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→

The Artistic Vision: A Fusion of Past and Future Just dropped a reimagined version of The Magic of You, a tune I wrote and released with The Ink Spots over 40 years ago. This redux features Kalina, an AI-generated artist born from Mark Seidenfeld’s Papua New Guinea “Mud Queen” photography. Her face and voice were synthesized using Suno (audio) and Pixnova (visuals). The result? A surreal blend of nostalgia and cutting-edge tech, now live on Continue reading Ink Spots Covered by AI: Whose Work Is It Anyway?→

🔒 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→