LIN NEWS
-
LIN NewsAttorney Eung Jun Jeon, published presentation on “A Study on the International Jurisdiction and Governing Law Regarding Generative AI Models - From the Perspective of Korean Private International Law”On September 23, 2023, Attorney Eung Jun Jeon, Head of the IP Team at LIN, gave a presentation on “A Study on International Jurisdiction and Governing Law Regarding Generative AI Models - From the Perspective of Korean International Law” at the Waseda University Institute of Comparative Law, and on April 22, 2024, the presentation material was published in the online journal of the Waseda University Institute of Comparative Law. This material covers: 1. How generative AI models work and the types of related disputes; 2. Issues of determining international jurisdiction and applicable law in AI-related copyright infringement cases; and 3. Issues of determining international jurisdiction and applicable law in AI-related personal information infringement cases. The full material can be accessed via the link below and the attached file. View the original material▼ Link: 比研オンライン・フォーラム A Study on International Jurisdiction and Governing Law Regarding Generative AI Models -From the perspective of Korean private international law1 No.2024-1 – 早稲田大学 比較法研究所 (waseda.jp)2025.03.19
-
News Letter[Mobility Legal Updates] The overview and current status of President Trump issued several tariff-related executive ordersPresident Trump's second term officially commenced on January 20, 2025. On his first day in office, President Trump signed more than 40 executive orders, including one abolishing the electric vehicle (EV) mandate. In addition, President Trump has continued his bold approach by signing a total of 75 executive orders through March 3, 2025. Among these, his tariff policies are particularly noteworthy due to their radical nature and frequent changes, drawing significant attention from domestic automotive and mobility companies. Through this issue report, LIN's Mobility Team, aims to briefly summarize the overview and current status of major executive orders related to universal tariffs and reciprocal tariffs signed by President Trump since his inauguration, and to examine potential corporate response strategies and implications.1 1. Overview of the Trump Administration's Tariff Policies After his inauguration, President Trump issued several tariff-related executive orders: on February 1, he signed an order imposing "additional 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China"; on February 10, he signed an order imposing "25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imported to the United States"; and on February 13, he signed an order imposing "Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs." Regarding "tariffs on imported automobiles," he stated that a separate announcement would be made around April 2, 2025. On February 26, he also declared that a 25% tariff would soon be imposed on all imports from the European Union (EU). 2. Executive Order on Tariffs for Canada, Mexico, and China (Signed on February 1, Implemented on March 4) A. Overview President Trump had emphasized the need for a universal tariff on multiple occasions since the early stages of his presidential campaign. After taking office, on February 1, 2025, he announced an executive order imposing additional tariffs on products from Canada, Mexico, and China, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)2 to protect national security and American industries. The main contents are as follows: - 25% additional tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico (10% tariffs applied to Canadian energy products such as crude oil and natural gas); - 10% additional tariffs on products from China. B. Current Status According to this executive order, additional tariffs were originally scheduled to be imposed on all applicable items imported into the United States from 12:01 AM (Eastern Standard Time) on February 4, 2025. However, President Trump announced a one-month temporary suspension of tariffs after Canada and Mexico agreed to strengthen their enforcement against illegal immigration and drugs. One month later, on March 4, 2025, the United States began imposing 25% additional tariffs on Canada and Mexico, major automotive production bases for North America. On March 5, a one-month suspension was decided for "automobiles" only3, and the following day, a decision was made to suspend the 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico until April 2, 2025. Regarding China, additional 10% tariffs (on top of the 10% imposed in February) began on March 4, 2025. Canada, Mexico, and China have filed complaints with the WTO against the U.S. tariff measures. Canada has indicated it would impose equivalent 25% retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports, while the U.S. maintains a hardline stance that it would impose additional tariffs in response. C. Impact and Response Strategies If the Trump administration implements the previously announced 25% additional tariffs on Canada and Mexico, this is expected to impact over 400 Korean companies that have established production bases in Mexico to export products to the U.S. duty-free in accordance with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), as well as battery manufacturers that have entered Canada in response to the Biden administration's policy of providing subsidies for North Americanproduced electric vehicles and parts. Meanwhile, with the implementation of tariffs on China, analyses suggest China may attempt to export to the U.S. by circumventing through third countries like Korea or expand exports to the Korean market by overwhelming the market with volume, potentially intensifying competition between Chinese and Korean companies. Therefore, Korean companies need to analyze the impact of U.S. trade measures against China on the Korean market and businesses, and prepare proactive response strategies. 3. Executive Order on Universal Tariffs for Steel and Aluminum (Signed on February 10, Implemented on March 12) On February 10, 2025, President Trump determined to impose a 25% universal tariff on all steel and aluminum imported into the United States without exceptions or exemptions. This executive order is scheduled to take effect on March 12. This is expected to impact Korea, one of the major steel exporters to the U.S., and consequently, Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum may face a total tariff of 50% (including the 25% additional tariff mentioned above). Canada and Mexico rank first and second in steel exports to the United States (5.95 million tons from Canada and 3.19 million tons from Mexico as of 2024), and Canadian aluminum accounts for more than half of U.S. imports, representing a significant share of the U.S. market. Some analyses suggest that if the 50% tariff becomes a reality for these two countries, Korean steel products may gain a price competitiveness advantage. Therefore, Korean steel companies need to closely monitor whether these steel and aluminum tariff measures will actually be implemented and prepare effective export expansion strategies accordingly. 