Latest / Bloomberg Law / Weekend Law: Redistricting Fights Ramp Up, OpenAI Trial Latest, Taylor Swift Combats AI Deepfakes

Transcript

Weekend Law: Redistricting Fights Ramp Up, OpenAI Trial Latest, Taylor Swift Combats AI Deepfakes · Bloomberg Law

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law.
• 0:02
  Speaker 2: Employers frequently exploit the weaknesses.
• 0:04
  Speaker 3: In the law.
• 0:04
  Speaker 4: Of course, are going to be asking questions about separation
• 0:07
  Speaker 4: of powers.
• 0:08
  Speaker 5: One by one, Google settled with all of these other plaintiffs.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts Join.
• 0:14
  Speaker 6: Me is immigration law expertly on Fresco, First Amendment law
• 0:18
  Speaker 6: expert Caroline Malick.
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: Corbin, and analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines that.
• 0:23
  Speaker 7: Trilie Judge may well want to hold a hearing. They
• 0:26
  Speaker 7: have never said this case.
• 0:28
  Speaker 4: Should never have been brought in the first place.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:37
  Speaker 5: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show.
• 0:39
  Speaker 6: I'm June Grosso. Ahead in this hour, the redistricting wars
• 0:43
  Speaker 6: heat up following the Supreme Court's decision eviscerating the Voting
• 0:47
  Speaker 6: Rights Act. Elon Musk and Sam Altman face off in
• 0:51
  Speaker 6: a high stakes trial over open AI and Taylor Swift
• 0:55
  Speaker 6: makes a novel legal move to protect her voice and image.
• 1:03
  Speaker 6: The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed Republicans their biggest victory
• 1:09
  Speaker 6: yet in the battle to control the House by gutting
• 1:12
  Speaker 6: the Voting Rights Act. The consequences are already playing out
• 1:16
  Speaker 6: as Republican led states try to pass new maps to
• 1:20
  Speaker 6: eliminate democratic health seats for the midterms. The challenge is
• 1:25
  Speaker 6: the timing well after filing deadlines for this year's primary elections,
• 1:30
  Speaker 6: and in some cases, after those primary elections have been held.
• 1:34
  Speaker 6: In Louisiana, where the state's map was found unconstitutional by
• 1:39
  Speaker 6: the Supreme Court and the Calais decision, primary elections had
• 1:43
  Speaker 6: already started and the governor's suspended House races, so the
• 1:47
  Speaker 6: legislature could draw a new map. But voters, voting groups,
• 1:51
  Speaker 6: and candidates have filed multiple lawsuits in state and federal
• 1:55
  Speaker 6: courts to try to stop that process. Here's Democratic Louisiana
• 1:59
  Speaker 6: congres Rrisman Cleo Fields, but.
• 2:02
  Speaker 3: A governor and a Secretary of State to halt the
• 2:05
  Speaker 3: election in the middle of voting disenfranchised thousands of voters
• 2:10
  Speaker 3: in Louisiana, and to me is Unamerican and unconstitutional in
• 2:14
  Speaker 3: my view.
• 2:15
  Speaker 6: My guest is Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy in
• 2:19
  Speaker 6: Partnerships at the Campaign Legal Center. Are we already seeing
• 2:23
  Speaker 6: the early results of that decision?
• 2:26
  Speaker 4: So the Supreme Court's decision in Calais versus Louisiana, has
• 2:31
  Speaker 4: really fundamentally altered the scope of federal legal protections for
• 2:37
  Speaker 4: voting rights. It is the latest in what has been
• 2:40
  Speaker 4: a long series of decisions by the Roberts Court over
• 2:43
  Speaker 4: the last fifteen years, slowly chipping away at the Voting
• 2:46
  Speaker 4: Rights Act, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement,
• 2:49
  Speaker 4: and with this sort of final blow, it has really
• 2:52
  Speaker 4: rendered the Voting Rights Act, as Justice Kagan said and
• 2:55
  Speaker 4: her dissent a dead letter in this decision in Bernovich,
• 3:00
  Speaker 4: another decision from twenty twenty one, even in Shelby County
• 3:03
  Speaker 4: back in twenty thirteen, the majority is very careful to
• 3:06
  Speaker 4: say that they are not overturning the Voting Rights Act,
• 3:09
  Speaker 4: They are not declaring the whole Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
• 3:12
  Speaker 4: It's still there, but they have functionally made it unenforceable.
• 3:16
  Speaker 4: And what that has done, now in May of an
• 3:19
  Speaker 4: election year, is turbocharged the already aggressive redistricting battles that
• 3:24
  Speaker 4: we've been seeing play out over the last several months,
• 3:27
  Speaker 4: leading states across the country but primarily in the South,
• 3:31
  Speaker 4: to aggressively try to redraw their congressional maps before this
• 3:35
  Speaker 4: year's midterm elections to eliminate majority minority districts and functionally
• 3:41
  Speaker 4: erase meaningful representation for primarily black and Latino voters across
• 3:46
  Speaker 4: the American South, including in states that have already held
• 3:49
  Speaker 4: primary elections or that are in the middle of primary
• 3:51
  Speaker 4: elections right now. So it's really a sort of craven
• 3:55
  Speaker 4: and opportunistic attempt to redraw these maps for partisan gain
• 4:01
  Speaker 4: at the expense of minority voters.
• 4:04
  Speaker 6: So where does the map stand right now?
• 4:07
  Speaker 4: So the only state that has entirely enacted a new
• 4:09
  Speaker 4: maps since the Calae decision is Florida. They were ready,
• 4:12
  Speaker 4: They passed their map within hours of that decision coming down.
• 4:16
  Speaker 4: And since then, a number of other states either governors
• 4:19
  Speaker 4: have called special sessions of their legislatures to draw new maps,
• 4:22
  Speaker 4: or they've begun the process of redoing their maps. And
• 4:25
  Speaker 4: that is complicated in a place like Alabama that already
• 4:30
  Speaker 4: has had a primary, in a place like Louisiana, where
• 4:33
  Speaker 4: their primary is in just a little over a week
• 4:35
  Speaker 4: and voting has already begun, ballots have already been cast.
• 4:39
  Speaker 4: But it's you know, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina have
• 4:44
  Speaker 4: all you know, announced plans to target the majority minority
• 4:49
  Speaker 4: districts that were created as a result of successful litigation
• 4:51
  Speaker 4: under the Voting Rights Act in their states, and specifically
• 4:54
  Speaker 4: targeting primarily black lawmakers elected in majority black districts.
• 4:59
  Speaker 6: They eliminate these majority minority black districts. Is it a guarantee?
