Bombay High Court rejects plea by Lt. Colonel Purohit to stay release of movie on 2008 Malegaon blasts
The Bombay High Court on 13th November, 2024 dismissed a plea seeking a stay on release of the movie “Matchfixing- The Nation is at Stake”, a film inspired by the 2008 Malegaon blast case.
The film’s portrayal of the blast and the events that ensued was challenged by Lt. Colonel Prasad Purohit, one of the accused in the case, who argued that it could harm his reputation and career.
Another petition filed by Nadim Khan, who claimed the film hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims, was withdrawn after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) represented by advocate Deepak Shukla confirmed that certain objectionable parts had already been removed during certification.
The Bench consisting of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed Purohit’s petition.
The Petitioner’s Case– Purohit had argued that the film’s release violated a “2019 media gag order” imposed by a special NIA court which barred media from reporting about the case to maintain the integrity of the trial.
He contended that the same restrictions should apply to the movie since it could influence public opinion and interfere with the ongoing trial.
The Respondent’s view– The movie’s producers, countered that the gag order was issued when the trial had not yet begun and was directed only at media outlets.
The producers argued that as third-party filmmakers, they were not bound by the order. They further argued that the film is based on a fictional book, ‘The Game Behind Saffron Terror’ and that the movie includes a disclaimer stating that it is purely fictional and has no connection to real-life events.
The Court’s Ruling– While the court acknowledged Purohit’s concern regarding the film’s trailer which invites viewers to “discover the truth,” it ultimately dismissed the petition on the ground that the film is a work of fiction and would not affect the ongoing trial.
The Court also rejected Purohit’s argument that the case resembled the 2004 Black Friday movie case where the film based on the 1993 Mumbai bombings was temporarily withheld due to its portrayal of events during an ongoing trial.
The bench noted that the Black Friday film depicted events as true and was based on books that reflected the prosecution’s narrative. In contrast, the movie Match fixing is fictional and its producers have made clear that it was not meant to represent real events, the Court said.
The Malegaon blast case, in which six people were killed and over 100 were injured in a bombing near a mosque on September 29, 2008, is currently at the final argument stage.
Read order here.
Delhi High Court allows INOX India to rectify copyright certificates
In an appeal filed by the Inox India Limited to challenge the remarks mentioned in the Copyright Registration Certificate dated 23-01-2023, issued by the Registrar of Copyrights, the Delhi High Court, noted that the Registrar of Copyrights, had submitted that the impugned remarks from the certificate issued to the appellant, should be removed within a period of four weeks and a fresh certificate should be issued to the appellant.
The respondent further submitted that the Registrar of Copyright, Headquarter, was in the process of introducing changes in the website portal of the respondent. Thus, the Court stated that the requisite rectification should be carried out, and a fresh certificate to be issued to the appellant, within four weeks.
The appeal was filed challenging certain remarks mentioned in the Copyright Registration Certificate dated January 23, 2023, issued by the Registrar of Copyrights.” 17(ii): The artistic work shall not be used in relation to any goods or services and the copyright, and 17(iii): The artistic work shall not subsist if the work has been applied to an article through the industrial process and reproduced through fifty times,” Copyright Registration said.
During the hearing, The Registrar of Copyrights submitted that the impugned remarks from the certificate issued to the appellant, shall be removed within a period of four weeks, and a fresh certificate shall be issued to the appellant.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna disposed of the plea, and listed the matter for compliance by the respondents, on December 10, 2024.
Read Judgement here.
Madras High Court Permits Release of Suriya’s “Kanguva” After Partial Settlement of Dues
The Madras High Court has permitted the release of the film “Kanguva,” starring Suriya and Bobby Deol, following the producer K.E. Gnanavel’s partial payment of outstanding dues. The court acknowledged Gnanavel’s proposal to make a one-time settlement of ₹3.75 crore by December, in addition to the ₹6.42 crore already paid. This decision modifies an earlier order that required a ₹20 crore deposit by November 13 for the film’s release. The case stems from a 2019 order directing Studio Green to pay ₹10.35 crore with 18% annual interest to the estate of the late financier Arjunlal Sunderdas. Due to non-compliance, the court had previously considered attaching Studio Green’s future films, including “Thangalan” and “Kanguva.” On November 11, the court restrained the film’s release pending payment of dues but has now lifted that restriction, allowing the movie to be released as scheduled.
