fbpx
  • Latest News
  • Trending News
  • All
  • Latest News
  • Featured
  • Industry News
  • Legal Governance
  • Constitutional Law
  • Op-Ed
  • News Archives
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Analysis
  • Bankruptcy Law
  • Consumer Protection Law
  • Cyber Security Law
  • Family Law
  • Disability Law
  • Employment Law
  • Environmental Law
  • Estate Law
  • Housing Law
  • Human Rights Code
  • Immigration Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Privacy Law
  • Tax Law
  • Workers Compensation Board
Robots Rising: Should Machines Be Granted Copyrights?

Robots Rising: Should Machines Be Granted Copyrights?

March 9, 2022
More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home while investigating possible Espionage Act violations (US)

FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home while investigating possible Espionage Act violations (US)

August 12, 2022
Ontario class action settlement reclassifies volunteers as employees, setting new precedent

Ontario class action settlement reclassifies volunteers as employees, setting new precedent

August 11, 2022
Availability of Judicial Review in SABS Disputes

Availability of Judicial Review in SABS Disputes

August 10, 2022
Are masking policies still valid?

Are masking policies still valid?

August 10, 2022
Justice Canada releases commission report on impact of lack of legal aid in family law disputes

Justice Canada releases commission report on impact of lack of legal aid in family law disputes

August 9, 2022
Harmonized sales tax part of maximum amount of attendant care benefits owed by insurer: court

Harmonized sales tax part of maximum amount of attendant care benefits owed by insurer: court

August 8, 2022
New rules coming next month to help Canadians with cancelled and delayed flights

New rules coming next month to help Canadians with cancelled and delayed flights

August 3, 2022
Stephen King set to testify for govt in books merger trial (US)

Stephen King set to testify for govt in books merger trial (US)

August 2, 2022
New law program in Quebec to begin next fall, a first in 50 years

New law program in Quebec to begin next fall, a first in 50 years

August 2, 2022

Defence lawyers threaten job action over Legal Aid Alberta funding

August 1, 2022
The Impact of the Lack of Legal Aid in Family Law Cases

The Impact of the Lack of Legal Aid in Family Law Cases

July 29, 2022
SCC rules that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom but do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault.

SCC rules that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom but do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault.

July 29, 2022
Big Plastic suing feds over single-use ban — again

Big Plastic suing feds over single-use ban — again

July 29, 2022
Tim Hortons offers coffee and doughnut as proposed settlement in class action lawsuit

Tim Hortons offers coffee and doughnut as proposed settlement in class action lawsuit

July 29, 2022

NBA investigating Philadelphia 76ers for possible tampering

July 29, 2022

#MeToo didn’t end sexual harassment in the workplace and vigilance remains a must

July 29, 2022
The SCC has refused to hear the appeal to declare the renewal of the state of health emergency by the Quebec government invalid

The SCC has refused to hear the appeal to declare the renewal of the state of health emergency by the Quebec government invalid

July 28, 2022
Federal privacy commissioner investigating controversial ArriveCAN app

Federal privacy commissioner investigating controversial ArriveCAN app

July 28, 2022
Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (US)

Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (US)

July 26, 2022
Ontario court certifies class action on former patients’ anxiety from notice of risk of infection

Ontario court certifies class action on former patients’ anxiety from notice of risk of infection

July 26, 2022
The stakes couldn’t be higher as Canada’s top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit

The stakes couldn’t be higher as Canada’s top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit

July 26, 2022
Professor Barnali Choudhury selected by EU as trade and sustainable development expert

Professor Barnali Choudhury selected by EU as trade and sustainable development expert

July 25, 2022

Abuse and harassment survivors ‘silenced’ by non-disclosure agreements fight for change to B.C. law

July 23, 2022
The Supreme Court decision on the ‘Ghomeshi’ amendments will help sexual assault victims access justice

The Supreme Court decision on the ‘Ghomeshi’ amendments will help sexual assault victims access justice

July 5, 2022
AFN Reaches $20 B Final Settlement Agreement to Compensate First Nations Children and Families

AFN Reaches $20 B Final Settlement Agreement to Compensate First Nations Children and Families

July 4, 2022

Why your options may be limited if your employer wants you back in the workplace

July 4, 2022

City directs contractors to reinstate Sikh security guards who lost work due to clean-shaven rule

