proteggibilità di un insieme di due elementi singolarmenet non proteggibili:

<<SAS alleges that the combination of the chord progression
and the harmonic rhythm used in “Thinking Out Loud” is
substantially similar to that in “Let’s Get It On,” and thus
infringes the work. SAS acknowledges, and the Court concurs,
that the chord progression and harmonic rhythm, in isolation,
are not individually protected . The question then is whether two
common elements are numerous enough to make their combination
eligible for copyright protection .(…)This Court is not aware of any case upholding a selection and arrangement claim based on the combination of two
commonplace , unprotectable musical elements . Courts often
evaluate combinations of at least three common musical elements
and still find their selection and arrangement to be unoriginal.

(…) At some level , every work is the selection and arrangement
of unprotectable elements . Musical compositions chiefly adhere
to this template . All songs , after all , are made up of the
” limited number of notes and chords available to composers .”
Gaste v . Kaiserman , 863 F . 2d 1061 , 1068 (2d Cir. 1988) . Within
that limited number , there are even fewer ways to combine the
elements in a manner that is pleasing to the ears . That means a
songwriter only has finite options for playing a commonplace
chord progression . The options are so few that many combinations
have themselves become commonplace , especially in popular music .
If the selection and arrangement of unprotectable elements , in
their combination , is ” so commonplace that it has come to be
expected as a matter of course ,” then it lacks the “minimal
creative spark required by the Copyright Act and the
Constitution” to be original and thus protectable . Feist
Publications , Inc . v . Rural Tel . Serv . Co ., 499 U. S . 340 , 363
(1991) >> .

In conclusione, la canzone azionata non è proteggibile: <<The selection and arrangement of these two musical elements
in “Let’s Get It On” is now commonplace and thus their
combination is unprotectable. If their combination were
protected and not freely available to songwriters, the goal of
copyright law “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful
Arts” would be thwarted. U.S. Const. art. I§ 8. The Copyright
Act envisioned that there will be unprotectable elements-based
works “in which the selection, coordination, and arrangement are
not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection.”
Feist Publications, Inc., 499 U.S. at 358.
As a matter of law , the combination of the chord
progression and harmonic rhythm in “Let ‘ s Get It On ” is too
commonplace to merit copyright protection>>.

Analogo esito pochji giorni prima per le stessi canzoni nella lite Townsend (erede di uno dei due coautori) v. Sheeran (testo però non reperito in rete)

Istruzioni brevi su come non violare un format di programma teatrale

App. Milano n. 1668/2023 del 25.05.2023, RG 2392/2021, rel. Orsenigo,  si sofferma sulle ragioni per cui il format azionato non può ritenersi plagiato.

