Copyright Archives - Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney

Taylor Swift’s Voice Trademark: Can AI Clone a Brand Identity?

Augusto Perera — Mon, 11 May 2026 16:14:14 +0000

Taylor Swift’s Voice Trademark: Can AI Clone a Brand Identity?

Taylor Swift’s recent trademark filings mark a notable shift in how celebrities are protecting their brands in the era of generative AI. Instead of focusing solely on names, lyrics, or logos, Swift is attempting to trademark something far more elusive: her voice.

Specifically, she has filed applications for short audio clips promoting her new album, along with an image of her performing on stage. While sound trademarks aren’t new, using them to protect a celebrity voice against AI imitation is largely uncharted territory.

And it raises a fundamental question: Can trademark law—built on “use in commerce”—really protect something as fluid as a human voice?

Trademark Law 101: It Starts With Use, Not Filing

At its core, U.S. trademark law is grounded in a simple principle: rights come from use in commerce, not just registration.

To qualify for protection, a trademark must:

Be used in connection with goods or services
Identify the source of those goods or services
Be distinctive enough to distinguish that source from others

Swift’s filings appear carefully structured to meet this standard. The audio clips aren’t sound recordings—they’re commercial endorsements tied to specific platforms (Amazon Music and Spotify). That context matters.

By embedding her voice in a commercial message, she strengthens the argument that the sound functions as a source identifier, not just creative expression.

Why AI Changes the Trademark Landscape

Historically, artists relied on copyright law to protect recordings. But AI has exposed a gap: you can now generate a new recording that sounds like Taylor Swift without copying any existing track.

That’s where trademark law becomes appealing.

Trademark infringement doesn’t require exact duplication. It hinges on whether something is “confusingly similar” to a protected mark. If Swift successfully registers these sound marks, she could potentially argue that AI-generated imitations of her voice create consumer confusion—especially in commercial contexts.

This is a significant shift. It moves the legal focus from copying content to misleading audiences.

The Challenge: Proving Distinctiveness Through Use

Here’s where things get complicated.

Not every sound—or voice—qualifies as a trademark. To be protected, it must be:

Distinctive
Consistently used in commerce
Recognized by consumers as a brand identifier

Iconic examples like the NBC chimes or MGM lion roar meet this bar because they are:

Repeated frequently
Used in consistent commercial settings
Instantly recognizable as tied to a specific source

Swift’s challenge will be proving that specific phrases in her voice function the same way.

And that brings us back to “use in commerce.” Filing an application is only the beginning. To maintain and enforce these rights, she must show:

Ongoing commercial use of the audio clips
Consumer recognition of those clips as uniquely tied to her brand
A likelihood of confusion when others use similar-sounding audio

A New Playbook for Brand Protection?

Swift isn’t alone. Matthew McConaughey and other celebrities are exploring similar strategies, signaling what may become a broader trend: turning identity itself into trademarked property.

For businesses and creators, this has real implications.

If courts accept this approach, we may see:

Influencers trademarking signature phrases or vocal styles
Brands protecting synthetic voices used in ads or AI assistants
Expanded enforcement against deepfakes under trademark law—not just copyright or publicity rights

What Businesses Should Take Away

Even if you’re not a global pop star, the underlying lesson is highly relevant:

Think Beyond Names and Logos

Trademarks can include sounds, visuals, and other nontraditional elements—if they function as brand identifiers.

Anchor Everything in Commercial Use

A clever idea or unique asset isn’t protectable unless it’s actively used in the marketplace.

Be Consistent

Repetition and consistency are what turn a creative element into a legally protectable mark.

Document Your Use

Keep clear records of how and where your mark appears in commerce. This is critical in any dispute.

The Bigger Picture

Swift’s filings highlight a broader reality: the law is racing to catch up with technology.

Trademark law, with its emphasis on consumer perception and marketplace use, may become one of the most flexible tools available to combat AI-driven impersonation. But its success will depend on how courts interpret these new types of marks.