4. Executive Order on Reciprocal Tariffs (Signed on February 13, Implemented on April 2), Automobile Tariffs Expected to be Implemented on April 2 On February 13, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order on "Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs." The effective date is April 2, 2025, and universal tariffs on imported automobiles are also expected to be introduced on the same day. For automobile tariffs, although the exact rate has not been determined, it is speculated to be 25%. It is not yet clear whether Korea will be subject to reciprocal tariffs. However, on March 4, 2025, President Trump mentioned that "Korea's tariffs are unfair, averaging four times higher than those of the United States," and accused Korea of taking unfair advantage. Based on this statement, many believe that reciprocal tariffs will likely be imposed on Korean products. Currently, all items in Korea-U.S. trade are de facto duty-free due to the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that took effect in 2012, making President Trump's statements appear inconsistent with the facts.4 However, if reciprocal tariffs, particularly the 25% tariff on automobiles, are implemented on April 2, this is expected to significantly impact the profitability of Korean automobile manufacturers, for whom exports to the U.S. account for more than half of their total exports. Therefore, automobile companies should carefully analyze whether and how automobile tariffs will be applied and prepare proactive response measures to reduce costs, such as substantially expanding U.S. local production. 5. Implications President Trump's tariff policies are being implemented aggressively, disregarding allies, adversaries, existing practices, and agreements. At the same time, they may change flexibly depending on circumstances when inter-country negotiations are needed, and the tariff targets may expand at any time. Therefore, companies should monitor U.S. tariff policies and respond organically to policy changes. -------------------- 1 This newsletter is based on news released domestically as of March 9, 2025. As the Trump administration's tariff policies are constantly changing, we recommend referring to the most recent laws and executive orders during your business operations. 2 In accordance with the IEEPA, the President may invoke a wide range of measures on economic transactions in situations that threaten U.S. national security. For example, tariff rates may be increased if the counterpart country retaliates against these tariff measures. 3 This is interpreted as a temporary measure primarily to protect U.S. automobile companies (Ford, GM, etc.) that produce large volumes of vehicles in Canada and Mexico. Given the immediate opposition statements from Canada, Mexico, and China and real-time negotiations between countries, the possibility of continued suspension or some moderation of tariff rates cannot be ruled out. 4 President Trump's claim about "tariffs being 4 times higher" is presumably based on MostFavored-Nation (MFN) Treatment tariff rates (universal tariff rates applied to WTO member countries without discrimination against specific countries). As of 2023, the average MFN tariff rate of the United States was 3.3%, while Korea's was 13.4%, making Korea's rate about 4 times higher. *** LIN has extensive experience in providing advisory and litigation services in the mobility industry, particularly in areas such as administrative regulations and patent and trade secret disputes related to motor vehicles. Our Mobility Team consists of attorneys and experts with a distinctive interest and passion for automobiles. Should you wish to learn more about this newsletter or have any other inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact our firm’s Mobility Team: Tae Joon Bae (tjbae@law-lin.com, 010-8237-8123) Min Gu Kang (mgkang@law-lin.com, 010-3907-9217) Ho Yeon Kim (hykim@law-lin.com, 02-3477-6300) Han Joon Jung (hjjung@law-lin.com, 02-3477-8695) Jeong Pil Oh (jpoh@law-lin.com, 02-3477-8695)2025.03.21
-
NoticeLin Signs MOU with Korea New & Renewable Energy Association (KNREA)Mutual cooperation on new & renewable energy-related projects through legal services in the field of laws and regulations On October 26, Lin signed an MOU with KNREA to promote the development of the domestic new & renewable energy industry. The agreement was signed to provide various legal services to KNREA and its member companies, including information on new & renewable energy-related laws and regulations. Through the agreement, the two parties agreed to cooperate on ▶ improving new & renewable energy-related laws and systems ▶ providing legal advice on new & renewable energy ▶ and training on new & renewable energy. In line with the trend of carbon neutrality, Lin will exert its best to promote the sustainable development of the renewable energy industry, which can replace conventional energy using fossil fuels and nuclear power. For more information, please visit KNREA website below. http://www.knrea.or.kr/bbs/?act=bbs&subAct=view&bid=agreement&page=1&order_type=desc&seq=58282023.11.10
-
Recruitment PersonnelNew RecruitmentsWe are pleased to welcome Jung Bong Lee (Partner), Lance B. Lee (Foreign Legal Consultant - Partner), and Ki Suk Seol (Of Counsel) as new members of our Firm. 1. Jeong Bong Lee, Partner - Incheon Songdo High School(68th) - Yonsei University, Department of Law - Chungnam National University, School of Law - Korean Bar Examination (40th, 1998) - Judicial Research and Training Institute (27th) - University of Vienna – Criminal Justice Institute Visiting Scholar (2008) Past) Incheon District Public Prosecutors’ Office – Prosecutor (2001) Past) Daejeon District Public Prosecutors’ Office, Hongseong Branch – Prosecutor (2003) Past) Incheon District Public Prosecutors’ Office, Bucheon Branch – Prosecutor (2005) Past) Seoul Central District Public Prosecutors’ Office – Prosecutor (2007) Past) Supreme Prosecutors’ Office - Prosecutor Researcher (2007) Past) Busan District Public Prosecutors’ Office – Prosecutor (2013) Past) Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) - Head of Strategic Analytics (2014) Past) Chuncheon District Public Prosecutors’ Office, Gangneung Branch – Chief Prosecutor (2016) Past) Daegu District Public Prosecutors’ Office, Seobu Branch – Chief Prosecutor, Criminal Division 3 (2017) Past) Seoul Eastern District Public Prosecutors’ Office - Chief Prosecutor, Criminal Division 5 (2018) Past) Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutors’ Office - Chief Prosecutor, Criminal Division 2 (2019) Past) Supreme