DOCSLIB.ORG

Authors and Machines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Authors and Machines Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2019 Authors and Machines Jane C. Ginsburg Columbia Law School, [email protected] Luke Ali Budiardjo Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Computer Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Jane C. Ginsburg & Luke A. Budiardjo, Authors and Machines, 34 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 343 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2323 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AUTHORS AND MACHINES Jane C. Ginsburg† & Luke Ali Budiardjo†† ABSTRACT Machines, by providing the means of mass production of works of authorship, engendered copyright law. Throughout history, the emergence of new technologies tested the concept of authorship, and courts in response endeavored to clarify copyright’s foundational principles. Today, developments in computer science have created a new form of machine, the “artificially intelligent” (AI) system apparently endowed with “computational creativity.” AI systems introduce challenging variations on the perennial question of what makes one an “author” in copyright law: Is the creator of a generative program automatically the author of the works her process begets, even if she cannot anticipate the contents of those works? Does the user of the program become the (or an) author of an output whose content the user has at least in part defined? This Article frames these and similar questions that generative machines provoke as an opportunity to revisit the concept of copyright authorship in general and to illuminate its murkier corners. This Article examines several fundamental relationships (between author and amanuensis, between author and tool, and between author and co-author) as well as several authorship anomalies (including the problem of “accidental” or “indeterminate” authorship) to unearth the basic principles and latent ambiguities which have nourished debates over the meaning of the “author” in copyright. This Article presents an overarching and internally consistent model of authorship based on two basic pillars: a mental step (the conception of a work) and a physical step (the execution of a work), and defines the contours of these basic pillars to arrive at a cohesive definition of authorship. The Article then applies the conception-and-execution theory of authorship to reach a series of conclusions about the question of machine “authorship.” Even the most technologically advanced machines of our era are little more than faithful agents of the humans who design or use them. Asking whether a computer can be an author therefore is the “wrong” question; the “right” question addresses how to evaluate the authorial claims of the humans involved in either preparing or using the machines that “create.” In many cases, either the upstream human being who programs and trains a machine to produce an output, or the downstream human being who requests the output, is sufficiently involved in the conception and execution of the resulting work to claim authorship. But in some instances, the contributions of the human designer and user will be too attenuated from the work’s creation for either to qualify as “authors”—leaving the work “authorless.” DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38SF2MC24 © 2019 Jane C. Ginsburg & Luke Ali Budiardjo. † Morton L. Janklow Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law, Columbia Law School. †† Columbia Law School JD Class of 2018. Many thanks to the members of the Columbia Law School faculty workshop; Ben Bogart, PhD; Madeline Rose Finkel; Rebecca Giblin and François Petitjean; Jeremy Kessler; Catherine Kessedjian; Ed Klaris; Enoch Liang and James Lee; Samuel Pitkin Niles; Javed Qadrud-Din; Blake Reese; and Jeffrey Stein. 344 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 34:343 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 345 II. BEFORE AI—CHALLENGES PRESENTED BY MECHANICAL AND NATURAL FORCES ..................................... 352 A. THE CONJOINED COMPONENTS OF AUTHORSHIP: DETAILED CONCEPTION + CONTROLLED EXECUTION ......................................... 354 B. AUTHORS AND AMANUENSES: THE PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP ............................................................................................. 358 C. WHEN RANDOM FORCES, FAUNAL OR METEOROLOGICAL, INTERVENE IN THE CREATIVE PROCESS ................................................ 361 D. THE LIMITS OF THE AUTHOR’S “CONCEPTION” .................................. 366 1. Curing Deficiencies in Conception: The “Adoption” Theory of Authorship ............................................................................................ 366 2. Conception via Process ........................................................................... 370 E. ALLOCATING AUTHORSHIP BETWEEN UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM AUTHORS .......................................................................... 374 F. SHARING AUTHORSHIP: JOINT WORKS ................................................... 378 1. Categories of Joint Works and Modes of Co-Authorship ........................ 378 2. Contemporaneous “Intent to Merge” and Unacquainted Co- Authors ................................................................................................ 381 3. Why Congress Required Contemporaneous Intent to Merge Contributions ........................................................................................ 383 a) Merger of Inseparable Contributions Without Collaboration?........................................................................387 b) The Implications of Collaboration Between Co- Authors……………………………………………….389 III. AUTHORSHIP OF COMPUTER-ENABLED OUTPUTS .............. 