Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInArchives
Categories
- Attorney Client Privilege
- Electronic Health Records (“EHR")
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
- Data Privacy
- Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act
- Government shutdown
- Federal Communications Commission
- FTC
- AI
- Freedom of Speech
- Social Media Policies
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Social Media
- Copyright License
- Collegiate Athletics
- e-commerce
- Online Privacy
- Streaming
- Contract
- Name, Image, and Likeness
- Publicity Rights
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Audit
- Closely Held Businesses
- Copyright
- Employment Law
- Independent Contractors
- Intellectual Property
- Work for Hire
Showing 4 posts in AI.
Claude Isn't Your Lawyer, and the Information You Share with It Isn't Privileged
Generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools like Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini are heavily relied on by people in everyday life. In a lot of ways, they have replaced Google or other general search engines. It is no surprise, therefore, that people now turn to these same tools to answer legal questions. Sometimes those questions are personal and contain facts and information that the person would not share with anyone but an attorney. They may be admissions of guilt or liability or even information that suggests future wrongdoing, and when shared with a person’s attorney, they are privileged. The other side in a legal proceeding does not have any rights to privileged information, but is that the case where the information is submitted to generative AI tools? An answer is beginning to emerge, and it should give all who use these tools pause: prompts and questions submitted to generative AI tools are not privileged. Other parties involved in future litigation and even the police or investigative bodies can likely read everything submitted to those online tools, which are quickly becoming a trap for the unwary. 
More >
Can AI-Generated Work Be Copyrighted? New Guidance from the Copyright Office Provides Clarity
In January 2025, the Copyright Office released Part 2 of its regulatory guidelines on copyright protection and artificial intelligence (AI). Part 1 of the report, which addressed the legal and policy issues related to AI and copyright, was released on July 21, 2024. Part 2, titled "Copyrightability," focused on the statutory requirement that a work must be created by "human authorship" and examined whether this requirement is met when works contain elements generated by AI. More >
Is a Text Prompt in AI Software the Same as a Brushstroke to a Canvas? The Copyright Office Thinks Not.
On September 26, 2024, Jason Allen sued the Copyright Office in Colorado over the Copyright Office’s 2022 refusal to register “his” work entitled “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial.” 1:24-cv-02665. The “his” in the preceding sentence is not my cynicism about Mr. Allen’s authorship of the work; it is simply the open question that can be objectively argued either way. Mr. Allen says it is his. The Copyright Office determined it is not. More >
No, Google, I Don’t Want You to Write My Letter
The 2024 Olympics have come to a close, and as we all look back on the memories made and records set in Paris (and Tahiti, of course!), I can’t help but focus on a commercial that irritated me to no end. The commercial promoted Google’s Gemini AI technology by featuring a proud father working with his impressionable daughter, who the ad tells us was looking up to track star Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone. The doting but modest father explains that his daughter “wants to show Sydney some love (by writing a letter), and I’m pretty good with words, but this has to be just right. So Gemini: Help my daughter write a letter telling Sydney how inspiring she is, and be sure to mention that my daughter plans on breaking her world record one day.” More >