July 4, 2022
  • ABOUT LITN
  • SUPPORT LITN
  • LEGAL, PRIVACY & POLICY
  • PUBLIC EDUCATION & RESOURCE LINKS
Friday, January 27, 2023
  • Login
  • Register for a FREE LITN account
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Entertainment Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact Us
    • Support LITN
      • Contribute to LITN Operations
      • Place YOUR Custom Ad on LITN
      • Engage with LITN Sponsored Ads
      • Create a FREE LITN Account
      • Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter
      • Connect, Follow, Like, Retweet and Repost LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Cookie Policy (CA)
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
  • Public Education and Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Entertainment Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact Us
    • Support LITN
      • Contribute to LITN Operations
      • Place YOUR Custom Ad on LITN
      • Engage with LITN Sponsored Ads
      • Create a FREE LITN Account
      • Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter
      • Connect, Follow, Like, Retweet and Repost LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Cookie Policy (CA)
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
  • Public Education and Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
No Result
View All Result
Home Intellectual Property Law

Robots Rising: Should Machines Be Granted Copyrights?

Thus far, the Copyright Office has found no reason to depart from the long-standing approach of awarding copyright registrations only to humans.

March 9, 2022
Reading Time: 6 mins read
1
A A
0
Robots Rising: Should Machines Be Granted Copyrights?
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare by Email

 


PHOTO: Stock.
  • Scott Alan Burroughs ⁞ Above The Law
  • March 9, 2022

 

When we last rapped about non-fungible tokens (NFTs), we focused on how the creators of the artworks that are sold alongside the alphanumeric codes that comprise the NFTs almost always maintain the copyrights for those artworks. And that the buyer takes ownership only of the code, which is then inscribed on the blockchain forevermore. The creator of the artwork can then exploit that artwork in any way they see fit without interference from the NFT owner.

Many of the artworks, though, that are associated with NFTs are at least in part created by robots, benevolent ones, sure, but robots nonetheless. These robots rely on algorithms and at times artificial intelligence to mass-create digital artwork in various iterations, each of which is marketed as a “unique” work of art to pair with your NFT. There are 10,000 CryptoPunks, for example, each of which was generated by software code.

There is usually humanoid involvement, to be sure — in many cases a person will write the software code, upload a data set to a computer, and apply creation protocols to the data, which is then, per those protocols, synthesized and converted to create the art. But the actual execution of the art — fixing it in a digital medium so that it can be perceived by the viewer — is done by the robot.

Dr. Stephen Thaler would be a good person to explain how this all works. A very interesting fellow who has worked with diamonds, brains, and computers, though not always at the same time, he applied in 2018 to register an artwork entitled “Creativity Machine” with the U.S. Copyright Office. He ran into a roadblock in doing so, though, because, for a work to be registrable, a claimant must identify the creative content for which the presumably human claimant is responsible.

In Thaler’s application, he stated, problematically, that the “Creativity Machine” work was “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine” that he owned. The work, he advised, was made “for hire,” a designation usually applied to work created by an employee for an employer in the scope of their employment. Thaler was advising the Copyright Office that the work was created by his robot artist in the course of its robot duties.

The Copyright Office, in addressing Thaler’s appeal of the denial of his registration for “Creativity Machine,” was skeptical because “human authorship” is necessary to make a work registrable. And while the authorship threshold for registration is quite humble, with most elementary school-level work making the grade, that work must be the product of humanity.

The Copyright Office makes clear that the “crucial question” when determining whether there is sufficient human authorship is whether a computer is “merely being an assisting instrument” or “actually conceive[s] and execute[s]” the “traditional elements of authorship in the work.” Many artists use computers and other “machines” — e.g., a camera — to create their work, and so long as they “conceive” the work their authorship is sufficient for protection. As a result, a work created on a computer will not be found to be created by a computer except in rare instances.

Thaler’s work, in which he claims to have made no contribution as a human, is one of those instances. His work, like that created by Naruto in the famous Ninth Circuit case in which it was decided that monkeys cannot own copyrights, did not have the human tincture needed to be protectable.

Finding that Thaler had failed to provide evidence of “sufficient creative input or intervention” by him or any other human, the Copyright Office rejected his application. He appealed it all the way up the chain but the Copyright Office held firm, finding no reason to depart from the long-standing approach of awarding copyright registrations only to humans.

In so holding, the Copyright Office emphasized that its compendium precludes registration of a work “produced by a machine” unless there is some creative human input. Thaler, whose application was adamant about disclaiming any such input, didn’t make the grade on this count. He was so explicit on this issue that it appears he had a greater interest in arguing the point that robots should have the opportunity to hold copyright registration than he was in obtaining a copyright registration.

Most original art that is created on, and even substantially by, a computer will be protectable. Someone can imagine an application that made clear that the writing of the algorithm and selection of the various datum inputs and arrangement of the creation protocols would easily meet the threshold of human “creative input or intervention” that is required. But Thaler averred that the robot and the robot alone did the thing, and he was denied registration as a result.

