We Could Use a Model Licensing Framework for Scholarly Content Use in AI Tools
Model licenses simplified library licenses in the 2000s. The same approach can streamline licensing scholarly content for AI training today.
Model licenses simplified library licenses in the 2000s. The same approach can streamline licensing scholarly content for AI training today.
The first AI training case has been decided in the US in favor of the copyright holder.
In copyright law, the existence of licensing options impacts upon a rights owners exclusive rights.
A selection of questions and answers from Copyright Clearance Center’s response to the United States Copyright Office “Artificial Intelligence and Copyright” request for comment.
The copyright warning notice prescribed by the US Copyright Office misleads library patrons about their fair use rights, and must change.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the Andy Warhol–Prince fair use case. What does this mean for scholarly communications, and the reuse of materials for AI training?
A Federal judge’s ruling offered a stern rebuke of the Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library and its controlled digital lending service, providing a significant victory for the four publishers that had filed suit.
On Friday, the Internet Archive lost its “controlled digital lending” case on summary judgment. Reactions today from our Chefs Rick Anderson, Joseph Esposito, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, Roy Kaufman, Roger C. Schonfeld, and Karin Wulf.
Five pending cases may set new ground rules for use of training materials for AI. Here is what to watch.
GitHub and Microsoft are being sued for using open source software without creator attribution in alleged violation of open licensing requirements. What implications does this have for the scholarly literature and Creative Commons licenses?
By calling its new policy a “Rights Retention Strategy,” cOAlition S is engaging in doublespeak. This strategy actually does exactly the opposite of what it claims.