For now, one thing is clear: in a world where voices can be cloned and identities replicated, “use in commerce” is no longer just a legal technicality—it’s the foundation of digital identity protection.

The post Taylor Swift’s Voice Trademark: Can AI Clone a Brand Identity? appeared first on Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney.

Intellectual Property in M&A: Protecting Trademarks & Copyrights in the AI Era

Augusto Perera — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 20:25:09 +0000

Intellectual Property in M&A: Protecting Trademarks & Copyrights in the AI Era

As businesses continue to grow through mergers, acquisitions, and strategic investments, trademarks and copyrights are becoming some of the most valuable assets in any transaction. This was a major focus of the 2026 The Business of M&A: Navigating the Convergence of Intangible Assets and Capital in the Age of AI Conference held last month in New York City.

Across multiple presentations, one message stood out: in today’s market, brand identity, copyrighted content, and digital assets often drive both deal value and legal risk.

For companies involved in M&A, careful intellectual property due diligence is essential to protect enterprise value and avoid post-closing disputes.

Why Trademarks and Copyrights Matter in M&A

A company’s brand is often one of its most valuable business assets. Trademark portfolios, logos, slogans, advertising campaigns, website content, and other copyrighted materials can significantly influence valuation.

The conference’s Brand Integration and Post-Merger Strategy panel highlighted the importance of consolidating trademark portfolios, managing legacy licensing agreements, and preserving brand authenticity after a deal closes.

Key legal issues include:

ownership and chain-of-title review
trademark registration status and renewals
copyright assignments and licensing rights
rebranding and consumer-facing communications
preservation of goodwill and brand recognition

These issues can directly impact the success of the transaction and the long-term strength of the acquired brand.

Due Diligence and Post-Merger Integration

The conference also emphasized that the legal work does not end at signing.

Presentations on due diligence and post-merger IP integration stressed the need to identify ownership gaps, unresolved licenses, and conflicting brand rights before and after closing.

Without a strategic integration plan, businesses may face:

conflicting brand portfolios
gaps in ownership records
outdated licensing agreements
inconsistent use across markets
increased enforcement risks

For companies operating internationally, cross-border trademark and copyright rights add another layer of complexity.

The Growing Role of AI and Digital Assets

As AI and digital content continue to shape modern transactions, legal diligence now extends to digital marketing assets, branded content, and copyright ownership in AI-assisted works.

These assets are increasingly part of valuation discussions and post-close integration strategies.

How Our Firm Can Help

Our trademark and copyright attorneys help businesses protect the value behind their brands and creative assets throughout the M&A lifecycle.

We advise clients on:

trademark and copyright due diligence
portfolio consolidation and ownership review
licensing and assignment agreements
post-merger brand integration
cross-border IP strategy

If your business is planning a merger, acquisition, or strategic transaction, contact our team to help safeguard your trademarks, copyrights, and long-term brand value.

The post Intellectual Property in M&A: Protecting Trademarks & Copyrights in the AI Era appeared first on Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney.

Are You Liable for Copyright Infringement if Users Post Infringing Art on Your Website or Social Network?

Augusto Perera — Fri, 09 Jan 2026 16:34:39 +0000

Are You Liable for Copyright Infringement if Users Post Infringing Art on Your Website or Social Network?

If you run a website, social network, or any kind of platform where users can upload or share content — artwork, videos, music, or anything else — you might be wondering: Am I legally responsible if one of my users uploads something that infringes copyright?

The short answer: Not necessarily — but only if you meet certain legal requirements.

Understanding the DMCA and “Service Provider” Status

Under U.S. copyright law — specifically the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) — platforms that host or transmit user-generated content are generally referred to as “service providers.”

Importantly, this term isn’t limited to internet access companies like Comcast or Verizon. In the eyes of the law, it includes:

Social networks
Online marketplaces
Image-sharing platforms
Video hosting sites
Forums and community websites
Any platform that stores or distributes content on behalf of users

So if your website allows users to post or upload content, you’re likely considered a service provider under the DMCA.

