LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Cardozo AELJ’s Spring 2025 Symposium Delves into the Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Copyright Law and Publicity Rights
No full textThe Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal is pleased to present the 2025 Arts and Entertainment Law Journal Symposium: Fake It Till You Make It?: Striking the Right Balance Between Innovation, Publicity Rights, and Copyright. This event will bring together leading scholars and industry experts to explore the legal challenges posted by AI-generated voices, deepfake performances, and digital replicas
US Supreme Court Reopens Door for Restitution of Nazi Stolen Painting
No full textThe looting of works of art during World War II represents one of the most significant cultural thefts in history, with the Nazi state seeking to enrich itself by seizing property of the people it persecuted. The Nazis systematically seized thousands of invaluable works of art and cultural assets from museums, galleries, and private collections across Europe. The methods of seizure ranged from barefaced theft to indirect means such as forcing individuals to sell their property to finance their flights into exile. Due to the fact that many works of art were not looted directly but seized through indirect means, property handed over or sold under duress are nonetheless considered to be cultural property expropriated as a result of Nazi persecution. Even decades later the repercussions of these thefts continue to reverberate through courtrooms around the world as rightful heirs continue to seek restitution for their family’s stolen heritage
SoundExchange v. Sirius XM: A Battle on Two Fronts
No full textIn the United States, when an artist’s sound recording or track is played by a servicer like Pandora or satellite radio, a digital public performance royalty for the sound recording is collected by the organization, SoundExchange, or it may be negotiated between the parties via direct licenses. These non-terrestrial broadcast platforms perform in a non-interactive manner (i.e. the platform picks the tracks for the consumer to listen to) as opposed to in an interactive manner (i.e. listener picks the track) by a platform such as Spotify or Apple Music
Music Executives from Universal Music Group Speak to Cardozo’s Entertainment Law Society
No full textOn Thursday, August 21, 2025, Cardozo’s Entertainment Law Society hosted a panel discussion with Jermaine “Maine” Maxwell (A&R at Def Jam, Universal Music Group), Shaniqua “Haarlem” Branch (VP of A&R at Republic Records, Universal Music Group), Trevor Casson (Senior Director Business & Legal Affairs at Universal Music Group for the East Coast labels), and Rachel Landy (Cardozo Professor with over a decade of experience in the music industry). The panel was moderated by Brennan Gerspach (Entertainment Law Society Music Co-Chair, Class of 2027). The event was promoted to students as, “From Studio to Statute: Navigating Creativity, Innovation, and Law in the Music Industry.
Did the Dodgers Ruin Baseball? Why MLB’s Antitrust Exemption Stands in the Way of a More Competitive League
No full textAfter the Los Angeles Dodgers’ series win over the Milwaukee Brewers in the National League Championship Series, Dodgers manager, Dave Roberts, remembered that, “[b]efore the season started, they said, ‘The Dodgers are ruining baseball … Let’s get four more wins and really ruin baseball. Let’s go!’” Because of this win, Roberts and the Dodgers made good on their promise by going on to win their second straight World Series. No, the Dodgers did not ruin baseball, but their dominance is representative of the growing disparity in competition between large and small-market teams
Is the Game Rigged? Why Sports Betting is Becoming a Legal Time Bomb
No full textThe International Olympic Committee defines “competition manipulation” as “when the result of a tournament or competition is partially or completely decided in advance and the match is played to ensure the pre-determined outcome.” Considering the Olympics hosts 43 sports, this definition can probably be applied to many, if not all, sports around the globe. While it is against the rules of sportsmanship as well as against the law, athletes “who bet on their sport might be tempted to fully or partially manipulate their competition in order to receive financial gain.” The sports world has experienced many scandals of manipulated competition — involving athletes, coaches and more — that have hurt the integrity of sports while breaking the law
“Contains: Gluten” And “Gluten Free”; FDA, It’s a No-Grainer!