Prosecutors’ Office – Human Rights Policy Officer (2020) Past) Gwangju District Public Prosecutors’ Office – Human Rights Protection Officer (2021) Past) Chuncheon District Public Prosecutors’ Office – Chief of Wonju Branch (2022) Past) Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office (Daegu District Public Prosecutors’ Office, Secondment(2023), Voluntary Resignation) Current) LIN Since his appointment as a prosecutor in 2001, Mr. Lee has served as a prosecutor at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, a researcher at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, a prosecutor at the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, a secondee at the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), a deputy prosecutor at the Seoul Eastern and Southern District Prosecutors' Offices, and a human rights policy officer at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, before finally retiring in 2023 as the Chief Prosecutor of the Wonju District Prosecutors' Office. During his 22 years and 8 months as a prosecutor, he discharged a wide range of cases, including intellectual property infringement, technology theft and unfair competition, medical malpractice, sexual assault, finance, taxation, homicide, special crime, public security, and human rights policy (due process compliance in investigations). Mr. Lee, who joined Lin as a partner in November 2023, plans to actively engage in various cases such as securities, finance, and corporate anti-corruption based on diverse investigative and theoretical experience accumulated from the prosecution. Lin boasts top domestic experts in responding to financial, corporate crimes, and other investigative matters, and we will strive to provide our clients with high-quality legal services. 2. Lance B. Lee, Foreign Legal Consultant (Partner) - Boston College Law School – J.D. - University of Virginia – B.A. Past) Dentons Lee - Chief Operating Officer, Head of International Arbitration & Litigation and Partner, 2012-2023 Past) Kim & Chang - Partner Past) STX Shipbuilding Corporation – Group General Counsel Past) POSCO – Overseas Projects Team Leader Past) U.S. Army JAG Corps – Trial Counsel, Prosecutor and Captain Past) Gainer, Rient & Hotis - Attorney Current) LIN – Head of International Arbitration & Litigation, Partner (Present) Mr. Lee, a U.S. attorney, was responsible for various international arbitration and litigation cases for 11 years at Kim & Chang, representing numerous international corporations and diverse fields. Serving as General Counsel at STX Shipbuilding Corporation and Head of the International Legal Team at POSCO, he handled tasks such as international arbitration, international litigation, IP, corporate M&A, contract negotiations, and joint investments for global conglomerates. Subsequently, as a partner at the Seoul Office of Dentons, he worked for 11 years as the Head of the International Arbitration/Litigation Team, leading numerous international arbitration cases as lead counsel. In 2024, for the first time in history, more than half of the global population will be holding elections, signaling the end of America’s “unilateral hegemony” and prompting the world to prepare for more disputes. With major industrial powers intensifying their industrial policies and protectionist measures to secure leadership in advanced and eco-friendly industries post-election, there is an anticipated increase in international disputes, particularly in advanced technology sectors such as semiconductors and information technology (IT). Mr. Lee, a foreign attorney leading the International Arbitration/Litigation Team, will leverage his experience and expertise to actively discharge legal advice on the prevention and resolution of international disputes for various global corporations based on his accumulated knowledge and professionalism. 3. Ki Suk Seol, Of Counsel - Hongik University, Department of Architecture - Kyungpook National University, Graduate School of Law, - KAIST, Intellectual Property Graduate School - Bar Examination (3rd) Past) Eland Group, Legal Department Past) Hyundai Engineering, Legal Department Past) Ministry of Justice, Legal Affairs Officer Past) Ministry of Justice, Legal Affairs Secretary Current) LIN Mr. Seol, as an in-house counsel for a large corporation, has accumulated expertise in a wide range of legal affairs that can arise within the company, including civil and criminal litigation and consultation, fair trade practices, compliance, intellectual property, construction, and labor-related dispute management. Subsequently, serving as a Legal Affairs Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, he handled administrative adjudication and litigation, legislation drafting and revision, interpretation of laws and rights, review of government and legislative bills, formulation of legislative strategies, improvement of attorney and notary systems, and enhancement of legal technology systems. Through these roles, he has built expertise in planning, administration, and legislation. Amidst the ongoing challenges such as the increase in unsold and unoccupied properties, rising construction costs, high interest rates, and stagnation in real estate PF, it is anticipated that legal disputes and litigation among real estate market participants, including developers, contractors, financial institutions, trustees, and local housing associations, will continue to rise. Mr. Seol, who has served as an in-house counsel for a global integrated construction company, has handled a wide range of cases from civil and criminal matters to fair trade, construction, labor, and compliance issues, from the client's perspective, collaborating with various major law firms. Drawing upon his extensive practical experience accumulated in the field, he is committed to providing tailored solutions, not only advisory services but also litigation support, to corporate clients. 4. Recruitment of Foreign Lawyer With recent concerns over deflation in China, attitudes of Korean companies towards China have become notably cautious. Consequently, there is a growing need for professional advice regarding entry into the Chinese market. Recognizing this demand, Lin has recently recruited Ms. Wenpu Yang (Chinese attorney), aiming to provide high-quality legal service that aligns with our clients’ business strategies and management objectives on various issues related to Sino-Korean business relations. Going forward, Lin promises to continuously recruit verified talents in various fields to ensure customer satisfaction.2024.02.05
LIN Launches Legal Response Center for Creditors Affected by TMAP Incident’ and Accepts Opinions from Affected Merchants
LIN has recently launched the “Legal Response Center for Creditors Affected by TMAP Incident” for small business merchants (sellers) affected by the TMON-Wemap mass settlement delay.