• 5:04
  Speaker 6: Is it a lock that a Democrat can't get elected there?
• 5:08
  Speaker 6: Are they able to gerrymander it in such a way?
• 5:12
  Speaker 4: Not necessarily. It does depend a little bit on the
• 5:14
  Speaker 4: state and on the state's particular geography. But the redistricting
• 5:18
  Speaker 4: process has become so technical and so driven by computer programs,
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: and map drawers have gotten increasingly sophisticated over recent years,
• 5:28
  Speaker 4: and so it is very plausible to be able to
• 5:31
  Speaker 4: draw a map where it would be nearly impossible for
• 5:34
  Speaker 4: a Democrat to get elected because of just the way
• 5:37
  Speaker 4: that the lines have been drawn, especially now that the
• 5:40
  Speaker 4: Supreme Court has basically blessed this practice and has said
• 5:45
  Speaker 4: that you can target voters of color so long as
• 5:48
  Speaker 4: you claim that you're doing it for partisan reasons. So
• 5:51
  Speaker 4: as long as the state says, well, we're not discriminating
• 5:54
  Speaker 4: against them because they're black or Latino, We're discriminating against
• 5:56
  Speaker 4: them because they're Democrats. The Supreme Court majority has said that,
• 5:59
  Speaker 4: so okay.
• 6:00
  Speaker 6: Louisiana's Governor Jeff Landry, in delaying his states House primary
• 6:06
  Speaker 6: elections in order to redraw the state's map, quoted that
• 6:11
  Speaker 6: famous quote from the Chief Justice John Roberts. The best
• 6:15
  Speaker 6: way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is
• 6:19
  Speaker 6: to stop discriminating on the basis of race. And there
• 6:22
  Speaker 6: have been lawsuits filed to stop the redistricting, But what
• 6:26
  Speaker 6: are they based on now that they can no longer
• 6:29
  Speaker 6: base it on discrimination on the basis of race.
• 6:33
  Speaker 4: There's a lot to unpack there.
• 6:35
  Speaker 6: Yeah, I apologize for the double question, or maybe the
• 6:38
  Speaker 6: triple question, but that vote.
• 6:39
  Speaker 4: From Chief Justice Roberts is pretty disingenuous because what the
• 6:43
  Speaker 4: Court has really functionally done is said that even if
• 6:46
  Speaker 4: you can prove that discrimination has happened, you cannot consider
• 6:50
  Speaker 4: race when remedying discrimination. And I'm not sure how you
• 6:53
  Speaker 4: can fashion a legal remedy to address race discrimination while
• 6:57
  Speaker 4: being blind to race. It just doesn't makes sense. So
• 7:01
  Speaker 4: setting that aside, you know, the governor of Louisiana, in
• 7:05
  Speaker 4: my view, does not have the authority to just unilaterally
• 7:08
  Speaker 4: postpone the primary because of a change in law, there
• 7:12
  Speaker 4: is an emergency statute that does give the governor and
• 7:15
  Speaker 4: the Secretary of State some limited ability to change election dates,
• 7:20
  Speaker 4: but that is reserved for actual unforeseen catastrophes, which in
• 7:24
  Speaker 4: Louisiana usually means a hurricane. And so, you know, when
• 7:28
  Speaker 4: it is functionally impossible to hold an election because you know,
• 7:32
  Speaker 4: a natural disaster has occurred. And what the governor is
• 7:35
  Speaker 4: doing here is I think, really cynically and opportunistically abusing
• 7:39
  Speaker 4: that authority to cancel an election already in progress because
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: he wants to redraw maps to get his party more
• 7:47
  Speaker 4: congressional seats. And so the claims that are being brought
• 7:50
  Speaker 4: by Litigans in Louisiana are not about the maps themselves,
• 7:54
  Speaker 4: are not about you know, discriminating against voters in this
• 7:56
  Speaker 4: particular instance. You know, these are due process claims. These
• 7:59
  Speaker 4: are all TRA's claims. They're arguing that the governor has
• 8:02
  Speaker 4: exceeded his legal authority by you know, calling it an
• 8:05
  Speaker 4: emergency and rescheduling the election when there is no actual emergency.
• 8:10
  Speaker 4: That's not what the statute and the emergency power were
• 8:12
  Speaker 4: designed for. And he's functionally canceling the votes that have
• 8:17
  Speaker 4: already been cast by you know Louisiana's who have voted
• 8:20
  Speaker 4: earlier voted by mail because this election period has been
• 8:23
  Speaker 4: ongoing now for a couple of weeks. So the legal
• 8:26
  Speaker 4: actions that have been brought are on behalf of individual
• 8:29
  Speaker 4: voters who already cast ballots, and they want those ballots
• 8:32
  Speaker 4: counted because you know, there there are changes in law,
• 8:35
  Speaker 4: there are changes in circumstances all the time. But what
• 8:38
  Speaker 4: we don't do in a democracy is cancel an election midstream.
• 8:41
  Speaker 4: Can't change the rules halfway through the election just because
• 8:44
  Speaker 4: you want a different outcome.
• 8:45
  Speaker 6: The Supreme Court has established the per sl principle, the
• 8:49
  Speaker 6: idea that courts shouldn't change voting or election rules too
• 8:54
  Speaker 6: close to an election in order to avoid confusion. At
• 8:58
  Speaker 6: this point, I'm not sure which principles or rules the
• 9:01
  Speaker 6: Court will still follow as precedent, but does that apply here.
• 9:06
  Speaker 4: It's interesting that Percell does not appear anywhere in the
• 9:10
  Speaker 4: Supreme Court's decision in Calais. And the Court has been
• 9:13
  Speaker 4: very aggressive in citing Percell to prevent district courts from
• 9:17
  Speaker 4: issuing rulings about elections that might be disruptive to the
• 9:21
  Speaker 4: election administration process or cause voter confusion. And I can't
• 9:25
  Speaker 4: think of a more disruptive decision than you know, gutting
• 9:30
  Speaker 4: the Voting Rights Act in the middle of an interim
• 9:32
  Speaker 4: year while primaries are ongoing, and you know, the Court
• 9:35
  Speaker 4: could have done all sorts of things to delay, you know,
• 9:37
  Speaker 4: this decision taking effect, to make clear to the states
• 9:40
  Speaker 4: that you know, this election cycle shouldn't be affected by it.
• 9:43
  Speaker 7: They didn't do that.