392 A. THE PROBLEM(?) OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ................................ 393 1. The Wrong Question: Machine “Authorship” ....................................... 393 2. Machine Learning and the “Black Box” Problem ................................. 401 B. THE RIGHT QUESTION: SEARCHING FOR THE HUMAN AUTHOR ........................................................................................................ 404 1. “Ordinary” Tools: Those Whose Outputs Reflect the Creative Contributions of Their Users ................................................................. 405 2. Fully-Generative Machines: Those Whose Outputs Reflect the Creative Contributions of Their Designers .............................................. 407 3. Partially-Generative Machines: Those Whose Outputs Reflect a Combination of the Creative Contributions of Designer and User ........... 413 C. AUTHORSHIP AND PARTIALLY-GENERATIVE MACHINES .................. 417 2019] AUTHORS AND MACHINES 345 1. Distinguishing Between Fully- and Partially-Generative Machines: Can the Upstream Creator Claim Ownership of All Resulting Outputs? ............................................................................................... 417 a) Describing the Distinction..... …………………………417 b) Prior Judicial Approaches to This Question…………..419 c) Approaches to the Distinction Between Fully and Partially Generative Machines………………………....422 2. Dealing with Partially-Generative Machines: Who Executes the Work? .................................................................................................. 426 IV. THE AUTHORLESS OUTPUT ........................................................ 433 A. WHAT COMPUTER-ENABLED WORKS ARE “AUTHORLESS”? ............. 433 B. REEXAMINING AUTHORSHIP DOCTRINE TO AVOID THE CLASSIFICATION OF MACHINE-ENABLED OUTPUTS AS “AUTHORLESS” ............................................................................................ 437 1. Joint Authorship ................................................................................... 440 2. Sole Authorship .................................................................................... 443 V. CONCLUSION: IF NOT COPYRIGHT, THEN WHAT? ............... 445 I. INTRODUCTION Machines, by providing the means of mass reproduction of works of authorship, engendered copyright law.1 Later, cameras—machines employed to create works, rather than merely to reproduce them—called into question copyright’s coverage of works whose human authorship those machines purportedly usurped.2 The digital era exacerbates the anxiety of authorship, as “artificial intelligence” supposedly supplants human artists, writers, and composers in generating visual, literary, and musical outputs indistinguishable 1. See, e.g., Brad A. Greenberg, Rethinking Technological Neutrality, 100 MINN. L. REV. 1495, 1502 (2016) (“Modern copyright law’s existence can be traced to a transcendent technology: the movable-type printing press.”); Paul Edward Geller, Copyright History and the Future: What’s Culture Got To Do With It?, 47 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y 209, 215–19 (2000) (tracing history of copyright law beginning with the introduction of the printing press in 15th century Europe). 2. See infra Section II.A (discussing the debate about copyright in photographic works); see also Christine Haight Farley, The Lingering Effects
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intelligent Multimedia Danièle Bourcier, Melanie Dulong De Rosnay, Pompeu Casanovas, Maracke Catharina
    Intelligent Multimedia Danièle Bourcier, Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Pompeu Casanovas, Maracke Catharina To cite this version: Danièle Bourcier, Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Pompeu Casanovas, Maracke Catharina. Intelligent Multimedia. Danièle Bourcier, Pompeu Casanovas, Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, Catharina Maracke. European Press Academic Publishing, pp.412, 2010, Series in Legal Information and Communication Technologies. halshs-00671623 HAL Id: halshs-00671623 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00671623 Submitted on 17 Feb 2012 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Series in Legal Information and Communication Technologies Volume 8 IntelligentMultimedia.tex; 28/05/2010; 20:00; p.1 Volume Editors’ Biographies Daniele Bourcier, doctorate in Public Law, is director of research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CERSA, Paris. She is associ- ated professor at the University of Paris 1 in eGovernment. Scientific lead of CC France, she works on Commons Governance and Regulation. She wrote 16 books (collective or not) and many papers in the field of IT, Cognition and Law. She is an appointed member of the Comite d’Éthique des Sciences (CNRS). Pompeu Casanovas, director of the UAB Institute of Law and Technol- ogy (http://idt.uab.cat) and professor of Philosophy of Law at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
    [Show full text]
  • Bright Ideas a Publication of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association
