This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The Court Opinion Greer was a target of one of Kiwi Farms’ attacks. “Kiwi Farms users provided a Google Drive link to a full copy of Mr. Greer’s book.” The district court dismissed the contributory claim because the defendants didn’t materially contribute to the infringement. CloudFlare’s block ).
There are two critically important cases over “social media addiction” pending in California state court and as an MDL in the federal Northern District of California. It is an all-out brawl in federal court, with no-expense-spared battles over each and every picayune litigation issue.
Supreme Court [FN]. Twitter won its decision unanimously, and the Supreme Court per curiam punted the Google case back to the 9th Circuit with the clear message that the plaintiffs should lose. The Supreme Court says that the term “aiding and abetting” in the statute should be interpreted using the common law.
Ochoa’s definitive analysis of the Supreme Court’s Warhol opinion. Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s ruling that the reproduction of Andy Warhol’s Orange Prince on the cover of a magazine tribute was not a fair use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photo of the singer-songwriter Prince, on which the Warhol portrait was based.
A: because they spend so much time in court proceedings). Protip: if you want to win in court, don’t self-describe as an “appropriation artist”). The court treats Ripps’ collection as competing against and putting downward price pressure on the original NFTs. Q: why are the apes so bored?
For the Fourth of July week, we thought we’d do something fun and probably a little weird. Greg spoke with an AI guest named Justis for this episode. Justis, powered by OpenAI’s GPT-4, was able to have a natural conversation with Greg and provide insightful perspectives on the use of generative AI in the legal industry, specifically in law firms.
[This is one of those opinions that is a slog to blog because the court’s statutory analysis made my head hurt. The first question the court must resolve is whether ringless voicemails qualify as “telephone calls” for purposes of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, which prohibits deceptive or abusive telemarketing practices.
Thus, the court says: “the steps a business would need to take to sufficiently estimate the age of child users would likely prevent both children and adults from accessing certain content. The age estimation and privacy provisions thus appear likely to impede the “availability and use” of information and accordingly to regulate speech.”
On May 11th, the court ruled on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss , granting in part and denying in part. On May 11th, the court ruled on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss , granting in part and denying in part. The court also held that plaintiffs were permitted to proceed pseudonymously. GitHub, Inc.
The professional/personal distinction remains hot for politicians using social media–that issue is headed to the Supreme Court). The court doesn’t endorse this test. The Court will also likely consider ‘control’ as a significant determining factor.”
With the CAS’s demise, both sides essentially bet that the courts would side with them. The appeals court rejected the vicarious claims but upheld the contributory claims. Vicarious Infringement The appeals court says that Cox lacked the requisite “direct financial interest” in subscribers’ infringements.
The district court said that the buyers who made their purchases on the website had to go to arbitration, but the buyers who made their purchases on their mobile devices could stay in court. The court says it’s immaterial that there is a potentially long time delay between user registration and the purchases.
Consistent with the CCB’s small claims court ethos, the case involved both a pro se claimant and respondent. Eight months after filing, the first two Copyright Claims Board (CCB) Final Determinations have been handed down. Mitrakos, 22-CCB-0035 , February 15, 2023, and Oppenheimer v. Prutton, 22-CCB-0045 , February 28, 2023.
This opinion is a companion to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision in Good v. The highest New York state court agrees. Consistent with this principle, courts have examined whether the offeree of a web-based contract was put on inquiry notice of the contractual terms.
And law firms that resist the impetus for change will risk failure. Businesses around the world continue to feel the pandemic’s impact in countless ways. Similarly, many private clients struggle to overcome hurdles related to limited access to technology or lack of funds. Times of crisis and uncertainty always present opportunity.
According to the US legal system, a frivolous lawsuit is by definition a legal claim with no facts or basis to support it, filed by an entity or individual who is well aware that it has no legal merit. Usually these types of claims are filed specifically for strategic reasons, and often even, dare we say— absurd. for everyone involved.
Key takeaways from October include: Employee monitoring: Following new guidance issued by the UK ICO, employers may want to review their existing employee monitoring to ensure it meets the regulator’s latest expectations, including ensuring that any monitoring is necessary, proportionate, and conducted transparently.
For the Fourth of July week, we thought we’d do something fun and probably a little weird. Greg spoke with an AI guest named Justis for this episode. Justis, powered by OpenAI’s GPT-4, was able to have a natural conversation with Greg and provide insightful perspectives on the use of generative AI in the legal industry, specifically in law firms.
The court treats this as a surprisingly easy Section 230 case and dismisses the case. By definition, Snap’s failure to remove CSAM distributed on Snapchat by third parties, and Apple’s and Google’s choice to allow Snapchat to remain available for download in their online stores, involve “reviewing. Next stop: the 9th Circuit.
By Rick Clark The Masters Conference for Legal Professionals in New York City hosted by Morgan Lewis LLP on July 24th was replete with insights on applying AI to eDiscovery, collecting and reviewing text and chat app data and information governance. This approach helps to tell the whole story while saving time and reducing costs.
Protecting Patent Rights: Failure to disclose inventions to the public, which is prevented by NDAs, can revoke patent rights. Non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, are critical in protecting sensitive information between contracting parties, especially during their business dealings.
Having manufactured the requirement of that the claim must be based on “particular” content to trigger Section 230, the court says none of the claims do that. ” I’d love for the court to explain how blocking users from contacting each other on apps differs from “content moderation.”
As a result, state legislatures, both red and blue, are producing a flood of Internet censorship laws will tie up the courts for years. Among other things, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments that legislatures could treat the Internet like telephony or broadcasting. The CDA essentially required websites to authenticate user age.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content