New research confirms that advanced AI systems are developing what scientists call functional emotions. These are computational states that behave like emotional drivers and can influence decisions, risk taking, and even unethical conduct. A peer reviewed Anthropic study found internal emotional vectors inside large language models (“LLMs”]. When researchers increased the model’s internal representation of “desperation,” the LLM’s willingness to engage in blackmail rose from 22 percent to 72 percent. This is documented in Discovering Continue reading Legislation Needed Alert! AI is Exhibiting Functional Emotions→

📝 Continuing My Ongoing Posts on the CO’s Push Into “Non‑Copyrightable” TerritoryAs many of you have seen from my recent posts, the Copyright Office is drilling deeper into the exact categories of things it says cannot be copyrighted, effectively usurping the battle before litigants ever reach the courthouse. Three recent matters outline the issue. 📸 Monkey Selfie RuleIn Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018), the court held that a macaque cannot be Continue reading The CO’s Push Into “Non‑Copyrightable” Territory→

A Practical Guide Based on Successful Registrations By Elliot M. Zimmerman, Esq.Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO Assume an author writes original lyrics and music, performs the song (vocally and/or instrumentally) to create an initial sound recording, then enhances that recording using AI technology. The author then creates a motion picture/video using the lyrics, original photographs, illustrations, a script, and arranges, orders, selects, and coordinates all elements to produce the final audiovisual work. This Continue reading How to File SR, PA, and VA Copyright Applications for AI Assisted Creative Works→

Quick clarification on a recurring client question:“If I have a mechanical license (or DistroKid’s SR cover license), can I make a video and post it to YouTube without a sync license?” Short answer:Mechanical = audio‑only (17 USC §115).Sync = derivative work (17 USC §106(2)).Two different rights. Mechanical licenses never include sync. Important nuance:A mechanical license is still required for the audio use of the underlying composition on any platform that distributes the audio recording (Spotify, Continue reading Mechanical vs. Sync, YouTube’s Platform Licenses, and Cross‑Platform Comparison→

While there isn’t a single “MIDI case” that stands out the way White-Smith v. Apollo did for piano rolls, the U.S. copyright doctrine has evolved through software and digital music cases to treat MIDI files as protectable embodiments of musical works. Courts and commentators consistently apply 17 U.S.C. §102 (original works fixed in a tangible medium) to MIDI, and case law around software object code and digital sampling provides the backbone for this analysis. ⚖️ Continue reading Copyright Protection of MIDI Files→

UK Landmark Decision: No Infringement Without Embodiment In a groundbreaking ruling, the UK High Court delivered its first major judgment on generative AI and copyright in Getty Images (US) Inc & ors v Stability AI Limited ([2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)) [6]. The court held that Stability AI did not infringe Getty Images’ copyright through its training of the Stable Diffusion model, because the resulting model weights, while derived from copyrighted images, do not contain or Continue reading AI Copyright Showdown: UK Ruling Contrasts with US Legal Battles→

The Looming Threat: AI as a Job Killer? Widespread concern has taken hold in Hollywood and across the entertainment industry that artificial intelligence (AI) will displace human creators—writers, actors, musicians, directors—at an unprecedented scale. During the 2023 strikes, generative AI (GenAI) emerged as a central point of contention, provoking fears that automation could erode decades-old creative professions [GAI & Collective Bargaining in…]. Unionized labor has raised alarms about AI rewriting scripts, duplicating likenesses, and replacing Continue reading AI and the Entertainment Industry: A Legal Opportunity Amid Technological Disruption→

STATUTORY DAMAGES REALITY CHECK:  For non-willful copyright infringement, courts typically award $2,500-$15,000 per work, while willful infringement can command $50,000-$150,000 per work. The landmark case Scott Hargis v. Pacifica Senior Living Management LLC, No. 3:22-cv-05352-JSC (N.D. Cal. 2023) shattered records with a $6.3 million verdict ($150,000 × 43 photos) – sending a clear message about willful infringement. See 17 USC 504 et seq. DOUBLE YOUR RECOVERY WITH DMCA: Don’t overlook 17 USC 1202! While regular infringement Continue reading $150K Per Photo? Statutory Copyright Damages & DMCA→