• 9:44
  Speaker 4: And so, you know, the Court's use of purcell I
• 9:46
  Speaker 4: think has been quite cynical and pretty pretty opportunistic. They
• 9:51
  Speaker 4: use it when they want to block a lower court ruling,
• 9:54
  Speaker 4: but they don't themselves seem very bound by it. And
• 9:56
  Speaker 4: so the guidance that they've given to the district courts
• 9:58
  Speaker 4: about you know, being careful about not to disrupt elections
• 10:01
  Speaker 4: with judicial decisions, about how courts shouldn't change things midstream,
• 10:05
  Speaker 4: it does not seem to be guidance that they themselves
• 10:07
  Speaker 4: have followed.
• 10:07
  Speaker 6: Here, let's talk about twenty twenty eight, because some of
• 10:10
  Speaker 6: the states that are saying no, we can't do it now,
• 10:13
  Speaker 6: like Georgia. The Georgia Governor Brian Kempson. It's clear that
• 10:17
  Speaker 6: KELA requires Georgia to adopt new electoral maps before the
• 10:21
  Speaker 6: twenty twenty eight election cycle. Let's talk about Republican states first.
• 10:25
  Speaker 6: Which Republican states do you think still have maps they're
• 10:28
  Speaker 6: able to gerrymander to get rid of Democrats.
• 10:32
  Speaker 4: There are plenty. I think it's states all across the South.
• 10:35
  Speaker 4: But looking ahead to twenty twenty eight, I don't think
• 10:37
  Speaker 4: it's just Republican states that we have to think about.
• 10:40
  Speaker 4: I think the same way that we saw Texas and
• 10:42
  Speaker 4: California and Virginia and Ohio all going kind of tit
• 10:46
  Speaker 4: for tat in the last year, the race to the
• 10:48
  Speaker 4: bottom is only going to accelerate because if all of
• 10:51
  Speaker 4: these states in the Deep South are successful in redrawing
• 10:55
  Speaker 4: their maps to eliminate Democrats, I expect places like Maryland
• 11:00
  Speaker 4: and Illinois and Colorado to retaliate, and nobody wins. When
• 11:06
  Speaker 4: the parties are engaged in this race to the bottom
• 11:10
  Speaker 4: of just trying to manipulate the electorate for their own
• 11:15
  Speaker 4: PARTI is in gain. The loser here is not going
• 11:19
  Speaker 4: to be the Republicans or the Democrats. It's going to
• 11:21
  Speaker 4: be the American people who are going to be denied
• 11:23
  Speaker 4: a meaningful opportunity to select representatives who actually represent them.
• 11:28
  Speaker 4: You know, there's a kind of common saying that we
• 11:30
  Speaker 4: use a lot. Voters should choose their politicians, not the
• 11:32
  Speaker 4: other way around. And what this decision from the Supreme
• 11:36
  Speaker 4: Court has done is functionally given state legislatures the ability
• 11:42
  Speaker 4: to decide for themselves what party is going to represent
• 11:46
  Speaker 4: fair states in Congress, and taking the power to make
• 11:49
  Speaker 4: that choice away from the voters.
• 11:51
  Speaker 6: Thanks so much, Jonathan. That's Jonathan Diaz of the Campaign
• 11:54
  Speaker 6: Legal Center. Democrats were del to blow to their efforts
• 11:58
  Speaker 6: to minimize Republicans redistricting gains when the Virginia Supreme Court
• 12:03
  Speaker 6: blocked a voter approved map that would have flipped as
• 12:06
  Speaker 6: many as four Republican held House seats in the midterms
• 12:10
  Speaker 6: in a four to three decision. The state's highest court
• 12:13
  Speaker 6: ruled on Friday that the legislature's process for pursuing the
• 12:17
  Speaker 6: new map violated Virginia's constitution and ordered that an earlier
• 12:22
  Speaker 6: version be used in the upcoming midterms. Coming up next
• 12:29
  Speaker 6: on the Bloomberg Law Show, Elon Musk and Sam Altman
• 12:34
  Speaker 6: based off in a California courtroom with the future of
• 12:37
  Speaker 6: Open AI at stake. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
• 12:41
  Speaker 6: to Bloomberg.
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: You were listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: Blouelomberg Radio.
• 13:01
  Speaker 6: Elon Musk is facing off against Sam Altman at a
• 13:05
  Speaker 6: high stakes trial that could determine the future of open Ai.
• 13:10
  Speaker 6: The California trial is the culmination of years of animosity
• 13:14
  Speaker 6: in public feuding over the startup. They found it together
• 13:18
  Speaker 6: more than a decade ago, before their relationships soured. Musk
• 13:22
  Speaker 6: claims that Altman and other leaders at OpenAI enriched themselves
• 13:27
  Speaker 6: by abandoning its altruistic principles and converting it from a
• 13:32
  Speaker 6: full nonprofit research organization to a for profit company. While
• 13:37
  Speaker 6: Altman and open ai are accusing Musk of harassment and
• 13:41
  Speaker 6: say the real goal of his lawsuit is to undercut
• 13:45
  Speaker 6: competition with his own startup, XAI. The first witness was
• 13:50
  Speaker 6: Musk himself. He tried to portray the stakes in the
• 13:53
  Speaker 6: case as existential, saying he wanted to prevent a terminator
• 13:58
  Speaker 6: like situation and basically repeating a warning he gave years ago.
• 14:02
  Speaker 5: There's some chance that above zero that AI will kill us.
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: Well, I think it's low, but at some chance.
• 14:08
  Speaker 6: The stakes in the trial are incredibly high and maybe
• 14:12
  Speaker 6: even existential. For open Ai because Musk is asking the
• 14:16
  Speaker 6: court to unwind its for profit conversion that was just
• 14:20
  Speaker 6: completed in October. Joining me is Bloomberg legal reporter Madlin Meckelberg,
• 14:24
  Speaker 6: who's covering the trial.
• 14:26
  Speaker 5: So Madlin.
• 14:27
  Speaker 6: Even before the opening statements in the trial, the judge
• 14:31
  Speaker 6: took Musk and Altman to task for some social media posts.
• 14:37
  Speaker 7: So just ahead of trial, if you were online on
• 14:40
  Speaker 7: x you saw a lot of posts coming from Musk
• 14:43
  Speaker 7: in his account talking about quote scam Altman his nickname
• 14:48
  Speaker 7: that he has for Sam Altman, and seemingly promoting social
• 14:53
  Speaker 7: media posts that included a New Yorker article about Sam
• 14:57
  Speaker 7: Altman and his conduct on the board of open Ai.
• 15:00
  Speaker 7: And open Ai also was posting things on social media.
