Tag: copyright laws

OpenAI Whistleblower Parents Now Say He ‘Was Shot Twice’ in the Head in Death Ruled a ‘Suicide’ by Chief Medical Examiner

Suchir Balaji, the OpenAi whistleblower who allegedly committed suicide was shot twice in the head, according to his parents.

Balaji, 26, was found dead in his San Francisco apartment with a gunshot wound to the head in November shortly after he told the New York Times that OpenAi was violating copyright laws.

His death was initially ruled a suicide by a medical examiner, however his parents immediately hired a private investigator and did a second autopsy.

Balaji’s father insisted his son was happy and not suicidal.

“He was happy, not depressed or anything. It was his birthday week. He made plans to see us in January.”

“How can anyone believe that there was no suicide note left?” he continued. “We have seen the blood shots in the bathroom, signs of fight,” Balaji’s father said at a presser in December.

Keep reading

‘Anti-Trump’ Hollywood Stars Request Administration’s Help With AI Copyright Protections, Sending An Open Letter

A number of Hollywood stars who previously slammed President Donald Trump’s administration are now reportedly seeking its assistance in enforcing artificial intelligence (AI) copyright protections — as the entertainment industry fights back against the impact of the new technology.

Actor and director Ben Stiller, musician Paul McCartney, and actor Mark Ruffalo are among the over 400 entertainment figures who signed an open letter to President Trump’s administration this week.

“We firmly believe that America’s global AI leadership must not come at the expense of our essential creative industries,” the letter began, which was addressed to the Trump administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is a department of the United States government, part of the Executive Office of the President. Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to provide the president and Executive Office of the President (EOP) with advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of national policy and the work of the executive branch. This includes matters of the economy, national security, homeland security, health, foreign relations, the environment, education, and resource management, according to the White House.

“America’s arts and entertainment industry supports over 2.3M American jobs with over $229Bn in wages annually, while providing the foundation for American democratic influence and soft power abroad. But AI companies are asking to undermine this economic and cultural strength by weakening copyright protections for the films, television series, artworks, writing, music, and voices used to train AI models at the core of multi-billion-dollar corporate valuations,” the group’s letter continued.

For years, companies training AI tech have purportedly collected copyrighted art, books, music, and other creative mediums of entertainment without paying for it. The companies can then create their own works while profiting from the “stolen” material.

“For nearly 250 years, U.S. copyright law has balanced [a] creator’s rights with the needs of the public, creating the world’s most vibrant creative economy,” it added. “We recommend that the American AI Action Plan uphold existing copyright frameworks to maintain the strength of America’s creative and knowledge industries, as well as American cultural influence abroad.”

The letter is in response to submissions placed by Google and OpenAI, requesting the ability to train their own AI models on copyrighted material.

“The federal government can both secure Americans’ freedom to learn from AI and avoid forfeiting our AI lead to the PRC by preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material,” OpenAI’s letter read.

The entertainment industry’s letter continued, countering OpenAI’s point: “There is no reason to weaken or eliminate the copyright protections that have helped America flourish. Not when AI companies can use our copyrighted material by simply doing what the law requires: negotiating appropriate licenses with copyright holders – just as every other industry does.”

Keep reading

Copyright Is Not a Tool to Silence Critics of Religious Education

Copyright law is not a tool to punish or silence critics. This is a principle so fundamental that it is the ur-example of fair use, which typically allows copying another’s creative work when necessary for criticism. But sometimes, unscrupulous rightsholders misuse copyright law to bully critics into silence by filing meritless lawsuits, threatening potentially enormous personal liability unless they cease speaking out. That’s why EFF is defending Zachary Parrish, a parent in Indiana, against a copyright infringement suit by LifeWise, Inc.

LifeWise produces controversial “released time” religious education programs for public elementary school students during school hours. After encountering the program at his daughter’s public school, Mr. Parrish co-founded “Parents Against LifeWise,” a group that strives to educate and warn others about the harms they believe LifeWise’s programs cause. To help other parents make fully informed decisions about signing their children up for a LifeWise program, Mr. Parrish obtained a copy of LifeWise’s elementary school curriculum—which the organization kept secret from everyone except instructors and enrolled students—and posted it to the Parents Against LifeWise website. LifeWise sent a copyright takedown to the website’s hosting provider to get the curriculum taken down, and followed up with an infringement lawsuit against Mr. Parrish.

EFF filed a motion to dismiss LifeWise’s baseless attempt to silence Mr. Parrish. As we explained to the court, Mr. Parrish’s posting of the curriculum was a paradigmatic example of fair use, an important doctrine that allows critics like Mr. Parrish to comment on, criticize, and educate others on the contents of a copyrighted work. LifeWise’s own legal complaint shows why Mr. Parrish’s use was fair: “his goal was to gather information and internal documents with the hope of publishing information online which might harm LifeWise’s reputation and galvanize parents to oppose local LifeWise Academy chapters in their communities.” This is a mission of public advocacy and education that copyright law protects. In addition, Mr. Parrish’s purpose was noncommercial: far from seeking to replace or compete with LifeWise, he posted the curriculum to encourage others to think carefully before signing their children up for the program. And posting the curriculum doesn’t harm LifeWise—at least not in any way that copyright law was meant to address. Just like copyright doesn’t stop a film critic from using scenes from a movie as part of a devastating review, it doesn’t stop a concerned parent from educating other parents about a controversial religious school program by showing them the actual content of that program.

