March 24, 2023, saw the release of the District Court ruling in Hatchette Book Group v. Internet Archive, the long running battle between several book publishers and the Internet Archive over the practice of “Controlled Digital Lending.” The concept of CDL was made up out of thin air. It appears nowhere in the Copyright Act. It was dreamed up to give the Internet Archive the patina of legitimacy as a self-stylized “library.” Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., explains the Court's rather decisive ruling that CDL is not legal and never has been. As the Court ruled “[N]o case or legal principle supports that notion. Every authority points in the other direction.”

Consider these headlines: “U.S. Copyright Office Rules A.I. Art Can’t Be Copyrighted” and “U.S. Copyright Office says some AI-assisted works may be copyrighted.” Who’s right? Unfortunately, both of them. On March 16, 2023, the U.S. Copyright Office issued new rules regarding the registration of works assisted in whole or in part by artificial intelligence. The new rules, however, foundered on one basic flaw: a work created by AI is not eligible for copyright protection, but a work that is created in part by AI is protectable. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., cuts through the confusion and suggests how the registration problem might be solved.

We are instructed from the earliest age that you can’t compare apples to oranges. Yet, in the never-ending quest to grant copyright to artwork created by artificial intelligence, we get just that argument– and more. A piece of fruit, or in the alternative, a calf birthed by a cow, is compared to an intangible intellectual property right, in this case, a copyright. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., takes on this novel argument as well as the contention, that despite not being a sentient being, a machine can transfer a copyright to the machine’s owner.

When visiting the Sistine Chapel in Rome, visitors are told two things: no talking and no photographs. Yet, just up the road in Milan, visitors are allowed to take pictures of Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper,” which is in much worse shape than the Sistine Chapel ceiling. So why the “no photos” edict? According to our tour guide, the Vatican in part paid for the restoration of the artwork by assigning the copyright in the Sistine Chapel ceiling to the restoration company. Really? Copyright? In a series of paintings that are 500 years old? Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., digs into this story to find out what’s fact and what’s fiction about this most famous series of paintings.

Choreography is protected by the Copyright Act. Yet, lawsuits alleging copyright infringement in dance routines are rare. Perhaps the reason why was revealed last week where a recently filed suit over dance moves incorporated into the video game Fortnite failed to make it past a motion to dismiss. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., explains the reason why it is that the copyright extends to the entire work, not individual dance steps or poses.

If you’ve led a particularly interesting life, perhaps you have written a memoir or completed an autobiography. Later on, much to your horror you discover someone has now taken the facts of your life and turned them into a movie or TV series. “Wait! It’s my life!” you might say. But do you “own” the facts of your own life? Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., explains why the copyright principle of “no one can have a copyright on a fact” limits your legal recourse in this instance.

Suppose that as a building owner you discover an entire side of your building is now covered in graffiti. When you try to paint over it, the graffiti artists object contending that you have no right to do so, and their “art” is protected by the VARA or Visual Artists Rights Act section of the Copyright Act. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines two cases involving graffiti, and explains why two courts came to very different conclusions.