virginiaprelawland

[virginiaprelawland]

The Idaho Murders TikTok Psychic Defamation Lawsuit

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

April 21, 2024

The infamous “legal sideshow” of the Idaho murders involving a TikTok creator and a history professor has only gotten more complicated and intense as time has gone on. Ashley Guillard, a tarot card reader from Texas, posted a series of TikToks that claimed that University of Idaho history professor Rebecca Scofield was having an affair with one of the victims of the Idaho murders and orchestrated the students’ killings to cover it up [1]. Guillard began her accusations 10 days after Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin were killed in their off-campus home in Moscow, Idaho. Despite Guillard’s outrageous and unverified claims, they quickly gained traction online. Guillard claimed that her “spiritual research” led her to the University of Idaho History Department which Scofield chaired. Guillard said she zeroed in on Scofield using “intuitive abilities, spiritual acuity, and investigative skills.” Guillard persistently asserted that Scofield had been romantically involved with one of the victims and enlisted her ex-boyfriend to kill her and her friends. There is no evidence that Scofield and the victim ever knew each other. Scofield’s attorneys sent two cease and desist letters in late 2022 to Guillard, demanding that she stop posting and remove all defamatory TikToks. Guillard refused and posted 20 more videos continuing to paint Scofield as the “mastermind behind the killings.” [1].

Scofield filed a defamation suit against Guillard on December 21, 2022, and insisted that Guillard used “the community’s pain for her online self-promotion” [1]. Guillard continued to make inaccurate claims even after Bryan Kohberger was arrested on December 30, 2022, and was named the primary suspect in the case. In fact, Guillard doubled down on Scofield’s guilt even after Kohberger’s arrest occurred [3]. Guillard claims to have solved several high-profile cases before, including the deaths of Migos rapper Takeoff, businesswoman Shanquella Robinson, and internet personality Kevin Samuels [4].

Rebecca Scofield has taught at the University of Idaho since 2016 and maintains that she was in Portland, Oregon with her husband and friends at the time of the murders [1]. Scofield also states in her lawsuit that none of the victims attended any classes she taught, and she could not recall meeting any of them. As a result of Guillard’s immense online following, Scofield’s name is now linked to the word “murder” in a basic internet search. According to Scofield’s lawsuit, Guillard’s claims have “tarnished” Scofield’s reputation and has made her “the subject of online ridicule and threats from Guillard’s online commentators.” Guillard has also caused Scofield to fear for her family’s safety as well as generating “significant emotional distress.” [1].

Guillard, who is representing herself, claims that she has suffered damages from the publicity of the suit rather than Scofield [6]. Scofield’s attorneys have called Guillard’s comments “increasingly inflammatory.” They go on to state, “Guillard is free to practice any ‘spirituality’ that she likes, but that ‘spirituality’ does not excuse attacking another person’s reputation or warrant using this Court as a platform to harass Professor Scofield, drive up litigation expenses, and further Guillard’s scheme to make ‘millions of dollars.’” Scofield’s attorneys are asking a judge to dismiss Guillard’s counterclaims and award Scofield her attorney’s fees, as well asking for a jury trial [5]. Scofield’s friend and colleague created a GoFundMe to help with the costs associated with the lawsuit [6]. In response, Guillard said, “I’m going to keep posting. I’m not taking anything down. If in the alternate universe, if I was wrong, this is an open and shut case. I did say she ordered the execution of the four University of Idaho students. I’m still posting. I’ve said a lot of things about her. I’m not going to stop. If I’m such a liar, I’m so wrong about it, then in court she will win.” [5].

Guillard has continued to deny that she has defamed Scofield because the accusations are “substantially true” [2]. Determining what is considered defamation is a delicate area of law as the lines between stating an opinion versus stating a fact can be vague [7]. Most defamation cases test the limits of the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and press. Fundamentally, defamation is a statement that injures a third party’s reputation and includes both written and spoken statements. While each state varies in their standards for defamation and the potential damages that could result, overall a plaintiff must show four things to prove prima facie (at first sight) defamation. These include: a false statement purporting to be fact, a publication or communication of that statement to a third person, a fault amounting to at least negligence, damages or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity that is the subject of the statement [7].   

In her countersuit, Guillard stated that she plans to subpoena Meta for all messages on Scofield’s Facebook and Instagram accounts from June 1, 2021 to the present [1]. Judge Raymond Edward Patricco Jr. criticized this request and called it a “fishing expedition” and a “ready, aim, fire” approach that is not permitted under state law. Judge Patricco ruled to dismiss Guillard’s counterclaim, saying “In short, the pleading requirement does not provide a key to ‘unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions’; again, a complaint must be plausible on its face.” [1].

On top of dismissing Guillard’s 11 counterclaims against Scofield and her legal counsel, Judge Patricco granted Scofield’s motion to quash a summons to her counsel [2]. Judge Patricco stated that Guillard’s “‘intuitive abilities, spiritual activity, and investigative skills’ were not enough to allow the Court to infer the existence of a plausible claim against Plaintiff”, therefore each of Guillard’s counterclaims failed as a matter of law. Judge Patricco concluded that Rebecca Scofield’s defamation claim could go forward [2].

Ultimately, this legal battle underscores the need for responsible discourse and the diligent pursuit of truth, both online and within the justice system. The outcome of Rebecca Scofield's lawsuit against Ashely Guillard will not only impact the individuals involved but also set precedents for future cases involving defamation in the digital age.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/idaho-college-student-killings-defamation-suit_n_64d2b472e4b0b9c9f3e3ef0c

[2] https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/14/alleged-psychic-intuition-still-isnt-enough-to-make-a-federal-claim-plausible-enough-to-withstand-dismissal/

[3] https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/aug/08/judge-dismisses-counterclaims-brought-by-tiktok-ps/#:~:text=A%20federal%20judge%20called%20a,counterclaims%20against%20the%20professor%20Tuesday.

[4] https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2022/12/a-tiktok-psychic-claimed-to-have-solved-the-university-of-idaho-murders-her-suspect-is-suing.html

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/24/idaho-killings-rebecca-scofield-ashley-guillard-/

[6] https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/special-reports/moscow-murders/tiktok-user-files-counterclaims-against-university-of-idaho-professor-she-accused-in-moscow-murders-rebecca-scofield-ashley-guillard/277-17d41240-a930-4026-81ed-93fb182071c3

[7] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

[virginiaprelawland]

The Petito-Laundrie Civil Suit

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

April 5, 2024

The infamous case of Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie has evolved to include their parents. Gabby was a 22-year-old travel blogger who was killed by Brian while they were on a cross-country road trip [1]. In March 2022, Gabby’s parents Nichole Schmidt and Joseph Petito, filed a lawsuit against Brian’s parents, Christopher and Roberta Laundrie as well as their lawyer Steven Bertolino, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Laundries were alleged to have refused to return calls and texts to Gabby’s family during the investigation, which led to the Petitos releasing a public statement begging them to cooperate with the investigation [6]. The Petito family claimed that the Laundries were aware of Gabby’s murder soon after her death in August 2021, and willfully chose to do nothing to help the investigation other than issue a statement through Bertolino saying, “It is our hope that the search for Miss Petito is successful, and that Miss Petito is reunited with her family” [1]. The Laundries have argued in court filings that they had no duty to respond to the Petito family [7].

In July 2021, Gabby and Brian left for what was intended to be a four-month cross-country trip where they would visit national parks. They planned to sleep in their van and document their travels to post online [2]. In early August 2021, a 911 call was placed by someone who was reported to have seen a confrontation between Gabby and Brian. Police in Moab, Utah pulled the couple’s van over and police bodycam shows Gabby upset and crying. Police reports indicate that Gabby hit Brian, but no arrests were made. However, this contradicted what the 911 caller saw. They state that they saw Brian hit Gabby while they were driving. The couple was separated for the night with Brian checking into a hotel and Gabby staying in the van [2].

In late August 2021, the couple’s van was spotted at Grand Teton National Park and Gabby posted her last picture to Instagram [2]. According to a search warrant, on August 27 Nichole Schmidt said that she received a strange text from Gabby. It read: “Can you help Stan, I just keep getting his voicemails and missed calls.” Stan is Gabby’s grandfather, but she never referred to him by his first name. Nichole said this was out of character for Gabby and confusing [2].

On September 1, 2021, Brian returned home to Florida alone and by September 11, Gabby was reported missing by her family [2]. On September 13, Brian’s parents reported that he left the family home for a hike in the Carlton Reserve in Sarasota County, Florida, but that he hadn’t returned. They also released a statement through their lawyer saying that they intend to remain in the background while the search for Gabby continues. The Petito family also released a statement accusing Brian of refusing to tell them when he last saw Gabby. By mid-September, Brian was named a person of interest for failing to cooperate with the investigation [2].

On September 19, 2021, remains were found near Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming that were later identified to be Gabby Petito’s remains [2]. Soon after this discovery, the FBI raided Brian’s home. They seized his car and a hard drive that they say, “may contain evidence that a felony has been committed.” An arrest warrant was then issued for Brian, who was charged with unauthorized use of a debit card to make unauthorized withdrawals worth more than $1,000 during the time Gabby was missing [2].

On October 6, 2021, it was confirmed that Brian flew home to Florida on August 17 and returned to Utah on August 23, four days before Gabby was last seen [2]. Brian reportedly flew home to get some supplies and to close a storage unit. On October 20, human remains were found at the site where authorities were searching for Brian. Later identified as Brian, authorities announced that he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. In the FBI’s final report on the investigation into Gabby’s death, they reported that Brian claimed responsibility for Gabby’s death in a notebook that was found near his remains. The notebook was found alongside a backpack and a revolver. FBI confirmed that Brian had been “attempting to deceive law enforcement by giving the impression that Ms. Petito was still alive by continuing a text chain between their two phones after she is believed to have died.” [2].

At this point, lawsuits are in full swing. In March 2022, the Petito family sued the Laundrie family claiming that Brian told his parents that he killed Gabby and that they concealed Brian’s confession to committing the murder [2]. The Laundries filed to dismiss the lawsuit, calling it “baseless and frivolous”, but the lawsuit moved forward. In August 2022, the Petito family also filed a $50 million wrongful death suit against Utah police. The lawsuit named the Moab Police Department, three of its officers, and 10 other unnamed defendants and accused them of “negligent failure” in their investigation into the alleged assault between Gabby and Brian, weeks before Gabby’s murder. In a report, the Moab police officers indicate that they made “unintentional mistakes” on the day of the incident, and in November 2022, the Petito family was awarded $3 million dollars in the wrongful death suit. The Petito’s lawyer announced that whatever money was received will go to the Gabby Petito Foundation, which is dedicated to locating missing people and curbing domestic violence [2].

Depositions in the civil suit filed by the Petitos against the Laundries have recently been released, which shows a more complete timeline in the aftermath of Gabby’s disappearance [4]. On August 29, 2021, Brian told his parents that Gabby was “gone” and to “call a lawyer” in what is described as a frantic phone call that took place three weeks before Gabby’s remains were found. On September 2, 2021, Brian’s parents sent Stephen Bertolino a retainer and Bertolino entered into a fee agreement with a criminal defense firm in Wyoming [3]. The same day Brian “frantically” called his parents, documents also allege that Brian was using Gabby’s phone pretending to be her in text messages to her family [4]. When asked what Roberta Laundrie understood what Gabby being “gone” meant in her deposition, she stated, “I wasn’t sure. I don’t even remember what I thought. (Brian) was very upset. He didn’t sound like himself. I knew something was wrong.” The attorney for the Petito family then asked Roberta on why Brian saying “(Gabby’s) gone. Call a lawyer.” didn’t raise any alarm bells. Roberta responded with, “A lot of things ran through my head. Possibly they got into a fight, and you know, maybe she’s going to press charges against him or something? I don’t know.” In her deposition Roberta Laundrie also denied blocking Nichole Schmidt on social media but admitted to ignoring her texts at the advice of Bertolino [4].

