6163 research outputs found
Sort by
The AI Doppelgänger Dilemma: Cloned Voices in the Music Industry
No full textWith the rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI), there has been an influx of “voice clones”—deep-learning algorithms that create synthetic speech to realistically mimic human voices. Celebrities and, in particular, music artists, have been subjected to the proliferation of AI voice clones on social media platforms like TikTok and streaming platforms such as Spotify. Despite music utilizing AI voice clones having amassed much popularity, this technology can be harmful and highly invasive to musicians whose livelihoods often depend on their distinct voices. While legal scholars have attempted to articulate various rights that could protect a person’s voice, individuals are largely left with minimal protection to prevent AI voice clones and have few options for redress. Some legal scholars suggest a variety of tort actions that could be applied in this context; however, torts such as the right of publicity, defamation, and false light ultimately fall short. This Note argues that a patchwork approach is necessary to regulate and combat the harms of AI voice clones, including action at the state and federal level, as well as self-regulation in the private sector by streaming platforms and musicians themselves. This approach, which includes input from all actors impacted by AI voice clones, should balance promoting creativity and continued development of AI while also protecting individuals’ interests in how their voice and likeness are used by others
Keynote Address: Community Over Constitution
Full text linkIn this keynote address, Riddhi Mukhopadhyay challenges the veneration of the U.S. Constitution by highlighting its origins in exclusion and its continued failure to protect marginalized communities. Drawing from her experience in civil legal aid and gender justice, she argues that the Constitution was drafted to consolidate power among white, wealthy men and continues to reflect that legacy through racial, gender, and class-based inequities. While acknowledging the significance of constitutional amendments and landmark cases, Mukhopadhyay emphasizes that meaningful change has always come from community-led action, not top-down reform. Additionally, Mukhopadhyay calls on lawyers and legal advocates to center community, practice humility, and engage in sustained, strategic grassroots organizing. The speech concludes by offering five key strategies for building sustainable movements, rooted in collective care, digital and policy advocacy, and mutual support
Student Life E-Newsletter March 10, 2025
Full text linkhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1181/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter February 24, 2025
Full text linkhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1179/thumbnail.jp
Indigenizing Legal Republicanism
No full textThis Article proposes and evaluates a synthesis of neorepublican legal theory and Indigenous peoples law and philosophy. Neorepublican legal theory, a critical reappraisal of legal republicanism, is a philosophy of law as a means to eliminate (or to minimize) domination and thus to secure for all of us a rich, deeply felt freedom. Domination is not simply overwhelming force or power; it is subjection to another\u27s will, the potential for public or private interference when that potential is not democratically constrained. Shaped substantially by antislavery constitutionalism, neorepublican legal theory affords powerful critiques of oligarchy and empire. Yet there has been little neorepublican engagement with Indigenous justice and little Indigenous engagement with neorepublicanism. The dearth is understandable but warrants revisiting. In theorizing at the convergence, the Article addresses preliminary questions: If neorepublican legal theory demands each person\u27s liberation and active government to achieve it, then what does that mean for Indigenous peoples and for Indian country? Should we use the republican idiom to achieve Indigenous justice nevertheless? Indigenizing legal republicanism offers promise but also peril. On one hand, neorepublicanism can be useful in reframing Indigenous peoples law to uncover widespread domination, often judicially sanctioned. In addition, reinterpreting the United States\u27 constitutional commitment to republican government could transform the federal government\u27s relationships with Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples law and philosophy in turn has much to offer neorepublican theory writ large; Indigenous understandings of dependence and interdependence challenge widespread assumptions that dependence of any kind amounts to domination. On the other hand, neorepublicanism is a universalist philosophy and thus risks sustaining aspects of colonialism, despite being premised on Indigenous consent and contestation. Reengaging Indigenous intellectual traditions, the Article proposes, could enable valuable collaboration in refining the neorepublican idiom consistent with Indigenous justice
Caution: Potholes in E-Scooter Data Collection
Full text linkLime scooters keep ending up in major waterways in Washington state metro areas, a testament to the ubiquity of e-scooters in the metropolitan landscape. How they get there is unclear. Why they get there is even murkier. Perhaps the answer lies in the implications of modern geolocation data collection through e-scooters and gaps in current data collection regulation curbing individual liberties.
Since September 2020, electric scooters have run Seattle’s streets and have dramatically overtaken ridesharing bike trips. For example, from September 2020 to September 2021, there were about 1.4 million scooter and bike trips with September 2021 seeing 300,000 scooter trips compared to around 35,000 bike trips. Moreover, one-fifth of scooter users reported that they use scooters to reach other transit options. This generally tracks with how cities like Seattle implement a micromobility service (MMS) in solving what transportation experts refer to as the first/last mile problem, which “refers to the first/last leg of a commuter’s trip, from either home or work to a node of public transportation or vice versa.” For Seattle, that means many commuters are using these e-scooters to reach bus stops, light rail stations, and even ferries.
To provide this service, Seattle and the MMS must collect the geolocation data of the scooters and, by proxy, those who ride those scooters— a concerning trend with serious privacy consequences for users that implicates their ability to move freely. This Note proposes that state legislatures should adopt user-centric statutory schemes that minimize the collection of geolocation data by municipalities and MMS. First, the Note explains how and why cities and MMSs collect and share this data. It then discusses dangers that the collection of mobility geolocation data pose respecting the personal safety of users, including access to abortion, and the constitutional implications of collecting this data. In light of these dangers, the Note follows by surveying and critiquing current approaches to the collection and abuse of this data. Then, it explores paradigm-shifting approaches to safeguarding geolocation data. Lastly, this Note advocates state legislatures should adopt a comprehensive statutory scheme regarding geolocation data for transportation services that allows MMS users to both opt out of sharing their trip location data with the municipality they are operating in and allows users to permanently delete previous trip history