Bombay HC Restrains Sports Authority Of India From Using Unlicensed Songs Of Phonograhic Performance Ltd At ‘Horn Okay Please’ Food Festival
In what could spell trouble for Delhi’s popular food festival – ‘Horn Ok Please’, the Bombay High Court in an interim order on Tuesday (November 12) restrained the Sports Authority of India (SAI) from playing songs or music owned by the Phonograhic Performance Limited (PPL) without obtaining prior licence.
A single bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla noted that the SAI has previously infringed the rights of the PPL by playing its recordings without obtaining licence.
The urgent ad-interim relief was sought on the ground that SAI is organizing “Horn Ok Please” on November 16 and 17 at Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Stadium owned/operated/managed by SAI which is apparent from the websites of insider.in and Instagram social platforms.
The PPL argued that SAI indulged in acts of infringement of copyright of sound recordings belonging to it, at an earlier event held on September 28 and 29 this year, where they played its sound recordings without obtaining any prior licence. This very event was also held in the Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Stadium in New Delhi, it said.
In its submissions, the PPL pointed out that it has issued “cease and desist notices” to the SAI, on September 7 and on November 8 calling upon the respondent authority to cease and desist from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff.
The high court thereafter passed the ad interim order that pending the final disposal of the suit, SAI and its employees, licensees, third party event management companies, or any person acting on its behalf are injuncted from “publicly performing or in any manner communicating the sound recordings of the songs authorised” to PPL without obtaining non-exclusive public performance rights in sound recordings from PPL.
Justice Chagla, while passing the ad-interim order, noted that the SAI did not respond to the “cease and desist” notices issued by the PPL. It therefore, passed the interim order, restraining the SAI from using PPL’s music and sound recordings.
Matter would be further heard on November 28.
Read order here.
Reusing Another Brand’s Embossed Beer Bottles To Sell One’s Own Beer Product Is Trademark Infringement: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that reusing old beer bottles, which are embossed with the brand name/ logo of another company, to sell one’s own beer product- constitutes trademark infringement.
A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Pranay Verma thus restrained the sale of two beer companies in old bottles of Mount Everest Breweries Ltd., which are embossed with their beer brand ‘STOK’ and their logo, the face of a panda.
The bench however left open the issue whether such bottles could be re-used after scratching out the brand emboss.
The development comes after Mount Everest Breweries preferred an appeal against a single judge order asking the Commissioner of Excise to decide the dispute afresh. The Commissioner had earlier prohibited all liquor/ beer bottling units from using old glass bottles which carry an embossment on them, for the purposes of refilling and sale of liquor. The Commissioner had also prohibited the reuse of old bottles after removing or scratching the embossed logo.
The Appellant contended that their (embossed) beer bottles were being affixed with Respondent’s label, constituting trademark infringement and passing off. It also alleged violation of the Madhya Pradesh Beer and Wine Rules, 2000.
| The Appellant’s bottles:
|
The Respondent’s bottles: 
|
The Respondents contended that they procure empty beer from scrap dealers and then use them for bottling their own manufactured beer, for cost-effectiveness and environmental sustainability. They argued that existing labels of the brand are removed and big sized labels of their own brand are affixed, so that the end-consumer is not confused.
It was further contended that the Excise Act or the Rules and the MP Beer and Wine Rules have no such prohibition that the beer bottle of any other manufacturer cannot be used by any other company. Thus, they said the Commissioner’s order restraining them from re-suing old bottles violated their right to trade under Article 19(1)(g).
At the outset, the Court considered pictures of the bottles and found that the Respondents had been merely pasting their registered label on the embossed bottles of Appellant.
The brand of the Appellants “STOK” and the “Panda device” continue to remain prominently visible on the bottles. Such bottles contain not one but two brands, which clearly contravenes the MP Foreign Liquor Rules and cannot be permitted.
With regard to the contention of the Respondents that it is not financially viable for them to manufacture beer bottles and therefore, they have adopted the method of reusing bottles of other manufactures.
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and prohibition on use of old glass bottles which carry an embossment on them, for the purposes of refilling and sale of liquor, was upheld.
Read order here.
