NYU JIPEL: Analyzing Media Law and Copyright in Automated Journalism

This essay examines the media law and copyright implications of automated journalism, drawing from an article in the New York University Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law (NYU JIPEL). It discusses how the increasing use of algorithms to generate news stories raises complex legal questions related to copyright infringement, defamation, and the application of existing legal frameworks to new technologies. The author reflects on the challenges courts face in addressing these issues due to the lack of clear precedents and the need for extensive interpretation. The essay further explores the debate over copyright protection for automated content, particularly concerning the conveyance of ideas and social messages, and considers the potential for inaccuracies in automated journalism to lead to legal liabilities. Referencing cases like Whelan Assos., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory and Baker v. Seldon, the analysis highlights the difficulties in applying established copyright principles to novel technological contexts, concluding that the rapid advancement of technology poses significant challenges for the legal system in safeguarding intellectual property and ensuring responsible media practices. Desklib offers this and other student-contributed assignments to aid in understanding these complex legal issues.

Running head: MEDIA LAW AND REGULATION
Media Law and Regulation
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
MEDIA LAW AND REGULATION
Through this Article I have understood the fact that technology in the field of journalism
has increased and the media organization are using such technology in a way which may be
unethical in relation to copyright and mass media law. I got an Idea that heavy data inputs are
being accomplished in the latest computer systems corresponding to stock prices and outputting
paragraphs of style that are being read as outdated stories. I came across that fact that via new
technologies, many programs have been implemented by the top media journalist outsources
inclusive of Bloomberg and the Associated Press for creating stories in some types of
perspectives. In my opinion the statement is correct as the situation is actually taking place
where various animated stories are created by the use of technology which may lead to
defamation and copyright law violation.
I have gained knowledge that such kind of technologies is a withdrawal from the old and
traditional type of print broadcasting recording it as it is not clear whether its consequences are
adequately addressed by the virtue of existing jurisprudence within the realm of copyright law
and mass media. In my opinion this is because the courts do not have to option of taking support
from present precedents and law as they do not directly deal with the situation. I came across a
statement of the article that regions of law for which the courts have technologically expanded
the resilient immaterial or intangible frameworks are made applicable in relation to new
technologies easily. However my opinion in relation to the statement is not the same. I do not
believe that courts are able to adequately address the issue in the light of lack of support
materials such as precedents available to them and have to indulge in rigorous interpretation to
address the issue.
I identified the issue that whether animated stories should be provided protection on not
as conveying “ideas” and “social messages” are an adequate for the courts to provide protection

2
MEDIA LAW AND REGULATION
under the first amendment. In addition there is an issue of false recording in relation to
automated journalism which in my opinion is a real issue as any flaw will result in inconsistent
output.
When it comes to copyright I came across the case of Whelan Assos., Inc. v. Jaslow
Dental Laboratory where it had been stated by the court that copyright ability in relation to blank
forms would be identified by the court if such forms innovative adequately and that their
planning of information are innovative itself. Although the court was able to address the issue in
relation to providing copyright to blank forms it had to set a new precedent and was not able to
take support from the existing. Thus I came to a conclusion that the increase of technology
makes it difficult for the court to address the issue of allowing or denying copyright in relation to
a particular work as it was also found by the court in the case of Baker v. Seldon. The only
disagreement I have with the Article is that I don’t find that it is easy for the courts to apply
resilient immaterial or intangible frameworks in relation to new technologies as the courts
currently are not well equipped.