bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Black Lives Still Matter: The Unconstitutionality of the Reasonableness Standard in the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity
No full textFairness and Fair Use in Generative AI
No full textAlthough we are still a long way from the science fiction version of “artificial general intelligence” that thinks, feels, and refuses to “open the pod bay doors,” recent advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) have captured the public’s imagination and lawmakers’ interest. We now have large language models (LLMs) that can pass the bar exam, carry on (what passes for) a conversation about almost any topic, create new music, and create new visual art. These artifacts are often indistinguishable from their human-authored counterparts and yet can be produced at a speed and scale surpassing human ability.
“Generative AI” systems, such as the Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) and Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA) language models and the Stable Diffusion and Midjourney text-to-image models, were built by ingesting massive quantities of text and images from the internet. This was done with little or no regard to whether those works were subject to copyright restrictions or whether the authors would object to their use. The rise of generative AI poses important questions for copyright law. These questions, however, are not entirely new. Generative AI gives us yet another context to consider copyright’s most fundamental question: where do the rights of the copyright owner end and the freedom to use copyrighted works begin? Some jurisdictions will choose to answer this question in relation to generative AI with special rules. Others will rely on fair use and perhaps even fair dealing. Some jurisdictions will hide their heads in the sand as this technology develops, tacitly allowing widespread infringement or opting to let others do the heavy technological lifting of training large models.
My aim in this Essay is not to establish that generative AI is, or should be, non-infringing; it is to outline an analytical framework for making that assessment in particular cases
Slave Cases and Ingrained Racism in Legal Information Infrastructures
No full textProf. Chapman will present her recent work, Slave Cases and Ingrained Racism in Legal Information Infrastructures. The long shadow of slavery persists in legal citations and is embedded in the information systems informing the legal profession. The information infrastructures that categorize case law and inform legal research ingrain racism in the American legal system by perpetuating and masking case law connections to slavery and enslaved persons. Chapman’s work builds on recent criticism of the continued citation to cases rooted in the institution of slavery and addresses how legal information infrastructures contribute to the problem, and could institute change.
Jennifer Chapman is the research and faculty services librarian at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, Thurgood Marshall Law Library. Her scholarship has appeared in the Journal of International and Comparative Law, Fordham Law Review, Denver Law Review, and in the library and information science texts, Antiracist Library and Information Science: Racial Justice and Community and The Role of Citation in the Law.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/calendar/event/69052-biddle-speaker-series-jennifer-chapman-present
[quote] It\u27s Past Time for a Rooney Rule in College Football
No full text“When you make a decision in three or four days, you gravitate toward what’s comfortable — what you’re used to — and that tends to cut against coaches of color, unfortunately,” texted Jeremi Duru, the American University law professor who wrote “Advancing the Ball: Race, Reformation, and the Quest for Equal Coaching Opportunity in the NFL” about the development of the Rooney Rule. “The NFL right now presents a stark contrast. It has historically struggled with diversity off the field as well. But in the past several years, club presidents of color have increased many fold and general managers of color have increased many fold. And in this hiring cycle, already four of six head coaching hires are of color.
Datafication, Power, and Publics in India\u27s National Digital Health Ecosystem
No full textWhile evident for a long time, the COVID-19 pandemic starkly illustrated the need to strengthen India’s public healthcare system. But since 2017, the solution to India’s public health woes takes the shape of the National Digital Health Ecosystem (NDHE) – a digital system for the generation, use, and ‘frictionless’ circulation of health data across healthcare actors through the use of artefacts such as health IDs, electronic health records, data standards, and federated computing architectures. These artefacts are not neutral technological systems. Rather, together with social practices, they constitute a “data infrastructure”. Seeing the NDHE as a data infrastructure allows us to visibilise the regulatory effects of the NDHE, i.e., the ways in which the NDHE creates “communities of the affected” whose access to public health is now mediated by affordances granted by the NDHE. This, in turn, shapes law and regulation of the NDHE, where legal frameworks for (health) data protection are not weakened by accident, but weakened by design. At the same time, the regulatory effects of the NDHE can and should be regulated by law, by channelling law’s commitment to the creation of healthy public spheres to ensure the vitality of a democracy. Accordingly, this paper makes three contributions – one, it provides a brief overview of the political economy and the regulatory effects of the NDHE; two, it analyses the ways in which the regulatory effects of the NDHE shape legal frameworks for health data to disempower individuals and communities who are the generators of this data; and three, it outlines research and policy suggestions for how the law can intervene in limiting the exclusionary data-politics of the NDHE