Writers and filmmakers need to understand their legal rights and how to defend themselves from those who may seek to exploit them or falsely claim their rights have been infringed. This seminar explains how writers and filmmakers can prevent problems from arising by properly securing underlying rights, and by encouraging other parties to live up to agreements with performance incentives, audit rights, default penalties, and arbitration clauses. In the event of a dispute, participants learn what remedies are available to enforce their rights.

Other topics include defamation; invasion of privacy; protecting your stories and avoiding being sued when portraying others; typical compensation and terms of contracts; merchandising deals; and negotiating tactics and strategies.
This seminar includes more than 100 pages of useful contracts, checklists, forms, and materials. This class is for writers, filmmakers, content producers, attorneys, arts professionals and whoever is interested in the topic.

This program will be taught by Mark Litwak, Esq., Law Offices of Mark Litwak and Associates. Dates and Time (Participants should attend both days):

Day 1: Thursday, April 17, 2025, 1 - 4:00 PM EST
Day 2: Friday, April 18, 2025, 1 - 4:00 PM EST

Please note that this is a live webinar. A recording will not be available for those who cannot attend. Participants will receive an email in advance of this workshop with instructions to access the program. Please, therefore, make sure that you have regular access to the email address you use to register.

For more information on this program, please contact VLA at [email protected].
For more information and to sign up: VLA 
 

As a result of advances in artificial intelligence, it is now possible to  digitally create realistic  images of people that are indistinguishable from their actual images. In response, California has enacted two new laws, AB 2602 and AB 1836 recently signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. The laws are meant to  protect persons from the unauthorized use of their voice and image with  computer-generated digital replicas. The laws  will restrict the  use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other technology  by giving actors and others  more protections regarding the use of their images.

AB 2602 is designed to ensure transparency in  the use of people’s  persona by ensuring that they are adequately informed and/or represented during negotiations by either legal counsel or that the agreement is subject to  the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Under this new law, any contract that permits the creation of a digital replica is unenforceable unless it includes  a reasonably specific description of how the digital replica will be used (unless the usage is otherwise consistent with the terms of the professional services being offered by such individual) and the person is represented by legal counsel or the contract is  subject to  a union agreement.

This law applies  prospectively to new performances, fixed on or after January 1, 2025. The legislation defines  “digital replica” to mean a computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual that is embodied in a sound recording, image, audiovisual work, or transmission in which the actual individual either did not actually perform or appear, or the actual individual did perform or appear, but the fundamental character of the performance or appearance has been materially altered.

AB 1836 addresses the use of a  digital replica of a deceased person’s  name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of the same  within 70 years of the personality’s death. This bill makes a person who produces or  distribute a  digital replica of a deceased personality’s voice or likeness in an expressive audiovisual work or sound recording without prior consent liable in an amount equal to the greater of $10,000 or the actual damages suffered by the person controlling the rights. The  provision does not apply to plays, books, newspapers, radio and television programs, or other work of political or newsworthy value because they are not considered products, and their use is protected under the First Amendment.

Last summer,  the U.S. Copyright Office published a report proposing  a federal law that would protect against unauthorized digital replicas. The report urged consideration of  legislation that would balance the interests of producers and subjects. Courts would consider a variety of factors including:

• The purpose of the use, including whether it is commercial;
• Whether the use is expressive or political in nature;
• The relevance of the digital replica to the purpose of the use;
• Whether the use is intentionally deceptive;
• Whether the replica was labeled;
• The extent of the harm caused; and
• The good faith of the user.
  
• 
  

Finally,  a bipartisan group of Senators introduced the so called No Fakes Act (S. 4875). The proposed federal law looks to hold individuals and online services such as websites  liable for damages for producing, hosting, or sharing digital replicas, including AI-generated replicas, of an individual performing in audiovisual works, images, or sound recordings without that person's consent or participation. Licenses to be valid have to be in writing and include a specific description of the intended use of the digital replica. There are exclusions for those images used in news, public affairs or sports broadcast, documentaries  or in commentary or criticism. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House (H. R. 9551).
 

