3722 research outputs found
Sort by
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Lending: A New Form of Redlining?
Get PDFThe issue of biased lending is longstanding and has faced much legislation over the past few decades. When issues of discrimination in the housing market became center stage in the 1960s, Congress passed multiple acts to combat what became known as “redlining,” or systematically denying credit to minority groups of people. Acts such as the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act worked to eliminate this discrimination, but that does not mean bias does not still exist. However, lending companies, due to the efforts of the above-enumerated acts, can no longer act on these biases. But with the introduction of algorithmic lending with artificial intelligence systems, the decades of work to eliminate lending discrimination are threatened. Artificial intelligence systems are trained by humans but often lack human oversight when making actual lending decisions. This human training leads to implicit biases within the algorithms themselves, bringing up the issue once more of discriminatory lending practices, known as “digital redlining.” To combat this discrimination, there needs to be regulation on how algorithms must be trained and the transparency of their decision-making. Without such regulations, protected classes of people will once again face housing discrimination, much like that of those in the 1960s and before
The Dog Dies at the Beginning of This Paper: Issuing Victims Protective Orders as a Result of an Abuser’s Intentional Destruction of Property
Get PDFDomestic violence is a prevailing issue in the United States for both men and women, growing exponentially during COVID-19. In the law, there are two approaches to remedy this issue. The first being a criminal conviction of the abuser, which requires witness testimony and is held to a higher burden of proof than the other. The other approach is for the victim to obtain a protective order against the abuser. However, in many states, protective orders are only available to victims once the abuser physically attacks them, despite there being reliable signs of abuse before physical violence occurs. Thus, this Article urges state legislatures to include an abuser’s intentional and malicious destruction of property as a manner for a victim to apply, and receive, a protective order from the court
Transformative Artists: Rebalancing the Fair Use Doctrine
Get PDFCopyright law is intended to increase public access to creative works, and in service of this goal it grants exclusive rights to copyright holders to provide them with the economic incentive to create new works. However, the reality is that creative works are often not only influenced by their predecessors, but often are accretions of previous concepts, stylistic approaches, and ideas that add a creator’s imprimatur and thus create a new work that is tethered to its derivatives in ways that range from tenuous to seemingly duplicative. It is within this zone of ambiguous connection that the doctrine of fair use operates as it provides creators a method by which to incorporate copyrighted works into their new creation, the use of which would be otherwise prohibited by copyright law. Recently, the Supreme Court’s decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith disrupted the analytical framework that courts use to analyze fair use defense claims. This departure from precedent threatens to obfuscate and confuse lower courts and has the potential to diminish the impact of copyright law’s goal of providing the public broader access to creative works. This Note argues that, in light of the shift made by the Court in Goldsmith, the need for the protection of new works by seminal artists requires a new test that would give “Transformative Artists” the space to experiment and create new works of art that would undoubtedly serve the stated aims of copyright law
