Creator Spotlight with Children’s Book Illustrator Lauren Gallegos

Post publish date: April 18, 2024

This week we’d like to introduce you to children’s book illustrator, Lauren Gallegos. Lauren has illustrated over 30 books ranging from board books to historical fiction. After reading her spotlight blog, we encourage you to also follow her on Facebook, Instagram, and X.

What was the inspiration behind becoming a children’s book author? What do you enjoy most about the creative process?

Like most kids, I enjoyed making art, but it wasn’t until the end of high school that I started thinking of art as a possible career path. Before, I had never really thought that being an artist could be something you could make a living at. I went through college with that pursuit, but I didn’t have a clear goal until I took a Children’s Book Illustration class. Once I discovered that world, that was it for me. I knew I wanted to make narrative art and tell visual stories for kids. The books I read as a child were a huge inspiration to me as I got started. And as I grew, I became more familiar with current children’s illustrators that I loved. I love being able to create new and interesting worlds that you can escape into. I can imagine places that don’t exist, and make them real. And there is nothing more powerful than a story that brings someone hope. That is what I want to help bring to children through my art.

Can you talk through your creative process? How long does it take? Does everything you produce make money?

Either for client work, or personal work, it usually starts with some kind of story, either a finished manuscript, or some other narrative (a poem, a song, etc) any piece of text that sparks my imagination. Creating a children’s book involves everything from character design, environment design, narrative and sequential storytelling to thumbnail sketches, refined sketches, color sketches, and final art. It’s a huge process all crammed into 32 pages. Creating one children’s book can take anywhere between six months to one year. It’s a commitment and an investment, and so many people underestimate how much is involved in the process. Of course, it is most preferred to be hired to create art for a manuscript, in which case, you are paid for all the work you do. But there are certainly times when I am making art that I have not been hired for. To be hired, you have to have a strong, ever-changing portfolio, and not all paid work is something I want in my portfolio. So, I am constantly trying to make new work so that I will continue to get new jobs. It’s all about staying current and relevant in the children’s market, and sometimes that means making something for nothing in the hopes that it will produce interest from a publisher to eventually hire me.

What do you think is the biggest misconception about your line of work?

I think most people believe that making art for a children’s book takes a couple of weeks at most. They have no idea what amount of effort goes into every single piece of art, and not only that one piece, but an entire book full of art, which can be 16 images or more, And not only that, they all have to work together as one cohesive story. The pieces have to work together, but not all look the same. And you mostly have the same characters on every page, and they have to look consistent throughout the entire book. I think people think of kids’ books as a few fun, cute pictures. But each book is an entire body of work. Things like this take a lot of time.

When did you first become aware of copyright, and why?

I first became aware of copyright and protecting my work in college. This is going to make me sound SO OLD, but social media was still very new then, so we were encouraged to put our work on our own website or blog. At the time, sharing work on the internet was scary and who knows what was being stolen, so my professors taught us how to create our own watermarks to plaster across our work. They looked horrendous, but it felt like the most secure thing you could do at the time, so I did it. There was nothing official about it, but as a budding college-age artist with no money, it felt like enough.

What is the best piece of advice that you would give other creators in your field about copyright and how to protect themselves?

The illustrator will usually retain the copyright to their illustrations in the Publisher’s contract. But there are still plenty of publishers that only do “Work-for-Hire” contracts, which means the publisher holds the rights to your work. This is a decision an Illustrator has to make. If they are not comfortable, sometimes contracts can be negotiated differently, but that doesn’t always work. There are plenty of perfectly respectable Illustrators who will give up the rights to their work on occasion, usually for a job they aren’t completely tied to or in love with. Sometimes we all just need to work for money, and that’s fine. But there are stories of illustrators who do a Work-for-Hire project and, BAM! Now it’s being picked up to become a movie! Oh wait, but now the artist has zero say in how their work is used, if it’s even used at all. Work-for-Hire doesn’t have to be a deal breaker, but if you can negotiate the rights, definitely try to do so! And to protect your work with peace of mind, register them with the U.S. Copyright Office.


If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Community Partner Spotlight: National Association of Voice Actors (NAVA)

Post publish date: April 11, 2024

Today, we turn the spotlight over to one of our community partners, the National Association of Voice Actors (NAVA). They are a non-profit organization that seeks to “advocate and promote the advancement of the voice acting industry through action, education, inclusion, and benefits.” After you read their spotlight blog, be sure to follow them on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

What is the history of your organization, and what is its mission?

NAVA was formed in 2022 as a professional association for voice actors with the mission of being a place of advocacy in the voiceover industry. Our pillars are action, inclusion, education and benefits. When you think of “voiceover” images of cartoons and video games might come to mind. But voice actors do so much more than make funny voices on TV. Voice actors are the voices of the phone systems you interact with every day. We voice company training videos, and read medication safety information. We narrate your favorite documentaries and TV shows. We accompany you on long car rides through podcasts and audiobooks. And of course, we bring life to iconic animated characters in TV, film, and video games. Because of generative AI, our jobs, careers, security, and livelihoods are at risk.

NAVA exists not only to protect the voice actors who are currently working, but also to shape the future of our industry, so that there will be work available for generations of voice actors to come.

How do you support members of the creative community, and how can a creator get involved with your organization? 

In 2023, NAVA released a groundbreaking contract addendum/rider which helps protect creatives against the unauthorized use of their voice, likeness, and image for AI training and synthesization. The contract rider is free and available to the public on our website, and has been used successfully hundreds of times. We also launched our #fAIrVoices campaign on social media, which calls for fAIr consent, control, and compensation for creatives anytime artificial intelligence is involved. Professional voice actors can join NAVA by visiting NAVAvoices.org, and all creators can follow us on social media @NAVAvoices.

What inspired your organization to become a Copyright Alliance community partner?

The Copyright Alliance has been leading the way on issues surrounding AI from the very beginning, and NAVA is honored to be a community partner. We are thrilled to stand alongside so many impactful creative organizations, and know that together we can make a big difference not only for artists, but for the world at large. 

How have copyright and related issues affected your organization and its creator base?

Copyright is a complex topic for voice actors, because no one owns the copyright to the sound of their voice. In fact, as work for hire independent contractors creating the voices for characters which are a part of someone else’s IP, we often don’t have a direct claim over the performances we give. Voice actors have seen their voices scraped from video games and put through AI voice generation software to make all kinds of things, but because the video game company owns the intellectual property, it is the responsibility of the video game company to ask for it to be taken down, However, we do have some protections for sound files we create at home. We are looking into technology and legislation which would give all people rights over their own voice, likeness, and image. 

What is one thing you wish creators understood more clearly about copyright?

One interesting and important distinction we are trying to make is the difference between owning a sound file, and owning the rights to the voice print within that sounds file. Even if a sound file is in the public domain (for example in the case of LibriVox, which is a public domain audiobook platform which many AI companies have used to train their foundational models), it doesn’t mean the voice actor has agreed to give up their voice print. Voice print is considered sensitive and protected biometric data in many countries, but is not federally protected in the United States. We feel any time a synthetic version of a human being is created, that human being should give active, explicit consent in order for it to be legal to do so. If you want to use my voice, it should be my choice.

What advice would you give aspiring creators just starting out and unsure of how to protect their work?