“It seems more likely that the bankruptcy court and the debtor will apply the Autonomous Restructuring Support (ARS) program without initiating the debtor's rehabilitation proceedings,” said Attorney Hyojong Choi (34th class of the Judicial Research and Training Instiutte), the head of the center, and TMON and Wemap followed Choi's prediction by initiating the ARS program and negotiating with creditors before the decision to initiate rehabilitation.
Attorney Hyojong Choi of LIN are preparing to reflect the opinions of sellers on these platforms to protect creditors' rights throughout the ARS program and subsequent rehabilitation procedures. On August 6, they agreed to jointly respond to the overall ARS procedures in cooperation with Attorney Junseop Shim of SIM Law Firm. Attorney Hyokong Choi served as an external researcher of the ARS System Improvement TF of the Seoul Bankruptcy Court and is currently a corporate bankruptcy trustee of the same court. He has experience in a number of recent major corporate rehabilitation cases, including those of ISTA Airlines, Ssangyong Motors, and Mesh Korea, and has expertise in the entire corporate rehabilitation proceedings, including the ARS process.
The Legal Response Center for Creditors Affected by TMAP Incident will provide detailed advisory services on how to protect creditors, including small business owners associated with TMON and Wemap, based on LIN's extensive experience in responding to rehabilitation proceedings on the side of the creditors. In the early stages of the ARS process, the center is recruiting sellers to deliver their opinions to the 'Rehabilitation Proceedings Council' scheduled for August 13. Considering the seriousness of the situation as many merchants and consumers have been affected by the incident, participation in the council stage will be free of charge, with minimal fees for future responses. If you need assistance, please fill out the attached form and contact Attorneys Hyojong Choi (hjchoi@law-lin.com).
Recruitment of Affected Seller Clients▼
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19tW3Bnz4_Bef5vZDcrYONXMR4d2i7Mcn3CF3HkzIyks/edit
Please see below for related articles.
BLOTER & Herald Business
View original article▼
https://n.news.naver.com/article/293/0000057019
https://biz.heraldcorp.com/article/3447872
Attorney Seung Bok Na of LIN, published “50 Golf Course Incidents You Might Encounter” (Pakyoungsa)
On September 5, 2024, Attorney Seung Bok Na published a book entitled “50 Golf Course Incidents You May Encounter (subtitle: Law and Wisdom explained by a Lawyer Who Is Serious About Golf).”
Na has been involved with golf-related organizations as an auditor of the Korea Golf Industry Association, and he often participates in discussions at golf-related seminars, including the National Assembly Seminar (Dec. 19, 2023), or delivers lectures on “Golf and Law” or “Golf and Management” at CEO courses or associations. Throughout these engagements, he has developed a keen interest and passion for golf course-related cases (civil, criminal, disciplinary, licensing and permits, M&A, compliance, etc.).
From more than 400 golf-related cases and articles, he has selected noteworthy golf course-related cases (civil, criminal, disciplinary) that are likely to be of interest to golf industry stakeholders and summarized them in 1,000 words or less for easy access, and sprinkled them with classic quotes to capture the wisdom of incident prevention.
Na also included unique cases to capture the joy of the game and the human limitations of golfers, and added outrageous accidents to raise awareness of the seriousness of golf course-related accidents and combat safety apathy.
With the encouragement and support of golf industry figures, including Hyung-mo Kang, President of the Korea Golf Association (representing Yuseong CC), who wrote the book’s recommendation,, Na plans to expand his golf course-related legal practice through close exchanges and cooperation in the future.
For the original article, please refer to the links below. Thank you.
Chosun Ilbo
View original article▼
https://www.chosun.com/culture-life/book/2024/09/21/MDETAZX4DFFURGOLZUHIEVFPBM/?utm_source=naver&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=naver-news
jtbc golf
View original article▼
http://jtbcgolf.joins.com/news/news_view.asp?ns1=45589
Copyright Law Issues and Major Dispute Cases Regarding Generative AI
Generative AI, a technology that generates text, images, music, video, and more through large-scale data learning, is advancing at a frightening pace, with amazing results in areas of creativity that were once thought to be impenetrable to AI. This has led to a number of disputes between copyright holders and businesses providing generative AI technology.
Among them, the lawsuit between the New York Times, OpenAI, and Microsoft regarding LLMs in the U.S. and the lawsuit between Getty Images and Stability AI in the U.K. regarding image generation AI using a diffusion model are noteworthy. In this article, while focusing on these two cases, we will discuss the copyright law issues and implications to consider when utilizing AI.
1. LLM - The New York Times v. OpenAI
1.1 Copyright Law Issues
In late 2023, the New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging copyright infringement on the grounds that the defendants' GPT-based services were created by copying massive amounts of New York Times articles for training and, under certain prompting, they produced outputs nearly identical to the articles used for training.
