#79 Law Zone #79

  Facial Recognition Consent Logs: Legal Retention Requirements Imagine walking into a modern airport, a stadium, or even a retail store—and having your face scanned within milliseconds. That facial scan? It’s not just data. It’s biometric information tied to your identity. But here’s the legal catch: if a company is storing the consent log that allowed that scan in the first place, how long can they keep it? Welcome to the increasingly controversial—and legally ambiguous—world of facial recognition consent log retention requirements . This blog post dives into the maze of compliance obligations, state privacy laws, and practical steps tech firms must take to stay ahead of regulation. 📌 Table of Contents Why Consent Logs Matter in Facial Recognition State-Level Laws Governing Retention How Long is Long Enough? Building Audit-Ready Biometric Consent Systems Global Trends: GDPR vs. U.S. Biometric Rules Final Thoughts & Resources Why Con...

  Legal Licensing of LLM-Generated Code in SaaS Development As SaaS developers increasingly integrate AI tools like GitHub Copilot or ChatGPT into their workflows, one legal question continues to loom large: who owns the code? Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate high-quality snippets of code—but understanding the licensing implications of using that code in commercial products is essential. In this post, we’ll explore how to manage legal risk and licensing compliance when using LLM-generated code in SaaS applications. 📌 Table of Contents (Click to Navigate) Ownership of LLM-Generated Code Risks from Open-Source Contamination Commercialization and SaaS Licensing Impacts Legal Best Practices for SaaS Developers Ownership of LLM-Generated Code LLM providers such as OpenAI and Google generally allow users to retain commercial rights to the output generated by their models. However, output originality is not guaranteed. If a model reproduces license...

  Legal Precedents for Non-Human Actors in Creative Works As AI, autonomous tools, and even animals begin contributing to creative outputs, a provocative legal question arises: Who owns the copyright when the creator isn’t human? From AI-generated art to the famous “monkey selfie” case, courts around the world are setting important precedents for non-human authorship. This post explores the legal landscape around ownership, authorship, and liability when the “creator” is not a person in the traditional sense. 📌 Table of Contents 1. AI as an Author: Current Copyright Office Stance 2. The Monkey Selfie Case and Animal Authorship 3. Copyright and Machine-Made Works 4. Human-AI Collaboration and Co-Authorship 5. Future Implications and Legislative Trends 🤖 AI as an Author: Current Copyright Office Stance In the U.S., the Copyright Office has repeatedly ruled that only works created by human beings can be copyrighted. Recent cases involving AI-gener...

  Intellectual Property for Voice Clones and Deepfake Tech As voice cloning and deepfake technologies advance, they raise complex intellectual property (IP) issues. These technologies can replicate a person's voice or likeness, leading to potential infringements on rights of publicity, copyrights, and other legal concerns. 📌 Table of Contents Understanding Voice Cloning and Deepfakes Rights of Publicity and Consent Copyright Implications Legal Protections and Remedies Best Practices for Developers and Users Understanding Voice Cloning and Deepfakes Voice cloning involves using AI to replicate a person's voice, while deepfakes use AI to create realistic but fake images or videos. These technologies can be used for entertainment, education, or malicious purposes. Rights of Publicity and Consent Individuals have the right to control the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness. Using someone's voice or likeness without consent can v...