USA – GEORGIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Andrew Crain, Todd Deveau and Lani Burt, Thomas Horstemeyer LLP
Courts, on the other hand, frequently function as a backstop, stepping in when private enforcement tools are insufficient, ownership or authorisation is disputed, or when formal adjudication is necessary. Recent liti - gation demonstrates that judicial involvement remains essential to the copyright system, particularly in cases involving injunctive relief, licensing disagreements, and questions of authorship and control. Together, these trends highlight how enforcement has shifted, but not disappeared, with courts continuing to play a critical role in maintaining the stability and reliability of copyright protection. The importance of copyright litigation is underscored by cases like Nealy v Warner Chappell Music, Inc. , 60 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2023). In this case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a copyright claim allows plaintiffs to recover damages for infringement occurring more than three years before the lawsuit. This decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2024, clarified that the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations is a filing deadline, not a cap on damages, resolving a split among the Circuit Courts of Appeal. This high - lights the critical role courts play in shaping copyright enforcement, ensuring that legal interpretations evolve alongside private enforcement mechanisms. By allow - ing full retroactive damages, the ruling increases defendants’ exposure and strengthens the settle - ment leverage for copyright owners, demonstrating the continued necessity of judicial involvement in the copyright system. AI and copyright authorship As copyright litigation adapts to new technologies, the field has moved from familiar disputes over ownership and infringement to harder questions at the frontier of authorship in the age of AI. For example, a recent decision has shown that an AI system cannot register a claim of copyright because it is not a human being. In Thaler v Perlmutter , 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), the DC Circuit affirmed the Copyright Office’s denial of registration for an AI-generated artwork, holding that the Copyright Act requires human authorship. While AI-generated works cannot receive protection when the AI is listed as author, humans may still secure copyrights for AI-assisted works if they contribute sufficient creative input. The case represents the first
federal appellate precedent specifically addressing AI authorship and reinforces the foundational principle that copyright protection requires human creativity and intellectual contribution. Complementing that authorship principle, Lehrman v Lovo, Inc ., 790 F.Supp.3d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) held that AI-generated voice outputs that mimic, but do not directly copy, copyrighted sound recordings fall outside of Section 144 (b) of the US Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 114 (b)) directed to the scope of exclu - sive rights in sound recordings, because the statute excludes “independent fixation of other sounds” used to “imitate or simulate” those in the copyrighted sound recording. Legal uncertainty regarding voice misappropriation and AI-generated content In Lehrman , the court differentiated the claim under the Copyright Act from potential claims under name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. It noted that although the plaintiffs did not present a valid copyright claim, they might still have remedies, such as voice misap - propriation claims under state law. However, Georgia lacks specific statutory protection for voice misap - propriation or AI-generated voice outputs under its NIL laws. The state’s right of publicity is governed by common law, which only covers “name and likeness” and does not explicitly include voice characteristics. No Georgia court has addressed voice misappropria - tion as a tort, leaving room for future court decisions which could significantly impact the film and music industries. The lack of voice protection in Georgia cre - ates uncertainty for potential plaintiffs and businesses using AI voice synthesis technology, as legal stand - ards are unclear and compliance is difficult to assess without specific legislative guidance. Together, these rulings mark the first federal appellate precedent on AI authorship and an early district court blueprint for evaluating AI outputs that imitate without reproducing protected material, reinforcing that copy - right’s core remains human creativity and delineating limits on liability for AI technologies. Moreover, in view of cases involving voice misappropriation, Georgia’s common law right of publicity appears to offer poten - tial for growth and adaptation to modern advance - ments.
691 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook