In a recent chapter, Ryan Abbott and Elizabeth Rothman present the utilitarian argument for granting copyright in AI-generated works (hereafter AIGW). Aspects of their argument also find expression in the recently launched UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) consultation on AI.  In response, this post outlines my scepticism. The utilitarian arguments supporting copyright in AIGW

The Lawyer’s Office – 1628 – Rijksmuseum, Netherlands – Public Domain
This post was first published on the Europeana Pro website.
 
The out of commerce works ‘legal solution’ simplifies rights clearance, helping cultural heritage institutions to make materials from their collections that are not in commercial circulation available online. In some circumstances, it requires

Image by Dimitris Vetsikas from Pixabay
Ministers from six European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, The Netherlands and Sweden) have written a joint letter to the European Commission regarding the need for a legislative proposal on rules and boundaries of international application of EU law on copyright and neighbouring rights. The English version of the

Being an academic is a vocation. We are not in it for the money (hopefully), but mostly (hopefully) for the impact that we can make on our students’ and colleagues’ lives, as well as to contribute to the process of healthy law and policy-making. It is a job with lots of responsibility, joys, surprises and

Photo by Mohamed Nohassi on Unsplash
The European AI Office is currently facilitating the drawing-up of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (the “Code”). The European Commission published the first draft of the Code on 14 November 2024. Further drafts are to be prepared, with the final version of the Code forecast to be released

A few weeks ago, the Spanish Ministry of Culture released a legislative proposal aimed at introducing extended collective licensing (ECL) for the development of general-purpose AI models. The first of its kind, the “Draft Royal Decree to regulate the granting of extended collective licenses for the massive exploitation of works and other subject matter protected

The long-awaited and much anticipated judgment of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”) in Waterrower (UK) Limited v Liking Limited (t/a TOPIOM) [2024] EWHC 2086 (“WaterRower”) was finally handed down last month. IP practitioners and the wider design community have been eagerly awaiting the decision as it was expected to be the first UK decision

Yesterday, the European Copyright Society (ECS) published its Opinion on the CJEU MIO/konektra cases C- 580/23 and C-795/23 (originality and infringement test of works of applied art).  The Executive Summary is reproduced below and the full Opinion is available here: ecs-opinion-mio-konektra.pdf
 
Executive summary
Background. In Cofemel, the CJEU recognized that (i) the standard test