• 15:04
  Speaker 7: They have a running blog post where they kind of
• 15:06
  Speaker 7: provide updates on the status of the Elon Musk situation
• 15:10
  Speaker 7: I think is what they call it. And when they
• 15:12
  Speaker 7: got to court first thing on Monday, before they talked
• 15:15
  Speaker 7: about anything else with the trial, the judge basically reprimanded
• 15:19
  Speaker 7: both sides and said you need to I think she
• 15:21
  Speaker 7: said the words control your propensity to use social media,
• 15:25
  Speaker 7: and she warned them that it may be making things
• 15:27
  Speaker 7: worse outside the court room, and she had Elon Musk
• 15:30
  Speaker 7: come up and stand in front of her as she
• 15:32
  Speaker 7: gave this warning, and he agreed that he would not
• 15:35
  Speaker 7: post anything or at least limit his posting about the case.
• 15:39
  Speaker 6: The opening statements are the first chance for the parties
• 15:43
  Speaker 6: to tell their story to the jury give us the
• 15:46
  Speaker 6: high points of the openings.
• 15:48
  Speaker 7: So we heard opening statements from the three main parties
• 15:52
  Speaker 7: in this case, being Elon Musk, Open Ai, and then Microsoft.
• 15:56
  Speaker 7: Elon Musk, I think we've heard his argument by now,
• 15:59
  Speaker 7: but theyasically he's alleging that Sam Maltman and Greg Brockman. Essentially,
• 16:05
  Speaker 7: he keeps saying the words stole a charity. He says
• 16:07
  Speaker 7: that they enriched themselves by converting this nonprofit entity into
• 16:12
  Speaker 7: a for profit company, and in doing so abandoned the
• 16:16
  Speaker 7: mission that they had at the beginning, which was creating
• 16:20
  Speaker 7: AI for good. And during opening statements we heard a
• 16:23
  Speaker 7: lot from them about Sam Altman and Greg Brockman's removal
• 16:27
  Speaker 7: from open AI's board and kind of the twenty twenty
• 16:30
  Speaker 7: two to twenty three era, and about how there was
• 16:33
  Speaker 7: a lack of trust from them from people at open Ai.
• 16:36
  Speaker 7: We saw some email exchanges talking about how much money
• 16:40
  Speaker 7: Elon Musk contributed to the foundation, kind of showing that
• 16:44
  Speaker 7: he was a major party in starting this from the beginning.
• 16:48
  Speaker 7: And then open AI's attorneys got up and they tried
• 16:51
  Speaker 7: to paint a different picture, of course, of the situation.
• 16:54
  Speaker 7: They showed emails where Elon Musk was trying to get
• 16:57
  Speaker 7: control of open ai when they were discussing forming a
• 17:01
  Speaker 7: for profit entity back in the day when he was
• 17:03
  Speaker 7: still affiliated with the organization, and their attorney basically was
• 17:07
  Speaker 7: trying to paint this case as a really simple one
• 17:10
  Speaker 7: where Musk was a disgruntled former employee of open ai
• 17:14
  Speaker 7: who was upset that they didn't want to go with
• 17:16
  Speaker 7: his vision of the company. He left formed a competitor,
• 17:19
  Speaker 7: and now he's turning around trying to undercut open ai
• 17:23
  Speaker 7: and harm one of his competitors in the AI space
• 17:26
  Speaker 7: and his former company that he helped found. And then
• 17:29
  Speaker 7: of course there's also the Microsoft element of this. They
• 17:32
  Speaker 7: tend to come in after the fact that they are
• 17:34
  Speaker 7: a key player in the lawsuit, and that's because Musk
• 17:38
  Speaker 7: has accused them of essentially aiding and abedding this theft
• 17:42
  Speaker 7: that he describes of a charity and so we heard
• 17:45
  Speaker 7: from Microsoft talking about their investments that they made in
• 17:48
  Speaker 7: open Ai, why they decided to make those investments, and
• 17:51
  Speaker 7: everything we're hearing from them over and over is pretty consistent,
• 17:54
  Speaker 7: so that their actions were above board. They had no
• 17:57
  Speaker 7: part in anything that they say may or may not
• 17:59
  Speaker 7: have been happening.
• 18:00
  Speaker 5: And Musk was the first witness.
• 18:02
  Speaker 7: Yes, Musk was the first witness called to the stand,
• 18:04
  Speaker 7: and he spent about three days testifying, answering questions from
• 18:07
  Speaker 7: his own attorneys and then a little more heated questions
• 18:10
  Speaker 7: from open AI's attorneys.
• 18:12
  Speaker 6: So let's talk about the direct testimony first. The easy
• 18:15
  Speaker 6: testimony when you're a lawyer quests you what was the
• 18:18
  Speaker 6: main point he was trying to get across on direct.
• 18:22
  Speaker 7: So I think the main point that Elon Musk was
• 18:24
  Speaker 7: trying to make is, and I keep saying this because
• 18:27
  Speaker 7: he kept saying it on the stand, is it's not
• 18:29
  Speaker 7: okay to steal a charity. We heard him say that
• 18:32
  Speaker 7: over and over again in response to many questions. And
• 18:36
  Speaker 7: it's really interesting across all of the testimony that we've
• 18:38
  Speaker 7: heard so far, everyone kind of describes these early days
• 18:42
  Speaker 7: when Musk was still at open ai really similarly and
• 18:45
  Speaker 7: they all kind of agree that there was discussion about
• 18:48
  Speaker 7: the need for more funding to support their research and
• 18:51
  Speaker 7: the need to maybe pursue some kind of for profit component.
• 18:55
  Speaker 7: And Musk said during his testimony that he had no
• 18:58
  Speaker 7: problem with creating a for profit company to support a nonprofit,
• 19:02
  Speaker 7: but he felt things crossed the line when they decided
• 19:05
  Speaker 7: to convert the nonprofit to a for profit. And he
• 19:09
  Speaker 7: described this situation as three phases of disillusionment with open AI,
• 19:15
  Speaker 7: and it kind of started with him being happy, pleased
• 19:17
  Speaker 7: with the mission. Then he started to get concerned that
• 19:20
  Speaker 7: they were moving in the direction that he didn't agree with.
• 19:23
  Speaker 7: This was around twenty seventeen twenty eighteen when he did
• 19:25
  Speaker 7: ultimately leave the board. And then he said phase three
• 19:29
  Speaker 7: kind of started in around twenty two when he was
• 19:32
  Speaker 7: convinced that they did in fact steal a charity. And
• 19:35
  Speaker 7: so we heard from him a lot about that About
• 19:37
  Speaker 7: his support of open AI. He says it wouldn't have
• 19:39
  Speaker 7: existed without him in the beginning. He came up with
• 19:43
  Speaker 7: the name. He brought his guidance, his leadership, his vision,
• 19:46
  Speaker 7: and most importantly, his money.