After going back and forth on whether to include an incriminating letter from Roberta Laundrie to Brian in the civil suit, a judge in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court determined that it could be relevant to the case and that the plaintiff’s lawyers should at least get a copy [7]. The letter was found near Brian’s remains and said “burn after reading” on the envelope. It contained “references to bringing a shovel to help bury a body, and baking a cake with a shiv in it should Brian Laundrie go to prison” [6]. Roberta Laundrie has continued to state that she wrote the letter before Brian left for his trip with Gabby. She said, “It was a poor choice of words. When I read this later, I was like ‘This sounds awful’. It was a jokey, stupid letter that I dashed off before he left with lots of bad jokes and poor humor…I never imagined any of this.” Roberta also states that her and Brian’s relationship was strained before he left on the trip, so she wrote the letter to remind her son that she would always love him [6].

The Petito and Laundrie family have decided to settle the civil suit between them to avoid going to trial [1]. The details of the settlement were not disclosed, but it reportedly came “after a long day of mediation.” The Petito family said that “All parties reluctantly agreed in order to avoid further legal expenses and prolonged personal conflict” [5].

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-gabby-petito-brian-laundrie-reach-settlement-emotional/story?id=107434194

[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gabby-petito-brian-laundrie-case-story-deaths/

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/04/us/gabby-petito-gone-brian-laundrie-parents-lawsuit/index.html

[4] https://www.mysuncoast.com/2024/02/13/court-documents-roberta-laundrie-insists-she-didnt-know-gabby-petito-was-dead/

[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/settlement-reached-gabby-petito-laundrie-families-rcna139905#:~:text=The%20parents%20of%20slain%20New,distress%20case%20were%20not%20disclosed.

[6] https://abc7chicago.com/what-happened-to-gabby-petito-brian-laundrie-parents-phone-calls/14452286/#:~:text=But%20Laundrie%20returned%20to%20his,claimed%20responsibility%20for%20Petito's%20death.

[7] https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/24/us/gabby-petito-parents-lawsuit-letter-brian-laundrie

[virginiaprelawland]

The Legal and Ethical Dilemmas of Reality Television

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

March 25, 2024

By 2009, unscripted and reality television accounted for more than a quarter of all primetime broadcast programming [2]. Unlike scripted television, which is written before filming, reality television is often shaped by story producers, writers, and editors who work to craft narratives both during and after the footage is captured [8]. While the reality television environment may be artificially created, viewers can expect a genuine response from the participants. Media psychologist Pamela Rutledge says, “Because it’s reality television and because it is allegedly authentic, it’s much easier for people who watch it regularly to connect with these characters and start to invest in them.” [7].

While viewers can escape into the lives of others on their screen, the participants of these shows have a less glamorous reality. Reality TV shows like Survivor and Fear Factor are focused on the suffering of their contestants, while dating shows like Love Island and The Bachelor have preyed on cast members’ vulnerabilities [1]. Most reality television contestants do not receive union representation and they are not covered by Hollywood workplace rules governing meal breaks, minimum time off, or even minimum wages [2]. They also are forced to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that can include million-dollar penalties if they reveal what really happened on set. Interviews with former reality television contestants whose contracts had expired stated that the producers routinely use isolation, lack of sleep, and alcohol to encourage “TV-worthy behavior.” Producers on reality television shows say that participants should know what they are getting into when they sign up for these shows. In actuality, reality television contestants are subject to unequal terms of negotiations. Even if they don’t sign the contract, there are hundreds of other people that could take their place [2].

The crew on reality television sets are also not immune to a toxic work environment. Because of the extremely low budgets on reality television compared to scripted television, crew members are often treated as contract workers with few benefits, work hours of overtime, and endure shifting job responsibilities [8]. In 2005, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) West called reality television an “industry sweatshop” and almost 1,000 story producers signed cards requesting WGA representation. However, none of the production companies agreed to negotiate with the Producers Guild of America and accused WGA of “courting a strain of chaos for the entire industry” by categorizing reality television producers as writers. The fact is that “69% of reality television writers create storylines or outlines based on previously shot footage and use existing footage to work backwards from the ending in the most interesting way possible.” Reality television also primarily runs on freelance laborers who are often temporarily employed, lack benefits, and make thousands of dollars less than their WGA scripted television counterparts [8].

Recent lawsuits and scandals on the reality television show “Love is Blind” have brought to light the strange and oftentimes toxic environment seen in the industry. The premise of Love is Blind is that contestants must find a partner and get engaged to them without ever meeting face-to-face [1]. Love is Blind became extremely popular during the pandemic and was supposed to be a “good” reality show that “promised something different.” The show focuses on its social experiment aspect that values emotional connection over physical appearance. Briana Holmes was a contestant on Love is Blind, but after having a panic attack and having the producers follow her around with cameras to capture a vulnerable moment, she quit the show. Holmes cited the 20-hour filming days and the immense pressure to get engaged in under two weeks as part of the reason why she left. Many other cast members have since come forward and stated that their time was also traumatic on the show. During the 10 days of filming in the windowless set, cast members say that they only saw sunlight when they went to use the bathroom in a trailer outside. Cast members also stated that panic attacks were common during filming, and “many people were rarely spotted without an alcoholic beverage in their hand.” [1].

In June 2022, former cast member Jeremy Hartwell sued Netflix and Love is Blind’s production company accusing them of violating labor laws and of subjecting contestants to “unsafe and inhumane” working conditions by depriving them of sleep, not supplying enough food and water, and providing an excess of alcohol [1]. Once people are cast for the show, they sign a contract agreeing to be recorded 24/7 for up to eight weeks for a weekly stipend of $1,000 that has a cap at $8,000. Hartwell claims in his lawsuit that the production company “willfully misclassified” contestants as independent contractors instead of employees. This meant that the contestants’ weekly stipend of $1,000 translated to $7.14 an hour, which is less than half of the $15 minimum wage in California where filming took place [1].

Another former cast member Renee Poche has recently entered into private arbitration with Love is Blind’s production company [3]. The production company alleges that Poche violated her NDA and is seeking $4 million. Hollywood lawyers Bryan Freedman and Mark Geragos are representing Poche. They are seeking to nullify Poche’s contract and are also claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress alongside violations of several California labor and civic codes. Poche’s suit is a part of a much bigger war being waged by Freedman and Geragos against the reality television industry. The pair now represent several hundred reality television stars and crew members who have been subjected to everything from false imprisonment to sexual violence. Poche is the first person to challenge the legality of her contract which “protects the production company and Netflix from liability from future intentional misconduct and includes ruinous penalties in the millions of dollars for participants who dare to speak out about the unsafe working conditions on set.” [3].

With the increase in lawsuits, comes discussions about reality television stars unionizing. Former Real Housewives of New York star Bethenny Frankel is leading a call for reality television unionization as writers and actors of scripted television went on strike [4]. Members of Love is Blind have launched the Unscripted Cast Advocacy Network, which is an organization that provides mental and legal support to past, present, and future reality television stars with the help of volunteer lawyers and psychologists. Currently, reality television stars do not receive residuals and give away their likeness when the series becomes a hit and gets replayed across platforms [4]. Frankel’s demands for a potential union include a $5,000 per episode base minimum pay for reality television talent, a 10% raise for each subsequent season, as well as pay for residuals when episodes re-air on other platforms [5].

The Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) have stated that they are ready to help Frankel and her legal team and suggested that reality television stars join the organization under the National Code of Fair Practice for Network Television Broadcasting. This organization covers programs like talk shows, soap operas, and game shows and would provide annual wage increases and other benefits [8]. The WGA and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) have been in touch with the Nonfiction Coalition, which is an advocacy group that expands the organizing effort beyond writers and personality-driven reality television to include production and post-production roles across all forms of nonfiction series [8].

Unionizing isn’t a guaranteed way to solve all of the problems with reality television since production companies could still refuse to negotiate [8]. However, with the number of lawsuits being filed against production and broadcasting companies, there could be changes to how contracts are written for reality television stars moving forward [6]. Formal contracts could mean stricter limitations on what production companies can and cannot do, as well as protecting the rights of the participants.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/love-is-blind-netflix-cast-reality-show-dating-mental-health-2023-4

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/business/media/02reality.html

[3] https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/love-is-blind-lawsuit-renee-poche-1235860564/

[4] https://time.com/6314118/reality-tv-unions-protection/

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/aug/18/we-wont-take-this-any-more-reality-tv-stars-battle-to-unionise

[6] https://www.cinemablend.com/streaming-news/love-is-blind-star-suing-netflix-and-producers-could-have-huge-ramifications-reality-tv-future

[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2023/11/03/reality-tv-what-do-stars-owe/71306704007/

[8] https://www.vulture.com/article/reality-reckoning-reality-tv-union-history-explained.html

[virginiaprelawland]

The Law Of TikTok vs. Universal Music Group

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

March 10, 2024

In January 2024, Universal Music Group (UMG), one of the largest players in the music industry, made headlines by announcing the removal of its recorded music from TikTok. This decision stemmed from a disagreement over licensing terms, with UMG asserting that TikTok's compensation fell short of what other platforms offered. As a result, thousands of TikTok videos suddenly went silent, signaling a significant disruption in the platform's content ecosystem.

The conflict between UMG and TikTok is emblematic of broader issues surrounding digital platforms and rights holders. For years, creators and rights holders have grappled with platforms like TikTok and YouTube, which offer massive exposure but often provide minimal financial rewards. This dynamic echoes the contentious relationship the music industry has had with YouTube in the past, highlighting recurring themes of fair compensation and the value of artistic content in the digital age.

Adding complexity to the situation is the intersection of music rights and artificial intelligence (AI). UMG raised concerns about AI-generated music and its potential impact on artists' works, highlighting the need for responsible AI practices in the industry. While AI presents opportunities for innovation and creativity, it also poses challenges, particularly regarding copyright infringement and fair use policies.

UMG's stance on AI-generated music prompted discussions on copyright laws' applicability to machine-generated content. The company's involvement in the Human Artistry Campaign, advocating for responsible AI use, underscores its commitment to addressing these challenges collaboratively. Moreover, UMG's partnership with YouTube to establish the Music AI Incubator reflects efforts to embrace AI innovation while safeguarding artists' interests.

Despite the standoff between UMG and TikTok, industry experts anticipate a resolution that benefits both parties and supports content creators and artists. However, the potential removal of UMG's catalog from TikTok highlights the broader implications for the industry, emphasizing the importance of balanced negotiations and fair compensation practices in the evolving digital landscape.

For full article please visit

TikTok vs. Universal Music Group

at

Virginia PreLaw Land

[virginiaprelawland]

TikTok vs. Universal Music Group 

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

March 10, 2024

On January 30, 2024, Universal Music Group (UMG) announced that they are “calling a time out on TikTok” and began removing its recorded music from the platform [1]. UMG is the biggest out of the three major music companies, including Sony and Warner. They have deals with thousands of musicians, and they have been known to be aggressive in defending their artists’ rights and pursuing the best deals they can get [3]. Following a 30-day grace period, UMG stated that they will also require TikTok to take down any song in which UMG controls the rights to. This could account for more than half of the music used on TikTok. With many songs already being removed from the app, many TikTok videos suddenly went silent [2]. Until UMG and TikTok reach a new licensing deal, TikTok will not earn any money on the music UMG has the rights to. UMG stated that they made this decision because TikTok offered to pay only a fraction of the rate that other social media platforms offer. TikTok countered this by saying that UMG was “putting their own greed above the interest of their artists and songwriters” [2].  

For many years, rights holders have embraced TikTok as a promotional vehicle while complaining about the platform’s low payouts in what seemed like a repeat of the music industry’s controversial relationship with YouTube [1]. Both platforms pay less than others because they operate under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. TikTok argues that UMG has abandoned their platform that essentially “serves as a free promotional and discovery vehicle for their talent”. This debate could be potentially revolutionary since the last 20 years have consisted of negotiations between media and technology companies including only a few rights holders that control a significant amount of content in a platform that has a larger share in the market than they do. Antitrust laws prevent large companies from negotiating together, but UMG has managed to get more leverage by using publishing rights that inevitably affects smaller companies [1].  