The issue of infringement of reproduction rights in collecting data for training was, in fact, somewhat settled by Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015). Although this case is not related to AI learning, Google's act of scanning books and storing the scanned copies thereof for its book search service was recognized as fair use, and we believe that the same can be applied to the collection and use of data for training of generative AI.
Unlike book search services, one possibility where fair use might not apply is when reproduction rights are infringed through near-exact reproduction of the learned data. OpenAI argued that the New York Times was able to output New York Times articles verbatim after numerous prompting attempts in a manner that violated its terms, and that this was merely an overfitting problem in AI technology. In other words, because GPT has a “substantial non-infringing use,” the development of, and provision to users of, GPT does not constitute aiding and abetting copyright infringement. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously held that Sony's manufacture and sale of Betamax videotape recorders did not constitute copyright infringement of motion pictures [Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S. 417, 456 (1984)].
1.2 Other Issues
Although not at issue in U.S. litigation, our copyright law recognizes the rights of database producers (hereafter referred to as “database rights” for convenience). The Copyright Act makes it an infringement of database rights to reproduce a substantial part of a database or to reproduce it repeatedly or systematically (Article 93 of the Copyright Act), applying mutatis mutandis fair use provisions (Article 94(1), Article 35-5 of the same Act). It is difficult to find a case law to refer to, but if the purpose of protecting databases under the Copyright Act is based on the selection, arrangement, and individual accessibility of data, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no infringement of database rights or that it constitutes fair use unless the set of collected data for learning has those characteristics.
Other interesting issues in the U.S. litigation include whether GPT's so-called hallucinations, in which it describes articles not written by the New York Times as if they were written by the New York Times, constitutes trademark dilution or tarnishment, and whether reducing traffic to the New York Times website by summarizing and showing the website's content in search results constitutes unfair competition.
2. Image Generation - Getty Images v. Stability AI
2.1 Issues
Among the image generation models, the diffusion model is designed to gradually add noise to an image for training and, conversely, learn to remove the noise based on a specific prompt, resulting in an image that satisfies a specific prompt from the noise.
Getty Images provides a service that allows users to search for images and then license and use the images they want, so it has a large collection of high-quality images and text data detailing the content of those images. Stability AI used the image and text data obtained by crawling the Getty Images website for training and made “Stable Diffusion,” which is now one of the most widely used diffusion models for image generation.
Getty Images filed a lawsuit against Stability AI in the United Kingdom in May 2023, and later filed a lawsuit in the United States when jurisdiction issues were raised. The lawsuit also deals with similar issues as the New York Times case. Whether Stability AI can claim fair use with the same logic as OpenAI and Microsoft will likely depend on the facts of the case, and the nature of the work at issue, which is images rather than text, may also have some influence.
2.2 Issues Outside the Lawsuit
While not highlighted in the above lawsuits, there is a widespread distribution of modules in diffusion model communities that are either clearly infringing or highly controversial, even under fair use doctrine. In addition, the widespread use of technologies that either very specifically constrain the conditions of the image to be output (e.g. ControlNet) or use the image itself as a prompt (e.g. IPAdapter) has made the “AI generated it automatically and didn't intend to infringe” defense less viable.
3. Implications
These two lawsuits are representative of the ongoing disputes between creators and AI, and their outcomes are expected to have a significant impact on the AI industry and the business operations that utilize it, warranting close attention.
As the technologies that enable generative AI rapidly advance, become less expensive, and become more popular, more companies are utilizing these technologies, and they need to understand exactly what the legal issues are and what steps they need to take to avoid the associated risks.
While not a legal issue, we also expect to see more social discussions on whether creating with AI can be recognized as art, and how we accept and utilize AI technology.
For complete coverage, please refer to the original article below. Thank you.
The Law Times
View original article▼
https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/LawFirm-NewsLetter/201296
LIN Launches Legal Response Center for Creditors Affected by TMAP Incident’ and Accepts Opinions from Affected Merchants
LIN has recently launched the “Legal Response Center for Creditors Affected by TMAP Incident” for small business merchants (sellers) affected by the TMON-Wemap mass settlement delay.
“It seems more likely that the bankruptcy court and the debtor will apply the Autonomous Restructuring Support (ARS) program without initiating the debtor's rehabilitation proceedings,” said Attorney Hyojong Choi (34th class of the Judicial Research and Training Instiutte), the head of the center, and TMON and Wemap followed Choi's prediction by initiating the ARS program and negotiating with creditors before the decision to initiate rehabilitation.
Attorney Hyojong Choi of LIN are preparing to reflect the opinions of sellers on these platforms to protect creditors' rights throughout the ARS program and subsequent rehabilitation procedures. On August 6, they agreed to jointly respond to the overall ARS procedures in cooperation with Attorney Junseop Shim of SIM Law Firm. Attorney Hyokong Choi served as an external researcher of the ARS System Improvement TF of the Seoul Bankruptcy Court and is currently a corporate bankruptcy trustee of the same court. He has experience in a number of recent major corporate rehabilitation cases, including those of ISTA Airlines, Ssangyong Motors, and Mesh Korea, and has expertise in the entire corporate rehabilitation proceedings, including the ARS process.
