May The Fourth Be With Disney

When Disney asked “Star Wars” fans to share their favorite memories of the franchise using the hashtag #MayThe4th, it said responses would fall under its terms of use agreement. Social media users were scathing.

See NY Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/business/star-wars-may-the-fourth-disney.html

Google liable for defamation based on search results

A recent Australian case concerning defamation and Google:

Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219 (30 April 2020)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC//2020/219.html

"Google submitted that it could not be liable as a secondary publisher, because its search engine is fully automated and does not intend the communication of any particular words or images, including any third party webpage to which a user might navigate. I do not accept this submission....

As the law stands in Australia, the common law casts the publication net wide. The liability of publishers is then limited by a range of common law and statutory defences. In particular, the common law ‘defence’ of innocent dissemination operates to limit the potential liability of search engine providers. Later in this judgment, I also consider the application of the statutory defence of qualified privilege to Google search results."

Facebook in Court over Cambridge Analytics

This recent Australian judgment concerns substituted service on Facebook.  It relates to Cambridge Analytics breach.  Interestingly, it discusses COVID-19.  Facebook did not appear in court.

Australian Information Commission v Facebook Inc [2020] FCA 531

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2020/2020fca0531

Instagram can sublicense your photos

When you make a public post on Instagram, you allow Instagram to sublicense you photo to anyone using the Instagram API.

One professional photographer found out about this the hard way.

"Unquestionably, Instagram’s dominance of photograph- and video-sharing social media, coupled with the expansive transfer of rights that Instagram demands from its users, means that Plaintiff’s dilemma is a real one. But by posting the Photograph to her public Instagram account, Plaintiff made her choice. This Court cannot release her from the agreement she made."

See Sinclair v. Ziff Davis and Mashable

Google sued again for identity of users

Melbourne brothel wants order compelling Google to release info on anonymous reviewers
Google has been served with a third preliminary discovery lawsuit in Australia seeking the identity of online reviewers, this time by a Melbourne brothel and escort service seeking to eliminate 11 one-star reviews from the search engine.

Facebook in Court

In a surprising move, the Australian Information Commissioner has sued Facebook in Australia over giving access to personal information of thousands of Australians to Cambridge Analytica.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-09/facebook-privacy-oaic-information-commissioner/12039642

https://www.businessnewsaus.com.au/articles/australian-information-commissioner-takes-facebook-to-court.html

"We consider the design of the Facebook platform meant that users were unable to exercise reasonable choice and control about how their personal information was disclosed," says Australian Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner Angelene Falk.

Musicians Create Every Melody in Existence to Avoid Copyright Infringement

Two programmers who are musicians have supposedly created every possible MIDI melody in existence, saved this to a hard drive, copyrighted the whole thing, and then released it all to the public in an attempt to stop musicians from getting sued for copyright infringement.

Vice Article

Whether this actually accomplishes what they want to do is uncertain.

Using small snippets of public available music (or computer code) to create a work, that is the same as a well-known larger work, may still be copyright infringement.  It depends on whether the creator knew of and had access to the well-known larger work.

See Dais Studios case, where Ben Petro copied public Java script to create a larger computer program.  See also AFR Article

This also has relevance to AI programs and how they are trained.

US-China spat ramps up over key UN post

The United Nations intellectual property agency (WIPO) is the latest front in the US-China trade war.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/sad-ambassador-slams-us-attack-on-chinese-bid-for-wipo-20200226-p544tg.html?btis

Australian Francis Gurry is the outgoing head of the UN World Intellectual Property Organisation.

Some Lawyers Work Can be Automated!

Experts say 23% of lawyers' work can be automated.  Law schools are trying to stay ahead of the curve.

See https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/02/06/technology-is-changing-the-legal-profession-and-law-schools.html

Domain Name Study - Which Domain Names don't get renewed

Research uncovered some interesting results, such as:

·     Only 29.79% of all domains are renewed after one year

·     New GTLDs (like .XYZ) have far higher churn rates than .COM, .NET, .ORG etc

https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2019/12/05/domain-study

Jurisdiction over Google

In Canada, on June 13, 2014, a Canadian court issued an injunction requiring Google to remove certain websites from its internet search results worldwide. Those websites were operating in violation of previous court orders and were being used to market a product that the plaintiffs say was developed through theft of their trade secrets.  The injunction granted was on a worldwide basis.