At the heart of this issue is the entanglement between music rights and the growing presence of AI in virtually every industry. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a federal law that addresses a range of copyright issues [7]. It implemented a “safe harbor” provision that seeks to minimize liability for unlawfully posting the copyrighted works of others. To be protected from liability under the safe harbor provisions, “internet service providers (ISPs) must follow very specific ‘notice and takedown’ procedures once notified of potentially infringing material”. To qualify for safe harbor protection, ISPs must be unaware that the material in their system infringes on a copyright. Once notified of the copyright, they must act quickly to remove the content. ISPs also cannot receive any financial benefit from the copyrighted material. They must implement a policy for terminating the accounts of those who repeatedly infringe on the copyrights of others. With the notice and takedown procedure, ISPs must register with the U.S. Copyright Office. The DMCA also provides penalties in the form of monetary damages available to those who have infringed upon a copyrighted work [7].  

Currently, works created solely by AI are not protected by copyright laws, even if the content is produced from a prompt written by a human [8]. However, when it comes to training AI models, copyrighted materials are fair game. This is because fair use laws permit the use of copyrighted materials under specific conditions without needing the permission of the owner. The U.S. Copyright Office has reinforced that there is no copyright protection for works created by non-humans, including machines. The root of this issue lies in the way that AI systems are trained, since they identify and replicate patterns in data. An AI system first learns from the real work of humans before it can generate an output. Many artists and musicians are worried about their works being used to train generative AI models without permission or compensation. Some companies like Getty Images and Shutterstock have placed a ban on all artificially generated content, citing its potential legal risk. Bria, a generative AI startup, trains its models on what it calls “responsibly sourced” data sets, and pays royalties to artists and stock image providers when their work has been used to generate an image [8].  

UMG has also stated that TikTok had not adequately addressed their concerns over AI-generated music [3], since “AI possesses the potential to transform the music industry into a dynamic and technologically driven ecosystem, presenting both extraordinary opportunities as well as challenges” [5]. AI has now firmly planted itself into the music industry, from influencing the way music is created and produced, to the way it is consumed and experienced. AI is useful in the way that it can help musicians generate new melodies and lyrics but can be dangerous if taken too far. AI-generated music can often be indistinguishable from human-created music and can create realistic and deceptive audio content. This includes voice synthesis, instrumental replication, and imitating song writing styles. These issues promoted Warner Music Group to send letters to music streaming platforms requesting that they block AI from training with their artists’ music [5]. 

Two months after the U.S. Copyright Office launched an initiative to investigate copyright issues in AI, UMG urged streaming services to block the use of AI generated music, claiming that AI was using their artists’ music to train algorithms. UMG is one of the 40 participants to join the Human Artistry Campaign which advocates for the responsible use of AI [6]. UMG is continuing to combat harmful AI practices in the music industry. They recently partnered with YouTube to launch the Music AI Incubator with three fundamental AI music principles. They include embracing AI responsibly, implementing appropriate protections for AI in the use of creative expression, and using content policies to meet the challenges of AI [5]. 

Many experts have noted that a probable outcome of the issues between TikTok and UMG is that they will likely reach an agreement and find a way to work to benefit both sides, including content creators and artists [1]. If every song that UMG owns or represents was deleted from TikTok, the impact across the whole industry would be vastly felt [4].  

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.billboard.com/pro/universal-music-tiktok-feud-what-it-means-music-industry/#:~:text=On%20Jan.,recorded%20music%20from%20the%20platform. 

[2] https://www.vox.com/24072110/tiktok-taylor-swift-universal-music-group-today-explained#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%20January,Bad%20Bunny%20were%20suddenly%20silent. 

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/arts/music/tiktok-universal-music-explained.html 

[4] https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/tiktoks-biggest-headache-universal-feud-2/ 

[5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhenkin/2023/12/05/orchestrating-the-future-ai-in-the-music-industry/#:~:text=One%20challenge%20is%20that%20AI,and%20often%20deceptive%20audio%20content. 

[6] https://online.berklee.edu/takenote/ai-music-what-musicians-need-to-know/ 

[7] https://www.rcfp.org/journals/news-media-and-law-winter-2012/basics-digital-millennium-c/#:~:text=Perhaps%20most%20importantly%E2%80%A6-,The%20Digital%20Millennium%20Copyright%20Act%20(DMCA)%20is%20a%20federal%20law,the%20copyrighted%20works%20of%20others. 

[8] https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright 

[virginiaprelawland]

Rebecca Hill and Alex Murdaugh’s Appeal

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

February 26, 2024

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, also known as SLED, has confirmed that they have two open investigations into Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca “Becky” Hill [1]. Hill rose to prominence during Alex Murdaugh’s double homicide trial. One investigation alleges improper conduct with the jury from Murdaugh’s trial and the other investigation alleges that Hill used her elected position as clerk of court for personal gain. Controversy surrounding Hill began around September of 2023 following the publishing of her book “Behind the Doors of Justice”, which is an insider memoir about Murdaugh’s trial from Hill’s perspective. Following its publication, Murdaugh’s attorneys made it clear that they were looking into Hill for improperly influencing the jurors to come to a guilty verdict. Even before the SLED investigations, Hill faced two ethics complaints over the summer of 2023 alleging that she improperly allowed a documentary crew to film in the courthouse and that she had misappropriated a donation [1].

In late September 2023, Alex Murdaugh’s attorneys filed a motion requesting a new trial [1]. This motion centered around Hill’s alleged jury tampering. The motion also detailed purported interactions that Hill had with the jury such as having private conversations with them, denying jurors permission to take a smoke break during deliberations, and instructing jurors “not to be fooled” by evidence presented by Murdaugh’s defense team. Alex Murdaugh’s lawyers stated that Hill tampered with the jury because a guilty verdict would help her sell more copies of her book [1] and that Hill “betrayed her oath of office for money and fame” [5]. Rebecca Hill has continued to deny these allegations [1].

According to a brief filed by Murdaugh’s attorneys, “Mr. Murdaugh does not need to show actual bias on the part of any juror to obtain a new trial. If Mr. Murdaugh proves his allegation that Ms. Hill communicated with the jury about the evidence presented by the defense during his murder trial, South Carolina and federal law require that Mr. Murdaugh receive a new trial, irrespective of whether the court believes the outcome of the trial would have been the same had Ms. Hill’s jury tampering not occurred.” State prosecutors refute this by saying that the defense does in fact have to prove that there was jury tampering and that at least one juror was biased because of it [2].

Alex Murdaugh’s lawyers filed their appeal after they heard from three jurors that Rebecca Hill told them not to trust Murdaugh when he testified in his own defense [6]. Hill oversaw the jurors and was in charge of ensuring that the trial ran efficiently in the background. However, attorneys say she overstepped her boundaries by “asking jurors about their opinions about Mr. Murdaugh’s guilt or innocence” [6]. The appeal by Murdaugh’s defense team is very strong, but even if his conviction is overturned, Alex Murdaugh will still likely stay in prison for the rest of his life on the financial crimes he plead guilty to. A hearing was set to call witnesses to testify under oath about Hill’s alleged jury tampering [6].

On top of the ethics complaints and the jury tampering allegations, Rebecca Hill faces another controversy. Her book “Behind the Doors of Justice” was found to be plagiarized [7]. The plagiarism was discovered by Hill’s co-author Neil Gordon who immediately stopped the sales of the book. Gordon found the plagiarized content while reviewing thousands of pages of Hill’s emails that were released to reporters through the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Gordon came across an email exchange between Hill and a BBC reporter in which the reporter shared a long excerpt from an upcoming article about Alex Murdaugh. Gordon compared the excerpt to a 12-page passage from the preface of the book and “realized that she (Hill) lifted the article’s text and made it her own”. Hill immediately confessed to plagiarizing the passage when Gordon confronted her about it. Gordon stated that “as a veteran journalist myself, I cannot excuse her behavior, not can I condone it.” Hill’s attorneys said that “The pressures of developing additional content under tight time deadlines resulted in Ms. Hill taking material written by BBC reporter Holly Honderich and submitting it to her co-author Neil Gordon as if it were her own words. Ms. Hill accepts full responsibility for this unfortunate lapse in judgement and has personally reached out to Ms. Honderich to express her sincere apologies.” [7]. In the book, Hill discussed how her faith helped her navigate the sudden fame and responsibility that came from the aftermath of the Murdaugh trial. Hill stated that she became convinced of Murdaugh’s guilt when the jurors and court officials visited the Murdaugh family home where the murders occurred. Hill said, “I was mostly concerned about Alex being found innocent when I knew in my heart, he was guilty” [6].

Closely after the publishing of her book, Rebecca Hill’s son Jeffrey was arrested on charges related to wiretapping [4]. Jeffrey was released 24 hours later on a $20,000 personal recognizance bond. Jeffrey Hill was the technology director of the Colleton County government. His arrest came after a long investigation into his alleged repeated misuse of county equipment. According to the arrest warrant from SLED, around July 20, 2023, Jeffrey “did willfully and feloniously intercept electronic phone communications between two victims”. The conversations were recorded by a computer IP address that was identified to be assigned to Jeffrey’s computer. The Colleton County technology department is responsible for all the county computers, telephones, conferencing, and mobile cellular services. Jeffrey Hill was fired from his position following his arrest and Rebecca Hill’s phone was also seized following a search warrant [4]. A report from Fits News noted that investigators with SLED were “exploring obstruction of justice charges against both Rebecca and Jeffrey Hill as it relates to wiretapping” [5].

The most recent update in the Murdaugh appeal comes from an evidentiary hearing held by former South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal to determine the validity of the jury tampering claims. Justice Toal was appointed to the case after trial judge Clifton Newman recused himself from the case [3]. Following the hearing on January 29, 2024, Justice Toal ruled that barring the outcome of further appeals, there will be no new trial for Alex Murdaugh [8]. Justice Toal also made clear that she was not convinced with the testimony of Rebecca Hill, who stated under oath that she did not influence the jury in any way. At the hearing, Justice Toal questioned all 12 jurors, one alternate juror, Rebecca Hill, and another county clerk of court. Hill’s testimony was contradicted by statements given by other witnesses. Justice Toal publicly admonished Hill after the hearing saying, “I find that the clerk of court is not completely credible as a witness. She was attracted by the siren call of celebrity.” Justice Toal also stated that she believed that Hill made improper comments to the jury but that it did not influence their verdict [8].

Rebecca Hill is in the final year of her first four-year term as elected clerk of court for Colleton County. The seat is up for reelection in November and Hill stated that she did not plan to run for public office again. Unless Hill resigns, she is likely to remain clerk of court until November [8].

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article284040373.html

[2] https://nypost.com/2024/01/06/news/alex-murdaugh-might-get-a-re-do-on-his-murder-conviction/

[3] https://apnews.com/article/alex-murdaugh-crime-murder-trial-appeal-bf44e97a7d4aff42dbf40f7ed10860e3

[4] https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article282178638.html

[5] https://www.fitsnews.com/2024/01/05/becky-hill-investigation-destroyed-missing-cell-phones-raise-red-flags/

[6] https://apnews.com/article/alex-murdaugh-murder-conviction-jury-tampering-9ea1968eda79dabd9f731077e5f2f33a

[7] https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/south-carolina/2023/12/26/alex-murdaugh-co-author-accuses-becky-hill-plagiarism-book-halted/72030761007/

[8] https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/south-carolina/2024/02/01/whats-next-for-becky-hill-sleds-jury-tampering-case-is-still-open/72436574007/

[virginiaprelawland]

The RICO Act and Organized Crime

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

February 9, 2024

In August 2023, Rudy Guiliani and 18 other codefendants were charged with organized crime under Georgia’s RICO law for allegedly having been a part of a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election [3]. The grand jury indicted the 19 codefendants, which includes Donald Trump, and alleges that they acted together as a “criminal organization” and engaged in illegal activities such as forgery, filing false documents, and conspiracy to defraud the state. Guiliani was appointed United States attorney for the southern district of New York in 1983 and was a big proponent of ensuring that the RICO Act came about. He used it in his most powerful case that targeted eight defendants who were at the top of New York’s most powerful mafia families [3]. While Guiliani claims that he came up with the idea of using RICO to target mafia families, a New York Times article from 1989 says differently [4]. He is quoted as saying, “Using it (RICO) against the mafia commission, that was an idea that no one had until I developed it and went down to Washington and started talking about it.” In reality, University of Notre Dame law professor G. Robert Blakey was the one who drafted the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, which RICO was eventually included in [4].

