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
district court granted summary judgment for the Copyright Office in Thaler v. The much harder question of “how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as the ‘author’ of a generated work” was not before the court. Take the software industry. The District Court’s Reading of the Supreme Court.
Data Protection Authority powers: The European Court of Justice (CJEU) has ruled that Data Protection Authorities are not obliged to exercise corrective powers in the event of a breach. This includes products such as software, webcams and smart TVs. The German courts referred the interpretation of GDPR to the CJEU.
It was an audaciously mockable pivot…and yet, the district court judge shockingly bought the argument. Unfortunately, the court expresses this intuitively obvious result in a baroque, technical, and inaccessible opinion. The district court said the “website” was the chattel. ” That’s true.
by guest blogger Kieran McCarthy Many characterize the law of copyright preemption of contracts as a circuit split. But that undersells the level of inconsistency in courts’ interpretations of the law of copyright preemption. With that, any state or common law claim that is equivalent to copyright must therefore be preempted.
In my Internet Law course, I still teach the Pharmatrak case from 2003, where an analytics service provider used a pixel and other tracking technology. There are hundreds of pixel lawsuits in the courts right now (and surely more to come after a ruling like this). Note: the court cites Facebook v.
The software that underlies them might be protectable through copyright. And it’s not entirely clear yet whether courts will consistently enforce, as a writing, something as easy to do as click “I agree,” for example. And of course, if there are new goods and services, they might be protectable by trademark.
Not just that, it also provides information about courtlaws, constitutions and law review articles, etc. There are various law firm case management software available in the industry that offers integration with Fastcase. You can find information about the complex topics and law terms in the industry.
the developer of Reface, a deep fake software program, claiming the product violates California’s right of publicity law. In October 2023, actor Tom Hanks warned fans about a fake ad for dental services featuring a fabricated image of his likeness, stating, “I have nothing to do with it.”
We live in a country where a court of law recently ruled that the All Writs Act couldn’t compel Apple to unlock an iPhone belonging to an accused terrorists. So for example, you know, our mobile detection software was designed to prevent these kinds of instances from occurring. But it’s really a commercial decision.
Compensatory damages or damages between $200 and $1,000 are authorized for each unlawful sale, as are reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs. StateLaws Permitting but Regulating Collection and Use of Biometric Identifiers, including Facial Data. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. , See Vance v. Amazon.com Inc. ,
We live in a country where a court of law recently ruled that the All Writs Act couldn’t compel Apple to unlock an iPhone belonging to an accused terrorists. So for example, you know, our mobile detection software was designed to prevent these kinds of instances from occurring. But it’s really a commercial decision.
This federal law was designed to create a consistent standard in the regulation of electronic signatures in the US, as well as to help encourage cross-border transactions in certain circumstances (which are made easier when contracts and documents may be signed electronically). Are electronic signatures valid in court?
But, legal tech nerd that I am, I wondered how the draft would fare if I subjected it to the scrutiny of the legal editing software BriefCatch , which recently rolled out a new-and-improved version 3 of its product. It even counts several Supreme Court justices among its customers, according to founder Ross Guberman.
The plaintiffs asserted products liability and related claims against Snap, on the premise that Snap “is an inherently dangerous software product that Defendants deceptively advertise and promote in a way that facilitates sex crimes against children.” Citing Doe v. The claims against the app stores doesn’t do any better.
With the widespread availability of cheap software that can generate quality deepfakes , that may be about to change. Whereas in the early days of the technology, creating a deepfake required bespoke coding and took substantial time, it is now possible to create a convincing deepfake using inexpensive off-the-shelf software.
And these cameras are paired with software. And this is one that the US Supreme Court has recognized is not really a bright line, in the case called Carpenter vs. United States from 2018. And they basically operate at high speed. They take photos of every vehicle that passes within view. They record the license plate photo.
The court holds that Section 230 applies to the claims. ” The court responds that “Grindr’s match function relies on and publishes a user’s profile and geolocation data, which is third-party content generated by the user.” The court rejects Doe’s attempted Lemmon v. ICS Provider. Publisher/Speaker Claims.
The plaintiffs claim that IXL “collected and monetized the data of millions of school-age children who used the IXL platform without parental consent,” in violation of the ECPA and statelaw. In any case, the court easily rejects this argument. Unsurprisingly, the court denies IXL’s arbitration request.
Marathe argues judges and lawyers also need to be heavily educated on the latest developments in deep fake technology in order to counter their use in court. Regulations, laws and advanced detection technology are still lacking but urgently needed. States will likely pass a patchwork of laws to regulate AI-generated images.
Marathe argues judges and lawyers also need to be heavily educated on the latest developments in deep fake technology in order to counter their use in court. Regulations, laws and advanced detection technology are still lacking but urgently needed. States will likely pass a patchwork of laws to regulate AI-generated images.
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