Judge Rejects 'Fair Use' Defense in Classic Rock Documentary Case, Ruling Against Unauthorized Music Use.
A New York federal judge has upheld a lawsuit against filmmaker Robert Carruthers and his company Coda Publishing, ruling that their use of unauthorized music in classic rock documentaries constitutes copyright infringement. The decision provides clarity on the limits of "fair use," a concept that allows for the use of copyrighted material without permission in certain circumstances.
The case dates back to 2020, when ABKCO, which owns songs from The Rolling Stones' catalog, and Universal Music Group (UMG) alleged that Carruthers' documentaries infringed on their rights to valuable music, including chart-toppers like "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction," "Dancing Queen" and "Crocodile Rock." A federal judge agreed with the argument, ruling that simply juxtaposing critical commentary next to reproduced videos does not constitute fair use.
The decision highlights the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI) in copyright law. With AI-powered chatbots like Claude being trained on existing works without permission, technology developers have argued that "transformative" AI makes it fair use for them to train models without paying for licenses. However, the judge's ruling suggests that such claims are not supported.
ABKCO and UMG are seeking financial damages from Carruthers, with the possibility of enhanced damages due to willful infringement. The outcome could have significant implications for the music industry and AI developers alike, as it underscores the importance of respecting copyright laws.
The case marks a turning point in the ongoing debate over fair use and its limits. As technology continues to evolve, it is likely that courts will be called upon to resolve similar disputes, providing clarity on what constitutes fair use and when unauthorized use may not be justified.
A New York federal judge has upheld a lawsuit against filmmaker Robert Carruthers and his company Coda Publishing, ruling that their use of unauthorized music in classic rock documentaries constitutes copyright infringement. The decision provides clarity on the limits of "fair use," a concept that allows for the use of copyrighted material without permission in certain circumstances.
The case dates back to 2020, when ABKCO, which owns songs from The Rolling Stones' catalog, and Universal Music Group (UMG) alleged that Carruthers' documentaries infringed on their rights to valuable music, including chart-toppers like "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction," "Dancing Queen" and "Crocodile Rock." A federal judge agreed with the argument, ruling that simply juxtaposing critical commentary next to reproduced videos does not constitute fair use.
The decision highlights the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI) in copyright law. With AI-powered chatbots like Claude being trained on existing works without permission, technology developers have argued that "transformative" AI makes it fair use for them to train models without paying for licenses. However, the judge's ruling suggests that such claims are not supported.
ABKCO and UMG are seeking financial damages from Carruthers, with the possibility of enhanced damages due to willful infringement. The outcome could have significant implications for the music industry and AI developers alike, as it underscores the importance of respecting copyright laws.
The case marks a turning point in the ongoing debate over fair use and its limits. As technology continues to evolve, it is likely that courts will be called upon to resolve similar disputes, providing clarity on what constitutes fair use and when unauthorized use may not be justified.
So this ruling makes total sense, right? I mean, if you wanna make a documentary about classic rock, shouldn't you pay the artists for their music? 
It's not like they're just gonna let anyone slap some of The Rolling Stones' hits in there without asking. And now with AI coming into play, it's even more crucial to respect copyright laws. I feel like this is a wake-up call for tech devs and creators who wanna use public domain works or whatever. 
They gotta figure out what's fair and what's not before they get hit with some major fines. This ruling sets the bar pretty high, but maybe it'll encourage more people to get licenses and pay up. 
the judge's ruling says that transformative use isn't always enough to justify copyright infringement. but what about when you're trying to study or critique the original work? is that still 'fair' use? 
it's a gray area for sure, and I think this case highlights just how tricky it can get when technology and law intersect. 
... I get where the music industry needs protection, but come on, using old songs in documentaries isn't like bootlegging concerts or anything 
. And AI? Like, it's already super cool, can't we just let devs train models without getting sued over it? 
.
they were tryin 2 get away wit using clasik rock songs in documentaries without payin nuthin 2 the rights holders abkco & umg! 
the judge said their "fair use" defense didnt cut it bc they jus used critical commentary next 2 reproduced vids. that's not fair lol! 
AI is a whole nother ball game tho... devs r tryin 2 say its fair use 4 them 2 train models on existing works w/o permisshun 
. But at the same time, I get why Carruthers and his team have to be careful – they're not trying to make a profit off people's work or anything 
. Still, it's weird that just adding some commentary next to old videos isn't enough to make it "fair use" 
. Guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out in the courts... 
just think about all the documentaries that could've been made without the copyright holders breathing down their necks... maybe it's time to start exploring other types of music or even public domain stuff 
this ruling makes me kinda sad for artists who put their heart & soul into creating music. I mean, think about it - those songs are like a part of our culture now, you know? & they're being used in docs without permission...