The Copyright Act, which is intended to incentivize the creation of new works of art, including those that push the proverbial envelope, would seemingly embrace the use of computers to create works and seek to encourage artists in digital media to develop and create innovative works. And copyright law protects “the fruits of intellectual labor,” which would seemingly cover the intellectual labor attendant to writing a sweet algorithm and populating it with the most carefully curated and creatively arranged data. But, in a most telling bracketed interposition, the Copyright Office notes that the compendium states that such fruits must be “founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind” to be protectable, leaving out in the cold works founded in the autonomous robot mind.

This has ramifications for NFTs whose attendant artwork is algorithm- or computer-generated. Should the Copyright Office find that such works are not protectable by copyright because they are machine-created without the requisite human contribution, it will further devalue the value of the works as intellectual property assets, though it is unclear if this would affect the token value.

While Thaler’s complete disavowal of any human involvement in the computer-driven development of “Creativity Machine” made this more of a policy move and a relatively easy decision for the Copyright Office, there will surely be future instances in which artists who create on and with computers will more heavily blur the line between what is and isn’t human-generated art. And what is protected by copyright law.

Scott Alan Burroughs, Esq. practices with Doniger / Burroughs, an art law firm based in Venice, California. He represents artists and content creators of all stripes and writes and speaks regularly on copyright issues. He can be reached at scott@copyrightLA.com, and you can follow his law firm on Instagram: @veniceartlaw.

GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENT

 


PHOTO: Stock.
  • Scott Alan Burroughs ⁞ Above The Law
  • March 9, 2022

 

When we last rapped about non-fungible tokens (NFTs), we focused on how the creators of the artworks that are sold alongside the alphanumeric codes that comprise the NFTs almost always maintain the copyrights for those artworks. And that the buyer takes ownership only of the code, which is then inscribed on the blockchain forevermore. The creator of the artwork can then exploit that artwork in any way they see fit without interference from the NFT owner.

Many of the artworks, though, that are associated with NFTs are at least in part created by robots, benevolent ones, sure, but robots nonetheless. These robots rely on algorithms and at times artificial intelligence to mass-create digital artwork in various iterations, each of which is marketed as a “unique” work of art to pair with your NFT. There are 10,000 CryptoPunks, for example, each of which was generated by software code.

There is usually humanoid involvement, to be sure — in many cases a person will write the software code, upload a data set to a computer, and apply creation protocols to the data, which is then, per those protocols, synthesized and converted to create the art. But the actual execution of the art — fixing it in a digital medium so that it can be perceived by the viewer — is done by the robot.

Dr. Stephen Thaler would be a good person to explain how this all works. A very interesting fellow who has worked with diamonds, brains, and computers, though not always at the same time, he applied in 2018 to register an artwork entitled “Creativity Machine” with the U.S. Copyright Office. He ran into a roadblock in doing so, though, because, for a work to be registrable, a claimant must identify the creative content for which the presumably human claimant is responsible.

In Thaler’s application, he stated, problematically, that the “Creativity Machine” work was “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine” that he owned. The work, he advised, was made “for hire,” a designation usually applied to work created by an employee for an employer in the scope of their employment. Thaler was advising the Copyright Office that the work was created by his robot artist in the course of its robot duties.

The Copyright Office, in addressing Thaler’s appeal of the denial of his registration for “Creativity Machine,” was skeptical because “human authorship” is necessary to make a work registrable. And while the authorship threshold for registration is quite humble, with most elementary school-level work making the grade, that work must be the product of humanity.

The Copyright Office makes clear that the “crucial question” when determining whether there is sufficient human authorship is whether a computer is “merely being an assisting instrument” or “actually conceive[s] and execute[s]” the “traditional elements of authorship in the work.” Many artists use computers and other “machines” — e.g., a camera — to create their work, and so long as they “conceive” the work their authorship is sufficient for protection. As a result, a work created on a computer will not be found to be created by a computer except in rare instances.

Thaler’s work, in which he claims to have made no contribution as a human, is one of those instances. His work, like that created by Naruto in the famous Ninth Circuit case in which it was decided that monkeys cannot own copyrights, did not have the human tincture needed to be protectable.

Finding that Thaler had failed to provide evidence of “sufficient creative input or intervention” by him or any other human, the Copyright Office rejected his application. He appealed it all the way up the chain but the Copyright Office held firm, finding no reason to depart from the long-standing approach of awarding copyright registrations only to humans.

In so holding, the Copyright Office emphasized that its compendium precludes registration of a work “produced by a machine” unless there is some creative human input. Thaler, whose application was adamant about disclaiming any such input, didn’t make the grade on this count. He was so explicit on this issue that it appears he had a greater interest in arguing the point that robots should have the opportunity to hold copyright registration than he was in obtaining a copyright registration.

