IL CONTENUTO DEL DIRITTO DI AUTORE – Pagina 2

Ancora su AI, data scraping e violazione di copyright (questa volta per lo più negata)

La corte del distr. Nord della California 30 ottobre 2023, Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO, Andersen v. Stability AI, DeviantArt, Midjourney, esamina il tema in oggetto (segnalazione e link di Jess Miers su X).

Le domande sono tutte rigettate tranne quelal verso Stability, per la quale è cocnessa facoltà di modifica:

<<3. Direct Infringement Allegations Against Stability Plaintiffs’ primary theory of direct copyright infringement is based on Stability’s creation and use of “Training Images” scraped from the internet into the LAION datasets and then used to train Stable Diffusion. Plaintiffs have adequately alleged direct infringement based on the allegations that Stability “downloaded or otherwise acquired copies of billions of copyrighted images without permission to create Stable Diffusion,” and used those images (called “Training Images”) to train Stable Diffusion and caused those “images to be stored at and incorporated into Stable Diffusion as compressed copies.” Compl. ¶¶ 3-4, 25-26, 57. In its “Preliminary Statement” in support of its motion to dismiss, Stability opposes the truth of plaintiffs’ assertions. See Stability Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 58) at 1. However, even Stability recognizes that determination of the truth of these allegations – whether copying in violation of the Copyright Act occurred in the context of training Stable Diffusion or occurs when Stable Diffusion is run – cannot be resolved at this juncture. Id. Stability does not otherwise oppose the sufficiency of the allegations supporting Anderson’s direct copyright infringement claims with respect to the Training Images>>.

Provvedimento itneressante poer chi si occupa del tema, dato che da noi ancora non se ne son visti.

Copyright e standards

La corte di appello del distretto di Columbia , 12.09.2023, No. 22-7063, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS, ET AL v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC., dà qualche interessante insegnamento sul tema (qui la pagina della corte mentre qui il link diretto al pdf).

Tre organizzazioni, che predispongno standard per certi settori di impresa, fanno causa a public.resource.org, per aver pubblicato centinaia di standards: il che violerebbe il copyright su di essi gravante.

Di questi la maggior parte era anche stata inserita (incorporate) nella legislazione usa.

La corte di appello dice che tale pubblicaizone da parte di https://public.resource.org/ costituisce fair use (per la parte incorporated).

I primi tre fattori del 17 us code § 107 sono a favore del convenuto.

L’ultimo (effetti economici sul mercato dell’opera protetta) è invece incerto: ma non basta a controbilanciare gli altri tre.

<<n ASTM II, we noted that Public Resource’s copying may harm the market for the plaintiffs’ standards, but we found the extent of any such harm to be unclear. 896 F.3d at 453. We noted three considerations that might reduce the amount of harm: First, the plaintiffs themselves make the incorporated standards available for free in their reading rooms. Second, Public Resource may not copy unincorporated standards—or unincorporated portions of standards only partially incorporated. Third, the plaintiffs have developed and copyrighted updated versions of the relevant standards, and these updated versions have not yet been incorporated into law. We asked the parties to address these issues, among others, on remand. See id.
The updated record remains equivocal. The plaintiffs press heavily on what seems to be a common-sense inference: If users can download an identical copy of an incorporated standard for free, few will pay to buy the standard. Despite its intuitive appeal, this argument overlooks the fact that the plaintiffs regularly update their standards—including all 185 standards at issue in this appeal. And regulators apparently are much less nimble in updating the incorporations. So, many of the builders, engineers, and other regular consumers of the plaintiffs’ standards may simply purchase up-to-date versions as a matter of course. Moreover, some evidence casts doubt on the plaintiffs’ claims of significant market injury. Public Resource has been posting incorporated standards for fifteen years. Yet the plaintiffs have been unable to produce any economic analysis showing that Public Resource’s activity has harmed any relevant market for their standards. To the contrary, ASTM’s sales have increased over that time; NFPA’s sales have decreased in recent years but are cyclical with publications; and ASHRAE has not pointed to any evidence of its harm. See ASTM III, 597 F. Supp. 3d at 240.
The plaintiffs’ primary evidence of harm is an expert report opining that Public Resource’s activities could put the plaintiffs’ revenues at risk. Yet although the report qualitatively describes harms the plaintiffs could suffer, it makes no serious attempt to quantify past or future harms. Like the district court, we find it “telling” that the plaintiffs “do not provide any quantifiable evidence, and instead rely on conclusory assertions and speculation long after [Public Resource] first began posting the standards.” ASTM III, 597 F. Supp. 3d at 240.
Finally, our analysis of market effects must balance any monetary losses to the copyright holders against any “public benefits” of the copying. Oracle, 141 S. Ct. at 1206. Thus, even if Public Resource’s postings were likely to lower demand for the plaintiffs’ standards, we would also have to consider the substantial public benefits of free and easy access to the law. As the Supreme Court recently confirmed: “Every citizen is presumed to know the law, and it needs no argument to show that all should have free access” to it. Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org., Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1498, 1507 (2020) (cleaned up)>>.