A producer does not always need a release in order to show a product in a film. Assuming you don’t disparage the product, or misleadingly use its trademark in a manner that implies the manufacturer has endorsed or sponsored your film, a manufacturer would find it difficult to prevail in a lawsuit simply on the grounds that its product was shown without consent.
 
From a practical point of view, if a product is momentarily shown on the screen or is not identifiable, a producer may not bother to obtain a release.[1] A director who shoots a scene in a supermarket is not going to obtain releases for every product in the background. Still, a release never hurts, even if not legally required. Remember that distributors and insurance carriers may want to see releases for every identifiable product, regardless of legal precedent.
 
There is little case law concerning the unauthorized use of products in motion pictures because many disputes are settled out of court. Attorneys for product manufacturers have claimed that a non-approved use of a product in a motion picture, even if non-disparaging, could be a violation of the Lanham Act or product’s trademark. However, courts tend to disagree, finding that trademark law does not entitle the owner of a trademark to prevent any display of a trademark when it is communicating ideas or expressing points of view.
 
For example, in Wham-O, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures Corp.,[2] the manufacturer of the Slip ’n Slide toy slide brought suit and sought a temporary restraining order against Paramount Pictures for its unauthorized use of the toy in the movie Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star.
 
In this movie David Spade plays a former child star seeking to reenact the childhood experiences he missed while busy working in the entertainment industry. In an amusing sequence, the character misuses the toy slide to comic effect and suffers injuries. Paramount claimed the film used the Slip ’n Slide to convey an image of childhood fun. Wham-O argued that in a world where consumers know about product placement, “the viewing public has come to expect, that trademarked products featured in movies are there because, in fact, the trademark owner is associated with or has endorsed the movie through such product-placement arrangements.”[3]
 
The court found that Wham-O was not likely to succeed on the merits of the case because Paramount’s use of the product did not create an improper association in consumers’ minds between the product and the trademark.[4]

In the case of Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Productions, a new puppet led to a lawsuit. Hormel Foods, the maker of Spam canned meat, sought to enjoin the release of the movie Muppet Treasure Island, alleging trademark infringement and dilution[5] after the creators of the Muppets, hoping to generate laughter, named a wild boar puppet character “Spa’am.” Hormel’s expert testified that the Spa'am character was unappealing and will lead to negative associations on the part of consumers because he has small eyes, protruding teeth, warts, a skull on his headdress, is generally untidy, and speaks in a deep voice with poor grammar and diction.[6] However, the court held that Hormel could not use federal trademark laws to enjoin what was a joke at its expense.[7]
 
Trademark law does not entitle the owner of a trademark to quash an unauthorized use of the mark by another who is merely communicating ideas or expressing points of view. “[T]he trademark owner does not have the right to control public discourse when the public imbues his mark with meaning beyond its source-identifying function.” [8]
 
Keep in mind that most manufacturers are pleased to have their product featured in a motion picture unless it is shown in a derogatory light. It’s free advertising.
 
[1] You should always have a lawyer review your script before production to determine what releases may be required.
[2] Wham-O, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures Corp., United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal No. 03-17052, Appellant’s Reply Brief, May 18, 2004.
[3] Wham-O, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures Corp., United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal No. 03-17052, Appellant’s Reply Brief, May 18, 2004.
[4] Wham-O’s trademark infringement and dilution claims were also rejected and its request for injunctive relief was denied Wham-O, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 286 F. Supp.2d 1254 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
[5] Trademark law does not entitle the owner of a trademark to quash an unauthorized use of the mark by another who is merely communicating ideas or expressing points of view. “[T]he trademark owner does not have the right to control public discourse when the public imbues his mark with meaning beyond its source-identifying function.” Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 900, 63 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1715 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1171, 123 S. Ct. 993, 154 L. Ed. 2d 912 (2003) (citing Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Group, 611 F.2d 296, 301 [9th Cir. 1979]). (Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods. (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 22, 1995) 1995 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 13886.)
[6] (Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods. (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 22, 1995) 1995 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 13886, at *5.
[7] Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Productions, Inc., (1995) 1995-2 Trade Cases P 71,154, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1812.
[8] Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 900, 63 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1715 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1171, 123 S. Ct. 993, 154 L. Ed. 2d 912 (2003) (citing Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Group, 611 F.2d 296, 301 [9th Cir. 1979]).

