Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Toby Headdon
Generative AI in context of copyright: knowing your hypersurfaces from your stochastic parrots
The European Parliament’s Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs has prepared a briefing entitled ‘Technological Aspects of Generative AI in the Context of Copyright’. It is a technical paper which explains (albeit in a simplified way) the function of GenAI systems by reference to ‘hypersurfaces’.
Training AI models and extraterritorial application of copyright rules
The extraterritorial application of copyright law has become a hot topic in AI. The UK’s ongoing consultation on Copyright and AI has a section entitled ‘Treatment of models trained in other jurisdictions’ which states “we want to encourage AI developers operating in the UK to comply with UK law on AI model training, even if their models are trained in other countries” (emphasis added).
US District Court decision in Thompson Reuters v Ross Intelligence on copyright and AI (via Passle)
On 11 February, the US District Court of Delaware issued its decision in Thompson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH & another v Ross Intelligence Inc, revising an earlier summary judgment opinion and order. Unsurprisingly, because the case involves AI, the decision has attracted a lot of attention. Ross made a legal research search engine that uses AI. To train this search tool, Ross required a database of legal questions and answers.
Representative claim not permitted in AI litigation (via Passle)
Getty Images (US) Inc and Ors v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch) In a reserved judgment in Getty Images v Stability AI, the UK High Court has confirmed that the one of the claimants may not act in a representative capacity on behalf of over 50,000 photographers and content contributors. The rules for bringing representative claims are contained in CPR 19.8 and a crucial element is that the represented parties must share the “same interest”, which the court found not to be present.
Copyright and AI: machine-readable reservation of rights and the need for a universal standard (via Passle)
It is clear from the recent consultation paper on ‘Copyright and Artificial Intelligence’ that the UK Government would like to introduce a new copyright exception to allow text and data mining for any purpose in a way that broadly mimics the one introduced by the EU under Article 4 of the DSM Directive.
First court decision on text and data mining copyright exceptions: Kneschke v LAION e.V. (via Passle)
A recent case in the District Court of Hamburg addressed the intersection of copyright law, text and data mining (TDM), and artificial intelligence (AI) training. The claim, brought by photographer Mr. Kneschke against the AI research non-profit organisation LAION e.V. (LAION), concerned LAION's use of one of Mr Kneschke's photographs in one of LAION’s AI training datasets (LAION-5B) and whether that use infringed Mr Kneschke’s copyright in his photograph.
First court decision on text and data mining copyright exceptions: Kneschke v LAION e.V.
A recent case in the District Court of Hamburg addressed the intersection of copyright law, text and data mining (TDM), and artificial intelligence (AI) training. The claim, brought by photographer Mr. Kneschke against the AI research non-profit organisation LAION e.V. (LAION), concerned LAION's use of one of Mr Kneschke's photographs in one of LAION’s AI training datasets (LAION-5B) and whether that use infringed Mr Kneschke’s copyright in his photograph.
Copyright issues under the EU AI Act (via Passle)
Intellectual property is one of the main issues for everyone involved in the burgeoning AI ecosystem. The large generative AI model developers, have been coming under scrutiny, and in some cases legal claims, regarding their use of copyright content to train their models. Simultaneously, organisations using large models are concerned about whether intellectual property subsists in content generated by these tools. So what does the AI Act have to say about intellectual property?
Copyright issues under the EU AI Act
Intellectual property is one of the main issues for everyone involved in the burgeoning AI ecosystem. The large generative AI model developers, have been coming under scrutiny, and in some cases legal claims, regarding their use of copyright content to train their models. Simultaneously, organisations using large models are concerned about whether intellectual property subsists in content generated by these tools. So what does the AI Act have to say about intellectual property?
Reflections on Copyright and Generative AI (via Passle)
Yesterday (20 March), I spoke at UCL’s IBIL event 'Copyright and Generative AI: Putting input issues under the spotlight'. Such events remind you that every day is a school day. There are two particular issues I am mulling over: The UK government has to make its next move following the acknowledgment that it will not be possible for AI developers and creators to agree a code of practice to address the relationship between intellectual property rights and generative AI.