    NYSBA SPRING/SUMMER 2011 | VOL. 20 | NO. 1 Bright Ideas A publication of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association Message from the Chair I am pleased to report on but has never quite been able to fi nd the right place. I am a number of exciting develop- excited to report that we will be trying something differ- ments and activities of our ent this year: the Section’s 2011 Fall Meeting will be held Section. First, we had another at the Rittenhouse Hotel in Philadelphia from October great Annual Meeting in January. 20-23. We hope that moving the Meeting to an urban Kudos to our Annual Meeting venue will mix things up a bit and help keep the program Co-Chairs, Chuck Miller and Phil fresh. There are many fun things for our families (and Furgang, for putting together ourselves) to do in Philadelphia, and the city is easy to a fascinating program, which get to by train or by car from most points within New covered diverse and cutting-edge York. We are planning special events to take advantage of intellectual property topics Paul M. Fakler what the city has to offer, hopefully including an event at such as the latest developments the Franklin Institute (a wonderful museum named for in patent litigation, counterfeiting, intellectual property inventor and statesman Benjamin Franklin and dedi- legislation, ethical issues raised by cloud computing, and cated to science and technology). Traditionalists need not intellectual property protection in China. We also had the worry: we plan to return to one of our traditional upstate distinct honor of hosting a thought-provoking luncheon venues for the 2012 Fall Meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of Vicarious Liability in the Medical Malpractice Context
    THE BUCK STOPS WHERE? A CRITIQUE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CONTEXT C. J. COLWELL† In Canadian tort law, liability is almost always linked to some notion of fault, save for a few well-established exceptions. By far the most common exception is vicarious liability, i.e. the liability of employers for the torts of their employees. In its 1999 ruling in Bazley v. Curry, the Supreme Court of Canada articulated 2008 CanLIIDocs 35 exactly why this kind of faultless liability exists in Canada, and how it is justifed. In medical malpractice cases involving teaching hospitals, there are usually three possible defendants to a negligence action: the attending physician, the treating resident, and the hospital. Due to the legal nature of their employment relationship, if the resident is found liable, so too is her employer, the hospital. Tis liability is regardless of fault. Te attending physician, on the other hand, can only be held liable with fault. Tis paper proposes that imposing vicarious liability on the hospital or any other party in this type of action is inconsistent with the justifcations outlined in Bazley v. Curry. Liability in this particular context, it is argued, should be limited to liability with fault. Tis paper also briefy explores possible reasons why the courts have demonstrated a general preference to have hospitals, rather than attending physicians, pay judgments to injured plaintifs. It takes notice of a newly emerging non-delegable duty of care owed by hospitals to patients, and further points out the unique public source of funding for malpractice judgments regardless of who is liable.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Liability for Economic Crime, Call for Evidence
    Corporate Liability for Economic Crime Call for evidence This Call for Evidence begins on 13 January 2017 This Call for Evidence ends on 24 March 2017 Corporate Liability for Economic Crime Call for evidence Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty January 2017 Cm 9370 © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to Criminal Law & Sentencing Policy Unit at [email protected] Print ISBN 9781474139052 Web ISBN 9781474139069 ID 181116 01/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office About this call for evidence To: This call for evidence invites academics, business, civil society, lawyers and other interested parties across the UK to consider whether there is a case for changes to the regime for corporate criminal liability for economic crime in the United Kingdom. Duration:
    [Show full text]
  • The Knowledge Standard for ISP Copyright and Trademark Secondary Liability: a Comparative Study on the Analysis of US and EU Laws
    The Knowledge Standard for ISP Copyright and Trademark Secondary Liability: A Comparative Study on the Analysis of US and EU Laws A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctoral of Philosophy in Law By: Mohammad Sadeghi 1002256 School of Law Brunel University London 2013 i Declaration I declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own except where it is stated otherwise. Mohammad Sadeghi i Abbreviations Used DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act ECD: Electronic Commerce Directive ECJ: European Court of Justice Electronic Commerce Directive: Directive 2000/31/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market UK CDPA: The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 UK: United Kingdom US: United States of America ii Abstract Holders of rights sue ISPs for copyright and trademark infringement: specifically, for contributory liability through the ISP’s knowledge of user infringement. Knowledge about user infringement has been prevalently recognised as a crucial element of ISPs’ secondary liability, but the approaches concerning the knowledge standard are different in US copyright case law (traditional tort), the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the US Lanham Act, US trademark case law, and the EU Electronic Commerce Directive. Their differences have posed questions on the efficacy of the current knowledge standards and case law interpretations to omit legal ambiguities and offer appropriate guidance for tackling issues. This research presents that the US knowledge standards and the ECD knowledge standard apply broad knowledge standards to evaluate ISPs’ knowledge but they differ in terms of their elements and conditions for permitting ISPs and copyright holders to co-exist and combat copyright infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • An Unhurried Critique of Copyright and the Potential for Alternatives
