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
In advocating for change, we must consider the on-the-ground reality: that very few cases so far have been impacted by deepfake allegations, but that the cases that do exist show staggeringly inconsistent results. This blog post presents an overview of existing examples of judges responding to allegedly deepfaked evidence. In Huang v.
A case brief is a summary and analysis of a judicial opinion. These are often used as a study aid in law school, but they can be used by practicing attorneys to better understand the implications of caselaw. Unlike legal briefs , case briefs are not submitted to the court or opposing counsel.
law to add supporting caselaw. In the legal field, this can manifest as fabricated caselaw, incorrect citations, or misleading summaries of legal principles. Being honest and forthcoming about the use of AI in generating the case citations; ?Paying Mr. Ayala had uploaded the motion onto MX2.law
Predictive analytics for law firms is the use of AI and other digital technology to predict the likelihood of outcomes in legal proceedings. These predictions are based on analysis of large datasets, often including judicial decisions, court filings, caselaw, and other legal data.
But the rise in dupes has brought a corresponding rise in dupe lawsuits, or at least lawsuits that offer up defendants’ or consumers’ use of the term “dupe” as evidence of confusing similarity or intent to deceive. At the same time, this lawsuit seems to have inspired a lot of interest—in the Costco products.
In any case, Lerner & Rowe cited a case from 2000 on this factor, and the court swats it away as outdated (“that may have been true over twenty years ago when internet advertising was new”). The defendant displayed its own trademark in the ad copy, not the plaintiff’s, so the marks were dissimilar.
by guest blogger Kieran McCarthy With as much scraping as is happening for AI training and enhancement these days, it’s amazing to me that there aren’t more lawsuits happening over scraping. Further, as Kieran notes, the TTC harm statement is also pretty weak in light of the Hamidi standard. __ Two other noteworthy points about this lawsuit.
17] As to AI developers’ second argument, the same Southern District of New York court concluded that defendants could potentially be liable since they “possessed far more than a ‘generalized knowledge of the possibility’ of third-party infringement” given that “copyright infringement was ‘central to [defendants’] business model.’” [18] B.
The caselaw in the Ninth Circuit — the other appellate circuit central to developing copyright law, especially regarding new technologies — seems to support the Seventh Circuit’s majority approach. However, it was sometimes not as clear as the caselaw of other circuits. A third approach?
For any lawyer defending a client in a lawsuit, they require the ability to utilize a powerful tool in their arsenal–the motion to dismiss. By seeking to dismiss a case early in the litigation, you can potentially prevail without the trouble of full-blown discovery and a trial. What is a motion to dismiss? In some U.S.
Neither Time nor BuzzFeed was named as a defendant. The legislative history also expressed an intent to retain existing caselaw on vicarious liability of a principal for the acts of its agents, including independent contractors. (See the screenshot on the right). 94-1476 , at 61 (1976). 94-1476, at 159-60. 3d at 593. [To
It’s that every new case related to the law of copyright preemption of contracts leaves lawyers with a potential new set of arguments to defend or argue against with the law of copyright preemption. Based on my reading of the caselaw, the Fourth and Eighth Circuits broadly follow this approach. Verio, Inc.
Since the implementation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) 18 months ago, more than 75 lawsuits have been filed seeking damages using the Act’s private cause of action. The Defendant has filed a second motion to dismiss following the Plaintiff’s filing of a second amended complaint. At least one lawsuit seeks to do this.
Motion for Summary Judgment A motion for summary judgment is a legal request that one party makes in a lawsuit. Research the Law To file the legal motion, you will have to conduct strong legal research. This research will help in identifying relevant statutes, rules, caselaws, and precedents that support your arguments.
While medical malpractice generally does not lead to criminal charges, it can result in a lawsuit against a healthcare provider. The Medical Malpractice Law Center in the Justia Legal Guides describes many of the forms that malpractice can take. These cases tend to involve greater complexities than ordinary personal injury cases.
Or am I defending the deposition? Are you defending the deposition? And so the use case that I used that I showed in LinkedIn is I gave GPT Table of Contents appropriately for the open AI lawsuit that’s going on right now, open AI is being sued by a bunch of coders. So that’s what the lawsuit is.
To fully understand these conflicting views of the majority opinion, it is necessary to understand both the specific facts of the case and the history of the Supreme Court’s caselaw concerning the fair-use doctrine. In April 2017, it filed a lawsuit against Goldsmith and her agency (now known as Lynn Goldsmith, Ltd.,
But this does not detract from the established caselaw broadly construing the substantive protection afforded by section 230 The court ends emphatically: “the protection accorded by section 230 is broad and under well established caselaw, it bars the instant lawsuit against Twitter.” Twitter, Inc.
You would recognize several of the defendants’ names as frequent sources of misinformation and lies. This post focuses only on one corner of the lawsuit. ” That interpretation of Section 230 is obviously wrong, and the appeals court simply replies that “caselaw from other jurisdictions is uniformly to the contrary.”
I’m still blogging Section 230 cases as I see them, even though these posts are likely to have only historical value. ] * * * The court summarizes the horrifying allegations: In April 2022, Defendant Bendjy Charles (“Charles”) and Romelus raped Plaintiff. Is OnlyFans an ICP?
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