The injunction was upheld by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, but Google then obtained an order from a California court making it unenforceable in the United States. Google now applies to set aside or vary the injunction.  Google was unsuccessful.

See Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, 2018 BCSC 610 https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/06/2018BCSC0610.htm

Comments in this Canadian Blog

X v. Twitter

A case in NSW requiring Twitter to remove posts on a worldwide basis that contained confidential information.

X v Twitter Inc [2017] NSWSC 1300

Comment in this blog post.

Who owns the copyright and inventions produced by an AI machine?

These articles are some of the interesting articles dealing with ownership of copyright and patentable inventions produced by an AI machine or robot.

Machine learning to machine owning: Redefining the copyright ownership from the perspective of Australian, US, UK and EU Law. European Intellectual Property Review, (2018) 40 (11), pp. 722-728.  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3293518

Artificial Intelligence, Copyright and Accountability in the 3A Era: The Human-like Authors Are Already Here: A New Model, 2017 M. L. R<. 659   https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=lr

When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent Law (March 1, 2017). Cardozo Law Review, http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/RAVID.LIU_.39.6.5-1.pdf

Recognizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) as Authors and Investors under U.S. Intellectual Property Law, 24 Rich. J.L. & Tech. i (2018), https://jolt.richmond.edu/files/2018/04/Pearlman_Recognizing-Artificial-Intelligence-AI-as-Authors-and-Inventors-Under-U.S.-Intellectual-Property-Law.pdf

Also, have a look at these videos about machine generated art:

• Harold Cohen – The Age of Intelligence Machines (1987) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPczQgCuOOc&feature=youtu.be
• Is it art? Portrait created by algorithm on sale at Christie’s – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeshFQZCD7E

When are AI systems legally liable

Here are some good readings if you are interested in the legal responsibility of AI systems:

Machines without Principals: Liability Rules and Artificial Intelligence, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 117 (2014)  http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/AI/Vladeck.pdf

Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies (May 30, 2015). Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 29, No. 2, Spring 2016.  http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v29/29HarvJLTech353.pdf

Servers and Waiters: What Matters in the Law of A.I. 21 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 167 (2018), https://law.stanford.edu/publications/servers-and-waiters-what-matters-in-the-law-of-a-i/

Accountable Algorithms, 165 U. Pa. L. Rev. 633 (2017) https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol165/iss3/3

Morality and AI Machines

An interesting site from MIT -- a platform for judging human insight into moral decisions made by machines:

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

How do you prepare for the AI revolution?

This is a great book to help you prepare for the AI revolution that is about to hit us:




Also, a similar book that is more general:

Another ACCC case regarding misleading consumer reviews

The ACCC has launched another case against ServiceSeeking regarding misleading online reviews of tradespeople.  See story here.

This is similar to the Meriton case, discussed in posts below, regarding misleading hotel reviews on TripAdvisor.

Copyright Act consultations

The Australian Dept of Communication and the Arts has sought submissions for reforms to the Copyright Act.  The submissions are now public: https://www.communications.gov.au/have-your-say/copyright-modernisation-consultation

See also the Productivity Commission's final report on Australia's Intellectual Property Arrangements.

Patentable Subject Matter

Rokt is fighting in Federal Court to have a patent application allowed.  The Commissioner of Patents is opposing the grant of the patent:  An invention that simply puts "a business method or scheme into a computer" is not patentable, the Commissioner of Patents told a court on the first day of a highly anticipated trial over a rejected software patent application by marketing tech startup Rokt.

The judge hearing the case is Justice Robertson.  The oral argument went for 3 days, and finished on 20 July 2018.  The judge is now writing a written decision.

See Australian Financial Review background story, and summary of Patent Office decision being appealed is here.

See blog post here.

Google may be liable for defamation for search engine results

Today, the High Court of Australia decided that Google must go to trial to determine whether Google is liable for defamation regarding its display of search engine results and also in respect of Google's autocomplete function.

See KWM article Google this: The High Court allows Google to be sued for defamation

See Sydney Morning Herald article

See HCA judgment Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25

.au Domain Names - Policy Review

auDA has constituted a policy review panel to review virtually all domain name policies in Australia, as well as to recommend a policy to implement direct registration in Australia.  I am chair of this policy review panel.

