Author Archives: Elliot Zimmerman

🔒 Know Your Rights. According to the U.S. Copyright Office (88 Fed. Reg. 16,190, March 16, 2023): Human authorship is required for copyright protection—even with AI involvement. Good news: You can protect your AI-enhanced tracks—if your creative input is significant. ✅ Protect Your Copyright: Do This Now AI-generated elements cannot be copyrighted. But your artistic choices—vocal performances, mixing, editing, and direction—can and must be protected. When registering: This keeps your registration valid and enforceable. 💰 Continue reading AI-Updated Music?→

Twelve years ago, I created a musical track called Cyber Me Baby using, ironically, full computer assistance and virtual instruments to rescore Max Fleischer’s 1938 cartoon All’s Fair at the Fair. Note, Fleischer produced the Betty Boop and Popeye cartoons. Given my current work advocating for human review of AI systems, the irony wasn’t lost on me then, and it’s even sharper now. Watch my creation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlOPeDSDO9w&ab_channel=ElliotZimmermanOriginal 1938 cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAFqAbrPKxQ&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD The 1938 Crystal Ball Fleischer’s Continue reading When AI Meets 1938: A Musical Warning from the World’s Fair→

SummaryThis report examines the legal implications of uploading another’s photo to a “cheater check” service without his consent. These services use facial recognition technology to search dating platforms for matching profiles. The legality of this practice varies significantly based on jurisdiction, applicable privacy laws, the nature of the photograph, and how the “cheater check” service processes biometric data. The analysis considers privacy laws, biometric data regulations, copyright considerations, and potential civil liability.Understanding “Cheater Check” ServicesWhat Continue reading Uploading Photos to a “Cheater Check” Service→

Hypothetical Facts: Tectonic Drift Questions Posed Brief Legal Analysis 1. Fair Use vs. Derivative Work Answer: Likely a derivative work, not fair use. While MIDI conversion adds a layer of abstraction, the beatmaker is still using the fundamental musical elements (rhythm, structure, harmonic progression) from the original. The transformation is primarily technical rather than creative or commentary-based. Courts typically require more substantial creative transformation for fair use protection. 2. Sound Recording Infringement (§114) Answer: Probably avoids SR infringement. Continue reading Tectonic Drift Beat Maker Infringement?→

Major Copyright Cases and Their Current Status New York Times v. Microsoft/OpenAI The New York Times filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI for copyright infringement, claiming unauthorized scanning and indexing of their paywalled articles [7]. As of early 2025, a federal judge has allowed the case to proceed [6]. Reuters reports that “All of our copyright claims will continue against Microsoft and OpenAI for their widespread theft of millions of The Times’s works” [3]. Continue reading Copyright and AI: Legal Battles Shaping the Future→

Northern Soul 2024, released in April 2024, featuring Elliot Zimmerman on Track 3, Stormy Weather, and Track 17, Heading Up North.

Harvey Mason, Grammy’s Chief, makes clear that ‘We’re Not Giving an Award to a Computer’ and new rules have been enacted to be eligible for an award! The full wording of the ruling follows: “The GRAMMY Award recognizes creative excellence. Only human creators are eligible to be submitted for consideration for, nominated for, or win a GRAMMY Award. A work that contains no human authorship is not eligible in any Categories. A work that features Continue reading Grammy’s New AI Rule Clarifies Computers Are Not Eligible for Awards→

Interesting link below about a class action wherein Plaintiffs contend OpenAI violated the rights of millions of internet users when it used their social media comments, blog posts, Wikipedia articles and family recipes. IMHO, we are on the dawn of defining the boundaries for, including without limitation, culling data from the internet, the uses made thereof, and the rights of the authors. Sounds like Star Trek… going where no one has gone before. Here’s a Continue reading Class Action v. ChatGPT maker OpenAI→

In cases where there is NO HUMAN INVOLVEMENT, Urantia Found. v. Kristen Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 957–59 (9th Cir. 1997), has indicated that the work is solely created by AI and no copyright will issue. The newest spin on these AI issues exists when the Artist feeds his underlying work to a computer and uses AI to apply styles it has “learned” by scanning named Artists like DaVinci, Michaelangelo, etc. Andersen et al v. Stability Continue reading AI Art Generation and Copyright Law→