Rebecca Tushnet
@rtushnet.bsky.social
Trademark, advertising, and more
Souter was, when appointed, a very traditional New England Republican! He would never have let Leo in his door. (Okay, he is very polite, he would have let him in and then told him to get out after hearing his pitch.)
I can only shudder in sympathy; I've done worse in my time and spent the resulting hours in sadness..
As James Grimmelmann said, the internet is broken because people are broken; now Google is too papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
I was about to post something about how we won’t really begin to understand the harm-liability landscape until real people start relying on AI for real searches whose outputs lead to injury but I forgot that we’re on the most inane timeline
Tasini v. NYT enters the chat. But see Resnick v. Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 2006 WL 721535 (D. Mass.) for some of the barriers that individual (c) owners might face against such licensors.
here's my question... what if these outlets don't actually have the rights to all of the content they are handing over? for instance, if conde nast and vice are doing deals like this, i know for a fact they don't have the rights to my swole woman columns www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...
Publishers Striking AI Deals Are Making a Fatal Error
News organizations rushing to absolve AI companies of theft are acting against their own interests.
www.theatlantic.comPost-Wendt the contracts all changed. Scarlett Johansson probably has the best contract there is, but we'd need to know more.
Wonder what all the (c) controls are going to be.
I often think of the article from that edition, "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule." www.theonion.com/god-angrily-...
These people have been this way since they thought the FTC couldn't tell them to stop telling people that pomegranate juice prevents cancer and heart attacks. But now they face a very different judiciary.
Roughly half of my advertising law students sent me stories about this.
Is there anyone with the same industry breadth? His one virtue is the constant explanation of yet another weird monopoly making someone’s life worse. There are great voices in tech but I haven’t seen another doing across-the-board; I’d love to know of them.
I really wish there were a better anti-monopoly voice out there.
Alternatively, it could be a covert reference to Trump's ongoing trial.
There are a handful of cases saying that emojis can make specific representations--I wouldn't give a misleadingness claim a high chance of succeeding, but I wouldn't give it zero either. I would probably interpret more like: your spouse won't know to look there!
This NYT piece uses "him" for the generic patient (and the example) and does not mention the very modern history of forced reproductive care. www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/o...
Opinion | Doctors Need a Better Way to Treat Patients Without Their Consent
Involuntary treatment too often requires a court order.
www.nytimes.comI like the opinion's use of conflict preemption (though its mention of the terms of adhesion mixes in a little express preemption). The 2d Circuit did a similar thing saying that the right of publicity shouldn't be able to stop what (c) would allow where the only infringement alleged was copying
FWIW, it seems to me that contracts of adhesion like these, where consent isn't real, shouldn't provide the "extra element" required to avoid preemption. Vault v. Quaid, where state law created a special rule for (c)-related contract terms and thus was preempted, is relevant though not dispositive
The liar’s dividend of deepfakes: amp.theguardian.com/technology/a...
She was accused of faking an incriminating video of teenage cheerleaders. She was arrested, outcast and condemned. The problem? Nothing was fake after all | Deepfake | The Guardian
The moral panic following Raffaella Spone’s ‘deepfake’ video spread around the world. She talks for the first time about being the centre of a story in which nothing was as it seemed …
amp.theguardian.comI believe you are, though they might say that the text is ok (not the visuals)
If I'm reading this correctly, the UK proposes to suppress content "harmful to children" ... unless the harm is financial or comes from actual products or services and not speech, in which case go wild. Way to go, late capitalism! www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asset...
Well, that's a disclaimer I haven't seen before. O Brave New World!
Grab bag? Stone soup, though that's not as derogatory of the results.
Comparative advertising of the day
The Princeton University Press spring sale is on through May 31!
Instead of that Chipotle Beef Barbacoa Burrito with guac ($14.35), get The Princeton Guide to Historical Research for
$13.48!
press.princeton.edu/books/paperb...
The Princeton Guide to Historical Research
The essential handbook for doing historical research in the twenty-first century
press.princeton.eduThis has been around for 33 weeks according to Instagram! But they no longer use the name Wozempic, only maintain the URL wozempic . com, which redirects to the main site--and apparently use the ad.
The CDC recommends boosters for students at post-high-school educational institutions--and teachers can get them too.
We're now up to 21 jurisdictions (20 states + New York City) reporting measles cases so far this year, already more than all of last year (19 states + D.C.)
CDC totals 131 measles cases reported to agency through May 2, 2024, up from 128 last week
www.cdc.gov/measles/case...
The three judges on the panel in Missouri v. Biden had the basic sense not to sign this.
“Significant and dramatic change in the faculty … is needed.”
Almost like the hackiest hacks on the federal bench are not going to throw away their shots to try to rid themselves of these meddlesome professors calling out their hackery.
The bad-faith attacks on academia continue.
As I recall, there was discussion about third party offerings at the time, and other laws have supported third party filtering tools, at least, including (c) exceptions, so it’s at least plausible
Incipient NO FAKES Act violation?
interesting how this photo Northeastern is using to celebrate its recent grads only includes two of the three flags this student was waving
Is it tarnishment if it's true?
Put it on a t-shirt!
"WE DON'T HAVE TO DO STUPID LIKE COLUMBIA"
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, est. 1740
www.thedp.com/article/2024...
'We don't have to do stupid' like Columbia: Philadelphia district attorney visits Penn encampment
Krasner spoke to student organizers and legal observers on the edge of the encampment before holding a brief press conference.
www.thedp.comTransformative work of the day, take my money edition
Interview with the Vampire but the interviewer is Isaac Chotiner
It's too bad the protestors didn't consider using cop cars to block pedestrian access. www.justice.gov/crt/case/re-...
I know it's an obvious point, but I feel like it still needs to be said on record. THIS IS INSANE
Probably why it concludes by warning that jail might well be next
I like it, but wonder how many other 230-barred claims could be reformulated this way (it wasn't illegal content when they published it, but it was illegal to direct it to a particular vulnerable group)
But doesn't using "disseminate" to identify the prohibited conduct give the game away? That is, the liability attaches to him *because* he published/spoke.
But if the transaction is only unlawful because of the message--that is, non-trial-related retweets are ok--I don't see how that avoids basing the contempt finding on the content of the original tweet/"republication"
230 is expressly designed to protect both platforms and other users against liability for things that a different user said: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
But we wouldn't ordinarily let that be a 230 workaround: the liability would depend on the content of what he retweeted, which seems like classic publisher/speaker liability.
But 230 says that he can't be treated as the speaker or publisher, even if that is the effect of his retweet. That's what I mean by "legal fiction."
He's never been opposed to advantages for himself: blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/202...
President Trump Loves Section 230 for Himself, Just Not for Anyone Else (Guest Blog Post) - Technology & Marketing Law Blog
by guest blogger Jess Miers [Eric’s introduction: this is the second of a two-part series from Jess Miers, a 3L at SCU and my RA, providing historical context on Trump’s anti-social media statements, ...
blog.ericgoldman.orgYeah, I don't know whether it's waived (though it might be plain error to ignore 230).
Because section 230 says that he can't be treated as the speaker for content provided by another information provider. It's a legal fiction, by design.