Most original art that is created on, and even substantially by, a computer will be protectable. Someone can imagine an application that made clear that the writing of the algorithm and selection of the various datum inputs and arrangement of the creation protocols would easily meet the threshold of human “creative input or intervention” that is required. But Thaler averred that the robot and the robot alone did the thing, and he was denied registration as a result.

The Copyright Act, which is intended to incentivize the creation of new works of art, including those that push the proverbial envelope, would seemingly embrace the use of computers to create works and seek to encourage artists in digital media to develop and create innovative works. And copyright law protects “the fruits of intellectual labor,” which would seemingly cover the intellectual labor attendant to writing a sweet algorithm and populating it with the most carefully curated and creatively arranged data. But, in a most telling bracketed interposition, the Copyright Office notes that the compendium states that such fruits must be “founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind” to be protectable, leaving out in the cold works founded in the autonomous robot mind.

This has ramifications for NFTs whose attendant artwork is algorithm- or computer-generated. Should the Copyright Office find that such works are not protectable by copyright because they are machine-created without the requisite human contribution, it will further devalue the value of the works as intellectual property assets, though it is unclear if this would affect the token value.

While Thaler’s complete disavowal of any human involvement in the computer-driven development of “Creativity Machine” made this more of a policy move and a relatively easy decision for the Copyright Office, there will surely be future instances in which artists who create on and with computers will more heavily blur the line between what is and isn’t human-generated art. And what is protected by copyright law.

Scott Alan Burroughs, Esq. practices with Doniger / Burroughs, an art law firm based in Venice, California. He represents artists and content creators of all stripes and writes and speaks regularly on copyright issues. He can be reached at scott@copyrightLA.com, and you can follow his law firm on Instagram: @veniceartlaw.

Want direct access to the latest LITN content?

Stay in the loop ➞ Subscribe to LITN instant notifications.
Receive the latest content delivered directly to your device.
Unsubscribe at anytime.

Unsubscribe from LITN instant notifications
Previous Post

Law’s “sticky floor” problem

Next Post

Why Privilege Logging Is Still Too Complicated for Full Automation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to LITN's Terms & Conditions.

Latest News

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report
Medical Law

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
7
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined
Constitutional Law

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
7
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence
Disability Law

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
7

Subscribe

Join the LITN Newsletter ➞ the latest news delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time.


GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENT

Instagram Feed

  • #LegalTechWoes #legaltech #legaltechpainpoints #legalinnovation  #legalops #legaloperations #legal
#legalgeek #legaltechs #legaltechnology | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews
Courtesy Mat Jakubowski ...silvertownlegal.com | @matjakubowski ... https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-jakubowski | https://lawinthenews.com/
  • #LegalTechWoes #legaltech #legaltechpainpoints #legalinnovation  #legalops #legaloperations #legal
#legalgeek #legaltechs #legaltechnology | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews
Courtesy Mat Jakubowski ...silvertownlegal.com | @matjakubowski ... https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-jakubowski | https://lawinthenews.com/
  • #LegalTechWoes #legaltech #legaltechpainpoints #legalinnovation  #legalops #legaloperations #legal
#legalgeek #legaltechs #legaltechnology | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews
Courtesy Mat Jakubowski ...silvertownlegal.com | @matjakubowski ... https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-jakubowski | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews

Facebook Feed

Facebook Feed

Twitter Feed

Join the Conversation

Personal selections from a Canadian perspective. #Law in the #News #LITN @Law_In_The_News

News Categories

Latest Headlines

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
7
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
7
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
7

Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter

Join the LITN Newsletter ➞ the latest news delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time.

Website Powered By

DJT Design Studios logo

© 2022 Law in the News Media (LITN)

  • About LITN
  • Contact LITN
  • Support LITN
  • Legal, Privacy and Policy
  • Public Education & Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Sign Up
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • News Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • Public Education & Resource Links
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact LITN
    • Support LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Home
      • Cookie Policy
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms of Use Policy

© 2022 Law in the News Media (LITN)

Welcome Back to LITN!

Sign In with Facebook
Sign In with Google
Sign In with Linked In
OR

Login to your LITN account below.

Forgot your password? Sign Up

Create a FREE LITN Account!

Sign Up with Facebook
Sign Up with Google
Sign Up with Linked In
OR

Please complete your registration below.

*By registering into the website, you agree to LITN's Terms & Conditions.
All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
Manage Cookie Consent
LITN uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information to provide the best user experience. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
Go to mobile version