 

Mark will be speaking on legal issues for writers at the upcoming Story Expo on Sunday, September 29th at the Westin Hotel LAX. Story Expo has been a major  conference for Screenwriters, TV Writers, Authors. For more info,  https://www.storyexpo.com/

Mark will be moderating a panel on talent representation at the American Film Convention on Thursday, October 17th, 2024, in downtown Los Angeles.  For more info: https://www.americanfilmconvention.com/en/about-us
 

If you own a corporation or LLC, you should be aware that the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), is a new U.S. federal law that went into effect as of January 1, 2024. Its aim is to fight money laundering, drug trafficking and the use of anonymous shell companies by requiring companies to report the identity of their beneficial owners to  the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

The CTA requires companies formed or registered to do business in the U.S. to file a beneficial ownership report with FinCEN. These beneficial ownership reports will allow FinCEN to assemble a database of beneficial owners. Companies  are required to provide data about both the companies and their beneficial owners and applicants, including full legal name, address, state of formation, IRS taxpayer identification number, birth date, and other details.

FinCEN will use its database to fight money laundering in cooperation with other U.S. law enforcement agencies. Although the records will not be publicly available, the database will be accessible to U.S. law enforcement agencies, U.S. financial institutions and some non-U.S. law enforcement agencies.

The law defines "beneficial owner" as any individual who, directly or indirectly, either (a) exercises substantial control over the reporting company or (b) owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of the reporting company.
The CTA has penalties for non-compliance. A reporting company that does not file a beneficial ownership report (or a required amendment) when due is subject to a $500 per day fine up to a maximum of $10,000. A willful failure to file a report when due or an intentional filing of inaccurate information is punishable as a felony by up to two years imprisonment. A willful violation in combination with other anti-money laundering violations can result in a bigger penalty of up to ten years imprisonment.
To file the notice, one needs to have the EIN or ITIN number for the company, and a passport or driver’s license number for the beneficial owner. To file a report and for more information go to: Link. 

However, on March 1, 2024, a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama, in National Small Business United v. Yellen, held that the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on Congress’s power and enjoined the Department of the Treasury and FinCEN from enforcing the CTA against the plaintiffs in that case. The Justice Department is appealing the decision. Note the decision only applies to the plaintiffs and members of the National Small Business Association.

New York State has also enacted its own beneficial information disclosure law, the NYLTA) for limited liability companies. The law does not apply to corporations or other entities. LLCs that are exempt need to file a Statement of Exemption. It  will become effective as of Jan. 1, 2026, and it allows   both domestic and foreign LLCs to submit to the New York Department of State a copy of their initial federal BOI report filed with the FinCEN, if the report contains all necessary information required by the NYLTA.

A recent case raised the question of whether a sequel movie is always a derivative work of the original work. The sequel was Top Gun: Maverick which  featured Tom Cruise reprising his role as U.S. Navy test pilot Pete "Maverick" Mitchell. The film was wildly successful grossing $1.5 billion worldwide.
 
The original movie was based on a non-fiction magazine article written by Ehud Yonay about the experiences of F-14 pilots as they undergo training at the Navy’s Fighter Weapons School. It was published in California Magazine on April 21, 1983, and Paramount Pictures Corporation bought the motion picture adaptation rights to the article and released the first Top Gun movie in 1986. For the movie, Paramount created  fictional characters Pete (“Maverick”) Mitchell and Nick (“Goose”) Bradshaw.
 
In 2018 the writer’s heirs sent a copyright termination notice to Paramount reclaiming rights to the article as allowed under Copyright law. Under copyright law, authors (or, if the authors are not alive, their surviving spouses, children, or executors), can “terminate” copyright assignments they have previously made in certain circumstances and regain rights to their work after 35 years. Consequently, even if an author, signed an agreement transferring all rights in their work in perpetuity, the Copyright Act provides that the author can terminate that grant and demand that the rights revert. Essentially, the author gets  a second chance to make money from his work.
 
Without securing any rights to the original magazine article, Paramount produced and then  released a sequel to the original film, named “Top Gun: Maverick” and did not credit  writer Yonay for the source material. The heirs of Yonay filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and copyright infringement.
 
