Business
Commentary: In two new court cases, judges find that AI does not have human intelligence
It’s becoming clearer with every passing day that the only people making a serious effort to come to grips with the implications of artificial intelligence for society aren’t legislators, or business leaders, or AI promoters themselves. They’re judges.
Indeed, in recent weeks, judges in two federal cases have drawn a line that seems to have eluded many others contemplating AI. The cases relate to copyright law and attorney-client privilege.
In both cases, the judges have effectively declared that AI bots are not human. They don’t have rights reserved for people, and their outputs don’t deserve to be treated as though they come from human intelligence or have any special high-tech standing.
Must invention remain exclusively human, or can autonomous computational systems genuinely originate ideas?
— Artist and computer scientist Stephen Thaler
There’s more to those cases than that. Both cases, including one that got as far as the Supreme Court, underscore the determination of AI promoters and uses to infiltrate the new technology deeper into society.
Start with the more recent case. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take up a lawsuit in which artist and computer scientist Stephen Thaler tried to copyright an artwork that he acknowledged had been created by an AI bot of his own invention. That left in place a ruling last year by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which held that art created by non-humans can’t be copyrighted.
The case revolved around a 2012 painting titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” depicting train tracks running under a bridge and disappearing into vegetation. Thaler wrote in his application for a copyright that the “author” of the work was his “Creativity Machine,” an AI tool, and that the work was “created autonomously by machine.”
The appellate ruling didn’t engage in artistic criticism, but the work’s artificial origin might be manifest to the discerning eye — its landscape is busy yet indistinct, sort of a melange of green and purple, and the framing doesn’t have any artistic logic — the eye doesn’t know what it’s supposed to be following. But Thaler says it’s the AI bot’s creation and wasn’t generated in response to any user prompt.
In any event, for Judge Patricia A. Millett, who wrote the opinion for a unanimous three-judge panel, the case wasn’t a close one. She cited longstanding regulations of the Copyright Office requiring that “for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being.”
Millett noted that Thaler hadn’t bothered to conceal the non-human origin of “A Recent Entrance,” acknowledging in court papers that the painting “lacks human authorship.” She rejected Thaler’s argument, as had the federal trial judge who first heard the case, that the Copyright Office’s insistence that the author of a work must be human was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court evidently agreed.
Thaler told me he didn’t see the Supreme Court’s turndown as a “legal defeat.” In a LinkedIn post about the case, he wrote that the decision “represents a philosophical milestone — one that exposes how deeply our intellectual property system struggles to confront autonomous machine creativity.”
As that suggests, Thaler believes we shouldn’t distinguish how we view human creations from machine outputs. “Intelligence, creativity, and invention are not limited to human products,” he told me by email. Autonomous computational systems such as his AI program, he said, “can generate these functions independently.”
Millett’s ruling actually opened the door to admitting AI into the copyright world — but only when it’s used as a tool by a human author. What set Thaler’s case apart from those, she wrote, was his insistence that his AI bot was the “sole author of the work” (emphasis hers), “and it is undeniably a machine, not a human being.”
That brings us to the second case, which involved the question of whether an AI bot’s work should be protected under attorney-client privilege. Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff of New York ruled, concisely, “The answer is no.”
As I’ve written in the past, Rakoff is one of our most percipient jurists about the impact of new technologies on the law. In his occasional essays for the New York Review of Books, he’s examined how a secret AI algorithm has skewed the sentencing of criminal defendants (especially Black defendants), how cryptocurrency advocates have made a tangle of existing laws on fraud, and how the misuse of cognitive neuroscience has resulted in convictions based on false memories.
In other words, Rakoff isn’t a judge you should try snowing with technological flapdoodle.
The case involved one Bradley Heppner, who was indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly looting $150 million from a financial services company he chaired. Heppner pleaded innocent and was released on $25-million bail. The case is pending.