For voice actors, the easiest thing to do is read your contracts. Be sure there is nothing in the contract that gives your end client the rights to your voice print. In addition to that, voice actors can add the NAVA AI/Synthetic Voice Contract Rider to every contract they sign to help ensure their end client won’t use their voice to make and train AI.

What are some current debates or issues surrounding copyright law that your organization is paying attention to, and what is your stance on them?

NAVA is meeting with lawmakers at the federal and state level to help shape legislation, and there are a few bills we are in full support of. The NO FAKES Act in the Senate would establish a federal right of publicity. And the NO AI Frauds Act in the House has a similar mission, and specifically references “voice” as a protected category and a property right. 

What are some common misconceptions that creators have about copyright, and how does your organization address them?

Many voice actors assume they own the rights to their voice, image, name, and likeness, and unfortunately at this moment in history, they do not. There are some right of publicity protections in certain states, but we all need to fight for federal protection. Especially for those of us who earn a living from licensing our voice, image, name, and likeness. 


If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Community Partner Spotlight: Asian American Arts Alliance (A4) 

Post publish date: March 28, 2024

Today, we turn the spotlight over to one of our community partners, Asian American Arts Alliance (A4). They are a nonprofit “dedicated to strengthening Asian American artists and cultural groups through resource sharing, promotion, and community building.” After you read their spotlight blog, be sure to follow them on Instagram, Facebook, and X.

What is the history of your organization, and what is its mission?

The Asian American Arts Alliance (A4) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring greater representation, equity, and opportunities for Asian American artists and cultural organizations through resource sharing, promotion, and community building. Since 1983, A4 has sought to unify, promote, and represent the artistic and cultural producers of one of New York City’s fastest-growing populations. We are a diverse alliance of artists, organizations, and arts supporters who believe that working together as a pan-ethnic, multidisciplinary community is essential to nurturing the development of artists and arts groups. A4 serves as a thoughtful convener of the Asian American cultural workforce around issues of race, identity, and artmaking and provides a critical voice for this community. We are the only service organization in the country dedicated to the professional development of Asian American artists in all disciplines.

How do you support members of the creative community, and how can a creator get involved with your organization?

Asian American Arts Alliance offers programs that build community and provide resources through peer-learning, collaboration, and professional development, furthering the careers of Asian Americans in the arts and supporting a healthy arts ecosystem. Our programs include networking events, talks, workshops, and fellowships that lower barriers for engagement, embed pathways of access for artists to connect with cultural gatekeepers, advance opportunities for artists and arts administrators of color, and provide tools to develop Asian American leaders in the community.

There are numerous ways to join the A4 family and help us grow opportunities for Asian Americans in the arts. Donations help us provide the programs that build and connect our community. Attending our special events lets you experience and celebrate the rich and diverse talent for which we advocate every day. Volunteering and offering your time and services helps us execute our events and ongoing projects. Sharing your events and ideas allows us to support and amplify the Asian American creative sector.

What inspired your organization to become a Copyright Alliance community partner?

We are excited to partner with Copyright Alliance to broaden our network with experts who can share helpful information with our creative community consisting of artists, arts workers, designers, and more. Our community will also benefit from the complimentary workshops and cross-promotion they offer. 

What is one thing you wish creators understood more clearly about copyright?

Young emerging artists are often reluctant to think too far ahead into the future, but foresight to protect your work through copyright is essential to safeguarding against exploitation and infringement. We encourage all creatives to assume their work will take off and incorporate copyright into your work to protect your future, identity, and profits.

What advice would you give aspiring creators just starting out and unsure of how to protect their work?

Seek information from a professional, such as our colleagues at the Copyright Alliance!

Congrats to the Asian American Arts Alliance on their 40th Anniversary!


If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Creator Member Catchup with Composer/Guitarist Patrick Hayes

Post publish date: March 19, 2024

This week, we caught up once again with composer/guitarist Patrick Hayes. We first interviewed Patrick back in 2021, and since then, his career has continued to advance and grow. You can follow him on Instagram @guitarboymusic1.

How has your creative career evolved since we last spoke?

My creative career has evolved in many ways. I am exploring my country roots because this is where my music is derived from. I am from a small town and my mother Frankie taught me basic chords on the guitar. Since then, my musical journey has expanded, especially during the last two years. I recently produced a song on Usher’s new album entitled “Naked.” “Naked” was selected for Kim Kardashian’s SKIMS campaign. I am incredibly proud and excited about this song. The project is a best seller. I produced this song with Kosine and our relationship spans more than a 20 year time period. Phil Cornish as a co producer also added some beautiful keys to this work of art. Ryan Toby penned some exotic lyrics to our song. The horn section is exceptionally melodic. I have known the saxophonist, Micheal Burton since our Mississippi days. Melvin Jones and Wilbert Williams play pivotal roles to completing the horn section. Usher’s vocal performance is stellar.

How has copyright continued to help fuel your growth?

Copyright fuels my legal growth related to my musical profession. The new streaming laws assist in getting artists, producers and song writers fairly compensated for their work. 

Is there anything related to copyright that you want to learn more about? What resources do you use in order to learn more about copyright?

Before I fill out my song percentage sheets (which determine how royalties will be distributed) and before I negotiate my publishing rights/deals, I ensure that all of my work is copyrighted. The Copyright Alliance is imperative for me to have continued success in this industry. 

Where do you draw inspiration from when you create musical work? Is there a specific musician you look up to, and if so, why?

I draw inspiration from nature and watching Animal Planet. Jimi Hendrix is my guitar hero and muse. He had the ability to make any guitar sing, talk, and cry. I visited his grave site near Seattle. I played my guitar while there and the grave actually moved. It almost startled me. I felt his power through my fingers! It was simply mind-blowing. My favorite Hendrix performance was when he played “The Star Spangled Banner” live. That was simply a surreal experience. It was like his guitars were transcending up into space. 

Do you follow a process or ritual before a live performance to get rid of nerves? If so, what is it?

I practice on my signature licks and I meditate. I listen to meditation music on my iPhone. It brings me tranquility and peace. It is indeed an honor to share my gift with the world. Music is universal and it touches numerous lives. 

Have you ever experienced writer’s block? How do you overcome it?

It is normal to experience writer’s block. If that transpires, I take a break from listening to music. I collect my ideas and thoughts. I focus on making something new, fresh, and interesting. Making anything organic and original is a process. I remain authentic and true to myself. 

If you could pass on one piece of advice to other creators, what would it be?

The advice I pass along to others is to be patient. Long lasting success requires time, dedication and hard work. Practice makes perfect. In order to advance, you must become familiar with your craft. Educate yourself on your future career. I attended college and acquired a Master’s degree. During my college years, I was recording and playing gigs. In addition to that, I was an educator. Learn about copyright law and protect your works through copyright, and do not get ripped off. Business is the key to surviving and thriving in the entertainment industry. Beware of people trying to take advantage of your skills and to make a huge profit. Join organizations like the Copyright Alliance, ASCAP, BMI and hire a good entertainment attorney. Knowledge is power. I pass along this information to my young artists, which include: Tylan, Mason, and Juelz. They are the young artists who I am trying to teach, mentor, and mold. We talk about making music and also about life. Taking the short route is the wrong route. Be yourself and you will win in the end. 

Are there any projects you’re currently working on or plan to start soon that you’re excited about? Can you tell us more about them? 

