A pending lawsuit raises an interesting copyright infringement question – does scraping an AI-generated database of job listings constitute copyright infringement?

In Jobiak v. Botmakers, Jobiak is an AI-based recruitment platform that offers a service for quickly and directly publishing job postings online and leverages machine learning technology to optimize third party job descriptions in real-time and generate an automated database for its job postings. Jobiak alleges copyright infringement (among other claims) because Botmakers scraped Jobiak’s proprietary database and subsequently incorporated its contents directly into its own job listings.Continue Reading Court to Decide Whether AI-scraped Job Database Is Subject to Copyright Protection and Is Infringed?

Is your M&A target a manufacturing company with automated production, a consumer products business with online sales and marketing or an education company that creates content for students? The increasing use and development of artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems and products, particularly generative AI, has created risks for businesses using such tools. AI plays a role in many industries and businesses whose products and services are not themselves AI. In the context of a M&A transaction, it is important to identify and allocate responsibility for these risks. Risks of AI may include: infringement (including through use of training data as well as outputs), confidentiality, IP ownership and protection (including limits on protection of IP generated by AI), regulatory (e.g., privacy, recent AI related legislation), and other risks arising from use such as indemnity obligations or managing contractor use of AI.Continue Reading M&A Transactions: Drafting AI Representations and Warranties for Non-AI Companies

According to published reports, George Carlin’s estate settled right of publicity and copyright claims relating to an AI-scripted comedy special using a “sound-alike” of George Carlin which performed the generated script. The special – “I’m Glad I’m Dead” – sought to reflect how Carlin would have commented on current events since his death in 2008. While most of the settlement terms are confidential, it is significant as one of the first resolutions of a case involving these issues. According to plaintiff’s lawyer, the defendants agreed to permanently remove the comedy special and to never repost it on any platform. They also agreed not to use Mr. Carlin’s image, voice or likeness on any platform without approval from the estate. There is no indication of whether the settlement included monetary damages.Continue Reading George Carlin Was Funny – Copying His Likeness AIn’t – Estate Settles AI-based Right of Publicity and Copyright Claims

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which works on establishing evidence-based international standards and develops advice on public policies, has issued updated recommendations (“Recommendation”) on responsible AI to reflect technological and policy developments, including with respect to generative AI, and to further facilitate its implementation.Continue Reading OECD Updates Guidance on Responsible AI

The development of AI continues to advance at a blistering pace, increasing the need for companies to employ AI governance and adopt policies for the responsible development and deployment of AI. While the term “responsible AI” is frequently used, it is rarely understood and often complex. Fortunately, a growing body of resources are becoming available to help companies understand and implement responsible AI. Two of the more recent resources are a set of publications by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) and Microsoft. These publications provide examples of efforts by these institutions to develop best practices for responsible AI development.Continue Reading Responsible AI – Everyone is Talking About it But What Is It?

We have now reached the 180-day mark since the White House Executive Order (EO) on the Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development of AI and we are seeing a flurry of mandated actions being completed. See here for a summary of recent actions. One of the mandated actions was for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to update its January 2023 AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), which it has now done. To this end, NIST released four draft publications intended to help improve the safety, security and trustworthiness of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and launched a challenge series to support development of methods to distinguish between content produced by humans and content produced by AI.Continue Reading NIST Updates AI RMF as Mandated by the White House Executive Order on AI

This is the second post in a two-part series on PrivacyCon’s key-takeaways for healthcare organizations. The first post focused on healthcare privacy issues.[1] This post focuses on insights and considerations relating to the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in healthcare. In the AI segment of the event, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) covered: (1) privacy themes; (2) considerations for Large Language Models (“LLMs”); and (3) AI functionality.Continue Reading Artificial Intelligence Highlights from FTC’s 2024 PrivacyCon

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell issued an advisory (“Advisory”) warning to developers, suppliers, and users of artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making systems (collectively, “AI”) about their respective obligations under the Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Act, Anti-Discrimination Law, Data Security Law and related regulations. There is not much surprising here, as the Advisory addresses many of the same issues raised in the White House Executive Order and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidance. It is helpful however in clarifying, for consumers, developers, suppliers, and users of AI systems, specific aspects of existing state laws and regulations that apply to AI and that these laws and regulations apply to the same extent as they apply to any other product or application within the stream of commerce.Continue Reading Massachusetts AG Says Consumer Protection, Civil Rights, and Data Privacy Laws Apply to Artificial Intelligence

Colorado is the latest state to introduce a bill focused on consumer protection issues when companies develop AI tools. The bill imposes obligations on developers and deployers of AI systems. Additionally, the bill provides an affirmative defense for a developer or deployer if the developer or deployer of the high-risk system or generative system involved in a potential violation: i) has implemented and maintained a program that complies with a nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence systems that the bill or the attorney general designates; and ii) the developer or deployer takes specified measures to discover and correct violations of the bill. The obligations imposed adhere to responsible AI policy, including adopting and documenting policies to avoid algorithmic discrimination, requiring transparency and documentation of the design, data and testing used to build AI tools, avoiding copyright infringement, marking and disclosing to consumers that the synthetic content output was generated by AI tools. The bill also requires disclosure of risks, notifications if the tool makes a consequential decision concerning a consumer and other disclosures.Continue Reading Colorado Introduces an AI Consumer Protection Bill

The USPTO issued guidance on February 6, 2024 that clarified existing rules and policies and discussed how to apply them when AI is used in the drafting of submissions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). As a follow up, the USPTO has now published additional guidance in the Federal Register on some important issues that patent and trademark professionals, innovators, and entrepreneurs must navigate while using artificial intelligence (AI) in matters before the USPTO. The guidance recognizes that practitioners use AI to prepare and prosecute patent and trademark applications. It reminds individuals involved in proceedings before the USPTO of the pertinent rules and policies, identifies some risks associated with the use of AI, and provides suggestions to mitigate those risks. It states that while the USPTO is committed to maximizing AI’s benefits, the USPTO recognizes the need, through technical mitigations and human governance, to cabin the risks arising from the use of AI in practice before the USPTO. The USPTO has determined that existing rules protect the USPTO’s ecosystem against such potential perils and thus no new rules are currently being proposed.Continue Reading USPTO Issues Additional Guidance on Use of AI Tools in Connection with USPTO Matters