The Legal Response Center for Creditors Affected by TMAP Incident will provide detailed advisory services on how to protect creditors, including small business owners associated with TMON and Wemap, based on LIN's extensive experience in responding to rehabilitation proceedings on the side of the creditors. In the early stages of the ARS process, the center is recruiting sellers to deliver their opinions to the 'Rehabilitation Proceedings Council' scheduled for August 13. Considering the seriousness of the situation as many merchants and consumers have been affected by the incident, participation in the council stage will be free of charge, with minimal fees for future responses. If you need assistance, please fill out the attached form and contact Attorneys Hyojong Choi (hjchoi@law-lin.com).
Recruitment of Affected Seller Clients▼
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19tW3Bnz4_Bef5vZDcrYONXMR4d2i7Mcn3CF3HkzIyks/edit
Please see below for related articles.
BLOTER & Herald Business
View original article▼
https://n.news.naver.com/article/293/0000057019
https://biz.heraldcorp.com/article/3447872
Attorney Seung Bok Na of LIN, published “50 Golf Course Incidents You Might Encounter” (Pakyoungsa)
On September 5, 2024, Attorney Seung Bok Na published a book entitled “50 Golf Course Incidents You May Encounter (subtitle: Law and Wisdom explained by a Lawyer Who Is Serious About Golf).”
Na has been involved with golf-related organizations as an auditor of the Korea Golf Industry Association, and he often participates in discussions at golf-related seminars, including the National Assembly Seminar (Dec. 19, 2023), or delivers lectures on “Golf and Law” or “Golf and Management” at CEO courses or associations. Throughout these engagements, he has developed a keen interest and passion for golf course-related cases (civil, criminal, disciplinary, licensing and permits, M&A, compliance, etc.).
From more than 400 golf-related cases and articles, he has selected noteworthy golf course-related cases (civil, criminal, disciplinary) that are likely to be of interest to golf industry stakeholders and summarized them in 1,000 words or less for easy access, and sprinkled them with classic quotes to capture the wisdom of incident prevention.
Na also included unique cases to capture the joy of the game and the human limitations of golfers, and added outrageous accidents to raise awareness of the seriousness of golf course-related accidents and combat safety apathy.
With the encouragement and support of golf industry figures, including Hyung-mo Kang, President of the Korea Golf Association (representing Yuseong CC), who wrote the book’s recommendation,, Na plans to expand his golf course-related legal practice through close exchanges and cooperation in the future.
For the original article, please refer to the links below. Thank you.
Chosun Ilbo
View original article▼
https://www.chosun.com/culture-life/book/2024/09/21/MDETAZX4DFFURGOLZUHIEVFPBM/?utm_source=naver&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=naver-news
jtbc golf
View original article▼
http://jtbcgolf.joins.com/news/news_view.asp?ns1=45589
Copyright Law Issues and Major Dispute Cases Regarding Generative AI
Generative AI, a technology that generates text, images, music, video, and more through large-scale data learning, is advancing at a frightening pace, with amazing results in areas of creativity that were once thought to be impenetrable to AI. This has led to a number of disputes between copyright holders and businesses providing generative AI technology.
Among them, the lawsuit between the New York Times, OpenAI, and Microsoft regarding LLMs in the U.S. and the lawsuit between Getty Images and Stability AI in the U.K. regarding image generation AI using a diffusion model are noteworthy. In this article, while focusing on these two cases, we will discuss the copyright law issues and implications to consider when utilizing AI.
1. LLM - The New York Times v. OpenAI
1.1 Copyright Law Issues
In late 2023, the New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging copyright infringement on the grounds that the defendants' GPT-based services were created by copying massive amounts of New York Times articles for training and, under certain prompting, they produced outputs nearly identical to the articles used for training.
The issue of infringement of reproduction rights in collecting data for training was, in fact, somewhat settled by Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015). Although this case is not related to AI learning, Google's act of scanning books and storing the scanned copies thereof for its book search service was recognized as fair use, and we believe that the same can be applied to the collection and use of data for training of generative AI.
Unlike book search services, one possibility where fair use might not apply is when reproduction rights are infringed through near-exact reproduction of the learned data. OpenAI argued that the New York Times was able to output New York Times articles verbatim after numerous prompting attempts in a manner that violated its terms, and that this was merely an overfitting problem in AI technology. In other words, because GPT has a “substantial non-infringing use,” the development of, and provision to users of, GPT does not constitute aiding and abetting copyright infringement. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously held that Sony's manufacture and sale of Betamax videotape recorders did not constitute copyright infringement of motion pictures [Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S. 417, 456 (1984)].
1.2 Other Issues
Although not at issue in U.S. litigation, our copyright law recognizes the rights of database producers (hereafter referred to as “database rights” for convenience). The Copyright Act makes it an infringement of database rights to reproduce a substantial part of a database or to reproduce it repeatedly or systematically (Article 93 of the Copyright Act), applying mutatis mutandis fair use provisions (Article 94(1), Article 35-5 of the same Act). It is difficult to find a case law to refer to, but if the purpose of protecting databases under the Copyright Act is based on the selection, arrangement, and individual accessibility of data, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no infringement of database rights or that it constitutes fair use unless the set of collected data for learning has those characteristics.
Other interesting issues in the U.S. litigation include whether GPT's so-called hallucinations, in which it describes articles not written by the New York Times as if they were written by the New York Times, constitutes trademark dilution or tarnishment, and whether reducing traffic to the New York Times website by summarizing and showing the website's content in search results constitutes unfair competition.
