Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Here is the latest recap of the posts written by the Kats since the last Never Too Late post. 

Image by Pixabay

Nedim reported the words of Katfriends Adrian Aronsson-Storrier and Oliver Faihurst, from Lewis Silkin, on the litigation commenced by Getty against the developers of the AI image generation software, Stability AI. The post also analysed the characteristics of AI image generation softwares, how AI tools function and the impact of copyright on the same tools.

Anna Maria discussed the recent decision of the Italian Supreme Court in relation to the fact that digital art can be protected by copyright law in the case in which it satisfies two requirements: originality and creativity. A particular focus was given to the fact that the use of software tools did not impact eligibility for protection of digital art.

Eleonora considered the approaches taken by different jurisdictions in relation to text and data mining. In particular, the post highlighted the fact that the Government of the United Kingdom, at the moment, did not have any plans in proceeding with the original proposal to broaden the exemption linked to data and text mining.

Nedim reported the insights of Jakob Plesner Methiasen, Hanne Kirk and Thit Nymand Nisbeth on the phenomenon of influencer marketing and how the same could potentially be responsible for IP infringements, especially under the Danish perspective and the EU one. 


Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Chiara Gallo on Monday, February 06, 2023 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.