• 19:48
  Speaker 6: He was trying to portray the stakes of the case
• 19:50
  Speaker 6: as existential, saying several times that AI could quote kill
• 19:55
  Speaker 6: us all if it's not developed safely, and the judge
• 19:58
  Speaker 6: eventually told him to stop repeating that phrase.
• 20:01
  Speaker 7: That's right. So this idea of AI safety is a
• 20:04
  Speaker 7: big one. That's another part of Musk's case and his
• 20:08
  Speaker 7: argument for why he's so concerned about this decision to
• 20:12
  Speaker 7: turn open Ai into a for profit company. And he
• 20:15
  Speaker 7: said that we need somebody responsible leading AI. There's all
• 20:19
  Speaker 7: these private companies whose interests are motivated by profit and investors,
• 20:24
  Speaker 7: and that's why he wanted a nonprofit in this space.
• 20:27
  Speaker 7: And they had an expert that they called to testify
• 20:31
  Speaker 7: for Musk's case who was going to talk about the
• 20:33
  Speaker 7: threats of AI, and that includes this existential threat that
• 20:37
  Speaker 7: Musks describes of AI someday being smarter than humans and
• 20:42
  Speaker 7: leading to our demise essentially. And the judge did reprimand
• 20:46
  Speaker 7: them and say, you know, this case is not about
• 20:49
  Speaker 7: AI safety. I don't want to hear about this anymore.
• 20:52
  Speaker 7: Because Musk kept saying he was trying to prevent a
• 20:54
  Speaker 7: terminator situation talking about the movie franchise. She said, that's
• 20:59
  Speaker 7: not what this case is. It's not about AI safety,
• 21:01
  Speaker 7: and so that expert's testimony was cut quite short, I
• 21:04
  Speaker 7: think as a result of that, and we have not
• 21:06
  Speaker 7: heard that line from Musk since then.
• 21:09
  Speaker 6: Musk has testified many times, but on cross it seems
• 21:13
  Speaker 6: like he's not following the basic rules of being cross examined,
• 21:17
  Speaker 6: that he's always trying to take over and one up
• 21:21
  Speaker 6: the lawyer who's questioning him. For example, here, so he's
• 21:25
  Speaker 6: on the stand and he accused open AI's attorney of
• 21:28
  Speaker 6: asking a leading question, and the judge asked Musk to
• 21:32
  Speaker 6: repeat four words after her, I'm not a lawyer.
• 21:36
  Speaker 7: That's right, and that exchange actually went on. She said
• 21:39
  Speaker 7: you're not a lawyer, are you? And he says, no,
• 21:41
  Speaker 7: I'm not a lawyer. And she says, you didn't take
• 21:43
  Speaker 7: any classes on evidence Harry law, did you? And he said, well,
• 21:46
  Speaker 7: actually I took law one oh one and she said, okay,
• 21:49
  Speaker 7: Well still, okay, you're not a lawyer.
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: Stop.
• 21:52
  Speaker 7: Definitely fair to characterize him that way, I think. Obviously,
• 21:56
  Speaker 7: on direct exam he has a lot more freedom to
• 21:58
  Speaker 7: tell his side of the story, but on cross he
• 22:01
  Speaker 7: became visibly irritated with the attorney for open AI. He
• 22:04
  Speaker 7: kept telling him his questions weren't fair, and you know,
• 22:08
  Speaker 7: lawyers love to say answer the question that I'm asking you.
• 22:11
  Speaker 7: You're not answering my question. It's a yes or no.
• 22:13
  Speaker 7: It's a simple question. And Musk replied often that you know,
• 22:16
  Speaker 7: your questions aren't simple. They need context, they need explanation.
• 22:20
  Speaker 7: And so it was a pretty interesting cross exam where
• 22:24
  Speaker 7: you know, you have this lawyer trying to get something
• 22:26
  Speaker 7: out of him, and Musk is resisting kind of at
• 22:28
  Speaker 7: every turn.
• 22:29
  Speaker 6: So as we discussed on cross examination, Musk had several
• 22:33
  Speaker 6: heated exchanges with William Savat, the attorney who represents open AI,
• 22:39
  Speaker 6: and at one point, Sabath questioned him, quote, at the
• 22:43
  Speaker 6: end of it, you didn't contribute a billion dollars to
• 22:46
  Speaker 6: open AI, did you. Savath wanted a yes or no answer,
• 22:50
  Speaker 6: which Musk would not give until the judge intervened and
• 22:54
  Speaker 6: told Musk to answer the question, which he still didn't
• 22:57
  Speaker 6: give a yes or no answer to. Explained the importance
• 23:01
  Speaker 6: of this point, right.
• 23:02
  Speaker 7: So, his financial commitments to open AI are a big
• 23:06
  Speaker 7: part of this case because obviously he's trying to say
• 23:09
  Speaker 7: that he donated this money under certain circumstances and they've
• 23:13
  Speaker 7: now violated that mission that he thought this money was
• 23:16
  Speaker 7: going to fund But yes, we saw during the course
• 23:18
  Speaker 7: of trial a few different statements that Musk has made
• 23:21
  Speaker 7: publicly about how much money he's given to open Ai.
• 23:24
  Speaker 7: When they first launched in twenty fifteen, they did so
• 23:27
  Speaker 7: with a commitment from him that he would eventually donate
• 23:29
  Speaker 7: as much as a billion dollars, and then he left
• 23:33
  Speaker 7: the board in twenty eighteen, and then later we saw
• 23:35
  Speaker 7: a post from him on x in twenty twenty three
• 23:38
  Speaker 7: where he said that he donated one hundred million dollars
• 23:41
  Speaker 7: to open Ai, which is obviously a big drop down
• 23:45
  Speaker 7: from one billion, but through questioning from the attorney, he
• 23:49
  Speaker 7: revealed that he had given thirty eight million dollars in
• 23:52
  Speaker 7: total to open ai before he departed, and so and
• 23:55
  Speaker 7: even bigger dropped down from the one billion dollars that
• 23:58
  Speaker 7: he had pledged to commit in the early days, and
• 24:01
  Speaker 7: that money was through quarterly donations that he was making,
• 24:04
  Speaker 7: but also rent that he was paying on an office
• 24:07
  Speaker 7: building for open Ai. And this is, you know, this
• 24:09
  Speaker 7: is an important issue because it gets at this question
• 24:12
  Speaker 7: of how much Musk was really involved in open Ai,
• 24:16
  Speaker 7: how much stake he had in this. And then of
• 24:18
  Speaker 7: course there's this attempt to impeach a witness and show
• 24:21
  Speaker 7: that you know, he's sometimes says things that don't turn
• 24:25
  Speaker 7: out to be true.