The Safe Harbor: A Legal Shield — If You Qualify

The DMCA offers what’s known as “safe harbor” protection to service providers. This protection shields your business from financial liability if your users upload infringing content — such as copyrighted artwork — as long as you follow certain rules.

To qualify for DMCA safe harbor, your platform must:

Act quickly to remove infringing content when you receive a proper takedown notice.
Not have actual knowledge of the infringement (or be “willfully blind” to it).
Avoid benefiting financially from the infringing content, if you also have the right and ability to control it.
Adopt and enforce a repeat infringer policy (and actually follow through on it).
Accommodate standard technical measures used by copyright holders to identify and protect their content.
And — critically — designate and register a DMCA agent.

The Often-Overlooked Requirement: Registering Your DMCA Agent

To fully qualify for safe harbor, service providers must designate a DMCA agent to receive copyright infringement notifications. But this step involves two mandatory actions:
1. Register your agent with the U.S. Copyright Office, and
2. Post the agent’s contact information on your website, in a place accessible to the public
Failing to do both means you are not eligible for DMCA protection — regardless of how well you comply with the other rules.
Also, safe harbor protections are not retroactive. If your site is accused of infringement that occurred before your DMCA agent was registered, you can’t backdate compliance to shield yourself later.

What This Means for You

Let’s say you operate an online art-sharing platform. A user uploads a piece of copyrighted art without permission. If:

You’ve registered a DMCA agent
You post the agent’s info on your website
You remove the artwork promptly upon receiving a valid notice
You have and enforce a repeat infringer policy

Then your platform is likely protected from liability.

But if you miss even one key step — especially failing to register your DMCA agent — you may lose that protection completely.

Key Takeaway

You’re not automatically liable for your users’ copyright violations — but you’re not automatically off the hook either. The law gives you a path to avoid liability, but only if you act responsibly and meet the DMCA’s requirements, but only if you act responsibly and meet all of its requirements — including agent registration.

If your website or app allows users to post content of any kind, understand the rules, build compliant policies, and take infringement seriously. It’s not just about protecting artists — it’s about protecting your business.

Need Help Navigating DMCA Compliance?

If you’re unsure whether your platform qualifies for safe harbor protection — or you need help creating a repeat infringer policy, takedown process, or terms of service — now is the time to act. Don’t wait for a legal threat to force your hand.

👉 Reach out today to discuss how to protect your platform from copyright liability and stay compliant with the law.

Protect your users. Protect your business. Protect your future.

The post Are You Liable for Copyright Infringement if Users Post Infringing Art on Your Website or Social Network? appeared first on Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney.

U.S. Federal Government Shutdown: Impacts on Trademark and Copyright Filings

Augusto Perera — Tue, 07 Oct 2025 14:36:00 +0000

U.S. Federal Government Shutdown: Impacts on Trademark and Copyright Filings

As the U.S. federal government experiences a lapse in funding, many agencies have adjusted or suspended operations. Below is an update on how the shutdown affects trademark and copyright filings.

Trademark Filings – USPTO Remains Open and Fully Operational

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has confirmed that it will continue normal operations during the shutdown:

USPTO operating status during a lapse in federal appropriations
At present, the USPTO will remain open and fully operational until further notice under operating reserves from the prior year’s fee collections.

Key takeaway: The USPTO remains open and is processing trademark applications, renewals, and other filings as usual. Businesses can continue to file and maintain their trademark rights without disruption.

Copyright Filings – Office Closed, but Online Submissions Accepted

The U.S. Copyright Office has announced the following:

Notice: Due to a lapse in government funding, the U.S. Copyright Office is closed, as is the Library of Congress. As such, the office is unable to update the information on this website, respond to inquiries, or process transactions. Registration and recordation submissions will be accepted for the purpose of securing date of receipt but will not be processed. Website updates and all normal business activity will resume when the government reopens. If you would like to file a copyright registration or submit a document recordation, our online systems are available. Filing your registration claim now will help ensure the earliest possible effective date of registration, although submissions will not be processed until the Copyright Office reopens.

