Kevin Keller is General Counsel at Super, a Series B startup with business verticals in travel, fintech and commerce. Before Super, Keller worked at many notable technological companies, such as Facebook, Microsoft, Instacart and Amazon. He is a first-generation college graduate who obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Brigham Young University and JD from New 91��ɫ School of Law. Keller generously offered his time to the IPilogue to discuss his experiences to inspire law students interested in supporting startup companies.

How has your background as a first-generation college graduate influenced your approach to your legal career?

Those of us who are first-generation graduates can fall into one or two groups; some may be overly cautious and conservative with their approach because they’ve gone so far, learned so much, secured the job, and obtained the education. They have already taken so much risk, going outside every expectation, that turning down a solid and more predictable path is one step too far. Then there’s a group of people who will take every chance because they have nothing to lose - you get a lot of entrepreneurs that are first-generation.

I started my career a little more conservative. But, as I went further along, I got more comfortable with risks and decided that I could lean on my own skills and experiences. Taking those risks has, by and large, led to greater outcomes for me and my career, but it can be hard to do as a first generation.

What’s the story behind how you became one of the founding members of InSITE, one of the world's first technology incubators/launchpads?

I realized mid-way through law school that there was a part of me that was entrepreneurial.

I shared this feeling with Alex Cohen from Columbia Law, and we decided that if something didn’t exist that gave us the opportunity, we would have to create it. We went to both the law and business schools of our schools and put up posters claiming that we were starting an elite group, with venture capitalists and the hottest startups in the city. We had none of that, but we decided that’s what we were going to have. We eventually got Fred Wilson on board and got some law firms to provide us with space and funding. It came together, partially through force of will because we wanted to create something that didn’t exist.

Oftentimes, when I’m looking at resumes during a hiring process, I look for whether in absence of something, [the applicant] created it - if they were entrepreneurial in some fashion.

You spent 11 years at Amazon and were the first attorney hired by Amazon’s Lab126. You were also named as an inventor on 17 issued and 6 pending Amazon patents. What was it like being a part of the legal and engineering team?

Lab126 was formed by Amazon to develop its hardware products. When I joined, I was sitting alongside everyone. It’s one of the things about joining a start-up that is kind of unique and fun for attorneys - you’re there in the thick of it with the rest of the employees. This environment led me to think of ideas for how the products could work together or how we could make something that might help us around a regulatory problem in a customer friendly way. I was super privileged to be able to participate in that creative process.

You have seen a lot of major tech companies in their initial stages of development. What key roles do you think the legal team had in ensuring the success of these companies?

It’s a fine balance. A good legal team will identify significant risks, but also allow start-ups to be start-ups - they’re going to take some risks and that’s ok. Even with experience, it’s still nerve-wracking as an attorney to know that there are rocks that you haven't overturned, but you have limited time and resources so it’s necessary for you to apply your judgment to best posit which are most likely to harbor significant risks.

Can you briefly describe your company Super? What advice would you give to students who are interested in pursuing a legal career in a start-up?

Super is a startup with business verticals in travel, fintech and commerce. Altogether, we have SuperCash, SuperTravel, and SuperShop, and they are all under the umbrella of “Super” with the overall mission to help people save and build credit.

For people who want to go into start-ups, you’re probably not going to be right out of law school. The first attorney, the start-up hires because they’re going to want someone who can jump in and do everything across the board. Even if you are that one person with experience, it’s difficult to have all that experience - employment, real estate, compliance, corporate, security, intellectual property… hopefully not bankruptcy. There’s a combination of classes that could be helpful: venture capital or corporate finance courses that talk about funding would be very helpful. Some general knowledge of IP would also help, it doesn’t have to be deep. I would consider myself an IP expert at this point in my career, and the only course I took in school was Trademarks.

I just hired someone in November who was largely in corporate security and M&As. Now she’s two months in supporting our marketing team, doing some trademarks analysis, dealing with consumer complaints, working on our end-user agreements and thinking about privacy and doing a great job of learning that stuff quickly. You’re not gonna have everything but you need to realize that even without everything, you have that one core skill set of being able to learn things fast, and that’s something valuable you can bring to the start-up.

