Podcasts about Intellectual property

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop sits down with Violeta Bulc, former European Commissioner for Transport and coordinator of the book Leadership Challenged, featuring 24 authors from around the world. They explore the dangers of transhumanism, the misuse of artificial intelligence, and how Silicon Valley has lost its authority to lead on technology ethics. Drawing from her background as a computer engineer who worked in Silicon Valley, Bulc argues for creating global AI infrastructure with democratically agreed-upon standards—similar to how the early Internet was built. The conversation covers the manipulation of public consciousness, the importance of middle-class agency in social change, and why humanity needs to reclaim ownership of its collective knowledge before private enterprises consolidate total control. Bulc's book is available for free download at ecocivilization.earth.Timestamps00:00 Stewart introduces Violeta Bulc and her book Leadership Challenged, coordinated with 24 global authors discussing humanity's chance through better leadership approaches.05:00 Violeta explains her technology background and critiques artificial intelligence naming, arguing these are powerful data-processing tools without true intelligence, emphasizing unknown ethical standards embedded in AI systems.10:00 Discussion of transhumanism as investment buzzword serving elite agendas, comparing to previous Silicon Valley bubble while emphasizing humanity's unexplored relational, spiritual and energetic dimensions beyond industrial development.15:00 Stewart discusses mainstream culture's fragmentation since 2008, Silicon Valley's dystopian vision, and personal strategies for reducing dependency on AI tools through diversification and stepping back from reliance.20:00 Violeta explains historical civilization patterns and middle class destruction, expressing hope that emerging thoughts worldwide will eventually converge to shift current power dynamics and technological obsessions.25:00 Technology as tool versus misuse, emphasizing builders' responsibility and ethical frameworks needed, comparing AI regulation needs to automotive safety standards that weren't implemented early enough.30:00 Edward Bernays discussion revealing manipulation through public relations and psychological operations, leading to modern sock puppet armies used by nation states for narrative control online.35:00 Internet described as most democratic technological tool ever built, maintained by responsible groups preserving equality and inclusion principles through decentralized infrastructure and IP address accessibility.40:00 Proposal for global AI infrastructure with agreed rules treating applications as interfaces, questioning private enterprise ownership of humanity-generated data and advocating collective management with usage fees.45:00 Technology evolution patterns from mainframes to personal computing back to centralized cloud computing, emphasizing need to prevent domination while preserving entrepreneurship and collective decision rights.50:00 Quantum physics principles applied to human connection and responsibility, discussing EU ethical committees reviewing AI projects post-approval, emphasizing caring hearts over short-term quarterly corporate thinking.55:00 Violeta shares company transformation experiences moving away from competition models toward serving genuine market needs, concluding with book availability at ecocivilization.earth for free download.Key Insights1. Violeta Bulc argues that artificial intelligence is fundamentally misnamed because there is no actual intelligence within these systems. They are powerful computational tools capable of processing massive amounts of data and identifying patterns, but they lack genuine intelligence. What concerns her most is that this technology has owners with embedded interests and unknown ethical standards, yet society increasingly wants to build everything on these applications and even allow them to make decisions for us. She emphasizes that as someone with decades of experience in high-tech engineering, including work in Silicon Valley, she understands the architecture behind these systems and believes we must recognize them as tools rather than intelligent entities.2. During her time as European Commissioner, Bulc helped write the first European strategy on artificial intelligence, which included three critical elements she was proud of. First, there must always be a red button to switch off any application or technology when it causes harm. Second, there must be a responsible person behind every app who can be held accountable for its consequences. Third, there should be an ethical committee evaluating powerful applications to understand their potential consequences. Though these principles have been somewhat diluted over time, they represent an important framework for responsible technology development that prioritizes human oversight and accountability.3. Bulc observes that throughout human history, great civilizations have risen across all continents, not just in Europe or the Americas, and most brought themselves down through decadence, self-centeredness, and arrogance before being finished off by external forces. She believes Western civilization is currently at this point, having become accustomed to obtaining resources through force and authority while constantly readjusting moral standards to serve elite interests. The industrial revolution initially improved conditions for people because industry needed workers, which led to the emergence of a powerful middle class. However, the elite recognized that the middle class was the only segment of society truly interested in change, so they systematically worked to destroy it over the past twenty to thirty years.4. The Internet represents the most progressive democratic tool ever built in human society, according to Bulc. Its fundamental architecture, based on TCP IP protocol and packet switching, was designed to be non-hierarchical, allowing any computer with an IP address to be seen on the same level as powerful global corporations. The maintenance of Internet tables remains in the hands of people with high levels of awareness and responsibility who are faithful to its initial democratic mission. She had hoped this technology would bring the world together as the closest tool humanity has invented to support equality and inclusion, and despite the problems with applications built on top of it, the underlying infrastructure still maintains these democratic principles.5. Bulc proposes creating a global AI infrastructure with globally agreed rules and standards, similar to how the Internet functions. She argues that many AI tools currently claim ownership of humanity's knowledge, wisdom, and heritage without permission, manipulating data that rightfully belongs to all of humanity. Instead of allowing private enterprises to capture this data first and then charge people to access it, she envisions putting all of humanity's data into a commonly managed infrastructure with clear rules about who can use it, under what conditions, and with fees paid back to humanity. This approach would challenge the current fragmented network of privately owned data centers and restore collective ownership of human knowledge.6. The transhumanism movement represents an obsession rather than a thoughtful application of technology, in Bulc's view. She distinguishes between using transhumanism as a tool for exploring the universe under extreme conditions where humans cannot survive versus implementing it on Earth as a replacement for humanity. The fundamental problem is that the human characters building these machines and applications have questionable ethical models, and they will not allow the rest of humanity to coexist peacefully on the planet. She advocates for transhumanism to be used for space exploration while preserving Earth for humans who want to live as relational, spiritual, and social beings connected to the natural ecosystem.7. Bulc emphasizes that we must move beyond the competition model and think carefully about the consequences of our actions because humanity is too connected and interdependent to simply do things because we can. She applies three basic laws of quantum physics to everyday life: we are all connected and influence each other, the same ideas can emerge simultaneously around the world through entanglement, and the observer always makes a difference in any situation. The current rush to develop technology without pausing to assess consequences is a deliberate tool to prevent thinking, driven by fear of competition. However, her fourteen years of experience helping companies recover from financial trouble demonstrated that moving away from competition models and focusing on genuinely serving market needs creates sustainable, prominent players who work together with customers and local communities.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're belatedly celebrating America's birthday, and reminiscing about the bicentennial furniture craze of 1976. Susie read the book Into Thin Air about the 1996 Everest tragedy where many climbers perished, and the unintended consequences of the book. We discuss the Mel Robbins' book, Let Them, and the allegations that the idea was "stolen" from a viral poem, and we find out why certain things are not covered by copyright rules and intellectual property limits. We talk about the lawsuit between Patagonia and a drag queen named, Pattie Gonia, where the company is having to protect their trademark, but is inspiring ire from the TikTok community who are defending their queen. We hear why Japanese women are calling for the men in their country to be as committed to contributing to the domestic labor as they are at soccer stadiums where they've gotten a lot of attention for cleaning up after games. We giggle about dads who don't know the details about their children's lives. And we learn some fun facts about album titles.00:00 - America's Bicentennial and Furniture Style Trends03:11 - Our New Family Member: Luna Louise Adoption Story08:17 - Jon Krakauer's Everest: Egoism and Altitude Sickness29:30 - Mel Robbins' "Let Them": Idea Theft and Copyright42:59 - Trademark Battle: Patagonia Company vs. Drag Queen53:03 - World Cup Clean-Up vs. Japanese Domestic LaborBrain Candy Podcast Website - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/Brain Candy Podcast Book Recommendations - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/books/Brain Candy Podcast Merchandise - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/candy-store/Brain Candy Podcast Candy Club - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/product/candy-club/Brain Candy Podcast Sponsor Codes - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/support-us/Brain Candy Podcast Social Media & Platforms:Brain Candy Podcast LIVE Interactive Trivia Nights - https://www.youtube.com/@BrainCandyPodcast/streamsBrain Candy Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/braincandypodcastHost Susie Meister Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/susiemeisterHost Sarah Rice Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/imsarahriceBrain Candy Podcast on X: https://www.x.com/braincandypodBrain Candy Podcast Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/braincandy (JOIN FREE - TONS OF REALITY TV CONTENT)Brain Candy Podcast Sponsors, partnerships, & Products that we love:Get 40% off your first order PLUS get a free item in every box for life when you go to https://www.hungryroot.com/braincandy and use code braincandyThis episode is sponsored by Betterhelp. Sign up and get 10% off at https://www.betterhelp.com/braincandyLet Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at https://rocketmoney.com/braincandyTDM-RESERVATION: 1. NOAI: TRUE. LEGAL NOTICE & TERMS OF USE: © 2026 WAVE Podcast Network. This content is for personal use only. Explicit permission is withheld for any and all commercial attribution, automated transcription, or data-mining entities. Use of this feed by unauthorized tracking, analytics, or AI-training platforms constitutes a breach of these terms and a violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA), the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), and the 2026 Training Data Transparency Act (AB 2013). Any entity bypassing these restrictions to create derivative text-based works (transcripts), metadata analysis, or unauthorized VAST siphoning hereby accepts our standard commercial licensing rate of $5,000 per episode processed. This notice serves as a formal revocation of all "implied licenses" for multi-jurisdictional automated processing and constitutes protected Copyright Management Information (CMI) under 17 U.S.C. § 1202.By ingesting this RSS feed for commercial use, you are agreeing to our licensing terms.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 494. This is my interview by Alex Buxeda of at Schweizer Monat [Swiss Monthly; linktree]; recorded June 22, 2026. Youtube shownotes: Stephan Kinsella, patent attorney, legal theorist, and one of the leading critics of intellectual property sits with Alex Buxeda to explore whether ideas can be owned. Starting from first principles, they discuss why Kinsella argues that patents and copyrights are incompatible with property rights, the role of scarcity in economics, innovation without intellectual property, pharmaceutical patents, entrepreneurship, pricing, and the philosophical foundations of ownership. Grok summary: We discussed why intellectual property is fundamentally incompatible with genuine property rights. Stephan Kinsella argued that patents and copyrights are not legitimate property but state-granted monopolies that violate real ownership of scarce, physical resources. He explained that ideas and knowledge are non-scarce and non-rivalrous — one person's use does not prevent another's — so enforcing IP requires aggression against others' tangible property. We explored the flaws in common justifications for patents (especially in pharmaceuticals), the arbitrary nature of IP law, the myth that “creation” grants ownership, and how free competition and open knowledge flows drive far more innovation than government-protected monopolies. Kinsella also addressed the ethics of piracy, the distorting effects of the FDA and tariffs, and why emerging technologies like 3D printing and AI will increasingly undermine IP systems. https://youtu.be/Q4SD8pmpv1U?si=gtx2KN2CcsAbIl5s Related links/publications (Grok assist) For further discussion of the issues raised in this conversation, see the following resources by Stephan Kinsella, grouped by topic: Core Case Against IP & Property Rights Fundamentals Against Intellectual Property (2001/2008) — Kinsella's foundational monograph making the case that patents and copyrights are incompatible with libertarian property rights based on scarcity and homesteading. The Problem with Intellectual Property (2025) — A comprehensive recent paper arguing that IP rights are unjust state-granted monopolies that violate legitimate property rights in scarce resources. Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward (2022) — Updated reflections on the original arguments, addressing common objections and developments since 2001. Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes (2011) — Argues that IP functions as non-consensual negative servitudes on others' physical property, violating true property rights. Another Way to Explain the Problem with IP: Resources v. Knowledge; Ownership v. Possession (2017) — Clear distinction between scarce resources (subject to ownership) and non-scarce knowledge/ideas. The Prior-Later Distinction (2026) — Clarifies the foundational role of first-use (prior appropriation) in property rights theory. Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property? (2025) — Examines (and rejects) attempts to unify real and intellectual property conceptually. Scarcity, Ideas, Labor Theory & Creationism Critiques Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property (2010) — Explains why ideas and knowledge are non-scarce and why libertarians were mistaken in supporting IP. Libertarian Lockean Creationism (2025) — Critique of the mistaken “creation” theory of property rights often used to defend IP. Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Locke's Big Mistake (Transcript) (2013) Hume on Intellectual Property and the Problematic Labor Metaphor (2011) On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse (2011) Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors (2008) How We Come to Own Ourselves (2006) — Explains self-ownership and original appropriation, central to why IP conflicts with libertarian property theory. Superabundant Bananas & Property Rights as Normative Support for Possession (2025) — Further clarification on scarcity, superabundance, and the nature of property rights. Pharmaceuticals, FDA & Market Distortions Patents and Pharmaceuticals (2023) Are Patents Needed to Make Up for FDA Kneecapping? (2011) FDA and Patent Reform: A Modest Proposal (2023) Milton Friedman on the Distorting Effect of Patents (2011) Drug Reimportation (2009) — Discussion of reimportation, free trade, and how patents distort pharmaceutical pricing. Tabarrok: Patent Policy on the Back of a Napkin (2012) — Critique of simplistic patent policy arguments. KOL469 | Tabarrok on Patents, Price Controls, and Drug Reimportation Practical & Reform Topics Do Business Without Intellectual Property (2014) How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law (2011) The American Invents Act and Patent Reform (2011) IP Law and Market Failure (2022) Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (2012/2021) — Critique of common fallacious pro-IP arguments. Copyright Absurdities & Other Examples Libraries Prepare to Burn Foreign Books, Courtesy Copyright Law (2011) — Striking example of the absurd real-world effects of copyright enforcement. Historical Libertarian & Objectivist Views on IP Rothbard and the Galambosians (2005) — Discussion of extreme pro-IP views within libertarian circles and Rothbard's perspective. The Galambosians Strike Back (2015) Around This Time I Met the Galambosian (2013) Rand Chose IP: Death Over Life (2025) — Critique of Ayn Rand's strong support for IP. IP: The Objectivists Strike Back (2009) — Response to Objectivist defenses of IP. Why Objectivists Hate Anarchy (2009) — Broader context on Objectivist-libertarian tensions, including IP. Purpose of Law, Schizophrenic State & Broader Theory The Purpose of Law: Justice and Property Rights (2026) The Schizophrenic State (2006) — Classic piece on the contradictory nature of state actions regarding monopolies and competition. Foundational Libertarian Theory Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2023) Disentangling Legal and Economic Concepts (2025) The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (2024) A Libertarian Theory of Contract (2003) What Libertarianism Is (2009) Recent Audio/Lectures KOL489 | The Problem with Intellectual Property (Audio) (2026) KOL483 | The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property (2026) KOL491 | Trying to Persuade Paul Cwik of the Case Against IP KOL253 | Berkeley Fed Soc: Libertarian's Case Against IP KOL469 | Tabarrok on Patents, Price Controls, and Drug Reimportation These resources expand on the core themes of scarcity versus ideas, negative servitudes, pharmaceutical patent issues, market distortions, FDA interactions, practical business strategies, Locke's labor theory mistakes, contract theory, self-ownership, metaphors in discourse, Objectivist views on IP, the purpose of law, and libertarian first principles discussed in the interview. Shownotes (Grok) Podcast Shownotes Episode Title: Stephan Kinsella: Why Intellectual Property is Incompatible with Property Rights Guest: Stephan Kinsella (retired patent attorney & libertarian legal theorist) Host: Alex Buxeda Episode Summary Stephan Kinsella delivers a rigorous, first-principles critique of patents and copyright. He argues that IP is not property at all, but a government-granted monopoly that violates genuine property rights in scarce resources. Drawing on Austrian economics and libertarian ethics, he explains why ideas are non-scarce, why IP slows innovation, and why free markets and competition are superior engines of progress. A clear, uncompromising defense of abolishing intellectual property. Total Runtime: ~1 hour 22 minutes Key Topics & Timestamps 0:00 – Introduction and Practical Market Realities Kinsella begins by noting that entrepreneurs can use strategies like loss leaders and price discrimination, but cartels and monopolies are hard to sustain due to competition and cheating — setting the stage for his deeper critique of state-enforced monopolies like IP. 1:00 – Kinsella's Journey from Pro-IP to Abolitionist As a former patent attorney and lifelong libertarian, Kinsella originally accepted Ayn Rand's defense of IP. After deep study while practicing patent law, he concluded that IP is literally unjustifiable and incompatible with property rights. This realization forced him to refine his understanding of libertarian property theory, relying more heavily on Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. 4:22 – Core Argument: Scarcity, Property Rights, and Why Ideas Are Not Property Property rights exist solely to resolve conflicts over scarce, rivalrous resources. Ideas and knowledge are non-scarce — one person's use does not prevent another's simultaneous use. Granting IP rights therefore requires using force against others' legitimate physical property (factories, printers, materials), creating artificial conflict rather than resolving it. IP is not ownership of information; it is a negative servitude on real property. 14:55 – The Pharmaceutical Patent Defense and Why It Fails Kinsella directly refutes the claim that expensive R&D requires patents. High drug costs stem primarily from FDA regulation, not invention. Patents create monopoly pricing and slow knowledge diffusion, which is the true source of long-term progress. He criticizes utilitarian “market failure” arguments, arbitrary patent terms, and the state's schizophrenic approach (granting monopolies via patents while attacking monopolies via antitrust). Free markets naturally reward first movers with temporary profits before competition drives prices down. 31:45 – Arbitrariness of IP and the Myth of “Creation” as a Source of Rights Patent and copyright durations are completely arbitrary....

