This is the second part of our four-part series on the EUIPO study on GenAI and copyright. Read parts 1, 3, and 4.
In this second part of our four-part series exploring the EUIPO study on GenAI and copyright, we set out our key takeaways regarding GenAI inputs, including findings on the evolving interpretation of the legal text and data mining (TDM) rights reservation regime and existing opt-out measures.
This is the first part of four-part series on the EUIPO study on GenAI and copyright. See here for
A bipartisian bill, the Leadership in Critical and Emerging Technologies Act (“Leadership in CET Act”), was recently introduced to Congress
Last week a Georgia state court granted summary judgment in favor of OpenAI, ending a closely watched defamation lawsuit over false information—sometimes called “hallucinations”—generated by its generative AI product, ChatGPT. The plaintiff, Mark Walters, is a nationally syndicated radio host and prominent gun rights advocate who sued OpenAI after ChatGPT produced output incorrectly stating that he had been accused of embezzlement in a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”). Walters is not, and never was, a party to that case.
On March 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the lower court’s decision
The following is part of our annual publication Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2025. Explore all topics or download the PDF.
Deployment of generative AI expanded rapidly across many industries in 2024, leading to broadly increased productivity, return on investment and other benefits. At the same time, AI was also a focus for lawmakers, regulators and courts. There are currently 27 active generative AI litigation cases in the U.S., nearly all of which involve copyright claims. Numerous state legislatures have mulled AI regulation, and Colorado became the first and only state thus far to pass a law creating a broad set of obligations for certain developers and deployers of AI.
For some time, the EU has been contemplating the introduction of a new Directive to make it easier for consumers to bring claims for a range of alleged harms caused by AI systems, commonly referred to as the AI Liability Directive (the “AILD”).
On 5 September 2024, the EU, UK and US joined seven other states[1] in signing the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (“Treaty”) – the first international treaty governing the safe use of artificial intelligence (‘‘AI’’).[2] The Treaty remains subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by each signatory and will enter into force on the first day of the month following a period of three months after the date on which five signatories, including at least three Council of Europe member states, have ratified it. Any state worldwide is eligible to join the Treaty, subject to the unanimous approval of the signatories, and to commit to complying with its provisions. The Treaty is expected to have a positive impact on international cooperation on addressing AI-related risks.
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.