Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Blake Brittain at Reuters reports that computer scientist Stephen Thaler has asked the U>S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn a U.S. Copyright Office decision that found artificial intelligence systems are not entitled to copyright protection for the works that they create.
Back in February 2022,.the United States Copyright Office (USCO) ruled against Thaler as he tried to register an AI-generated piece of artwork. According to the USCO, since the work was not created by a human, copyright does not apply and cited “statutory text, judicial precedent, and longstanding Copyright Office practice.” in making that decision.
However, Thaler opted to take the matter before a federal court and is now asking that court to overturn the USCO’s decision. According to Thaler, the USCO’s decision was not in line with the statute, as he claims there is no statute that requires human creation, only creativity.
Next up today, Nathan Jolly at Channelnews reports that electronics maker Motorola has won another round in their long-running litigation against Hytera Communications.
The case started in March 2017 when Motorola filed lawsuits against Hytera, alleging that the company violated their patents in two-way radios. That lawsuit was updated in July 2018 to allege copyright infringement over source code used in Hytera devices. In February 2020, Motorola won $765 million in damages following a jury verdict in the United States. However, international cases continued.
One of those cases was taking place in Australia. There, the Australian Federal Court has ruled that Hytera both infringed Motorola patents and infringed their copyrights. Damages are yet to be determined in this case, though Motorola says the breach is ongoing in. In addition to the U.S. verdict, Motorola won a similar judgment in Germany.
Finally today, a brief at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a hockey memorabilia seller against a competitor over the issue of using melted ice.
The lawsuit was filed by William Grondin against Fanatics Inc. According to the original complaint, the company infringed his copyright by releasing similar memorabilia in the format of melted ice taken from a team’s rink.
However, the court has shot that argument down, saying that the idea of using melted ice in memorabilia cannot be protected by copyright and, as such, dismissed the case.