No full textReading food, drug, and cosmetic labels is a frequent practice for all individuals with allergies. However, unlike those who are allergic to peanuts, dairy, or another major food allergen, individuals with celiac disease (“celiac consumers”) are not offered a bold, capitalized statement clearly identifying the allergen they seek to avoid. Instead, celiac consumers are tasked with studying a list of ingredients and relying on their own ability to catch any sources of gluten. This Note considers the authority provided by Congress to the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remedy this rash regime. Then, this Note proposes that the FDA adopt a regulation that shifts the burden from celiac consumers to manufacturers to identify and communicate the presence of gluten in food, drugs, and cosmetics
Language Models\u27 Verbatim Copying: Copyright Infringement Analysis through the Lens of \u3ci\u3eThe New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., OpenAI, Inc. et al.\u3c/i\u3e
No full textIn their high-profile suit in late 2023, The New York Times Company ( The Times ) alleged that OpenAI\u27s Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) language models might output near-verbatim copies ( memorizations ) of the works of The Times based on certain user prompts and thus might have infringed on The Times\u27s exclusive rights over its content. One of the central issues is whether the embodiment of unauthorized reproductions of Times content in the GPT models constitutes a copyright infringement. This comment argues that OpenAI might have a colorable fair use affirmative defense despite the plaintiff\u27s prima facie copyright infringement claim.
Existing literature on the infringement or fair use analysis in the machine learning context often lacked a deep dive into the traits of the relevant technology and their legal implications. This comment attempts to overcome this limitation by adopting a holistic approach that requires reviewing literature in both law and computer science.
On the one hand, in a recent article, Professor Michael Murray, attempting to correct several reductionist simplifications that view Al as a single magic box, argued that the copyright infringement analysis of a text-to-image model\u27s output might require insights into the different roles of the training dataset designers, the generative Al system designers, and the end-users. . . . Furthermore, a recent article by Professor James Grimmelmann (collaborating with two computer scientists) took a similar view.
On the other hand, the memorization phenomenon has drawn the attention of computer scientists (including OpenAI employees). Their scientific papers thoroughly explored the memorization phenomenon with innovative empirical approaches; but, by their very nature, lacked in-depth discussions on this phenomenon\u27s copyright law implications.
Extrapolating Murray\u27s deconstructive analytical framework from text-to-image models to text-generating language models and inspired by the scientific research on memorization, this comment explores the potential legal arguments around the key direct and contributory infringement issues resulting from the verbatim copying alleged by The Times. Part I.A of this comment concisely introduces the relevant technical concepts in a way accessible to legal scholars with little background in Natural Language Processing or machine learning; Part I.B serves as a succinct case brief. Part II.A reviews the relevant scientific literature that deemed memorization as a sine qua non during the stateof-the-art language model training process; Part II.A also heralds some legal implications of the scientific conclusions. Part II.B reviews Murray\u27s and Grimmelmann\u27s efforts to differentiate the different actors and stages through the generative Al supply chain, which shed light on the infringement analysis. Lastly, this comment concludes that: (1) the defendants may have a colorable fair use defense given the precedents around non-expressive copying (in Part II.C), and (2) regarding the plaintiff\u27s contributory infringement claims, some reasonable mitigation measures may be feasible (in Part II.D)
Free, Prior, Informed Consent and Power Imbalances: Upholding Indigenous Rights on the Anniversary of Undrip
No full textGuest Speaker: Fernanda Frizzo Bragato - Professor of Law at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) and a CNPq-funded researcher.
On the anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), this discussion addresses its crucial role in reshaping Indigenous rights across the Americas. Adopted in 2007, UNDRIP marked a historic shift by affirming Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, autonomy, and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) — challenging centuries of assimilationist policies. Yet, 17 years later, gaps persist. While UNDRIP inspired regional frameworks like the 2016 OAS Declaration, its promises often clash with extractive industries, state interests, and colonial power structures. Drawing on cases like Sarayaku v. Ecuador, and on a current mining project in Mura Lands in the Brazilian Amazon, Prof. Bragato will analyze: How UNDRIP redefined self-determination (without secession) and collective rights? The fight for binding consent in development projects? Why consultation processes remain fraught with coercion and broken trusthttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1037/thumbnail.jp