Note from the Interviewer:

I would like to express my gratitude to Kevin Keller for taking the time to participate in this interview and sharing his valuable insights into his experiences across various roles within the tech and start-up industries.

The post Working In-House at a Start-up: an Interview with Kevin Keller appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. M. Imtiaz Karamat is an IP Osgoode Alumnus and an Associate at Deeth Williams Wall LLP. This article was on the OBA’s Information Technology and Intellectual Property Law Section’s��.

Privacy breaches are becoming commonplace in today’s business landscape and cybersecurity is top of mind for many organizations— and for good reason. The����found that the number of breaches involving customer and employee information nearly doubled after the pandemic, and more businesses are reporting loss of customers from cyberattacks. This situation is exacerbated by the risk of litigation, as lawsuits are a legitimate consequence of a privacy breach. Ongoing activity in the privacy breach litigation space calls for organizations to re-examine their privilege strategies and prepare for potential scrutiny that may occur in the event of a dispute. ��

The Ongoing Litigation Risk

In 2022, Canadian courts continued to see litigation resulting from privacy breaches, with class actions being certified on the basis of a broad range of claims, including�������Ի���. There have also been significant developments in the jurisprudence for privacy breaches, such as the landmark release of three Ontario Court of Appeal decisions (Owsianik v Equifax Co.,��;��Obodo v Trans Union of Canada, Inc.,��; and��Winder v Marriot International, Inc.,��) in late 2022 that clarified the scope of liability in data breach class actions for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The continued litigation reminds organizations and lawyers to ensure their privacy breach response plans conform with best practices. This is not only limited to having a robust IT framework, but includes adopting legal procedures to provide adequate protection and support. Privilege is an essential component of privacy breach litigation and should be a priority in a response strategy. In a privacy breach, legal privilege permits an organization to obtain legal advice about the incident without having to worry that such communications and related documents will be disclosed to others. This is crucial for breach response efforts, when the fast-paced environment requires candid conversations between counsel and client. Privilege is also an essential aspect for litigation preparation, by allowing lawyers to create necessary resources without fear that these materials may be disclosed and potentially used against their clients.

A Brief Review of Legal Privilege

Solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege are two types of privilege that are involved in privacy breach litigation.

• Solicitor-client privilege����communications between the lawyer and client; entails the seeking or giving of legal advice; and is intended to be confidential. It does not depend on on-going or anticipated litigation, and it is����once applied, unless waived by the client.����
• Litigation privilege��protects documents and communications that were created or collected for the�� of litigation that is on-going or reasonably anticipated. The privilege terminates once the respective litigation ends.

Recent Canadian Privilege Disputes

Although not as extensive as other jurisdictions, Canada has seen privilege disputes in the context of privacy breaches. The outcome of these disputes are important teaching points for organizations intending to develop their own privilege strategy.

Kaplan v Casino Rama Services Inc.

In��Kaplan v Casino Rama Services Inc.,��,��a class action lawsuit was brought against the owners and operators of Casino Rama Resort (Casino Rama) following Casino Rama’s announcement of a large-scale cyberattack. During the certification stage of the lawsuit, Casino Rama relied on an affidavit that included information from reports of a cybersecurity company hired to investigate the incident. The plaintiffs requested production of the company’s reports, but Casino Rama declined on the basis of legal privilege.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (ONSC) found that if privilege was present, it would have been waived when the defendants disclosed and relied on information from the reports as evidence towards the size and scope of the class of persons affected by the breach. In its reasons, the ONSC said that “a party cannot disclose and rely on certain information obtained from a privileged source and then seek to prevent disclosure of the privileged information relevant to that issue...” Therefore, the ONSC ordered production of the parts of the reports that related to the size and scope of the class of affected individuals.