    University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection 1954-2016 University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2007 DON'T PANIC!: an unhurried critique of copyright and the potential for alternatives. Christopher L. Moore Dr University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses University of Wollongong Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorise you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of the author. Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Wollongong. Recommended Citation Moore, Christopher L., DON'T PANIC!: an unhurried critique of copyright and the potential for alternatives, PhD thesis, School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication, University of Wollongong, 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleman-Coding-Freedom.Pdf
    Coding Freedom !" Coding Freedom THE ETHICS AND AESTHETICS OF HACKING !" E. GABRIELLA COLEMAN PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON AND OXFORD Copyright © 2013 by Princeton University Press Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- NoDerivs CC BY- NC- ND Requests for permission to modify material from this work should be sent to Permissions, Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW press.princeton.edu All Rights Reserved At the time of writing of this book, the references to Internet Web sites (URLs) were accurate. Neither the author nor Princeton University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Coleman, E. Gabriella, 1973– Coding freedom : the ethics and aesthetics of hacking / E. Gabriella Coleman. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-691-14460-3 (hbk. : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-0-691-14461-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Computer hackers. 2. Computer programmers. 3. Computer programming—Moral and ethical aspects. 4. Computer programming—Social aspects. 5. Intellectual freedom. I. Title. HD8039.D37C65 2012 174’.90051--dc23 2012031422 British Library Cataloging- in- Publication Data is available This book has been composed in Sabon Printed on acid- free paper. ∞ Printed in the United States of America 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 This book is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE !" We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.
    [Show full text]
  • Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown Andrew C
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Maxwell Institute Publications 2011 Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown Andrew C. Skinner D. Morgan Davis Carl Griffin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi Part of the Religious Education Commons Recommended Citation Skinner, Andrew C.; Davis, D. Morgan; and Griffin,a C rl, "Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown" (2011). Maxwell Institute Publications. 17. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/17 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maxwell Institute Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. bountiful harvest bountiful harvest essays in honor of s. kent brown Edited by Andrew C. Skinner, D. Morgan Davis, and Carl Griffin Cover design by Stephen Hales Creative, Inc. Frontispiece by Mark A. Philbrick Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 maxwellinstitute.byu.edu © 2011 The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bountiful harvest : essays in honor of S. Kent Brown / edited by Andrew C. Skinner, D. Morgan Davis, and Carl Griffin. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8425-2804-7 (alk. paper) 1. Theology. 2. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I. Brown, S. Kent. II. Skinner, Andrew C., 1951- III.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright and Fair Use RENEE HOBBS University of Rhode Island, USA
    Copyright and Fair Use RENEE HOBBS University of Rhode Island, USA Humancreativityisboundlessanditshapeseveryaspectofsocial,cultural,and economic life. And although many people know that copyright law protects the professional media and entertainment industries, including book publishing, filmed entertainment, music, and video games, many do not understand how important copyright law is to creativity, education, the arts, and culture. For creative people as well as teachers and students, copyright supports creative expression and the critical analysis of mass media, popular culture, and digital media. In many ways, media literacywouldbeimpossiblewithouttheprotectionsofferedbycopyrightlaw. Although people recognize that copyright protects the rights of creators, those rights are balanced against the rights of readers, viewers, and users of copyrighted materials, protecting the public interest in accessing creative work. Originating in 1710 when, in England, the Statute of Anne gave authors the legal right to disseminate their work for fixed terms, the copyright laws of each nation have served to protect and empower both authors and users. Copyright law protects all stakeholders in the circulation of ideas and information, as the purpose of copyright is to promote creativity and innovation by contributing to the spread of knowledge. However, copyright laws vary from country to country, with some important gen- eral similarities but many unique and specific differences. There is no such thing asan international copyright that automatically protects an author’s works throughout the entire world. Protection depends on the national laws of each country, and international agreements, treaties, and conventions have greatly simplified international copyright. Still, the World Intellectual Property Organization notes that, in some countries, copy- rightlawprotectsauthorsinuniqueways.Forexample,inEuropeannations,authors hold moral rights that enable them to prevent distorted reproductions of the work.
