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
Every browser software makes its own choices about how to render a page; every browser software “frames” every web page with its software features; and every browser software lets users configure the display in ways that affect website owners’ expectations.” That lawsuit also failed.
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). 20 years later, we’re still fighting over pixels and cookies.
Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act provides that “no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.” With that, any state or common law claim that is equivalent to copyright must therefore be preempted. Taco Bell Corp. , 3d 446 (6th Cir.
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.” Marriott * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–GG v.
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 so placing software and powerful surveillance systems into these communities, where police are already often omnipresent and looking for violations of the law, can really pour fuel on the fire of many of the policing problems we’re already trying to deal with in our communities.
Even though the legal system punished the wrongdoers, the lawsuits continue. The harm Doe alleges does not flow solely from the product software. Marriott * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–GG v. Craigslist * Facebook Loses Jurisdictional Ruling in Texas Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Facebook v.
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. IXL argued that parents ratified the TOS because they let their kids keep using the software. Implications.
States will likely pass a patchwork of laws to regulate AI-generated images. Sophisticated detection software will emerge but will not be equally available in all courts, raising issues of equity and access to justice. And the software can be found super easily. So it’s really approaching and click of a button technology.
States will likely pass a patchwork of laws to regulate AI-generated images. Sophisticated detection software will emerge but will not be equally available in all courts, raising issues of equity and access to justice. And the software can be found super easily. So it’s really approaching and click of a button technology.
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