Organized crime didn’t become an issue in the United States until Prohibition [6]. Criminal gangs had been active in America since the late 19th century, but they mostly consisted of street criminals running small-time extortion schemes. Not long after the nationwide ban on alcohol came into play did mob members begin running the operation of illegal breweries and speakeasies. Lawyers and accountants were hired to help launder millions of dollars. Syndicated crime, or the cooperation between criminal groups, became frequent, and organized crime as we know it today was formed. The demand for illegal alcohol was so high that kingpins like Al Capone were making as much as $100 million a year in the mid-1920s. It is estimated that these operations spent half a million dollars each month in order to bribe police, politicians, and federal investigators to keep them away from prosecuting the illegal activity [6].

After Prohibition was repealed, organized crime moved from the sale of illegal alcohol to drug trafficking, loan-sharking, and infiltrating labor unions [7]. By the mid-20th century there were 24 known crime families operating in the United States which included around 5,000 inducted members. America’s capital of organized crime was New York City, which contained five major mafia families. Their illegal activities were known to the government, but they were not effective at stopping them since mob members still paid off public officials and bribed or intimidated witnesses and juries. In the early 1950s, Tennessee senator Estes Kefauver launched an investigation into organized crime and held televised hearings about the subject. Congress and the FBI failed to take any action due to a lack of substantial evidence. However, in 1957 police raided a gathering of more than 60 mobsters in upstate New York. After this, the government could no longer ignore the impact and extent of organized crime [7].

The irony that a well-known endorser of RICO is now being prosecuted on 13 charges related to RICO is not lost on the public. RICO, or The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 “seeks to strengthen the legal tools in evidence gathering by establishing new penal prohibitions and providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies for dealing with unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime” [1]. RICO was revolutionary in the fact that it allowed for the tying together of seemingly unrelated crimes with a common objective into a punishable pattern of racketeering and provides for harsher penalties. RICO also provides an effective method for establishing the existence of organized crime’s penetration into labor unions and for removing corrupt union officials from leadership positions [1].

Before RICO was enacted, prosecutors could only try mob-related crimes individually, instead of shutting down an entire criminal organization [2]. Even though it was originally aimed at the mafia, prosecutors now use RICO to target other forms of organized crime like street gangs, corrupt police departments, and even politicians. Because the law is so broad, civil parties can also use RICO against illegal enterprises. Anyone can bring a civil suit if they have been injured by a RICO violation. To succeed in this type of suit, a plaintiff must show a pattern of criminal activity within the four-year statute of limitations [2]. If the plaintiff is successful in a civil RICO case, they have the right to seek compensation for three times their actual amount lost [8].

In criminal RICO cases, there are strict guidelines to follow before a prosecutor can seek charges against someone. To be found in violation of RICO, a person must engage in a pattern of racketeering activity connected to an enterprise [2]. The law identifies 35 offenses as racketeering, such as gambling, murder, kidnapping, and drug dealing. These crimes are known as predicate offenses. To charge someone under RICO, at least two predicate crimes occurring within ten years must have been committed through an enterprise. Operating under a discreet enterprise is a required aspect of a RICO violation. The criminal RICO statute provides for prison terms of 20 years as well as severe financial penalties [2]. Prison time can also increase up to a life sentence depending on the underlying crime that was committed. RICO rules of procedure also allow the government to freeze the assets of the defendant prior to the case going to trial [5].

As Rudy Guiliani’s legal proceedings unfold, the case serves as a reminder of RICO's adaptability in addressing complex challenges posed by organized criminal activities.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/rico-racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations-act-statute

[2] https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/rico/#:~:text=Criminal%20RICO,are%20included%20on%20the%20list.

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/16/rudy-giuliani-rico-racketeering-georgia-indictment

[4] https://www.npr.org/2023/08/29/1195552571/rudy-giuliani-rico-origin-storyv

[5] https://rhlawfl.com/white-collar-crime/what-is-covered-by-the-racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations-rico-act/

[6] https://www.history.com/news/prohibition-organized-crime-al-capone

[7] https://www.history.com/topics/crime/the-demise-of-the-mafia

[8] https://www.turnpikelaw.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-criminal-rico-case-and-civil-rico-case/

[virginiaprelawland]

The Donna and Charlie Adelson Case

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

January 26, 2024

Donna Adelson has been charged with first-degree murder in the 2014 fatal shooting of her former son-in-law, Dan Markel [1]. Donna was arrested in November of 2023 as she and her husband Harvey tried to board a plane out of the country. She was held at a Miami jail before being transported to the Leon County Sheriff’s Office in Tallahassee. On top of the first-degree murder, Donna is also charged with conspiracy and solicitation in what prosecutors are calling a “murder for hire scheme” [1].

State attorney Jack Campbell said that Donna and her husband were intercepted at the airport by the FBI and other law enforcement officers [2]. The two had tickets to Vietnam which has no extradition treaty with the United States. Campbell said that Donna’s attempted flight oversees pushed law enforcement to make a quick decision. The state did not have enough evidence to arrest Harvey, but Donna’s attempted flight will be used against her if the case moves to trial [2].

Donna’s arrest came only one week after her son Charlie was found guilty in the shooting of Dan Markel [2]. Charlie was found guilty of first-degree murder, solicitation, and conspiracy and faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison. Donna featured heavily in the trial, through wire tap recordings with Charlie that were played in court. Emails and texts were also read aloud by the prosecutors [2].

The 10-year long case is a winding road of family conflict and scheming. Dan Markel was a Florida State law professor and author who was married to Wendi Adelson, Donna Adelson’s daughter [5]. Wendi and Dan had two sons before an arduous divorce process began in 2012. On July 18, 2014, gang leader Luis Rivera and his friend Sigfredo Garcia stalked Markel after he left his sons preschool. Markel returned home and was shot twice in the head in his garage. A neighbor saw Markel and called 911 but the ambulance didn’t arrive until almost 20 minutes after. Markel died 14 hours later at the hospital [5].

Investigators used cellphone records and surveillance video to track the car that Rivera and Garcia drove [5]. Rivera testified that he and Garcia were paid $100,000 in a murder-for-hire plot. The two had received the money the day after the shooting and they split it with Katherine Magbanua, who had set up the deal. Prosecutors argued that Markel’s murder “stemmed from the desperate desire of the Adelson family for Wendi and the two sons to move to South Florida”. Markel had won split custody during the divorce as well as an order prohibiting Wendi from moving the children away [5].

In the 2016 arrest affidavit for Sigfredo Garcia, Charlie and Donna Adelson were implicated in the contract killing, although they were not charged at the time [5]. Katherine Magbanua was found guilty in 2022 of being the go-between in the murder-for-hire plot. In Charlie’s trial, he testified that Katherine had come to him the night of the murder and said that she knew the people who had killed Markel and that they wanted a third of a million dollars within 48 hours or “one of his family members would be next”. Charlie said he was too scared to go to the police and gave Katherine the money. Charlie testified that Katherine was the mastermind behind the entire plot [5]. Wendi Adelson was given limited immunity to testify at Charlie’s trial and said that her family had nothing to do with Markel’s murder [3]. Charlie Adelson was the fourth person to be found guilty in the conspiracy to kill Dan Markel [5].

Following the divorce, Wendi had her son’s names changed to Adelson and cut off the Markel family’s visitation after Garcia’s arrest affidavit named members of the Adelson family as co-conspirators in the murder [5]. In 2020, Dan Markel’s parents began pushing for legislation to give grandparents in Florida more rights to visit their grandchildren after the death of a parent. A version of the Grandparents Visitation Rights bill (also known as the Markel Act) failed initially in 2020 and 2021 but was passed in 2022 [5].

Recently, Donna’s attorney Marissel Descalzo filed an emergency petition in December of 2023 with multiple allegations, including accusations that jail staff have been forcing Donna to sit naked and eat with her hands in a small cell, as well as withholding medication [1]. The motion states that the alleged treatment is a violation of Donna’s 6th Amendment rights because she has been unable to communicate with her attorney or assist in her defense. Descalzo requested that the court release Donna on house arrest and that the court issue Donna a psychological evaluation to place her in a different unit. Descalzo argued that the evidence against Donna is “circumstantial at best” and that “there is a presumption of innocence in this country” [1].

New court records show phone calls between Donna and Charlie after his conviction. It includes multiple conversations in which Donna is telling Charlie that she is “getting things in order, creating trusts, and making sure that her grandchildren are taken care of” [2].

Donna has pleaded not guilty to her charges [4]. She appeared before Leon County Circuit Judge Stephen Everett for an arraignment and a hearing on a motion filed by her defense to move her off suicide watch at the Leon County Detention Facility. This was the first time that Donna has appeared in court in person. Donna was admonished by Judge Everett after she audibly scoffed after a prosecutor stated that Donna mentioned committing suicide before her arrest and later during her arrival at the jail. Judge Everett also denied the order for a psychological evaluation of Donna [4].

Donna has recently hired a new defense team to represent her. Court records indicate that she will now be represented by Daniel Rashbaum, who represented Charlie Adelson at his trial [6]. Donna Adelson is being held without bond in the Leon County jail pending her next court hearing [3].

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/donna-adelson-charged-with-plotting-former-son-in-laws-death-alleges-inhumane-treatment-in-jail-attorneys-say/#:~:text=Adelson%20is%20charged%20with%20first,a%20week%20before%20her%20arrest.

[2] https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/2023/11/13/donna-adelson-arrested-days-after-sons-conviction-in-dan-markel-murder/71572257007/

[3] https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article282527083.html

[4] https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2023/12/11/livestream-donna-adelson-arraigned-in-in-dan-markel-murder-plot/71883492007/

[5] https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/2023/11/07/dan-markel-murder-hire-charlie-adelson-guilty-tallahassee-florida-conspiracy/71487731007/#:~:text=Charlie%20Adelson%3A%20A%2012%2Dperson,take%20a%20month%20to%20complete.

[6] https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/2024/01/10/donna-adelson-hires-new-lawyers-to-defend-her-in-dan-markel-murder-charlie-adelson-tallahassee-trial/72124943007/

[virginiaprelawland]

The PepsiCo Lawsuit and Environmental Law

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

January 14, 2024

According to a recent lawsuit filed by the state of New York, PepsiCo is the single largest identifiable contributor to plastic pollution [1]. The food company is being sued for plastic pollution along the Buffalo River that is allegedly contaminating the water and harming wildlife. The lawsuit, filed in the state Supreme Court, asserts that PepsiCo broke state laws by failing to warn the public concerning the risks of plastic packaging and promoting misleading statements about the company’s efforts to fight against pollution. PepsiCo manufactures, produces, and packages at least 85 different beverage and snack food brands that predominately come in single-use plastic containers. Before the lawsuit was filed, a survey was done along the Buffalo River to test the different types of waste found there. It was discovered that PepsiCo’s single-use plastic packaging was the most significant. The lawsuit also states that microplastics have been detected in Buffalo’s drinking water supply. Ingesting microplastics can cause a wide range of adverse health effects such as reproductive problems, inflammation in the intestines, and neurotoxic issues. New York Attorney General Letitia James says that “No company is too big to ensure that their products do not damage our environment and public health.” [1].

The civil suit filed against PepsiCo seeks a finding that PepsiCo contributed to a “public nuisance” in the Buffalo River, the imposition of financial penalties and compensatory damages on the company, and order that PepsiCo cease the sale of single-use plastic on goods that do not warn of environmental hazards [2]. PepsiCo claims that they have been serious about plastic reduction and that they have been continuously transparent in their efforts. However, the lawsuit says that PepsiCo has not chosen alternatives to single-use plastics to any significant degree in the New York market. Only in international markets has PepsiCo announced refillable and returnable glass and plastic programs [2].