2. Image Generation - Getty Images v. Stability AI
2.1 Issues
Among the image generation models, the diffusion model is designed to gradually add noise to an image for training and, conversely, learn to remove the noise based on a specific prompt, resulting in an image that satisfies a specific prompt from the noise.
Getty Images provides a service that allows users to search for images and then license and use the images they want, so it has a large collection of high-quality images and text data detailing the content of those images. Stability AI used the image and text data obtained by crawling the Getty Images website for training and made “Stable Diffusion,” which is now one of the most widely used diffusion models for image generation.
Getty Images filed a lawsuit against Stability AI in the United Kingdom in May 2023, and later filed a lawsuit in the United States when jurisdiction issues were raised. The lawsuit also deals with similar issues as the New York Times case. Whether Stability AI can claim fair use with the same logic as OpenAI and Microsoft will likely depend on the facts of the case, and the nature of the work at issue, which is images rather than text, may also have some influence.
2.2 Issues Outside the Lawsuit
While not highlighted in the above lawsuits, there is a widespread distribution of modules in diffusion model communities that are either clearly infringing or highly controversial, even under fair use doctrine. In addition, the widespread use of technologies that either very specifically constrain the conditions of the image to be output (e.g. ControlNet) or use the image itself as a prompt (e.g. IPAdapter) has made the “AI generated it automatically and didn't intend to infringe” defense less viable.
3. Implications
These two lawsuits are representative of the ongoing disputes between creators and AI, and their outcomes are expected to have a significant impact on the AI industry and the business operations that utilize it, warranting close attention.
As the technologies that enable generative AI rapidly advance, become less expensive, and become more popular, more companies are utilizing these technologies, and they need to understand exactly what the legal issues are and what steps they need to take to avoid the associated risks.
While not a legal issue, we also expect to see more social discussions on whether creating with AI can be recognized as art, and how we accept and utilize AI technology.
For complete coverage, please refer to the original article below. Thank you.
The Law Times
View original article▼
https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/LawFirm-NewsLetter/201296
LIN Launches Legal Response Center for Creditors Affected by TMAP Incident’ and Accepts Opinions from Affected Merchants
LIN has recently launched the “Legal Response Center for Creditors Affected by TMAP Incident” for small business merchants (sellers) affected by the TMON-Wemap mass settlement delay.
“It seems more likely that the bankruptcy court and the debtor will apply the Autonomous Restructuring Support (ARS) program without initiating the debtor's rehabilitation proceedings,” said Attorney Hyojong Choi (34th class of the Judicial Research and Training Instiutte), the head of the center, and TMON and Wemap followed Choi's prediction by initiating the ARS program and negotiating with creditors before the decision to initiate rehabilitation.
Attorney Hyojong Choi of LIN are preparing to reflect the opinions of sellers on these platforms to protect creditors' rights throughout the ARS program and subsequent rehabilitation procedures. On August 6, they agreed to jointly respond to the overall ARS procedures in cooperation with Attorney Junseop Shim of SIM Law Firm. Attorney Hyokong Choi served as an external researcher of the ARS System Improvement TF of the Seoul Bankruptcy Court and is currently a corporate bankruptcy trustee of the same court. He has experience in a number of recent major corporate rehabilitation cases, including those of ISTA Airlines, Ssangyong Motors, and Mesh Korea, and has expertise in the entire corporate rehabilitation proceedings, including the ARS process.
The Legal Response Center for Creditors Affected by TMAP Incident will provide detailed advisory services on how to protect creditors, including small business owners associated with TMON and Wemap, based on LIN's extensive experience in responding to rehabilitation proceedings on the side of the creditors. In the early stages of the ARS process, the center is recruiting sellers to deliver their opinions to the 'Rehabilitation Proceedings Council' scheduled for August 13. Considering the seriousness of the situation as many merchants and consumers have been affected by the incident, participation in the council stage will be free of charge, with minimal fees for future responses. If you need assistance, please fill out the attached form and contact Attorneys Hyojong Choi (hjchoi@law-lin.com).
Recruitment of Affected Seller Clients▼
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19tW3Bnz4_Bef5vZDcrYONXMR4d2i7Mcn3CF3HkzIyks/edit
Please see below for related articles.
BLOTER & Herald Business
View original article▼
https://n.news.naver.com/article/293/0000057019
https://biz.heraldcorp.com/article/3447872
Attorney Seung Bok Na of LIN, published “50 Golf Course Incidents You Might Encounter” (Pakyoungsa)
On September 5, 2024, Attorney Seung Bok Na published a book entitled “50 Golf Course Incidents You May Encounter (subtitle: Law and Wisdom explained by a Lawyer Who Is Serious About Golf).”
Na has been involved with golf-related organizations as an auditor of the Korea Golf Industry Association, and he often participates in discussions at golf-related seminars, including the National Assembly Seminar (Dec. 19, 2023), or delivers lectures on “Golf and Law” or “Golf and Management” at CEO courses or associations. Throughout these engagements, he has developed a keen interest and passion for golf course-related cases (civil, criminal, disciplinary, licensing and permits, M&A, compliance, etc.).
From more than 400 golf-related cases and articles, he has selected noteworthy golf course-related cases (civil, criminal, disciplinary) that are likely to be of interest to golf industry stakeholders and summarized them in 1,000 words or less for easy access, and sprinkled them with classic quotes to capture the wisdom of incident prevention.
Na also included unique cases to capture the joy of the game and the human limitations of golfers, and added outrageous accidents to raise awareness of the seriousness of golf course-related accidents and combat safety apathy.
