Clients updates / AI Regulation

A US court (in Delaware) recently handed down a precedent-setting ruling on a lawsuit filed by a copyright-owner, the media and technology conglomerate, Thomson Reuters, against the artificial intelligence platform, Ross Intelligence. The Delaware court ruled that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s copyrights, and that the defendant is not entitled to any of the statutory protections, including reliance on the “fair use” doctrine as a defense.

Several days ago, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted an opinion addressing key data protection concerns arising from the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models. The opinion specifically focuses on how GDPR principles apply to AI, emphasizing issues such as anonymization of data within AI models, the legal basis for processing personal data during AI development and deployment, and the consequences of unlawful data processing in AI systems.

This month, an interim report on artificial intelligence (AI) in the financial sector was published for public comment. The report was written by the Ministries of Justice and Treasury, the Competition Authority, the Securities Authority, the Capital Market Authority, and the Bank of Israel.

The Privacy Protection Authority has issued a mandatory guideline holding the board of directors fully responsible for information security, with heavy fines for violations. The guideline requires the board to oversee compliance with regulations and develop organizational policies, particularly for entities processing sensitive personal data.

The U.S. court is hearing artists’ lawsuits against AI platforms for copyright infringement. The decision could lead to new regulations and insights into the impact of using protected works for training.

The AI Act applies, similar to other European legislation, to companies not based in the European Union but have activity in the Union. Therefore, it may also affect Israeli companies offering services in Europe.

The subjects of copyright and the protection thereof are core issues for companies that use artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the agreements in place between different players in the economy and AI technology providers include provisions that protect such players against legal claims in relation to copyright

2023 trends are expected to continue in 2024, including the constantly evolving regulation of AI tools and new privacy protection and data security issues, as well as attempts by Israeli and global authorities to keep up with the pace at which technology is evolving and changing the face of the business world.

While AI tools offer significant contributions to businesses, even non-technological ones, it’s crucial to understand the potential exposures these tools may present. This guide emphasizes the importance of conducting examinations and implementing AI tools in a legal and transparent manner.

The conflict between copyright protection for content creators and the development of AI platforms by companies is being litigated once again in court. Can appropriate regulation reconcile between the parties’ needs?

The document published by the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology, in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, specifies the principles for developing and supervising AI technologies and their use by entities in Israel.

A man who entered Israel with drugs in his possession sought to expose the Israel Police’s use of AI tools that resulted in his inclusion in a list of suspected drug couriers. The court’s criticism of the police’s tactics clarifies that even if the AI system leads to correct identification or to accurate decisions, its mechanisms must be transparent, explainable and auditable. 

The United States is looking to institute rules for the safe development and use of artificial intelligence, to regulate government use of AI, and to establish its leadership in the AI field.

Who owns the copyright to an AI-generated image—the creator, the technology, or no one? A recent court ruling in the United States determines that the right to copyright protection depends on the degree of human involvement in the work.

Who is responsible for protecting the privacy of the information AI technologies collect? A new class action in California joins a series of AI-related lawsuits that may clarify this question.

Employers that want to use technological surveillance measures to monitor and track employee performance remotely must be diligent about formulating a clear policy, informing employees, and using these means reasonably and proportionately.

A few months after ChatGPT became a popular tool for millions of users, users began filing lawsuits alleging violations of users’ privacy and data security breaches. The conclusions from these lawsuits are relevant to all companies engaging in the development and assimilation of AI technologies.

The more artificial intelligence permeates additional spheres of private and public life, the greater the need to regulate uses of this technology. Various artificial intelligence regulations are already in place around the world and additional regulatory initiatives are being promoted at a rapid pace.

The publication presents the PPA’s position on the duty to inform on the collection and use of personal data (as derived from the Privacy Protection Law), specifically highlighting the duty to inform when using algorithm-based or AI-based decision-making systems.