Protecting Creativity: Copyright and Trade Marks Trends in Georgia’s Film and Music Industries

Over the past two decades, Georgia has experienced remarkable growth in the film and television industry, transforming the state into one of the nation’s leading production hubs and earning the state the nickname “Hollywood of the South.” Lured by attractive tax incentives, diverse landscapes, modern production studios, and a skilled local workforce, major studios and streaming platforms have increasingly chosen Georgia as the filming location for blockbuster movies, television series, and commercials. Example productions include Stranger Things, The Walking Dead, Will Trent, various Marvel movies, and other productions distributed on networks such as Netflix, Hulu, and Paramount.

At the same time, Georgia’s music industry has a deep and influential legacy, particularly in hip-hop, R&B, gospel, and country, with Atlanta recognised globally as a centre for music production and artist development. Together, these creative sectors underscore the importance of robust IP protections and shape Georgia’s identity as a leader in entertainment and artistic innovation. Protecting intellectual property can provide a strategic advantage for filmmakers, musicians, and businesses in Georgia’s thriving creative economy. As technology, markets, and legal landscapes evolve, informed approaches to copyright and trade mark law will remain essential.

Copyright Trends in Georgia for Film and Music

Given the strength of Georgia’s film and music sectors, copyright plays a fundamental role in protecting creative works. Copyright protections provide a vital framework that allows creators to maintain control over their intellectual property, giving creative works clear ownership and economic value. This framework supports not only individual artists, but also the broader ecosystem of producers, distributors, and investors who rely on predictable rights in order to finance, license, and distribute creative content.

As technology continues to evolve, the importance of copyright is becoming even more pronounced. With the expansion of digital platforms, the increasing ease of reproduction and distribution, and the growing use of creative works as inputs for new technologies, it is evident that there is increased pressure on traditional notions of ownership and control. Effective copyright protections ensure that Georgia’s artists do not lose control over their creations in these shifting environments, while likewise reinforcing the state’s ability to remain a leader in film, music, and creative innovation.

Copyright enforcement trends

As copyright enforcement mechanisms continue to evolve, many disputes are now resolved outside of the courtroom. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices and other platform-level enforcement tools increasingly serve as the first line of copyright regulation and enforcement, allowing rights holders to address infringement quickly. These mechanisms often resolve disputes before formal litigation becomes necessary and reflect how copyright enforcement operates in practice for many creators and rights holders.

Courts, on the other hand, frequently function as a backstop, stepping in when private enforcement tools are insufficient, ownership or authorisation is disputed, or when formal adjudication is necessary. Recent litigation demonstrates that judicial involvement remains essential to the copyright system, particularly in cases involving injunctive relief, licensing disagreements, and questions of authorship and control. Together, these trends highlight how enforcement has shifted, but not disappeared, with courts continuing to play a critical role in maintaining the stability and reliability of copyright protection.

The importance of copyright litigation is underscored by cases like Nealy v Warner Chappell Music, Inc., 60 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2023). In this case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a copyright claim allows plaintiffs to recover damages for infringement occurring more than three years before the lawsuit. This decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2024, clarified that the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations is a filing deadline, not a cap on damages, resolving a split among the Circuit Courts of Appeal. This highlights the critical role courts play in shaping copyright enforcement, ensuring that legal interpretations evolve alongside private enforcement mechanisms. By allowing full retroactive damages, the ruling increases defendants’ exposure and strengthens the settlement leverage for copyright owners, demonstrating the continued necessity of judicial involvement in the copyright system.

AI and copyright authorship

As copyright litigation adapts to new technologies, the field has moved from familiar disputes over ownership and infringement to harder questions at the frontier of authorship in the age of AI. For example, a recent decision has shown that an AI system cannot register a claim of copyright because it is not a human being.

In Thaler v Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), the DC  Circuit affirmed the Copyright Office’s denial of registration for an AI-generated artwork, holding that the Copyright Act requires human authorship. While AI-generated works cannot receive protection when the AI is listed as author, humans may still secure copyrights for AI-assisted works if they contribute sufficient creative input. The case represents the first federal appellate precedent specifically addressing AI authorship and reinforces the foundational principle that copyright protection requires human creativity and intellectual contribution.

Complementing that authorship principle, Lehrman v Lovo, Inc., 790 F.Supp.3d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) held that AI-generated voice outputs that mimic, but do not directly copy, copyrighted sound recordings fall outside of Section 144(b) of the US Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 114(b)) directed to the scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings, because the statute excludes “independent fixation of other sounds” used to “imitate or simulate” those in the copyrighted sound recording.

Legal uncertainty regarding voice misappropriation and AI-generated content

In Lehrman, the court differentiated the claim under the Copyright Act from potential claims under name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. It noted that although the plaintiffs did not present a valid copyright claim, they might still have remedies, such as voice misappropriation claims under state law. However, Georgia lacks specific statutory protection for voice misappropriation or AI-generated voice outputs under its NIL laws. The state’s right of publicity is governed by common law, which only covers “name and likeness” and does not explicitly include voice characteristics. No Georgia court has addressed voice misappropriation as a tort, leaving room for future court decisions which could significantly impact the film and music industries. The lack of voice protection in Georgia creates uncertainty for potential plaintiffs and businesses using AI voice synthesis technology, as legal standards are unclear and compliance is difficult to assess without specific legislative guidance.

