Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

How are intellectual property (IP) and data rights allocated when a particular dataset is a key to unlocking a powerful new artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model or use case? To find a balance, contracting parties may end up trading a black box for Pandora’s box.

One of the commonly advertised features of AI is that it is beneficial for automation and increasing productivity. When a company considers improving its productivity and employing an AI tool, it will typically go through a contracting process with the service provider and assess the terms of use and associated risks for the business. But what happens if an employee presses on and starts using an AI tool that was not vetted by the company?

As we continue to see AI steadily and increasingly be incorporated into service offerings, businesses should pay special attention to previously “standard” provisions when contracting for the provision and use of services that incorporate AI. This is especially true considering there may be situations where service providers use AI at some point in the workstream without the recipient even realizing.

As part of our Technology Marathon webinar series, partners Kristin Lee, Mike Pierides, and Steven Stone recently discussed financial regulators’ increasing focus on artificial intelligence (AI).

We recently published a report based on our four-part series on Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis, in which we consider a number of conundrums facing companies looking to leverage artificial intelligence (AI) as part of their outsourcing arrangements. As outsourcing remains a key tool through which companies can streamline operations, cut costs, and access specialized expertise, the explosive advancements in AI and related technologies have introduced new and exciting opportunities and complexities for companies in implementing and maintaining outsourcing relationships.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recently published an update paper outlining its concerns with artificial intelligence (AI) foundation models (FMs). Market players in this space should remain mindful of the CMA’s growing interest as the regulator continues its dedicated program to consider the impact of FMs on markets throughout 2024, with a further update anticipated in August.

“March Madness” started early this year as the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee recently granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) from enforcing rules prohibiting student-athletes from negotiating name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements with third parties, including NIL collectives (i.e., “organizations created by alumni, boosters, or businesses with the purpose of providing NIL opportunities to their school’s athletes”), before the student-athlete enrolls in a particular college or university.

For many companies with identifiable characters, preserving and extending their copyright protections is a top priority. As of January 1, 2024, several famous works have lost their copyright protection and entered into the public domain.

The Beijing Internet Court (BIC) recently recognized copyright protection in artificial intelligence (AI) generated images, ruling that the images met the requirements of originality and reflected a human's intellectual property investment. Li v. Liu, Written Civ. Rulings (Beijing Internet Ct. Nov. 27, 2023) (China).

Morgan Lewis’s technology, outsourcing, and commercial transactions team often advises on transactions where there is some form of intellectual property being transferred from one party to another party. This may be due to a corporate transaction, a cooperation or joint venture arrangement, or some other form of commercial agreement.