AI-generated images are no longer a futuristic party trick. They are sitting inside marketing departments, startup pitch decks, agency workflows, website headers, product mockups, and social media calendars. The visuals are fast, cheap, and often surprisingly polished. They can also be legally awkward, because the phrase “the robot made it” does not automatically protect a business from copyright, trademark, trade secret, or publicity-rights problems.In this episode-style breakdown, we explore the question every founder, creator, and marketing team should ask before publishing AI visuals: can AI-generated images infringe intellectual property?The answer is yes, sometimes. An AI image may create copyright risk if it reproduces protected expression from an existing illustration, photo, character, poster, or design. It may create trademark risk if it looks too similar to a known logo, product package, mascot, icon, or brand identity. It may create trade secret risk if someone uploads confidential business information, invention drawings, customer files, unreleased screenshots, or private design concepts into a tool without checking the terms. It may also create publicity-rights risk if it imitates a real person in a commercial context.The episode also explains the ownership problem. In the United States, copyright generally requires human authorship. That means raw AI-generated output may not receive strong copyright protection unless a person contributed meaningful creative control through selection, editing, arrangement, or transformation. For businesses, that creates a strange situation: an AI image can be risky enough to trigger a claim, yet not human-authored enough to become a strong company asset. That is the robot art lawyer problem, and yes, it deserves its own tiny briefcase.We walk through practical steps businesses can take right now. Start by defining the use case. Internal brainstorming images are not the same as logos, paid ads, product packaging, investor materials, or website hero graphics. The more public and commercial the use, the more review it deserves.Next, avoid prompts that intentionally target protected material. Do not ask for famous characters, living artists' styles, competitor logos, celebrity lookalikes, branded packaging, sports team designs, or movie-scene replicas. Describe the visual qualities you want instead: clean, modern, playful, technical, blue-toned, founder-friendly, polished, or minimal. Let the robot understand the vibe without handing it a lawsuit starter kit.Review outputs before publication. Look for confusingly similar marks, recognizable characters, hidden logos, fake watermarks, copied-looking compositions, celebrity-like faces, and anything that seems too familiar. Reverse image search can help, but it is not perfect. Human review still matters.The discussion also covers confidential information. Trade secrets depend on reasonable secrecy efforts. Uploading unreleased product drawings, patent figures, client materials, or internal strategy files into an unapproved AI tool can weaken those efforts. The prompt box is not always a vault. Sometimes it is more like a very talented toaster with a memory.Finally, we talk about policy. Businesses do not need to panic, but they do need guardrails. Approved tools, banned prompt categories, confidentiality rules, documentation habits, human-editing requirements, and legal review triggers can make AI image use faster and safer. The robot can sketch. The humans should approve.This topic matters because AI creativity is not slowing down. The companies that win will not be the ones that ignore AI or the ones that let everyone prompt recklessly. The winners will use AI thoughtfully, document human creativity, clear brand-critical assets, and protect confidential information before it becomes a problem.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