LifeLabs Dispute

More recently, the privilege debate is being examined in the context of information provided to provincial privacy commissioners. In November of 2019, LifeLabs LP (LifeLabs) notified the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) and the British Columbia Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) that it fell victim to a cyberattack, which resulted in personal health data of approximately 15 million customers being extracted from their systems. The IPC and OIPC commenced a coordinated investigation into the incident and demanded that LifeLabs produce certain documents relevant to the investigation. LifeLabs provided some of the documents but asserted litigation or solicitor-client privilege over others.

On March 30, 2020, in��, the IPC rejected LifeLabs’ claim of litigation privilege over the documents on the basis that the dominant purpose for the creation of the documents was not litigation. The IPC also disagreed with LifeLabs’ claim for solicitor-client privilege because LifeLabs failed to provide adequate support that it met the requirements for solicitor-client privilege (i.e., that the information in issue was communicated in confidence between lawyer and client; for the purpose of seeking legal advice; and the parties intended it to be confidential). The IPC stated that the mere fact of communication between a lawyer and their client or the transfer of reports to in-house or external counsel does not support a claim of solicitor-client privilege. The IPC further noted that “…while underlying facts given to counsel could be part of the ‘continuum of communication’ protected by solicitor-client privilege…unless disclosure of the underlying facts would reveal or allow for inference of confidential solicitor-client communications, the underlying facts themselves do not attract the privilege”.��

Following PHIPA Decision 114, LifeLabs provided the documents in issue to the IPC and OIPC, but maintained that it did not waive privilege by doing so. In May 2020, the Commissioners advised LifeLabs of the information from the documents that they were contemplating using in their final report, which led LifeLabs to submit additional evidence and arguments to the IPC and OIPC in support of its privilege claim over the documents. However, in June 2020, the IPC and OIPC issued a joint decision (the Privilege Decision) that rejected LifeLabs’ claims.

In response, LifeLabs commenced applications for judicial review of the Privilege Decision in both Ontario and British Columbia. In the application, LifeLabs argues that the Privilege Decision was wrong in law in rejecting its privilege claims and challenges the IPC’s power to compel production of privileged documents. This matter is still ongoing in the courts, with related����being heard as recently as late January 2023.

Developing a Privilege Strategy

With the above disputes in mind, it is important for organizations to develop a privilege strategy for responding to privacy breaches and preparing for potential litigation. These are some general best practices to keep in mind:

1. Preparation:��Prior to a privacy breach, businesses can ensure that they have a comprehensive breach response strategy, which addresses retaining legal counsel and considerations for protecting legal privilege. This strategy should be regularly updated to remain current.
2. Consulting Legal Counsel:��Contacting external legal counsel is a top priority upon learning of a potential breach. This allows the organization to begin obtaining the necessary legal advice to immediately respond to the matter; and reinforces claims of privilege from the start. If the organization already has internal legal counsel that has been notified of the incident, it may still be prudent to retain external counsel. This is due to in-house counsel often providing both business and legal advice, which may result in heavy����when claiming privilege in a dispute. Retaining external counsel in a breach response would reinforce that the advice being given is legal, as opposed to business-related.
3. Control Communication Flow:��In addition to ensuring that counsel is included in privileged communications, the distribution of such communications can be controlled and limited to only the necessary parties (including the necessary members of the organization), with the intention to limit distribution and preserve confidentiality. As part of the organization’s preparation, it can work with counsel to establish how information is to be communicated, the recipients of such information, and proper labeling practices (e.g., marking documents as “Privileged and Confidential”).
4. Consider Privilege with Third-Party Service Providers:��Communications with third party service providers may be considered privileged when made for the purpose of helping counsel provide legal advice to the affected organization. This includes the use of cyber forensic experts to investigate a privacy incident and generate reports at the request of legal counsel. Where possible, third parties may be jointly retained by external counsel and the organization; and the terms of the retainer and supporting documents should reflect the legal nature of the engagement. The third party can also seek instructions and report to external counsel.
5. Caution When Divulging Privileged Information:��Organizations intending to maintain privilege should be cautious when disclosing privileged information to external parties. This includes being on the alert for inadvertent disclosure of privileged information in legal proceedings. It may also include stating that the organization does not intend to waive privilege by responding to disclosure demands from regulators.

