Tag: CDA 230

Copyright Office Calls for Congressional Action on Digital Replicas

Late this summer, the U.S. Copyright Office released the first of its planned reports on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence. This one, designated as Part 1, addresses “Digital Replicas”. It was notably released the same day that members of the Senate introduced a bipartisan digital replica bill. The Report generally supports a federal digital replica law...
Continue reading

House Subcommittee Sends Follow-Up Questions After AI Hearing

After the February 2nd House hearing about AI and how best to address unauthorized use of a person's voice and likeness at the federal level, two members of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet sent me (Prof. Rothman) additional written questions to answer for the record. Representative Issa's questions focused on...
Continue reading

Third Circuit Holds that Newscaster’s Right of Publicity Claim can Proceed against Facebook

The Third Circuit in a 2-to-1 decision in Hepp v. Facebook has parted ways with the Ninth Circuit by holding that the Communications Decency Act § 230 (CDA § 230) allows right of publicity claims. This reversal of the district court allows the plaintiff Karen Hepp’s lawsuit to proceed against Facebook. The case involves a...
Continue reading

New York Reintroduces Much Improved Postmortem Right of Publicity Bill

During its usual off-season, the New York legislature is revisiting its multi-year efforts to add new sections to its civil rights law and in particular to add a postmortem provision to state law. This latest version would add two sections to NY's Civil Rights Law,  what it dubs a new “right of publicity” and a...
Continue reading

Pennsylvania District Court Holds Right of Publicity Claims Barred by Communications Decency Act Section 230

A federal district court in Pennsylvania granted Facebook, Imgur, and Reddit’s respective motions to dismiss claims that they had violated Karen Hepp’s common law and statutory rights of publicity under Pennsylvania law. The Court held her claims barred by the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”)'s Section 230, 47 U.S.C. § 230. The case arose when Ms....
Continue reading