Instead of making progress towards its targets for plastic reduction, PepsiCo reported an 11% increase in virgin plastic use between 2020 and 2022, despite a commitment to reduce virgin plastic use by 20% by 2030 [3]. Between 2018 and 2022, the company also reported a decrease in the fraction of its plastic packaging that was reusable, recyclable, or compostable. This lawsuit is one of the first legal challenges from a state against a major plastic producer. It draws on consumer protection law and states that “Although PepsiCo has long been aware of the environmental and human health risks posed by single-use plastic products, the Attorney General’s office says PepsiCo has obscured these risks in communications to the public.” [3].

Environmental nonprofits have repeatedly sued PepsiCo and other similar companies over their use of plastic and false claims of recyclability [3]. A report from Columbia University says that litigation is increasingly being used to compel companies to reduce their carbon emissions or achieve a net zero [4]. The number of climate cases has more than doubled in the last five years, and at the start of 2023, there were 2,180 climate cases active around the world with 1,522 of those cases being in the United States alone [4].

Alongside the increase in climate lawsuits comes an increase in the diversity of legal strategies used in litigation [5]. Some lawsuits seek to keep fossil fuel projects from developing while others aim to end misleading marketing. Around the world, citizens and environmental groups have worked to compel governments to recognize the human rights implications of climate change. The International Panel on Climate Change issued a recent report that said suing will never replace the need for policy and international cooperation in combating climate change but could instead supplement it. Surprisingly, “climate lawsuits have also become an unexpected way to give those more vulnerable to climate change a voice that is otherwise left out of public policy making”. This includes young people, women, and Indigenous Peoples [5].

Climate lawsuits often seem complicated, but a majority of them are based on the same principles [4]. They include climate rights, domestic enforcement of international climate change commitments, keeping fossil fuels and carbon sinks in the ground, corporate liability and responsibility, climate disclosures and greenwashing, and failure to adapt and impacts of adaption. In the United States, most cases are brought under existing environmental, natural resources, energy, and land-use laws. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act states that federal agencies must consider environmental effects in their planning and decision making. Climate lawsuits filed against companies are powerful since most companies do not consider the consequences of climate change when they perform risk assessments. This can leave their boards susceptible to legal actions such as finding them liable for damages that might have been avoided if they had considered the full risks of their actions and how it could impact the environment [4].

The future of climate litigation includes attribution science, which investigates the extent to which climate change influences extreme weather and can determine with increasing accuracy if climate change made some events more severe and more likely to occur. This will increase the ability to hold states and companies responsible and for litigators to establish causation and liability [4].

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67435329

[2] https://phys.org/news/2023-11-pepsico-sued-york-state-plastic.html

[3] https://truthout.org/articles/in-first-of-its-kind-lawsuit-new-york-targets-pepsicos-plastic-pollution/

[4] https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/08/09/climate-lawsuits-are-on-the-rise-this-is-what-theyre-based-on/#:~:text=This%20Is%20What%20They're%20Based%20On.,-by%20Renee%20Cho&text=Litigation%20is%20increasingly%20being%20used,and%20the%20UN%20Environment%20Programme.

[5] https://www.vox.com/climate/2023/7/27/23805887/climate-change-legal-court-cases-un-report

[virginiaprelawland]

Breaking Down Conservatorships 

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

January 1, 2024

After big celebrity names like Britney Spears and Michael Oher became associated with conservatorships, many people began to examine the intricacies of these types of arrangements. A conservatorship is a legal status when a court appoints a person to manage the financial or personal affairs of a minor or incapacitated person [4]. Conservatorships can either be general or limited. Under general conservatorships, the conservatee typically has little to no decision-making powers, while under limited conservatorships, the conservatee still has majority control over their personal and financial affairs, except for what the court orders the conservator to oversee [4].  

Individual conservatorships are the most common, with the court deeming that a conservatorship is necessary when an individual who is a minor or a person with physical or intellectual disabilities needs help managing their financial or personal affairs [4]. This may include people who are suicidal or who struggle with psychosis or dementia and cannot make medical decisions on their own behalf. The role of conservator involves being responsible for managing the personal and financial affairs for the conservatee and they must document their management of those affairs for the court since they are under strict scrutiny [4]. 

A conservatorship begins by someone petitioning the court for appointment of a conservator [5]. The petition must contain information on why an individual cannot manage their own financial affairs or make appropriate decisions regarding their personal care. Once the petition is filed with the court, a court investigator is appointed to interview the proposed conservatee to determine whether a conservator is needed. The petition is then set for a hearing, and the conservatee must appear in court unless medically unable to do so. The costs of a conservatorship are usually high since an attorney needs to be hired to represent the individual and all interested parties [5]. 

Conservatorships can be seen as advantageous since they offer a higher degree of protection to the conservatee than other management mechanisms [5]. When a family is having trouble agreeing on what should be done, a conservator can act as a neutral party whose only concern is looking out for the best interest of the conservatee. Conservatorships can also provide a structured method to assist an incapacitated individual who may be reluctant to accept help [5].  

However, conservatorships involve a loss of privacy for the conservatee, since the details of the hearings become part of the public record, which can be accessed by anyone. People under conservatorships can lose independence and power to make their own decisions. Petitioning the court to make changes to the conservatorship can be costly and time-consuming which can be discouraging to the conservatee [5].  

It is important to make the right decision when placing someone under a conservatorship. In many cases, conservatorships and guardianships are used synonymously, but they can have different meanings depending on what the conservator is seeking and what state they are in [7]. The same person can serve in dual roles as both conservator and guardian, but a guardian typically involves the appointment of a person to oversee the physical and medical care of an individual with limited capacity, such as a minor [4].  

Alternatives to conservatorships are difficult to navigate. If someone has made plans in advance through Powers of Attorney or a living trust, then a conservatorship may not be necessary. A revocable living trust can appoint a trustee to manage financial affairs, but the individual must be deemed mentally competent at the time the trust is established. Durable Power of Attorney for asset management is another alternative that delegates a person the power to make financial transactions on behalf of an individual if they are unable to do so. This is not subject to court review [5].  

Arguably the most famous person to be involved in a conservatorship is Britney Spears. Her conservatorship was approved by the Los Angeles Superior Court in 2008 after Spears had many public breakdowns [1]. This put Spears’ estate, financial assets, and personal assets under the control of her father Jamie Spears, and her lawyer Andrew Wallet. Spears’ father petitioned for an emergency temporary conservatorship after her second psychiatric hold and the conservatorship was made permanent in October 2008. Spears was still active in the music industry throughout the 13-year long conservatorship, releasing an album every two to three years until 2019. Spears’ conservatorship was extended many times. In August 2020, Spears asked the court to remove her father as sole conservator of her estate. Instead, the judge extended the conservatorship through February 1, 2021 [1]. 

In June 2021, Spears officially asked the court to end her conservatorship in a public statement [1]. She said, “It’s my wish and my dream for all of this to end. I just want my life back. The conservatorship should end. I truly believe this conservatorship is abusive.” From the conservatorship’s inception, it generated a lot of debate among Spears’ fans. Some thought she was being controlled and manipulated which led to the creation of the #FreeBritney movement. In November 2021, Spears’ conservatorship finally ended following her testimony and the #FreeBritney campaign [1].  

Recently, Judge Kathleen Gomes in Tennessee has ordered the end of the conservatorship between former NFL player Michael Oher and the Tuohy family, who were all subject of the Oscar-winning 2009 movie The Blind Side [2]. Oher brought a case against the family in August that asked them to provide accounting information for his finances over the years. The conservatorship the Tuohy family had for Oher stated that Oher could not sign contracts or make medical decisions on his own. Judge Gomes said she had never seen such a conservatorship used for someone who is not disabled, and that it should have been dissolved a long time ago [2]. 

Oher was a ward of the state and was entering his senior year as a football player at Briarcrest Christian School near Memphis, Tennessee when he began living with the Tuohys [2]. The Tuohys said they intended on adopting Oher, but because he was over 18 years old, a conservatorship was chosen instead. Oher states that the Tuohys gave him the impression that by singing it, he would be considered adopted by them. In February of this year, Oher found out that he had no legal or familial relation to the Tuohys and filed a petition to ask for the conservatorship to be dissolved [2].  

Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy deny that they told Oher that they planned to legally adopt him [3]. They say in a court filing that they have always felt that Oher was “like a son” to them, just “not in the legal sense”. The Tuohys said that the conservatorship only came about because the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) made it clear that the only way Oher could attend the University of Mississippi and play football was “if he was a part of the Tuohy family in some fashion”. The Tuohys claim that the conservatorship was chosen to accomplish this goal, but Oher claimed that the conservatorship took away his rights to sign contracts and to make education and medical decisions [3]. Oher also claims the Tuohys were paid millions for their involvement in The Blind Side, while he was not. Sean Tuohy said that the family was not paid for the movie, but that each member of the family, including Oher received half of the profits from the book the movie was based off, which totaled to about $14,000 per person [2].  

High-profile conservatorship cases has led to Congress re-examining these types of legal arrangements [6]. Legislation was proposed in March of this year by Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. that would help reduce the number of people under conservatorships while also giving them more protection. The American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Council on Disability have called for increased data and transparency about conservatorship practices and better safeguards against abuse. The proposed legislation would establish that anyone being considered for a conservatorship or who is already in one has the right to try less restrictive alternatives. It also recognizes the conservatee’s right to have significant participation in decisions about their life or have a lawyer represent their wishes. The legislation would also provide funding to state agencies to investigate allegations of abuse and create a council to collect data on conservatorship practices and make recommendations for how to prevent or end unnecessary conservatorships [6].   

[1] https://www.insider.com/inside-britney-spears-conservatorship-freebritney-movement-2020-12 

[2] https://www.npr.org/2023/09/29/1202776970/michael-oher-tuohys-conservatorship 

[3] https://www.vulture.com/article/blind-side-michael-oher-conservatorship-lawsuit-explained.html 

[4] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conservatorship.asp 

[5] https://www.caregiver.org/resource/conservatorship-and-guardianship/ 

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/03/30/guardianship-conservatorship-rights-reform/ 

[7] https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/conservatorship-vs-guardianship 

[virginiaprelawland]

Navigating the Legal Landscape: A Dive into Employee Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Compliance in Remote Work Environments

By  Tommaso (Tommy) Ceccuzzi, Marymount University Class of 2023

January 1, 2024

In today's fast-paced digital landscape, remote work has become the standard, bringing forth a host of challenges for businesses, particularly in the realms of data privacy and cybersecurity. Amidst a maze of regulations, one pivotal focus area emerges — the protection of employee data within virtual work environments. This blog delves into the intricacies of employee data privacy and cybersecurity compliance, illuminating the distinct challenges presented by the shift to remote work.

The Remote Work Revolution

The rise of remote work marks a fundamental transformation in how companies conduct their operations. While this shift brings advantages such as flexibility and efficiency, it concurrently heightens the exposure of organizations to greater risks related to the management of confidential employee data. It is crucial for businesses to grasp the legal responsibilities tied to remote work to guarantee compliance and safeguard both the well-being of employees and the integrity of the business.

Employee Privacy in Virtual Spaces

In the realm of remote work, the distinction between personal and professional spheres becomes increasingly nuanced. With employees utilizing personal devices for work obligations, finding the delicate equilibrium between upholding privacy rights and securing sensitive data proves to be a challenge. This exploration delves into the legal frameworks dictating the collection, storage, and processing of employee data within virtual spaces.

Cybersecurity Challenges in Remote Work

The widespread adoption of remote work brings forth a host of new cybersecurity vulnerabilities. From inadequately secured home networks to the utilization of personal devices, businesses encounter heightened risks of data breaches. This examination delves into the legal aspects concerning cybersecurity measures, encompassing the establishment of robust policies, employee training initiatives, and the development of incident response plans.

Navigating International Waters

In the realm of multinational corporations, maintaining compliance becomes a notably intricate task. The movement of employee data across international borders initiates a complex interplay of privacy laws. This exploration scrutinizes the extraterritorial reach of regulations like GDPR, highlighting the challenges arising from diverse legal frameworks. It also offers insights into the development of a comprehensive global compliance strategy, essential for navigating the complexities of data protection across different jurisdictions.