My next upcoming project is with Mississippi’s newest rising star, Kingfish. Both of us are from Mississippi and we are born of the richness of a rare musical culture. I am so thrilled to be collaborating with this future icon. Kingfish is about to blow up. His voice is deeply rooted in the heart of Blues, Rock ‘n Roll, and Country tones. He makes his guitar sing. He is like a little brother to me. We teach each other skills to enhance our craft. We are prepared to blaze the shots with new fire. The future looks brighter and the best is yet to come. I achieved one of my goals while working with one of my favorite artists who is Usher. I did a Mariah Carey remix a while back as well. I continue to reinvent myself on all levels and genres of music. I am presently working with American Idol’s angel, Jordin Sparks. Her demeanor is kind and her talent is pure. I also worked with the legendary Diane Warren on a few projects. Everything I do is extremely inspiring and diverse. I continue to reinvent myself on all levels and genres of music.


If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Creator Spotlight with Singer/Songwriter Kélanie

Post publish date: March 14, 2024

​​Kélanie is an Afro-Indigenous multi-artist singer who crafts intimate, sensorial, and healing alternative R&B. Experimenting with a blend of English and Portuguese, she transcends linguistic boundaries to translate feelings into her music. The artistic process is an integral part of her transformative music career journey, where vulnerability and creativity intertwine. Follow Kélanie on Instagram and subscribe to her YouTube channel.

What was the inspiration behind becoming a creator? What do you enjoy most about the creative process?

I believe we are all creators at heart, and life calls us to that state of creation, you know? My inspiration comes from nature, observing the cycles of the earth, and connecting to my indigenous roots, which inspires me to express my inner world through music!

What I enjoy most about the creative process is fostering curiosity, living a life of exploration, and having fun with my songwriting. I write in freestyle, so it’s a beautiful exercise of surrendering to the emotions.

Can you talk through your creative process? How long does it take? Does everything you produce make money?

I look at my creative process as a cycle that has three main phases. Phase 1 is about observing, absorbing, living, writing, and singing – just flowing through life, gathering “data” if you will. Phase 2 is taking all the written songs, finding connections, understanding the project’s concept, and envisioning it as something tangible – picturing how that album will exist in the real world, ready to be played and experienced, for example. Phase 3 is execution, where I find the resources, produce the songs, register them, and plan for release and marketing strategies. These three phases typically take a little over a year. I have a vlog series on youtube sharing my creative process.

Not everything I produce makes money, but the value it brings is immense. Money isn’t an instant byproduct of making art; it’s a long-term game that requires a lot of investment!

What do you think is the biggest misconception about your line of work?

Definitely the “glamorous” part of being an artist/singer, photoshoots, music videos, shows, etc. Especially an independent multi artist who plans and executes all fronts of the music release cycle. The reality is: it takes a lot of time, work and intention, and it’s not the effortless vibe it might give from the outside.

When did you first become aware of copyright, and why?

I first became aware of copyright in 2020 when I released my first single, “Intuition.” Initially unaware of copyright, music registration, ISRC codes, etc. I started researching and seeking advice from lawyers and specialists after the release.

What do you do when you encounter someone stealing something you’ve invested your intellect, time and money into?

Hopefully, I have gotten my art copyrighted and registered as to take proper measures. It’s really sad if that happens and you can’t really protect yourself because your work wasn’t protected.

What is the best piece of advice that you would give other creators in your field about copyright and how to protect themselves?

The best piece of advice for creators in my field regarding copyright is to do your homework. Seek information from the right places, portals, and specialists. Register your songs before releasing. While it might be challenging to understand initially, it’s imperative for the longevity of your career!


If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Music Royalties 101: Your Music Questions Answered

Post publish date: February 22, 2024

Kicking off the new year, the Copyright Alliance and Music Law Pro co-hosted Music Royalties 101 to help music creators navigate the various revenue streams to ensure proper collection of royalties. Although music lawyers Jesse E. Morris, Esq. and Alexandra Mayo, Esq. did their best to answer as many questions as they could during the panel, time inevitably ran out and there were questions left unanswered. However, worry not! Jesse and Alexandra have tackled a number of unanswered questions below. The questions selected are the most relevant to all attendees, however, they understand that there may still be unanswered questions. If after watching the webinar and reading this blog, you still have questions, feel free to call or email Music Law Pro to get help understanding the ins and outs of the music industry.

DISCLAIMER: Any information contained herein is for informational purposes only and should not be taken for any individual case or situation. Please do not consider this information to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney.

Are arrangers entitled to royalties when the arrangement is recorded?

In general, it depends on whether the arranger created a derivative work or not. Oftentimes, an arrangement is just a cover version, in which case it is not a derivative work. In this case, the original writers/publishers would be entitled to royalties from exploitation of a recording that embodies their song. But if it’s derivative, the arranger may be entitled to a share of the derivative work, and then be entitled to publishing monies based on the split of that derivative song. An arranger can also be hired to create a derivative work, but that could be a buyout and they’d have no share. Also, if the arranger performed or produced on the recording, then the arranger may be entitled royalties from uses of the sound recording. 

Is it common for a writer to lose his/her writer’s share of the public performance portion of the composition if the composition is created as a work for hire? Or is that something that is always maintained by the writer?

Typically, per music industry custom, writers keep their writer’s share of public performance monies. This is generally true even when it’s a work made for hire, such as when hired to compose for a film project.

What is the difference between an arrangement that is so different it is a derivative, versus an arrangement where a mechanical license must be given?

Assuming this question touches on the issue of whether an arrangement is a cover, then a person creating the cover could obtain a compulsory mechanical license. Versus, if the arrangement is not a cover, then it’s a derivative and permission would be needed. In general, an individual is allowed to make an arrangement that is considered a cover if it doesn’t “change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work”. 17 U.S.C. §115(a)(2).

What is the difference between a lawyer filing a musician’s copyrights versus the musician filing themselves?

There are many important legal implications to consider when preparing a copyright application. Rather than trying to register alone, a knowledgeable music lawyer can guide you through the application process to ensure your music is best protected.

If you’re an ASCAP or BMI member, how do you get international royalties?

ASCAP and BMI typically have reciprocal agreements with performing rights organizations in foreign territories to collect international performance royalties on your behalf. Alternatively, your publisher may have a sub-publisher to collect directly from foreign territories.

What’s the difference between registering a work & full copyrighting?

Copyright ownership generally exists automatically once an original work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. To enforce your rights in court against infringement in the United States, you need to register the copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. There are numerous other benefits to registering your works with the Copyright Office as well. In addition to registration with the Copyright Office, there are various organizations to register music with to collect royalties and track uses.

If a songwriter is registered with [The] MLC and PRO[s] and SoundExchange for music that is not copyrighted, how does it affect them and their rights?

As stated above, music that is original and fixed in a tangible medium generally has copyright protection automatically. However, you can’t enforce your rights without a copyright registration. If utilizing music that’s in the public domain or not original, such music is not copyrightable. Thus, you would generally not receive royalties or remuneration.

Do you need permission to record a cover? Or is it a mandatory license? What about an arrangement?

If it is a lawful cover (i.e., it doesn’t “change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work” as mentioned above), then you can obtain a compulsory license in the US for audio distribution rights only. However, permission is needed for any visual/sync uses or any other uses. If an arrangement is a cover, then the license is compulsory. However if it crosses the line and becomes derivative, then a compulsory license is not applicable and you’d need a license.