Sintesi sul quarto:

<<We conclude that the fourth fair-use factor does not significantly tip the balance one way or the other. Common sense suggests that free online access to many of the plaintiffs’ standards would tamp down the demand for their works. But there are reasons to doubt this claim, the record evidence does not strongly support it, and the countervailing public benefits are substantial.>>

Sintesi comlpèessiva: <<In sum, the first three factors under section 107 strongly favor fair use, and the fourth is equivocal. We thus conclude that Public Resource’s non-commercial posting of incorporated standards is fair use>>

Altra azione contro società di A. I., basata su diritto di autore: Concord Music, Universal Music e altri c. Anthropic PBC

Tramite il modello AI chiamato Claude2, Anthropic violerebbe il copyright di molte canzoni (della loro parte letterariA) . Così la citazione in giudizio da parte di molti produttori (tra i maggiori al mondo, parrebbe).

Ne dà notizia The Verge oggi 19 ottobre (articolo di Emilia David), ove trovi pure il link all’atto introduttivo di citazione in giudizio.

Riposto solo i passi sul come fuinziona il traininig e l’output di Claude2 e poi dove stia la vioalzione.

<<6 . Anthropic is in the business of developing, operating, selling, and licensing AI technologies. Its primary product is a series of AI models referred to as “Claude.” Anthropic builds its AI models by scraping and ingesting massive amounts of text from the internet and potentially other sources, and then using that vast corpus to train its AI models and generate output based on this copied text. Included in the text that Anthropic copies to fuel its AI models are the lyrics to innumerable musical compositions for which Publishers own or control the copyrights, among countless other copyrighted works harvested from the internet. This copyrighted material is not free for the taking simply because it
can be found on the internet. Anthropic has neither sought nor secured Publishers’ permission to use their valuable copyrighted works in this way. Just as Anthropic does not want its code taken without its authorization, neither do music publishers or any other copyright owners want their works to be exploited without permission.
7.
Anthropic claims to be different from other AI businesses. It calls itself an AI “safety and research” company, and it claims that, by training its AI models using a so-called “constitution,” it ensures that those programs are more “helpful, honest, and harmless.” Yet, despite its purportedly principled approach, Anthropic infringes on copyrights without regard for the law or respect for the creative community whose contributions are the backbone of Anthropic’s infringing service.
8.
As a result of Anthropic’s mass copying and ingestion of Publishers’ song lyrics, Anthropic’s AI models generate identical or nearly identical copies of those lyrics, in clear violation of Publishers’ copyrights. When a user prompts Anthropic’s Claude AI chatbot to provide the lyrics to songs such as “A Change Is Gonna Come,” “God Only Knows,” “What a Wonderful World,” “Gimme Shelter,” “American Pie,” “Sweet Home Alabama,” “Every Breath You Take,” “Life Is a Highway,” “Somewhere Only We Know,” “Halo,” “Moves Like Jagger,” “Uptown Funk,” or any other number of Publishers’ musical compositions, the chatbot will provide responses that contain all or significant portions of those lyrics>>.