Reflections on Copyright and Generative AI
Yesterday (20 March), I spoke at UCL’s IBIL event 'Copyright and Generative AI: Putting input issues under the spotlight'. Such events remind you that every day is a school day. There are two particular issues I am mulling over: The UK government has to make its next move following the acknowledgment that it will not be possible for AI developers and creators to agree a code of practice to address the relationship between intellectual property rights and generative AI.
Getty Images UK claims against Stability AI to proceed to full trial (via Passle)
This article first appeared in the Intellectual Property Forum journal, published by Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand. Toby Headdon and Kyrana Hulstein, “Current Developments – Europe: Getty Images UK claims against Stability AI to proceed to full trial” (2024) Intellectual Property Forum [135].
Aldi’s infringement of M&S’ registered design upheld by Court of Appeal (but no caterpillars involved this time) (via Passle)
You can read a more detailed analysis of the case here. The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court finding of registered design infringement by Aldi in respect of gin bottles which featured a winter scene, gold snow globe-style flakes and a light in the base. Although successful registered design cases are few and far between, the actual result on appeal was not that surprising.
Aldi’s infringement of M&S’ registered design upheld by Court of Appeal (but no caterpillars involved this time)
You can read a more detailed analysis of the case here. The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court finding of registered design infringement by Aldi in respect of gin bottles which featured a winter scene, gold snow globe-style flakes and a light in the base. Although successful registered design cases are few and far between, the actual result on appeal was not that surprising.
US copyright action against OpenAI
Two authors, Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad, have filed a class action lawsuit in the US District Court against OpenAI.
New and expansive legal permissions for text and data mining on the horizon
The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has published its response to its consultation ‘Artificial Intelligence and IP: copyright and patents’. The consultation considered three specific areas, namely: Copyright protection for computer-generated works (CGWs) without a human author. Licensing or exceptions to copyright for text and data mining (TDM), which is often significant in AI use and development. Patent protection for AI-devised inventions.
UK government consultation on AI & copyright: Text and Data mining
European Union, United Kingdom November 22 2021 On 29 October 2021, the UK Intellectual Property Office issued an open consultation to examine certain aspects of copyright and patent law in the context of AI. The consultation follows in light of views expressed in response to its Call for Views on AI and IP.
The impact of Brexit on the resale of software licences | Lexology
Brexit has wide ranging implications on many areas of the law, including the exhaustion of rights in user licences for software. Under EU law, copyright in software is ‘exhausted’ when a copy of the software is placed on the EEA market by or with the consent of the copyright owner. This includes the grant of certain licences as long as a number of conditions are fulfilled. The licensee may then resell this licence freely within the EEA. Will this regime continue to apply to the UK following Brexit?
Brexit update: the EU Copyright Directive will not be implemented in the UK | Lexology
European Union, United Kingdom
January 28 2020 Chris Skidmore, the Minister of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has recently confirmed that the United Kingdom has no plans to implement the EU Copyright Directive and that “any future changes to the UK copyright framework will be considered as part of the usual domestic policy process”.
An agnostic observation on machine-originated works and copyright | Lexology
In the field of copyright law, the concept of authorship has generally been based upon the assumption that the author is a human being. As businesses have increasingly begun to harness, interrogate and manipulate big data, a new type of author – the machine - has emerged which fundamentally tests this assumption.
EU Commission issues guidance to online platforms for tackling illegal content online
On 28 September 2017 the European Commission published its Communication on ‘Tackling Illegal Content Online’ (“the Guidance”). The Guidance provides a set of guidelines and principles directed towards online platforms (“OPs”) and their role and responsibilities in dealing with illegal content.
LinkedIn’s efforts to stop the bots
This article was first published on LexisNexis®PSL, August 2017. TMT analysis: LinkedIn has recently attempted to prevent third parties from ‘scraping’ its publicly available member profile data. Toby Headdon, senior associate at Bristows, explains the case, which was heard in the US district court in San Francisco, and examines how a UK court would potentially deal with a similar scenario. What was this case about?
An epilogue to Svensson: the same old new public and the worms that didn't turn
On 13 February 2014 the CJEU provided its much anticipated answer to the question of whether the provision of a hyperlink can amount to a communication to the public of a work to which that hyperlink resolves. This article analyses that decision, considers some of the remaining areas of uncertainty relating to the provision of hyperlinks, and goes on to consider copyright protection of hyperlinks distinct from the underlying work to which they resolve.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Toby
Contact Toby, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack