Attorney Andrew Lieb joined the panel on Scripps News to analyze Trump's indictment. Discussed campaign finances, falsifying business records & labeling of legal fees & potential jail time Trump could be facing.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joins FOX to provide an analysis about Mike Pence being ordered to testify in #donaldtrump Jan 6th probe.

Attorney Andrew Lieb, Legal Political Analyst Talking About TikTok CEO Testimony on LiveNow From FOX.

Attorney Andrew Lieb explains on FOX LiveNOW why Trump's Grand Jury was cancelled this week 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently released its 2022 Annual Performance Report, revealing that it collected a record-breaking $513 million in compensation for victims of discrimination. This amount was collected from 65,000 charges of discrimination, which resulted in 91 lawsuits in federal court. The majority of these charges were based on allegations of sex and retaliation discrimination, followed by disability, race, national origin, age, and religion.

Most importantly, discrimination charges were up almost 20% year-over-year.

All Eyes On NYC To See If Former President Trump Will Be Indicted. Analysis  on CBS NY With Attorney Andrew Lieb

On March 16, 2023, just two days after GPT-4's big release, the Copyright Office is getting into the AI game by addressing "the use of sophisticated artificial intelligence (“AI”) technologies capable of producing expressive material" in its Official Statement of Policy published in the Federal Register. 

To begin, the Statement of Policy asks the following questions with respect to Generative AI:

1. whether the material they produce is protected by copyright?
2. whether works consisting of both human-authored and AI-generated material may be registered?
3. what information should be provided to the Office by applicants seeking to register them?

The Copyright Office, then, answers these question through the guise of the Copyright Act's "human authorship requirement," which is found in the definition of the term "author," as set forth by SCOTUS  in the case "Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony" to mean “he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker; one who completes a work of science or literature.” 

Thereafter, the Copyright Office posits that "when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user." Stated otherwise, "[w]hen an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship." In these scenarios, no copyright is available. 

However, where a human "select[s] or arrange[s] AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way," copyright is available. Additional, if the AI-generated material is modified, then a copyright is available. 

With respect to the information to be provided to the copyright office, the Statement of Policy explains that the "Author Created" field from the "Standard Application" to explicitly "claim the portions of the textual work that is human-authored." 

Finally, the Copyright Office leaves us with a teaser for later in the year when it will seek public comment later this year on "how the law should apply to the use of copyrighted works in AI training and the resulting treatment of outputs."

Concertgoers React To Facial Recognition at MSG. Legal Analysis With Attorney Andrew Lieb on PIX11.