Legal Frontiers: Navigating the Complex Landscape of Generative AI Regulation
Since the release of ChatGPT on November 30, 2022, classrooms and workplaces have been revolutionized by the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI). Whether used for searching information, prompting creativity, or even homework solutions, it is on a fast track to becoming an integral part of our lives. However, as AI technologies continue to permeate different areas, it has also brought forth complex legal challenges, particularly in the sectors of intellectual property and antitrust law. While the current frameworks of copyright law sufficiently govern copyright issuance relating to artificial intelligence, the recent and ongoing AI lawsuit explosion raises important questions regarding copyright infringement disputes and concerns over fair competition within the generative AI space.
Read More
Stolen Dance Steps in Fortnite’s Fortune: Resisting Ineffective Choreography Copyright Protection in Hanagami v. Epic Games, Inc.
In contrast to the well-known copyright lawsuits in art disciplines such as music, it is rare to come across a copyright case in dance. Indeed, it was not until 1976 that choreography even became a category qualifying for copyright registration and protection. Although the limited copyright lawsuits in dance since 1976 have mostly involved defendants that were other choreographers or artists, the video game Fortnite has become a “plagiarizer” of dance moves causing choreographers to seek legal redress.
Read More
A Legal Analysis of Big Pharma’s Evasion and Weaponization of Copyright Law
United States’ copyright laws were first established with a clear goal outlined in the United States Constitution: "...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Copyright law was enshrined in the Constitution as a way to motivate intellectual creativity and progress through legal protections, however, large pharmaceutical companies operating in United States’ markets have manipulated this fundamental principle of intellectual property to bolster their profit margins. By exploiting United States’ copyright law, these pharmaceutical companies depart from the original intent of the law, prioritizing economic gain over the greater well-being of humanity. Specifically, pharmaceutical companies have found ways to weaponize United States’ patent law and FDA policies. This manipulation of copyright law undermines its foundational ideals and compromises its intended purpose.
Read More
The Chevron Doctrine: Who Gets to Decide What a “Source” is?
During the Supreme Court’s January 2024 session, Justices heard the oral argument for a case that could substantially transform the current landscape of administrative law. In Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, the plaintiffs brought forth a challenge to the landmark Chevron Doctrine, which many believe lies at the core of the modern administrative state. The Chevron Doctrine holds that for issues of interpretations of ambiguous phrasing in legislation, deference is given to the federal agency rather than the courts. The plaintiff’s oral arguments support the criticism that the Chevron Doctrine is based on a fundamentally problematic rubric of first-stage and second-stage interpretation, supported not only by the language of the Chevron opinion itself but also other administration-deference-matter-related legal precedent. However, the interpretation of the non-delegation doctrine and the debate surrounding the separation of powers is a macro-scoped issue that necessitates the Chevron Doctrine in the first place. Instead, alternative interpretive frameworks of non-delegation can help both courts and society reconcile constitutionality with practical governance.
Read More
The Inefficiency of International Water Law: How Did This Impact Chile v. Bolivia?
In the mountains of Chile, a little-known fourteen-year-long drought has been terrorizing Chileans, not to mention causing the country to almost lose one of its main water sources. The reason for this devastating loss, a dispute between Chile and its neighbor Bolivia, has left many with lingering questions about water rights. Bolivia has claimed for almost thirty years that the Silala River, which begins in Bolivia and then crosses over into Chile before flowing west into the Pacific Ocean, is solely for Bolivia’s use. Bolivia believes the waterway is only under its jurisdiction which prevents Chile from using the water without any compensation. Bolivia’s argument is supported by its claims that the Silala River was artificially created to flow into Chile in 1908. Chile, however, has argued that the Silala River is governed by international law, so it is an international waterway. This dispute was taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case Chile vs. Bolivia (2022), where proceedings led the Court to surprisingly decide that the two countries actually agreed on the issue. The Court ruled that Bolivia and Chile did not fundamentally disagree on the issue, since they both wanted equitable use of the waterway. Therefore, an official decision was never made by the ICJ. Instead, the court simply urged the two countries to work together on issues such as these, a decision that poses significant legal problems for the future of international water laws.
Read More
Genocide Under the Ottoman State: Nationalistic Co-Optation of Classical Legal Paradigms and Responses to Western Interference
Instigated by fear of foreign influence in state law, Ottoman Empire leadership employed policy mechanisms in order to legally legitimize the genocide of the Armenian population in 1915—"illegal process [made to] look legitimate by using the veil of the law." [1] As the state shifted the legal status of religious minorities throughout the 19th century, norms of classical Islamic law were co-opted for nationalistic propaganda. The Young Turks feared relinquishing legal sovereignty to foreign powers—foreign powers which appeared to empower Anatolian Armenians as proxies of influence. At the same time, foreign influence was unavoidable in the shaping of the Ottoman Empire's legal justification framework: German militaristic culture was used to support the creation of the Ottoman state's legal mechanism of deportation. This article will explore examples of foreign influence—and refute conceptions of shari'a involvement—in legal mechanisms which justified the program of genocide: the Provisional Law of 1914, the ordinance for transit and food rationing standards, and the redistribution law.
Read More
Silence in the Court: Constitutional Considerations of Prison Conditions for Deaf Inmates
Since its 1868 ratification, the Equal Protection Clause (of the Fourteenth Amendment) and the Eleventh Amendment have been at legal odds, particularly regarding the issue of balancing state autonomy and the powers of the federal government. Judges and legislators frequently grapple with this tension as one amendment prohibits states from implementing any laws that would infringe upon citizens’ rights and the other establishes judicial limits. Efforts to reconcile between the two amendments become further complicated when approaching areas such as state prisons, where inmates are subjected to the executive authority of the state as opposed to the federal government. For this reason, disabled inmates, including Deaf or hard-of-hearing prisoners, suffer as the state fails to provide rightful accommodations. The failure to accommodate properly for disabled inmates underscores the critical tension between state sovereignty and equal protection of all citizens.
Read More
SCOTUS’s Next Step in Ending Qualified Immunity: Chiaverini v. Napoleon
On May 25th, 2020, the United States was shocked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of law enforcement, causing turmoil across the country and renewed calls for a second civil rights movement. On the legal front, the courts have been diligently making progress to end what is known as qualified immunity, the doctrine that protects law enforcement from being sued for violating a plaintiff’s rights, unless it is a clear constitutional violation. This year, the Supreme Court has been given another chance to make progress towards ending qualified immunity through a little-known case out of rural Ohio: Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio. Though the circumstances given in the case are narrow, the context and timing of the case taken up by the nine justices could have wide repercussions in the movement to end qualified immunity, especially under malicious prosecution claims. Thus, a ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs (Chiaverini) would standardize malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth Amendment and protect citizens’ rights in the push to end qualified immunity.
Read More
Fraudulent Advertising and Environmental Degradation: Can Fossil Fuel Corporations Be Held Legally Responsible for their Contribution to Climate Change?
The 2021 Northwest heat dome, a record-breaking weather event with temperatures reaching up to 120°F, resulted in over 650 deaths and hundreds of heat-related illnesses in the United States and Canada. Hitting the Pacific Northwest from late June to early July, the heat dome also had catastrophic effects on infrastructure, agriculture, wildlife, and flora. In response to the crisis, Multnomah County of Oregon sued seventeen fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron in the Oregon Circuit Court. The county alleged that the defendants “rapaciously [sold] fossil fuel products and deceptively promote[d] them as harmless to the environment” even though they knew that their products would emit carbon pollution into the atmosphere and “would likely cause deadly extreme heat events like that which devastated Multnomah County.”
Read More
