Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Artificial intelligence (AI) technology is advancing exponentially and expected to dramatically change how companies operate on a global scale. Competitive pressures and advantages from AI optimization are driving business processes, and at times parts of entire industries, to increasingly rely on AI. Companies are dedicating more resources to developing, procuring, or acquiring AI tools and strategies to meet this need.
This has not escaped the attention of legislators and policymakers. This past year saw initial AI regulation models emerge, and 2023 promises to usher in a new wave of AI obligations for organizations. But despite the steady growth of global AI adoption, there is no comprehensive federal legislation on AI in the United States. Instead, the U.S. has a patchwork of various current and proposed AI regulatory frameworks. It is critical for organizations looking to harness this novel technology to understand these frameworks and to prepare to operate in compliance with them.
In Part One, last month, the authors addressed the industries most affected by AI, and began the discussion on U.S. federal and state regulations to expect in 2023. Part Two continues the discussion on potential federal AI regulation and what companies can do to prepare.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.