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.

The post Legal Tug-Of-War: Protecting Privilege in Privacy Breach Disputes appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The Australian government recently raised the alarm after noticing an , particularly driven by traffic to websites offering Japanese manga. The issue of most notably made headlines back in 2021 — manga piracy had surged by over 26 times, resulting in a in the same year. In Australia, unlicensed television shows, films, and music have seen a general decline since 2017, causing some to wonder why manga could be an exception. According to intellectual property experts, consumer convenience is likely driving these trends.

The recent explosion of streaming services has enabled widespread access to shows, films and music, whereas there appears to be an ongoing lack of legal access to manga. Even though streaming services come with a cost, many offer a wide range of plans at reasonable rates, and some even offer free trials. Moreover, more individuals appear to be willing to pay the fee rather than potentially expose their devices to malware — consumers who engage in private downloads were found to be 28 times more with malware. Blocked piracy sites were also found to be an effective deterrent to some of the less persistent individuals trying to access unlicensed content. The Australian government is currently in response to the need for an effective copyright system that takes into account shifting technological landscapes.

However, declining piracy trends in Australia may be unique. According to , a data company that measures global piracy to drive content protection, . With 17.4 billion visits, the United States had the most visits to pirate sites per country, followed by Russia and India. While Canada was not listed in the top ten, it may be too soon to breathe a sigh of relief, as developments in the streaming market may create conditions that will predictably lead to an uptick in demand for unlicensed content. Streaming services implementing new , increasing costs, or tightening the grip on may seem like a huge inconvenience to many, which can result in some consumers feeling like the legal avenues for accessing content are no longer worth it.

Moreover, the fragmentation of streaming services has been frustrating consumers. With over 50 video streaming services in North America alone, consumers find themselves subscribing to multiples services in order to watch their desired content. , the average streamer uses approximately 4 subscription services and desire “managed and consolidated services” to streamline their streaming experiences.

Overall, it is beneficial to investigate piracy trends, especially as we see significant changes in how we consume content. The rising demand for unlicensed manga suggests that there is a need to assess consumer access to legal content in order to prevent a slew of other piracy issues in the future.

The post Increase in Manga Piracy - Considering Lawful Avenues for Content Access appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Museums have long been a source of education and inspiration, but technological advancements have allowed for exhibitions that display a unique intersection of modern technology and history. Exhibitions incorporating the use of AR and VR technologies enable visitors to and absorb educational content through interactive games. Museums have become some of the world's most innovative content creators, capturing the attention of individuals of all ages.

Engaging, accessible and a springboard for creative projects

What exactly does it look like when a museum embraces technology? In 2021, Athena Art Foundation, Colnaghi Foundation, National Portrait Gallery and Megaverse collaborated to launch the “” series. The series features digital, interactive versions of the gallery’s portraits in place of their traditional, static counterparts. Brought to “life,” the portraits tell their stories in an engaging and authentic style. The first portrait in the series featured Jem Belcher, a 19th-century bare-knuckle boxer and butcher who speaks of his accomplishments as one of the best boxers of his time. Additionally, these digital portraits are more accessible to a wider audience, including those with visual impairments.

Augmented reality (AR) has also been utilized to explore various perspectives. Last year, LACMA collaborated with Snapchat in the Monumental Perspectives Collection to explore LA community histories through AR. As a part of the collection, Sandra de la Loza’s “” is an AR animation to portray what has been lost and “a vision of new ecologies in the future.” The piece revives native plants in South Los Angeles and illustrates how the land is linked to time and history with the transition of seasons.

(Caption: Sandra de la Loza, What the Willow Whispers, 2022, in collaboration with LACMA × Snapchat: Monumental Perspectives, © Sandra de la Loza, image courtesy of Snap Inc)

A new box of legal issues

Museums will need to consider new issues as they explore new technological media. For example, they will need to weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of allowing visitors to use various AR apps and tools to customize works. While some argue that such acts would be a defilement of fine art and would prefer that works are preserved in more controlled environments, others see that these technologies offer opportunities to study works in greater depth. Loic Tallon, Digital Chief of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, : “[t]he museum’s mission is to collect, preserve, and study works of art … if someone is making an AR experience out of the collection, I see it as pure mission fulfillment.”

