Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
[Editor's Note: This article analyzes the copyright infringement case that The New York Times filed over OpenAI software shortly after our article "Keeping Track of Developments in Cases That Pit Creative Content Against AI Programs" was filed for our January 2024 issue.]
The New York Times' copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft is said to be AI's "Napster Moment." But observers are torn about the case's legal merits, citing differing views around how exactly AI "Large Language Models" (LLMs) are trained.
The New York Times sued the poster child of AI startups OpenAI and its partner Microsoft for copyright infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. While it is not the first content creator to do so, the NYT lawsuit has captured much attention for being, by some observers' estimation, the strongest copyright action against OpenAI yet.
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?