The Plaintiffs asserted  that the article and sequel movie were substantially similar because they had similar plots, sequences of events, pacing, themes, moods, dialogue, characters, and settings. Defendant contended  that these aspects of the sequel were not similar to the original movie or were based on  elements of the Works not protectable under Copyright law. Plaintiffs claimed  the sequel fictional  film was a derivative work based on the original non-fiction article.
 
U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson in Los Angeles has found that the sequel Top Gun: Maverick was not "substantially similar" to the magazine article that was the basis for the first Top Gun movie. The court found that copyright law does not protect factual elements or familiar plot elements such as pilots embarking on missions, being shot down or carousing at a bar. Likewise, the court found that  copyright law does not protect themes such as "the sheer love of flying."

Read the Case. CV 22-3846 PA (GJSx).
 

I am  excited to announce Molli and Max in the Future is having our nationwide theatrical release beginning Friday, February 9th! There will be Q&As with some of the cast and crew members for the two screenings in LA, as well as the 7pm screenings in NYC on 2/9, 2/10, & 2/14. For a list of additional theaters in other cities visit molliandmax.com. 
 
BUY YOUR TICKETS NOW!
 
Share our link tree on your social media! 
 
Molli and Max in the Future, the sci-fi rom-com starring Girls‘ Zosia Mamet and SNL‘s Aristotle Athari will begin its nationwide theatrical run-on February 9, 2024. The film will be released in numerous theaters including in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Dallas, Austin, Kansas City, Boulder, Nashville and Houston.
 
Zosia Mamet will be interviewed about the film on Late Night with Seth Meyers tonight!
 
This is the first  feature film of writer/director  Michael Lukk Litwak. 
 
Molli and Max in the Future is a sci-fi romantic comedy about a man and woman whose orbits repeatedly collide over the course of 12 years, four planets, three dimensions and one space cult. This is the first feature film of writer/director  Michael Lukk Litwak. 
 
In Los Angeles the movie will be shown at the Laemmle Noho 7 on February 9, 2024 and at the Monica Fil m Center on February 14, 2024. In New York the film will be shown at the Cinema Village.
 
Molli and Max in the Future is a sci-fi romantic comedy about a man and woman whose orbits repeatedly collide over the course of 12 years, four planets, three dimensions and one space cult.
 
"A deeply likable film that’s not really like anything else out there." - Rogerebert.com
"Inventive, endearing and entertaining." - Mashable
"A grand achievement in indie sci-fi filmmaking." - Film Threat
 
OFFICIAL SELECTION - South by Southwest
OFFICIAL SELECTION - BFI London Film Festival
OFFICIAL SELECTION - Fantasia Film Festival
 
View the Trailer https://www.laemmle.com/film/molli-and-max-future?date=2024-02-14
​

​I am once again presenting  my Risky Business seminar for the New York Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts. However, this year the seminar will be in the form of an online webinar on Zoom. The seminar will be presented over two days, 3 hours each day. For those of you who have wanted to attend this seminar but could not come to New York, now is your chance to participate remotely.
 
This comprehensive seminar is for new attorneys, attorneys transitioning to entertainment law, and filmmakers. It explores how independent films are financed and produced.
 
Particular attention will be paid to how producers and filmmakers can protect themselves, including:
 
·       Criteria for selecting a distributor;
·       Investigating distributors;
·       Adding contract provisions and understanding terms;   
·       Dealing with investors, and more

Other topics will include compliance with state and federal laws regarding investors, retaining an attorney, producer's rep, and publicist, and confirming awards and enforcing judgments.

Participants will receive a 149-page detailed handout with a distribution contract, articles, forms and a self-defense checklist, as well as a 150 slide powerpoint of the presentation. 

This program is a two-day online seminar offering up to 6 Continuing Legal Education credits to attorneys.

Dates and Time:
Thursday, April 18, 2024   1 - 4:00 PM EST
Friday, April 19, 2024  1 - 4:00 PM EST

For more information and to register: VLA 

​Screenwriters should annotate their scripts to document the source of their work. A careful annotation will help a screenwriter defend against defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuits by showing that the writer acted carefully. Recall that when a public figure or public official sues for defamation they must prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice." Annotation shall specify the source of all script elements except those elements that are completely fictional and arise wholly from the writer’s imagination.  Script elements include characters, events, settings and dialogue.  Annotations are typically written in the margin of the script, or they are in the form of footnotes or endnotes to the text.