Furthermore, remains a key issue that can easily be complicated when it comes to these technologies. For AR works that may be the product of multiple copyright holders, the museum must make sure that proper steps are taken to locate and obtain all permissions or licenses for the use of the work. In this process, it will be important to discuss with artists the extent to which their work is original and what is sourced from third parties.

Annually held conferences such as the “” by MuseumNext, bring together members of the world’s leading institutions, to continue exploring the ways technology can be integrated in exhibitions in the future. If you love both history and technology, chances are your local museum has something for you.

The post When Modern Technology Meets History - How Museums Are Creating Interactive Experiences appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

More recently, we have seen digital art open doors for artists to experiment with conceptual artwork like never before. Stijn van Schaik, a second-year Advertising student, on OpenSea, making it the . In addition, hosted Aitken's exhibition in four galleries, allowing visitors to view the exhibition alongside others around the world, within the same virtual space. As a result, are increasingly seen as not just a “referential pointer to the physical but a place of primary experience, worthy of being collected”.

Doug Aitken, installation view of Open on Vortic VR. © Doug Aitken. Courtesy the artist; 303 Gallery, New 91��ɫ; Galerie Eva Presenhuber, Zurich; Victoria Miro, London; and Regen Projects, Los Angeles

Last year, released a 7-part series titled “”, to examine how NFTs affect institutions that collect digital art, and highlighted that NFTs may possibly be the “unifying mechanism” used to package [work] done in the digital space. As well as encouraging the collection of , NFTs are a way for artists to financially benefit from works traditionally non-commodifiable (ex. conceptual or ). But before we all scatter to “NFTize” our souls, we need to address some legal issues surrounding the overall sustainability of digital artworks.

Are smart contracts “smart” enough?

discusses one of the most commendable features of NFTs - the automatic resale royalties. Blockchain smart contracts track payments and distribute a percentage of the resale profits back to artists. However, there are , which include transacting on a marketplace platform on another blockchain, so that the NFT’s smart contract is not notified of the resale. Therefore, keeping collectors transacting on platforms that recognize the existing code triggering the resale royalty remains a constant challenge. For now, the best way to avoid this issue remains a specifically drafted contract with a resale royalties provision, tailored to the individual NFT.

Sustainable Models and Practices for Digital Conservation

A sustainable model will offer benefits to both the artists and the collectors. Allowing for ensures that collectors are committed to the integrity of the resale royalty process and increases the likelihood of the system functioning as it should. Sustainable practices involve the artists’ clear statement about the rights and licences being transferred with the work. Would the artist allow the owner to transfer the work to another platform in the event of blockchain issues or technological obsolescence? Can the owner lend the work to other venues? A digital work's conservation depends on these legal considerations.

The post Beyond the Frames - How Sustainable is Digital Art? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

Growing up playing the violin and developing a deep appreciation for the performing arts, I made it clear from the get-go that was where I wanted to be for my 10-week placement. SOCAN is Canada’s largest member-based rights management organization, connecting more than 4 million creators and publishers worldwide and ensuring that they are compensated for their work.

I joined the team at SOCAN at an exciting time – after a long hiatus, the organization was revving up to start in-person events again. By the end of my first week, I signed up to volunteer at the 2022 Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame (CSHF) Gala, where I had the opportunity to greet Canadian talent and feel the rush of all the coordination that happens backstage. I also participated in SOCAN’s first in-person Town Hall since the pandemic and listened to a special performance from the unbelievably talented . Attending these events early into my internship served as a nice exposure to the glitz and glamour of the music Industry and helped me develop an appreciation for the work done behind the scenes by SOCAN to support its members.

