Shallowfakes and Their Potential for Fake News

Screen Shot 2020-01-13 at 5.28.57 PM

Image: Generated Photos (Gallery of deepfake, AI generated photos)

By: Ashley Stoll

By now you have probably heard of “deepfakes”–a type of media in which a person’s image is replaced with a fake–and the growing concern that surrounds them.  But, what you probably don’t know is that most deepfakes you see are actually “shallowfakes” and the laws currently being written to stop these fraudulent videos will be ineffective on many of the videos being made. We need a solution that will target all types of disinformation, and for that we need to enlist the help of Internet platforms.

Continue reading

Do student-athletes finally own their name, image, and likeness? Or will it be up to the states to decide?

ball basketball basketball court basketball hoop

Photo by Markus Spiske temporausch.com on Pexels.com

By: Stephanie Verdoia

The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) bylaws have established requirements for student-athletes to remain eligible and compete in collegiate athletics as “amateur” athletes, and not “professional” athletes. Article 12.5, one of the more controversial bylaws created by the NCAA to maintain this distinction, restricts employment and compensation for student-athletes. To maintain amateur status, student-athletes essentially cannot receive any compensation based on their name, image, or likeness as an athlete. This amateurism model has generated consistent litigation throughout the years accusing the NCAA of violating antitrust law, violating federal minimum wage laws, and depriving student-athletes right of publicity.

Continue reading

Telemarketers Have A Curfew, But It Doesn’t Adequately Protect Consumers

call-center-1015274_1920

By: Samantha Pelto

It is no news that telemarketing calls are the cause of great annoyance and frustration to consumers throughout the United States. Telemarketing calls are often considered unwanted solicitation at inconvenient times, on topics irrelevant to the consumer.  With the rapid growth of the telemarketing industry, Congress ascertained that consumers were becoming outraged. In response, Congress passed the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act in 1994, which authorized the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The TSR helps to limit the number of unwanted sales and charitable solicitation calls consumers receive from telemarketers. However, the telemarketing industry still remains largely unchecked, and telemarketing calls continue to invade the privacy of consumers.

Continue reading

Can Generic Domain Names be Trademarked? SCOTUS grants review of Booking.com B.V. v. US Patent and Trademark Office

Screen Shot 2019-12-24 at 1.48.00 PM

By: Timothy Chien

Next year, the Supreme Court will decide whether the addition of top-level domains such as “.com” can turn otherwise generic marks into protectable trademarks under the Lanham Act. On Friday, November 8, The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Booking.com B.V. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In its petition, the USPTO asked the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit ruling that rejected the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) finding BOOKING.COM generic and thus not federally registrable.

Continue reading

Patenting Pot: Can You Claim Your Strain?

person holding green canabis

Photo by Aphiwat chuangchoem on Pexels.com

By: Taylor Fairchild

It may be surprising, but the answer appears to be a resounding yes.

Conflicts Between State and Federal Law

In November of 2012, the Washington State Legislature successfully passed Initiative 502, which allowed for the use of recreational marijuana in the state. Washington became one of the first states, along with Colorado, to decriminalize recreational marijuana and many states followed suit. Seven years later, 33 states in the country have decriminalized medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, or both. In August of 2013, the United States Department of Justice announced it would not interfere with state level legalization, but required states to strictly regulate the distribution and sale of marijuana.

Continue reading