<<11. By copying and exploiting Publishers’ lyrics in this manner—both as the input it uses to train its AI models and as the output those AI models generate—Anthropic directly infringes Publishers’ exclusive rights as copyright holders, including the rights of reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution, and public display. In addition, because Anthropic unlawfully enables, encourages, and profits from massive copyright infringement by its users, it is secondarily liable for the infringing acts of its users under well-established theories of contributory infringement and vicarious infringement. Moreover, Anthropic’s AI output often omits critical copyright management information regarding these works, in further violation of Publishers’ rights; in this respect, the composers of the song lyrics frequently do not get recognition for being the creators of the works that are being distributed. It is unfathomable for Anthropic to treat itself as exempt from the ethical and legal rules it purports to embrace>>

Come funziona il training di AI:

<<54. Specifically, Anthropic “trains” its Claude AI models how to generate text by taking the following steps:
a. First, Anthropic copies massive amounts of text from the internet and potentially other sources. Anthropic collects this material by “scraping” (or copying or downloading) the text directly from websites and other digital sources and onto Anthropic’s servers, using automated tools, such as bots and web crawlers, and/or by working from collections prepared by third parties, which in turn may have been harvested through web scraping. This vast collection of text forms the input, or “corpus,” upon which the Claude AI model is then trained.
b.   Second, as it deems fit, Anthropic “cleans” the copied text to remove material it perceives as inconsistent with its business model, whether technical or subjective in nature (such as deduplication or removal of offensive language), or for other reasons.
In most instances, this “cleaning” process appears to entirely ignore copyright infringements embodied in the copied text.
c.   Third, Anthropic copies this massive corpus of previously copied text into computer memory and processes this data in multiple ways to train the Claude AI models, or establish the values of billions of parameters that form the model. That includes copying, dividing, and converting the collected text into units known as “tokens,” which are words or parts of words and punctuation, for storage. This process is referred to as “encoding” the text into tokens. For Claude, the average token is about 3.5 characters long.4
d.   Fourth, Anthropic processes the data further as it “finetunes” the Claude AI model and engages in additional “reinforcement learning,” based both on human feedback and AI feedback, all of which may require additional copying of the collected text.
55.   Once this input and training process is complete, Anthropic’s Claude AI models generate output consistent in structure and style with both the text in their training corpora and the reinforcement feedback. When given a prompt, Claude will formulate a response based on its model, which is a product of its pretraining on a large corpus of text and finetuning, including based on reinforcement learning from human feedback. According to Anthropic, “Claude is not a bare language model; it has already been fine-tuned to be a helpful assistant.”5 Claude works with text in the form of tokens during this processing, but the output is ordinary readable text>>.

Violazioni:

<<56.
First, Anthropic engages in the wholesale copying of Publishers’ copyrighted lyrics as part of the initial data ingestion process to formulate the training data used to program its AI models.
57.
Anthropic fuels its AI models with enormous collections of text harvested from the internet. But just because something may be available on the internet does not mean it is free for Anthropic to exploit to its own ends.
58.
For instance, the text corpus upon which Anthropic trained its Claude AI models and upon which these models rely to generate text includes vast amounts of Publishers’ copyrighted lyrics, for which they own or control the exclusive rights.
59.
Anthropic largely conceals the specific sources of the text it uses to train its AI models. Anthropic has stated only that “Claude models are trained on a proprietary mix of publicly available information from the Internet, datasets that we license from third party businesses, and data that our users affirmatively share or that crowd workers provide,” and that the text on which Claude 2 was trained continues through early 2023 and is 90 percent English-language.6 The reason that Anthropic refuses to disclose the materials it has used for training Claude is because it is aware that it is copying copyrighted materials without authorization from the copyright owners.
60.
Anthropic’s limited disclosures make clear that it has relied heavily on datasets (e.g., the “Common Crawl” dataset) that include massive amounts of content from popular lyrics websites such as genius.com, lyrics.com, and azlyrics.com, among other standard large text
collections, to train its AI models.7
61.
Moreover, the fact that Anthropic’s AI models respond to user prompts by generating identical or near-identical copies of Publishers’ copyrighted lyrics makes clear that Anthropic fed the models copies of those lyrics when developing the programs. Anthropic had to first copy these lyrics and process them through its AI models during training, in order for the models to subsequently disseminate copies of the lyrics as output.
62.
Second, Anthropic creates additional unauthorized reproductions of Publishers’ copyrighted lyrics when it cleans, processes, trains with, and/or finetunes the data ingested into its AI models, including when it tokenizes the data. Notably, although Anthropic “cleans” the text it ingests to remove offensive language and filter out other materials that it wishes to exclude from its training corpus, Anthropic has not indicated that it takes any steps to remove copyrighted content.
63.
By copying Publishers’ lyrics without authorization during this ingestion and training process, Anthropic violates Publishers’ copyrights in those works.
64.
Third, Anthropic’s AI models disseminate identical or near-identical copies of a wide range of Publishers’ copyrighted lyrics, in further violation of Publishers’ rights.
65.
Upon accessing Anthropic’s Claude AI models through Anthropic’s commercially available API or via its public website, users can request and obtain through Claude verbatim or near-verbatim copies of lyrics for a wide variety of songs, including copyrighted lyrics owned and controlled by
Publishers. These copies of lyrics are not only substantially but strikingly similar to the original copyrighted works>>