Bombay High Court Issues Interim Injunction Against Trademark & Copyright Infringement Of ‘CAMPA’ Soft Drinks By “Jhampa”
The Bombay High Court has issued a temporary injunction against trademark and copyright infringement ‘CAMPA’ beverages, owned by Reliance Retail Ltd.
Reliance (plaintiff) filed the suit against the defendants for trademark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement of the non-alcoholic Campa beverages.
The mark ‘CAMPA was adopted by Campa Beverages Private Ltd in 1972. Reliance stated that Campa Beverages assigned the ‘CAMPA’ trademark and its copyrighted and artistic works to it in August 2022 through a Deed of Assignment. Reliance stated that it relaunched the CAMPA brand and spent a lot of money for its promotions. It submitted that it spent Rs. 35 crore in FY 2023 for promotional and advertising activities of Campa products.
Reliance alleges that the defendant’s use of ‘JHAMPA’ mark for their products is infringing the CAMPA trademark. It contends that the defendant’s mark is identical with and deceptively similar to its trademark and a reproduction of its registered artistic works.
A single judge bench of Justice R.I. Chagla opined that prima facie CAMPA products have acquired immense goodwill and reputation.
The Court noted that the JHAMPA mark is deceptively similar to Reliance’s CAMPA trademark in visuals, phonetics and structure.
It observed that defendant’s dishonesty was evident from the fact that it filed a trademark application for JHAMPA only after receiving a cease and desist notice from Reliance.
The Court was of the view that a prima facie case for grant of ad interim was made out and that Reliance would likely suffer irreparable injury if it was not granted.
The Court thus restrained the defendants from infringing, distributing, selling and advertising CAMPA trademark or other deceptively similar marks in relation to any non-alcoholic beverages.
It also restrained the defendants from infringing, distributing, selling and advertising artistic works such as logos, layout, colour combination, arrangement of matter on the packaging and phrases and catchlines which are identical to CAMPA copyright artistic works.
The Court posted the matter on 27 November for further hearing.
Read order here.
Delhi HC Grants Temporary Relief to Moti Mahal Founder’s Daughter, Restrains Trademark Use
The Delhi High Court recently granted temporary relief to Rupa Gujral, daughter of a founder of the renowned restaurant Moti Mahal, by issuing an order restraining the use of the trademark ‘MOTI MAHAL.’
Justice Mini Pushkarna issued an order restraining the defendants from advertising, selling, offering for sale, marketing, or promoting their business under the name ‘MOTI MAHAL’ until the suit is resolved.
The order was issued following the failure of pre-litigation mediation between the parties, while separate arbitration proceedings concerning the partnership deed remain ongoing.
According to the suit, although the plaintiffs’ family transferred its shares in the MOTI MAHAL restaurant at Darya Ganj, they retained the exclusive rights to the well-known registered trademark ‘MOTI MAHAL’ and its associated goodwill.
In early May 2024, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendants were using the identical ‘MOTI MAHAL’ mark—registered as an earlier, well-known trademark by the plaintiffs on their website (motimahaldelux.in) and social media platforms.
The plaintiffs additionally alleged that the defendants attempted to register marks identical to the MOTI MAHAL trademark without obtaining their consent.
They also referenced prior orders from the High Court that had restrained various parties from using the trademarks ‘MOTI MAHAL’ and ‘MOTI MAHAL DELUX.’
Conversely, the defendants submitted an affidavit to the High Court, stating that they are not using the ‘MOTI MAHAL’ mark, do not possess any materials bearing the mark, and have removed any related listings from their website and social media platforms.
Rupa Gujral & Ors v. Sandeep Kohli & Ors.
Read order here.
‘Real Housewives’ Music Composer Hits Amazon With Copyright Suit
A composer who created the title song and musical cues for the hit TV series “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” accused Amazon Studios LLC of playing his copyrighted music without the appropriate licenses, according to a federal lawsuit.
Evolution Film & Tape Inc., which was ultimately acquired by Amazon, agreed to pay Alan Lazar for each musical cue as well as mechanical royalties for the first season of the TV show in 2010, according to the complaint filed Tuesday in the US District Court for the Central District of California. It separately asked Lazar to create a theme song for the show, but the agreement was never written down, automatically making Lazar the rightful copyright owner, the filing said.
