Intellectual Property, Information Technology & Cybersecurity


Author: Simon Stokes

Simon Stokes a partner specialising in technology and IP considers the legal issues surrounding the burgeoning field of AI-generated works.

The first sale of an AI art work by a major auction house (Christie's New York) raised eyebrows last month. The AI generated portrait of the fictitious “Edmond de Belamy, from La Famille de Belamy” was sold for $432,500 - far above its expected price of $7,000 to $10,000 – its description by Christie’s is as follows: “generative Adversarial Network print, on canvas, 2018, signed with GAN model loss function in ink by the publisher, from a series of eleven unique images, published by Obvious Art, Paris, with original gilded wood frame S. 27 ½ x 27 ½ in (700 x 700 mm.)”

Read more: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Art: An IP Conundrum?


Author: Yesim Tokgoz

Trademarks are the vehicles that are used to differentiate companies one from the other. They help to capture the consumers' attention. It is essential and necessary to protect trademarks that are created and improved with capital and effort, from unrightful use by third parties, and to prevent the encroachment of trademarks through confusion. One of the most efficient functions of intellectual property law is to encumber imitations, and to halt improper benefit by using the popularity of the trademarks to their consumers. On the other hand, in our daily lives, we often see trademarks that are similar, and may wonder how they co-exist at the same time. In this article, we will shed light on the reasons why similar trademarks can be registered, the criteria that cause trademark confusion, and the remedies to prevent and/or remove these infringements.

Read more: Possibilities and the Results of Trademark Confusion


Author: Ben Evans

The Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") handed down its first copyright judgment of 2018 this week.
The outcome of the case, Renckhoff, C161/17 wasn't a surprise to many although it went against the somewhat controversial opinion of Advocate General Campos Sanchez-Bardona (the CJEU almost always follow the AG's opinion, but not on this occasion).

Read more: CJEU: unauthorised re-posting of an image can be infringement


Authors: Tim Clark and Andrew Barling

In our earlier article ‘Data Breach Response Planning: Getting Down to Business’ we referred to the introduction of a mandatory new Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme in Australia and outlined some steps organisations could take to prepare. The changes were introduced by the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Act 2017 (Cth). The new law requires entities covered by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to notify both the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and affected individuals of any data breach in respect of personal information they hold where the breach is likely to result in serious harm.

Read more: Update on Australia’s Notifiable Data Breaches scheme


Author: Simon Stokes

As a no-deal Brexit becomes a distinct possibility the UK government is to start producing guidance to deal with this eventuality. However when it comes to data protection and the cross border flow of personal data – critical to the UK economy – the UK's options in absence of a deal with the EU which expressly addresses data protection are very limited. And this is a crucial issue for our digitally driven economy – cross border data flows in and out of the UK increased 28 fold between 2005 and 2015 and are expected to grow another five times by 2021. Three-quarters of these flows are estimated to be with EU countries.

Read more: Time to prepare for data limbo? A no-deal Brexit and its impact on cross-border data flows