Key takeaway: The Copyright Office is closed, but online filings are still possible. Filing now can help secure your effective date once the office resumes operations.

What This Means for You:

Trademarks: Continue business as usual—applications, renewals, and responses are being processed.
Copyrights: Online submissions are accepted and will be date-stamped, but processing is paused until the government reopens.

Our team is monitoring these developments closely and is available to assist with any filings or questions to help protect your intellectual property during the shutdown.

The post U.S. Federal Government Shutdown: Impacts on Trademark and Copyright Filings appeared first on Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney.

Can I Use the Image of a Deceased Celebrity in 2025?

Augusto Perera — Fri, 03 Oct 2025 14:25:04 +0000

Can I Use the Image of a Deceased Celebrity in 2025?

The short answer: most likely no — at least not without permission.

The Right of Publicity After Death

The right of publicity protects a person’s name, likeness, nickname, pseudonym, voice, signature, and other
identifying traits from being misappropriated for commercial purposes.
There is still no federal law governing publicity rights. Instead, protection is determined at the state level, and rules vary dramatically:
• Indiana: 100 years after death.
• California: 70 years postmortem (most Hollywood celebrities fall here).
• Illinois: 50 years.
• Florida: 40 years.
• New York: only since 2021, with limited postmortem rights, especially for performers and digital replicas.
This makes the celebrity’s state of residence at the time of death crucial when determining whether their estate controls the commercial use of their image.

Recent High-Profile Examples (2024–2025)

• Matthew Perry (d. 2023, California) – Protected for 70 years under California law. Any AI voice, hologram,
or merchandise must be licensed through his estate.
• Tina Turner (d. 2023, Switzerland/California connections) – Complex jurisdictional issues: her estate is pursuing protections in both Europe and the U.S.
• O.J. Simpson (d. 2024, Nevada) – Nevada has no postmortem publicity statute, making commercial use of
his likeness less restricted than in California or Indiana.
• Tony Bennett (d. 2023, New York) – His estate can now prevent unauthorized AI reproductions of his
likeness or voice thanks to New York’s updated law.
These examples show how the legal landscape can shift dramatically based on where the celebrity lived or was
domiciled at death.

Federal Developments: The No Fakes Act

In 2024, Congress introduced the No Fakes Act, a bipartisan proposal aimed at tackling the rise of AI-generated
“deepfakes” of celebrities, musicians, and influencers.
• It would give both living and deceased individuals control over the commercial use of their voice, image,
and likeness in digital replicas.
• Estates could take action against unauthorized AI versions of a star, even if state law would not normally
protect them.
• While not yet passed, the bill reflects growing momentum toward federal-level protection, which could
eventually replace the current patchwork of state laws.
If enacted, it could prevent scenarios like an AI-generated “new album” from a late artist (without estate approval)
or a hologram performance used for profit without consent.

What If You Want to Use a Celebrity’s Image?

If the celebrity died in a state that recognizes postmortem rights — or if federal law is enacted — you should:
1. Obtain a license from the estate (or whoever controls those rights).
2. Avoid misleading implications — even in states without protection, unauthorized use could lead to claims of false endorsement or unfair competition.
3. Check for trademarks — estates often register names, phrases, or likenesses (e.g., “Elvis,” “Marilyn
Monroe”) as trademarks. Unlike publicity rights, trademarks can last indefinitely if renewed and used in
commerce.