<<8.1.1.) Tale motivo di appello è del tutto infondato.
Premesso che, come correttamente rilevato dal giudice di prime cure, la comparazione tra i due spettacoli aventi ad oggetto la storia della realizzazione della Cappella Sistina va effettuata guardando alle somiglianze tra i mezzi espressivi impiegati, in quanto è questo il profilo che può conferire il carattere della creatività e della novità all’idea di narrare una vicenda storico-artistica (e non, dunque, l’idea di fondo), dall’analisi della Brochure del 2010 nella quale risulta fissato il progetto di opera “Il Giudizio Universale – A spectacular show” (in particolare, doc. 22 fasc. di parte appellante) e dello spettacolo “Il Giudizio Universale – into the secrets of the Sistine Chapel”, quale risulta visionabile nella sua versione integrale riversata su CD (doc. 11 fasc. parte appellata), emergono differenze sostanziali tra le due opere.
Anzitutto, il primo profilo di diversità deve rinvenirsi nella presenza di dialoghi e parti recitate: invero, dalla Brochure del 2010 emerge l’assenza di dialoghi o di interazioni verbali, in quanto gli unici artisti presenti in scena sono acrobati e ballerini che, quindi, non recitano, ma eseguono coreografie, mentre nello spettacolo “Il Giudizio Universale – into the secrets of the Sistine Chapel” i dialoghi costituiscono l’elemento chiave dell’opera. A ciò si aggiunge anche
un’evidente dissomiglianza tra i due spettacoli dal punto di vista delle modalità espressive e delle modalità di spettacolarizzazione: difatti, lo show abbozzato nella Brochure del 2010 risulta essere un evento spettacolare da realizzarsi con acrobazie e coreografie, alternate ad effetti speciali aerei e pirotecnici (come il muro d’acqua, il fuoco, i fuochi d’artificio, gli acrobati e gli stuntman; si veda, a tal proposito, doc. 22 pagg. 8, 9, 13 e 16 fasc. primo grado parte appellante) e che avrebbe dovuto svolgersi nelle piazze all’aperto con l’uso di “un impianto scenico avvolgente” (cfr. doc. 33, pag. 3, fasc. primo grado parte appellante), mentre, al contrario, il nucleo rappresentativo dello spettacolo “Il Giudizio Universale – into the secrets of the Sistine Chapel”, che si svolge su un palco di teatro tradizionale, è costituito principalmente da giochi di luce e da proiezioni statiche a 270º della Cappella Sistina, con le quali gli attori hanno una costante interazione.
Ancora, un ulteriore profilo di differenziazione tra le due opere si individua nell’elemento spettacolare: dalla Brochure del 2010 emerge, infatti, che la finalità dello spettacolo è quello di intrattenere il pubblico, mentre la rappresentazione “Il Giudizio Universale – into the secrets of the Sistine Chapel” ha il precipuo scopo educativo, in quanto fondata sulla puntuale ricostruzione di una vicenda storica illustrata tramite immagini e dialoghi.
Da tali considerazioni, che evidenziano differenze sostanziali tra i due spettacoli, risultano condivisibili le valutazioni del Tribunale di Milano, che ha ritenuto impossibile ravvisare profili di sovrapponibilità quanto alle modalità rappresentative degli stessi>>.

Il problema della legittimità dell’uso dei training data per lo sviluppo dell’intelligenza artificiale

Il Trib. del Northern District della California 11 maggio 2023, Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST, Doe1 ed alktri c. Github e altri, decide (per ora) la lite promosa da titolari di software caricato sulla piattafoma Github (di MIcrosoft) contro la stessa e contro OpenAI per uso illegittimo dei loro software (in violazione di leggi e di clausole contrattuali).

La fattispecie -non è difficile pronostico-  diverrà sempre più frequente.-

I fatti:

<<In June 2021, GitHub and OpenAI released Copilot, an AI-based program that can “assist software coders by providing or filling in blocks of code using AI.” Id. ¶ 8. In August 2021, OpenAI released Codex, an AI-based program “which converts natural language into code and is integrated into Copilot.” Id. ¶ 9. Codex is integrated into Copilot: “GitHub Copilot uses the OpenAI Codex to suggest code and entire functions in real-time, right from your editor.” Id. ¶ 47 (quoting GitHub website). GitHub users pay $10 per month or $100 per year for access to Copilot. Id. ¶ 8.
Codex and Copilot employ machine learning, “a subset of AI in which the behavior of the program is derived from studying a corpus of material called training data.” Id. ¶ 2. Using this data, “through a complex probabilistic process, [these programs] predict what the most likely solution to a given prompt a user would input is.” Id. ¶ 79. Codex and Copilot were trained on “billions of lines” of publicly available code, including code from public GitHub repositories. Id. ¶¶ 82-83.
Despite the fact that much of the code in public GitHub repositories is subject to open-source licenses which restrict its use, id. ¶ 20, Codex and Copilot “were not programmed to treat attribution, copyright notices, and license terms as legally essential,” id. ¶ 80. Copilot reproduces licensed code used in training data as output with missing or incorrect attribution, copyright notices, and license terms. Id. ¶¶ 56, 71, 74, 87-89. This violates the open-source licenses of “tens of thousands—possibly millions—of software developers.” Id. ¶ 140. Plaintiffs additionally allege that Defendants improperly used Plaintiffs’ “sensitive personal data” by incorporating the data into Copilot and therefore selling and exposing it to third parties. Id. ¶¶ 225-39>>.

MOlte sono le vioalazioni dedotte e per cio il caso è interessante. Alcune domande sono però al momento rigettate per insufficiente precisazione dell’allegaizone , ma con diritto di modifica.

