AI – The Artificial Intelligence Blog

November 18, 2025 by Duane Morris

Copyrightability of AI-Generated Works – Petition for Certiorari Tees Up Supreme Court Review of Test Case on “Human Authorship

Following a refusal to grant a copyright registration to Stephen Thaler for a work whose sole author was identified as “Creativity Machine,” a generative AI Thaler created, the D.C. Circuit affirmed that works authored exclusively by artificial intelligence are ineligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act, which the court read to require human authorship, in keeping with the Copyright Office interpretation and prior case law. A petition for certiorari and a supporting amicus brief now ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question of whether the Copyright Act requires human authorship, arguing that the statute’s text, structure and purpose do not categorically impose such a requirement and that existing doctrines leave room for AI to be recognized as the author of protected works.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.

October 23, 2025 by Duane Morris

Webinar: AI and Wearables

Duane Morris will host the third session of its Wearable Webinars Series, Product Liability and IP Strategies for Wearables, on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern.

REGISTER

Agatha Liu, Ph.D., will cover how wearables with diagnostic, monitoring or therapeutic claims fall under the FDA’s software as a medical device framework, including predetermined change control plans, good machine learning practices and real-world performance monitoring of adaptive algorithms.

October 14, 2025October 14, 2025 by Duane Morris

Webinar: Navigating the Future of Finance & AI Regulation

Duane Morris will present a webinar, Navigating the Future of Finance & AI Regulation: A Webinar on Emerging Legal Frameworks for AI and Digital Assets Reform, on Wednesday, November 12, 2025 | 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern.

October 7, 2025October 7, 2025 by Duane Morris

Calif. Leads the Way in Consumer-Facing AI Regulation with Automated Decisionmaking Technology Rules

As an important development in U.S. AI regulation, California enacted its automated decisionmaking technology (ADMT) rules in September 2025. These are the first enacted, broadly scoped, consumer-facing AI governance rules in the country. They offer opt-out rights and logic disclosures for AI-driven significant decisions affecting consumers. The rules took effect on October 1, 2025, with compliance required by January 1, 2027, for covered businesses that use ADMT in significant decisions before that date. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.

September 30, 2025September 30, 2025 by Duane Morris

AI in the Construction Industry

In a recent Commercial Construction Renovation article, Duane Morris attorneys Robert H. Bell and Michael Ferri write:

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is rapidly making its way into the construction bidding process. Contractors now use AI-powered estimating software to perform quantity takeoffs and analyze costs with unprecedented speed. According to the drafting and engineering software giant Autodesk, estimating teams are increasingly using AI and automation, particularly for quantity takeoffs, cost forecasting, and speeding up bid creation. Yet as digital tools become routine, legal rules governing bids still rely on traditional principles. This raises a pressing question: if an AI tool makes a costly error in a bid, will the legal system treat that mistake any differently than a human error? Courts are only beginning to grapple with AI-related mishaps, but early indications suggest AI errors will be handled much like any other bidding mistake. In other words, contractors will likely be held responsible for errors made by their AI tools, just as they are responsible for the mistakes of human estimators or means and methods under their control.

September 29, 2025September 29, 2025 by Duane Morris

Joint Commission and Coalition for Health AI Issue Guidance on Provider Use of AI

On September 17, 2025, the Joint Commission and Coalition for Health AI issued a joint guidance document entitled “Responsible Use of AI in Healthcare” to help providers implement AI while mitigating the risks of its use. The guidance provides seven elements that constitute responsible AI use in healthcare and discusses how provider organizations can implement them. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.

September 8, 2025September 8, 2025 by Duane Morris

Ten Design Guidelines to Mitigate the Risk of AI Pricing Tool Noncompliance

Duane Morris special counsel Justin Donoho authored the Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law article, “Ten Design Guidelines to Mitigate the Risk of AI Pricing Tool Noncompliance with the Federal Trade Commission Act, Sherman Act, and Colorado AI Act.” The article is available here and is a must-read for corporate counsel involved with development or deployment of AI pricing tools.

August 19, 2025August 20, 2025 by Duane Morris

California Court Allows Privacy Claims Against AI Voice Assistant

On August 11, 2025, Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss in Taylor v. ConverseNow Technologies, Inc. (Case No. 25-cv-00990-SI), allowing claims under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Sections 631 and 632 to move forward against an AI voice assistant provider. ConverseNow provides artificial intelligence voice assistant technology that restaurants, including Domino’s, use to answer phone calls, process orders and capture customer information. The plaintiff alleged that when she placed a pizza order by phone, her call was intercepted and routed through ConverseNow’s servers, where her name, address and credit card details were recorded without her knowledge or consent. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.

July 2, 2025July 2, 2025 by Duane Morris

Northern District of California Decides AI Training Is Fair Use, but Pirating Books May Still Be Infringing

Two groundbreaking decisions from the Northern District of California—Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Bartz v. Anthropic PBC—shed light on how courts are approaching the use of copyrighted materials in training large language models (LLMs). Both cases involved authors alleging copyright infringement based on the use of their books to train generative AI models, and both courts held that use of the copyrighted materials to train the AI models was transformative. The court in Anthropic held, however, that copying pirated books constitutes copyright infringement and the transformative nature of the use did not rescue such infringement. Conversely, the Meta court held that copying from pirate sites to train AI is fair use, but only because the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence of market harm, which the court believed to be the most relevant factor. As such, while use of copyrighted works to train AI may be fair use, copying works without permission carries the risk of infringement. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.