Category Archives: Entertainment Law Blog

Most people still do not understand why AI music puts lawyers in a bind, so here is the real issue. On suno.com, you can sing every part of a track. The melody. The harmonies. The beat box rhythm. The bass line. The orchestral parts. Suno digitally analyzes your voice and turns each sound into a full production. Example:https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Dt2nc_S0hz8 You created the musical work.You performed every element with your own voice.You dictated the arrangement and structure. Continue reading The Copyright Problem Hiding in Plain Sight→

YouTube has just activated a new and highly visible AI labeling system. As of May 27, 2026, the platform now places a prominent AI generated content label directly under the video player for long form videos and as an on screen overlay for Shorts. This is a major change. The label is no longer buried in the description. It is now unavoidable and placed in the same visual position YouTube uses for safety notices. The Continue reading YouTube Quietly Activates New, Prominent AI Labeling System→

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→