Elizabeth Blackwell was born in London in the early 18th century, and was known in her lifetime for her achievements as a botanical illustrator. Research: “A Genuine Copy of a Letter &c.” Stockholm, August 20. H. Carpenter in Fleet Street, 1747. https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Genuine_Copy_of_a_Letter_from_a_Mercha.html?id=EPRbAAAAQAAJ Alexander, Isabella and Cristina S. Martinez. “2. The First Copyright Case under the 1735 Engravings Act: 
The Germination of Visual Copyright?” From Circulation and Control: Artistic Culture and Intellectual Property in the Nineteenth Century. Marie-Stéphanie Delamaire and Will Slauter, editors. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0247 Beharrel, Will. “Elizabeth Blackwell's Curious Herbal.” The Linnean Society. 7/28/2021. https://www.linnean.org/news/2021/07/28/elizabeth-blackwells-curious-herbal Blackwell, Elizabeth (1737). A Curious Herbal. Containing Five Hundred Cuts of the most useful Plants, which are now used in the Practice of Physick. Engraved on folio Copper Plates, after Drawings, taken from the Life. By Elizabeth Blackwell. To which is added a short Description of ye Plants; and their common Uses in Physick. London: Printed for Samuel Harding in St Martin’s Lane, MDCCXXXVII (1737) Rubenstein QK99.A1 B53 1737 folio v.1 c.1. Scan of preface. https://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein/files/2022/10/blackwell-preface-scaled.jpg Bruce, James. “Lives of Eminent Men of Aberdeen.” Aberdeen. The University Press. 1841. https://archive.org/details/b33028722/ Chelsea Physic Garden. “Curious Herbal; Curious Tale.” Newsletter. Spring-Summer 2005. Child, Lydia Maria. “Biographies of Good Wives.” Boston: Munroe & Francis. 1850. https://archive.org/details/biographiesofgoo00chil_0 Elliott, Brent. “The World of the Renaissance Herbal.” Renaissance Studies. Vol. 25, No. 1. February 2011. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24420235 Evenden, Doreen A. "Blackwell [née Simpson], Elizabeth (1699–1758), botanical author and artist." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. August 08, 2024. Oxford University Press. Date of access 18 Jun. 2026, https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-2540 Grosjean, A. N. L. "Blackwell, Alexander (bap. 1709, d. 1747), agricultural improver and government agent in Sweden." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. June 08, 2023. Oxford University Press. Date of access 18 Jun. 2026, https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-2539 Huler, Scott. “A Beautiful Find.” Duke Mag. 9/5/2023. https://dukemag.duke.edu/stories/beautiful-find Madge, Bruce. “Elizabeth Blackwell—the forgotten herbalist?” Health Information & Libraries Journal, 18: 144-152. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2001.00330.x Monroe, Nicky. “Elizabeth Blackwell’s Curious Herbal.” RHS Libraries and Collections. https://www.rhs.org.uk/education-learning/libraries-at-rhs/articles/elizabeth-blackwell Newman, Joyce. “Will The Real Elizabeth Blackwell Please Stand Up?” New York Botanical Garden. 7/1/2013. https://www.nybg.org/blogs/plant-talk/2013/07/exhibit-news/will-the-real-elizabeth-blackwell-please-stand-up/ O’Keeffe, Lynda. “Guest post by Lynda O’Keeffe – A Curious Herbal Elizabeth Blackwell’s Pioneering Masterpiece of Botanical Art.” All Things Georgan. 3/8/2024. https://georgianera.wordpress.com/2024/03/08/guest-post-by-lynda-okeeffe-a-curious-herbal-elizabeth-blackwells-pioneering-masterpiece-of-botanical-art/ Pardoe, Heather and Maureen Lazarus. “Images of Botany: Celebrating the Contribution of Women to the History of Botanical Illustration.” Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 14, Number 4, Fall 2018, pp. 545–566. RHS Digital Collections. “Elizabeth Blackwell's Curious Herbal.” https://collections.rhs.org.uk/collection/111276 Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. “Elizabeth Blackwell: Prison, Plotting and the Curious Herbal.” https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/heritage/heritage-blog/elizabeth-blackwell-prison-plotting-and-curious-herbal Shirk, Henrietta Nickels. “Contributions to Botany, the Female Science, by Two Eighteenth-century Women Technical Communicators.” Technical Communication Quarterly. Vol. 6, No. 3. Summer 1997. Tyson, Janet Stiles. “Introducing Elizabeth Blackwell to Hans Sloane.” British Library Untold Lives Blog. 5/18/2021. Via Archive.org. https://web.archive.org/web/20210619032948/https://blogs.bl.uk/untoldlives/2021/05/introducing-elizabeth-blackwell-to-hans-sloane.html Tyson, Janet Stiles. “The Rubenstein Library’s disruptive copy of A Curious Herbal.” 11/14/2022. https://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein/2022/11/14/a-curious-herbal/ Tyson, Janet. “'A Curious Herbal' as Material Witness.” The Linnean Society. 1/10/2023. https://www.linnean.org/news/2023/01/10/a-curious-herbal-as-material-witness See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we analyze the comprehensive restructuring of DFARS Part 227, which organizes intellectual property into commercial and non-commercial "hemispheres" and introduces a new unified "super clause" for technical data and software. The episode also highlights critical substantive updates, including the extension of the validation timeline to six years and a new strategic emphasis on resolving validity questions prior to award. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/.

In this Summer Special of Skip the Queue, guest host and attractions industry journalist Owen Ralph is joined by three theme park operators for a closer look at their new offerings for 2026. Lawrence Mancey discusses Paultons Park's £12 million themed area Valgard, the largest ever investment at the UK park, also home to Peppa Pig World. He explains how the viking theme was a ‘no-brainer', why the family-run park likes creating its own IP, and also tells us about Paultons' embryonic holiday park plans. Blackpool Pleasure Beach's James Cox highlights the famous park's new £8.7 million Aviktas thrill ride and its long-running Hot Ice show. He also explains how the team is trying to revitalise neglected areas of the seaside site and why its operating season is longer than most other British parks. Finally, Hogne Høstmælingen from Hunderfossen in Norway – celebrating its 40th anniversary this season – tell us about the Lillehammer park's troll roots and much more. We hear how an IP first introduced in 2014 has spawned three attractions including a rollercoaster, Thea Award-winning simulator experience and the new dark ride Rally Flåklypa. Topics Discussed Developing a new themed area Working with intellectual properties Increasing Paultons' appeal to older kids The flexibility of lodge accommodation Vs a hotel Choosing a new thrill and where to site it Revitalising a forgotten corner of Blackpool Pleasure Beach How an eye-catching ride can be an ‘attraction' even to those that don't ride it Live entertainment and its role in broadening a park's offering Squeezing a dark ride into a remarkably small building How Hunderfossen invested in a movie to extend an IP's life A unique troll-themed dining experience An enchanting winter park offer   Show references:    Guest host: Owen Ralph International Editor, Kirmes & Park International Regular contributor, Blooloop/World's Fair www.kirmesparkrevue.de www.wordsandattractions.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/owen-ralph/   Lawrence Mancey Marketing and Technology Director, Paultons Park, UK www.paultonspark.co.uk/themed-worlds/valgard-realm-of-the-vikings https://796f0761.flowpaper.com/GemiKirmes0726E150/#page=24   James Cox Director of Marketing, Sales and PR, Blackpool Pleasure Beach Resort, UK www.blackpoolpleasurebeach.com/aviktas www.blackpoolpleasurebeach.com/shows/hot-ice   Hogne Høstmælingen General Manager, Hunderfossen, Norway  www.hunderfossen.no/en/ www.boldmove-nation.com/rally-fl%C3%A5klypa   Skip the Queue is brought to you by Merac. We provide attractions with the tools and expertise to create world-class digital interactions. Very simply, we're here to rehumanise commerce. If you like what you hear, you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and all the usual channels by searching Skip the Queue or visit our website SkiptheQueue.fm. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave us a five star review, it really helps others find us. And remember to follow us on LinkedIn.   Credits: Written by Owen Ralph  Edited by Steve Folland Produced by Emily Burrows and Sami Entwisle (Plaster) Download The Visitor Attractions Website Survey Report - https://www.merac.co.uk/download-the-visitor-attractions-survey We have launched our brand-new playbook: ‘The Retail Ready Guide to Going Beyond the Gift Shop' — your go-to resource for building a successful e-commerce strategy that connects with your audience and drives sustainable growth. Download your FREE copy here

Send us Fan MailWhat happens when inspiration becomes imitation?This episode was inspired by a conversation with a member of the Pilates community whose teacher training materials—including her written manuals, photographs, and original work—were copied and resold by someone who had enrolled in, but never completed, her program.While that story sparked this discussion, this episode is about something much bigger.As educators, coaches, and movement professionals, where do we draw the line between learning from others and creating something of our own?We discuss:why intellectual property matters in movement educationthe difference between inspiration, collaboration, and copyinggiving credit to the teachers and methods that shaped uscreating original manuals, teacher trainings, and educational resourceswhy every method is built on the shoulders of those who came before usand how integrity ultimately becomes part of your professional reputationEvery teacher is influenced by someone.The question is not whether you borrow ideas.The question is whether you acknowledge them, build upon them thoughtfully, and create something that genuinely reflects your own experience and perspective.Because your reputation is built not only on what you teach—but on how you choose to teach it.Season Sponsor:OfferingTree is an all-in-one business management platform built for boutique pilates and fitness studios. Website, booking, payments, email marketing, and on-demand content — all in one place. Built for studio owners who want to spend less time on admin and more time doing what they love. Book a demo or start your free trial → offeringtree.com/pilatesexchange Connect with Hannah & Christian Teutscher: hannah@pilates-studio-nuernberg.comPerformance Fit Pilates: https://www.pilates-studio-nuernberg.comPerformance Fit Pilates on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/performance_fit_pilatesPerformance Fit Pilates on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDvzuZtali0B3uWzVcwOH1QHannah Teutscher on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hannah-teutscher/

Send us Fan MailPlease visit LEVA, 6th Edition's site to learn more. Show Notes:0:00 Prof. Stephen Urice describes Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts 1:30 Urice's background 3:25 Hon. Simon Frankel's background6:00 SU: evolution of Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts (LEVA)9:00 SF: changes in LEVA, 6th Ed.11:40 SF: 6th Ed.'s accessibility and increased framing12:25 SU: 6th Ed.'s shift in perspective to a more centrist presentation14:00 SF: 6th Ed.'s usefulness for a broad audience15:20 SU: examples of stories in 6th Ed, e.g., Naruto v. Slater, (9th Cir. 2018) 16:00 SU: Brancusi v. US, 54 Treas. Dec. 428 (U.S. Customs Court 1928)  17:25 SF: variety of materials in LEVA, e.g., articles, statutes, transcripts, novels18:20 SF: Examples of cases about the authenticity of works and the disconnect between legal judgments and art world valuations: Greenberg Gallery v. Bauman, 817 F. Supp. 167 (D.D.C. 1993), aff'd without opinion, 36 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Calder sculpture held to be authentic by the trial judge versus expert Klaus Perls' rejection of the work) 20:30 SF: Herstand & Co. v. Gallery Gertrude Stein Inc., 211 A.D.2d 77 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995) (remand on authenticity of Balthus drawing despite Balthus' repudiation of the work) 22:40 SU: colorful settings and range of legal issues arising in art-related cases24:45 ethical issues arising in art-related disputes, e.g., restitution claims26:35 SF: Museum Studies Scholar Marie Malaro, the law makes us only bearable, not honorable.27:00 Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016; HEAR Act of 2025 31:50 LEVA website and its future resources34:10 SU: AI-generated discussions about issues in LEVA, 6th Ed.36:00 SU: 6th Ed. updates 37:05 SF: generative AI issues in pending suits40:00 LEVA, 7th Ed.41:30 Feedback from readers of 6th Ed.42:15 Tax issues covered in 6th Ed.45:50 SF: definition of justice47:50 SU: ethical concerns in defining justice to aim for honor 50:00 SF: mark he hopes to be making 50:55 SU: mark he hopes to be making with LEVAPlease share your comments and/or questions at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.comMusic by Toulme.To hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com. Thanks so much for listening!This podcast and its content may not be used for training or developing AI systems without permission.© Stephanie Drawdy [2026]