The Bottom Line in 2025

Between state law protections, trademark strategies, and the proposed No Fakes Act, using the image, name, or voice of a dead celebrity has never been riskier without proper legal clearance.
If you’re considering using a deceased celebrity’s likeness in merchandise, advertising, or creative projects, assume you’ll need permission — and possibly multiple layers of it.
I’ve helped many businesses navigate these issues, from licensing agreements with estates to registering
trademarks that preserve long-term rights. If you’re exploring this gray area, I can help protect your brand — and keep you out of legal trouble.

The post Can I Use the Image of a Deceased Celebrity in 2025? appeared first on Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney.

What Can’t You Copyright? Understanding Words, Phrases, and Simple Designs

Augusto Perera — Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:25:49 +0000

What Can’t You Copyright? Understanding Words, Phrases, and Simple Designs

When you think of copyright, you probably imagine protecting your creative work—stories, artwork, music, maybe even your website. But it’s important to know that not everything can be copyrighted.

One of the most common misconceptions is that any word, phrase, or slogan you come up with automatically receives copyright protection. In reality, copyright law is quite specific about what qualifies as a protected work.

According to 37 C.F.R. §202.1(a), the following are not subject to copyright:

“Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents.”

Let’s break this down in plain English.

What This Means

Words and Short Phrases

Examples: A product name, a catchy slogan, or a title of a book.
Why Not Copyrighted? Copyright is intended to protect original, creative expression, not the basic building blocks of language. Single words or short phrases simply aren’t considered creative enough.

Familiar Symbols or Designs

Examples: Common shapes like hearts, stars, or simple geometric patterns.
Why Not Copyrighted? Because these are universal symbols, not original works.

Mere Typographic Variations

Examples: Using a fancy font, different colors, or stylized lettering.
Why Not Copyrighted? Typography alone doesn’t make something original enough to warrant copyright protection.

Ingredient Lists or Contents

Examples: A list of ingredients on a cereal box.
Why Not Copyrighted? This is considered factual information, not creative expression.

So How Do You Protect These Things?

While copyright law doesn’t cover names, slogans, or logos, you may still be able to protect them through trademark law. Trademarks safeguard brand identifiers that distinguish your products or services in the marketplace.

For example:

Your company name
Your logo
A distinctive slogan tied to your brand

Trademarks can be powerful tools to prevent others from using confusingly similar marks.

Why It Matters

If you’re a creator or business owner, understanding what copyright covers—and what it doesn’t—helps you make better decisions about:

Branding: When to seek trademark protection.
Content: What creative work to register with the Copyright Office.
Avoiding Infringement: Recognizing that using common words or shapes isn’t usually a copyright violation.

Final Thoughts

Before assuming that everything you create is protected by copyright, take a moment to consider whether it qualifies as an original work of authorship. If it’s simply a name, a short phrase, or a familiar design, copyright won’t apply—but trademark might.

If you’re unsure, consulting an intellectual property attorney can help you determine the best way to protect your creative assets.

Have questions about copyright or trademarks? Contact us!

The post What Can’t You Copyright? Understanding Words, Phrases, and Simple Designs appeared first on Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney.

Court Ruling on AI Training and Copyright

Augusto Perera — Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:22:51 +0000

Court Ruling on AI Training and Copyright

A California federal judge has issued a groundbreaking decision in the copyright lawsuit brought by authors against Anthropic, the AI company behind Claude. This ruling is one of the most detailed and consequential to date on how U.S. copyright law applies to training large language models (LLMs).

What the Court Decided

The plaintiffs—authors including Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson—sued Anthropic for copying their books to build a central library and to train Claude. They argued this was copyright infringement.

The judge drew a clear line:

Training AI models on copyrighted books is fair use. The court held that training an LLM is “spectacularly transformative.” Even though the models effectively “memorized” the works, the purpose—developing an AI that can generate new text—was fundamentally different from simply reproducing or distributing the books themselves.

✅ Digitizing legally purchased print books is also fair use. When Anthropic bought print copies and destroyed them to create searchable digital files for its own internal library, that format change was deemed permissible.