As an intern, I never felt short of tasks, and I found that this reflected the dynamic nature of the music market. On some days, I was looking into two-decade-old decisions from Copyright Board to make sense of particular rates today, and on other days I was doing research on to-be-released subscription plans for video-on-demand services. Moreover, on top of learning about SOCAN’s tariffs, I also conducted research on dozens of foreign PRO (performance rights organisation) concert/festival tariffs to see how they differ from each other. Whether it was something from the past, something about to happen in the future or something happening abroad, I learned something new about the music market every day, and I felt like I got a glimpse of the complexities that SOCAN's counsels must be mindful of. Understanding this made it easier to put myself in the shoes of an in-house counsel and find ways to present my research so that it is easily digestible to someone juggling a dozen tasks all at once.

Midway through my internship, I was fortunate enough to observe a rare, virtual hearing on online music services. It was interesting to hear the issues raised by both SOCAN and music services, and the questions raised by the Board in an attempt to better understand the situation and find a solution. It was a pleasant surprise to see the virtual hearing room filled with IP Osgoode alumni, which demonstrated the program's effectiveness in launching its students to fulfilling careers. During my internship, I always felt supported by other IP Osgoode alumni, as well as the entire legal team at SOCAN. The team was always there to guide me when I felt stumped, and it was a good reminder of the priceless value of good mentorship and collegiality in the workplace.

My favourite memory is watching the CSHF Gala rehearsal backstage with other event volunteers at Massey Hall. As we watched SOCAN members take over the stage - singing, dancing, and interacting with the band - some remarked, “I don't know how they do it”. Completing my internship, it is clear to me that all the hard work SOCAN does behind the scenes enables the members to carry on and do what they do best.

The post The Glitz and Glamour… and Everything Else Behind the Scenes at SOCAN (IP Intensive Reflection) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

What did your look like this year? As music streaming services grow in popularity, more people have included them as part of their daily lives. On November 29th, The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) released its of its market study into music and music streaming. According to the report, streaming services are the primary method of music distribution for labels and artists, with 39 million active users and over 138 billion streams in the UK in 2021. Moreover, competition between music streaming services and the digitization of the market improved consumer outcomes greatly, though creators still had concerns about their earnings from streaming.

Falling subscription fees, benefits for emerging artists

Music streaming services have evolved to significantly benefit consumers in today's market. These services offer consumers access to an enormous catalogue of music, better audio quality, and new features, without the price tag. In fact, the report reveals that the price of music streaming plans dropped more than 20% between 2009 and 2021 because they did not keep up with inflation.

The music streaming market is also showing some positive results for creators, especially new artists. First, virtually anyone can share their music. Although the market is highly competitive, it has never been easier to create and record music and share it on streaming services. Secondly, deal options for creators are improving. Although creators do not necessarily need a label to share their music on streaming services, many of them are finding that they have more options in what type of deal they would prefer (for example, DIY distribution, A&L services, traditional record deals). Moreover, artists find that having an existing prominent following online helps them while negotiating a record deal. Major contracts with new artists for multi-track deals revealed more favourable terms for creators — an increase in average gross royalty rates, shorter minimum commitment periods and a reduction in the proportion of recordings owned by labels.

Average UK artist yearly streaming earnings from majors and average UK royalty rates. Source: CMA analysis of data from the majors.

Challenges call for broader policy debate, not competition intervention

Digitization has also presented some challenges. Market digitization has primarily limited competition to already popular artists — although streaming services offer a wide selection of music, consumer tastes tend to favour a small number of successful artists. Moreover, streaming allows both new and old music to reach new audiences, increasing competition as new music competes with older music for a share of streaming revenue.

Ultimately, the report concludes that these outcomes are not primarily caused by market competition and therefore, a competition intervention probably would not increase revenues for artists. Rather, the report calls for a broader policy debate, encouraging the government to consider further legislative and policy reforms for creator compensation in collaboration with DCMS Select Committee recommendations.

Labels are urged to provide more transparency to their artists about how streaming service earnings are calculated and how existing deals with streaming services will impact their current and future earnings. In addition, government and policymakers should examine options available to incentivize songwriting, such as determining a fair split between publishing and recording shares and exploring the licensing rates for music streaming. Future conversations revolving around these issues are critical, as the sustainability of the music streaming market depends on consumers and creators alike.

