Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Pursuing AI Programmers and Third Parties over Alleged Rights Violations Caused by AI Software
It is often stated that the law lags behind technology. In the case of AI-related difficulties, however, the damages related to the use of artificial intelligence are not so revolutionary that all existing legal precepts must be abandoned and replaced with new legal principles or require completely new laws.
Each of the current AI cases, many involving creative content, have a common thread, namely when an AI caused harm, non-AI entities may be found to be responsible. This results from the fact that existing legal solutions are suitable for resolving AI-related legal difficulties.
Because AIs are capable of causing harm but cannot be a legal entity, they are not held accountable by court action. Several current and future possibilities exist to resolve AI difficulties. Current options involve identifying indirect liability (i.e., third-party responsibility for AI bad acts). These might include negligence per se, respondeat superior, vicarious liability, strict liability or intentional conduct. Future options include but are not limited to changing the law to make an AI a legal person (i.e., a corporation) and/or changing the law to make AI programing an ultra-hazardous activity (i.e., imposing strict liability).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
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.