• 24:26
  Speaker 6: On the whole, how do you think his testimony went?
• 24:29
  Speaker 6: How do you come across.
• 24:30
  Speaker 7: He's an interesting character, and you know, there were a
• 24:33
  Speaker 7: lot of fireworks, like we're saying, But at the end
• 24:35
  Speaker 7: of the day, I think the person we saw in
• 24:37
  Speaker 7: the stand was Elon Musk, Like there weren't necessarily any
• 24:40
  Speaker 7: surprises in how he was presenting himself. As you say,
• 24:43
  Speaker 7: he's testified before. He speaks publicly a lot. We kind
• 24:46
  Speaker 7: of get a stream of consciousness from him on his
• 24:49
  Speaker 7: social media, so I don't think there's anything. You know,
• 24:52
  Speaker 7: it wasn't like, oh my gosh, I can't believe he
• 24:54
  Speaker 7: said that, But I will say they definitely really were
• 24:58
  Speaker 7: grilling him on cross exam. I don't know that he
• 25:01
  Speaker 7: totally helped his case. I think it's really early to tell,
• 25:05
  Speaker 7: but I think he made a few key concessions, including
• 25:08
  Speaker 7: talking about the difference in financial commitments that he made.
• 25:11
  Speaker 7: He said at one point that there was no paperwork
• 25:14
  Speaker 7: that he signed outlining the terms and conditions of his
• 25:17
  Speaker 7: donation to open AI. I think that was an important point,
• 25:21
  Speaker 7: and so I think it maybe didn't go as smoothly
• 25:24
  Speaker 7: as he would have wanted it to go. But that
• 25:27
  Speaker 7: being said, at the same time, he also had plenty
• 25:30
  Speaker 7: of time to make his own case, and I think
• 25:32
  Speaker 7: jurors definitely understood of where he was coming from this too.
• 25:36
  Speaker 6: Thanks. Madlin, will check back with you to see how
• 25:38
  Speaker 6: the trial's progressing. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Madlin Mecklberg. Coming
• 25:43
  Speaker 6: up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. Jaylor Swift makes
• 25:46
  Speaker 6: a rather novel legal move to protect her voice and image.
• 25:50
  Speaker 6: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: You were listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg RADIOA.
• 26:07
  Speaker 7: Hey, shchuche.
• 26:16
  Speaker 6: Popstar Taylor Swift's image and voice have been used in
• 26:20
  Speaker 6: many AI generated images and deep fakes, including a twenty
• 26:24
  Speaker 6: twenty four post by then candidate Donald Trump that falsely
• 26:29
  Speaker 6: showed Swift endorsing him for the presidency. In a new
• 26:32
  Speaker 6: legal move, Swift seems to be stepping up her fight
• 26:36
  Speaker 6: against AI copycats and deep fakes. She's filed trademark applications
• 26:42
  Speaker 6: for these two audio clips.
• 26:44
  Speaker 5: Hey it's Taylor.
• 26:46
  Speaker 4: My brand new album, The Life of a Showgirl is
• 26:48
  Speaker 4: out on October third, and you can click to pre
• 26:50
  Speaker 4: save it so you can listen to it on Spotify.
• 26:52
  Speaker 5: Hey, it's Taylor Swift, and you can listen to my
• 26:54
  Speaker 5: new album The Life.
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: Of a Showgirl on demand on Amazon Music unlimited.
• 26:58
  Speaker 6: Swift has also filed an application to trademark and image
• 27:02
  Speaker 6: of her on stage in a sequent outfit pink guitar
• 27:06
  Speaker 6: in hand. Historically, trademarks aren't designed to protect a person's
• 27:10
  Speaker 6: general likeness, voice or persona, but at least one Hollywood star,
• 27:15
  Speaker 6: Matthew McConaughey, has successfully trademarked his iconic line from the
• 27:20
  Speaker 6: nineteen ninety three film Dazed and Confused. All Right, all right,
• 27:26
  Speaker 6: all right. These kinds of voice trademarks have never been
• 27:30
  Speaker 6: tested in court. My guest is Cynthia Katz, a music
• 27:34
  Speaker 6: partner at Fox Rothschild. Trademarks aren't usually used for this purpose,
• 27:39
  Speaker 6: are they?
• 27:40
  Speaker 8: Sound as a potential source indicator can be used as
• 27:45
  Speaker 8: a trademark, and has been done in the past in
• 27:48
  Speaker 8: some celebrity situations, but it is not the primary form
• 27:52
  Speaker 8: of protection for voice that is typically used.
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: You know, in the music business and.
• 27:57
  Speaker 8: Trademark really it's at its core is not to protect
• 28:03
  Speaker 8: the owner of the market rather than to look at
• 28:06
  Speaker 8: preventing consumer confusion in the marketplace and looking to preserve
• 28:11
  Speaker 8: the consumer so that you know, the consumer has a
• 28:13
  Speaker 8: good source indicator, you know. So mostly that turns into
• 28:17
  Speaker 8: you know, I'm going to the grocery store and I
• 28:18
  Speaker 8: would see a logo. I want to know that I
• 28:20
  Speaker 8: can count on the quality behind that product because that
• 28:23
  Speaker 8: logo tells me something and it's based on actual use,
• 28:27
  Speaker 8: so that you know, people really know that this means
• 28:30
  Speaker 8: that I know who's making this product. There have been
• 28:32
  Speaker 8: some sort of iconic sounds, you know, over the years
• 28:36
  Speaker 8: that have served as source indicators that have been trademarked,
• 28:39
  Speaker 8: and then celebrities in.
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: Particular where they have a very.
• 28:43
  Speaker 8: Unique catchphrase for example, which obviously ties to the Matthew McConaughey,
• 28:49
  Speaker 8: all right, all right, you know that's so iconic, and
• 28:52
  Speaker 8: there are so many brands that you know, would like
• 28:55
  Speaker 8: to have that exact sound, you know, maybe indicating an endorsement.
• 29:00
  Speaker 8: So you know, in those sort of limited situations, it
• 29:03
  Speaker 8: has been done before, but it's certainly not the standard
• 29:06
  Speaker 8: bearer for you know musicians in terms of protecting their voice.
• 29:11
  Speaker 6: Would this even qualify to be trademarked? In the case
• 29:15
  Speaker 6: of Matthew McConaughey, that's a phrase he's widely associated with.
