fair use

Subscribe to fair use

Within the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence (“AI”) legal landscape (as explored in Proskauer’s “The Age of AI” Webinar series), there is an expectation that Congress may come together to draft some form of AI-related legislation. The focus is on how generative AI (“GenAI”) in the last six months or so has already created new legal, societal, and ethical questions.

Intellectual property (“IP”) protection – and, in particular, copyright – has been a forefront issue. Given the boom in GenAI, some content owners and creators, have lately begun to feel that AI developers have been free riding by training GenAI datasets off a vast swath of web content (some of it copyrighted content) without authorization, license or reasonable royalty. Regardless of whether certain GenAI tools’ use of web-based training data and the tools’ output to users could be deemed infringement or not (such legal questions do not have simple answers), it is evident that the rollout of GenAI has already begun to affect the vocations of creative professionals and the value of IP for content owners, as AI-created works (or hybrid works of human/AI creation) are already competing with human-created works in the marketplace. In fact, one of the issues in the Writers Guild of America strike currently affecting Hollywood concerns provisions that would govern the use of AI on projects.

On May 17, 2023, the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing on the interoperability of AI and copyright law. There, most of the testifying witnesses agreed that Congress should consider enacting careful regulation in this area that balances innovation and creators’ rights in the context of copyright. The transformative potential of AI across industries was acknowledged by all, but the overall view was that AI should be used as a tool for human creativity rather than a replacement. In his opening remarks, Subcommittee Chair, Representative Darrell Issa, stated that one of the purposes of the hearing was to “address properly the concerns surrounding the unauthorized use of copyrighted material, while also recognizing that the potential for generative AI can only be achieved with massive amounts of data, far more than is available outside of copyright.” The Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Representative Henry Johnson, expressed an openness for finding middle ground solutions to balance IP rights with innovation but stated one of the quandaries voiced by many copyright holders as to GenAI training methods: “I am hard-pressed to understand how a system that rests almost entirely on the works of others, and can be commercialized or used to develop commercial products, owes nothing, not even notice, to the owners of the works it uses to power its system.”

Can internet service providers necessarily be compelled to unmask anonymous copyright infringers? In an opinion touching on Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) subpoenas, First Amendment concerns, and fair use, the Northern District of California said, in this one particular instance, no, granting Twitter’s motion to quash a subpoena seeking to reveal information behind an anonymous poster. (In re DMCA § 512(h) Subpoena to Twitter, Inc., No. 20-80214 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2022)). The anonymous figure at the center of the dispute is @CallMeMoneyBags, an anonymous Twitter user who posts criticisms of wealthy people—particularly those working in tech, finance, and politics. Some such criticism lies at the heart of this dispute.

On July 30, 2021, a New York district court declined to dismiss copyright infringement claims with respect to an online article that included an “embedded” video (i.e., shown via a link to a video hosted on another site).  The case involved a video hosted on a social media platform that made embedding available as a function of the platform.  The court ruled that the plaintiff-photographer plausibly alleged that the defendants’ “embed” may constitute copyright infringement and violate his display right in the copyrighted video, rejecting the defendants’ argument that embedding is not a “display” when the image at issue remains on a third-party’s server (Nicklen v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., No. 20-10300 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2021)).  Notably, this is the second New York court to decline to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s “server test” first adopted in the 2007 Perfect 10 decision, which held that the infringement of the public display right in a photographic image depends, in part, on where the image was hosted.  With this being the latest New York court finding the server test inapt for an online infringement case outside of the search engine context (even if other meritorious defenses may exist), website publishers have received another stark reminder to reexamine inline linking practices.

In a narrowly drawn, yet significant decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and ruled that Google LLC’s (“Google”) copying of some of the Sun Java Application Programming Interface (API) declaring code was a fair use as a matter of law, ending Oracle America Inc.’s (“Oracle”) infringement claims over Google’s use of portions of the Java API code in the Android mobile platform. (Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-956, 593 U.S. ___ (Apr. 5, 2021)).  In reversing the 2018 Federal Circuit decision that found Google’s use of the Java API packages was not fair use, the Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision (Justice Barrett did not take part in the case) found where Google reimplemented the Java user interface, taking only what was needed to allow outside developers to work in a new and transformative mobile smartphone program, Google’s copying of the Sun Java API was a fair use as a matter of law. This decade-long dispute had been previously dubbed “The World Series of IP cases” by the trial court judge, and like many classic series, this one culminated in a winner-take-all Game 7 at the highest court.