A continuity script is a script that conforms to the final cut of a film. Filmmakers will need a continuity script as a delivery item because for foreign sales in countries where English is not the primary language. It is  needed for the foreign buyer to create  a  foreign language version which will either be a sub-titled version or a dubbed version. An  annotated script is just a continuity script with notes on it and it will also help your lawyer clear the film and write a clearance letter which is often needed to obtain Errors and Omissions Insurance.  You can create a continuity script yourself or hire a company to create it for you.  If you just take the last draft of your script and conform it to the final cut, you will have a continuity script. 

Annotations should include the following information:

1. CHARACTERS: For each character note the following information:

      (a) Whether the character is a real person, a fictional or a composite character.

      (b) For real characters, whether the actual person is living or dead.

      (c) For composite characters, the name(s) of actual person(s) on whom the composite character is based, and what traits can be attributed to the real person(s).

2. SCENES: Note whether each script element portrays fact or fiction.

      (a) If fact or an inference from fact, describe the source material for script elements, including the following:

                (i) For books: title, author, publisher and page(s)

                (ii) For newspaper or magazine articles: title, author, publisher, date and page.

                (iii) For materials obtained from the Internet: author, title of article, web site address.  If material has been repurposed from another medium, note the title, author, publication etc. of the underlying work.

                (iv) For materials based on radio or television interviews or programs: date, time of broadcast, broadcast station or source, interviewer, program name.

                (v) For interviews: Name of subject, whether notes or tapes exist, reference to tape or transcript page number.

                (vi) For trial or deposition transcripts: the court or other forum, date, person testifying, and transcript page number.

                (vii) To the extent possible, multiple sources should be identified for each script element.

      (b) If a partly fact and partly fiction, indicate which portions are fact and which are fiction.  For factual parts, describe source material as specified in Paragraph 2(a) above.

3. MISCELLANEOUS:

      (a) Copies of reference materials referred to in annotations should be kept for at least five years after the film or program has been released. Materials should be cross-indexed by script page and scene numbers.

      (b) If margin annotations are coded to avoid repeated lengthy references, a key to such coding should be provided.

      (c) If a Writer's Guild member is asked to annotate a script, this request must be made at the outset of the assignment.

SCREENPLAY CHECKLIST

1) DERIVATIVE WORKS: If the screenplay is based on another work, a copyright report will need to be obtained to make sure all required rights have been obtained.  There must be a written agreement between the creator(s) of all materials, including quotations from copyrighted work, granting permission to use the material in the production.

2) DEPICTION RELEASES: Written releases are required from all persons who are recognizable or whose name, image or likeness is used, and if such a person is a minor, the release should be binding (which may require court approval).  If a subject is deceased, a release usually is not needed but may be required in some circumstances.  Releases are not needed if the recognizable person is part of a crowd or background shot and is not shown for more than a few seconds or given special emphasis.

3) RESEMBLANCE TO LIVING INDIVIDUALS: Where work is fictional, names of all characters must generally be fictional.  Take care to ensure that the names of fictional characters do not resemble the names of identifiable living individuals.

4) IDENTIFIABLE PRODUCTS: Where particular businesses, personal property or identifiable products are depicted, written releases must be obtained.  Releases are not necessary if property is non-distinctive background.

5) RELEASES: All releases must:

      (a)  give right to edit and modify material.

      (b)  right to fictionalize people portrayed.

      (c)  right to market production in all media and markets.

6) TITLE: Title report for title must be obtained setting forth prior uses of title.

7) DEFAMATION/INVASION OF PRIVACY: Material should not contain any material that constitutes defamation or an invasion of privacy.

8) MERCHANDISING: If you are planning on any merchandising spin-offs, make sure your actor agreements grant you the right to depict the actor in merchandising.
 

I was recently asked to write an article on film financing for LexisNexis, a leading publisher of legal information for lawyers. Practical Guidance is a next generation tool for lawyers with enhanced technology that provides legal know-how, practical information, and forms on numerous topics. 
 