Who assigns ISRCs, a distributor or a PRO? If five years down the line one joins a PRO, does the ISRC follow the recording?

International Standard Recording Codes (ISRCs) identify a particular recording and are generally assigned by a record label or distributor. PROs assign International Standard Musical Work Codes (ISWCs), which identify a particular musical composition. ISRCs should stay with the same unique recording for its life.

How do royalties break down for a live or recorded song performance on a TV talk show that may also be re-aired at a later date?

There’s an upfront sync fee and backend performance royalties. The upfront fee is generally paid 50% to the publisher (or whomever owns/controls the song) and 50% to the label (or whomever owns/controls the master). Backend performance royalties all go to the publisher (or song owner/admin).

What do most PROs do with royalties collected from blanket licenses collected from restaurants, shops, etc? 

They collect such royalties and pay them out.

Do you need to register with all the major publishing houses (BMI, ASCAP, etc.), or do you just select one that best suits you and publish solely through them?

As a writer, registration is only allowed with one PRO. As a publisher, publishers can join as many as needed to represent whatever PRO its writers are registered with.

Are the rates for sync quoted – the same then for master use?

Ultimately before a sync license is confirmed, everyone typically agrees on price and other basic terms. Then the upfront fee is usually split 50/50 between the publisher (or whomever owns/controls the song) and label (or whomever owns/controls the master).

How do we get a content ID account?

YouTube has certain threshold requirements for your own account. YouTube Help can provide more guidance as to YouTube’s specific requirements for Content ID, or you could work with a vendor.

On YouTube, if there’s a static album cover instead of moving images, does the revenue go to “sync”?

In general, it’s not sync because it’s audio-streaming with album artwork, but it is money coming from YouTube. Typically the revenue is considered audio-only, but depends on the contract.

Music Royalties 101 Webinar Recording


If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Community Partner Spotlight: The Ella Project

Post publish date: February 15, 2024

Today, we turn the spotlight over to one of our community partners, The Ella Project. They are dedicated to providing “pro bono legal assistance, arts business services, and advocacy to our cultural communityin the New Orleans and Louisiana area. After you read their spotlight blog, be sure to follow them on Facebook and Instagram.

What is the history of your organization, and what is its mission?

Launched in 2004 with the mission that “We believe in the importance of the culture of New Orleans and Louisiana, and we empower the creators of their culture in a way that is just, equitable, and serves the artists, patrons and our diverse community.” The Ella Project provides direct pro bono legal assistance to moderate income artists, musicians, and grassroots nonprofits in Louisiana, presents regular workshops on arts law and arts business topics, provides assistance to moderate income inventors via its Louisiana Invents Patent Pro Bono Program, and advocates for forward-thinking policy changes and the development of a local, state and national government that supports and values the creators of our culture.

From its offices in the French Quarter, The Ella Project serves 250 or more pro bono legal clients a year in matters of copyright, trademark, patent, contract negotiation, licensing, and for and nonprofit incorporation. Legal services are primarily delivered by The Ella Project’s Co-Founder, Ashlye Keaton, who is assisted by her team of Tulane Law School volunteers. This partnership with Tulane Law School, where Ashlye also teaches, helps The Ella Project provide high quality pro bono legal assistance and ensure the artists and organizations of Louisiana have access to justice.

How do you support members of the creative community, and how can a creator get involved with your organization? 

Artists throughout Louisiana are encouraged to reach out to The Ella Project for assistance with any specific legal issue germane to their arts career. We love working with artists in the early stages of their career to make sure they are properly protected. Artists simply looking for greater knowledge and understanding of arts business can attend of our free workshops and webinars or schedule a consultation with a veteran of their industry via our Tete a Tete consulting program.

What inspired your organization to become a Copyright Alliance Community Partner?

Supporting copyright and the ability of creators to share their creations with the world in a manner of their choosing is a core value of The Ella Project. Having a community partner that shares this vision and can bring that message to Washington DC and beyond is essential to not only fulfilling our mission, but also in supporting a more creative, engaging, America.

How have copyright and related issues affected your organization and its creator base?

The ways that copyright law manifests itself in the context of the creative industries is at the core of our work with artists and arts businesses.  While the Copyright Act hasn’t changed much over the course of several decades, what has changed a lot is the way the arts, music and entertainment sectors have used the law to adapt to constantly evolving innovation and technology, which has impacted the ways consumers access content, in addition to the ways artists share in revenue streams.  There is no longer a single model for the ways that artists can maximize earning potential from their creative content and businesses. We are working hard to ensure that we are able to help our clients keep up with the ever-changing business models against laws that haven’t always been updated in a way that reinforced the overarching policy of the Copyright Act – to provide artists an incentive to create.  We see this as a challenge, but also as an opportunity, to identify ways that artists can use these tools to develop best practices in transitioning from the creative process to a creative business with transactions and models that promote fairness, equity, and a thriving quality of life.

What is one thing you wish creators understood more clearly about copyright?

We wish creators understood that the application of legal principles in connection with copyright is constantly changing in the bigger picture context of warp-speed innovation and the creative sector’s response to new technology. That while it is okay to be confused, but it is important to engage in ongoing education and to reach out to service providers like The Ella Project for ongoing, professional counsel.

What advice would you give aspiring creators just starting out and unsure of how to protect their work?

Identify the resources available to you for learning more about your rights, and if you have access to a volunteer lawyer who is well-versed, take advantage of that resource. Beyond that, start cultivating a team of people with different skill sets and experiences in rights management. Preparedness is critical to ensuring your rights are protected.

What are some current debates or issues surrounding copyright law that your organization is paying attention to, and what is your stance on them?

A major debate is whether it is any longer worth registering your copyright, especially given the constantly rising fees, changes in the registration protocols, and given that registration is not absolutely necessary. For a musician releasing a single every week or every month, especially where there is more than one songwriter and/or more than one recording artist involved in making the music, the cost of registering copyrights has become infeasible, and it makes way more sense to spend that money on marketing.  As attorneys, we always suggest that registering copyrights is a good idea.  As advocates, we have a harder time making that case.

What are some common misconceptions that creators have about copyright, and how does your organization address them?

There are still a lot of misconceptions about copyright.  We’re seeing a lot less around the old “poor man’s copyright” myth. A common misconception is that copyright doesn’t exist until registration.  More complex misconceptions have to do with identification of rightsholders, administration of creative content, and distribution of revenue.


If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Community Partner Spotlight: BIPOC Podcast Creators

Post publish date: February 6, 2024

Today, we turn the spotlight over to one of our Community Partners, BIPOC Podcast Creators. They are a Black and Latina-owned non-profit organization dedicated to amplifying “BIPOC talent and voices in podcasting and beyond.” They host regular networking events, offer opportunities for job mentorship, and so much more. After reading their spotlight blog, we encourage you to follow them on Instagram and X.

What is the history of your organization, and what is its mission?

BIPOC Podcast Creators was founded in 2021 with the mission to amplify the voices of Black, Indigenous, and people of color in podcasting and beyond. Our goal at BIPOC Podcast Creators is to connect and empower this community of podcast creators who are ready to go beyond the 101 and grow into the world of podcasting.