Together, these rulings mark the first federal appellate precedent on AI authorship and an early district court blueprint for evaluating AI outputs that imitate without reproducing protected material, reinforcing that copyright’s core remains human creativity and delineating limits on liability for AI technologies. Moreover, in view of cases involving voice misappropriation, Georgia’s common law right of publicity appears to offer potential for growth and adaptation to modern advancements.

Trade Mark Trends in Georgia for Film and Music

In entertainment works, trade marks are vital for safeguarding artist names, band logos, production company identities, festival brands, and merchandise. These brands help audiences instantly recognise and connect with the source of creative offerings. Recent federal cases illustrate the frequent occurrence of trade mark disputes involving entertainment brands and services.

Trade mark protection in the entertainment industry

In Earth, Wind & Fire IP, LLC v Substantial Music Group LLC, 720 F.Supp.3d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 2024), the Court ruled in favour of Earth, Wind & Fire IP, LLC, finding that the defendants’ use of names like “Earth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion” constituted trade mark infringement under the Lanham Act. This decision underscores the importance of protecting trade marks to prevent consumer confusion and unauthorised associations with established brands. The Court emphasised that even tribute bands must avoid suggesting endorsement by the original artists without clear disclaimers, highlighting the necessity of robust trade mark protection to maintain the integrity and value of well-known brands in the creative sector. 

In Hara v Netflix, Inc., 146 F.4th 872 (9th Cir. 2025), the court applied the Rogers test, from Rogers v Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), to trade mark infringement claims under the Lanham Act involving expressive works. The Court held that the use of the plaintiff’s trade mark in an artistic work is protected under the First Amendment if it has some artistic relevance to the underlying work and is not explicitly misleading about the source or sponsorship. In this case, Netflix’s use of an animated drag queen background character and a recreated West Hollywood bar setting was deemed artistically relevant to the show’s plot and social commentary, satisfying the first prong of Rogers. This ruling underscores the balance between trade mark protection and free speech, clarifying that trade marks used in expressive content enjoy limited protection if they contribute artistically and do not mislead consumers. The case reiterates that trade mark owners must demonstrate either a complete lack of artistic relevance or explicit deception to succeed in infringement suits against expressive works under the Lanham Act.

Parody and trade mark law: limits and liabilities

Of note, parodies do not function as safe harbours, per se, for infringing another’s trade mark, as seen in VIP Products LLC v Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc., (D. Ariz. Jan. 23, 2025). Following remand from the Supreme Court, the District Court clarified that the Rogers v Grimaldi free-speech test does not protect a business when it uses another company’s trade mark as part of its own branding, even if the product is humorous or parodic. The Court held that VIP’s “Bad Spaniels” dog toy used Jack Daniel’s trade dress to identify source, so ordinary trade mark confusion and dilution rules applied instead of heightened First Amendment protection. Thus, parody in this case was not a safe harbour to use another’s mark to help sell a product. Rogers still matters when a mark appears incidentally in an expressive work (like a movie, book, or song), but once the mark is used on packaging, labelling, or marketing, courts will likely apply standard trade mark law ‒ and the risk of liability rises sharply.

The trade mark trial and appeal board (TTAB) as a venue

Along with the various methods for resolving copyright disputes, such as court litigation and DMCA takedown notices mentioned above, trade mark disputes can similarly be addressed through alternative means such as TTAB proceedings for disputes surrounding opposition to applications seeking registration of a trade mark and actions seeking cancellation of a registered trade mark. The TTAB serves as a vital venue for resolving trade mark disputes in the entertainment industry. For instance, in Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac v Cologne & Cognac Entertainment, 110 F.4th 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the case originated as an opposition to a hip-hop record label’s trade mark application. In Johns v Winners Circle Entertainment, Inc., 2025 WL 296541 (E.D.N.Y. 2025), opposition proceedings were initiated when defendants filed notices of opposition, citing a likelihood of confusion between the plaintiff’s music publishing marks and the defendants’ entertainment marks. These cases illustrate how the TTAB provides an effective forum for addressing trade mark conflicts without resorting to full litigation.

Copyright and Trade Mark Strategies

To effectively protect intellectual property rights in copyright and trade mark, entities should ensure proper registration and vigilant monitoring. Registering creative works with the United States Copyright Office and trade marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office strengthens enforcement rights and remedies.

For trade mark protection, selecting distinctive and memorable marks is crucial. These marks should clearly be used on or in connection with the entity’s goods or services, ensuring easy consumer association. While trade marks can be filed at both state and federal levels, entities aiming for national or global reach should pursue federal registration, as state trade marks offer limited protection.

Entities must actively monitor the marketplace for trade mark use and copyright distribution to address infringement promptly. Additionally, contracts and licensing agreements are essential for defining ownership, and how works and trade marks can be used in collaborations or commercial deals.

Looking Ahead

Georgia’s creative industries face exciting opportunities and evolving challenges when it comes to intellectual property. Not only will the growth of streaming and digital distribution impact the production and creativity for Georgia’s film and music industries, so will the increase in AI usage. The state’s continued focus on intellectual property awareness and support will be key to sustaining its competitive edge.