The defendants also failed to pay Lazar the full amount of what he is owed for the music cues, the complaint said. Evolution continued to work with Lazar for the next ten seasons of the show, but only paid him for the performance royalties owed for his music played through mediums like TV broadcasts, according to the filing. Lazar said he has “never received even a single cent” for foreign broadcast and streaming mechanical royalties.
Lazar’s music is a “fundamental component” of the TV series, “setting the musical tone for both that series and its numerous spin-offs,” the complaint said.
The complaint asserts copyright infringement, breach of contract, and accounting claims.
Read complaint here.
Universal Music sues Believe alleging copyright infringement
Universal Music Group NV has filed a lawsuit against French record label Believe SA seeking damages of at least $500 million over copyright infringement.
The Netherlands-based record label argued that Believe’s growth and profitability in recent years was achieved by “operating as a hub for the distribution of infringing copies of the world’s most popular copyrighted recordings,” according to a complaint filed in Manhattan’s Southern District of New York.
Believe refutes the allegations and will contest them.
The record label alleged that names of Believe’s artists like “Llady Gaga” and “Jutin Biber” are often minor variants on Universal Music’s own singers. It claimed that the French label also distributes “overtly infringing” versions of original tracks by famous artists with notations that they are sped-up or remixed.
The complaint against Believe and its TuneCore Inc. business was filed by Universal Music along with ABKCO Music & Records and Concord Music Group.
Prasar Bharati OTT to be released on Nov 20, most content free, says Sanjay Jaju
The Prasar Bharati OTT platform will be officially launched on November 20, at the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) as per the Secretary to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Sanjay Jaju.
Jaju was responding to a query by the media house on Prasar Bharati’s plans for its OTT site, during a media roundtable. He added that a small part of the platform will be subscription-based and the rest will be free for viewing. He further said that the OTT Platform will carry a lot of live channels and archival material like documentaries and photographs.
He also reportedly added that the 60 odd entertainment channels on the DD Freedish will be “more than willing to come and join the deal.”
In August, Prasar Bharati, India’s public service broadcaster, invited TV channels to join its new OTT platform. The move represented an important expansion of its digital footprint, aiming to broaden its reach and offer a revenue-sharing model that stands out in the market. Under this model, broadcasters would receive 65% of ad revenue, while Prasar Bharati would retain 35%.
The major four television networks have chosen not to stream their linear channels on Prasar Bharati’s upcoming OTT platform, sources shared with e4m back in September. Despite the government’s offer of a lucrative revenue sharing model, these networks likely made this decision because they already have a strong presence on their own OTT platforms. While these top networks did not apply, sources familiar with the matter told e4m that the pubcaster received applications from 106 channels across genres. Out of these, 44 were selected, with 40 agreeing to join the platform
Parliamentary panel to hear views of media bodies on mechanism to curb fake news
A parliamentary committee headed by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey has called media bodies — News Broadcasters and Digital Association and Editors Guild of India — to depose before it on the issue of curbing “fake news”.
An official statement said the Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology will meet on November 21 on the subject of “Review of mechanism to curb fake news”.
The panel will hear the views of the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) and Editors Guild of India (EGI), it said. The committee had earlier decided to review the mechanism to curb fake news as well as the issues related to the emergence of OTT platforms.
It is mandated to examine the functioning of the ministries of information and broadcasting, electronics and information technology, and communications. The committee has selected for examination a review of the implementation of laws related to all forms of media as well as a review of the functioning of public broadcaster Prasar Bharati.
French newspapers launch copyright lawsuit against X
Elon Musk’s X platform, formerly Twitter, is being sued for alleged copyright infringement by a coalition of French media outlets, including major newspapers Le Monde, Le Figaro and Le Parisien.
The publishers allege that X has failed to comply with a French law which has, since 2019, required online platforms such as X to negotiate with publishers on fair remuneration for use of their content.
Meta and Google are among the major technology companies which have already agreed to make regular payments to French news publishers for displaying their content.
“Neighbouring rights” were introduced in the 2019 EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, but are not currently enforced in most EU member states.
A hearing is scheduled to take place on 15 May 2025.
Yes, Steve Howe Sued for Copyright Infringement over ‘Dare to Know’
Members of the prog rock band Yes are being sued over a song that appeared on their 2021 album, The Quest.
