On 27th November 2023, the Beijing Internet Court upheld that an AI generated work can be protected by copyright if the work reflects an author’s choice of expression and has originality (see our earlier blog post here). Almost
Superbabies Limited (“Superbabies”) creates comics called “The Super Babies,” featuring a team of superhero babies. On May 14, 2024, Superbabies filed a heavily animated petition (“Petition”) to cancel the marks SUPER HERO (U.S. Reg. No. 8,25,835) and SUPER HEROES (U.S.
On 8 July 2024, the Hong Kong government launched a two-month public consultation on potential revisions to the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528) in view of the rapid developments in artificial intelligence (“AI”), especially generative AI. The 52-page consultation
By Georgina Hey & Jerome Messiha
Content developers and creatives are generators of ideas and concepts. The point at which any concept transforms into a copyright protected work is often a vexed issue in the creative (and other) spaces.
A
The Copyright Act provides that a copyright owner must bring an infringement claim within three years of its accrual. See 17 U. S. C. §507(b). In Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Sherman Nealy, et al., 601
In our previous newsletter here, we reported a decision from the Beijing Internet Court ruling that the copyright of a portrait generated by an artificial intelligence (“AI”) program is owned by the user who “controlled meticulously” the parameters for
On January 17, 2024, the Supreme People’s Court of China (“SPC”) published its decision upholding a ruling in favor of Sennics Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. (“Sennics”), granting them an award of RMB 201.54 million (around USD
The copyright eligibility of computer-generated literature and artistic works is not, contrary to what many may think, a post-millennial question. In a case decided as early as 1985 [1], in a time long before the internet era, the English
The High Court recently delivered its decision in Real Estate Tool Box v Campaigntrack 1 relating to copyright authorisation.
The High Court held that the appellants, who had engaged a third party software developer to create a real estate