• 29:20
  Speaker 6: You could almost hear his drawl saying it. But these
• 29:23
  Speaker 6: phrases from Taylor Swift don't stand out in any way.
• 29:27
  Speaker 6: I mean, is this even going to get a trademark?
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know.
• 29:31
  Speaker 8: Obviously we'll have to see, but trademark is not a given.
• 29:35
  Speaker 8: You know, you have to show actual use in the
• 29:38
  Speaker 8: class that you are trying to register, and so you
• 29:42
  Speaker 8: have to show that you've used that exact phrase to
• 29:47
  Speaker 8: market or sell a product or service and you know
• 29:50
  Speaker 8: that you are using it as a source indicator. So,
• 29:53
  Speaker 8: I mean, Taylor Swift has a massive amount of product.
• 29:57
  Speaker 8: You go to, say, like a target. I don't know,
• 29:59
  Speaker 8: there might be a doll out there that looks like
• 30:01
  Speaker 8: a little girl with a microphone that goes, I'm Taylor Sweat.
• 30:05
  Speaker 8: You know, like if she does have products and services
• 30:08
  Speaker 8: out there where she can show that that phrase has
• 30:11
  Speaker 8: been used by her or her company as a you know,
• 30:16
  Speaker 8: mark origination from her, It's possible, but I think it's
• 30:21
  Speaker 8: a little bit, you know, might be a trickier hurdle.
• 30:24
  Speaker 8: Like often you see it's the tag on a clothing,
• 30:28
  Speaker 8: you know, back of a T shirt that shows this
• 30:30
  Speaker 8: is where this came from, or it is the branding
• 30:34
  Speaker 8: on a website that describes a particular type of service,
• 30:38
  Speaker 8: you know, the evidence to show people that this is
• 30:41
  Speaker 8: out there in the marketplace as a source indicator. I
• 30:45
  Speaker 8: am not familiar with a product that Taylor has put
• 30:49
  Speaker 8: out using those particular catchphrases, but I don't know her
• 30:53
  Speaker 8: full suite, you know, I do know more so than
• 30:56
  Speaker 8: the traditional artist, she's she's a mogul in the sense
• 31:00
  Speaker 8: of she's got a lot of branded goods out there,
• 31:03
  Speaker 8: so if she can show it, it's possible. And I
• 31:06
  Speaker 8: don't know also for sure how you know, there's some
• 31:09
  Speaker 8: subjectivity into all of this.
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: You're going to have an examiner who's a person.
• 31:13
  Speaker 8: At the end of the day sitting in the trademark office,
• 31:16
  Speaker 8: and they are going to probably understand who Taylor Swift
• 31:21
  Speaker 8: is and what she's trying to do, and it's possible
• 31:24
  Speaker 8: that they may give her more deference than they perhaps
• 31:26
  Speaker 8: would to somebody else just trying to trademark their voice,
• 31:30
  Speaker 8: because you know, if she's trying to protect my understanding
• 31:33
  Speaker 8: is against deep fakes, you know, and the like, and.
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: They may they may give her some more deference there.
• 31:38
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 31:39
  Speaker 6: So suppose she does get it trademarked and she wants
• 31:42
  Speaker 6: to go against a deep fake, can she only go
• 31:45
  Speaker 6: against one.
• 31:46
  Speaker 5: Where these particular words are spoken?
• 31:49
  Speaker 8: Yes, So that is exactly you know, she's going to
• 31:52
  Speaker 8: get only the very specific marks. There's some like expanded
• 31:57
  Speaker 8: so you only register a specific class of goods. But
• 32:01
  Speaker 8: if it's sort of within the realm of a likely
• 32:03
  Speaker 8: extension of that, there's a little bit of leeway there,
• 32:06
  Speaker 8: a little bit of access, you know, if this is
• 32:08
  Speaker 8: something that naturally would be expanded upon. But it's going
• 32:11
  Speaker 8: to be limited to the mark, to the specific phrase
• 32:13
  Speaker 8: that she is registering.
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: It's not just generally my voice.
• 32:17
  Speaker 5: So then how far does that get her?
• 32:19
  Speaker 6: If you know, everyone is anticipating this is going to
• 32:22
  Speaker 6: be used to fight some of the deep fake AI.
• 32:25
  Speaker 6: So if it's just those two phrases, how far does
• 32:29
  Speaker 6: that get her?
• 32:30
  Speaker 5: Not very far?
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: That far? I mean, I don't know what's out there.
• 32:34
  Speaker 8: Perhaps you know, there have been some attempts already that
• 32:39
  Speaker 8: she might be aware of yeah, and she's doing what
• 32:42
  Speaker 8: she can as well. I would say, you know, look,
• 32:45
  Speaker 8: right of publicity. Unfortunately, we don't have a federal right
• 32:48
  Speaker 8: of publicity. You know, it's a patchwork of states. It's
• 32:52
  Speaker 8: not the best, you know, adding more.
• 32:54
  Speaker 2: To your potential arsenal.
• 32:56
  Speaker 8: You know, it's not that costly at all, relatively speaking,
• 33:00
  Speaker 8: to file a trademark application and go through the process.
• 33:04
  Speaker 8: I mean, if I were her, I would do everything
• 33:06
  Speaker 8: I could to add to my potential arsenal of things
• 33:10
  Speaker 8: that I could use to go against people.
• 33:12
  Speaker 2: So why not?
• 33:13
  Speaker 8: I think it also helps just to put it out there,
• 33:16
  Speaker 8: the pr and the press of the hey, I'm not
• 33:19
  Speaker 8: going to stand for this. Look at what I'm doing,
• 33:21
  Speaker 8: should kind of put the world on notice as well that,
• 33:24
  Speaker 8: you know, you might want to think twice before you
• 33:26
  Speaker 8: do a deep fake with Taylor Swift because she's she's
• 33:29
  Speaker 8: not into.
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: It, so you know, that helps.
• 33:31
  Speaker 8: And then there's also you know, the likeness aspect of
• 33:34
  Speaker 8: it as well. I don't know, but it seems like
• 33:37
  Speaker 8: some people might have tried to put images of her,
• 33:40
  Speaker 8: you know, saying these phrases looking a certain way and
• 33:43
  Speaker 8: manipulating them, and you know there probably was something out
• 33:46
  Speaker 8: there that they found that this might be you know,
• 33:49
  Speaker 8: reactionary too. So usually something happens and she's upset and
• 33:54
  Speaker 8: she calls her words, is.
• 33:55
  Speaker 7: What can we do?