❌ Creating a permanent library of pirated books is not fair use. The court was unequivocal: downloading millions of unauthorized copies from pirate sites crossed the line. The judge emphasized that no AI company has a special right to stockpile infringing copies simply because it plans to train a model.

In other words, while the transformative nature of training LLMs shields some copying, the source of the data still matters.

Why This Ruling Is Important

This decision is the first major U.S. ruling to clearly separate:

Fair use in the training process itself (permitted), and

Infringement in acquiring or retaining unauthorized source material (not permitted).

It acknowledges the enormous value that high-quality books provide to training AI but affirms that creators have enforceable rights when their works are pirated.

The decision also points to a path forward for AI companies: if you acquire content legally—whether by purchase or license—then training on it is likely protected as fair use. But shortcuts like mass downloads of pirated material remain an infringement risk.

What Happens Next?

Here are some likely next steps and broader implications:

Potential Damages Phase or Settlement: Because the court found that the pirated copies were infringing, Anthropic could be liable for statutory damages. The case could proceed to determine how much they owe, unless the parties settle first.

Appeal: Anthropic or the authors may appeal aspects of this decision. The line between transformative fair use and infringement of source copies will be tested in higher courts.

Class Certification: A separate motion to certify a class of authors is pending. If granted, this could multiply the scale of liability.

Industry Impact: This ruling clarifies that AI companies cannot ignore copyright ownership in their data pipelines. It also provides some reassurance that training itself—when conducted on lawfully obtained materials—will often be protected as fair use.

Policy and Legislation: This case highlights the need for clearer rules around AI training data. Legislators may eventually address whether AI companies should pay for ingesting copyrighted works, even for transformative purposes.

Takeaway

This decision is a landmark step in defining the legal boundaries of AI training. While the court embraced the transformative potential of AI, it firmly rejected the idea that everything is fair game. Going forward, companies training models will need to be scrupulous about where their data comes from—even as courts recognize that using that data to build AI is often protected.

The post Court Ruling on AI Training and Copyright appeared first on Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney.

Why You Can’t Trademark “Tequila” (And Soon, Not Even “Mezcal”)

Augusto Perera — Tue, 08 Apr 2025 15:07:40 +0000

If you’re in the spirits business and thinking of building a brand around “Tequila” or “Mezcal,” there’s an important legal roadblock you need to understand. In the U.S., these terms aren’t just generic descriptions of alcoholic beverages—they’re protected certification marks tied to geographic origin and quality standards. That means you can’t simply slap “Tequila” into your trademark or product description without facing serious legal opposition.

The Tequila Case: A Certification Mark With Legal Muscle

In the United States, “Tequila” is a registered certification mark owned by Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C. (CRT)—a private Mexican organization authorized under Mexican law to monitor and enforce the production standards of tequila. CRT isn’t a distillery or brand owner; rather, it’s an independent regulatory body tasked with ensuring that products labeled as “Tequila” meet strict criteria, including geographic origin (specific regions in Mexico), production methods, and ingredient standards.

This distinction matters in U.S. trademark law. Certification marks like “Tequila” serve a unique function: they signify that a product meets certain defined standards, not that it comes from a specific producer. Because of this, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) does not allow private businesses to register trademarks that contain or are confusingly similar to certification marks, nor can they use the term descriptively in connection with non-certified goods.

This issue came to a head in the long-running TTAB opposition case, Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C. v. Tequila Cuervo La Rojeña, S.A. de C.V. (Opposition No. 91190827). In that case, Cuervo, a major tequila producer, attempted to register a mark incorporating the term “Tequila.” CRT opposed the application, asserting its rights as the certification mark owner. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ultimately sided with CRT, reinforcing the principle that even legitimate producers of tequila cannot claim exclusive trademark rights over the word “Tequila.”