Keep reading

Olympics Opening Ceremony Features Dancing Drag Queens And Bizarre Symbology

Several X accounts that posted videos and/or screenshots about the absurdities of the Olympics’ opening ceremonies have been hit with Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaints enforced by Elon Musk’s social media platform. 

Your account has been locked because X received a compliant Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) Notice for content posted to your X account. Under the DMCA, copyright owners can notify X claiming that a user has infringed their copyrighted works. Upon receipt of a valid DMCA notice, X will remove the identified material.

X maintains a repeat copyright infringer policy under which repeat infringer accounts will be suspended. Accruing multiple DMCA strikes may lead to suspension of your account.

“They’re now targeting anyone who dared to complain about the blasphemous woke agenda during the @Olympics opening ceremony,” X user Dr. Simon Goddek wrote. 

Keep reading

Tennessee Judge Rules Not One Page of Covenant Killer Writings Shall be Released, Cites Dubious Copyright Claims of Intervenors

Tennessee Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea L. Myles ruled in a decision released at 11:58 pm on Thursday that none of the writings left by Covenant School killer Audrey Elizabeth Hale shall be released to the multiple parties who sued Metro Nashville to secure their release, citing the copyright claims of the parents she earlier allowed to intervene in the lawsuit.

Myles ruled in favor of the defendants and intervenors in the case, refusing to release the documents to a collection of media organizations and individuals.

Among those who sued to compel the full release of Hale’s writings from Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) were The Tennessee Star editor-in-chief Michael Patrick Leahy, who is also CEO of Star News Digital Media Inc. (SNDM), the publisher of The Star. Other plaintiffs included the Tennessee Firearms Association, State Representative Todd Gardenhire (R-Chattanooga) and The Tennessean.

Myles ruled in favor of the Nashville Metropolitan Government, as well as the the Covenant School and Covenant parents, after more than 80 pages of Hales’ writings were obtained by The Star from a source familiar with the investigation. The Star has published more than 60 articles that include the killer’s words or provide details about the investigation.

Prior to her ruling, Myles first controversially allowed parents from the Covenant School, the Covenant School, and the Covenant Presbyterian Church to intervene in the case after Hale’s family claimed they assigned them the copyright of her written materials.

Myles declared in her Friday ruling, “materials created by Hale are exempted from disclosure based on the federal Copyright Act.”

Despite Hale dying at the Covenant School, where she killed three 9-year-old children and three adults in her March 27, 2023 attack, the police investigation remains ongoing. While the timeline for the police to finish their investigation remains unclear, the judge cited legislation which protects documents obtained by during police investigations.

Keep reading

“DMCA Does Not Apply”: Musk Says X Will Not Remove CNN Debate Streams, Footage

X owner Elon Musk has clarified that the platform will not block or remove live streams and footage of the Presidential debate on Thursday, despite apparent demands by CNN that social media companies do not allow creators to use their feed.

Podcaster Tim Pool claimed that he’d been told by CNN that he would not be legally allowed to simulcast the debate and provide his own commentary and fact checks on it.

The Post Millenial then highlighted an email they received from CNN, in which the network stated that “CNN’s debates are exclusive to CNN and may not be streamed or streamed with verbal or digital commentary on any platform or social media site by another party, other than the embeddable YouTube player via the CNN YouTube channel.”

The email also stated “Podcast Use: Similar to broadcast rules, news organizations may use audio clips (up to 3:00 minutes at a time) on their shows after the debate conclude and must credit the ‘CNN Presidential Debate’ verbally in introducing the clip.”

Keep reading

Internet Archive forced to remove 500,000 books after publishers’ court win

As a result of book publishers successfully suing the Internet Archive (IA) last year, the free online library that strives to keep growing online access to books recently shrank by about 500,000 titles.

IA reported in a blog post this month that publishers abruptly forcing these takedowns triggered a “devastating loss” for readers who depend on IA to access books that are otherwise impossible or difficult to access.

To restore access, IA is now appealing, hoping to reverse the prior court’s decision by convincing the US Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit that IA’s controlled digital lending of its physical books should be considered fair use under copyright law. An April court filing shows that IA intends to argue that the publishers have no evidence that the e-book market has been harmed by the open library’s lending, and copyright law is better served by allowing IA’s lending than by preventing it.