• 33:56
  Speaker 8: And they say, okay, here's some ideas. So it's certainly
• 34:00
  Speaker 8: not going to be one hundred percent fool proof, but
• 34:02
  Speaker 8: can only help. And I think there is a big
• 34:05
  Speaker 8: thing to it it being out there as you can
• 34:07
  Speaker 8: see in the press, picking it up and putting the
• 34:09
  Speaker 8: world on notice. You know that she's ready to fight,
• 34:12
  Speaker 8: so that might be part of the strategy as well.
• 34:14
  Speaker 6: She has filed more than three hundred trademark applications in
• 34:18
  Speaker 6: the US alone, so I think this is.
• 34:20
  Speaker 5: Not unusual for her.
• 34:22
  Speaker 6: She's also trademarking a photo holding a pink guitar with
• 34:26
  Speaker 6: a black strap and wearing a multicolored irridescent body suit
• 34:30
  Speaker 6: with silver boots from one of her concerts, So then again,
• 34:34
  Speaker 6: it would only be that particular image that would be trademarked, correct.
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: I mean, with some leeway, you know a little bit.
• 34:43
  Speaker 8: I think if you change the color of the boots slightly,
• 34:45
  Speaker 8: you know it's still going to get picked up.
• 34:47
  Speaker 2: But it's a specific image. Then you have to look
• 34:50
  Speaker 2: at the.
• 34:50
  Speaker 8: Exact application and how she files it, you know, where
• 34:54
  Speaker 8: you make references to is she trying to get you know,
• 34:57
  Speaker 8: all of the colors or some of the colors. You
• 34:59
  Speaker 8: have to just the lines and then the depiction in
• 35:01
  Speaker 8: a certain way. And like there is some leeway for
• 35:04
  Speaker 8: things that are confusingly similar in nature, but it's not
• 35:08
  Speaker 8: a broad anything that resembles Taylor Swiat kind of thing.
• 35:12
  Speaker 7: You know.
• 35:12
  Speaker 8: Whoever creates the photos or the drawings, you know, photographers,
• 35:16
  Speaker 8: the copyright would best in them generally, but she's got
• 35:19
  Speaker 8: other avenues of protection. If people are using copyrighted photos
• 35:23
  Speaker 8: to make deep fakes.
• 35:25
  Speaker 6: And things like that, what generally happens is her lawyers
• 35:28
  Speaker 6: will send a cease and desist letter and I guess
• 35:31
  Speaker 6: they can put in it this is a trademarked image
• 35:34
  Speaker 6: or trademarked voice.
• 35:36
  Speaker 8: It just adds to the potential claims and the potential
• 35:39
  Speaker 8: damages you know, that they can ask for in the
• 35:42
  Speaker 8: cease and desist, and you know, gives them more ammunition
• 35:44
  Speaker 8: of you violated this law and that law and this
• 35:47
  Speaker 8: and you know, and the penalties and the remedies under
• 35:49
  Speaker 8: the Landman Act Federal are going to be you know,
• 35:51
  Speaker 8: some more substantial damages than just some of the patchwork,
• 35:55
  Speaker 8: depending what state we're in of the right of publicity claims.
• 35:58
  Speaker 8: So yeah, that could be much more scale as well
• 36:00
  Speaker 8: to a potential recipient when you see large numbers and
• 36:05
  Speaker 8: potential consequences, that you might just take it down. I
• 36:09
  Speaker 8: would be hard pressed that anybody if I got to
• 36:12
  Speaker 8: cease and desist from Taylor Swift's team, that I wouldn't
• 36:15
  Speaker 8: just take it down.
• 36:16
  Speaker 6: So yeah, I mean, I don't know how much more
• 36:20
  Speaker 6: they need in their legal arsenal, but every bit counts,
• 36:24
  Speaker 6: I guess.
• 36:25
  Speaker 8: Yeah, although I will say this is I mean, I've
• 36:28
  Speaker 8: seen this on every news network, so everybody's covering it.
• 36:32
  Speaker 8: I think it's also helpful in general for and maybe
• 36:34
  Speaker 8: this might be part of her thought process for all
• 36:38
  Speaker 8: celebrities and all artists, because not everybody is in a
• 36:41
  Speaker 8: position to be Taylor Swift, and so if she starts
• 36:45
  Speaker 8: to set a precedent that other people can follow suit with,
• 36:49
  Speaker 8: it further strengthens the position of all celebrities to say,
• 36:54
  Speaker 8: you know, we're looking for avenues, and perhaps it starts
• 36:57
  Speaker 8: to impact those in the lawmaking as well.
• 37:00
  Speaker 2: You know, we've been we've been looking for some more protections.
• 37:03
  Speaker 8: At AI develops to say, you know, we need some
• 37:07
  Speaker 8: strength that you know, we need to have some precedent created,
• 37:10
  Speaker 8: and whether that comes through the courts or whether that
• 37:12
  Speaker 8: comes through the legislatures for essentially famous people not to
• 37:17
  Speaker 8: have AI use their name, image, likeness, voice, what not
• 37:21
  Speaker 8: to imply endorsement of things that they don't endorse or
• 37:26
  Speaker 8: you know, I think there's some pornographic things that happen
• 37:28
  Speaker 8: as well.
• 37:29
  Speaker 3: And all of that.
• 37:30
  Speaker 8: Her kind of getting out in front of this I
• 37:32
  Speaker 8: think helps everybody else who's in a similar vook. Granted
• 37:36
  Speaker 8: it's only going to help celebrities who probably you know, but.
• 37:40
  Speaker 2: There are different tiers of celebrities.
• 37:42
  Speaker 8: I will say, you know, kudos for to her and
• 37:45
  Speaker 8: getting getting ahead of it. And ultimately the goal of
• 37:49
  Speaker 8: trademarkt all that you know, is to prevent confusion in
• 37:52
  Speaker 8: the marketplace from from consumers not knowing if Taylor is
• 37:55
  Speaker 8: really endorsing something or not.
• 37:57
  Speaker 2: So it's a good step and even if it's not enough, it.
• 38:01
  Speaker 6: Helps adding some more ammunition to those ce syn desist letters.
• 38:05
  Speaker 6: Thanks so much, Cynthia. That's Cynthia Katz of Fox Rothschild,
• 38:10
  Speaker 6: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
• 38:12
  Speaker 6: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
• 38:15
  Speaker 6: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 38:19
  Speaker 6: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law.
• 38:25
  Speaker 6: I'm June Grosso. Stay with us. Today's top stories and
• 38:29
  Speaker 6: global business headlines are coming up right now