Riz Story, whose legal name is Rudolph Zahler, filed a copyright suit in Los Angeles claiming Yes guitarist Steve Howe and Jon Davison, the band’s lead singer since 2012, stole the music of his song “Reunion” for the track “Dare To Know,” adding their own lyrics.
In the court documents, Story says he wrote the music for “Reunion” around 1981 when he was just 15, and while it was never released as a single, it was used in the 2014 movie A Winter Rose, and he subsequently copyrighted the song.
He says in 2022 he discovered his music being used in “Dare To Know,” insisting he didn’t give them permission, and contending they violated his copyright by performing the tune and using it to promote their album.
As for how Howe heard the song, Story says it was through his relationship with Davison. They’ve known each other since being introduced by the late Foo Fighters drummer Taylor Hawkins around 1990. All three were in the band Anyone together.
Story also claims Davison once asked for help co-writing songs for Yes because “he didn’t think he was up to writing songs of a caliber” the band would expect, but Story refused. He says instead Davison opted to “steal” the song “Reunion,” giving songwriting credit to Howe on the album.
The suit also notes that Story has hired a musicologist who insists the two songs have “a pitch similarity percentage of 96%, which is extremely high.”
Story is suing for monetary damages, and wants an injunction forcing Yes to stop distributing the song and to give him sole songwriting credit for the music of “Dare to Know.”
Shein will continue to face RICO charges in copyright infringement lawsuit
Shein will continue to face RICO charges in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed last year, after a federal judge denied the fast fashion giant’s request to dismiss the racketeering claims.
In July 2023, Shein was sued by a group of independent designers after it allegedly “produced, distributed, and sold exact copies” of the artists’ work.
The lawsuit was brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, or RICO, with attorneys for the plaintiffs arguing that Shein’s corporate structure and production strategy made it difficult to identify the company, and that its “byzantine shell game of a corporate structure” enabled the company’s alleged intellectual property theft and “blame avoidance.”
Shein moved to dismiss the racketeering charges by saying the plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient. The court rejected Shein’s request to dismiss the RICO charges on both the copyright infringement and wire fraud charges.
The case names Shein as a collective, which includes Shein Distribution Corp., Roadget Business and Zoetop. In the recent dismissal, the judge presiding over the case said that plaintiffs alleged Roadget owns the website where the infringement occurred, and Zoetop and Shein Distribution Corp. were at one time responsible for sales on the website.
While the bulk of the lawsuits filed against Shein centre on copyright infringement from independent designers, this case is unique in regard to its racketeering claims.
Sweden Becomes First Country in the World to Apply for Trademark
Sweden is making a move to trademark its name, putting an end to travel mix-ups.
The home of cinnamon rolls and fika has applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to protect its name from international duplicates that might confuse unsuspecting travellers who want to experience the original Sweden and is calling on people around the world to support its application via an online petition.
The trademark application addresses a common problem travellers face with name-alike locations – with eight places around the world called “Sweden”, multiple Germanys, dozens of Americas, and 34 Londons globally, it’s not hard to see why a little brand clarity might be in order.
Visit Sweden has decided it’s time to step in and help tourists avoid holiday blunders, so no one packs for the Swedish lakes and forests, only to find themselves in a far-off town with the same name but none of the Scandi charm.
A recent survey by Visit Sweden revealed almost half of travellers (45%) encounter duplicate place names when planning trips and a surprising 8% confessed they have even ended up in the wrong spot.
The study also revealed a large share of younger travellers aged 20-32 support the idea of trademarking names to prevent location mix-ups (54% in the US, 45% in the UK and 44% in Sweden).
The application reflects recent trends in protecting brand authenticity as people become more alert to “dupes” in fashion, products – and now, destinations.
X Hydration Hits Logan Paul’s ‘Prime’ Drink with Trademark Suit
A Minnesota sports drink brand is hitting social media influencer Logan Paul’s beverage company, Prime, with a trademark infringement lawsuit.
X Hydration, based in Rosemount, says its trademarks predate the new Prime X Hydration varieties launched over the summer and is asking a judge to step in to stop Prime from using the mark.
The Prime X drinks are available in pink and blue varieties, just like X Hydration’s, which is causing “irreparable harm” to the Minnesota brand, the company states in a federal lawsuit filed Friday in Minneapolis.