The Mezcal Parallel: A New Certification Mark in the Works

Now, a similar framework is being established for Mezcal—another iconic Mexican spirit. The Consejo Mexicano Regulador de la Calidad del Mezcal A.C. (COMERCAM), the official body tasked with regulating mezcal production, has applied to register “Mezcal” as a certification mark in the U.S. Just like CRT for tequila, COMERCAM’s role is to ensure that products sold as “Mezcal” meet specific production and origin standards under Mexican law.

If and when this registration is granted, U.S. businesses will face the same restrictions for “Mezcal” that already apply to “Tequila”. This would prohibit using “Mezcal” in a trademark unless the goods meet the certification standards established by COMERCAM—and, crucially, the mark would have to be used in a manner that doesn’t suggest endorsement or ownership of the certification itself.

Why It Matters for Brand Owners

For U.S. companies in the alcohol industry, especially those dealing in imported spirits, this is a major compliance issue. Using a term like “Tequila” or “Mezcal” in a brand name or even in a trademark description may:

Trigger an opposition or cancellation proceeding from the certification mark owner;
Result in a refusal from the USPTO based on likelihood of confusion with a certification mark;
Mislead consumers about the nature and origin of your product, exposing you to false advertising claims.

Bottom line: “Tequila” and “Mezcal” are not just flavor descriptors—they’re legal designations. If you want to use those words on your label, make sure your product is certified accordingly. And when it comes to trademarks, steer clear unless you’ve got legal clearance and full compliance with the certification body’s standards.

Final Thoughts

As the spirits market grows and more craft producers seek to tap into the premium tequila and mezcal trends, understanding the trademark implications of these terms is more important than ever. Respecting certification marks not only keeps your brand out of legal trouble—it also helps preserve the integrity and reputation of these culturally significant spirits.

If you’re developing a new brand in the spirits space, especially one that references geographic indicators or internationally protected terms, consult an experienced trademark attorney early in the process. It could save you years of legal battles—and a lot of money.

The post Why You Can’t Trademark “Tequila” (And Soon, Not Even “Mezcal”) appeared first on Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney.

U.S. Copyright Office Issues Key Update on AI and Copyrightability – January 2025 Report.

Augusto Perera — Thu, 06 Feb 2025 04:55:58 +0000

Last week we attended the American Bar Association Annual “ABA-IPL Copyright Meeting at the U.S. Copyright Office”. We had the opportunity to hear from the Director of the US Copyright Office on Key Updates on AI and Copyrightability.

Human Authorship Remains a Core Requirement

The Copyright Office reaffirms that U.S. copyright law protects works of human authorship. AI-generated content, on its own, does not qualify for copyright protection. However, when a human makes a sufficiently creative contribution—such as through expressive input, modifications, or arrangement—the work may be eligible for copyright protection.

AI as an Assistive Tool vs. AI as a Creator

The report differentiates between AI as an assistive tool and AI as an autonomous creator. If AI is merely used to enhance a human-created work, the resulting piece can be copyrighted. But if an AI system independently generates a work, the output itself is not protected under current law.

Case-by-Case Analysis for AI-Generated Content

Determining whether AI-assisted content qualifies for copyright protection will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Copyright Office will evaluate factors such as:

The extent of human control over the final output.
Whether the human contribution demonstrates creative authorship.
How much AI influence is present in the work.

Prompts Alone Are Insufficient for Copyright

A significant clarification in the report is that merely providing prompts to an AI system does not qualify as human authorship. Since AI models generate content based on complex algorithms and learned patterns, the Copyright Office does not consider a prompt alone as a sufficient creative act to warrant copyright protection.

No New Legal Protections for AI-Generated Works

The report concludes that current copyright laws adequately address AI-generated content, and there is no immediate need for legislative changes. While some stakeholders advocate for new protections or a sui generis (unique) copyright framework for AI-generated works, the Copyright Office has not found a compelling case to introduce such measures at this time.

Implications for Creators and Businesses

This update has profound implications for creatives and businesses leveraging AI in content creation:

Artists and Writers: Ensure meaningful human involvement in AI-assisted works to secure copyright protection.
Software Developers: AI-generated code without human-authored modifications may not be copyrightable.
Businesses Using AI Content: Understand that AI-generated images, music, or text may not be protected under copyright law, impacting ownership rights and licensing strategies.