La causa prosegue: vedremo

(notizia e link alla sentenza da Kieran McCarthy nel blog di Eric Goldman)

Bananas duct-taped to a wall: non c’è violazione di copyright nel caso Morford/Cattelan

Il Trib. del Distretto Sud della Florida, giudice Scola, 12 giugno 2023, Case 1:21-cv-20039-RNS, Mordford v. Cattelan, decide con itneressante sentenza la lite tra i due artisti Morford e Cattelan.

Si vedano nella sentenza le due opere a paragone: a prima vista paiono assai simili.

la corte però sfronda applicando -dopo aver affermato che non è data prova dell’access di Cattelan all’0opera azionata- il noto e importante “abstraction-filtration-comparison” test, p. 9.

Esito della filtration:

<<Where does this leave the Court’s filtration analysis? Effectively, it
removes from consideration the largest and most obvious abstracted element of
Banana and Orange: the “banana [that] appears to be fixed to the panel with a
piece of silver duct tape running vertically at a slight angle, left to right.” (Order
Denying Mot. Dismiss at 10.) This expression is not protectible under the
merger doctrine. But that is not to say that Morford’s work is wholly
unprotectible under the doctrine, and this is where the Court diverges from
Cattelan’s position. There are still protectible elements of Morford’s work: (1)
the green rectangular panel on which the fruit is placed; (2) the use of masking
tape to border the panels; (3) the orange on the top panel and banana on the
bottom panel, both of which are centered; (4) the banana’s placement “at a
slight angle, with the banana stalk on the left side pointing up.” (Id.)>>

Ma allora la ripresa da aprte di CAttelan si riduce a poco.

Si v. a p. 14 il paragone sinottico, assai chiaro, che i nostri giudici dovrebbero pure praticare.

In breve resta solo questo:

Reviewing these elements as a whole, it is clear that Banana and Orange
and Comedian share only one common feature that the Court has not already
set aside as unprotectible: both bananas are situated with the banana’s stalk
on the left-hand side of sculpture. This solitary common feature is, on its own,
insignificant and insufficient to support a finding of legal copying. See Altai,
982 F.2d at 710. And the placement of the banana’s stalk (on the right-hand
side of the sculpture versus the left, or vice-versa) would be another element
subject to the merger doctrine anyway: there are only two ways the stalk may
be placed, to the right or to the left. BUC Int’l, 489 F.3d at 1143.

 

(noitizia e link alla sentenza da Eleonora Rosati, IPKat)

Andy Wharol e la sua elaborazione della fotografia di Prince scattata da Lynn Goldsmith: per la decisione della Corte Suprema non c’è fair use

Supreme Court US n. 21-869 del 18 maggio 2023, ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH ET AL.  decide l’oggetto.

Decide uno dei temi più importanti del diritto di autore, che assai spesso riguarda opere elaboranti opere precedenti.

Qui riporto il sillabo e per esteso: in sostanza l’esame della SC si appunta solo sul primo elemento dei quattro da conteggiare per decidere sul fair use (In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include : (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; ), 17 US code § 107.

