![Digital concept of data flow](https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/media/images/nrf/hero/digital-concept-flow-lights.jpg?w=265&revision=&revision=4611686018427387904&hash=1DBB7BD88F7D40EFEAB403B51B115D8F)
Publication
L’IA générative
L’intelligence artificielle (IA) soulève de nombreuses questions en matière de propriété intellectuelle (PI).
Data security concerns have increased in the past several years, as hacking, corporate espionage and data breaches are on the rise around the globe. Third-party attacks are becoming not only more sophisticated but also larger in scale. Law firms, legal matters, litigation and produced data remain high-profile targets for cyber-attacks. As discussed in a previous article, producing parties remain vulnerable to the risk that even if they adequately protect data in their own systems, third parties may steal data from the requesting parties’ systems.
Parties and counsel who receive data in litigation have an obligation to take reasonable steps to protect that data. See The Sedona Principles, Third Edition: Best Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production, 19 Sedona Conf. J. 1, 179 (2018); see also William LaRosa, Note, New Legal Problems, Old Legal Solutions: Bailment Theory As A Baseline Data Security Standard of Care Owed to Opponent’s Data In E-Discovery, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2019). Moreover, “[a] requesting party inherits the data privacy and protection obligations that come with the ESI it receives, including the responsibilities that arise from the loss of that information.” The Sedona Principles at 179, n. 147.
Thus, the question is not whether a receiving party has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect data, but what is reasonable and proportionate in the context of the matters. While a receiving party could attempt to address security concerns unilaterally without reaching an agreement with opposing parties, this is a risky strategy. First, they may not know the value of the data they are receiving and, therefore, not know whether their efforts to secure the data are sufficient. Second, reaching agreements with the opposing party in advance of production provides greater certainty as to what is reasonable and prevents the parties from imposing security standards after the fact. Third, and finally, producing parties may not be able to actually produce information without having certain data security and breach notice requirements in place.
Publication
L’intelligence artificielle (IA) soulève de nombreuses questions en matière de propriété intellectuelle (PI).
Publication
Depuis 2022, le gouvernement du Canada a apporté trois vagues de modifications à la Loi sur la concurrence (Loi), apportant des modifications importantes aux lois canadiennes sur la concurrence, les plus récentes modifications ayant reçu la sanction royale le 20 juin 2024. Notre publication sur toutes les modifications se trouve ici.
Publication
Les systèmes d’IA générative sont entraînés au moyen de gros volumes de données, souvent tirées de sources du domaine public qui peuvent être protégées par le droit d’auteur ou d’autres droits de propriété intellectuelle, comme un droit sur les bases de données au Royaume-Uni et dans l’UE.
Abonnez-vous et restez à l’affût des nouvelles juridiques, informations et événements les plus récents...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023