    [Show full text]
  • Emily White Finished Thesis
    A critical analysis of the legal history of vicarious liability and its applications WHITE, Emily Charlotte Available from the Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/21451/ A Sheffield Hallam University thesis This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Please visit http://shura.shu.ac.uk/21451/ and http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html for further details about copyright and re-use permissions. A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL HISTORY OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND ITS APPLICATION Emily Charlotte White A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of Master of Law by Research September 2017 ABSTRACT This thesis presents an examination of the historical developments of vicarious liability law in the English legal system over the past 200 years. The developments considered date from the principles laid down in Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39 to the most recent case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124. The various tests for employment status and the course of employment are discussed, with specific analysis into why the tests have changed and developed. Case law and academic criticism is presented to emphasise how the changes have had a positive or negative impact on the clarity and fairness of the area of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculating Intellectual Property Infringement Damages; AICPA Practice Aid Series 06-1 Daniel L
    University of Mississippi eGrove American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Guides, Handbooks and Manuals (AICPA) Historical Collection 2006 Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1 Daniel L. L. Jackson American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Business Valuation and Forensic & Litigation Services Section Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_guides Part of the Accounting Commons, and the Taxation Commons Recommended Citation Jackson, Daniel L. L. and American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Business Valuation and Forensic & Litigation Services Section, "Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1" (2006). Guides, Handbooks and Manuals. 26. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_guides/26 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Historical Collection at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Guides, Handbooks and Manuals by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRACTICE AID 06-1 Business Valuation and Forensic <S Litigation Services Section Calculating Intellectual Property Infringement Notice to Readers The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and its Forensic and Litigation Services Committee (formerly, the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Services Subcommittee) designed Business Valuation and Forensic & Litigation Services Practice Aid 06-1, Calculating Intellectual Property Infringement Damages, as educational and reference material for Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) and others who provide consulting services as defined in the AICPA’s Statement on Standards for Consulting Services. Practice Aid 06-1 does not establish standards, preferred practices, methods, or approaches, nor is it to be used as a substitute for professional judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Emily White Finished Thesis
    A critical analysis of the legal history of vicarious liability and its applications WHITE, Emily Charlotte Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/21451/ This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. Published version WHITE, Emily Charlotte (2017). A critical analysis of the legal history of vicarious liability and its applications. Masters, Sheffield Hallam University. Copyright and re-use policy See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive http://shura.shu.ac.uk A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL HISTORY OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND ITS APPLICATION Emily Charlotte White A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of Master of Law by Research September 2017 ABSTRACT This thesis presents an examination of the historical developments of vicarious liability law in the English legal system over the past 200 years. The developments considered date from the principles laid down in Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39 to the most recent case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124. The various tests for employment status and the course of employment are discussed, with specific analysis into why the tests have changed and developed. Case law and academic criticism is presented to emphasise how the changes have had a positive or negative impact on the clarity and fairness of the area of law. The main focus of the piece is based upon the decisions of A M Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc [2016] UKSC 11 and Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.
    [Show full text]