<< 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.
(a)
AWF contends that the Prince Series works are “transformative,”and that the first fair use factor thus weighs in AWF’s favor, because the works convey a different meaning or message than the photograph. But the first fair use factor instead focuses on whether an allegedlyinfringing use has a further purpose or different character, which is amatter of degree, and the degree of difference must be weighed againstother considerations, like commercialism. Although new expression, meaning, or message may be relevant to whether a copying use has asufficiently distinct purpose or character, it is not, without more, dis-positive of the first factor. Here, the specific use of Goldsmith’s photograph alleged to infringe her copyright is AWF’s licensing of OrangePrince to Condé Nast. As portraits of Prince used to depict Prince inmagazine stories about Prince, the original photograph and AWF’s copying use of it share substantially the same purpose. Moreover, AWF’s use is of a commercial nature. Even though Orange Prince adds new expression to Goldsmith’s photograph, in the context of the challenged use, the first fair use factor still favors Goldsmith. Pp. 12–27.
(1)
The Copyright Act encourages creativity by granting to the creator of an original work a bundle of rights that includes the rights toreproduce the copyrighted work and to prepare derivative works. 17
U.
S. C. §106. Copyright, however, balances the benefits of incentives to create against the costs of restrictions on copying. This balancingact is reflected in the common-law doctrine of fair use, codified in §107,which provides: “[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . . , scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” To determine whether a particular use is “fair,” the statute enumerates four factors to be considered. The factors “set forth general principles, the application of which requires judicial balancing, depending upon relevant circumstances.” Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U. S. ___, ___.
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), considers the reasons for, and nature of, the copier’s use of an original work. The central question it asks is whether the use “merely supersedes the objects of the original creation . . . (supplanting the original), or instead adds something new, with afurther purpose or different character.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U. S. 569, 579 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As most copying has some further purpose and many secondary works add something new, the first factor asks “whether and to what extent” the use at issue has a purpose or character different from the original. Ibid. (emphasis added). The larger the difference, the morelikely the first factor weighs in favor of fair use. A use that has a further purpose or different character is said to be “transformative,” but that too is a matter of degree. Ibid. To preserve the copyright owner’s right to prepare derivative works, defined in §101 of the Copyright Act to include “any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed,or adapted,” the degree of transformation required to make “transformative” use of an original work must go beyond that required to qualify as a derivative.
The Court’s decision in Campbell is instructive. In holding that parody may be fair use, the Court explained that “parody has an obvious claim to transformative value” because “it can provide social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one.” 510 U. S., at 579. The use at issue was 2 Live Crew’s copying of Roy Orbison’s song, “Oh, Pretty Woman,” to create a rap derivative, “Pretty Woman.” 2 Live Crew transformed Orbison’s song by adding new lyrics and musical elements, such that “Pretty Woman” had adifferent message and aesthetic than “Oh, Pretty Woman.” But that did not end the Court’s analysis of the first fair use factor. The Court found it necessary to determine whether 2 Live Crew’s transformationrose to the level of parody, a distinct purpose of commenting on theoriginal or criticizing it. Further distinguishing between parody and satire, the Court explained that “[p]arody needs to mimic an originalto make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing.” Id., at 580–581. More generally, when “commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, . . . the claim to fairness in borrowing from another’s work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger.” Id., at 580.
Campbell illustrates two important points. First, the fact that a use is commercial as opposed to nonprofit is an additional element of the first fair use factor. The commercial nature of a use is relevant, but not dispositive. It is to be weighed against the degree to which the use has a further purpose or different character. Second, the first factor relates to the justification for the use. In a broad sense, a use that has a distinct purpose is justified because it furthers the goal of copyright,namely, to promote the progress of science and the arts, without diminishing the incentive to create. In a narrower sense, a use may be justified because copying is reasonably necessary to achieve the user’s new purpose. Parody, for example, “needs to mimic an original to make its point.” Id., at 580–581. Similarly, other commentary or criticism that targets an original work may have compelling reason to “conjure up” the original by borrowing from it. Id., at 588. An independent justification like this is particularly relevant to assessing fairuse where an original work and copying use share the same or highly similar purposes, or where wide dissemination of a secondary work would otherwise run the risk of substitution for the original or licensedderivatives of it. See, e.g., Google, 593 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26).
