Fascinating. I know lawyers have been discussing legal personhood for AIs for a long time, but I'm not sure I understand why. Maybe it's an extreme position to take, but I’m not sure I see a logical distinction between a GenAI and, say, the Quicksort algorithm. Or, to make it more interesting, we could make the comparison be with some non-deterministic or probabilistic algorithm.
[I wrote much more, but LinkedIn won't let me post a long reply]
I feel like this part of the argument must have been made already (perhaps it is in previous US Supreme Court ruling mentioned in the paper, which I didn’t look up): perhaps it is easily refuted in a way I cannot see. But to me it seems to challenge the premiss of AI agency. Calling it ‘AI’ seems dangerous, because it seems to connote something which is still, at its heart, an algorithm. That is not to exclude the possibility that this is what all of us are – but this is, again, an entirely different argument.
Kicked off Punchbowl News 2024 editorial events this morning with a deep dive on #AI policy with Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) at the recently opened Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center.
Top takeaways:
1️⃣ The knowledge gap is real: While lawmakers are trying to get up to speed, Sen. Warner acknowledged that the more he studies the less he is sure he understands.
2️⃣ Sen. Young said he could see action at the committee level as soon as March and April on specific policy areas. Likely committees of jurisdiction will focus on updating IP, copyright, etc.
3️⃣ This is one of the few policy areas where both lawmakers said it is bipartisan / nonpartisan. The debate will likely focus on the past vs. the future and how lawmakers engage.
Reading this Outsell piece, I was so proud of what we've been working so hard on here at CCC for the last year and a half. As this excerpt highlights, although this particular solution is focused on internal reuse of content, it sends a strong message to AI companies, the government, and the court system, that the market can and should respond to the need for respecting copyright in the context of AI.
"By limiting its scope to internal use, the new CCC license, while promising, remains relatively restricted. This is somewhat analogous to the limitations on photocopying rights when a corporation buys a photocopier, as additional permissions are often needed for copying copyrighted material. However, it serves as a clear signal that CCC believes copyright licenses are essential when using copyrighted content with AI systems – an argument that not everyone will agree with. [Like OpenAI!] If CCC succeeds in this argument, then its new collective AI license is set to be the beginning of a broader shift towards standardized copyright licensing in the AI space."
Director, Rightsholder Relations at Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)
I think this Outsell, Inc. piece by Hugh Logue really captures the urgent need for, and value of, collective licensing for AI. I couldn't agree more with his Essential Actions- these are some of the most interesting (and challenging!) conversations happening in publishing today. Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) is proud to be leading the market with the AI expansion of our Annual Copyright License, and we look forward to more developments in this area over the next 6 months.
Check out this fantastic piece and feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss CCC's offering in more depth. I will also be available to meet at Frankfurt Book Fair, Charleston, and STM Week London in the next several months, so please drop me a line if you'd like to set something up!
Congratulations to Cooley partner Bobby Ghajar for being included on the Los Angeles Business Journal's Top 100 Lawyers 2024 list, which recognizes and honors the achievements of top lawyers in the LA business community. Ghajar was noted for his work as a trial attorney at the forefront of generative AI copyright litigation, including his work representing Meta Platforms.
👉 Read the full report at the link below.
For more AI resources and to see the team's full capabilities in this evolving space, visit our #CooleyAI page here: https://bit.ly/CooleyAI#AI#artificialintelligence#IP#generativeAI#intellectualproperty
Partner Kate Cassidy and Counsel Anjali Dalal authored the article titled, "AI Litigation Spotlight: 'NYT v. OpenAI'" for the New York Law Journal.
Kate and Anjali discuss New York Times Co. v. Microsoft, No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y), a copyright litigation case concerning generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Kate and Anjali analyze the dispositive motions that have been filed and discuss what to expect with this case moving forward.
To read the article, click here
To read the article, click here: https://lnkd.in/e6GFEEUj#intellectualproperty#intellectualpropertylitigation#GenAI#artificalintelligence
Hi connections.
I'm thrilled to share our latest research milestone!
My friend, Lakshya Joon, and I have coauthored a comprehensive paper exploring the intricate landscape of Copyright and Patent Issues Related to AI-Generated Content.
Published on Indian Journal of Legal Research and Review (IJLRR) , our paper delves into the evolving legal challenges posed by AI-driven creations, sparking crucial conversations on the intersection of technology and intellectual property.