<<70.
Claude’s output is likewise identical or substantially and strikingly similar to Publishers’ copyrighted lyrics for each of the compositions listed in Exhibit A. These works that have been infringed by Anthropic include timeless classics as well as today’s chart-topping hits, spanning a range of musical genres. And this represents just a small fraction of Anthropic’s infringement of Publishers’ works and the works of others, through both the input and output of its AI models.
71.
Anthropic’s Claude is also capable of generating lyrics for new songs that incorporate the lyrics from existing copyrighted songs. In these cases, Claude’s output may include portions of one copyrighted work, alongside portions of other copyrighted works, in a manner that is entirely inconsistent and even inimical to how the songwriter intended them.
72.
Moreover, Anthropic’s Claude also copies and distributes Publishers’ copyrighted lyrics even in instances when it is not asked to do so. Indeed, when Claude is prompted to write a song about a given topic—without any reference to a specific song title, artist, or songwriter—Claude will often respond by generating lyrics that it claims it wrote that, in fact, copy directly from portions of Publishers’ copyrighted lyrics>>.

<<80.
In other words, Anthropic infringes Publishers’ copyrighted lyrics not only in response to specific requests for those lyrics. Rather, once Anthropic copies Publishers’ lyrics as input to train its AI models, those AI models then copy and distribute Publishers’ lyrics as output in response to a wide range of more generic queries related to songs and various other subject matter>>.

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.

L’eccezione di copia privata ex art. 5.2.a) dir. 29/2001 non si applica alla infrastruttura predisposta per il download con la tecnica del data deduplication (anche se il fornitore non effettua una comunicazione al pubblico)

C. giust. 13.07.2023, C-426/21, Ocilion c. SevenOne+1, affrotna l’ennesimo caso di rpedispisizione di infrasrtutrua perchè l’uitente poi da solo acceda a conteuti on line protetti.

Quyi la particolarità è luso della tecnica della data deduplicatin (la copia fatta dal primo utente è consewrvata anche per eventuali altri sucecssivi)

Ma l’uso privato è difficilmente riscontarbile anche se è poi il singolo privato ad attivare il download:

<<45 A tale proposito, la tecnica di deduplica di cui trattasi nel procedimento principale conduce alla realizzazione di una copia che, lungi dall’essere a disposizione esclusiva del primo utente, è destinata ad essere accessibile, tramite il sistema offerto dal prestatore, ad un numero indeterminato di utenti finali, a loro volta clienti degli operatori di rete ai quali detto prestatore mette tale tecnica a disposizione.

46 In tali circostanze, è giocoforza constatare, fatte salve le verifiche che spetta al giudice del rinvio effettuare, che un servizio come quello offerto dalla Ocilion, che consente l’accesso a una riproduzione di un’opera protetta a un numero indeterminato di beneficiari a fini commerciali, non rientra nell’eccezione detta per «copia privata» di cui all’articolo 5, paragrafo 2, lettera b), della direttiva 2001/29>>.

Ciò non toglie però cjhe non ricora comunicazione al puibblico per il fornitore della infrasttura (ad alberghi o ad oepratori di rete):

<<61 nel caso di specie, come menzionato al punto 12 della presente sentenza, dalla decisione di rinvio risulta che la Ocilion fornisce agli operatori di rete, nell’ambito della sua soluzione on premise, l’hardware e i software necessari, nonché un’assistenza tecnica per garantirne la manutenzione.