How do you support members of the creative community, and how can a creator get involved with your organization? 

The BIPOC Podcast Creators community brings together Black, Indigenous and other people of color who are making moves across the podcasting and digital space. Each year, we offer our Creators ample networking opportunities, skill-building workshops, access to experts, industry insights, and opportunities for mentorship. Plus discounts on various services to help them achieve their podcasting dreams. Creators can join our community via our website or on our Facebook group. And they can learn more about our community here: https://www.bipocpodcastcreators.com/bipoc-community

What inspired your organization to become a Copyright Alliance Community Partner? 

BIPOC Podcast Creators is thrilled to partner with the Copyright Alliance as its first Community Partner, as it presents a unique opportunity for us to help underrepresented creators protect their works through copyright as they strive to grow their businesses. We believe that this collaboration will not only benefit individual creators but also contribute to a more diverse and inclusive podcast industry, where BIPOC voices are not only heard but also valued and protected.

How have copyright and related issues affected your organization and its creator base?

We believe that in this age of rapid content generation, it is more important than ever for BIPOC communities to protect their worth and their work. That is why we look forward to doing more webinars and events that center around protecting our work and using AI tools in an ethical way. 

What is one thing you wish creators understood more clearly about copyright?

That it is not the same as trademarking. Oftentimes people get the two terms confused. 

What advice would you give aspiring creators just starting out and unsure of how to protect their work? 

To check out our webinars and the free tools offered on the Copyright Alliance’s website. 

What are some current debates or issues surrounding copyright law that your organization is paying attention to, and what is your stance on them? 

Our community is very concerned about the use of content generated by BIPOC creators using generative AI tools like ChatGPT. We are also very focused on how we could take stake in the building of AI tools in order to make them more diverse, ethical, and inclusive. 


If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

January 2024 Roundup of Copyright News

Post publish date: February 1, 2024

In January, there was big copyright news coming out from the courts, including two final judgments entered by a court involving concessions of willful copyright infringement and forfeiture of the fair use defense by the appropriation artist Richard Prince. Here is a quick snapshot of those and other copyright-related activities that occurred during the month of January as well as a few events to look forward to in February.

Copyright Alliance and Music Law Pro Host ‘Music Royalties 101’ Webinar: On January 24, the Copyright Alliance and Legal Advisory Board (LAB) member Music Law Pro’s (MLP) Jesse E. Morris and Alexandra Mayo hosted a free webinar titled Music Royalties 101. The session, which drew 240 attendees and included opening comments by Copyright Alliance Copyright Counsel Rachel Kim, was intended to help music creators successfully navigate the music industry, especially in terms of understanding the various revenue streams to ensure proper collection of royalties. A video of the event will be shared in the near future.

Copyright Alliance Blogs: At the top of the month, we published several year-in-review blogs on U.S. Copyright Office’s Activities, Copyright Cases, AI and Copyright In the Courts, and Federal Government Activities related to AI.

CCB Status Update: At the end of January 2024, 729 total cases had been filed with the Copyright Claims Board (CCB). Of these claims, 296 are “smaller claims.” In at least 200 of all cases, the claimant is using legal counsel. At least 644 of the cases involve infringement claims, 124 involve Section 512(f) misrepresentation claims, and 23 involve claims for declarations of noninfringement. The eCCB docket currently shows that the works at issue in these cases are as follows: Pictorial Graphic & Sculpture (320 cases); Literary Works (110); Motion Picture and Audiovisual Works (140); Sound Recordings (73); Musical Works (51); and some cases include claims for multiple works. Ninety-nine foreign residents have filed claims. Of all the cases filed, 579 have been dismissed for the following reasons: Due to Respondent’s Opt Out (69); Due to Failure to Amend Noncompliant Claim (280); Registration Issues (14); Due to Failure to Provide Proof of Service of Process (112); Claimant Withdrawal and Dismissal of Claims (55); Bad Faith Claimant (13); and Settlement (36). There are 42 active proceedings and 18 final determinations.

USCO Publishes NOI to Initiate Review Process of Existing DLC and MLC Designations: On January 30, the U.S. Copyright Office published a notification of inquiry required by the Music Modernization Act (MMA), regarding whether the existing designations of the mechanical licensing collecting (MLC) and digital licensee coordinator (DLC) should be continued. This is the first of the review processes that the Copyright Office is statutorily required to conduct every five years. Initial submissions by the currently designated MLC and DLC must be received by April 1. Written initial public comments must be received by May 29 and reply comments from the public must be received by June 28. Reply comments by the currently designated MLC and DLC must be received by July 29.

USCO Publishes NPRM for Group Registration Option for News Websites: On January 3, the U.S. Copyright Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) setting forth regulations to create a new group registration option to register updates to news websites. The proposed rule would permit news publishers to register groups of updates to news websites published within the same calendar month as a collective work for a fee of $95. The proposed rule also directs applicants to file deposit copies consisting of PDF files that each contain a complete copy of the home page of the website. Comments on the NPRM are due to the Copyright Office by February 20.

USCO Publishes Final Rule on CCB ‘Smaller Claims’ Proceedings: On January 16, the U.S. Copyright Office published a final rule clarifying certain procedures and rules for “smaller claims” proceedings before the Copyright Claims Board (CCB). This final rule will become effective on February 15. The final rule, among other things, clarifies that (i) a CCB claimant may change its election for a “standard” CCB proceeding to a “small claims” proceeding before service of the claims and (ii) a CCB Officer can address and impose remedies to address both the failure to submit evidence in accordance with the CCB’s request and/or the submission of evidence that was not served on the other party or provided by the other side. The final rule also states that CCB Officers can hold a conference to explore the possibility of consolidating separate CCB proceedings and claims that arise out of the same facts and circumstances that involve the same or substantially the same parties.

USCO Launches New Webpage for MMA Audit Notices: On January 24, the U.S. Copyright Office announced the launch of a new webpage dedicated to notices submitted under the Music Modernization Act (MMA) of audits of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) by copyright owners and audits of Digital Music Service Providers (DMPs) of the MLC. The webpage provides instructions on submitting MMA audit notices to the U.S. Copyright Office. To commence an audit, a notice of intent must be filed with the Copyright Office’s General Counsel’s Office and delivered to the parties being audited. The Office must then publish a notice in the Federal Register within 45 days.

CRB Issues Final Rule for Certain Sound Recording Royalty Rates for Business Establishments: On January 3, the0 Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) published a final rule setting forth the royalty rates for the making of ephemeral copies of sound recordings to business establishments for the period of January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2028.

CRB Issues Corrections to Final Rules on Various Royalty Rates: On December 21, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) issued a correction to its final rule governing certain sound recording royalty rates for commercial and noncommercial noninteractive webcasters. On the same day, the CRB also issued a correction to its final rule governing musical works royalty rates for making and distributing phonorecords.

SJC PTL Subcommittee Holds Hearing on AI and Journalism: On January 10, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s (SJC) Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law (PTL) held a hearing titled Oversight of AI: The Future of Journalism. Hearing witnesses included Danielle Coffey, President and CEO of the News/Media Alliance; Curtis LeGeyt, President and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB); Roger Lynch, CEO of Condé Nast; and Jeff Jarvis, Leonard Tow Professor of Journalism Innovation at the City University of New York’s Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism. During the hearing, Subcommittee members generally agreed that AI companies should pay media outlets to use articles and other published works for AI training and development. Both Senators and witnesses expressed interest in licensing structures and pointed to other content fields, such as music and television, to demonstrate that a successful licensing regime is possible.