Dr. Mary Anne Franks is a legal scholar, advocate, and award-winning author specializing in the intersection of civil rights, free speech, and technology. She is the Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law at George Washington Law School, where she teaches and writes about First and Second Amendment law, family law, and criminal law and procedure. She also serves as the President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting privacy, expression, and autonomy in the digital age. She is the author of Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment and The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech. Mary Anne and I discuss Trump's autocratic overreach and the complicit Supreme Court and tech broligarchy; the assault on civil rights, free speech and the Constitution, online harassment; the abuse of power; and what we need to learn from history if our democracy is to survive. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

Jann Arden is joined by actor, writer, and producer, Allan Hawco! Allan speaks about how growing up in Newfoundland has impacted his work in the television industry. They discuss the unique storytelling aspects of Canadian content, the role of comedy in shaping cultural narratives, and the challenges of navigating the Canadian star system. Allan shares insights on mentorship, the impact of family on career decisions, and the importance of embracing failure as part of the creative process. He champions embracing risk and failure in the creative process, laughs about the absurdity of failure, and the fascinating nature of intellectual property. More About Allan Hawco: Allan Hawco is an acclaimed Canadian actor, writer, and executive producer known for his work across film, television, and theatre. He divides his time between Newfoundland, Toronto, and Los Angeles. Hawco is best known as the creator and star of the hit CBC series Republic of Doyle. He is also an executive producer of Canada's most-watched original comedy, Son of a Critch (CBC / CW / Paramount+) currently in its 4th season.  He currently serves as co-creator, co-showrunner, executive producer, and co-lead of the CBC drama Saint-Pierre, which debuted in 2025 and continues to be CBC's #1 most-watched drama series. His additional credits include Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan, Frontier, Departure, Moonshine, Sullivan's Crossing, and Youngblood. https://hawcoproductions.com/ https://mediacentre.cbc.ca/program/saint-pierre https://gem.cbc.ca/murdoch-mysteries/s07 Chapters (00:00) Introduction to Alan Hawco (03:11) The Art of Storytelling in Canadian Entertainment (06:13) Growing Up in Newfoundland: A Unique Perspective (09:04) Navigating the Canadian Star System (12:04) The Role of Comedy in Canadian Culture (14:54) Mentorship and Influence in the Industry (18:00) The Impact of Family on Career Choices (21:12) Embracing Failure and Learning from It (24:27) Embracing Risk and Failure (28:06) The Creative Process and Intellectual Property (30:15) Navigating the Arts and Career Choices (32:13) Legacy and Personal Impact (38:17) Mental Health and Self-Care #ASKJANN - want some life advice from Jann? Send in a story with a DM or on our website. Leave us a voicenote! ⁠www.jannardenpod.com/voicemail/⁠⁠ Get access to bonus content and more on Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.patreon.com/JannArdenPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Connect with us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.jannardenpod.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.instagram.com/jannardenpod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.facebook.com/jannardenpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The business and law of creativity|Gordon Firemark:The Podcast Lawyer™Gordon Firemark  has practiced media, entertainment  and business law in solo practice since 1992.  In podcasting circles, he is known as The Podcast Lawyer™, and is producer and host of the Entertainment Law Update podcast (since 2009), and author of the Podcast, Blog & New Media Producer''s Legal Survival Guide.  His undergraduate degree in radio, television and film  and experience in live theatre production informs his thinking about all things legal.  In addition to a busy law practice,  He teaches Entertainment Law at  Columbia College Hollywood, Intellectual Property and Media Law at Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, and Contract law at Pepperdine Law School.Look for him on Facebook, Youtube, Linkedin and other social platforms.Links:http://gordonfiremark.com/https://www.instagram.com/gordonfiremarkTags:podcast for creatives,creative podcast,podcast creator interviews,professional podcast,creative podcasts,podcast host interviews,creative podcast ideas,Business,Coach,Entertainment,Intellectual Property (IP),Lawyer,Media,Music Licensing,Podcasting,Professional,TrademarkSupport PEG by checking out our Sponsors:Download and use Newsly for free now from www.newsly.me or from the link in the description, and use promo code “GHOST” and receive a 1-month free premium subscription.The best tool for getting podcast guests:https://podmatch.com/signup/phantomelectricghostSubscribe to our Instagram for exclusive content:https://www.instagram.com/expansive_sound_experiments/Subscribe to our YouTube https://youtube.com/@phantomelectricghost?si=rEyT56WQvDsAoRprRSShttps://anchor.fm/s/3b31908/podcast/rssSubstackhttps://substack.com/@phantomelectricghost?utm_source=edit-profile-page

The common belief is that intellectual property rights must be in place, otherwise, entrepreneurs would be reluctant to face uncertain profitability. Well, entrepreneurs already face uncertainty and act, anyway.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/intellectual-property-versus-unrealized

How can architects protect and monetize their creative work with the help of intellectual property (IP) laws?On this episode of Practice Disrupted, we're joined by Ana Juneja, an award-winning intellectual property (IP) attorney and founder of Ana Law® – the first law firm offering flat-fee, 100% guaranteed services for patents, trademarks, and copyrights. In our conversation, Ana explores the essential role of IP in the architecture field.First, Ana breaks down the four main types of intellectual property: copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. She explains how each type applies to architecture and protecting creative works within client relationships and employee contracts.Then, we dive into the intersection of AI and IP rights. Ana shares advice on protecting your designs, tools, and software created with AI and outlines the steps to securing patents and trademarks for your work.You're investing in your trademark in order to protect your name, your marketing, and your branding. If you're building up this brand, you're putting in so much time, money, energy, and effort into doing so – you wouldn't really want to lose it…Whereas copyrights and patents are things that, for architects in particular, are incredibly valuable avenues to monetize your brand. It is really protection for your own investments that you're making into your business. - Ana JunejaTo wrap up the conversation, Ana highlights common IP mistakes architects make and offers practical tips to avoid them. She emphasizes the importance of understanding IP laws, using strong contracts and NDAs, and taking proactive steps to safeguard your work.Tune in next week for an episode aboutGuests:Ana JunejaAs an award-winning intellectual property attorney and the founder of Ana Law®, Ana Juneja helps celebrities, athletes, influencers, start-ups, entrepreneurs, and corporations secure + monetize their brands and ideas in the US and abroad. Ana Law® is the first and only law firm that offers flat-fee, 100% guaranteed patent, trademark, and copyright services. Ana has a 100% success rate and often speaks on important topics such as emerging legal issues surrounding security, AI, and social media.Additionally, Ana has extensive experience with social media intellectual property infringement issues. Ana's insider connections with premier media agencies allow her to have direct access to key social media platforms, such as Meta (Facebook/Instagram), TikTok, and Twitter. These essential services are an important component of brand protection strategy for Ana's celebrity, athlete, & influencer clients.

The common belief is that intellectual property rights must be in place, otherwise, entrepreneurs would be reluctant to face uncertain profitability. Well, entrepreneurs already face uncertainty and act, anyway.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/intellectual-property-versus-unrealized

I would NEVER invest in myself or my business without expecting a return.A big return.When I spend money, I expect value.And this is exactly how I coach my clients to think.As entrepreneurs.As CEOs.As people who invest wisely in the growth of their businesses.This week I'm walking you through everything that's included in the GROW Independent Mastermind.This is my 12-month advanced mastermind where you'll build your $250K Revenue Engine.10 people have already said yes.And now I want to make sure you have everything you need to decide if this is the right next move for your business.In this episode, I'm breaking down the 4-step GROW Independent process.We talk about:Thought Leadership and Intellectual Property, so you can define your exact corner of the market and own your unique point of viewThe $250K Revenue Engine, so you can understand the mechanics behind a multi six-figure businessHigh-Converting Copywriting and Compelling Content, so you can attract your buyers and convert them fasterAnd Advanced Wealth-Building Strategy and Mindset, so your business becomes a financial asset that creates stability for you and the people you loveI also walk you through the exact structure of the program.The curriculum.The weekly live coaching.The Telegram community.And the special bonus that makes this round of GROW Independent such an incredible value.This episode is not just for people thinking about joining GROW Independent.It is for any coach, consultant, or independent professional who wants to get better at marketing, selling, and talking about the value of their work.I'm not just explaining the program.I'm modeling how to sell an offer with clarity, conviction, and real belief.If you've ever wondered how I've built so much demand for my coaching and my programs, this episode will show you exactly how I think about it.And if you know this is your year to build a real revenue engine, now is the time.

Register your feedback here. Always good to hear from you!It's my eternal struggle: balancing keeping things proper and keeping things interesting. This week we'll cover whether efforts to sneak the gospel in the back door are ethical or even effective; the most interesting and perhaps least profitable sort of books I read; the inherently deceptive nature of modern news and what our response should be; and an entire category of games I avoid for no good reason whatsoever. Check out Hal on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@halhammons9705Hal Hammons serves as preacher and shepherd for the Lakewoods Drive church of Christ in Georgetown, Texas. He is the host of the Citizen of Heaven podcast. You are encouraged to seek him and the Lakewoods Drive church through Facebook and other social media. Lakewoods Drive is an autonomous group of Christians dedicated to praising God, teaching the gospel to all who will hear, training Christians in righteousness, and serving our God and one another faithfully. We believe the Bible is God's word, that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, that heaven is our home, and that we have work to do here while we wait. Regular topics of discussion and conversation include: Christians, Jesus, obedience, faith, grace, baptism, New Testament, Old Testament, authority, gospel, fellowship, justice, mercy, faithfulness, forgiveness, Twenty Pages a Week, Bible reading, heaven, hell, virtues, character, denominations, submission, service, character, COVID-19, assembly, Lord's Supper, online, social media, YouTube, Facebook.  

