Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
LOVO, an artificial intelligence company focused on voice generation, has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with the plaintiff voice actors arguing they have not been properly compensated for the use of their voices. Lehrman v. LOVO Inc., 1-24-cv-03770.
The law firm Pollock Cohen represents the plaintiffs in the suit, who say they did not know the defendant AI company LOVO, based in Berkeley, would be using their voices in its generated voice services and did not consent to such use.
One plaintiff, Paul Lehrman, was paid $1,200 through the freelance website Fiverr for voice recordings and was told the work would be used only for "research purposes," according to the complaint. The other plaintiff Linnea Sage was paid $400 through Fiverr and was told her recordings were "test scripts for radio ads," also according to the complaint.
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
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
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.