Emerging Technologies: Biometrics and Beyond

The relentless march of technology brings forth advancements in the collection and processing of employee data, presenting novel legal considerations. In the context of remote work, this exploration focuses on the legal implications of emerging technologies, particularly biometrics. It underscores the importance of clear policies and consents to alleviate legal risks associated with innovative data processing methods. Navigating the evolving landscape of technology and data while ensuring compliance necessitates a proactive approach, emphasizing transparency and protection of individual rights.

In the ever-changing terrain of remote work, giving precedence to employee data privacy and cybersecurity compliance goes beyond mere legal obligations—it emerges as a strategic necessity. This blog has endeavored to offer a focused exploration into the distinct challenges that businesses encounter while safeguarding employee information in virtual environments. Through an ongoing commitment to staying informed about legal developments and the implementation of proactive measures, organizations can confidently navigate the intricacies of data privacy and cybersecurity. In an era where the boundaries between work and home are increasingly blurred, this strategic approach becomes integral to ensuring the resilience and security of businesses in the digital landscape.

______________________________________________________________

https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/cisa-cybersecurity-awareness-program-small-business-resources

https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/engineering-personal-data-sharing

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/advice-for-small-organisations/

https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/documents/public-consultations/2023/guidelines-22023-technical-scope-art-53-eprivacy_en

[virginiaprelawland]

The Kouri Richins Case

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

December 15, 2023

Kouri Richins, a Utah native who wrote a children’s book about coping with grief after her husband’s passing is now being charged with fatally poisoning him [1]. Prosecutors say that the medical examiner found five times the lethal dose of fentanyl in Eric Richins’ system. Kouri Richins is alleged to have delivered a Moscow mule to her husband that contained the fentanyl as a celebratory drink after Kouri closed a business deal [2]. A year after her husband’s death, Kouri wrote a children’s book called “Are You With Me?” about a deceased father watching over his sons [1]. During a press tour, Kouri told news outlets that she decided to write the book after her husband died, leaving her widowed and raising three boys [1].

Kouri is also facing a lawsuit filed by Eric’s sister Katie Richins-Benson. Katie accuses Kouri of taking money out of Eric’s bank accounts and diverting the money to her own account before his death in March 2022 [1]. Katie is seeking over $13 million in damages and asks for Kouri to be barred from selling her children’s book and to turn over any money made from it. According to the lawsuit, Kouri’s financial misconduct went further back than just before Eric’s death since Kouri “began having serious financial troubles in 2016 and started stealing money from her husband” [1].

Between 2015 and 2017, Kouri was accused of purchasing at least four life insurance policies on her husband totaling nearly $2 million [2]. In September 2020, Eric Richins discovered that Kouri had obtained and spent a $250,000 home equity line of credit on their home and had withdrawn at least $100,000 from his bank accounts and had spent over $30,000 using his credit cards. Prosecutors say that Kouri was “appropriating distributions made from Eric Richins’ business for the purpose of making federal and state quarterly tax payments and not paying the taxes”. Eric confronted Kouri about the money and she agreed to pay him back [2].

In October 2020 Eric consulted with a divorce lawyer and estate planning lawyer and without Kouri knowing, he changed his will and formed a living trust and placed his estate under the control of his sister Katie [2]. Eric also transferred his partnership interest in his business to the trust and designated the trust as the beneficiary of his $500,000 life insurance policy. In early 2022, prosecutors alleged that Kouri changed Eric’s life insurance policy to list herself as the beneficiary [2].

Beginning in February of 2022, Kouri began contacting an acquaintance known as C.L. to ask for fentanyl [2]. C.L. later told investigators that she obtained the fentanyl and gave them to Kouri in a hand-to-hand transaction on February 11 or 12. At this point, Eric became worried that Kouri was trying to poison him after Kouri prepared a meal for him and Eric had trouble breathing and broke out into hives. Eric warned his family that she was to blame if anything were to happen to him. After this, Kouri allegedly contacted C.L. again and told her that the fentanyl pills “were not strong enough and asked that she procure some stronger fentanyl” which C.L. did [2].

The day before Eric died, prosecutors allege that Kouri talked to a money lender to whom she owed at least $1.8 million and had a phone call with the IRS. Documents also state that Kouri had outstanding state and federal tax liabilities totaling $189,840 and owed Eric at least $514,346 [2].

On March 4, 2022, Eric Richins died of a fentanyl overdose with the fentanyl being described by the medical examiner as being “illicit, not medical grade” [2]. Kouri told authorities that she fell asleep and woke up to find Eric “cold to the touch”. Kouri also said that she attempted to perform CPR but when medical personnel arrived at the house, they noted that it did not appear as if Kouri had done CPR. A few days after Eric’s death, Kouri had a locksmith drill into Eric’s safe which contained between $125,000 and $165,000 in cash. In July 2022, Katie Richins-Benson hired a private investigator to follow Kouri. Katie and Kouri have been in a legal battle over Eric’s trust and estate since his death [2].

Kouri Richins has continued to deny the accusations that she poisoned her husband, even though prosecutors site copious amounts of evidence that incriminates her [2]. Evidence includes Kouri’s internet searches of “What is a lethal dose of fentanyl” and “Death certificate says pending, will life insurance still pay?” [3]. The lawsuit filed by Katie Richins-Benson also says that “Kouri committed the foregoing acts in calculated, systematic fashion and for no reason other than to actualize a horrific endgame- to conceal her ruinous debt, misappropriate assets for the benefit of her personal business, orchestrate Eric’s demise, and profit from his passing.” [1].

Kouri Richins is being held without bail in the Summit County Jail in Utah [5]. The time Kouri has spent in jail has included an intense legal battle with prosecutors and her defense team with prosecutors debating on whether or not to seek the death penalty against Kouri and alleging that Kouri has engaged in witness tampering.

In September of this year, Kouri wrote a letter that appeared to encourage her brother to provide false testimony, but Kouri claims that it was just part of a fictional book she was writing [3]. Prosecutors say that the six-page handwritten letter accounts to witness tampering because it allegedly contains instructions for Kouri’s brother to repeat a “false narrative" that would suggest Eric Richins had gone to Mexico to buy pain pills and fentanyl. Kouri defended the letter in a phone call to her mother by saying “When I first got in here, I was telling you I was writing a book…those letters were not a paper to you guys, they were a part of my freaking book”. Kouri’s attorney Skye Lazaro asserts in the defense motion that it appeared that the state obtained the letter in a “potentially illegal search” saying that the letter was found in a labelled envelope. Prosecutors deny the claim saying that the letter was found inside of Kouri’s LSAT prep book during a legal search of her cell [3].

After much consideration, prosecutors decided in August that they will not be seeking the death penalty against Kouri Richins [4]. A Notice of Intent was filed from the Summit County Attorney’s Office and said that “This decision was made in careful consideration with Eric Richins’ father and his two sisters, who are Eric Richins’ personal representative and victim representative, respectively”. Kouri’s aggravated murder charge will now be handled as a noncapital first-degree felony. On top of that charge, Kouri faces charges of criminal homicide and three counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute [4].

Currently the defense and prosecution are in the midst of discovery and filing pre-trial motions. Kouri Richins’ attorney has estimated that there is already 1.2 million individual pieces of evidence, mostly cell phone data, to comb through [6]. Richins’ defense team filed a motion to dismiss the case based on prosecutorial misconduct over the recent filing of Kouri’s alleged witness tampering letter. Judge Richard Mrazik ruled that the trial will proceed and that a third-party attorney will be reviewing material written by Kouri to see if any attorney-client privilege exists [7].

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kouri-richins-accused-fatal-poisoning-husband-profit-from-death-lawsuit/

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/timeline-utah-mom-kouri-richins-husband-death-fentanyl-rcna85787

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/20/us/kouri-richins-husband-fentanyl-murder-letter/index.html

[4] https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/us/kouri-richins-husband-murder-utah/index.html

[5] https://www.parkrecord.com/news/kouri-richins-case-not-up-for-capital-punishment/

[6] https://www.kpcw.org/summit-county/2023-09-03/kouri-richins-murder-trial-isnt-happening-any-time-soon

[7] https://www.cnn.com/kouri-richins-murder-case-utah/index.html

[virginiaprelawland]

The Invitation to Invent

By Hannah Dietzel, Liberty University Class of 2023

December 2, 2023

Inventing new products and processes can take years of work, countless trial runs, and failed tests. So, when you do get to the point where your invention is in accordance with your intent, you’ll want to keep it yours. After all, it was you who put the work into it, why should anyone else be allowed to distribute your work as their own? This protection lies in the form of a patent. A patent is a right exclusively given to an inventor to ensure that they have the sole ownership of the product or process they have invented.

You might think that every invention gets a patent, but that isn’t true. First, “To get a patent, technical information about the invention must be disclosed to the public in a patent application.” World Intellectual Property Organization, Patents, https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/. When talking about processes and products, they reside in the area of utility patents. These are just one type of patent, but they are the most common. Securing a patent when it is brought to the court system can be difficult because of judicial exceptions. Judicial exceptions apply to all inventions that fall outside of the four categories of invention. These are “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” The United States Patent and Trademark Office, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html#:~:text=The%20judicial%20exceptions%20are%20subject,Alice%20Corp. Defining what can be patented is important, but when does it go too far?

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 seeks to broaden what the United States courts will deem eligible for a patent. One of the changes this legislation proposes to make to the judicial exceptions held currently is to the area of processes that are, “substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural or artistic.” Crowell, The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023, https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/patent-eligibility-restoration-act-of-2023what-in-house-counsel-need-to-know#:~:text=Essentially%2C%20the%20Bill%20is%20trying,intelligence%2C%205G%2C%20and%20blockchain. It may sound strange that something like an economic or financial process needs to be patented, but it can be quite important. One of the main reasons that new legislation is being proposed is because of the fact that these processes can be patented in other countries, but not in the United States which holds back the country’s development in those areas.  

When it comes to acquiring a patent, the steps that need to be taken to secure a patent can take a while to get squared away properly. There are many steps that you will need to take to acquire a patent and once you have determined that it is indeed a patent that you need, you need to determine if your invention has already been invented somewhere else, and if not what type of patent you will need. Most patents fall into the utility category, like certain products or processes. These are the types of patents that the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of of 2023 is not as concerned with. The act is fixed more on the smaller areas that can be hard to prove as an invention such as a stand-alone mathematical formula, or something that is naturally made such as an element in nature. These things are judicial exceptions.

When we think about the time and effort and originality that is put into inventing something, we see why these things are exceptions. They exist more in the realm of discovery than invention. The difference between the two as defined by Webster is such, the act of discovery is obtaining knowledge on a subject for the first time, and inventing is the act of producing something for the first time by the use of the imagination. Obtaining knowledge means that the knowledge was already there, and did not have to be thought up, and producing that knowledge means that a creative process in the mind was involved. Judicial exceptions have their place, and the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 has been proposed to challenge them. In conclusion, the act seeks to broaden the horizons of what can revive a patent, but the question to be asked is if it is necessary. Do the ideas that do not get patented now fit within the definition of an invention? You will have to watch the progression of the legislation to find out.  

[virginiaprelawland]

The Legality of Fast Fashion: Temu and Shein

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

November 24, 2023

Low prices have become an increasing draw when it comes to luring customers to a website. The new up and coming retail giants, Temu and Shein, are changing the way people view online shopping by catering to the need for things to be reasonably priced [2].

Temu is known as an “online superstore for virtually everything” and initially garnered mass media attention when they made their advertising debut during the Super Bowl this year [1]. Temu was established in 2022 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Even though it is still a new company, it is currently ranked at the top of the U.S. iOS app store. Temu is an extensive digital marketplace that offers a wide range of products across more than 250 categories. Their primary goal is to “foster a safe and inclusive environment and enable customers to shop with confidence without compromising on quality while enjoying the best online prices available”. Although many people have compared Temu to Shein, the two have some major differences. Temu connects consumers with small businesses who sell directly to them instead of generating fast fashion as Shein does. Temu hosts independent third-party sellers which allows customers to find virtually any product they can imagine [1].