Senate Rules Committee Holds Hearing on Use of AI at LOC, GPO, and Smithsonian: On January 24, the Senate Rules & Administration Committee held a hearing titled The Use of Artificial Intelligence at the Library of Congress, Government Publishing Office, and Smithsonian Institution. Hearing witnesses included Dr. Carla Hayden, Librarian of Congress, Library of Congress; Hugh Nathanial Halpern, Director, U.S. Government Publishing Office; and Meroë Park, Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer, Smithsonian Institution. Senators used the hearing as an opportunity to learn more about AI usage and priorities at the three organizations. Toward the end of the hearing, Senator Hagerty (R-TN) expressed concern over the impact of AI on recording artists and songwriters, and asked Dr. Hayden how the U.S. Copyright Office planned to protect copyrighted works and unauthorized uses of performing artists’ voices at the federal level, what the Office is doing to ensure appropriate licensing from AI companies to use copyrighted materials or other materials implicating a person’s right of publicity or privacy, and whether the Office is considering transparency measures like auditing and record-keeping. Dr. Hayden replied that the Copyright Office is examining these and other related issues, pointing to the Office’s previous public webinars on AI topics and the ongoing AI study.

House Administration Committee Holds Hearing on AI Innovations Within the Legislative Branch: On January 30, the House Administration Committee held a hearing titled Artificial Intelligence (AI): Innovations within the Legislative Branch. The hearing focused on the potential risks and rewards of AI in legislative branch operations. Chair Bryan Steil (R-WI) and Ranking Member Joe Morelle (D-NY) emphasized the need for AI governance plans and transparency. Witnesses included Taka Ariga, Chief Data Scientist and Director of the Innovation Lab, Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics, Government Accountability Office (GAO); John Clocker, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of Representatives; Judith Conklin, Chief Information Officer, Library of Congress; and Hugh Halpern, Director, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Chair Steil asked Conklin to explain how AI could be used in relation to Copyright Office records. Conklin replied that the Library of Congress is currently experimenting with the Copyright Office’s historical data to make it more discoverable and searchable to make it beneficial for researchers. Representative Sewell (D-AL) asked Conklin about the Library’s stance on copyright and ethics concerns in relation to AI generated content. Conklin replied that the Library has been considering bias and ethics concerns in their research and collaborations and that the Library remains committed to providing trustworthy and authoritative data. Top takeaways from the hearing is available on the Committee’s webpage.

Rep. Leger Fernandez Reintroduces Creative Workforce Investment Act: On January 10, Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM) reintroduced the Creative Workforce Investment Act (formerly known as the Creative Economy Revitalization Act), H.R. 6935, which would create a $300 million Department of Labor and National Endowment for the Arts Grant Program to fund workers in the creative sector to create public art projects and initiatives. In addition to the change in the bill title, the new bill ensures that arts educators can benefit from the grant program.

Deborah Robinson’s IPEC Confirmation Heads to Senate Floor Following SJC Vote: Following Deborah Robinson’s renomination to become the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) by President Biden on January 9th, the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held a hearing on January 18th. Robinson was voted favorably out of the committee, 13-8, meaning her nomination will head to the Senate floor for the second time. The Copyright Alliance issued a statement in support of Robinson’ re-nomination and recirculated a prior industry letter in support of her nomination.

Go Pack Go Act Introduced: On January 11, Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI) introduced the Go Pack Go Act. The bill would amend the Communications Act and Copyright Act to require cable, satellite, and other video providers to grant their Wisconsin subscribers access to programming from broadcast television stations in a Wisconsin media market. According to the office’s press release, 13 Wisconsin counties are assigned to an out-of-state local TV market in either Minnesota or Michigan. This bill would ensure that every Wisconsin cable or satellite subscriber who lives in these 13 counties has the choice of receiving an in-state broadcast for every major network, so they would always have access to Wisconsin-based news, information, and sports. Senator Baldwin (D-WI) previously introduced companion legislation in the Senate, S. 2857.

Biden Administration Activities

USTR Releases 2023 Notorious Markets Report: On January 30, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2023 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, which highlights online and physical markets that engage in or facilitate substantial trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy. This year’s report identifies 39 online markets and 33 physical markets reported to engage in or facilitate intellectual property theft, including 2embed, The Pirate Bay, LibGen, Sci-Hub, Fmovies, and Aniwatch. “The trade in counterfeit and pirated goods harms workers, consumers, and small businesses, and ultimately hurts the U.S. economy,” stated Ambassador Katherine Tai.  “This year’s Notorious Markets List is significant because it underscores the potential dangers of counterfeit goods and why robust enforcement to combat trade in these goods is important to growing our economy from the middle out and the bottom up.” More information is available in USTR’s press release.

Final Judgments Issued Against Appropriation Artist, Richard Prince, in Two Copyright Infringement Cases: On January 25, the district court for the Southern District of New York issued final judgments in two copyright infringement lawsuits brought by photographers against appropriation artist, Richard Prince. InGraham v. Prince, photographer, Donald Graham, sued Prince in 2015 over the unauthorized use by Prince of Graham’s photograph, Rastafarian Smoking a Joint, in a portrait that was featured in a catalog, compilation work, and billboard. Graham was represented by Copyright Alliance Legal Advisory Board member Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP. In McNatt v. Prince, photographer, Eric McNatt, sued Prince in 2016 over the unauthorized use by Prince of McNatt’s photograph in a portrait that was featured in an exhibition and a book. The district court held in favor of the photographers in both cases in May 2023, denying Prince’s and co-defendant art galleries’ motions for summary judgment in the two cases and finding that the fair use exception did not excuse the infringement. In both of the final judgments for the McNatt case and the Graham case, Prince was found liable for willful infringement of the photographs, and relinquished all defenses, including the fair use defense. This is a remarkable and significant departure from Prince’s history of fighting and prevailing in copyright infringement lawsuits on the basis of fair use, marking a new era in fair use jurisprudence following the Supreme Court’s decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith last year. In both Graham and McNatt, Prince was liable for damages in an amount equal to five times the respective retail prices of the infringing portraits in addition to other costs incurred by the plaintiffs. The Copyright Alliance initiated a statement, applauding the two final judgments and their impact in a post Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith fair use landscape. Prince’s representatives made statements in a feeble attempt to reduce the impact of the final judgments. Thjose statements are wrong as  Prince clearly admits to all claims that were filed, including willful infringement, and he paid more than either plaintiff, especially Graham, could have received in statutory damages had the cases gone to trial. We commend the legal team at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, who worked on the McNatt and Graham cases for many years to ensure that two independent artists could prevail against the significant resources of Richard Prince and his galleries.

Jury Finds No Substantial Similarity in Copyright Infringement Case Against Tattoo Artist, Kat Von D: On January 26, a jury in the Central District of California found in favor of tattoo artist Kat Von D in a copyright infringement suit brought by Jeff Sedlik in 2021 for the unauthorized use of his photograph of Miles Davis in the preparation, promotion, and creation of a Miles Davis tattoo. The jury found that the tattoo and some of the social media posts were not substantially similar to the photograph. Out of 15 social media posts, the parties agreed that four contained a substantially similar laser printed copy of the photograph, and so the jury was only asked to make a fair use decision on those posts, which it held in favor of Von D. Sedlik’s attorney stated that Sedlik will appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit. More background on the case, including the court’s order on motions for summary judgment, can be found here.