The post CMA Releases Report on Music Streaming Market appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

This past summer, Amazon made headlines when it announced an update that would make Alexa capable of , just after hearing under a minute of audio. While people are still unsure as to whether this is heartwarming or just plain creepy, AI continues to evolve, with recent developments showing its ability to not only mimic human speech but also singing.

AI-based audio technologies have been making waves worldwide. Last month, Google announced “”, which proposes “a new framework for audio generation that learns to generate realistic speech and piano music by listening to audio only”. More recently, , China’s leading music entertainment platform, demonstrated the influence of AI in music. According to Music Business Worldwide, the company has released over - one of the tracks surpassing 100 M streams. TME utilized a “patented voice synthesis technology” called “Lingyin Engine”, which the company claims can “quickly and vividly replicate singers’ voices to produce original songs of any style and language.” South Korea has been a strong player, with its most prominent AI-based audio start-up, . The company claims that its voice synthesis and real-time voice enhancement technology can create a hyper-realistic voice that is indistinguishable from real humans.

So far, these AI voice technologies have largely been publicized as an innovative way of and preserving the memories of lost loved ones. Nevertheless, companies will likely aggressively pursue these technologies for profit. In fact, according to NME, (record label of globally recognized boy band, BTS), which equates to about $44.6 million Canadian Dollars. last month, HYBE’s CEO confirmed that the company plans to “unveil new content and services to [its] fans by combining our content-creation capabilities with Supertone’s AI-based speaking and singing vocal synthesis technology.”

HYBE’s huge investment in Supertone starts to make a little more sense once we discover that the company’s “” in Q3 2022 was its Artist ‘Indirect-involvement’ revenues. BTS’s success suggests how more entertainment companies will follow HYBE’s footsteps to increase profits without the headache of coordinating any physical appearances of its artists.

The development of voice AI opens a plethora of legal questions to consider. These issues were highlighted more recently by the recent - who is given permission to use it and does the artist hold any rights to license their voice to third parties for use in other films? More specifically for , how do we determine who owns the copyright to the work? Does it make sense to look at the creators of the voice AI technologies themselves or at the source of the vocal data (the artist)? These questions clarify that the development of voice AI places our artists in a very vulnerable position — suggesting a much-needed intermission for this chaotic programme.

The post The Show Must Go On - AI Developments in Music appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

A high-tech solarpunk utopia in the Amazon rainforest, a Pikachu fine dining with a view to the Eiffel Tower, a mecha robot in a favela in expressionist style – if you are struggling to visualize any of these descriptions, an AI art generator could most likely help you out. All of the prompts are suggestions by , an open-source AI art generator launched in 2022 by startup .

As its name suggests, AI-generated art refers to art generated with the help of artificial intelligence. I like to use AI art generators to help visualize environments, such as where I would rather be writing this blog as the weather gets chillier in Toronto.

An AI-generated image of the prompt “a laptop and bubble tea on a table under a parasol at a Hawaiian beach during sunset, photorealistic” by Stable Diffusion.

Aside from being a fun tool for curious users to play around with, AI art generators serve as a for visualizing concept art and automating repetitive tasks. Furthermore, in more recent years, AI art has enabled artists to explore previously uncharted territory. For example, Lynn Hershman Leeson’s “uses algorithms, performance, and projections to draw attention to the inherent biases in private systems like predictive policing, which are increasingly used by law enforcement”.

Understanding “Open-source” AI-Generated Art

Similar to previous models, Stable Diffusion is a text-to-image generator (similar to and ). It differs from these models in that it is open-source, meaning that its underlying code and model has been trained on publicly available data. The motive stems from Emad Monstaque’s (Founder of Stability AI) that we will only realize AI’s potential to solve humanity’s biggest challenges “if the technology is open and accessible to all”. Stable Diffusion’s open model equips anybody with a web browser to generate images (including violent and pornographic ones) according to their prompts, including for commercial use.