In sum, if an original work and secondary use share the same orhighly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first fair use factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying. Pp. 13–20.
(2)
The fair use provision, and the first factor in particular, requires an analysis of the specific “use” of a copyrighted work that is alleged to be “an infringement.” §107. The same copying may be fairwhen used for one purpose but not another. See Campbell, 510 U. S., at 585. Here, Goldsmith’s copyrighted photograph has been used in multiple ways. The Court limits its analysis to the specific use allegedto be infringing in this case—AWF’s commercial licensing of Orange Prince to Condé Nast—and expresses no opinion as to the creation, display, or sale of the original Prince Series works. In the context of Condé Nast’s special edition magazine commemorating Prince, the purpose of the Orange Prince image is substantially the same as thatof Goldsmith’s original photograph. Both are portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince. The use also is of a commercial nature. Taken together, these two elements counsel against fair use here. Although a use’s transformativeness may outweigh its commercial character, in this case both point in the same direction. That does not mean that all of Warhol’s derivative works, nor all uses of them, give rise to the same fair use analysis. Pp. 20–27.
(b)
AWF contends that the purpose and character of its use of Goldsmith’s photograph weighs in favor of fair use because Warhol’s silkscreen image of the photograph has a different meaning or message. By adding new expression to the photograph, AWF says, Warhol madetransformative use of it. Campbell did describe a transformative use as one that “alter[s] the first [work] with new expression, meaning, or message.” 510 U. S., at 579. But Campbell cannot be read to mean that §107(1) weighs in favor of any use that adds new expression, meaning, or message. Otherwise, “transformative use” would swallow the copyright owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works, asmany derivative works that “recast, transfor[m] or adap[t]” the original, §101, add new expression of some kind. The meaning of a secondary work, as reasonably can be perceived, should be considered to the extent necessary to determine whether the purpose of the use is distinct from the original. For example, the Court in Campbell considered the messages of 2 Live Crew’s song to determine whether the song hada parodic purpose. But fair use is an objective inquiry into what a user does with an original work, not an inquiry into the subjective intent of the user, or into the meaning or impression that an art critic or judge draws from a work.
Even granting the District Court’s conclusion that Orange Prince reasonably can be perceived to portray Prince as iconic, whereas Goldsmith’s portrayal is photorealistic, that difference must be evaluatedin the context of the specific use at issue. The purpose of AWF’s recent commercial licensing of Orange Prince was to illustrate a magazine about Prince with a portrait of Prince. Although the purpose could bemore specifically described as illustrating a magazine about Prince with a portrait of Prince, one that portrays Prince somewhat differently from Goldsmith’s photograph (yet has no critical bearing on her photograph), that degree of difference is not enough for the first factor to favor AWF, given the specific context and commercial nature of the use. To hold otherwise might authorize a range of commercial copying of photographs to be used for purposes that are substantially the sameas those of the originals.
AWF asserts another related purpose of Orange Prince, which is tocomment on the “dehumanizing nature” and “effects” of celebrity. No doubt, many of Warhol’s works, and particularly his uses of repeated images, can be perceived as depicting celebrities as commodities. But even if such commentary is perceptible on the cover of Condé Nast’s tribute to “Prince Rogers Nelson, 1958–2016,” on the occasion of the man’s death, the asserted commentary is at Campbell’s lowest ebb: It “has no critical bearing on” Goldsmith’s photograph, thus the commentary’s “claim to fairness in borrowing from” her work “diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish).” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 580. The commercial nature of the use, on the other hand, “loom[s] larger.” Ibid. Like satire that does not target an original work, AWF’s asserted commentary “can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification forthe very act of borrowing.” Id., at 581. Moreover, because AWF’s copying of Goldsmith’s photograph was for a commercial use so similar to the photograph’s typical use, a particularly compelling justification is needed. Copying the photograph because doing so was merely helpfulto convey a new meaning or message is not justification enough. Pp.28–37.
(c) Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, areentitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists. Such protection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform the original. The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair if, among other things, the use has a purpose and character that is sufficiently distinct from the original. In this case, however, Goldsmith’s photograph of Prince, and AWF’s copying use of the photograph in an image licensed to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share substantially the same commercial purpose. AWF has offered no other persuasive justification for its unauthorized use of thephotograph. While the Court has cautioned that the four statutory fairuse factors may not “be treated in isolation, one from another,” but instead all must be “weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright,” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 578, here AWF challenges only the Court of Appeals’ determinations on the first fair use factor, and theCourt agrees the first factor favors Goldsmith. P. 38 >>

