Author: admin

Explore the latest developments concerning Copyright, Courts, And.

Copyright, Courts, And Code: Understanding AI Architecture Through Lens Of Litigation

Copyright law deals with familiar acts such as copying, storing and reproducing a protected work. Large Language Models, however, involve technically distinct processes. Each stage from training to the generation of an output serves a different technical function. Notably, training is not the same as retrieval; storing training data is not the same as learning through model parameters; and memorisation is not the same as ordinary generation. When Parliament enacted the Copyright Act, 1957, it could hardly have been imagined that courts would one day be required to draw such distinctions in applying copyright law to AI systems.

The Delhi High Court, however, had the occasion to encounter these questions in ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OpCo LLC 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5291. While considering ANI's application for interim injunction, the Court examined not only copyright law but also the functioning of Large Language Models (LLMs). Significantly, the judgment discusses training data, tokenisation, embeddings, model training and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), concepts that subsequently inform its consideration of storage, memorisation and reproduction.

A New Approach to AI Music’s Copyright Challenge

There were 2,374 press releases posted in the last 24 hours and 501,800 in the last 365 days.

An independent perspective from Dutch music-rights specialist Marvin Kuijs on how AI could make music rights more transparent and fairer.

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability
for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this
article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.

EIN Presswire's priority is author transparency. We do our best to weed out false and misleading content. The content above is
the sole responsibility of the author who makes it available. If you have any complaints, kindly contact the author above.

‘Public Interest’ Disguise for AI ‘Dine-and-Dash’… If My Own Creations Kill Me

‘Public Interest’ Disguise for AI ‘Dine-and-Dash’… If My Own Creations Kill Me

Using their own data like AlphaGo,or erasing traces of using works after training,AI companies are straining to avoid copyright issuesInsisting “we only used the style” or “fair use”Their biggest demand is legislation for a ‘safe harbor’In effect, an argument that creators should forfeit their rightsIf unauthorized training is allowed, inequality is a foregone conclusionIt could turn human creativity into ‘kindling’Even so, they cannot escape ‘plagiarism’

Lurking behind today’s dazzling advances in artificial intelligence is the problem of copyright. In the process of using works to train generative AI, unauthorized copying has become rampant. AI developers cite the difficulty of finding countless rightsholders and obtaining consent one by one as a reason for copying without permission, but it is hard to take that at face value when there is no attempt to seek consent from the start. As a result, lawsuits between rightsholders and AI companies are unfolding around the world. Representative cases include The New York Times versus OpenAI in the United States, Yomiuri and other newspapers versus Perplexity in Japan, and the three terrestrial broadcasters versus Naver in Korea.

For more detailed information, explore updates concerning Copyright, Courts, And.

For more news…