According to a ruling Rakoff issued on Feb. 17, the issue before him concerned exchanges that Heppner had with Claude, the chatbot developed by the AI firm Anthropic, written versions of which were seized by the FBI when it executed a search warrant of Heppner’s property.
Knowing that an indictment was in the offing, Heppner had consulted Claude for help on a defense strategy. His lawyers asserted that those exchanges, which were set forth in written memos, were tantamount to consultations with Heppner’s lawyers; therefore, his lawyers said, they were confidential according to attorney-client privilege and couldn’t be used against Heppner in court. (They also cited the related attorney work product doctrine, which grants confidentiality to lawyers’ notes and other similar material.)
That was a nontrivial point. Heppner had given Claude information he had learned from his lawyers, and shared Claude’s responses with his lawyers.
Rakoff made short work of this argument. First, he ruled, the AI documents weren’t communications between Heppner and his attorneys, since Claude isn’t an attorney. All such privileges, he noted, “require, among other things, ‘a trusting human relationship,’” say between a client and a licensed professional subject to ethical rules and duties.
“No such relationship exists, or could exist, between an AI user and a platform such as Claude,” Rakoff observed.
Second, he wrote, the exchanges between Heppner and Claude weren’t confidential. In its terms of use, Anthropic claims the right to collect both a user’s queries and Claude’s responses, use them to “train” Claude, and disclose them to others.
Finally, he wasn’t asking Claude for legal advice, but for information he could pass on to his own lawyers, or not. Indeed, when prosecutors tested Claude by asking whether it could give legal advice, the bot advised them to “consult with a qualified attorney.”
In his ruling, Rakoff did make an effort to address the broader questions judges face in dealing with AI. “Only three years after its release,” he wrote, “one prominent AI platform is being used by more than 800 million people worldwide every week. Yet the implications of AI for the law are only beginning to be explored.”
He concluded that “generative artificial intelligence “presents a new frontier in the ongoing dialogue between technology and the law….But AI’s novelty does not mean that its use is not subject to longstanding legal principles, such as those governing the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.”
In this case and elsewhere, Rakoff has shown a superb grasp of technology issues. In his 2021 essay about the AI algorithm capable of sending people to jail, he put his finger on the factor that makes the very term “artificial intelligence” a misnomer.
The term, he wrote, tends to “conceal the importance of the human designer….It is the designer who determines what kinds of data will be input into the system and from what sources they will be drawn. It is the designer who determines what weights will be given to different inputs and how the program will adjust to them. And it is the designer who determines how all this will be applied to whatever the algorithm is meant to analyze.”
He’s right. That why judges have had so much trouble determining whether the AI engineers feeding information into chatbots to make it seem like they’re “creative” and even “sentient” are infringing the copyrights of the original creators of that information, or creating something new.
The problem is that they’re asking the wrong question. Everything an AI bot spews out is, at more than a fundamental level, the product of human creativity. The AI bots are machines, and portraying them as though they’re thinking creatures like artists or attorneys doesn’t change that, and shouldn’t.
Business
Kanye West ordered to pay former contractor $140,000 over Malibu mansion lawsuit
A jury found Ye, the controversial music impresario formerly known as Kanye West, liable in the legal dispute brought by his former contractor and ordered him to pay $140,000.
Tony Saxon, who also worked as Ye’s security guard and caretaker at the Malibu property, sued the rapper in Los Angeles Superior Court in September 2023, claiming a slate of labor violations, nonpayment of services and disability discrimination.
The $140,000 judgment announced Wednesday is far less than the $1.7 million in damages that Saxon’s lawyers had originally requested. Ye will also have to pay for Saxon’s legal fees, which is expected to put the total sum that West will have to pay at more than $1 million.
Although Saxon’s attorneys at the Los Angeles-based firm West Coast Trial Lawyers called the verdict a “mixed” one, they characterized it as as a “vindication for our client.”
“Ye’s lawyers called him a liar, a fraud, and a malingerer in court. His medical records, bank records, and personal family history were dissected, mocked, and vilified,” said attorney Ronald Zambrano in a statement.