Per quanto elevata la creatività di Wharol, non si può negare che egli si sia appoggiato a quella della fotografa.

Da noi lo sfruttamento dell’opera elaborata, pe quanto creativa questa sia,  sempre richiede il consenso del titolare dell’opera base (a meno che il legame tra le due sia evanescente …).

Decisione a maggioranza, con opinione dissenziente di Kagan cui si è unito Roberts. Dissenso assai articolato, basato soprattutto sul ravvisare uso tranformative e sul ridurre l’importanza dello sfruttamento economico da parte di Wharol. Riporto solo questo :

<<Now recall all the ways Warhol, in making a Prince portrait from the Goldsmith photo, “add[ed] something new, with a further purpose or different character”—all the wayshe “alter[ed] the [original work’s] expression, meaning, [and] message.” Ibid. The differences in form and appearance, relating to “composition, presentation, color palette, and media.” 1 App. 227; see supra, at 7–10. The differences in meaning that arose from replacing a realistic—and indeed humanistic—depiction of the performer with an unnatural, disembodied, masklike one. See ibid. The conveyance of new messages about celebrity culture and itspersonal and societal impacts. See ibid. The presence of, in a word, “transformation”—the kind of creative building that copyright exists to encourage. Warhol’s use, to be sure, had a commercial aspect. Like most artists, Warhol did not want to hide his works in a garret; he wanted to sell them.But as Campbell and Google both demonstrate (and as further discussed below), that fact is nothing near the showstopper the majority claims. Remember, the more trans-formative the work, the less commercialism matters. See Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579; supra, at 14; ante, at 18 (acknowledging the point, even while refusing to give it any meaning). The dazzling creativity evident in the Prince portrait might not get Warhol all the way home in the fair-use inquiry; there remain other factors to be considered and possibly weighed against the first one. See supra, at 2, 10,
14. But the “purpose and character of [Warhol’s] use” of the copyrighted work—what he did to the Goldsmith photo, in service of what objects—counts powerfully in his favor. He started with an old photo, but he created a new new thing>>.

Plagio di opera letteraaria: domanda rigettata dal Tribunale di Milano

Trib, Milano n. 9067/2019 del 09.10.2019, RG 39174 / 2016, rel. Bellesi, sull’oggetto, azione svolta -senza successo- contro (l’erede di) Sebastiano Vassalli per il suo Io Partenope.

Come spesso capita in questi casi, l’opera azionata è una ricostruzione di fatti storici del lontano passato e  basata su fonte comune (qui : vicenda napoletana del 1600 all’epoca dell’Inquisizione). Come pure spesso capita, la domanda fa valere un contatto realmente avvenuto tra le parti.

Inrteressante è l’analisi fattuale del Tribunale circa la comparazione tra le le due opere a paragone, qui non esaminabile in dettaglio.

<<Come è noto, infatti, perché sia ravvisabile il plagio è necessario non solo che l’idea che sta alla base di un’opera sia la medesima dell’opera che si assume plagiata, ma anche che uguale sia il modo concreto di realizzazione dell’opera stessa e che vi sia appropriazione degli elementi creativi dell’opera altrui, tanto da potersi cogliere una vera e propria trasposizione, nell’opera letteraria successiva, del nucleo individualizzante che la caratterizza come originale (in tal senso, fra le altre, Tribunale Milano 11.6.2001 e Tribunale Napoli 23.6.2009). Occorre pertanto verificare se la struttura e dunque gli elementi peculiari in cui si estrinseca la creazione di Fabio Romano (forma interna) siano stati ripresi e fatti propri da Sebastiano Vassalli.
La lettura dei due testi messi a confronto fa emergere una radicale diversità di approccio alla storia di Giulia di Marco, alla cui vita e alle cui vicende entrambi si riferiscono: laddove il libro di Fabio Romano pone in risalto ed enfatizza i profili scandalistici, evidenziati nella quarta di copertina della seconda edizione con una presentazione dell’opera quale “kolossal della passione carnale e del misticismo”, il libro di Sebastiano Vassalli accentua e sottolinea i risvolti più intimi della storia della mistica eretica, giungendo all’esito di una ricerca sulla spiritualità femminile che era iniziata con “La chimera”, la cui protagonista è anch’ella vittima dei pregiudizi culturali di un mondo e di un apparato ecclesiastico che sono espressione del predominio maschile nella società e nella Chiesa>>

Po ad es. :

<<Nella dettagliata elencazione, contenuta nell’atto di citazione, di 73 passaggi del libro di Sebastiano Vassalli, gli attori riportano quelle che definiscono analogie rispetto all’opera del Romano e, nella memoria depositata si sensi dell’art.183 sesto comma n. 1 c.p.c., gli stessi individuano altri 69 punti, assumendo che essi rappresentano altrettante corrispondenze con analoghi passaggi dell’opera del Vassalli.
Tutti i punti evidenziati in citazione e nella memoria vengono indicati anche quale prova del lamentato plagio formale, asserendo gli attori che essi “copiati, o maldestramente rielaborati, formano parte integrante del romanzo” (pag.9 della comparsa conclusionale degli attori).
Al riguardo, il Collegio osserva che nessuno dei passaggi elencati costituisce pedissequa e letterale ripresa delle soluzioni formali già adottate nell’opera del Romano. Sembra pertanto che, relativamente ad essi, gli attori, che lamentano la “palese vicinanza  contenutistica, nonché affinità lessicali, formali e sostanziali”, intendano riferirsi essenzialmente al plagio camuffato, poiché sostengono che le varianti introdotte nell’opera del Vassalli non sono sufficienti ad attribuirle autonomia rispetto alla propria.
Ritiene invece il Tribunale, all’esito di un’attenta e puntuale verifica dei passaggi richiamati, che le cosiddette analogie e corrispondenze rinvenute non siano tali da configurare il plagio.>>

