#30 Info / Desinfo #MediaLiteracy&Disinformation. 8th Feb 2024
Monthly bulletin on media literacy, disinformation and regulation from the Ukrainian editorial team
Hello!
In January 2024, “Steamboat Willie” entered the public domain for US citizens as Disney's copyright ran out. So now, artists and creators can freely dive into the early versions (1928) of Mickey and Minnie. At the same time, artificial intelligence is picking up steam worldwide, getting smarter by the minute. Check out our digest to see if there are any strings attached to using Mickey Mouse images and to ponder who'll come out on top in the copyright versus artificial intelligence showdown.
Be sure to take note of the illustration crafted by our very own Roni Milovanova. Delving into the topic, she created this exceptional illustration.
Illustrator: Roni Milovanova
What happened to Mikki Mouse's heritage?
The copyright for the film Steamboat Willie has expired according to US law, allowing for the unrestricted use, performance, alteration, utilisation for various purposes, or sampling of these works. Other significant works from 1928, like Charles Chaplin's The Circus and A. A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh, have also entered the public domain.
Even though Mickey and Minnie's characters are now freely accessible, Disney still retains trademarks as brand identifiers and corporate symbols. Consequently, there are limitations to utilising these images, potentially leading to confusion among consumers.
While there's room for diverse interpretations of Mickey and Minnie, Disney will strive to safeguard its ownership of the characters, prevent consumer misunderstanding, and maintain their status as global representatives across its business domains.
“Copyrights are time-limited,” Daniel Mayeda, associate director of the Documentary Film Legal Clinic at UCLA School of Law, said.
“Trademarks are not. So Disney could have a trademark essentially in perpetuity, as long as they keep using various things as they’re trademarked, whether they’re words, phrases, characters or whatever.”
You can read more about what artworks become public domain in 2024 here.
The Berne Convention and Its Significance in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage through Copyright Protection
Europe's vast array of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums harbour expansive collections that echo the rich tapestry of cultural heritage, intertwined history, and shared values across the continent.
Literary property is applied to a published manuscript, and the rights belong to the author.
Embedded within the Revised Berne Convention framework, copyright legislation universally upholds transparent principles.
Typically, initial copyright protection for any creative endeavour automatically vests in the individual author, devoid of any procedural formalities. The author retains the prerogative to confer diverse usage rights for the work or, in select jurisdictions, to divest the rights permanently."
To safeguard cultural heritage and facilitate its legal dissemination, the European Commission established the Europeana platform, a diverse collection of digital content from libraries, archives, and museums spread throughout Europe. Europeana endeavours to enhance content accessibility by implementing standardised protocols and interoperable solutions.
What about AI and copyrights?
In 2022, Jason M. Allen filed for copyright protection for the artwork “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial”, produced using an AI tool known as Midjourney. Despite Allen's extensive experimentation with over 600 prompt variations, the US Copyright Office rejected the application, sparking discussions on the intersection of generative AI and copyright law.
As AI technology advances, ongoing debates explore its implications for copyright law. That raises some problematic issues around copyright rules. So, The Wall Street Journal asked its readers how copyright law needs to change.
Here you can find some answers:
“People using generative AI gave up the right to own any results when they engaged with any tool trained on other people’s work. Without a viable way to discern whether someone else’s art/words/music was used to make something AI-generated, there is no room for any copyright claim, " Rebecca Kobayashi, Fairfax, said.
“ChatGPT’s responses improve with the quality of the prompts. There’s a strategy and perhaps an art to prompting this tool so that it returns a better answer. In that context, yes, since the answer is the result of a human’s prompting (which is theirs, right?), the human should be able to copyright it. Again, the owner of the “David” sculpture is not the guy who made the chisel and hammer”, Timothy McGuckin, Reston, commented.
As we've discovered, there are various perspectives on how copyright should interact with AI-generated creations. Feel free to share your opinion in our comments section.
South Korea and the AI-created art
The Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism of South Korea has outlined its stance on copyright registration for artificial intelligence-generated content. They have declared that copyrights will only be granted if human creative input is involved in the creation process. This approach aims to balance fostering innovation and safeguarding creators' rights in artificial intelligence.
We decided to ask AI platforms about their role in making art nowadays. Here are some thoughts:
Chat GPT – “I can serve as a tool for creativity by providing ideas, refinement, and even creating artistic works. However, it's important to remember that the role of humans will always accompany my role in creating art and culture, as they remain the source of inspiration, creative energy, and uniqueness.”
Bard (from Google) – “I can generate various forms of creative text, including poems, code, scripts, music, emails, letters, and more. This can assist individuals in expressing themselves clearly and creatively. However, it's important to note that I am not a person; I lack personal thoughts or feelings. I am merely a tool for creating art and culture, not the creator itself.”
DeepAI – “My role in creating art and culture involves providing information and answering questions that can contribute to enriching these spheres. I assist people in learning more about art and culture, but I cannot be considered a creator in these areas.”
What do you need to read about copyright?
And sure we couldn’t leave you without any recommendations. Here, you can find a list of three books that help you better.
Who Owns This Sentence?: A History of Copyrights and Wrongs by David Bellos
Who Owns This Sentence? It is an often-humorous and always-enlightening cultural, legal, and global history of the idea that intangible things can be owned, and it makes a persuasive case for seeing copyright as an engine of inequality in the twenty-first century.
Copyrights and Copywrongs by Siva Vaidhyanathan
In Copyrights and Copywrongs, Siva Vaidhyanathan tracks the history of American copyright law through the 20th century, from Mark Twain’s vehement exhortations for “thick” copyright protection to recent lawsuits regarding sampling in rap music and the “digital moment,” exemplified by the rise of Napster and MP3 technology.
Transboundary Heritage and Intellectual Property Law by Patricia Covarrubia
Considering all forms of intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, design rights, trademarks, geographical indications, and sui generis rights, the book explores the challenges of intangible cultural heritage in cross-border situations. It highlights positive relationships and collaborations among communities across geographical boundaries.
Editorial team: Kateryna Horska (Editor-in-chief), Anastasiia Kerpan (Head Editor), Daria Vakicheva (News), Roni Milovanova (Designer)