Kaitlin Corey Joins Board of Discovery Center at Water’s Edge

Posted on by
Kaitlin Corey - Business and intellectual property lawyer at Goodell DeVries

Kaitlin Corey – Business and intellectual property lawyer at Goodell DeVries

Intellectual property lawyer Kaitlin Corey has been appointed to the Board of the Discovery Center at Water’s Edge (DCWE).

DCWE is a trailblazing educational institution dedicated to nurturing a lifelong love of learning and exploration in STEM. Its mission is to create an inclusive environment where people of all ages can engage with interactive science exhibits, attend enriching workshops, see new technology, learn about the local science heritage, and discover the fascinating world of STEM. Continue reading →

Trademark Law and ‘Trump Too Small’

Posted on by

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument in a third trademark case in which a denied registrant sought to overturn a provision of the Lanham Act on First Amendment grounds.

The mark at issue is “Trump Too Small.” First there was Tam in which the court held “The Slants” must be registered for a musical band even if it allegedly disparaged Asian-Americans. Next was Brunetti where the court required the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register “Fuct” for a clothing line, a salacious term if ever there was one. The Lanham Act’s bans on registration of salacious and disparaging marks were held to violate First Amendment rights because they were expressive speech. Continue reading →

Taking Aim at Press Freedoms

Posted on by

Don Blankenship was convicted of conspiracy related to a deadly mine explosion. He was sentenced to one year in prison, a day less than a felony sentence. He served his sentence in a prison where he was the only inmate in for a misdemeanor.

A rich man, Don ran for the U.S. Senate when he got out of prison. Numerous media, in error, reported he was a convicted felon. Blankenship sued the media for defamation claiming his reputation was irreparably damaged. The lower courts dismissed his suit on the basis of New York Times v. Sullivan.

Blankenship petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to hear his case and toss or modify Sullivan, asserting that Sullivan, “grant[s] the press a license to publish defamatory falsehoods that misinform[s] voters … and incite[s] unrest.” Maybe, but the requirement for that license under Sullivan is strenuous.

Continue reading →

Why Hunter Biden Wins His Gun Case

Posted on by

There is a special brand of irony that Hunter Biden, son of anti-gun President Joe Biden, will use last year’s Supreme Court decision in N.Y.S. Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to challenge his indictment for being a drug addict in possession of a gun and lying under oath to buy that gun.

The president himself issued a statement following the Bruen decision, “I am deeply disappointed by (the court’s) ruling in (Bruen) … I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens safer from gun violence.”

Yes, gun violence is an epidemic in this country, and Bruen makes it far harder for government to enforce laws aimed at reducing gun violence.

Continue reading →

Illinois’ Problematic Gun Law

Posted on by

I enjoy disparate interests. I teach Second Amendment law, and teach and write a treatise on advertising law. I was surprised that two of my legal interests coincided when Illinois House Bill 218 was signed into law by the Illinois Gov, J.B. Pritzker.

H.B. 218 is an omnibus gun safety law, and one of its prohibitions is the advertising of a gun in a way that may support, recommend or encourage a person under 18 to unlawfully purchase, possess or use a firearm in Illinois. In addition to the vagueness of this criminal statute, it has First Amendment problems. Maybe Second Amendment issues, too.

Continue reading →

U.S. Copyright Law Protects Only Human Works

Posted on by

By Guest Contributor Victoria E. Thornton

You may have seen online images that were created using artificial intelligence (AI) and wondered whether copyright law protects the artist’s efforts. In most instances, apparently not. A recent landmark decision by the United States Copyright Office holds that copyright protects only human-made works.

The Copyright Office’s February 21, 2023, published decision explains why artificially made works are not protected. “Zarya of the Dawn” is a comic book authored by Kristina Kashtanova and illustrated using Midjourney, an artificial intelligence program. See U.S. Copyright Office Correspondence to Kristina Kashtanova (Feb. 21, 2023). Though the Office granted limited registration as to the text of the work as well as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the work’s written and visual elements, it declined to protect the artificially generated illustrations. Id. at 1.

Continue reading →

Why AI Developers Are Being Sued

Posted on by

There is no clarity of result available to artificial intelligence litigants who tread in the Land of Oz.

Plaintiffs are filing suits against AI developers at a quick pace; their grounds are that AI really creates nothing new but merely reads and copies billions of other peoples’ protected works from the Internet. Using these works, and in reaction to a user’s commands, AI combines elements of existing works into something else, whether art or prose.

The new work may be a derivative of an old, copied work for which the developer needs a license to use the old work. Many authors think so, and have joined together to sue, although for now their suits raise more questions than there are answers.

Continue reading →