Ephrat Livni, Quartz; The pirate Blackbeard is laughing in his grave over a SCOTUS copyright case
"The high court will decide who is right at some point in the months following the upcoming “aaarrrguments.”
Meanwhile, the pirate Blackbeard will be chortling from beyond the
grave, laughing at the very notion of property ownership, intellectual
or otherwise."
Monday, November 4, 2019
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
A face-scanning algorithm increasingly decides whether you deserve the job; The Washington Post, October 22, 2019
Drew Harwell, The Washington Post; A face-scanning algorithm increasingly decides whether you deserve the job
HireVue claims it uses artificial intelligence to decide who’s best for a job. Outside experts call it ‘profoundly disturbing.’
HireVue’s growth, however, is running into some regulatory snags. In August, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed a first-in-the-nation law
that will force employers to tell job applicants how their AI-hiring
system works and get their consent before running them through the test.
The measure, which HireVue said it supports, will take effect Jan. 1."
HireVue claims it uses artificial intelligence to decide who’s best for a job. Outside experts call it ‘profoundly disturbing.’
"“It’s a profoundly disturbing development that we have proprietary
technology that claims to differentiate between a productive worker and a
worker who isn’t fit, based on their facial movements, their tone of
voice, their mannerisms,” said Meredith Whittaker, a co-founder of the AI Now Institute, a research center in New York...
Loren
Larsen, HireVue’s chief technology officer, said that such criticism is
uninformed and that “most AI researchers have a limited understanding”
of the psychology behind how workers think and behave...
“People
are rejected all the time based on how they look, their shoes, how they
tucked in their shirts and how ‘hot’ they are,” he told The Washington
Post. “Algorithms eliminate most of that in a way that hasn’t been
possible before.”...
Monday, October 14, 2019
MARVEL & Others Sued Over X-MEN: THE ANIMATED SERIES Theme Song Alleging Copyright Infringement - Report; Newsarama, October 9, 2019
Chris Arant, Newsarama; MARVEL & Others Sued Over X-MEN: THE ANIMATED SERIES Theme Song Alleging Copyright Infringement - Report
"Marvel Entertainment, the Walt Disney Company, and others are being sued for copyright infringement over the 1990s theme song to X-Men: The Animated Series due to its similiarities to a 1980s Hungarian cop show's theme, according to TMZ. The similarities between the two themes have been noted before online, and now a representative from the estate of the original show's composer has reportedly filed a lawsuit."
"Marvel Entertainment, the Walt Disney Company, and others are being sued for copyright infringement over the 1990s theme song to X-Men: The Animated Series due to its similiarities to a 1980s Hungarian cop show's theme, according to TMZ. The similarities between the two themes have been noted before online, and now a representative from the estate of the original show's composer has reportedly filed a lawsuit."
Saturday, October 5, 2019
The Hippocratic License: A new software license that prohibits uses that contravene the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights; BoingBoing, October 4, 2019
Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing; The Hippocratic License: A new software license that prohibits uses that contravene the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"The Open Source Initiative maintains the canonical list of free/open licenses based on compliance with its Open Source Definition, which excludes licenses that ""discriminate against any person or group of persons" and that "restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor." On this basis, OSI cofounder Bruce Perens says the Hippcratic License is not compatible with the OSD.
Ehmke calls the OSD "horribly dated" because it doesn't enable software developers to ensure that "our technology isn't used by fascists.""
"The Open Source Initiative maintains the canonical list of free/open licenses based on compliance with its Open Source Definition, which excludes licenses that ""discriminate against any person or group of persons" and that "restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor." On this basis, OSI cofounder Bruce Perens says the Hippcratic License is not compatible with the OSD.
Ehmke calls the OSD "horribly dated" because it doesn't enable software developers to ensure that "our technology isn't used by fascists.""
An Open Source License That Requires Users to Do No Harm; Wired, October 4, 2019
Klint Finley, Wired;
"Increasingly, some developers are calling on their employers and the government to stop using their work in ways they believe are unethical...
Coraline Ada Ehmke wants to give her fellow developers more control over how their software is used. Software released under her new "Hippocratic License" can be shared and modified for almost any purpose, with one big exception: "Individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of individuals or groups in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Defining what it means to do harm is inherently contentious, but Ehmke hopes that tying the license to existing international standards will reduce the uncertainty. The declaration of human rights "is a document that's 70 years old and is pretty well established and accepted for its definition of harm and what violating human rights really means," she says."
An Open Source License That Requires Users to Do No Harm
Open
source software can generally be freely copied and reused. One
developer wants to impose ethical constraints on the practice.
"Increasingly, some developers are calling on their employers and the government to stop using their work in ways they believe are unethical...
Coraline Ada Ehmke wants to give her fellow developers more control over how their software is used. Software released under her new "Hippocratic License" can be shared and modified for almost any purpose, with one big exception: "Individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of individuals or groups in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Defining what it means to do harm is inherently contentious, but Ehmke hopes that tying the license to existing international standards will reduce the uncertainty. The declaration of human rights "is a document that's 70 years old and is pretty well established and accepted for its definition of harm and what violating human rights really means," she says."
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Under Armour trademark dispute hits family start-up company with Boise ties; KTVB.com, October 1, 2019
Ashley Miller, KTVB.com; Under Armour trademark dispute hits family start-up company with Boise ties
"“Trademark dilution” is the legal standard that gives companies like Under Armour the right to sue businesses that have similar names as them, even if their products offered do not overlap. Trademark dilution argues that a famous trademark or brand can lose its “uniqueness” or be watered down if another brand has a similar name."
"“Trademark dilution” is the legal standard that gives companies like Under Armour the right to sue businesses that have similar names as them, even if their products offered do not overlap. Trademark dilution argues that a famous trademark or brand can lose its “uniqueness” or be watered down if another brand has a similar name."
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
IP and counterculture: Who owns a tattoo?; Lexology, September 27, 2019
"Advising the artist: think bigger than copyright
With the exception of tribal tattoos based on an indigenous right or designs transferred to another party via assignment, IP rights in tattoo artwork will belong to the artist that created the tattoo, assuming it meets the requirements for artistic copyright. To do this, it needs to be ‘fixed’ (ie permanent) and ‘original’, although the threshold for the latter is fairly low.
As their tattoo body of work will invariably qualify for copyright protection, in theory there is nothing tattoo artists need to do to prove the subsistence of this right other than keep records of their designs and their creation dates. However, a tattoo design can also be eligible for trademark protection where it satisfies the requirements of a bona fide intention to use: for example use in marketing as part of a branded range of products. It may also function as a design right where the tattoo satisfies the requirement for novelty."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)