“In true David-vs.-Goliath fashion, Mr. Saxon stood firm against one of the biggest celebrities in the world, with the truth on his side,” Zambrano said.
Saxon alleged that while working as a security guard on the property, he was forced to sleep on the floor and was fired in November 2021 for failing to comply with Ye’s “dangerous requests.” He also said that he frequently complained to West about these and other issues, but that the rapper failed to address them.
In a statement, Ye’s spokesperson noted the jury had “rejected almost all of his [Saxon’s ] claims,” and that Saxon only recovered “a small fraction of what his lawyers demanded.”
“The jury also found that Saxon acted in the capacity of a contractor and did not qualify for the employee exception under California’s contractor licensing statutes,” according to the statement. “We believe the damages award is legally barred and we’ll be seeking post-trial relief from the court.”
Ye purchased the beachfront concrete mansion in 2021— designed by Pritzker Prize-winning Japanese architect Tadao Ando — for $57.3 million. He then gutted the property on Malibu Road, reportedly saying, “This is going to be my bomb shelter. This is going to be my Batcave.”
Three years later, the hip-hop star sold the unfinished mansion (he had removed the windows, doors, electricity and plumbing and broke down walls), at a significant loss to developer Steven Belmont’s Belwood Investments for $21 million.
In court filings Ye denied Saxon’s allegations. In a November 2023 response to the complaint, he disputed that Saxon “has sustained any injury, damage, or loss by reason of any act, omission or breach by Defendant.”
In January, Ye sued Saxon and his law firm over a $1.8 million lien placed on the Malibu mansion, alleging they “wrongfully” placed an “invalid” lien on the property “while simultaneously launching an aggressive publicity campaign designed to pressure Ye, chill prospective transactions, and extract payment on disputed claims already being litigated in court.”
The Malibu mansion that Ye purchased and gutted was later purchased and restored to its original design.
(The Oppenheim Group / Roger Davies)
That case is pending.
Ye’s spokesperson said the lien “clouded the home’s title and interfered with its sale, destroying substantial value at the time of sale.”
In recent years, the mercurial superstar has faced a number of public and legal dramas.
In 2022, Ye lost numerous lucrative partnerships with companies like Adidas and the Gap, following a raft of antisemitic statements, including declaring himself a Nazi on X (which he later recanted).
Two years later, Ye abruptly shut down Donda Academy, the troubled private school he founded in 2020.
Ye, the school and some of his affiliated businesses faced multiple lawsuits from former employees and educators, alleging they were victims of wrongful termination, a hostile work environment and other claims.
In court filings, Ye has denied each of the claims made against him by former employees and educators at Donda.
Several of those suits have been settled.
Business
Yamaha is leaving California after nearly 50 years
Yamaha Motor Corp. is relocating part of its operations to Georgia and selling its California assets after 47 years.
The company is the latest among a slew of businesses to relocate operations outside the Golden State to cut costs and improve profitability. Many cite high taxes and strict regulations as obstacles to doing business in the state.
Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A., the U.S. subsidiary of Yamaha Motor Co., has been based in Cypress since 1979. It will begin its move to Kennesaw, Ga., at the end of this year and complete the moving process by the end of 2028, the company said in an announcement.
The company’s marine and motorsports business facilities already moved to Kennesaw in 1999 and 2019, respectively. The Cypress facility currently houses corporate functions and the financial services business on roughly 25 acres, the company said.
Yamaha said it will sell all its land, offices, warehouses and other fixed assets in California. It will use a sale-and-leaseback arrangement for a temporary period to ensure a smooth transition and business continuity.
“This initiative is positioned as one of the Company’s key measures aimed at improving asset efficiency and enhancing profitability in the United States,” the company said in its announcement of the move. Yamaha “is undertaking structural reforms … in response to cost increases resulting from U.S. tariffs and changes in the market environment,” it said.
