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
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 age estimation and privacy provisions thus appear likely to impede the “availability and use” of information and accordingly to regulate speech.” [Sorry it’s take me this long to get this blog post off my desk. I hope it was worth the wait.] their website).
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.
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. Step Two: The CCB does a compliance review of the filed claim to determine if the claim qualifies for the CCB. Let’s take a look.
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.
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 does not persuade the judge: the Court must treat Defendants as publishers or speakers, regardless of how their claims are framed, because their theories of liability plainly turn on Defendants’ alleged failure to monitor and remove third-party content. To get around Section 230, the plaintiffs attempted the Lemmon v.
Given the breadth of this definition, a wide variety of automated tools will likely be covered by this law, even if they do not employ true AI, including many game-based tests and some resume review tools and automated personality assessments. leverage predictive algorithms to support hiring. What Does the AEDT Require?
” I don’t know what “particular” third-party content means, but the statute doesn’t support any distinction based on “particular” and “non-particular” third-party content. .”
but limited to commercial websites and with tighter definitions of the restricted content. Many recent laws essentially mirror the “protect the kids online” initiatives of the 1990s and early 2000s, all of which failed as unconstitutional. 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