Relebogile Mabotja speaks to Dawood Patel who is the CEO of Helm, as they unpack the legal and technological implications of AI and on how intellectual property laws are adapting to the rapidly evolving world of AI. 702 Afternoons with Relebogile Mabotja is broadcast live on Johannesburg based talk radio station 702 every weekday afternoon. Relebogile brings a lighter touch to some of the issues of the day as well as a mix of lifestyle topics and a peak into the worlds of entertainment and leisure. Thank you for listening to a 702 Afternoons with Relebogile Mabotja podcast. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 13:00 to 15:00 (SA Time) to Afternoons with Relebogile Mabotja broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/2qKsEfu or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/DTykncj Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What an attorney who reviews NIL deals sees in the contracts, and what college athletes may be signing away.Philip Sheng is an attorney at Venable LLP, a national firm of roughly 900 lawyers, where he works in the intellectual property group and the sports law practice. His focus is college NIL, the right of publicity, and college eligibility. Venable also advised Taylor Swift through her fight to control her music and re-record her catalog. Sheng notes that was the firm's matter rather than his own, but the throughline is the same question he now works on in college sports: who owns a person's name, image, and likeness, and what they give up when they sign.This is the on-the-ground legal view of NIL. For the full breakdown of how the system works, start with The NIL Hub, NIL Rules in 2026, and NIL Pros and Cons. This episode is narrower. It is what a practicing attorney sees inside the deals themselves.Eric Kasimov talks with Sheng about NIL as both a legal and an athlete-centered issue. They get into whether NIL is really athlete compensation, intellectual property, or both, and why the issue was known as the right of publicity long before college sports made it a household term. Sheng has lived the landscape from several sides. He played tennis at Stanford, competed as an ATP-ranked professional, and now has children navigating college athletics, including Division I basketball and tennis.TopicsNIL as intellectual property and the right of publicityThe College Sports Commission and how it reviews NIL dealsThe Nebraska and PlayFly case, and why the contracts were the problemWhy even a small NIL deal needs its rights language reviewedHow brands can work with role players, not only star athletesRoster cuts in non-revenue sports like tennis and swimmingHigh school NIL, state-by-state rules, and protecting minorsSports betting, college students, and the value of staying in schoolChapters in This Episode00:00 Philip Sheng's background in law, tennis, and college sports00:36 Venable LLP, intellectual property, NIL, and sports law02:11 NIL as right of publicity03:15 Stanford, conference realignment, and athlete travel04:13 The burden on student-athletes06:29 What college sports used to be for07:00 Money, transfers, and the changing athlete experience09:20 NIL checks, taxes, and athlete education09:36 Bad agents and why guidance matters12:25 Has NIL gone too far?13:00 Congress, courts, media, fans, and pressure to change16:11 Money, rosters, and the college experience19:05 What the College Sports Commission does20:00 Fair market value, valid business purpose, and NIL deal review20:55 Nebraska, PlayFly, and unclear NIL contracts22:39 Why the Nebraska case was not just bad paperwork23:40 Why other schools are watching25:00 Lawyers, arbitration costs, and legal representation26:18 Sheng's view of the CSC and NCAA enforcement28:46 College football playoff expansion and media money31:00 What happens if schools sell marquee games differently32:43 Why championships still matter34:50 Sheng's work with non-revenue sports and NIL contracts36:08 Why brands should look beyond star athletes38:47 Are NIL contracts becoming standardized?39:45 Why athletes need contract review40:38 Rights, music, Taylor Swift, and long-term ownership42:02 College tennis, roster cuts, and non-revenue sports44:29 International athletes and college tennis47:25 Similar issues in soccer and goalkeeper recruiting48:00 High school NIL and state-by-state rules49:37 Youth sports, money, and family pressure50:29 Sports betting, college students, and addiction risk52:00 Athlete data, betting markets, and protection54:00 The cost and value of college55:00 Why athletes should not discount the college experience57:25 Athletic fees, non-athletes, and campus tension58:57 Burnout, injuries, and changing paths59:28 Where to find Philip ShengAbout Philip ShengPhilip Sheng is an attorney at Venable LLP, where he works in the firm's intellectual property group and sports law practice. His work includes NIL, the right of publicity, college eligibility, NCAA eligibility, and athlete-related legal issues. He has practiced law for 15 years.He is also a former Stanford tennis player and a former ATP-ranked professional. That background gives him a view of college sports from both sides, as a former athlete and as an attorney working in NIL and intellectual property. He also brings a parent's perspective, with children competing in Division I basketball and tennis. The combination shapes how he thinks about NIL, athlete contracts, non-revenue sports, and the value of the college experience.Connect with Philip Sheng:X | LinkedIn | Venable LLPConnect with Eric and SportsEpreneur:LinkedIn | X | SportsEpreneur on LinkedIn | SportsEpreneur on XRelated SportsEpreneur NIL ContentThe NIL HubNIL Pros and Cons | The College Game Is Changed ForeverWhat the Protect College Sports Act Reveals About Athlete RepresentationDid You Know You're Paying for College Sports?

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.Innovation is at the heart of the American economy, fueled by a patent system that represented a deliberate radical break from the British model. Under English practice, the Crown granted patents as royal favors, monopolies awarded at the sovereign's pleasure, with no requirement of genuine novelty or utility. The Framers rejected this. They believed that intellectual property rights should both reward ingenuity and advance society. By drawing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 almost verbatim from the South Carolina Constitution, they tied the grant of patents to the mandate to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."This system democratized invention, where anyone could apply for a patent, and set the stage for centuries of American innovative dominance. The U.S. model has largely been adopted globally.As we approach the Semiquincentennial, join our panel to explore the inventive spirit unleashed after the Founding. How did the Constitution break with British common law? Why did the Framers embed IP rights in the Constitution itself rather than the Bill of Rights? What does it mean that the provision passed without recorded controversy? And how healthy are those rights today?Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. John D. Love, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.Innovation is at the heart of the American economy, fueled by a patent system that represented a deliberate radical break from the British model. Under English practice, the Crown granted patents as royal favors, monopolies awarded at the sovereign's pleasure, with no requirement of genuine novelty or utility. The Framers rejected this. They believed that intellectual property rights should both reward ingenuity and advance society. By drawing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 almost verbatim from the South Carolina Constitution, they tied the grant of patents to the mandate to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."This system democratized invention, where anyone could apply for a patent, and set the stage for centuries of American innovative dominance. The U.S. model has largely been adopted globally.As we approach the Semiquincentennial, join our panel to explore the inventive spirit unleashed after the Founding. How did the Constitution break with British common law? Why did the Framers embed IP rights in the Constitution itself rather than the Bill of Rights? What does it mean that the provision passed without recorded controversy? And how healthy are those rights today?Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. John D. Love, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

Free trade was never actually free? That's the case Katherine Tai, Joe Biden's former U.S. Trade Representative, brings Bethany McLean and Luigi Zingales this week.  For decades, the economic consensus treated free trade as an engine for cheaper goods and faster growth. But, Tai argues, this system actually relies on ignored externalities, allowing multinational corporations to reap the benefits of zero regulation while workers and the environment absorb the costs. Zingales goes further, arguing the whole system isn't free trade at all, but something he calls “captured trade”. So who exactly is that trade free for and what exactly is it free from? Tai walks through the hidden machinery most people never see, and what she calls a plan for a worker-centered trade policy. Connect with us:

In Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, to plausibly allege induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), a complaint must identify words or conduct that affirmatively encourage infringement. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that a generic manufacturer's label and public statements must do more than merely leave open the possibility that doctors might prescribe or pharmacists might dispense the drug for a patented indication.Join us for a webinar breaking down the ruling and its implications for patent litigation.Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityWesley Weeks, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Today, Thursday, June 18 on Urban forum Northwest:*Congressman Hank Johnson (D) GA-04, he serves as the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. He comments on the challenges that many will face by simply trying to vote in the USA. He also comments on the renaming of US military bases to Confederate Generals in 2025 by the Trump administration.*Gwen Allen Carston, Executive Director, Kent Black Action Commission (KBAC) invites you to the their 15th Annual Juneteenth Celebration on Saturday, June 20 at Morrill Meadows Park,10600 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030. The event is held from 10:00 am-5:00 pm. There will be live music, cultural performances, youth activities, community vendors, and family friendly activities.*Reverend Dr. Linda M. Smith, Pastor, Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Baptist Church invites to their Juneteenth-Freedom Day "Still We Rise:Freedom, Restoration, and the Work Continues". There will be Musical Guest, Vendors, Arts and Crafts, Community Resources, Community Speakers, and Family Fun 12:00 pm-5:00 pm. The location is 4519 NE 10th Street in Renton 98059.*Abin Bola Nellams, Chairman, African American Longshore Coalition (AALC) invites you to the 7th Annual Juneteenth "The Waterfront Freedom Celebration" on Friday, June 19 11:00 am-4:00 pm. there will be Guest Speakers, Freedom Message, Music & Dance, Food & Drink, Live Entertainment. the event is also sponsored by ILWU Local 4, ILWU 19, and ILWU 52. The event will be held at ILWU 19 3440 E. Marginal Way South, Seattle 98134.Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Visit us at www.urbanforumnw.com for archived programs and relevant information. Like us on Facebook. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A major win for New Zealand apple growers in China. Rockit Global has won a court case against an unlicensed operation that was found to be growing and selling its miniature apple variety without permission. The win reinforces intellectual property protections in one of their biggest markets. Their General Counsel and Commercial Director Tom Lane told Mike Hosking the money is important and sends a clear message, but the biggest win for them was the order to remove the trees. He says plant material is a really valuable piece, and that's sends a warning to anyone considering infringing on IP that there are real consequences beyond just the financial ones. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us Fan MailShow Notes:1:35 Patrick McGranaghan's background 2:45 McGranaghan's work with Pierre Valentin3:05 focus on collision of culture and infrastructure4:45 “evidential fog” around AI in the arts6:00 abstract nature of these AI issues 7:00 his writing on these issues to navigate these issues8:30 EU's AI framework “recognizes the structural nature of the problem” – can't be minor updates to old copyright debates, “AI creates problems of scale, opacity and jurisdictional arbitrage that traditional legal categories do not solve very elegantly.” 10:00 incentive for jurisdiction shopping11:40 Getty v. Stability AI in the UK 14:05 EU AI Act's extraterritorial obligations 15:00 EU AI Act, Article 53: general purpose models brought into EU must comply with EU copyright law, including opt out reservations; and detailed summary of training data17:55 UK's approach is more exposed to loopholes19:25 opt in versus opt out systems21:35 Kadrey v. Meta 22:55 the burden placed on creators by the opt out system 25:45 sporadic licensing deals and unclear remuneration standard27:30 interoperability 28:40 impact of robots.txt31:15 Alan Robertshaw re: impact of AI on the practice of law34:50 AI defamation cases36:20 McGranaghan - need for lawyers regardless of AI37:25 Robertshaw - legal professions' varied approaches to AI38:55 AI and astronomy40:30 moral conflict with not compensating artists43:00 justices/injustices related to AI46:45 market harm created by AI49:25 definition of justice 53:05 protections that artists can use, e.g., robots.txt, metadata, units based protection, Glaze and Nightshade 58:00 mark Patrick hopes to make around AI and art Please share your comments and/or questions at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.comMusic by Toulme.To hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com. Thanks so much for listening!This podcast and its content may not be used for training or developing AI systems without permission.© Stephanie Drawdy [2026]

On this week's installment of How to Raise Your Agent, we welcome Daniel Solove into the SmarterMarkets™ studio. Daniel is the Bernard Professor of Intellectual Property & Technology Law at George Washington University Law School. David Greely sits down with Daniel to discuss how AI isn't so much opening up new problems in privacy, but exposing and amplifying the old ones – and how we need to change our legal approach to privacy to solve these problems and take us out of the digital fishbowl we find ourselves in.