Violazione diretta, propria e come coautori, nonchè vicaria per un sito di scambio file peer to peer con tecnoclogia bit torrent

Il prof. Eric Goldman dà notizia (e link al testo) di BODYGUARD PRODUCTIONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. RCN TELECOM SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants., Civ. A. No. 3:21-cv-15310 (GC) (TJB), emessa da US District Court, D. New Jersey.
October 11, 2022.

E’ decisione itneressante poichè vengono offerti (commendevolmente, come raramente da noi capita) precisazioni tecnico-informatiche

Ecco i fatti circa la piattaforma di scambio peer peer , con spiegazione tecnica accessibile:

Plaintiffs are the owners of copyrighted works (the “Works”), which are motion pictures listed in Exhibit A to the FAC. (FAC ¶ 50; FAC Ex. A, ECF No. 22-1.)[2] According to the FAC, Defendants operate as an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) whose subscribers use “BitTorrent,” a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol. (FAC ¶¶ 38, 56-71.) A BitTorrent user called an “initial seeder” installs BitTorrent’s software system, which is called the “BitTorrent Client,” on a local device to connect to and manage the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (Id. ¶ 62.) The initial seeder creates a “torrent” descriptor file using the BitTorrent Client. (Id.) The initial seeder then copies the motion pictures from legitimate sources (id. ¶ 63), and in the process “often modifies the file title of the Work[s],” or the Copyright Management Information (“CMI”) to include a reference to popular websites facilitating piracy, or “torrent sites,” such as YTS, Pirate Bay, or RARBG. (Id. ¶¶ 64, 72.) Including a reference to the torrent site “enhance[s] the reputation for the quality of [the] torrent files and attract[s] users to [these popular] piracy website[s].” (Id. ¶ 64.)

Next, the BitTorrent Client “takes the target computer file, the `initial seed,’ here the copyrighted [w]ork, and divides it into identically sized groups of bits known as `pieces[,]'” before assigning each piece “a random and unique alphanumeric identifier known as a `hash’ and record[ing] these hash identifiers in the torrent file.” (Id. ¶ 65-66.) Pieces of the computer file or copyrighted works are shared among peers using the BitTorrent protocol and BitTorrent Client that the peers installed on their computers. (Id. ¶¶ 75-81.) Once a peer has downloaded the entire file, the BitTorrent Client reassembles the pieces, and the peer is able to both view the movie, and act as an “additional seed” to further distribute the torrent file. (Id. ¶ 82.).

Poi il cenno al tipo di indagini condotte:

Plaintiffs engaged Maverickeye UG (“Maverickeye”), a third-party investigator, in order to “identify the IP addresses that [were] being used by those people that [were] using the BitTorrent protocol and the Internet to reproduce, distribute, display or perform Plaintiffs’ copyrighted Works.” (Id. ¶ 83.) “[Maverickeye] used forensic software to enable the scanning of peer-to-peer networks for the presence of infringing transactions.” (Id. ¶ 84.) Maverickeye then extracted and analyzed the data, and “logged information including the IP addresses, Unique Hash Numbers, and hit dates that show[ed] that Defendants’ subscribers distributed pieces of the copyrighted Works identified by the Unique Hash Number.” (Id. ¶¶ 85-86.) “Maverickeye’s agent viewed the Works side-by-side with the digital media file that correlates to the Unique Hash Number and determined that they were identical, strikingly similar or substantially similar.” (Id. ¶ 89.).

La corte ravvisa sia direct infringement, sia Contributory Infringement, che Vicarious Copyright Infringement.