Oracle is one of the most notable Supreme Court decisions affecting the software and technology industry in recent memory since, perhaps, the Court’s 2010 Bilski patent opinion, its 2012 Jones decision on GPS tracking, privacy and the Fourth Amendment and its 2005 Grokster decision on copyright inducement in the peer-to-peer network context, and certainly the most notable decision implicating fair use since its well-cited 1994 Campbell decision that expounded on the nature of “transformative” use. It was no surprise that this case attracted a stack of amicus briefs from various technology companies, organizations, and academia. In the months following oral argument, it was difficult to discern how the Court would decide the case – would it be on procedural grounds based on the Federal Circuit’s standard of review of the jury verdict on fair use, on the issue of the copyrightability of the Java API packages, directly on the fair use issue, or some combination.  The majority decision is a huge victory for the idea that fair use in the software context is not only a legal defense but a beneficial method to foster innovation by developing something transformative in a new environment on top of the functional building blocks that came before. One has to think hard to recall an opinion involving software and technology that referenced and applied the big picture principles of copyright – “to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good,” as the Supreme Court once stated in a prior case – so indelibly into the fair use analysis.

The decision is also notable for the potential impact on copyright’s “transformative use test.” By considering Google’s intent for using the Java API code, the Court’s discussion of what constitutes a “transformative” use appears to diverge somewhat from recent Circuit Court holdings outside the software context.  The decision may redirect the transformative use analysis going forward, or future decisions may cabin the holding to the software context.

UPDATE: In March 2021, the Second Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling on fair use. On March 28, 2022, the Supreme Court granted cert. and agreed to hear the case. On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down its much‑anticipated opinion in the case. For a writeup of the opinion, please see our firm’s Minding your Business blog.

Earlier this month, in The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 17-cv-2532 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019), a New York district court granted the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts’ (“AWF”) motion for summary judgment that Warhol’s series of screen prints and silkscreen paintings (the “Prince Series”) did not infringe Lynn Goldsmith’s (“Goldsmith”) original 1981 photograph of the musician Prince, ruling that the Warhol works were transformative and qualified as fair use.

Fair use can be one of the most difficult issues that copyright lawyers have to address due to decades of varying court rulings applying the multi-factor balancing test, particularly in the face of new technologies that use, modify, and aggregate data in ways not envisioned under the Copyright Act. The Second Circuit’s February 2018 fair use decision in the dispute between Fox News Network, LLC (“Fox”) and TVEyes, Inc. (“TVEyes”) added yet another wrinkle to fair use jurisprudence when the court emphasized market effect over transformative use, seemingly a departure from recent trends in the application of the balancing test. (See Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., 883 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2018)).  In recent weeks, the Supreme Court denied TVEyes’ petition for certiorari, leaving in place the appeals court’s decision; and Fox and TVEyes settled the case, stipulating that TVEyes may no longer make available, distribute, or publicly perform or display Fox’s copyrighted video content.

TVEyes is likely to be an important decision for future fair use cases within the Second Circuit.

In this long-running dispute that has been previously dubbed “The World Series of IP cases” by the presiding judge, Oracle America Inc. (“Oracle”) accuses Google Inc. (“Google”) of unauthorized use of some of its Java-related copyrights in Google’s Android software platform. Specifically, Oracle alleges that Google infringed the declaring code of certain Java API packages for use in Android, including copying the elaborate taxonomy covering 37 packages that involves multiple classes and methods.  Google had declined to obtain a license from Oracle to use the Java APIs in its platform or license the same under an open source GPL license; instead it copied the declaring code from the 37 Java API packages (over 11,000 lines of code), but wrote its own implementing code.  Google designed it this way, believing that Java application programmers would want to find the same 37 sets of functionalities in the new Android system callable by the same names as used in Java.

** UPDATE March 22, 2011:  On March 18, the court dismissed Righthaven’s copyright action against the Center for Intercultural Organizing on the grounds of fair use.**

Righthaven LLC is an intellectual property enforcement firm that was formed by a group of copyright attorneys and Stephens Media, the publisher of the Law Vegas Review-Journal. The company has been making a name for itself; since early 2010, has brought two hundred copyright infringement suits in the District of Nevada alone against Web site owners, forum operators and bloggers alleged to have unauthorized copies of the Review-Journal’s articles on their sites. Recently, it has added other media company clients and expanded its enforcement efforts to other federal districts.
Righthaven is also drawing considerable fire from critics who have denounced the company as a copyright troll, and an attack dog. The criticism is directed at Righthaven’s business model.

The lawsuits target individuals and small, usually non-profit entities and other Web sites that have failed to take advantage of the DMCA safe harbor protection against liability for material posted by a third party. Righthaven makes no takedown demands prior to filing its complaints, which seek not only damages but transfer of the defendant’s domain name. The company then presses for a quick settlement.

So far, about half of the Righthaven lawsuits have settled, probably for the low four figures. Righthaven Lawsuits, a Web site that tracks the Righthaven litigation, estimates that Righthaven has taken in about $364,000 thus far.  But some Righthaven targets are fighting back, raising defenses such as copyright fair use and implied license, in several cases with the assistance of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Righthaven’s lawsuits in the District of Nevada have so far yielded two rulings on the copyright fair use defense and the doctrine of implied license, and may soon yield further rulings on those issues. These opinions should be noted by content owners. The opinions in Righthaven v. Klerks and Righthaven v. Realty One Group suggest a broad view of the fair use doctrine in the online context, and perhaps a potentially even broader view of the application of the doctrine of implied license.