“We use industry-standard technology to prevent our books from being downloaded and redistributed—the same technology used by corporate publishers,” Chris Freeland, IA’s director of library services, wrote in the blog. “But the publishers suing our library say we shouldn’t be allowed to lend the books we own. They have forced us to remove more than half a million books from our library, and that’s why we are appealing.”

IA will have an opportunity to defend its practices when oral arguments start in its appeal on June 28.

“Our position is straightforward; we just want to let our library patrons borrow and read the books we own, like any other library,” Freeland wrote, while arguing that the “potential repercussions of this lawsuit extend far beyond the Internet Archive” and publishers should just “let readers read.”

“This is a fight for the preservation of all libraries and the fundamental right to access information, a cornerstone of any democratic society,” Freeland wrote. “We believe in the right of authors to benefit from their work; and we believe that libraries must be permitted to fulfill their mission of providing access to knowledge, regardless of whether it takes physical or digital form. Doing so upholds the principle that knowledge should be equally and equitably accessible to everyone, regardless of where they live or where they learn.”

Keep reading

Court Rules “Success Kid” Meme Use in Political Ad Does Not Qualify as Fair Use

When the Obama White House in 2013 used the “Success Kid” meme to promote, in posts on social media, the adoption of the Immigration Reform Bill – nobody clenched a fist, much less batted an eyelash to brand this PR strategy as a copyright violation.

However, the same can’t be said for the case of former Republican Congressman Steve King’s use of the meme (variations of which have been all over the internet for the past 15 or so years). But, when it made its way to one of King’s Facebook posts in 2020, the family of the child whose picture is used as a template sued on copyright grounds.

And now a court has once again sided with their arguments. The “new rule” is that the image turned into a meme, when used in a political ad, does not fall under the fair use copyright exemption.

The mother of the child, Laney Griner, has no problem with the picture being used in other types of ads – the United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ruling notes that she took the photo in 2007, and after “Success Kid” became extremely popular, copyrighted it in 2012 to then license it to the likes of Virgin Mobile, Vitamin Water, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola, who used it in ads.

The original 2022 verdict in the case brought by Griner against King was that unlicensed use took place and that his campaign, but not the congressman himself, was guilty, and ordered them to pay $750.

In appealing the ruling, the campaign argued copyright law’s fair use rule to defend the inclusion of the meme in a fundraising effort. Another argument was implied license.

Keep reading

Lego Lineups: Company Warns California P.D. To Stop Using Lego Heads To Hide Criminal’s Faces

Murrieta is a city in Southern California with just over 100,000 residents. Even though it isn’t a huge city, the Neighborhood Scout, a website that tracks local statistics for potential homebuyers or renters, reported this about the municipality on its website:

The crime rate in Murrieta is considerably higher than the national average across all communities in America from the largest to the smallest, although at 15 crimes per one thousand residents, it is not among the communities with the very highest crime rate. The chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime in Murrieta is 1 in 65. Based on FBI crime data, Murrieta is not one of the safest communities in America. Relative to California, Murrieta has a crime rate that is higher than 40% of the state’s cities and towns of all sizes.

It’s common for the public to be interested in the details of an arrest, including the crime committed and the appearance of the suspect. However, in California, there is a law that prioritizes the rights of the suspect over the public’s right to know by requiring that the faces of certain suspects be concealed. In Murietta, this law has been taken to an extreme level, where police hide suspects’ faces with Lego heads.

In an Instagram post, the police department explained the new law this way:

On January 1st, a new law went into effect that restricts the how and when law enforcement agencies in California share suspect photos & mugshots. The new law, Assembly Bill 994 & Penal Code 13665, now prohibits law enforcement from sharing suspect photos for nonviolent crimes, unless specified circumstances exist. Additionally, the new law requires agencies to remove suspect mugshots from social media after 14 days, unless special circumstances exist.

The Murrieta Police Department prides itself in its transparency with the community but also honors everyone’s rights & protections as afforded by law, even suspects. In order to share what is happening in Murrieta, we chose to cover the faces of suspects to protect their identity while still aligning with the new law.

Using something so ridiculous minimizes the severity of crimes and turns serious events into cartoons. People may understand the need to comply with the law, but this approach is inappropriate.

Keep reading

Sarah Silverman’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI Is Full of Nonsense Claims

Is it a crime to learn something by reading a copyrighted book? What if you later summarize that book to a friend or write a description of it online? Of course, these things are perfectly legal when a person does them. But does that change when it’s an artificial intelligence system doing the reading, learning, and summarizing?

Sarah Silverman, comedian and author of the book The Bedwetter, seems to think it does. She and several other authors are suing OpenAI, the tech company behind the popular AI chatbot ChatGPT, through which users submit text prompts and receive back AI-generated answers.

Last week, a federal judge largely rejected their claims.

The ruling is certainly good news for OpenAI and for ChatGPT users. It’s also good news for the future of AI technology more broadly. AI tools could be completely hamstrung by the expansive vision of copyright law that Silverman and the other authors in this case envision.

Keep reading