Circa il primo, a parte il richiamo di precedenti USA (The Court finds that the facts in Cobbler, Park, and Peled are distinguishable from this case. In this case, unlike in Cobbler, Park, and Peled, Plaintiffs seek to impose liability against the ISP, via contributory and vicarious liability, and not an individual subscriber. Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Defendants’ subscribers, or those using their accounts, employ Defendants’ internet service to copy and distribute the Works to which Plaintiffs hold legitimate copyrights, (FAC ¶¶ 56-71, 90-95.) The procedural posture in this case is more similar to Grande II, RCN I, and Cox, where the courts noted that the reasoning in Cobbler was inapplicable in suits brought against ISP defendants. See Grande II, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 767 n.6 (noting that the defendant’s reliance on Cobbler was misplaced as Cobbler involved an individual internet subscriber who took no affirmative steps to foster infringement whereas the ISP continued to provide internet service to customers despite knowledge of repeated infringement); RCN I, 2020 WL 5204067, at *10 n.5 (noting that Cobbler was inapposite as Cobbler involved an individual subscriber as opposed to the actual 1SP defendant in this case). Although the Park and Peled cases are from this district, those cases are likewise distinguishable as they involved claims asserted against individual subscribers and involved unopposed motions for default judgments filed against the subscribers who were proceeding pro se. See Peled, 2020 WL 831072, at *5-6; Park, 2019 WL 2960146, at *4) è interessante il richiamo alla clausole fatte firmare dalla piattaforma convenuta ai suoi utenti: .

<<Moreover, Plaintiffs advance facts that Defendants explicitly notified their subscribers in the IIA that accounts identified as infringing could be terminated, regardless of the identity of the infringing individual:

RCN reserves the right to disconnect and/or temporarily suspend an account from RCN’s service without warning if in RCN’s sole discretion there is a reasonable suspicion that such disconnection or suspension would prevent or interrupt a violation of applicable law, this Agreement, or RCN’s Online Policies.

Subject to the provision of the [DMCA] and any other applicable laws and regulations, RCN reserves the right to remove or block access to, either permanently or temporarily, any files which RCN suspects or which a third party alleges are associated with a violation of the law, this Agreement or RCN’s Online Policies or with the account responsible for such violation.

(FAC ¶ 134 (emphasis added).)

The fact that Defendants reserve the right to terminate the accounts of infringing subscribers suggests, at least at the early pleading stage, that Defendants do, in fact, contemplate responsibility over their accounts regardless of the individual accessing the account.

Therefore, Plaintiffs have plausibly pled direct infringement by Defendants’ subscribers>>.

Come sempre , riservarti il potere di far qualcosa, ti obbliga poi a farlo quando è necessario: non puoi più sottrarti.

L’avatar può essere riprodotto in giocattoli fisici, senza consenso del suo creatore?

La piattaforma Roblox (v. sito web), creatrice di mondi virtuali e avatar, cita in giudizio l’impresa di HonkKong WowWee per aver messo in vendita giocattoli riproducenti (quasi in toto) gli avatar della propria piattaforma.

Aziona copyright, marchio, concorrenza sleale (anche il c.d. trade dress) e  violazioni contrattuali.

E’ disponibile in rete (post di NeerMcd su Twitter) l’atto introduttivo in cui la domanda giudiziale è spiegata in dettaglio e quindi pure il funzionamento della piattaforma Roblox : si presenta dunque di un certo interesse.

Il punto allora è non tanto  se il personaggio solo digitale sia tutelabile con marchio e/o diritto di autore (certamente si), quanto se lo sia solo contro riproduzioni nel medesimo contesto digitale oppure anche nel mondo fisico.

La risposta dovrebbe essere anche qui positiva: il mondo digitale è solo un mercato dal punto di vista ordinamentale, in nulla diverso da quello fisico, per cui l’esclusiva anche in esso opera. Con poche differenze, a ben vedere, da ogni creazione letteraria che -magari in modalità seriale- può riuscire e creare un proprio “mondo”, che però non sfugge alle regole giuridiche generali. Semplicemente oggi questo mondo ideal-fantastico può essere più variegato , anche grazie all’interazione con i clienti/utenti resa possibile da digitalizzazione e internet.