With the encouragement and support of golf industry figures, including Hyung-mo Kang, President of the Korea Golf Association (representing Yuseong CC), who wrote the book’s recommendation,, Na plans to expand his golf course-related legal practice through close exchanges and cooperation in the future.
For the original article, please refer to the links below. Thank you.
Chosun Ilbo
View original article▼
https://www.chosun.com/culture-life/book/2024/09/21/MDETAZX4DFFURGOLZUHIEVFPBM/?utm_source=naver&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=naver-news
jtbc golf
View original article▼
http://jtbcgolf.joins.com/news/news_view.asp?ns1=45589
Copyright Law Issues and Major Dispute Cases Regarding Generative AI
Generative AI, a technology that generates text, images, music, video, and more through large-scale data learning, is advancing at a frightening pace, with amazing results in areas of creativity that were once thought to be impenetrable to AI. This has led to a number of disputes between copyright holders and businesses providing generative AI technology.
Among them, the lawsuit between the New York Times, OpenAI, and Microsoft regarding LLMs in the U.S. and the lawsuit between Getty Images and Stability AI in the U.K. regarding image generation AI using a diffusion model are noteworthy. In this article, while focusing on these two cases, we will discuss the copyright law issues and implications to consider when utilizing AI.
1. LLM - The New York Times v. OpenAI
1.1 Copyright Law Issues
In late 2023, the New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging copyright infringement on the grounds that the defendants' GPT-based services were created by copying massive amounts of New York Times articles for training and, under certain prompting, they produced outputs nearly identical to the articles used for training.
The issue of infringement of reproduction rights in collecting data for training was, in fact, somewhat settled by Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015). Although this case is not related to AI learning, Google's act of scanning books and storing the scanned copies thereof for its book search service was recognized as fair use, and we believe that the same can be applied to the collection and use of data for training of generative AI.
Unlike book search services, one possibility where fair use might not apply is when reproduction rights are infringed through near-exact reproduction of the learned data. OpenAI argued that the New York Times was able to output New York Times articles verbatim after numerous prompting attempts in a manner that violated its terms, and that this was merely an overfitting problem in AI technology. In other words, because GPT has a “substantial non-infringing use,” the development of, and provision to users of, GPT does not constitute aiding and abetting copyright infringement. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously held that Sony's manufacture and sale of Betamax videotape recorders did not constitute copyright infringement of motion pictures [Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S. 417, 456 (1984)].
1.2 Other Issues
Although not at issue in U.S. litigation, our copyright law recognizes the rights of database producers (hereafter referred to as “database rights” for convenience). The Copyright Act makes it an infringement of database rights to reproduce a substantial part of a database or to reproduce it repeatedly or systematically (Article 93 of the Copyright Act), applying mutatis mutandis fair use provisions (Article 94(1), Article 35-5 of the same Act). It is difficult to find a case law to refer to, but if the purpose of protecting databases under the Copyright Act is based on the selection, arrangement, and individual accessibility of data, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no infringement of database rights or that it constitutes fair use unless the set of collected data for learning has those characteristics.
Other interesting issues in the U.S. litigation include whether GPT's so-called hallucinations, in which it describes articles not written by the New York Times as if they were written by the New York Times, constitutes trademark dilution or tarnishment, and whether reducing traffic to the New York Times website by summarizing and showing the website's content in search results constitutes unfair competition.
2. Image Generation - Getty Images v. Stability AI
2.1 Issues
Among the image generation models, the diffusion model is designed to gradually add noise to an image for training and, conversely, learn to remove the noise based on a specific prompt, resulting in an image that satisfies a specific prompt from the noise.
Getty Images provides a service that allows users to search for images and then license and use the images they want, so it has a large collection of high-quality images and text data detailing the content of those images. Stability AI used the image and text data obtained by crawling the Getty Images website for training and made “Stable Diffusion,” which is now one of the most widely used diffusion models for image generation.
Getty Images filed a lawsuit against Stability AI in the United Kingdom in May 2023, and later filed a lawsuit in the United States when jurisdiction issues were raised. The lawsuit also deals with similar issues as the New York Times case. Whether Stability AI can claim fair use with the same logic as OpenAI and Microsoft will likely depend on the facts of the case, and the nature of the work at issue, which is images rather than text, may also have some influence.
2.2 Issues Outside the Lawsuit
While not highlighted in the above lawsuits, there is a widespread distribution of modules in diffusion model communities that are either clearly infringing or highly controversial, even under fair use doctrine. In addition, the widespread use of technologies that either very specifically constrain the conditions of the image to be output (e.g. ControlNet) or use the image itself as a prompt (e.g. IPAdapter) has made the “AI generated it automatically and didn't intend to infringe” defense less viable.
3. Implications
These two lawsuits are representative of the ongoing disputes between creators and AI, and their outcomes are expected to have a significant impact on the AI industry and the business operations that utilize it, warranting close attention.
As the technologies that enable generative AI rapidly advance, become less expensive, and become more popular, more companies are utilizing these technologies, and they need to understand exactly what the legal issues are and what steps they need to take to avoid the associated risks.
While not a legal issue, we also expect to see more social discussions on whether creating with AI can be recognized as art, and how we accept and utilize AI technology.
For complete coverage, please refer to the original article below. Thank you.
The Law Times
View original article▼
https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/LawFirm-NewsLetter/201296
