Prof @pennlaw @annenbergpenn • IP & free speech, TM, (c), publicity • Author of The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World (@Harvard_Press).
My new @HarvLRev article is out today! In it I consider how overlapping rights in a person's identity have created an "identity thicket." The best way out is to reclaim trademark law's longstanding respect for autonomy & dignity and to employ preemption.
https://t.co/2Hqv7lK6Q6
Trademark and unfair competition laws & state right of publicity laws are working at odds with one another. How to navigate? CTIC Prof. Jennifer Rothman’s just-published @HarvLRev article addresses the “identity thicket.” @profrothman https://t.co/yySAQCzvlW
The deadline is approaching to submit your paper for the Fourth Annual Trademark and Unfair Competition Roundtable. To submit a draft paper, please fill out this form: https://t.co/LLgT130fdx & upload an anonymized version. We look forward to reading your submissions.
Next week, Jennifer Rothman will discuss the convergence of copyright and right of publicity law, and whether copyright is the appropriate framework to address the rising challenges posed by deepfakes, digital replicas and voice clones.
Join Us! https://t.co/1PoQeu9KGF
Thank you to Margo Bagley for this generous and thoughtful Jotwell review of my forthcoming article with @markpmckenna on "Amazon's Quiet Overhaul of the Trademark System." Article appearing soon in the @CalifLRev https://t.co/SwyP3TYN7v
New from @profrothman: Postmortem Publicity Rights at the Property-Personality Divide. I've already recommended it to my students. It's forthcoming in Private Law Theory & Intellectual Property, Cambridge Univ. Press 2025, eds. Balganesh et al. / https://t.co/Nay1EFIzZo
Fascinating: NYT's lawyers will soon be able to review OpenAI's training data "in a secure room on a secure laptop" as part of its copyright lawsuit. Both sides have just hammered out the terms of the training data inspection:
https://t.co/zj9miVkt18
Finally had a chance to write-up my thoughts about the Copyright Office Report calling for Congressional Action on Digital Replicas - https://t.co/SX2n7fhRpU
@cgarber8 The NO FAKES Act does not explain what happens. The Copyright Office Report suggests that works created during the licensing period should continue to be able to be distributed. The Copyright Office also does not think there should be liability for creation alone.
Don't wait – check your state's voter registration deadline today and make sure you're registered and ready to vote. And then share this with your friends and family so everyone's ready to vote early or by Election Day. https://t.co/jKW0RyeBXC
One key thing to understand about the Report is that it understandably brings to bear a copyright frame. Yet, "we need to think about [IP] rights in people differently than we think about [IP] in expressive works." I explain this more detail at: https://t.co/g9TqZegZxn
For some thoughts on how it matches and differs from the Copyright Office approach check out my recent post on the Copyright Office's Report: https://t.co/g9TqZehxmV
Finally wrote up thoughts on the NO FAKES Act, introduced right before Congress's August recess. This digital replica bill improves upon earlier version but still risks control over our own voices and likenesses and public deception. For details see https://t.co/ASF9XzxRNB
Copyright Office suggests that a federal law should be adopted. The specifics largely track NO FAKES Act circulated the same day though parts ways in some instances. E.g., Office does not think postmortem rights necessary & recommends a fair use approach rather than exemptions