Join us in unraveling the complexities of safeguarding intellectual rights in the era of artificial intelligence! 🚀🔍 #AI#Copyright#PatentIssues#ResearchPaper#IIJLR#TechLaw#InnovationInsights
The nascent litigation issues over AI, both IP and other issues, surely are fastinating. How does it impact the market for a copyrighted work if its essence can be extracted by training an AI with it without accreditation or compensation?
Partner Kate Cassidy and Counsel Anjali Dalal authored the article titled, "AI Litigation Spotlight: 'NYT v. OpenAI'" for the New York Law Journal.
Kate and Anjali discuss New York Times Co. v. Microsoft, No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y), a copyright litigation case concerning generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Kate and Anjali analyze the dispositive motions that have been filed and discuss what to expect with this case moving forward.
To read the article, click here
To read the article, click here: https://lnkd.in/e6GFEEUj#intellectualproperty#intellectualpropertylitigation#GenAI#artificalintelligence
Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024
A new piece of US legislation is described as a Bill "To require a notice be submitted to the Register of Copyrights with respect to copyrighted works used in building generative AI systems, and for other purposes."
Paragraph 1 of the Requirement provides that a person who creates or alters a training dataset; including significant update or refinement and retraining thereof; where the said data is used to build a generative AI system; a notice shall be submitted to the Register. This notice should contain a detailed summary of copyright works used in training and refinement, inclusive of the dataset URL. The Bill includes a 30 period for submitting the notice, prior to the AI product being made available to the public. Failure to comply with the full provisions of the Bill will result in a fine of not less than USD 5000. The foregoing is a broadly construed snippet of the contents of the Bill; Read the full Bill in the comments below.
If you want to stay up-to-date with us, follow our Page.
📢 Join Me for a Seminar on Copyright and AI!
Hi everyone,
I’m thrilled to invite you to my seminar on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence in collaboration with #JCINiš.
🗓 Date: June 22, 2024
📍 Location: DELI prostor, Davidova 2a, Niš, Serbia
Explore the legal nuances of AI and copyright with me. Whether you're a legal expert, tech enthusiast, or curious learner, this seminar will offer valuable insights.
🔗 Apply via the link in the comments.
Hope to see you there!
#CopyrightLaw#ArtificialIntelligence#LegalSeminar#JCINiš#NišEvents
📢 Seminar Alert: Copyright and Artificial Intelligence! 🚀
We are thrilled to announce that Milica Čučković, founder of ČUČKOVIĆ LEGAL, will be delivering an insightful lecture on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence. This event is in collaboration with #JCINiš and will take place on June 22, 2024, at DELI prostor, Davidova 2a, Niš, Serbia.
Join us for this exciting journey into the intersection of legal frameworks and cutting-edge AI technology. Don’t miss out on this opportunity to deepen your understanding of copyright issues in the AI era!
📅 Date: June 22, 2024
📍 Location: DELI prostor, Davidova 2a, Niš, Serbia
🔗 Interested in attending? Find the application link in the comments below.
#CopyrightLaw#ArtificialIntelligence#LegalSeminar#MilicaČučković#ČUČKOVIĆLEGAL#JCINiš#NišEvents#LegalInsights#AIandLaw
Experienced IP, patent, and trademark attorney with a focus on IP portfolio management along with patent preparation and prosecution; joint inventor; product developer; Member at Norris McLaughlin P.A.
https://lnkd.in/esqTCvSX
We are looking forward to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's upcoming free Public Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property scheduled for Mar. 27, 2024 @ 10AM-3PM PT. Hopefully this symposium sheds some additional light on recent develops within the IP field regarding both AI and emerging technologies. The topics to be discussed include comparisons between copyright & patent law with respect to authorship and inventorship requirements, ongoing copyright litigation involving generative AI along with the laws/policy considerations surrounding name, image, and likeness issues.
You can register for this event via the link below:
https://lnkd.in/dGGbvpmS
Fascinating. I know lawyers have been discussing legal personhood for AIs for a long time, but I'm not sure I understand why. Maybe it's an extreme position to take, but I’m not sure I see a logical distinction between a GenAI and, say, the Quicksort algorithm. Or, to make it more interesting, we could make the comparison be with some non-deterministic or probabilistic algorithm. [I wrote much more, but LinkedIn won't let me post a long reply] I feel like this part of the argument must have been made already (perhaps it is in previous US Supreme Court ruling mentioned in the paper, which I didn’t look up): perhaps it is easily refuted in a way I cannot see. But to me it seems to challenge the premiss of AI agency. Calling it ‘AI’ seems dangerous, because it seems to connote something which is still, at its heart, an algorithm. That is not to exclude the possibility that this is what all of us are – but this is, again, an entirely different argument.