 
 For those who subscribe to the service, you can review it at: Film Financing Overview.

Or read a copy here: Published Articles by Mark Litwak

Crowdfunding with Donations: Crowdfunding refers to the process of raising money to fund a project or business through numerous small contributors, often using an online platform or funding portal to solicit their investment. Because investing is film is such a risky endeavor, being able to spread that risk among many people  may substantially increase the amount of financing available for a film. Before the Jobs Act, crowdfunding could only be accomplished by seeking donations. Webportals  like Kickstarter and Indiegogo could help filmmakers raise such donations.  While those  who made a donation could not share in any profits, they  might receive  certain benefits, such a screen credit on the film, a poster, T-shirts or other swag.  
 
 Kickstarter
 
Indiegogo
 
Crowdfunding Investments:  With passage of the Jobs Act promoters are now able to offer a share of the profits in a project. This will likely encourage small investors who want to participate in film or other startup businesses, but can only afford to make a modest investment.
 
Funding portals are platforms that provide investors with information about investments being offered. These portals are designed to allow internet-based platforms or intermediaries to facilitate the offer and sale of securities without having to register with the SEC as brokers. Portals are required to register with the Commission and become a member of a national securities association (currently, FINRA). FINRA is an independent, non-governmental regulator for all securities firms doing business with the public in the United States. It is authorized by Congress to protect America’s investors by making sure the securities industry operates fairly and honestly.
 
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), after a long delay, adopted rules to permit companies to offer and sell securities through crowdfunding. The new Regulations for Crowdfunding are to implement the requirements of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (“JOBS Act”), enacted on April 5, 2012.
 
To qualify for equity crowdfunding one must meet specified requirements, including the following:  the amount raised must not exceed $5,000,000   in a 12-month period;  individual investments in all crowdfunding issuers in a 12-month period are limited to the greater of $2,500 or 5 percent of annual income or net worth, if annual income or net worth of the investor is less than $124,000; and 10 percent of annual income or net worth if annual income or net worth of the investor is $124.000  or more; and the funding portal must be registered and follow the rules that govern it. If you are an accredited investor, there are no limits on the amount you can invest.
 
For more information, see,  https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/ib-crowdfunding
 
One  can only invest in a Regulation Crowdfunding offering through an online platform, such as a website or a mobile app, of a broker-dealer or a funding portal.  Companies may not offer Regulation Crowdfunding investments to investors directly—they must use a broker-dealer or funding portal. 
 
A list of portals can be found at:  https://www.finra.org/about/firms-we-regulate/funding-portals-we-regulate
 
Companies that offer and sell securities to the public in reliance on an exemption from registration for securities-based crowdfunding must make filings on the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system  (EDGAR) which is  the primary system for companies and others submitting documents under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Company Act of 1940. This database provides free public access to corporate information, allowing you to research a public company’s financial information and operations by reviewing the filings the company makes with the SEC.  https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search-and-access
 
Unfortunately there are a lot of unethical persons attempting  to raise funds. To avoid fraudsters, counsel should conduct some due diligence.  There are ways to check on brokers  and promoters in addition to checking court records.
 
FINRA offers a website called BrokerCheck. BrokerCheck is a free tool to research the background and experience of financial brokers, advisers, and firms. BrokerCheck gives you a snapshot of a broker's employment history, regulatory actions, and investment-related licensing information, arbitration and complaints including a list of brokers that are barred by FINRA. The website is at: https://brokercheck.finra.org/
 

The United States Copyright Office concluded recently that art created exclusively by Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not copyrightable. Artists can attempt to register works made with the assistance of AI, but they must prove significant “human authorship.”

In February 2023, the Copyright Office determined that a graphic novel comprised of human-authored text combined with images generated by the AI service Midjourney constituted a copyrightable work, but that the individual images themselves could not be protected under copyright. The Copyright Office has taken the view that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity.

Applicants for registration have a duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in a work submitted for registration and to provide an  explanation of the human author’s contributions to the work. The Copyright Office  is in the midst of an initiative to examine the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence. The office has published a new bulletin on the issue  and set up a new webpage devoted to this topic: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/