Artificial Intelligence

Subscribe to Artificial Intelligence via RSS

On July 26th, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released its Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (the “Profile”),[1] laying out more than 200 suggested actions to mitigate the risks of generative artificial intelligence (“Gen AI”).  This Profile is a companion to NIST’s Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (the “Framework”), which was released in January of 2023.[2]  The Framework aims to act as a resource for entities dealing with all manner of Gen AI systems to help them manage risks and promote trustworthy and responsible development of AI.  The Profile is intended to be an implementation of the Framework, providing concrete steps to manage AI risks.  

As inventors, attorneys and patent examiners grapple with the impacts of AI on patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) has released guidance concerning the subject matter patent eligibility of inventions that relate to AI technology.[1]  The impetus for this guidance was President Biden’s Executive Order on Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, which directed the USPTO to issue guidance to patent examiners and applicants regarding patent subject matter eligibility in order to address innovation in AI and other critical and emerging technologies.  

On 2 July, the French data protection supervisory authority – Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) – launched a new public consultation on the development of AI systems. The public consultation is on (i) a new series of how-to sheets aimed at providing clarifications and recommendations with respect to seven issues related to the development of AI and data protection and (ii) a questionnaire on applying the GDPR to AI models trained with personal data. Below we set out a summary of the main takeaways.

1. Background: three years of legislative debate

Today, on July 12, 2024, EU Regulation No. 1689/2024 laying down harmonized rules on Artificial Intelligence (“Regulation” or “AI Act”) was finally published in the EU Official Journal and will enter into force on August 1, 2024.  This milestone is the culmination of three years of legislative debate since the EU Commission’s first proposal for a comprehensive EU regulation on AI in April 2021. [1]

This week, a federal court in Tennessee transferred to California a lawsuit brought by several large music publishers against a California-based AI company, Anthropic PBC. Plaintiffs in Concord Music Group et al. v. Anthropic PBC[1] allege that Anthropic infringed the music publishers’ copyrights by improperly using copyrighted song lyrics to train Claude, its generative AI model.  The music publishers asserted not only direct copyright infringement based on this training, but also contributory and vicarious infringement based on user-prompted outputs and violation of Section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for allegedly removing plaintiffs’ copyright management information from copies of the lyrics.  On November 16, 2023, the music publishers also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would require Anthropic to implement effective “guardrails” in its Claude AI models to prevent outputs that infringe plaintiffs’ copyrighted lyrics and preclude Anthropic from creating or using unauthorized copies of those lyrics to train future AI models. 

Late last month, the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released four draft publications regarding actions taken by the agency following President Biden’s executive order on AI (the “Order”; see our prior alert here)[1] and call for action within six months of the Order.  Adding to NIST’s mounting portfolio of AI-related guidance, these publications reflect months of research focused on identifying risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems and promoting the central goal of the Order: improving the safety, security and trustworthiness of AI.  The four draft documents, further described below, are titled:

There has been a push at the state and federal level to regulate AI-generated deepfakes that use the voices and likenesses of real people without their approval.  This legislative momentum stems from a series of high profile incidents involving deepfakes that garnered public attention and concern.  Last year, an AI-generated song entitled “Heart on My Sleeve” simulated the voices of recording artists Drake and The Weeknd.  The song briefly went viral before being pulled from streaming services following objections from the artists’ music label.  Another incident involved an advertisement for dental services that used an AI-generated Tom Hanks to make the sales pitch.  As AI becomes more sophisticated and accessible to the general public, it has raised concerns over the misappropriation of people’s personas.  In recent months, several states have introduced legislation targeting the use of deepfakes to spread election-related misinformation.  At the federal level, both the House and Senate are considering a federal right of publicity that would give individuals a private right of action.  At the state level, Tennessee has become the first state update its right of publicity laws targeted towards the music industry, signing the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (the “ELVIS Act”) into law on March 21, 2024, which takes effect July 1, 2024.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued guidance on February 13, 2024 (the “Guidance”) regarding the patentability of inventions created or developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence (“AI”), a novel issue on which the USPTO has been seeking input from various public and private stakeholders over the past few years.  President Biden mandated the issuance of such Guidance in his executive order on AI (see our prior alert here)[1] in October 2023.  The Guidance aims to clarify how patent applications involving AI-assisted inventions will be examined by patent examiners, and reaffirms the existing jurisprudence maintaining that only natural persons, not AI tools, can be listed as inventors.  However, the Guidance clarifies that AI-assisted inventions are not automatically ineligible for patent protection so long as one or more natural persons “significantly contributed” to the invention.  Overall, the Guidance underscores the need for a balanced approach to inventorship that acknowledges both technological advancements and human innovation.  The USPTO is seeking public feedback on the Guidance, which is due by May 13, 2024.

This week saw yet another California federal court dismiss copyright and related claims arising out of the training and output of a generative AI model in Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc.,[1]a putative class action filed on behalf of a group of authors alleging that OpenAI infringed their copyrighted literary works by using them to train ChatGPT.[2]  OpenAI moved to dismiss all claims against it, save the claim for direct copyright infringement, and the court largely sided with OpenAI. 

The rapid development of AI is introducing new opportunities and challenges to dispute resolution. AI is already impacting the document review and production process, legal research, and the drafting of court submissions. It is expected that the use of AI will expand into other areas, including predicting case outcomes and adjudicating disputes. However, the use of AI in litigation also bears risk, as highlighted by a recent First-tier Tribunal (Tax) decision, where an appellant had sought to rely on precedent authorities that, in fact, were fabricated by AI (a known risk with AI using large language models, referred to as hallucination).[1] While, in this particular case, no further consequences seemed to follow (in light of the fact that the appellant, a litigant in person, “had been unaware that the AI cases were not genuine and that she did not know how to check their validity”[2]), the Tribunal did highlight that “providing authorities which are not genuine and asking a court or tribunal to rely on them is a serious and important issue”,[3] suggesting that litigants may incur certain risks by relying on authorities suggested by AI, unless these are independently verified. On 12 December 2023, a group of senior judges, including the Master of the Rolls and the Lady Chief Justice, issued guidance on AI for judicial office holders, which, amongst other things, discourages the use of AI for legal research and analysis and highlights the risk of AI being relied on by litigants to provide legal advice and/or to produce evidence.[4]