Founded in 2021, X Hydration is sold nationwide online and now available at Fresh Thyme stores in Minnesota.
The company sent a cease-and-desist letter to Prime in July. Prime responded it “would not comply,” according to the lawsuit.
X Hydration is seeking unspecified damages for trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices and other claims.
A Trademark Trial That Could Rock the Sports Licensing World
In 2021, Penn State sued Vintage for acting as a so-called “serial infringer” by selling “counterfeit Penn State-branding clothing and accessories” without the school’s permission.
Purdue, Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Berkeley, UCLA, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, USC, Stanford, Utah, Washington and Washington State have also filed suit against Vintage and raised the same basic grievance. They have accused the company of blatantly using schools’ trademarks without permission to generate sales.
As Penn State tells it, Vintage sells products online in “virtually indistinguishable” ways from websites that sell licensed Penn State merchandise, which include vintage and throwback apparel. It therefore competes with the university and, Penn State says, “free rides” off the university’s fame.
Vintage’s merchandise is portrayed as including “the same or highly similar versions” of Penn State’s logos and imagery. Vintage is also accused of using “dynamic internet searching tools” and Google Dynamic ads to solicit customers who search for Penn State merchandise. Those consumers found Vintage’s “Penn State Nittany Lions” store, which the school contends tricked people into thinking they’ve found a licensed seller.
Vintage, which is based in Washington, insists its practices are lawful and that Penn State’s legal arguments miss the mark.
Vintage asserts it sells merchandise “bearing historic artistic images reproduced from vintage school memorabilia.” Vintage maintains that it has not sold merchandise bearing any of these familiar Penn State images, including the famed Lionhead design:
Instead, the company says, it has sold products using these images:
The company also maintains it uses a disclaimer to notify consumers they’re not buying an official Penn State product. “Vintage designs,” the disclaimer expresses, “not affiliated with, licensed, or sponsored by any college, team or league.”
Vintage insists it isn’t liable because it hasn’t used University-related historic images as trademarks and maintains there’s no likelihood of consumer confusion. Vintage also contends its practices are protected under several legal doctrines, including ornamental and aesthetically functional use. Vintage stresses that a trademark is intended to identify the source of a good and distinguish it from other goods, but it is not intended to serve as an ornamental or decorative feature. From that perspective, consumers aren’t confused by Vintage’s products because the Penn State imagery at issue is not identifying the school as the source.
India secures spot in global top-10 for all three major IP rights
India has secured a spot in the global top-10 for all three major intellectual property (IP) rights — patents, trademarks, and industrial designs, the commerce and industry ministry said.
It said India ranked fourth globally in trademark filings, with a 6.1 per cent increase in 2023.
Nearly 90 per cent of these filings were by residents, with key sectors, including health, agri, and clothing leading the way.
India’s trademark office holds the second-largest number of active registrations worldwide, with over 3.2 million trademarks in force, reflecting the country’s strong position in global brand protection.
The findings from WIPO’s (World Intellectual Property Organization) World Intellectual Property Indicators 2024 showcase India’s advancements in innovation and IP.
GEMA Initiates Legal Action Against OpenAI Over Copyright Infringement
The German music rights association GEMA has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that the company’s ChatGPT language model was trained using copyrighted texts, including song lyrics from GEMA’s repertoire of approximately 95,000 members, without obtaining proper licenses or compensating the authors. The lawsuit, filed in a Munich district court, aims to demonstrate that OpenAI systematically utilized GEMA’s protected content to train its AI systems. GEMA contends that while other internet services pay for such usage, OpenAI has infringed upon copyrights by using these works without authorization. The association emphasizes that its members’ songs are not free resources for AI business models and insists on proper licensing and fair compensation for any use of their works.
EU Releases Draft Guidance for AI Act, Emphasizing Transparency, Copyright, and Risk Assessment
The European Union has published its initial draft guidance for the AI Act, focusing on key areas such as transparency, copyright compliance, and risk assessment. This guidance aims to provide clarity on the implementation of the AI Act, ensuring that AI systems operate within defined ethical and legal boundaries. By addressing these critical aspects, the EU seeks to balance innovation with the protection of fundamental rights and public safety.