The fashion brand Shein is one of the most popular brands with Gen-Z, due to their trendy clothing being offered at extremely low prices [1]. The brand initially gained exposure through TikTok and Instagram during the COVID-19 pandemic through videos of people showing off their vast clothing hauls from the website [3]. As the company expanded, they developed a supply chain with thousands of manufacturing partners. Because Shein doesn’t own the factories that make their products, their high order volume makes them a primary customer. Shein also sells directly to consumers in small batches to maintain their low prices, however this often results in product shortages [1].

Both Temu and Shein have faced scrutiny due to their ties to China [4]. As US-China tensions remain high, American legislators have increased attempts to restrict technology linked to foreign entities. In April of this year, a US congressional commission called out Shein and Temu in a report that suggested the companies were potentially linked to the use of forced labor, exploitation of trade loopholes, product safety hazards, and intellectual property theft. Part of the concern comes from the fact that Temu was launched by PDD Holdings. PDD Holdings was founded in China but has recently begun calling itself a Cayman Islands company by citing new corporate registration there. PDD also owns Pinduoduo, an immensely popular Chinese e-commerce platform that was found in a recent investigation to have the ability to surveil its users [4].

The low prices on Temu and Shein has caused some people to reconsider their purchases from the platforms [4]. Transparency and traceability of a product is becoming more important to consumers to want to shop more ethically. The fashion industry is responsible for 10% of annual global carbon emissions, more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. Around 85% of clothing ends up in landfills or is burned, and the problem is even worse with fast fashion. Fast fashion is defined as the rapid design and production of cheap and low-quality clothes that respond to fleeting trends. The items that fast fashion companies make are not meant to last long, which keeps the consumers coming back when their clothing falls apart or a trend goes out of style [4]. In response to this, Shein states that its business model enables it to reduce waste and overproduction by producing small batches and only responding with larger production if demand is shown. Temu says that they limit unsold inventory and waste by better matching demand with supply. However, researchers who study textile waste and sustainability in global supply chains say that these companies need to go a step further [4].

With the public intensely watching companies like Temu and Shein get into legal and ethical trouble, it brings up conversation about the conditions of fast fashion. The fast fashion industry employs about 75 million factory workers worldwide, but less than 2% of these employees make a livable wage [5]. Many employees work over 16 hours a day and child labor is a prevalent occurrence. To sustain mass production and meet consumer demands, fashion companies often take advantage of legal loopholes, like offshore outsourcing in developing countries. Because of this, employees in the fast fashion industry have limited rights and work in unsafe conditions. Companies commit to offshore outsourcing because labor costs are cheaper and there are less regulations surrounding it. There are currently no U.S. federal laws that regulate offshore outsourcing [5]. 

In February of this year a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators wrote to Shien, pressing them to disclose their supply chain practices [4]. They said, “We are concerned that American consumers may be inadvertently purchasing apparel made in part with cotton grown, picked, and processed using forced labor”. The inquiry was made following a report that showed lab testing that found garments shipped to the U.S. from Shien were made with cotton from Xinjiang. This is problematic because Washington has banned all imports from Xinjiang over concerns of forced labor. A spokesperson from Shein said that the company has zero tolerance for forced labor and has worked with third parties to audit supplier factories. To ensure compliance with U.S. laws, Shein requires that suppliers purchase cotton from only approved countries and has built tracing systems to get visibility into the origins of the cotton it uses. Shein also made headlines in December of last year when a documentary alleged exploitation at two Chinese factories belonging to its suppliers. The documentary alleged that staff were working 18 hours a day and making pennies on each item of clothing they made. Shein responded by saying that independent audits have refuted most of these allegations, but the investigation showed that employees at two of its suppliers were working longer hours than allowed [4].

On top of the controversies surrounding Temu and Shein, they have also entered into litigation with each other. Beginning in December 2022, Shein sued Temu in Illinois federal court alleging that Temu had enlisted online influencers “to make false and deceptive statements” about Shein to promote its own goods [3]. Temu filed to dismiss the suit, but the case is still pending. Shein has also accused Temu many times of copyright infringement [3].

Temu has also sued Shein, filing a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts of this year, accusing them of violating anti-trust laws by attempting to monopolize suppliers and engaging in other forms of illegal behavior [3]. Temu claims that Shein has “engaged in a campaign of threats, intimidation, false assertions of infringement, and attempts to impose baseless punitive fines” on apparel makers that were thought to be working with Temu. They also allege that Shein “forced” exclusivity deals on clothing manufacturers to prevent them from working with Temu. A court filing says, “As a result of its fast growth, Shein now views itself as being ‘at war’ with Temu and has engaged in an elaborate and anticompetitive scheme aimed at stymieing Temu’s business”. Temu also alleges that Shein tried to force manufacturers to sign loyalty agreements to vow not to do business with Temu, and that Shein would issue fines to suppliers that worked with Temu [3].

As of late October 2023, Temu and Shein have applied to end their lawsuits against each other. Joint declarations were filed in Chicago and Boston by lawyers representing the companies, requesting that two legal cases be dismissed without prejudice by the judge. The filings did not contain details on why the companies decided to drop the complaints or if any settlements were made [6].

As Temu and Shein continue to make waves in the online retail landscape, consumers should be mindful of the ethical concerns surrounding these companies. Balancing the allure of low prices with the need for responsible and ethical business practices is crucial for the long-term success and sustainability of these emerging giants. Only time will tell whether these retail powerhouses can strike a balance that satisfies both the demands of consumers and the expectations of an increasingly conscientious public.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://fashionweekdaily.com/temu-and-shein-a-deep-dive-into-their-differences/

[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/talking-points-too-good-to-be-true-deals-on-temu-and-shein/

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/19/tech/temu-shein-lawsuits-intl-hnk/index.html

[4] https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/23/tech/temu-shein-us-concerns-intl-hnk/index.html

[5] https://www.thenulj.com/nuljforum/fastfashion

[6] https://www.reuters.com/legal/low-cost-e-commerce-rivals-shein-temu-shelve-us-court-cases-2023-10-27/

[virginiaprelawland]

AI And Copyright Infringement

By Hannah Dietzel, Liberty University Class of 2023

November 14, 2023

Communication can be difficult these days, and knowing how to write a message to someone else proves to be a challenge most of us face every day. We just don’t know what to say. Take that premise and think about the people who write for a living, just imagine what they experience while trying to get a point across. Authors are creative people who use their life experiences to tell their readers more about those human experiences they endured. Now think of artificial intelligence doing the same thing. A computer who has no idea of life other than what it has been fed. That’s the issue many authors face today. 

Artificial intelligence has been used to write all sorts of work, but recently more creative work has become a topic of discussion. Artificial intelligence or AI in its generative sense goes through a training process to be able to produce such work. When this process starts to produce already written works, the question of copyright infringement starts to be asked. Does AI infringe upon existing works, or does it have its own copyrighting system? 

Let’s start with the work AI produces. Who owns the copyright to that work if a machine cannot own it? Turning to the definition of an author helps us understand where the rights lie, “Although the Constitution and Copyright Act do not explicitly define who (or what) may be an "author," the U.S. Copyright Office recognizes copyright only in works ‘created by a human being.’” Christopher T. Zirpoli, Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law, Congressional Research Service (Nov. 12, 2023, 6:39 PM), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10922.When we recognize this as fact, we begin to understand that AI does not have a basis of credibility on which to establish its own copyright, so the work it produces must be highly monitored by the people who have created the particular AI software.

Artificial intelligence does not have good beginnings set out for it with copyright law. This is what you need to know when bringing that law with you to court when artificial intelligence spits out near perfect replicas of your work. These software systems are not set up to fight back about their work with a detailed history of their creative process, but you can be ready to prove your ownership of your work by keeping said history. Unfortunately, in today’s age the extra precaution might prove necessary later on, so as we begin to see more cases of AI infringement, it is best to stay safe and keep all your original files.

All of this may seem like an opinion, but there is fact to back it up. First, copyright should be defined properly as, “the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (such as a literary, musical, or artist work.)” Copyright, Merriam Webster, 11th ed. 2023. If copyright is about reproducing, then AI’s regurgitation of a previous work is a copyright issue. If there is an intent to sell or distribute what artificial intelligence has created by such regurgitation, then the legal issue of copyright grows to an even larger scale than simply replicating.

It all depends on what the software is fed, and what it spits out, “AI programs might also infringe copyright by generating outputs that resemble existing works. Under U.S. case law, copyright owners may be able to show that such outputs infringe their copyrights if the AI program both (1) had access to their works and (2) created "substantially similar" outputs.” Id. Zirpoli. When AI software is fed already published works, it will likely spit out a substantially similar output. What else does it know? What else could it generate without a brain of its own? This is the difference between man and machine. Man can breakout of a cyclical way of doing, but a machine has to have a set cycle to function. Even if the cycle eventually changes, the result is still the same. Man can think outside of the box, but machine is trapped in it.

This is where people have to be careful with their ideas. Intellectual property is an important area of law to know about if you like keeping your ideas as your own. If you do not own the copyright to your own idea and have no way to prove that it is yours at all, then artificial intelligence can triumph over you in court. If you cannot prove that the idea, the words, or the work is yours, AI didn’t replicate a published work, it replicated free speech, and that is not going to hold up against the law. This is why you should be careful what you post on the internet or make known to people who have the wrong intentions. Your genius needs to be validated by law in order to be protected by it. Ensuring you own the copyrights to your own work is the only way to make sure you will win against artificial intelligence in a legal battle over your original idea.

There is a place for AI, and a bigger place that still lives without it. As the software begins to take the world by storm, it is important to remember that you are man, and it is machine. You have the ability to use your rights, and it cannot have rights at all. So, think wisely when you want to keep your writing as your own, and secure the copyrights for it. If you think that the piece of work is not worth getting copyrights for, make sure to save a draft with the date on it, preferably hard copy. It may seem like quite the extent, but just remember that if you hold the original document in your hand, you have the power.

[virginiaprelawland]

Breaking Down Judicial Ethics

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

November 13, 2023

Oklahoma Judge Traci Soderstrom is facing intense public scrutiny after sending over 500 texts with a bailiff during a murder trial in June of this year. Soderstrom may be forced to step down from the judiciary since her texts were found to show bias against state prosecutors and favor to the defendant, while also making fun of jurors and witnesses [1]. Soderstrom’s phone usage came to public attention in July after The Oklahoman published 51 minutes of courtroom security footage that depicted Soderstrom’s texting and scrolling Facebook during the trial [2]. In response to this, Soderstrom had courtroom security cameras moved so that she was out of view. When the camera was moved back to its original location, a “black box was inserted to block out the bottom half of the viewing area” so that Soderstrom would be obscured from view. The intent to remove Soderstrom came after Oklahoma Supreme Court Chief Justice M John Kane IV filed a petition that listed all of her infractions that occurred during the trial. Soderstrom had only been a judge for five months before she was called out for her unethical actions [2]. She was suspended with pay pending the outcome of her November conduct hearing [3].

Soderstrom was presiding over Khristian Martzall’s trial in which he was charged with first degree murder in the fatal beating of his girlfriend’s two-year-old son. Throughout the duration of the trial, Soderstrom put her personal phone on her lap, deliberately out of the view of others in the courtroom, and continuously texted her bailiff [2]. In one text to the bailiff, Soderstrom stated that the district attorney was “sweating through his coat” and also said “Why does he have baby hands? They are so weird looking.” [1]. When the defense attorney was addressing the jury, Soderstrom said to the bailiff, “She’s awesome” and “Can I clap for her?”. In other messages, Soderstrom called a video being played to a witness “boring” and even speculated if a juror was wearing a wig. Soderstrom also stated that the lack of DNA evidence against the defendant would guarantee that the jury would find him not guilty [1].