Why Visual Artists are Concerned

Open-source AI-generated art can be seen as a threat to commercial artists in practically every industry. In , Greg Rutkowski, a Polish digital artist, spoke about the difficulties that have come with his artwork’s popularity in the world of text-to-image AI generators. Known for his distinctive ethereal style, Rutkowski found his style becoming one of the most commonly used prompts in Stable Diffusion. Initially, the artist thought this was an effective way to gain publicity until he realized through some Google searches that his name was becoming associated with work that was not his.

Rutkowski is not alone - more artists are beginning to see their artworks gain popularity with similar models and have . Others have raised concerns about data protection and privacy due to their artwork being either personal or linked closely to an existing person. These concerns have consequently about the potential for artists to opt out of the data training process. However, some say this would be impossible as it would involve throwing out the whole model “built around nonconsensual data usage”. Moreover, with the source code out in public, some are under the impression that it will be like “putting toothpaste back in the tube”.

While some companies and artists have been optimistic in their beliefs that AI will ultimately benefit humanity and generate new ideas for their careers, other artists are finding it necessary to build a coalition to fight back with proper regulations and protect the future of their professions.

The post Open-Source AI-Generated Art Raises Concerns Amongst Artists appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Many people have voiced their concerns about the abysmally low rates for ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program) and OW (Ontario Works). In response, Ontario NDP MPPs have taken it upon themselves to conduct a to better understand the challenges that some of Ontario’s most vulnerable residents face. However, in addition to the low rates, some social assistance applicants and recipients are facing technological hurdles due to or “modernization,” an initiative led by the province to promote employment and independence for those on social assistance. ��

The rationale for change is that our social assistance systems’ processes are “too bureaucratic, too paper-heavy" and “focused on enforcement and technical aspects” rather than on the activities that would actually contribute to independence for those relying on social assistance. To tackle these issues, modernization proposes “more digital and self-serve options” to allow for faster decision making and a more streamlined experience for those applying to or on social assistance. As encouraging as this sounds, digitization of social assistance services has unfortunately left many behind.

Lower income and less likely to own computers

Persons with disabilities tend to have than persons without a disability, often making costs for digital devices or connectivity services burdensome. of 1502 US adults, those with a disability were less likely to own a desktop or laptop computer than those without a disability. “Some people with low incomes have inconsistent access to internet or phone. When there’s an emphasis on digitized services, some folks won’t be able to access the benefits and the services that they are entitled to,” said Sara Ageorlo, a staff lawyer at . Sara mainly assists clients with their social assistance matters and observes the technological challenges they face on a regular basis.��

She exclaimed that some clients also find it challenging to set up their online account on , an online service that allows OSDP and OW recipients to check payments and communicate with their caseworkers. Additionally, the emphasis on applying online negatively affects newcomers, who often face a language barrier and are unaware of a lot of the free services available to assist them. With the push toward digitization, more clients may feel helpless because they believe there is no one to ask questions to or to tell them whether they are submitting the right information.

“We’re talking about people with low income, they’re busy to make ends meet … it should be easier for folks in those positions.”

Encouraging access to alternatives and education

Sara strongly believes that individuals who can’t access digital services should have alternatives, with a particular emphasis on obvious alternatives. Alternative options should not have to be searched for – they should be made obvious, instead of being hidden in separate links or tabs. Moreover, online applications should also avoid discouraging applicants from applying for benefits they may be entitled to – this is the case when applicants see pop-up messages indicating their ineligibility after choosing an option on a drop-down menu. To ensure user friendliness, these digital services should also be developed in consultation with those who will be using them.��Moreover, there must be an emphasis on workshops that will introduce applicants to this new platform and help with the integration process. Government programs that recognize the digital literacy issue within specific communities, such as the , which will invest $17.6 million to promote digital literacy skills among Canadians who face barriers to participating in the digital economy, represent a crucial step towards closing in on the digital divide between those with and without disabilities.

The post Digitizing Social Assistance: How Technological Barriers are Impacting Our Most Vulnerable appeared first on IPOsgoode.