Looking Ahead: Future Developments

The Copyright Office will continue to monitor AI advancements and reassess legal frameworks as necessary. An update to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices is expected, providing further guidance on AI-related copyright registration and enforcement.

As AI capabilities evolve, the legal landscape surrounding copyright and AI will remain dynamic. Creators and businesses should stay informed and ensure compliance with copyright best practices to protect their intellectual property rights in the age of artificial intelligence.

Secure Your Brand’s
Future—Expand with Confidence!

Whether you’re a U.S. company entering Latin America or a Latin American business expanding into the U.S., we provide the legal expertise to protect your brand in new markets.

Let’s discuss how we can safeguard your trademark across borders. Contact Augusto Perera, Esq. today!

The post U.S. Copyright Office Issues Key Update on AI and Copyrightability – January 2025 Report. appeared first on Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney.

Copyright Archives - Augusto Perera | International Trademark Attorney

Taylor Swift’s Voice Trademark: Can AI Clone a Brand Identity?

Taylor Swift’s Voice Trademark: Can AI Clone a Brand Identity?

Trademark Law 101: It Starts With Use, Not Filing

Why AI Changes the Trademark Landscape

The Challenge: Proving Distinctiveness Through Use

A New Playbook for Brand Protection?

What Businesses Should Take Away

The Bigger Picture

Intellectual Property in M&A: Protecting Trademarks & Copyrights in the AI Era

Intellectual Property in M&A: Protecting Trademarks & Copyrights in the AI Era

Why Trademarks and Copyrights Matter in M&A

Due Diligence and Post-Merger Integration

The Growing Role of AI and Digital Assets

How Our Firm Can Help

Are You Liable for Copyright Infringement if Users Post Infringing Art on Your Website or Social Network?

Are You Liable for Copyright Infringement if Users Post Infringing Art on Your Website or Social Network?

Understanding the DMCA and “Service Provider” Status

The Safe Harbor: A Legal Shield — If You Qualify

The Often-Overlooked Requirement: Registering Your DMCA Agent

What This Means for You

Key Takeaway

Need Help Navigating DMCA Compliance?

U.S. Federal Government Shutdown: Impacts on Trademark and Copyright Filings

U.S. Federal Government Shutdown: Impacts on Trademark and Copyright Filings

Trademark Filings – USPTO Remains Open and Fully Operational

Copyright Filings – Office Closed, but Online Submissions Accepted

What This Means for You:

Can I Use the Image of a Deceased Celebrity in 2025?

Can I Use the Image of a Deceased Celebrity in 2025?

The Right of Publicity After Death

Recent High-Profile Examples (2024–2025)

Federal Developments: The No Fakes Act

What If You Want to Use a Celebrity’s Image?

The Bottom Line in 2025

What Can’t You Copyright? Understanding Words, Phrases, and Simple Designs

What Can’t You Copyright? Understanding Words, Phrases, and Simple Designs

What This Means

So How Do You Protect These Things?

Why It Matters

Final Thoughts

Court Ruling on AI Training and Copyright

Court Ruling on AI Training and Copyright

What the Court Decided

The judge drew a clear line:

Why This Ruling Is Important

What Happens Next?

Takeaway

Why You Can’t Trademark “Tequila” (And Soon, Not Even “Mezcal”)

The Tequila Case: A Certification Mark With Legal Muscle

The Mezcal Parallel: A New Certification Mark in the Works

Why It Matters for Brand Owners

Final Thoughts

U.S. Copyright Office Issues Key Update on AI and Copyrightability – January 2025 Report.

Key Takeaways from the 2025 Copyright Office Report

Secure Your Brand’s Future—Expand with Confidence!

Secure Your Brand’s
Future—Expand with Confidence!