George Carlin’s Estate Sues Media Company Over Audio Work Replicating Carlin’s Voice and Style: On January 25, the estate of George Carlin filed a lawsuit against Dudesy, a media company behind an AI-generated hour-long audio work that replicates Carlin’s voice and comedy style, in the Central District of California for state rights of publicity violations and willful copyright infringement. The complaint alleges that the AI-generated material, titled “George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead,” was created by making unauthorized copies of five decades of Carlin’s copyrighted stand-up comedy routines and ingesting them into an AI model called Dudesy AI. The complaint also appears to address potential forthcoming fair use arguments by explaining that the material does not “satirize Carlin as a performer or offer an independent critique of society” and that it acts as a substitute because “it discourages people who may be unfamiliar with Carlin’s work from seeking it out.”

Briefs Filed in SCOTUS Copyright Damages Case: On January 5, respondent, Nealy, filed his brief in the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case, Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy. The case involves questions over whether the Copyright Act permits damages to be collected from the date of infringement even if such damages occur more than three years before a lawsuit was filed. The Eleventh Circuit had held for the respondent, ruling that he may collect damages for a timely filed infringement claim where the infringing acts occurred more than three years before the filing of the lawsuit. The respondent argues that under the express language of the relevant provisions in the Copyright Act, the Court should adopt the Eleventh Circuit’s rule. On January 12, various amicus briefs were filed by multiple parties in support of respondent, including the Solicitor General, former Register of Copyrights Ralph Oman, The Authors Guild, Graphic Artists Guild, Songwriters Guild of America, and the National Society of Entertainment & Arts Lawyers. Oral arguments for the case are set for February 21.

Thaler Files Appellate Brief in AI Copyright Authorship Case: On January 22, Dr. Stephen Thaler filed a brief with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia appealing a decision by the district court for the District of Columbia, which ruled that the U.S. Copyright Office rightfully rejected Thaler’s bid to register an image wholly generated by his AI machine, The Creativity Machine, because the image lacked human authorship. The brief argues that the express language of the Copyright Act does not require “human” authorship and that this is reinforced in the Act’s recognition and mechanics of the work-made-for-hire doctrine.

Court Partially Rules on Motions to Dismiss Claims in Software AI Class Action Lawsuit: On January 22, in Doe v. Github, the court granted and denied in part Microsoft and OpenAI’s renewed motions to dismiss claims brought by a group of anonymous software coders alleging that Microsoft and OpenAI were liable for violating open source licenses and scraping plaintiffs’ code to train Microsoft’s AI tool, GitHub Copilot. District Judge Tigar of the district court for the Northern District of California declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for damages for Does 1, 2, and 5, but dismissed the claims for damages made by Does 3 and 4 with prejudice because they did not sufficiently demonstrate injury because they failed to allege instances where their code had been output by Copilot. However, the court ruled that all parties had standing to pursue their claims for injunctive relief. The court also dismissed the state claims with prejudice and the Section 1202(b)(1) and (b)(3) claims under the DMCA made by the plaintiffs but granted leave for the plaintiffs to amend relevant defects in the complaint with regard to the dismissed DMCA claims.

Authors File New Class Action Lawsuit Against Microsoft and OpenAI: On January 5, two nonfiction book authors and journalists, Nicholas Basbanes and Nicholas Gage, filed a class action lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI over the unauthorized use and reproduction of the plaintiffs’ books to train the ChatGPT AI model. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are liable for direct, vicarious, and contributory copyright infringement.

Meta Files a Response to AI Class Action Lawsuit Brought by Authors: On January 10, Meta filed its response to the class-action lawsuit brought against it by a group of authors, including Richard Kadrey and Sarah Silverman, for the use of Plaintiffs’ books to train Meta’s AI model, Llama. In its response, Meta admits that portions of the Books3 dataset were used to train the first and second versions of Llama. For its affirmative defense, Meta argues that fair use excuses their infringement of any copyrighted works. It also asserts that it may use public domain works, unregistered works, abandoned works, and works otherwise unprotectable under copyright law.

Anthropic Moves to Dismiss Music Publishers’ Lawsuit: On January 16, AI company, Anthropic, filed an opposition to a preliminary injunction request made by a group of music publishers, who had sued the AI company for the unauthorized use of plaintiffs’ musical works to train the AI model, Claude. The plaintiffs had requested a preliminary injunction to prohibit Claude from generating output of plaintiffs’ works and require extraction of the plaintiffs’ musical works from the training datasets for unreleased models. Anthropic argues that it is inappropriate for the court to grant plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm from Claude’s output or training on the musical works due to the safeguards built into the AI model and because Anthropic did not itself create the infringing output copies that were included in the complaint. Anthropic further accuses plaintiffs of strategically manipulating Claude by bypassing guardrails to produce the infringing output examples included in the complaint. Anthropic also argues that plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the infringement claims since its use is excused under the fair use exception.

Italian Court Rejects ISP Challenge to Dynamic Website-Blocking Measures: On January 22, the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio in Italy rejected a bid by the Association of Independent Providers, a group of small to medium-sized Italian Internet Service Providers (ISPs), ruling that the country’s dynamic website blocking measures as implemented by the country’s telecom regulator, AGCOM, are permissible as the system was implemented to further the public’s interest in protecting copyright. Mainly targeting live broadcast events including sporting events, Italy’s dynamic website blocking measures use a system called “The Piracy Shield,” where rightsholders upload information about illicit websites and evidence of infringing activities. The information is provided to ISPs who are directed to block relevant IP addresses within 30 minutes. The new system is expected to go into effect in February.

UK Government Confirms It Is No Longer Considering Broad Copyright Exemption for TDM: On January 9, the UK Committee on Culture, Media, and Sport of the House of Commons issued its report on Connected Tech: AI and Creative Technology: Government Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report of Session 2022–23, which confirms that the UK government will not move forward with its proposal for a broad copyright exemption for text-and-data mining. The report makes intellectual property recommendations including how the government can examine ways to increase transparency over AI use of creative works and to prevent unauthorized use of creators’ likeness and performances in emerging technologies like AI. The report notes that the government is instead engaging stakeholders in a working group to develop a code of practice on copyright and AI to be shared in early 2024.

UK Opens Consultations on Performance Rights for Sound Recordings in Foreign Nations: On January 15, the United Kingdom’s Intellectual Property Office launched consultations to examine reciprocity of sound recording public performance rights and the country’s treatment of recordings and performances from such countries in light of its international treaty obligations.

EU Parliament Adopts Resolution to Address Various Music Streaming Royalties and Issues: On January 17, members of the European Parliament voted to adopt a resolution to address the issue of allocation of streaming royalties for musicians, promotion of EU musical works on streaming platforms, and transparency of streaming platform algorithms and AI generated music.

