Tag: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.
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.
Who has ownership rights to AI generated content?
ChatGPT, like other generative AI technology, relies on what it’s “fed” when “spitting out” responses or data. For example, if ChatGPT briefs a case for a law student, this is because someone inputs all the relevant information into ChatGPT at an earlier time. If someone asks ChatGPT to brief that same case and another case in one response; the software would take the one case’s information from the place it was provided, and combines it with the information found in the other place where the second case was found. All in all, ChatGPT is limited in response to what it has been “told” at an earlier time. Think something like a Parrot. Parrots are well known as a species of bird that can repeat the sounds and words that someone says in their vicinity.
Whatever happens in Vegas, will not stay in Vegas – Casino Cyberattacks
On September 11th, 2023, a cyberattack flooded the front pages of publications around the world- MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment were the victims of a costly incident. Patrons looking to enter their hotel rooms, go for another spin on the slot machines, or use casino rewards, were appalled at the persistent error messages that kept disrupting them from doing so. The breach had lasted over a week without a concise and strong end to the damage, leaving travelers vulnerable. It is customary that companies seek to find the culprit of the breach, deplete its ability to do more damage, and inform patrons of their safety being returned, and this proactiveness was missing.
Legal Risks to Employers when Employees use ChatGPT
Since ChatGPT became public in November 2022, it has created questions for employers about how to incorporate the tool into workplace policies and best maintain compliance with government regulations. This artificial intelligence language platform, that is trained to interact conversationally and perform tasks, raises issues regarding intellectual property risks, inherent bias, data protection, and misleading content.
International Business Travel Comes with Potential Data Risks
The economic rebound seen in the last decade has resulted in a substantial increase in business travel, both foreign and domestic. Increasingly complex global supply chains are necessitating that business leaders travel the world in order to expand their businesses and forge valuable new partnerships. Unfortunately, this increase in travel also presents an increased risk for the theft of proprietary or confidential information.
Trump Administration and American Companies Challenge Chinese Regulation Regarding Intellectual Property
Chinese foreign investment policies have long favored investments that bring the country technological advances from foreign companies. In recent years, China has increasingly developed policies which force foreign companies to share their intellectual property with China and to allow Chinese companies to conduct business with the foreign country China has backed off their previous requirements to transfer such information in an attempt to meet the requirements of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) since joining the organization in September of 2001. Evidenced by President Donald Trump recently signing a directive to initiate an investigation into Chinese trade practices regarding the attainment of intellectual property from foreign companies, many companies and trade organizations believe that China is not adequately protecting intellectual property rights of foreign companies.