Does copyright law require that a human create a work? Yesterday the D.C. Circuit in Thaler v. Perlmutter held that it does and that a machine (such as a computer operating a generative AI program) cannot be designated as the author of the work. However, the D.C. Circuit refrained from saying more for now, leaving
In this final blog post in the Bradley series on the HIPAA Security Rule notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), we examine how the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights interprets the application of the HIPAA Security Rule to artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies. While the HIPAA Security
In this week’s installment of our blog series on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) HIPAA Security Rule updates in its January 6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we are exploring the justifications for the proposed updates to the Security Rule. Last week’s post on the updates related to Vulnerability Management, Incident
Fair use — a critical defense in copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission — has emerged as a key battleground in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) copyright litigation. In a significant revision of his earlier position, Judge Stephanos Bibas in the United States District Court for the District of
Amid recent technological advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning, on January 17, 2025, the CFPB issued its Winter 2025 Supervisory Highlights: Advanced Technologies Special Edition. This edition of Supervisory Highlights delivers critical industry reminders regarding the balance between regulatory requirements and technological innovation. As an appropriate summation of the CFPB’s overarching worldview, the
Bradley has launched a multipart blog series on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) proposed changes to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule, beginning last week with an overview. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on January 6, 2025. This marks the first update
What does the EEOC have to do with smart watches, rings, glasses, helmets and other devices that track bodily movement and other data? These devices, known as “wearables,” can track location, brain activity, heart rate, and other mental or physical information about the wearer, which has led some employers to require their employees to wear
Bradley is launching a multipart blog series on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) proposed changes to strengthen cybersecurity protections for electronic protected health information (ePHI) regulated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published on January 6, 2025
In recent years, the headlines have tracked the news of high-profile breakups among business partners in private companies. These business partner fallouts include:
The landscape of employment is undergoing a seismic shift as employers increasingly integrate technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), into workplace practices. AI workplace uses include a variety of applications, such as resume screening, employee monitoring software, and video interviewing tools that evaluate candidates’ performances. In light of this transformation, the United States Department of Labor