Tracking The Slow Movement Of AI Copyright Cases; Law360, November 7, 2024

Mark Davies and Anna Naydonov , Law360; Tracking The Slow Movement Of AI Copyright Cases

"There is a considerable gap between assumptions in the technology community and assumptions in the legal community concerning how long the legal questions around artificial intelligence and copyright law will take to reach resolution.

The principal litigated question asks whether copyright law permits or forbids the process by which AI systems are using copyright works to generate additional works.[1] AI technologists expect that the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve these questions in a few years.[2] Lawyers expect it to take much longer.[3] History teaches the answer...

Mark S. Davies and Anna B. Naydonov are partners at White & Case LLP.

Mark Davies represented Stephen Thaler in Thaler v. Vidal, Oracle in Google v. Oracle, and filed an amicus brief on behalf of a design professional in Apple v. Samsung."

Perlmutter Says Copyright Office Is Still Working to Meet ‘Ambitious Deadline’ for AI Report; IPWatchdog, November 14, 2024

EILEEN MCDERMOTT , IPWatchdog; Perlmutter Says Copyright Office Is Still Working to Meet ‘Ambitious Deadline’ for AI Report

"Asked by Subcommittee Chair Chris Coons (D-DE) what keeps her up at night when it comes to the AI issue, Perlmutter said “the speed at which this is all developing.” In September during IPWatchdog LIVE 2024, Perlmutter told LIVE attendees that while she’s confident the issues around copyright and AI will eventually be solved, she’s “less comfortable about what it means for humankind.”

Perlmutter recently came under fire from Committee on House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil (R-WI), who sent a letter On Tuesday, October 29, to the Office asking for an update on the AI report, which Steil charged is no longer on track to be published by its stated target dates. Steil’s letter asked the Office to explain the delay in issuance of parts two and three, which Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter indicated in an oversight hearing by the Committee on House Administration would be published before the end of the summer and in the fall, respectively. “The importance of these reports cannot be overstated,” Steil wrote, explaining that copyright owners are relying on the Office to provide clear guidance. “The absence of these reports creates uncertainty for industries that are already grappling with AI-related challenges and hinders lawmakers’ ability to craft effective policy,” the letter added.

Perlmutter commented in the hearing that “we’ve been trying to set and follow our own ambitious deadlines” and the goal remains to get the rest of the report out by the end of the year, but that her key concern is to be “accurate and thoughtful.”

The forthcoming reports will include recommendations on how to deal with copyrightability of materials created using GAI and the legal implications of training on copyrighted works. The latter is most controversial and may in fact require additional legislation focusing on transparency requirements."

Generative AI and Legal Ethics; JD Supra, September 20, 2024

 Craig Brodsky, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, JD Supra; Generative AI and Legal Ethics

 "In his scathing opinion, Cullen joined judges from New York Massachusetts and North Carolina, among others, by concluding that improper use of AI generated authorities may give rise to sanctions and disciplinary charges...

As a result, on July 29, 2024, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional issued Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. The ABA Standing Committee issued the opinion primarily because GAI tools are a “rapidly moving target” that can create significant ethical issues. The committee believed it necessary to offer “general guidance for lawyers attempting to navigate this emerging landscape.”

The committee’s general guidance is helpful, but the general nature of Opinion 512 it underscores part of my main concern — GAI has a wide-ranging impact on how lawyers practice that will increase over time. Unsurprisingly, at present, GAI implicates at least eight ethical rules ranging from competence (Md. Rule 19-301.1) to communication (Md. Rule 19-301.4), to fees (Md. Rule 19-301.5), to confidentiality, (Md. Rule 19-301.6), to supervisory obligations (Md. Rule 19-305.1 and Md. Rule 305.3) to the duties of a lawyer before tribunal to be candid and pursue meritorious claims and defenses. (Md. Rules 19-303.1 and 19-303.3).

As a technological feature of practice, lawyers cannot simply ignore GAI. The duty of competence under Rule 19-301.1 includes technical competence, and GAI is just another step forward. It is here to stay. We must embrace it but use it smartly.

Let it be an adjunct to your practice rather than having Chat GPT write your brief. Ensure that your staff understands that GAI can be helpful, but that the work product must be checked for accuracy.

After considering the ethical implications and putting the right processes in place, implement GAI and use it to your clients’ advantage."

New ABA Rules on AI and Ethics Shows the Technology Is 'New Wine in Old Bottles'; The Law Journal Editorial Board via Law.com, August 16, 2024

 The Law Journal Editorial Board via Law.com; New ABA Rules on AI and Ethics Shows the Technology Is 'New Wine in Old Bottles'

On July 29, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 512 on generative artificial intelligence tools. The opinion follows on such opinions and guidance from several state bar associations, as well as similar efforts by non-U.S. bars and regulatory bodies around the world...

Focused on GAI, the opinion addresses six core principles: competence, confidentiality, communication, meritorious claims and candor to tribunal, supervision and fees...

What is not commonly understood, perhaps, is that GAI “hallucinates,” and generates content...

Not addressed in the opinion is whether GAI is engaged in the practice of law...

At the ABA annual meeting, representatives of more than 20 “foreign” bars participated in a roundtable on GAI. In a world of cross-border practice, there was a desire for harmonization."