See https://www.auda.org.au/policies/panels-and-committees/2017-policy-review-panel/

I strongly urge you to review the issues papers and to provide feedback.

Direct registration will allow registration of domain names in Australia such as cyberspace.au.

There are other reforms being discussed.  See the Issues Paper that was published at the end of January.

Liability of Intermediaries for copyright infringement

At the end of last year, the Federal Court of Australia issued a judgment in against the Redbubble platform, in favour of Pokemon.

The judgment is here:  Pokémon Company International, Inc. v Redbubble Ltd [2017] FCA 154

This is an important copyright and consumer protection law case.  Redbubble recently appealed (and its seems that their appeal was lodged outside of the appeal window).

There is also a similar case pending, involving the Hell's Angels.

A good summary is located on the IP Whiteboard blog.

Canadian Update

This blog post has a good summary of relevant legal developments in Canada over the past year.

https://www.canadiantechlawblog.com/2018/01/17/technology-law-highlights-2017-year-in-review/

Google Found Responsible for Defamation

The South Australian Full Court decided against Google Inc. in the recent case of Google v. Duffy.  See http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASCFC/2017/130.html

Google's search results included defamatory material.  Google was found to be a secondary publisher.

Case note here.

AirBNB Hell

An interesting website that points out the risks of using AirBNB for both hosts and guests, www.airbnbhell.com

Digital Watermarks on Printed Documents

"The question is how the government identified her so quickly, and the answer may be that she was inadvertently outed by the Intercept itself. That’s because the website posted an image of the leaked document containing an almost-invisible code applied by the printer that produced the document sent to the Intercept. The digital watermark identified the printer model and serial number, along with the time and date then document was printed out."

See LA Times

Meriton found guilty of manipulating TripAdvisor Reviews

Serviced apartment and hotel operator Meriton was found to have engaged in illegal conduct by manipulating TripAdvisor reviews.  The ACCC sued Meriton and won.  The ACCC brought actions under s18 and the little used s34 of the Australian Consumer Law.

See judgment at:  http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2017/2017fca1305

According to the judgment, Meriton manipulated TripAdvisor in two ways:

"The respondent (Meriton) conducts a business of offering serviced apartment accommodation at (at least) 13 properties in Queensland and New South Wales. These properties appear on the TripAdvisor website. During the period November 2014 to October 2015 (the relevant period), Meriton participated in the Review Express service offered by TripAdvisor.  On a weekly basis, Meriton provided TripAdvisor with the email addresses of guests who had stayed at its properties and TripAdvisor sent email invitations to these guests to post a review. However, rather than sending TripAdvisor the email addresses of all guests who had stayed at its properties (other than those who had requested that their details not be provided), Meriton adopted the following two practices:

(a)    The first practice was to add the letters “MSA” (which stand for Meriton Serviced Apartments) to the front of the email addresses of certain guests. This rendered the email address invalid. This practice was applied to guests who had made a complaint or were otherwise considered likely to have had a negative experience at a Meriton property.  I will refer to this practice as the MSA-masking practice.

(b)    The second practice was to withhold from TripAdvisor the email addresses of all the guests who had stayed at a property during a period of time when there had been a major service disruption (such as the lifts not working, no hot water, etc). I will refer to this practice as the bulk withholding practice."

Alleged Illegal Conduct by Apple

Apple is being sued in Australia by the ACCC in relation to the Error 53 software fault in iPhones.  When this fault bricked iPhones and iPads, Apple refused to fix the problem where third parties had done prior repairs. 

The latest judgment on a procedural motion is http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2017/2017fca1329

Regulation of Automated Vehicles in Australia

The Australian National Transport Commission has released a discussion paper Regulatory options to assure automated vehicle safety in Australia.  The paper identifies 4 regulatory options for a safety assurance system for automated vehicle technology.

Submissions for this discussion paper are open until 4pm, Friday, 28 July 2017.

The NTC expects to present it preferred regulatory option to the Minister in November 2017.

Full media release.

APT10 hacking attack from China

An interesting report from PwC regarding a computer hacker from China:

Cloud Hopper Report