Generative artificial intelligence has exposed the growing gap in the legal protection of individuals. Presently, an artist’s likeness or voice characteristics can be used to create AI content for others that they did not approve. Publicity rights have traditionally been the mechanism by which celebrities could control the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness, but these rules vary state to state and in most cases are reactive rather than proactive. Currently, U.S. law does not protect a person’s voice so the distinction of copyrighting particular recordings can be a work around and one such celebrity attempting to do this is Taylor Swift. In registering short recognizable audio phrases, Swift is not looking to claim ownership of her voice but rather is attempting to secure exclusive rights in specific auditory signatures that might be associated with her brand. The outcome of efforts like this one will help define the contours of the evolution of the law.

Directors and Officers Tail Insurance is a helpful way to ease the stress of possible future issues when navigating a business. After closings, owners, directors, and officers can be held responsible for problems that were caused by decisions made before their time. Bryan Spurgeon explains the benefits of including D&O Tail Insurance in transactions and business closings.

When Brian Heppner disclosed to his criminal counsel questions he asked Anthropic AI’s system, Claude, he believed he was getting help for his defense. That was not the case. Instead, the presiding judge on the case ruled that the documents were not subject to attorney client or work product privileges and instead could be used by the prosecution at trial. This is a landmark ruling in a case that involves a hot button issue: clients using AI in legal contexts. Attorneys should be aware that their clients are using AI even if they do not disclose it and should plan accordingly. Caren Lederer offers deeper insight into this case and continues to monitor the situation.