62 Orbene, come rilevato dall’Avvocato generale ai paragrafi da 68 a 70 delle sue conclusioni, in assenza di qualsiasi collegamento tra il fornitore dell’hardware e dei software necessari e gli utenti finali, un servizio come quello di cui trattasi nel procedimento principale non può essere considerato un atto di comunicazione, ai sensi dell’articolo 3, paragrafo 1, della direttiva 2001/29, realizzato dalla Ocilion.

63 Infatti, da un lato, un prestatore come la Ocilion non fornisce agli utenti finali l’accesso a un’opera protetta. È vero che esso fornisce agli operatori di rete l’hardware e i software necessari a tale riguardo, ma sono solo questi ultimi a consentire agli utenti finali l’accesso alle opere protette.

64 Dall’altro lato, poiché sono tali operatori di rete che forniscono agli utenti finali l’accesso a opere protette, conformemente alle modalità previamente definite tra loro, il prestatore che fornisce l’hardware e i software necessari agli operatori di rete per dare accesso a tali opere non svolge un «ruolo imprescindibile», ai sensi della giurisprudenza derivante dalla sentenza citata al punto 59 della presente sentenza, cosicché non si può ritenere che esso abbia realizzato un atto di comunicazione ai sensi della direttiva 2001/29. Infatti, sebbene l’utilizzo di tale hardware nonché dei software, nell’ambito della soluzione on premise, appaia necessario affinché gli utenti finali possano guardare in differita le trasmissioni televisive, dalle indicazioni contenute nel fascicolo sottoposto alla Corte non risulta che il prestatore che fornisce tale hardware nonché tali software intervenga per dare agli utenti finali accesso a tali opere protette.

65 In tale contesto, la circostanza che un tale prestatore sappia eventualmente che il suo servizio può essere utilizzato per accedere a contenuti di trasmissioni protetti senza il consenso dei loro autori non può di per sé essere sufficiente per ritenere che egli realizzi un atto di comunicazione, ai sensi dell’articolo 3 della direttiva 2001/29.

66 Del resto, dalla decisione di rinvio non risulta che l’assistenza tecnica offerta dalla Ocilion vada oltre la manutenzione e l’adeguamento dell’hardware e dei software necessari forniti e consenta a tale prestatore di influenzare la scelta dei programmi televisivi che l’utente finale può guardare in differita>>.

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>>.

Per la pubblicazione dell’opera, serve la vendita o basta l’esposizione in una mostra pubblica?

E’ giusta la seconda per Cass. sez. 1 n° 23.395 del 7 agosto 2023, rel. Scotti.

Ne dà notizia Eleonora Rosati su IPKat (il link punta a www.italgiure.giustizia.it che però la dà in via di oscuramento)

In breve un collezionista chiede i danni a Koons per aver disconosciuto la paternità dopo aver pubblicato l’opera The Serpents.

I punti più interessanti sono: 1) quando ricorra pubblicazione ex art.12 l.aut; 2) se l’autore abbbia diritto di disconoscere l’opera (ripudiarla), con tutte le conseguenze per il valore commerciale dell’opera in capo all’attuale proprietario del corpus mysticum.

Il più interessante è il secondo. Bisognerebbe prima approfondire i concetti di “riconoscere” e “disconoscere” un ‘opera.

In prima approssimazione direi che all’autore non si può imporre il dovere di riconsocere artisticamente un ‘opera pur se materialmente sua i titolari del supporto potranno/dovranno disporne come “opera di Koons ma da lui ripudiata”, senza pretendere che egli la riconosca.

L’embedding sul proprio sito di fotografia altrui, legittimamente presente su altro sito, non è comunicazione al pubblico

l’appello del 9° Circuito afferma quanto sopra (No. 22-15293 del 17 luglio 2023, Hunley e Brauer c. Instagram ; notizia e link da Tyler Ochoa in Eric Goldman blog).

Due fotografi avevano postato loro foto su Instagram e se le vedono poi riprrodotte tramite incorporazione (embedding) da Time e da Buzzfeed.

Agiscono solo verso Instagram per secondary liability (contributory e/o vicarious), non verso le due testate giornalsitiche.

Risposta in 1 e 2 grado: nessuna responsabilità perchè manca la violazione primaria. Infatti l’embedding non è violazione , la quale richiede una riproduzione nella forma di fissazione sul server (c.d. server test).