On June 15, the jury found Martzall guilty of a lesser charge, second degree manslaughter, and sentenced him to four years plus credit for time served [1]. Judith Danker, the child’s mother and co-defendant, pleaded guilty in 2019 to enabling child abuse and was sentenced to 25 years in prison [2]. She also testified as a witness in Martzall’s trial. In Chief Justice Kane’s petition, he wrote that Soderstrom’s text messages gave the appearance that she believed Martzall was “innocent and that she wanted a particular outcome in the case”. Soderstrom and the bailiff also ridiculed the co-defendant, calling her a liar at least three times. In one text, Soderstrom stated that the “state just couldn’t accept that a mom could kill their kid, so they went after the next person available”. Chief Justice Kane’s petition stated that Soderstrom should be removed for gross neglect of duty, gross partiality in office, and that her conduct “brought disrepute upon her office and diminished public confidence in the judiciary” [2]. During her hearing, Soderstrom testified that “texting about things…probably could have waited” [1]. When she was asked if she thought the texts were inappropriate, Soderstrom responded “It was like ‘Oh that’s funny. Move on’”. After the Council on Judicial Complaints investigated the case, they found Soderstrom’s texts to be one of multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Soderstrom’s trial is set to be heard on January 3, 2024 [1].

To govern the conduct of judges, the American Bar Association (ABA) first issued the Canons of Judicial Ethics in 1924 [6]. The canons are designed to instruct judges about the ethical framework in which they worked. The ABA re-examined the canons in 1969 and reduced the number of canons from 36 to seven. The last major revision came in 1990 after two years of study by the ABA, and the seven canons were reduced to five [6].

The Canons of Judicial Ethics applies to virtually every judge in the United States [4]. It guides a judge’s temperament on and off the bench. The first canon states, “A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary”. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Overall, the canons are designed to not infringe on the independence of judges when making decisions but provide constitutional guidance instead [4].

The second canon says, “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities”. Judges should always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary, whether they are on the bench or off. They should not allow family, social, or political relationships to influence their conduct or judgement. Judges should also not use the prestige of the judicial office to advance their own private interests and they should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office [4].

The third canon states, “A judge should perform the duties of office fairly, impartially, and diligently”. The duties of the judicial office take precedence over all other activities in a judge’s life. Judges should perform these duties with respect for others, and should not engage in harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased behavior. They also should not engage in or tolerate workplace conduct that is harmful [4].

The fourth canon says, “A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of judicial office”. This includes speaking, writing, lecturing, and teaching on both law-related and nonlegal matters. However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that interfere with the performance of their official duties, and they should not become isolated from the society in which they live [4].

The fifth and last canon states, “A judge should refrain from any political activity”. Judges cannot hold office in any political organization and must not publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office. Judges also cannot make political contributions [4].

After bearing in mind the Canons of Judicial Ethics, judges also have other things to keep in mind. The most important thing for a judge to remember is that they are a public figure who is seen as a symbol of the judicial system, both on and off the bench [5]. Judges must bear the burden of expectations that are placed on them. Good judges exhibit patience, dignity, fairness, impartiality, and honesty in decision-making. Judges must never make up rules of the court as they go along; they must fairly apply the Constitution, statutes, case law, and rules of the court. A good judge also challenges their assumptions and keeps an open mind. It is also important that judges keep professional distance when hearing cases and that they accept and ensure judicial accountability [5].

Even after the Canons of Judicial Ethics are stressed to judges, discipline may need to be enacted when a judge is found to be acting unethically. Grounds for disciplining a judge usually occur after they are found to have violated judicial conduct rules or a willful violation of a valid order of the highest court, a willful failure to appear personally as directed, or a knowing failure to respond to lawful demand from a disciplinary authority [7]. Sanctions may be imposed upon a judge who has committed misconduct. These include removal by the highest court, suspension by the highest court, imposition by the highest court of limitations on the performance of judicial duties, public reprimand by the highest court, and more. Removal and suspension are the most serious sanctions that can be imposed by the judicial discipline system. They can only be used when the highest court deems it appropriate, and the judge’s conduct demonstrates that they are unfit to be in the judiciary. In many cases, judicial misconduct involves a lesser offense that does not require removal or suspension but will include limitations being placed on them. Overall, the degree of punishment for judicial misconduct is determined by the highest court after considering the severity of the misconduct [7].

Traci Soderstrom's unethical texting during a murder trial has raised serious concerns about her impartiality and judicial conduct. The Canons of Judicial Ethics provide a framework for judges' behavior, and disciplinary measures may be imposed when a judge violates these standards. Soderstrom's case highlights the importance of upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary and maintaining public confidence in the judicial system.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/12/us/oklahoma-judge-texting-trial/index.html

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/us/oklahoma-judge-texting-murder-trial.html

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspended-oklahoma-judge-faces-removal-bench-probe-texts-murder-trial-rcna120011

[4] https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

[5] https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/culture_handout3.pdf

[6] https://ballotpedia.org/Codes_and_Canons_of_Judicial_Conduct#:~:text=The%20American%20Bar%20Association%20first,some%20version%20of%20the%20canons.

[7] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/model_rules_judicial_disciplinary_enforcement/rule6/#:~:text=Removal%20and%20suspension%20are%20the,unfit%20to%20hold%20judicial%20office.

[virginiaprelawland]

YouTube’s Music Scamming and Copyright Problem

By Elizabeth Wolnik, George Mason University Class of 2024

October 27, 2023

Jose Teran, the man who is known as enacting the longest music royalty scam in history, was recently sentenced to 70 months in prison [1]. Teran’s scam occurred for over five years, and it ultimately routed $23 million in royalty proceeds away from predominantly Latin artists and into the bank accounts of Teran and his co-conspirators. The sentencing memo stated that Teran is considered to be at a high risk of re-offending because he “obtained more than $6 million in personal profits and continued pocketing $190,000 in stolen royalties- which he hid from officials- even after he was indicted for fraud”. A restitution hearing was requested to determine how much should be paid to the victims. The government is still trying to contact the victims by translating the restitution notification into Spanish since many of them live outside of the United States [1].

Earlier this year, Teran also pleaded guilty to conspiracy, money laundering, and wire fraud and admitted that he worked with Webster Batista Fernandez to “steal royalty payments for approximately 50,000 song titles” [1]. Fernandez took a plea agreement in April 2022 and provided key insights into the operation. It was revealed that Teran and Fernandez created a record label known as “MediaMuv” to seize unearned royalties by claiming songs on YouTube beginning in 2017. They did this by searching YouTube for “recorded songs that were not actively monetized”. Once they recognized the songs as vulnerable, MediaMuv manipulated YouTube’s system that pays royalties to music rights holders. Many artists who don’t have access to tools that help rights holders identify and collect royalties on their songs hire third parties to monitor their copyrights and royalty payments. MediaMuv took advantage of this and partnered with a company called AdRev to “cultivate a layered façade” and give their stolen 50,000 songs a “greater veneer of credibility”. Because many artists don’t hire a third party to monitor copyrights and royalties, Teran and his team were able to get away with the scam for so long [1].

Many YouTube scammers employ the same strategies MediaMuv used, by claiming a small percentage of a song’s royalties, hoping to go undetected by targeting songs that have multiple rights holders [1]. However, MediaMuv often claimed 100% of a song’s royalties for master recordings or publishing. When copyright disputes initially arose, Teran “refused to back down or acknowledge that MediaMuv wasn’t the rightful owner”. Even after AdRev expressed confidence in MediaMuv, the IRS launched an investigation into MediaMuv in 2019. The multiple bank accounts that MediaMuv owned were a major factor in starting this investigation, especially when the accounts were registered under false names in order to transfer payments to AdRev. After the court proceedings were completed and Teran was sentenced, YouTube and AdRev have still not been charged in relation to the scam. It is also unclear if much is being done to stop future YouTube scammers from using the same methods Teran used [1].

Another similar fraudulent scheme came to light in March of this year, when popular YouTuber known as “Omi in a Hellcat” was sentenced to over five years in federal prison for running one of the most successful television piracy schemes ever prosecuted by state officials [2]. Bill Omar Carrasquillo, the man behind the YouTube channel, pleaded guilty to copyright infringement and tax fraud last year. On his channel, Carrasquillo shared highly produced videos where he showed off luxury goods, like his jewelry, cars, and homes. The channel attracted more than 1 million views and had 800,000 subscribers. After his indictment in September 2021, Carrasquillo’s fraudulent multi-million-dollar business known as Gears TV or Gears Reloaded came to light [2].

Carrasquillo and two other defendants opened dozens of accounts with cable companies, hacked into the encrypted cable boxes, and then streamed or resold the copyrighted content to their subscribers for a fee [2]. This method, known as Illegal Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), has grown into a billion dollar a year industry in the United States. Carrasquillo’s TV piracy scheme attracted more than 100,000 subscribers and he received over $34 million before it was shut down by federal authorities. Carrasquillo was forced to forfeit over $30 million in assets and part of that is to be paid to the cable companies he pirated. Carrasquillo also failed to report the money his business made to the IRS, so he owes an additional $5.7 million in back taxes. His luxury cars and more than four dozen properties were also seized. In a video posted to his channel, Carrasquillo said, “I’m only guilty of making money. The FBI seized everything from me. I ain’t guilty of nothing else” [2].

Even though Google has some of the world’s most advanced technology, it’s surprising to see that YouTube is so susceptible to copyright scammers [3]. For many years, scammers have monetized videos they do not own, with rights owners oblivious to the fact that someone has pirated their content. YouTube’s copyright claim system has turned from an enforcement mechanism for creators into a tool for scams and extortion. The system is a way for the rights owner to tell YouTube that their work has been pirated by someone else, but oftentimes anyone can claim to own audio or visual clips with little to no verification from YouTube. When filing a copyright claim, the alleged rights owner fills in basic info and YouTube takes care of the rest, often removing the infringed work altogether. By removing the infringed work, YouTube protects itself from millions of potential lawsuits. The alleged offending party has a chance to answer or provide proper licensing paperwork. YouTube may then allow the alleged owner to remove the work or take the monetizing dollars and keep the video up [3].

If held responsible, those with too many copyright claims or strikes can be suspended or banned from uploading new videos and monetizing those videos on YouTube [3]. But many people who file copyright claims on many channels at once operate knowing that only a certain percentage of channels will not respond or will respond improperly, guaranteeing a scammer will win the claim. Those who make this a part of their living frequently own dozens of YouTube accounts to prevent suspicions [3]. Even though YouTube’s Copyright Management Tools were created to give rights holders control of their copyrighted content, there are too many ways for scammers to slip through the cracks and abuse the system [4].

It is important for creators on YouTube to know what to do if they are faced with a copyright claim to ensure that they are not being taken advantage of. The first step is to find out if you have improperly used a copyrighted work [3]. The more paperwork you keep on the music or video clips you use, the better. Properly licensing materials and clearing copyrights is integral to operating any YouTube channel. The second step is to investigate the claim for scammers. If you are certain that you are legally using music or a video clip, you should investigate the claimant. Key things to look out for that indicate a scam include asking these questions: Does their channel have any videos? Are they using a nondescript free email? Is the claimant known for filing aggressive, overreaching, and improper claims? Knowing the warning signs of a fraudulent copyright claim can make or break the success of a potential scammer [3].

If you identify an extortion scheme, it should be reported to authorities since it is a criminal offense [3]. Even if you lose a copyright claim, it does not mean that you have actually infringed on a copyright. The main worry is risking losing ad money or your account. At this point, creators often reach out directly to the claimant to talk about the situation and provide documentation. Reputable claimants are more receptive to fixing possible copyright claim mistakes. If that does not work, you will want to discuss legal options with an intellectual property attorney. At this point, options include filing an improper takedown notice or you can prove that the claimant was not the copyright owner. With a positive finding, you can have copyright strikes reversed on YouTube and have your account privileges restored [3].

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/youtube-scammer-who-stole-millions-in-song-royalties-sentenced-to-5-years/

[2] https://www.inquirer.com/news/omi-in-a-hellcat-case-jail-sentence-20230308.html

[3] https://www.sab.law/news-and-insights/blog/fight-youtube-copyright-claims-trolls-and-scammers-legal-fair-use

[4] https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/copyright/