Industry Activities

New Nonprofit Launches to ‘Certify Copyright-Friendly AI Practices’: On January 17, a non-profit called Fairly Trained was launched to “certify generative AI companies for training data practices that impact creators’ rights.” Per the announcement, Fairly Trained, which is led by CEO Ed Newton-Rex, “has assembled an advisory committee that brings together voices from a range of disciplines to help ensure that they develop certifications in a manner that takes into account a diverse set of viewpoints.” The advisory committee is comprised of Maria Pallante, President & CEO, Association of American Publishers (AAP); Tom Gruber, Co-founder and CTO of Siri and LifeScore; Elizabeth Moody, Senior Partner, Chair of New Media at Granderson Des Rochers; and Max Richter, composer, pianist, and producer. At the time of launch, nine AI companies—Beatoven.AI, Boomy, BRIA AI, Endel, LifeScore, Rightsify, Somms.ai, Soundful, and Tuney—have been certified by the organization for a range of creation types, such as image, music, and singing voice generation.

Look Forward To And Save the Date For…

HJC IP Subcommittee Holds AI Field Hearing in LA: On February 2 at 9 a.m. PT at the Los Angeles Convention Center, the House Judiciary Committee’s (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet will host its field hearing, titled Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Part II – Identity in the Age of AI. Witnesses include Lainey Wilson, 2024 Grammy Nominee, 2023 CMA Entertainer of the Year, and 2023 ACM Female Artist of the Year; Harvey Mason Jr., President and CEO, the Recording Academy; Christopher Mohr, President, Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA); and Jennifer Rothman, Nicholas F. Gallicchio Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Next CPMC Meeting: On February 15 at 1 p.m. ET, the Library of Congress will virtually host its sixth bi-annual meeting of the Copyright Public Modernization Committee (CPMC). During the meeting, Library and Copyright Office staff intend to provide updates on the development of the Enterprise Copyright System and a live demonstration of the Library’s system for onsite access to rights-restricted content. The meeting will also feature discussions among the members of the CPMC of their reflections over the past three years since establishment of the committee and discussions regarding a renewed authorization of the committee. The event is open to the public and there will be an opportunity for public questions and answers. More information is available on the registration page.

Deadline to Submit Comments to USCO in Opposition of New Exemptions in 1201 Triennial Rulemaking: On February 20 comments are due to the U.S. Copyright Office in opposition of the new exemptions in 1201 Triennial Rulemaking.  The U.S. Copyright Office’s notice outlines seven newly proposed classes of exemption and initiates three rounds of public comment. Reply comments from supporters of a proposed exemption and parties who neither support nor oppose an exemption are due March 19, 2024.

Deadline to Submit Comments to USCO on NPRM for New Group Registration Option for News Websites: On February 20, 2024, comments are due to the U.S. Copyright Office in response to the published notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) setting forth regulations to create a new group registration option to register updates to news websites. The proposed rule would permit news publishers to register groups of updates to news websites published within the same calendar month as a collective work and for a fee of $95.


If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Facilitating Efficient and Effective Copyright Licensing for AI

Post publish date: January 23, 2024

AI models have an almost insatiable appetite for content. To date, the vast majority of training content, whether books or blogs or songs or images, has been scraped from the web without authorization from the copyright owners. Many AI companies argue that the use of copyrighted content in this context is “fair use” and does not require a license or compensation. But copyright owners are crying foul, and lawsuits are being filed at a rapid pace, including leading lawsuits from the Authors Guild and most recently the New York Times. Although fair use may be a defense to copyright infringement, only courts can determine if unauthorized copying is justified after performing a complex, fact-based, multi-factor assessment.

Big technology companies occasionally acknowledge that copyright owners deserve to be compensated, and a few early licensing deals have been concluded. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has repeatedly positioned himself as a moderate on the issue, “We’re trying to work on new models where if an AI system is using your content, or if it’s using your style, you get paid for that.”

However, other AI stakeholders are arguing that copyright owners are not entitled to payments for the use of their works to train AI platforms, and moreover, that any such requirements will stifle innovation and push it offshore. Writing to the US Copyright Office, the well-known VC firm Andreessen Horowitz put it this way: “The bottom line is this, imposing the cost of actual or potential copyright liability on the creators of AI models will either kill or significantly hamper their development.”

However, it is more likely that litigation rather than licensing will kill or disincentivize AI innovation. Companies may be less likely to use or develop AI technology if they may be sued. Moreover, companies will spend tens of millions to defend against lawsuits during the years it will take courts to sort out the law.  However, companies can move forward and establish license agreements now, either directly or through third parties. In fact, setting these commercial precedents will be likely to influence regulators in the future in a way that benefits copyright owners and AI developers alike, in part by proving that the commercial licensing of content will not be fatal to AI innovation. 

For AI development to continue at a rapid pace, a layer of service providers will need to be created to enable transactions without imposing additional friction into the system. A new class of service providers will be launched that will license content from aggregation points (i.e. publishers, agents, etc.), process the data with metatags and tokens, and license the data for training of AI models. This will provide an important legal precedent for the generative-AI industry, while creating new revenue-streams for copyright owners.

Calliope Networks is one such service provider. Calliope Networks is founded by executives with experience in AI and copyright licensing. Calliope Networks’ strategy is to aggregate books from authors and publishers and then to process the books for licensing and ingestion by AI models. Although AI systems have benefitted from the use of free content, new academic research suggests that higher quality aggregated works are significantly more valuable for effective training of large language models (LLMs) which underly generative AI systems. As a recent research report from Microsoft put it, “High quality data can… improve the state-of-the-art of LLMs, while dramatically reducing the dataset size and training compute.” 

One of Calliope Networks’ goals is to facilitate the legitimate use of copyrighted content by generative AI systems, ensuring that as AI evolves, so too does the respect for intellectual property. Calliope Networks is developing a platform that can operate at a speed and scale that can be an enabler to the growth of generative AI, rather than a burden.

Companies like Calliope Networks aren’t limited to the processing and licensing of original content. Calliope Networks in particular is also setting its sights on advanced products designed to enhance copyrighted works in a licensed, monetized fashion. Co-founder and CTO Jim Golden explains, “Our vision transcends mere compliance. We aim to expand the creative landscape by enabling ancillary AI-generated products that can, for example, enrich the experience of reading a book, but do so in a manner that ensures that the authors and publishers benefit appropriately.”

Copyright owners need to act to protect their right to control and be compensated for the use of their works. There is no doubt that the development of AI may represent a perilous and frightening future for creators. Nonetheless, the situation today is the absolute worst-case scenario: works are being used to create competing works, and copyright owners are not being compensated. If copyright owners choose to ignore the situation or simply refuse to demand commercial engagement with AI companies, courts and regulators may begin to believe the cries from Silicon Valley that the only way to ensure continued AI innovation is to broaden the fair use doctrine. 

Licensing will not be a panacea.  It may not provide all of the protections that publishers and authors will want.  Licensing will not protect against the eventual creation of AI-generated books for example. But refusing to engage in the licensing of copyrighted works may only serve to cede the battlefield to the technology companies and perpetuate the worst-case scenario of unauthorized use of creative works without compensation for years to come.

About the Author: Dave Davis is the CEO of Calliope Networks.  He previously served as Chief Commercial Officer of the Motion Picture Licensing Corporation and was an executive at Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, NBCUniversal, and the Motion Picture Association.  Dave has a BA from Wesleyan University and a JD from the University of Michigan School of Law.  He can be contacted at Dave@calliopenetworks.ai


If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

>