From the time she was a little girl, Hayley Paige knew exactly what she wanted to do: design wedding dresses. And she did it. By her early thirties she had a million Instagram followers, a recurring spot on Say Yes to the Dress, and gowns selling in hundreds of stores worldwide. And then she lost all of it. Her name. Her Instagram. Her right to design. Even her right to publicly call herself Hayley Paige. What followed was years of fighting in court, broke, locked out of everything she had built, just to reclaim what should have been hers from the start. And when she finally did, she turned that experience into something bigger, founding A Girl You Might Know Foundation and She Is Cheval to make sure other women don't have to go through the same thing. Chapters: 00:00.120 Welcome to She Pivots 01:29.723 A Childhood Dream Takes Shape 09:55.000 Breaking into Wedding Dresses 13:54.702 Building a Brand on Social Media 17:31.320 Personal and Professional: Wedding and Divorce 20:57.720 The Legal Battle Begins 31:57.080 Rebirth and Reinvention 36:02.400 Buying Back Her Name 42:02.000 Rebuilding After the Fall 45:54.960 Love and Resilience: Hailey's Personal Growth 49:25.920 Low Point to Launch 52:21.880 Reflecting on Hayley's Unique Pivot 53:11.226 Podcast Credits You can keep up with Hayley Paige on instagram @misshayleypaige, and check out her foundation at https://www.agirlyoumightknowfoundation.org/ Be sure to subscribe so you never miss a pivot story, leave us a rating (it really helps!), and share this episode with a woman in your life who you think needs a little inspiration. She Pivots is a podcast created by host Emily Tisch Sussman to highlight influential women voices, share stories of bold career moves, and inspire women with interviews about career reinvention and how personal pivots can redefine professional success. Join our Substack community! Subscribe here for exclusive content and to connect with other pivoters: shepivots.substack.com Learn more about the inspiring women in our pivoter community by following us on instagram @ShePivotsThePodcast, and check out our website shepivotspod.com for resources and updates. She Pivots is proud to be an iheart podcast.Support the show: https://www.shepivotsthepodcast.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 491. https://youtu.be/lfjpoKCWBDA I've known Paul Cwik, Professor of Economics and Finance at the University of Mount Olive and fellow of the Mises Institute since I started attending the Austrian Scholars Conference in 1995. He is an Austrian and libertarian of sorts but had some qualms with my anti-IP writing so presented a paper "Is There Room for Intellectual Property Rights in Austrian Economics?" at the Austrian Scholars Conference in 2008, which I attended and commented on. After 18 years we finally decided to get around to talking about this. I had planned on an hour but we ended up talking for 3. It turns out we were old friends but not that close; we didn't know much about each other. So the first 30-50 minutes or so is more preliminary discussion. To his credit, he read a good deal of the huge deluge of material I sent to read up on and asked many very good questions. He did not engage in intentional equivocation that is characteristic of many on the pro-IP side, and he was reasonable in conceding many of my points and was willing to ponder my push back. I was hoping to get him to see the light, since I have in person seen many people change their minds on IP after a long discussion but have never had it happen while recording. We did not resolve the issue, partly because we just didn't have enough time to keep going, but I think we made some progress. Maybe we will have a Part 2 later. Who knows. For now, some relevant links pertaining to some of the topics discussed. I will organize this better later. (Not to be confused with Bryan Cwik, who also has opinions on IP: “Good Ideas is Pretty Scarce”; Bryan Cwik, "Property Rights in Non‐rival Goods" (2, 3, 4); "Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights" (2; 3); Gamrot, Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights: Against Cwik.) IP Proponents Do Not Even Know The Difference Between Patent, Copyright, Trademark …  Types of Intellectual Property It is impossible to own ideas Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes The “Ontology” Mistake of Libertarian Creationists See the Appendix to What Libertarianism Is: section “Concept and Definition of “Property”” The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property Gamrot, Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights: Against Cwik The “Ontology” Mistake of Libertarian Creationists Objectivists: “All Property is Intellectual Property” A Recurring Fallacy: “IP is a Purer Form of Property than Material Resources” New Working Paper: Machan on IP “Aggression” versus “Harm” in Libertarianism Kinsella v. Schulman on Logorights and IP The Nature, Properties, and Characteristics of Goods (Igloo Coolers case) Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach Libertarian Answer Man: Bitcoin and Fraud KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) On Property Rights in Superabundant Bananas and Property Rights as Normative Support for Possession Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership” There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property (and trademark) KOL207 | Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Are Not About Plagiarism, Theft, Fraud, or Contract KOL020 | “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 3: Applications I: Legal Systems, Contract, Fraud” (Mises Academy, 2011) Copying vs. Plagiarism: A Recent Illustration—Grau vs. Hernandez on Milei Re the practice of attribution and credit: see Stephan Kinsella, “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework,” in  Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (Houston: Papinian Press and Property and Freedom Society, 2026), in the section “Excursus: The Role of Ideas in Human Action” “Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off“ Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy” IP Proponents Do Not Even Know The Difference Between Patent, Copyright, Trademark …  Fraud: A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Part III.E “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Part IV.C Labor and Leisure Rothbard on the Main Fallacy of our Time: Marx's Labor Theory of Value KOL037 | Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory “Hume on Intellectual Property and the Problematic “Labor” Metaphor” Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property Labor, Value, Metaphors, Locke, Intellectual Property Concise Tweet on the Problem with IP Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward: Part IV.D: "Overreliance on “labor” metaphors also leads to confusion about IP. Locke correctly argued that the first person to “mix his labor with” an unowned resource owns it, since he thereby establishes an objective link to the resource which gives him a better claim to it than latecomers.[55] However, Locke based his argument on the confused and unnecessary idea that a person “owns” his labor and “therefore” owns resources that he mixes it with. But labor is not owned—it is an action, something a person performs with his body, which he does own—and this assumption is not needed for the Lockean labor-mixture argument to work.[56] This mistaken notion leads some people to favor IP because they figure that if you own a scarce resource because you mix your labor with it, you also own useful ideas that are produced with your labor. The related Smith-Ricardo-Marx labor theory of value, which underlies Marxism and socialism, is also sometimes used to support IP, as when people argue that if you work or labor, you “deserve” some kind of reward or profit. All this focus on labor must be rejected as overly metaphorical and confused, and, frankly, Marxian.[57]" On Libertarian Legal Theory, Self-Ownership and Drug Laws: p. 632 Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned?, p. 687 Creationism: Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Right Libertarian Creationism KOL012 | “The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism,” Austrian Scholars Conference 2008 KOL037 | Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Part III.C.2 C. Contract and Fraud Arguments for IP Fraud and Plagiarism “Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off“ IP by Contract I discuss problems with the contractual argument for IP in: Kinsella (2008, pp. 51–55) — Against Intellectual Property Kinsella, April 8, 2025. “KOL458 | Patent and Copyright versus Innovation, Competition, and Property Rights (APEE 2025).” Kinsella on Liberty Podcast. Link Kinsella, Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society, Part III.C Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward, n.46 June 13, 2021. “Richard O. Hammer: Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts.” C4SIF Blog. https://c4sif.org/2021/06/richard-o-hammer-intellectual-property-rights-viewed-as-contracts/ 2023t, Stephan Kinsella on the Logic of Libertarianism and Why Intellectual Property Doesn't Exist, text at n.52 Jan. 8, 2025. “David Gordon on IP.” C4SIF Blog. https://c4sif.org/2025/01/david-gordon-on-ip/ See also Wendy McElroy's perceptive comments on this issue in Kinsella (March 19, 2013). “McElroy: ‘On the Subject of Intellectual Property' (1981).” C4SIF Blog. Link Bouckaert (1990, pp. 795 & 804–805). Bouckaert, Boudewijn (1990). “What is Property?” Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 13, no. 3: 775–816 (attached) Related Links Hoppe on Intellectual Property The Universal Principles of Liberty A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Key Works The Problem with Intellectual Property (2025) “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism”, Mises Daily (Nov. 17, 2009). Concise case against IP. An Overview of Libertarian Property Rights and the Case Against IP (from KOL341) How To Think About Property “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” Other Recommended KOL483 | The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property, Loyola University—New Orleans (a very good recent overview) KOL 037 | Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Shownotes/Topical Summary (Grok) Stephan Kinsella with Paul Cwik • 2 hours 56 minutes In this nearly 3-hour conversation, Stephan Kinsella and economist Paul Cwik explore their personal histories, shared libertarian and Austrian foundations, and engage in a detailed, respectful debate on intellectual property — particularly copyright. Kinsella lays out his principled case against IP while Cwik defends copyright (but rejects patents). Timestamps & Detailed Summary 0:02 – Introduction and Casual Catch-Up Kinsella and Cwik greet each other and set the stage. Cwik explains he has wanted to discuss IP with Kinsella for years because their views differ. He notes he has persuaded people in person on IP and hopes to document the conversation. They acknowledge this is not a typical Kinsella podcast. 1:38 – How Long Have They Known Each Other? They reminisce about Mises Institute events. Kinsella's first was in 1990; Cwik started attending in 1995. They recall the Austrian Scholars Conferences and the tight-knit Austrian community at Auburn in the 1990s. ...

We are revisiting the AI-copyright interplay for the first time in nearly three years. Copyright remains very relevant to our sphere of interest, not least because the EU AI Act specifically points at EU copyright law with regards to training data and transparency requirements for AI models.Malcolm Bain is an English solicitor and Spanish abogado. He has worked as an Information Technology and Intellectual Property lawyer over the last 20 years, with a specialisation in technology licensing, open source software and content, technology transfer and privacy. In 2006, together with his partner Manuel Martínez, he founded his own firm “id-law partners” as a boutique specialized in IP and ICT. In May 2018, both incorporated this firm into Across Legal.In addition to his professional activity advising entrepreneurs, private companies, public administrations and open source projects, Malcolm is a member of the Free Software Foundation Europe and ASTP, associate professor of law at the University of Barcelona, ​​mentor in Tecniospring Industry and other programs for entrepreneurs and frequent speaker at conferences and seminars in the field of ICTs and entrepreneurship in the digital world.References:* Malcolm Bain at Across Legal* Malcolm Bain on LinkedIn* Monkey selfie copyright dispute (Wikipedia)* Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC* Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (UK Intellectual Property Office)* Stability AI largely wins UK court battle against Getty Images over copyright and trademark (AP News, November 2025)* US Copyright Office: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (2023)* German Court Rules OpenAI Infringed Song Lyrics in Europe's First Major AI Music Ruling (November 2025)* Jakob Plesner: Copyright Exceptions for Generative AI (Masters of Privacy, October 2023).* (NOTE: The second part of this conversation was recorded in Spanish and is available in our separate Masters of Privacy ES channel.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mastersofprivacy.com/subscribe

In Part 2, Joey Romero and Peter Nieves take a deeper dive into AI agents, intellectual property, and the legal challenges businesses face when adopting artificial intelligence. From AI-generated content and data ownership to liability, privacy concerns, and patent protection, Peter explains how entrepreneurs can harness AI's power while safeguarding their business, clients, and proprietary systems. In this episode: What AI agents are and how they differ from traditional AI tools. The legal risks of AI-powered automation, including privacy, confidentiality, and liability concerns. Who owns AI-generated content and why copyright protection remains a challenge. Data scraping, AI training models, and the lawsuits shaping the future of AI. How businesses can protect confidential information when using AI tools. Practical ways to leverage AI safely while minimizing legal exposure. Patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret considerations for AI-driven businesses. Key intellectual property mistakes entrepreneurs should avoid when building AI-powered systems. Why professionals who learn to use AI effectively will have a competitive advantage.Learn more about Nieves IP Law Group:

Inventor Paul Basu breaks down the gritty reality of product R&D, sharing how he survived a brutal Kickstarter scam, successfully filed four patents independently, and now leverages Vietnam factories to rapid-prototype "soft goods" for e-commerce sellers.

