This is the third part of our four-part series on the EUIPO study on GenAI and copyright. Read parts 1, 2, and 4.
This third part of the four-part series offers four key takeaways on GenAI output, highlighting critical issues around retrieval augmented generation (RAG), transparency solutions, copyright retention concerns and emerging technical remedies.
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.
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 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.
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.
Quantum technology is seen as having the potential to revolutionize many aspects of technology, the economy and society, including the financial sector. At the same time, this technology represents a significant threat to cybersecurity, especially due to its potential to render most current encryption schemes obsolete.