In a recent lawsuit that has drawn widespread attention, Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg is set to testify. This lawsuit is initiated by a group of writers, including renowned comedian Sarah Silverman, who accuse Meta of infringing their copyrights in the application of artificial intelligence technology. The core issue of the lawsuit is whether Meta's platforms like Instagram and Facebook have potentially used their works without authorization while generating content.

A music publisher sues Anthropic for infringement, while the latter defends itself citing 'transformative use'. Anthropic claims that using lyrics to train AI models is 'transformative use', emphasizing the creation of datasets to teach neural networks how human language operates. They reject claims of irreparable harm, pointing out the lack of evidence showing that their AI models led to a decrease in song licensing revenue.

The US Copyright Office has once again denied copyright protection for AI-generated works, emphasizing that the lack of 'human creator attributes' is key. The two-dimensional artwork 'SURYAST' submitted by artist Ankit Sahni was rejected, as it involved the use of AI painting tools to mimic Van Gogh's 'Starry Night'. The review committee determined that the creator acted more like a document processor, providing source material to the AI rather than being a direct human creator.

The Australian government has established an advisory group focused on issues related to artificial intelligence and copyright, particularly concerning the use of copyrighted materials for training AI models. The rapid growth of generative AI technology has led to copyright confusion, prompting the government to recognize the urgent need for a response strategy, especially as multiple lawsuits involving ChatGPT have emerged. The Australian government is collaborating with stakeholders to balance AI development and the interests of the creative industries, aiming to resolve discrepancies in copyright protection of AI-generated content across different countries' courts. The Attorney General noted that artificial intelligence raises significant copyright issues, including the materials used for training.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and several other authors have sued multiple tech companies, accusing them of using their works without permission to train artificial intelligence tools. The class action lawsuit involves the controversial dataset 'Books3', which contains tens of thousands of works used to train large language models. The authors have united to accuse Meta, Microsoft, and Bloomberg's Llama 2 and BloombergGPT models of copyright infringement.

Google strongly refutes the AI copyright lawsuit, insisting that 'using public information for learning is not theft'. The lawsuit involves AI infringing on privacy and property rights, and Google claims the allegations are unfounded. U.S. law supports the use of public information for new purposes, and Google firmly believes in its legality.

🔍 The proposal standardizes the rules regarding the use of personal faces, names, and voices, allowing for the creation of digital replicas in news, public affairs, sports broadcasting, documentaries, or biographical works, provided that consent is obtained from the relevant individuals or rights holders. 🔍 The anti-fraud bill essentially normalizes right of publicity laws, which vary by state and target the use of computer-generated replicas of deceased individuals. 🔍 There are concerns within the music industry about the fragmentation of right of publicity, potentially making it difficult to protect artists' public rights across state lines. 🔍 Industry organizations and law firms are responding to this proposal.

Famous authors, including George R.R. Martin, have filed a lawsuit against OpenAI for copyright infringement in a recent case. OpenAI is accused of using authors' works without authorization to train its language models, harming the livelihoods of creators. The lawsuit seeks to be classified as a class action and demands that OpenAI use public domain works. Authors are concerned that language models may lead to derivative works, damaging the market. This case highlights the legal challenges in the field of generative AI.

American AI researcher Stephen Thaler claims that his AI DABUS has sentience and that its creations should be granted copyright. The court dismissed Thaler's claims, reaffirming that copyright requires a human creator and that AI does not possess copyright. Thaler's representative, Professor Ryan Abbott, argued that to encourage AI to create things like vaccines, its creations should be eligible for patent protection.

The U.S. Copyright Office will begin a public comment period on August 30 to explore how to address copyright issues related to artificial intelligence. They aim to address three main questions: how AI models should use copyrighted data for training; whether materials generated by AI can also be copyrighted; and how copyright responsibilities apply alongside AI. The deadline for comments is October 18, and the Copyright Office may use these comments to inform its future decisions on granting copyrights.