Category:Intellectual Property
Own Thyself: IP and competition issues in modern Name Image and Likeness claims
Name. Image. Likeness. Three words which, when taken together, evoke increasingly complex meanings. Recently, a number of high profile cases have spotlighted the growing concerns over the meaning and implications of “self” ownership, a concept traditionally lying at the intersection of intellectual property and tort law, connections to privacy law, as well recently implicated issues of antitrust-competition and emerging technology (i.e. AI) regulation.
In an ever-evolving and interconnected technological landscape, issues of Name Image and Likeness (NIL) reveal broad and far reaching implications for today’s courts and regulators. From the scope of traditionally limited contracts to licensing to perpetual ownership and indefinite use, state regulation and limited judicial decisions may finally prove insufficient for the task at hand. However, new applications combined with time-tested legal tools may help even the playing field, both by protecting competition and preventing exploitation.
Recent cases in the sports and entertainment industries (NCAA and SAAG-AFTRA) validate the importance of modern-regulation as a supplement to less-than-binding jurisprudence. While U.S. federal agencies have expressed interest and states have individually taken important steps toward governing NIL controversies, countries like England, France, Spain, Italy and Germany offer clear, robust protections, benefits which U.S. lawmakers and regulators should carefully consider.
The “Fix” Feels Confusing: The USPTO’s New Bifurcated Process for Patent Reviews
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently changed how it decides whether to move forward with patent challenges known as inter partes reviews (IPRs). Instead of a single panel deciding both discretionary and merit questions, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart (Stewart) created a bifurcated, two-step process. First, the Director decides whether to deny a case based on discretionary factors. If the case is approved, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel will then evaluate the merits.
Although designed to streamline review and manage workload, the new system has instead generated conflicting guidance and expanded discretion. Some of the new factors tend to favor patent owners, while others favor petitioners. Without clearer guidance, both sides are left uncertain: patent owners cannot reliably gauge whether their rights will hold, and petitioners cannot predict when their challenges will be heard. Clearer instruction should be given by the USPTO.
AI Copyright Conundrum: An Evolving Legal Landscape
The objective of copyright law is to protect certain rights of a human author. But what happens when a nonhuman author creates something that is original, fixed, and has a minimal degree of creativity? Well, in the wild case of Naruto v. Slater, animals cannot have copyright protection in a “Monkey selfie.” As the technological world advances, the latest dispute that has everyone going bananas is AI and copyright protection. The Copyright Office will not register works “produced by a machine or mere mechanical process” such that there is no creative input from a human author because this kind of protection goes against the objective of copyright law.