Yamaha Motor was founded in Japan in 1955 and began selling its products in the U.S. in 1960. The company got its start making motorcycles for racing and contests, and released its first boat motor in 1960. It acquired land in Cypress in 1978 and established an office there one year later.
Some companies have been vocal about their dissatisfaction with California’s business environment.
Last year, Bed Bath & Beyond’s executive chairman, Marcus Lemonis, said his bankrupt company won’t be reopening any stores in California, where it used to have more than 80 locations.
“California has created one of the most overregulated, expensive, and risky environments for businesses,” Lemonis said in a statement posted on X in August.
Also in August, In-N-Out owner Lynsi Synder announced she was moving her family from California to Tennessee, where she planned to open a new regional headquarters. In-N-Out’s California headquarters remains operational.
“There’s a lot of great things about California, but raising a family is not easy here,” Snyder said on a podcast at the time. “Doing business is not easy here.”
Tesla moved its headquarters out of Palo Alto in 2021, the same year that financial services firm Charles Schwab relocated from San Francisco to north Texas.
Elon Musk moved the head offices of his other companies — SpaceX and X — to Texas in 2024, as did Chevron, the oil giant that was started in California.
Business
Disneyland Resort President Thomas Mazloum named parks chief
Disneyland Resort President Thomas Mazloum has been named chairman of Walt Disney Co.’s experiences division, the company said Tuesday.
Mazloum succeeds soon-to-be Disney Chief Executive Josh D’Amaro as the head of the Mouse House’s vital parks portfolio, which has become the economic engine for the Burbank media and entertainment giant. His purview includes Disney’s theme parks, famed Imagineering division, merchandise, cruise line, as well as the Aulani resort and spa in Hawaii.
Jill Estorino will become the head of Disneyland Resort in Anaheim. She previously served as president and managing director of Disney Parks International and oversaw the company’s theme parks and resorts in Europe and Asia.
Estorino and Mazloum will assume their new roles on March 18, the same day as D’Amaro and incoming Disney President and Chief Creative Officer Dana Walden.
“Thomas Mazloum is an exceptional leader with a genuine appreciation for our cast members and a proven track record of delivering growth,” D’Amaro said in a statement. “His focus on service excellence, broad international leadership and strong connection to the creativity that brings our stories to life make him the right leader to guide Disney Experiences into its next chapter.”
Mazloum had been about a year into his tenure at Disneyland. Before that, he was head of Disney Signature Experiences, which includes the cruise line. He was trained in hospitality in Europe.
In his time at Disneyland, Mazloum oversaw the park’s 70th anniversary celebration and recently pledged to eliminate time limitations for park-hopping, which are designed to manage foot traffic at Disneyland and California Adventure.
Mazloum will now oversee a 10-year, $60-billion investment plan for Disney’s overall experiences business, which includes new themed lands in Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World. At Disneyland, that expansion could result in at least $1.9 billion of development.
The size of that investment indicates how important the parks are to Disney’s bottom line. Last year, the experiences business brought in nearly 57% of the company’s operating income. Maintaining that momentum, as well as fending off competitors such as Universal Studios, is key to Disney’s continued growth.
In his new role, Mazloum will have to keep an eye on “international visitation headwinds” at its U.S.-based parks, which the company has said probably will factor into its earnings for its fiscal second quarter. At Disneyland Resort, that dip was mitigated by the park’s high percentage of California-based visitors.
Times staff writer Todd Martens contributed to this report.
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Detroit, MI6 days agoU.S. Postal Service could run out of money within a year
-
Miami, FL1 week agoCity of Miami celebrates reopening of Flagler Street as part of beautification project
-
Pennsylvania7 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
Sports1 week agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death
-
Michigan2 days agoOperation BBQ Relief helping with Southwest Michigan tornado recovery
-
Culture1 week agoTry This Quiz on the Real Locations in These Magical and Mysterious Novels
-
Virginia1 week agoGiants will hold 2026 training camp in West Virginia