In this week's post, we see the use of embedding works directly from user accounts may allow third parties to use copyright works without the consent of copyright owners. This arguably could also lead to the loss of revenue for these same copyright holders.

Also, Artificial Intelligence is increasingly used in developing new technology, seemingly inventing new art. However, the USPTO has found AI inventing doesn’t constitute authorship for patenting purposes. This raises questions as to how inventorship should be viewed and whether laws need to change to accommodate the use of AI in R&D advances.

Can Use of Embedded Images Avoid Copyright Infringement?

The creative community was dealt a significant blow this month when federal courts ruled that the embedded images of a photo from an Instagram account did not constitute copyright infringement even when the account owner had specifically denied requests to use the image in dispute. 

Since 2016, Stephanie Sinclair has been embroiled in a copyright infringement battle with technology website Mashable.  Ironically, the dispute arose when Mashable published an article on their website about Sinclair and nine other female photojournalists in order to laud their work in documenting social justice via the camera lens.

As one of the photojournalists listed, Mashable offered Sinclair fifty dollars to license use of one of her photographs in connection with their piece about her.  When Sinclair rejected Mashable’s offer, Mashable proceeded to use Sinclair’s photograph regardless of her consent, opting to embed the photograph directly from Sinclair’s official account.  Sinclair responded by taking Mashable to court.

Read the full article here.

Can Your Computer Be an Inventor? USPTO Says No

The Artificial intelligence (AI) is being used more and more in development of technology, but what if AI inventing already covered a technology that you want to patent?  This is a question that the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently decided in US Patent Application No. 16/524,530 (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/16524350_22apr2020.pdf). 

The USPTO was asked to consider whether a machine named “DABUS” could be listed as an inventor on a patent application because it recognized the novelty of the invention to be patented.  In its Decision, the USPTO found that the definition of “inventor” in the patent statutes does not cover machines; it only covers persons and individuals.  

Read more on the decision here.

Click to read the previous Weekly IP Buzz on Thriving Attorney.

For more posts, see our Intellectual Property Law Blog.

--------

In addition to Thriving Attorney, Darin M. Klemchuk is founder of Klemchuk LLP, a litigation, intellectual property, and transactional law firm located in Dallas, Texas. Click to read more about Darin Klemchuk's practice as an intellectual property lawyer.