Precisazioni tecniche:

<<embedding is different from merely providing a hyperlink. Hyperlinking gives the URL address where external content is located directly to a user. To access that content, the user must click on the URL to open the linked website in its entirety. By contrast, embedding provides instructions to the browser, and the browser automatically retrieves and shows the content from the host website in the format specified by the embedding website. Embedding therefore allows users to see the content itself—not merely the address—on the embedding website without navigating away from the site. Courts have generally held that hyperlinking does not constitute direct infringement. See, e.g., Online Pol’y Grp. v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1202 n.12 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“[H]yperlinking per se does not constitute direct infringement because there is no copying, [but] in some instances there may be a tenable claim of contributory infringement or vicarious liability.”); MyPlayCity, Inc. v. Conduit Ltd., 2012 WL 1107648, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2012) (collecting cases), adhered to on reconsideration, 2012 WL 2929392 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2012).
From the user’s perspective, embedding is entirely passive: the embedding website directs the user’s own browser to the Instagram account and the Instagram content appears as part of the embedding website’s content. The embedding website appears to the user to have included the copyrighted material in its content. In reality, the embedding website has directed the reader’s browser to retrieve the public Instagram account and juxtapose it on the embedding website. Showing the Instagram content is almost instantaneous>>.

Server test, p. 18:

<<We interpreted the Copyright Act’s fixation requirement and found that an image is “fixed in a tangible medium of expression” when it is “embodied (i.e., stored) in a computer’s server, (or hard disk, or other storage device).” Id. at 1160 (citing MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 517–18 (9th Cir. 1993)). Applying that interpretation, we concluded that a “computer owner shows a copy ‘by means of a . . . device or process’ when the owner uses the computer to fill the computer screen with the photographic image stored on that computer.” Id. (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101. And “a person displays a photographic image by using a computer to fill a computer screen with a copy of the photographic image fixed in the computer’s memory.” Id. This requirement that a copy be “fixed in the computer’s memory” has come to be known as the “Server Test.” See id. at 1159 (“The district court referred to this test as the ‘server test.’”) (quoting Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828, 838–39 (C.D. Cal. 2006)); Free Speech Sys., LLC v. Menzel, 390 F. Supp. 3d 1162, 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2019).>>ù

Sua applicazione al caso, p. 34:

<<Having rejected Hunley’s legal and policy challenges to Perfect 10, we now apply the Server Test to the facts of this case.
By posting photographs to her public Instagram profile, Hunley stored a copy of those images on Instagram’s servers. By displaying Hunley’s images, Instagram did not directly infringe Hunley’s exclusive display right because Instagram had a nonexclusive sublicense to display these photos.
To assert secondary liability claims against Instagram, Hunley must make the threshold showing “that there has been direct infringement by third parties.” Oracle Am., Inc., 971 F.3d at 1050. Time and BuzzFeed wrote the HTML instructions that caused browsers to show Hunley and Brauer’s photographs on Time and BuzzFeed websites. However, under Perfect 10 these instructions did not constitute “display [of] a copy.” See Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1160–61. Rather, Instagram displayed a copy of the copyrighted works Hunley posted on its platform, and the web browser formatted and displayed the images alongside additional content from Time and BuzzFeed. Because BuzzFeed and Time embedded—but did not store—the underlying copyrighted photographs, they are not guilty of direct infringement. See Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1160–61. Without direct infringement, Hunley cannot prevail on any theory of secondary liability. See Giganews, 847 F.3d at 671. As a result, Instagram is not secondarily liable (under any theory) for the resulting display. The district court did not err in dismissing this case on the basis of the Server Test>>.

Nemmeno il profilo della percezione dell’utente fa cambiare opinione ai giudici di appello, pp. 30-31.

IN UE è importante a questo proposito il caso VG Bild-Kunst / Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, causa C-392/19 con sentenza C.G. 9 marzo 2021 e spt. conclusioni AG Szpunar 10.09.2020 (nella cui Introduzione v. spiegazioni tecniche in linguaggio meritoriamente accessibile), giunto a conclusioni opposte.

Resta che il contenuto esterno, pur entrando nel sito web incorporante automaticamente, viene ivi pur sempre “riprodotto”: quindi la violazione di quest’ultimo diritto dovrebbe esserci