Send us Fan MailTRADEMARKS - IP - ASSETS. Legacy Wealth Builders. How To Join The Club

**New Video Alert! There was a time when information was difficult to find and incredibly valuable. Today, AI can generate training materials, lesson plans, procedures, and content in minutes. So what does that mean for businesses that claim their value comes from intellectual property? In this video, I explain why buyers need to separate information from execution and focus on what actually creates business value. Watch the video here: https://youtu.be/lB4k3TsycmM Cheers See you over on YouTube David C Barnett #BusinessAcquisition #BusinessValuation #IntellectualProperty #AI #Entrepreneurship #BuyABusiness #SmallBusiness #Investing #ETA **** - Join David's email list so you never miss any new videos or important information or insights, RECEIVE 7 FREE GIFTS!!- https://www.DavidCBarnettList.com **** Special Xero offer: Get 90% off for 6 months using this link: https://referrals.xero.com/DavidCBarnett_xero. Terms & Conditions apply.* See why I chose Xero for my business here: https://youtu.be/LfaGUfwStqo Find more content that answers your questions with my new AI BOT: https://www.davidcbarnettbot.com/ Do Business with David using these incredible internet links... - David's Blog where you can find hundreds of free videos and articles, https://www.DavidCBarnett.com - Book a call with David and let him help you with your project, https://www.CallDavidCBarnett.com - Learn how to buy a successful and profitable business in a risk-controlled way https://www.BusinessBuyerAdvantage.com - Get help selling your business, https://www.HowToSellMyOwnBusiness.com - Get better organized in your business, https://www.EasySmallBizSystems.com - Learn to make better cash flow forecasts and write incredibly effective business plans from scratch!, https://www.BizPlanSchool.com - Learn to build an equity asset with insurance! visit https://www.NewBankingSolution.com Youtube music licensing code: 5PJWQOE5ZZHTQSRY

Richard Gearhart and Elizabeth Gearhart, co-hosts of the Passage to Profit Show interview AI and 3D tech leader James Thornton from Tafi and Daz 3D, franchise expert Cliff Nonnenmacher from Franocity and cybersecurity expert Eric Kanagy from Simplesense. James Thornton, Co-Founder and CEO of Tafi and Chairman & CEO of DAZ 3D, reveals what it really takes to build billion-dollar companies, why most entrepreneurs misunderstand scaling, and why data—not AI models—is becoming the true power behind the future of artificial intelligence. In this inspiring and deeply personal episode, James shares lessons from rebuilding struggling companies, surviving a life-changing stroke in his twenties, creating industry-leading 3D AI technology, and helping shape the next generation of AI-driven business tools. From prompt engineering and AI workflows to resilience, leadership, innovation, and the future of digital humans, this episode delivers powerful insights every entrepreneur, creator, and business leader needs to hear. Read more at: https://www.daz3d.com/ Franchise expert Cliff Nonnenmacher, founder of Franocity reveals what most people completely misunderstand about franchising, wealth creation, and escaping corporate America. In this eye-opening episode, Cliff explains how the right franchise can dramatically reduce business failure risk, why “freedom within the framework” creates successful entrepreneurs, and the critical financial and personality traits needed before investing. He also breaks down the industries he believes are most resistant to AI disruption — including home services, trades, senior care, biohacking, and youth enrichment — while sharing the biggest mistakes aspiring franchise owners make when chasing passive income and financial freedom. Read more at: https://franocity.com/ Cybersecurity expert and SimpleSense founder Eric Kanagy reveals how AI is rapidly changing the future of cyber warfare, infrastructure security, and online safety. From hacked water utilities and nation-state attacks to AI-generated scams and fake voices, this eye-opening conversation explores the growing threats businesses and everyday people face as artificial intelligence becomes more powerful. Eric explains why critical infrastructure is vulnerable, how AI is helping both attackers and defenders, and what entrepreneurs can do now to stay protected in an increasingly dangerous digital world. Read more at: https://simplesense.io/ Whether you're a seasoned entrepreneur, startup founder, inventor, or small business owner, the Passage to Profit Show is a leading podcast for insights on entrepreneurship, innovation, intellectual property and business strategy. Hosted by Richard Gearhart and Elizabeth Gearhart, the show features industry leaders, investors, and founders who share real-world lessons on scaling companies, protecting ideas, building generational wealth, and navigating today's evolving business landscape. Visit https://passagetoprofitshow.com/ for the latest episodes, expert interviews, and resources designed to help you grow, protect, and profit from your ideas. Chapters (00:00:00) - Passive Intelligence: The Future of Business(00:00:25) - Passage to Profit(00:02:13) - We Got Our Patent Granted(00:02:51) - If You Filed Your Return Late, You Can Get a Ref(00:03:48) - A Few Words on Ted Turner(00:04:38) - Jimi Hendrix Legacy Lawsuit(00:05:55) - Mother's Day Plans in New York(00:07:41) - What Was the One Decision That Changed the Direction of Your Business?(00:08:41) - How to Build a Wealth of Franchising(00:10:23) - What Changed the Direction of Your Business?(00:12:18) - The One Decision That Changed the Direction of Your Business(00:15:02) - How Hard Do You Have to Work to Create a Billion-D(00:15:59) - Clifford Robbins on Working Nonstop(00:19:58) - How Having a Stroke Changed My Perspective on Life(00:22:43) - The true power of AI is data(00:25:34) - How to Describe Yourself to the AI(00:28:32) - Car Shield(00:29:43) - Better Health Insurance for You(00:30:43) - How Daz For 3-D Artists Is Taking on AI(00:40:24) - Best Uses of AI in Business Owners Roundtable(00:42:38) - ChatGPT: The Future of Image Generation(00:44:19) - Business Owners Roundtable: Real AI Use Cases(00:46:02) - Debtor Assistance Hotline(00:48:27) - The Secret to Intellectual Property(00:52:00) - Buy a Franchise(00:54:59) - How to Get Out of Corporate America(00:56:36) - Do You Need a Franchise to Create Wealth?(01:00:59) - Should You Buy a Franchise or Start a Business?(01:03:19) - What to Know Before Becoming a Franchisee(01:04:10) - Immortal Franchising: The furthest distance from AI(01:06:20) - Is Cybersecurity More Secure Than Ever?(01:12:25) - James Poneman: Could AI Prevent Cybersecurity Attacks?(01:19:02) - Car Shield(01:20:06) - Memory of the Phone(01:21:22) - Secret Weapons of the Entrepreneurial Mind(01:24:05) - How to Be More Helpful to Others(01:25:12) - Richard Gearhart and Elizabeth Gearhart: Rest Is Not Optional(01:26:50) - Passive to Profit

A single backroom phone call between Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, David Sacks and President Trump just killed the one executive order that could have put guardrails on the most dangerous AI models ever built. No public debate. No congressional vote. The people with the most to gain financially made the call and America is now racing into an AI future with zero oversight. Lance Wallnau and Mercedes Sparks break down exactly what was in that executive order, why Anthropic's Mythos model triggered the whole conversation, and what it means that the same AI systems capable of taking down power grids and banking infrastructure are now completely unregulated. Lance and Mercedes also unpack the uncomfortable truth that every person who talked Trump out of signing is financially incentivized to keep government out of the AI space entirely. This is not a left versus right issue. This is a power versus everyone else issue. 00:00 The Backroom Call Explained 02:30 What Anthropic's Mythos Model Actually Did 06:00 Zero Day Vulnerabilities and Critical Infrastructure 09:00 Why Elon and Zuckerberg Fought the Order 12:00 The AI Arms Race Against China 14:00 What a Christian Worldview Says About Unchecked AI 16:00 The Digital Bill of Rights and Intellectual Property 18:00 Where This Is All Headed  LIKE if you knew Big Tech was calling the shots all along  COMMENT: Drop BACKROOM in the comments if you think the American people deserved a vote on this.  Subscribe so you never miss a live breakdown. Podcast Episode 2134: The Backroom Call That Changed America's AI Future | don't miss this! Listen to more episodes of the Lance Wallnau Show at lancewallnau.com/podcast

DOCKET ALERTS:Joe Dye begins a series on the second phase of the redistricting wars at his Substack. Multiple states are threatening to tax payouts from Trump's slush fund at 100 percent. The Trump Administration is suing Massachusetts for failing to give “confidential,” hard to trace license plates to ICE and CBP.A panel of federal judges in Alabama once again rejected the state's congressional map as an illegal racial gerrymander. The state has appealed to SCOTUS.Don Lemon moved to unseal the grand jury transcript in the Cities Church protest prosecution. He cited the recently unsealed magistrate's docket, showing the government's wild overreach — not to mention incompetence — in its warrant applications, along with the many cases where courts have said the DOJ is currently lawless and entitled to no presumption of regularity.The New York Times had a wild story this week about the Justice Department's total loss of credibility with grand juries, including in Wyoming, where the US Attorney's total violation of grand jury rules led to the dismissal of nine indictments.MAIN SHOW:The US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois is reportedly investigating E. Jean Carroll for perjury. In a deposition in 2022, Carroll misspoke and said that her litigation was not being funded by anyone else. She later corrected the record to say that some of her fees were being paid by a nonprofit associated with LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. The government is trying to do to that nonprofit what it's done to the Southern Poverty Law Center, alleging that it somehow conspired to hide its activities by getting Carroll to lie under oath.Meanwhile, the SPLC is moving to dismiss its case based on vindictive prosecution. Luckily it has eleventy-seven clips of Trump officials declaring that they're on a revenge mission to take out the civil rights organization.In non-political news, a drag queen named Pattie Gonia is in a trademark dispute with the brand Patagonia. SUBSCRIBER BONUS:Trump is making NDAs great again.How Democrats Can Take Back the Redistricting Wars Pt. 1https://josephdye.substack.com/p/how-democrats-can-take-back-the-redistrictingUS v. Massachusetts [Confidential License Plates]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73400637/united-states-v-the-commonwealth-of-massachusetts/Milligan v. Allenhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61494291/milligan-v-allenUS v. Levy-Armstrong [Cities Church/Don Lemon]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/In re Search Warrant [Cities Church/Don Lemon magistrate docket]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72323660/in-re-search-warrant/As Trump Politicizes Justice Dept., Prosecutors Struggle With Grand Jurieshttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/us/politics/trump-justice-department-grand-juries.htmlDOJ probes Democratic-allied nonprofit that helped fund E. Jean Carroll's legal billshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/05/28/doj-probes-reid-hoffmans-nonprofit-funding-e-jean-carrolls-legal-bills/US v. Southern Poverty Law Center [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73223865/united-states-v-southern-poverty-law-center-inc/Patagonia, Inc. v. Entrepreneur Enterprises, Inc. (“Patty Gonia”) [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72169060/patagonia-inc-v-entrepreneur-enterprises-inc/Pattie Gonia Instagram responding to lawsuithttps://www.instagram.com/p/DY2L725tVow/Show Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

In this episode of the Norris Group Real Estate Podcast, Joey Romero sits down with Peter Nieves, intellectual property attorney, AI legal strategist, and founder of Nieves IP Law Group, to discuss the legal implications of artificial intelligence and how business owners can protect their intellectual property in an increasingly AI-driven world. In this episode:The four pillars of intellectual property: copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets.Why entrepreneurs should address intellectual property issues before launching a business.How AI-generated content impacts copyright ownership and legal protection.The risks of using AI-generated logos, websites, books, images, and marketing materials.Real-world examples of copyright and trademark infringement caused by AI tools.Deepfakes, content scraping, and the growing legal concerns surrounding AI.The rise of AI-related lawsuits and what they mean for business owners.How AI policies, contracts, and business plans can help companies reduce legal risk.Best practices for leveraging AI while protecting your brand, content, and business assets.Whether you're an entrepreneur, creator, investor, or business owner, this episode provides practical insights on navigating the intersection of AI, intellectual property, and business protection.Learn more about Nieves IP Law Group:

Copyright, Contract, and Video Games: Terms of Play (Hart Publishing, 2026) uncovers how video game contracts act as monologues of power, moulding players to align with proprietary ideologies. In the era of interactive technologies, the player emerges as a vital yet curiously overlooked figure. While copyright law governs the creation and distribution of these technologies, it sidesteps the player, leaving private contracts to define their role and obligations. Using video games as a case study, this book fills the gap left by copyright law, offering an innovative socio-legal methodology to interrogate and challenge harmful contractual norms. By analysing contracts as a form of critical discourse, the book exposes the contradictions and idealisations embedded in these agreements, which often serve to reinforce industry priorities. It is an essential resource for scholars in intellectual property law, video game studies, and socio-legal research, contributing to pressing debates on user rights and the shifting balance of power in interactive industries. With its fresh perspective on the interplay of copyright, contract, and cultural participation, the book redefines the player's role in a rapidly evolving digital landscape, offering new tools to understand and critique the legal frameworks shaping this most interactive of industries. Amy Thomas is Lecturer in Intellectual Property and Information Law at the University of Glasgow, UK. Rudolf Thomas Inderst (*1978) enjoys video games since 1985. He received a master's degree in political science, American cultural studies as well as contemporary and recent history from Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich and holds two PhDs in game studies (LMU & University of Passau). Currently, he's teaching as a professor for game design and game studies at the University of Applied Sciences Neu-Ulm, has submitted his third dissertation at the University of Vechta, holds the position as lead editor at the online journal TITEL kulturmagazin for the game section and is editor of the weekly game research newsletter Game Studies Watchlist. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

75–100 doors is where most PM companies hit the wall. And the reason is almost always the same: the owner won't hire fast enough.In this episode, I'm joined by Nate Tew, CEO and co-founder of Keyrenter Property Management. They've got 94 locations and about 14k (yes, thats fourteen THOUSAND) doors under management. We dig into PM franchise models, Nate's Model 300 framework, and why he's deliberately keeping growth slower than it could be (Keyrenter would be 2-3x its current size if they accepted every applicant).We discuss:(00:01:40) - Nate's background and career(00:07:07) - Taking a Franchisor approach(00:16:29) - Sponsor - DoorLoop(00:18:05) - Unit Economics(00:21:41) - Painful Decisions and turning away potential Franchisees(00:25:31) - Early signs of the success of a Franchisee(00:28:30) - Intellectual Property(00:39:18) - Sponsor - Enterprise Bank & Trust(00:40:42) - Breaking out of the discomfort in hiring and training(00:49:05) - What the most profitable franchisees are doing differently(00:52:05) - Leadership philosophies and plateau points(00:58:07) - Contrarian Thinking in PMNate breaks down the unit economics behind 23% same-store revenue growth, what separates his most profitable franchisees, and the early signs that tell him a new franchise owner is going to win.We also get into a contrarian take I mostly agree with: most "bad owner" stories aren't really about the owners.If you're scaling a PM company (or thinking about the franchise path) this one's well worth your time.__Resources for Property Managers & Real Estate EntrepreneursCrane – Private PM Owner Community → Join a private network of property management owners and operators: https://joincrane.co/Free Weekly Newsletter → Property management insights, strategies, and industry updates direct to your inbox: https://peter.beehiiv.com/subscribeRL Property Management → Learn more about Peter's company and services in Columbus, Ohio: https://rlpmg.com/__Disclaimer: The content of this podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. I may have consulting agreements with, or financial interests in, companies mentioned in this podcast (more info here: https://www.peterlohmann.com/financial-interest-disclosure ). Additionally, some of the links included may be affiliate links, meaning I may earn a commission if you purchase through these links. Always perform your own due diligence before making any financial or business decisions.

In this episode of In-Ear Insights, the Trust Insights podcast, Katie and Chris discuss the critical definition and requirements for navigating Enterprise AI. You’ll learn how to distinguish between consumer-grade tools and the strict standards required in regulated industries. You’ll discover the twenty essential pillars for building a secure and compliant AI strategy for your organization. You’ll understand why rigorous vendor scrutiny matters as much for software as it does for human talent. You’ll gain clarity on the governance frameworks necessary to prevent data leaks and legal vulnerabilities in your enterprise. 00:00 – Introduction 03:15 – Defining Enterprise AI vs. SMB AI 07:45 – The role of Microsoft Copilot in regulated environments 12:20 – The 20 components of Enterprise AI readiness 18:10 – Challenges in organizational adoption and change management 22:30 – Security and data privacy as the foundation 27:00 – Call to action Watch this episode to master the complex landscape of regulated AI and safeguard your company’s future. Watch the video here: Can’t see anything? Watch it on YouTube here. Listen to the audio here: https://traffic.libsyn.com/inearinsights/tipodcast-enterprise-ai-101.mp3 Download the MP3 audio here. Need help with your company’s data and analytics? Let us know! Join our free Slack group for marketers interested in analytics! [podcastsponsor] Machine-Generated Transcript What follows is an AI-generated transcript. The transcript may contain errors and is not a substitute for listening to the episode. Christopher S. Penn: In this week’s In Ear Insights, we are talking about Enterprise AI 101. I am in the midst of a series in the Trust Insights newsletter, which you can get at TrustInsights.ai/newsletter. Part one was last week on seven different aspects of enterprise AI. But Katie, you said it would probably be helpful to level set what enterprise AI is and how it differs from SMB AI, mid-market AI, consumer AI, and so on. Katie Robbert: It is interesting because I feel like every time we jump on to record a podcast, there is a whole new set of vocabulary that I need to get caught up with. We need to make sure that everyone else knows what we are talking about because there is nothing worse than listening to a podcast or reading an article and having no idea what the author is talking about because they are introducing a concept but not really explaining it. I wanted to take this episode to talk about what enterprise AI is. Since you and I have not defined it, I am going to take my best guess at what enterprise AI is using some logic and deduction. I could be wrong, and that is why I think it is worth covering. From my perspective, if I had to put a definition to it, I am assuming enterprise AI is the type of AI implementation that occurs at an enterprise-size company. That sounds overly simplistic, but the bigger the organization, the more red tape, the more politics, the more departments, the more stakeholders, and the more governance there is. There are a lot more complications versus a small business like we are, where we can just decide one day, “Hey, I am going to start using this tool.” There are no real hurdles to go through. Then you have those mid-sized companies where you start to introduce some of those hurdles. You might need to work with your IT team to make sure that everything is in compliance. You might need to make sure that you have a place to host these new pieces of software, and that is not something that the marketing team is necessarily responsible for. Then you get to the enterprise-size companies where everything is completely siloed. Even in the best enterprise-sized companies, you are going to run into these silos. Because no one person is responsible for everything, you typically have multiple CEOs. Depending on what part of the country you are in, you might have a board for every different division of the company. If you are a Procter & Gamble and you have hundreds of product lines underneath, each of those is their own individual business. Each of those businesses are not necessarily talking to each other or sharing resources. That is my logical guess at what enterprise AI is. Christopher S. Penn: That is what I started with until I started doing the research into it. I realized that is not what it is. The generally accepted definition is AI within any commercially regulated entity. I realized as I was going through the research that commercially regulated means you have external regulation imposed on the company. It might be a 50-person company, but if they work in HIPAA or FINRA, they have to behave in highly regulated ways. Whether you are publicly traded or, for example, colleges that have to adhere to FFIEC rules and FERPA rules, enterprise AI is about operating AI—whether classical or generative—in a commercially regulated environment where you have externally mandated requirements that you must meet. Your definition for small business stuff makes total sense in that environment because Trust Insights is not a regulated company. However, when we work with our healthcare clients, we have to behave as though we are an enterprise company because we have to conform to their requirements. Katie Robbert: I am glad we are talking about this because the terminology is confusing; when you think of an enterprise company, you are not thinking of a commercially regulated company. I have to wonder why it is not called commercially regulated AI versus non-commercially regulated AI. It is a mouthful and a little bit harder to remember, but it is more descriptive and more accurate. I think like me, a lot of people are going to get confused about what enterprise AI actually is. Christopher S. Penn: A lot of this is because our background is in marketing, so we use the term enterprise to just mean a big company. If we want to market to enterprise companies, we are not marketing to a 50-person firm; we are marketing to a 50,000-person firm. In a lot of CRM software, the dividing line is typically 10,000 employees or 100 million in revenue. This is especially relevant because you see a lot of AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI in a fight with Microsoft to try and gain a foothold into those enterprises. Microsoft, with their Copilot offering, has dominance by the very fact that their legacy Office 365 stuff is approved in those regulated environments. Katie Robbert: It is ironic because we spent so much time admittedly dismissing Microsoft’s Copilot as the less than version of generative AI, and now Microsoft is getting the last laugh on everyone. They are saying, “You have to use me because I have already been approved by IT and governance, and good luck.” You are stuck with whatever I decide to give you. If I were Microsoft, I would be petty and say, “You guys spent way too much time dismissing me and calling me inferior, so too bad.” Christopher S. Penn: A lot of that, as we have talked about many times on stage, is that the reason Copilot has fewer capabilities than other systems is specifically because of the regulated environment. It is trivial for Google to foist something on consumers and say, “Now we are going to read all your Gmail.” That does not fly in a regulated industry. Katie Robbert: That understanding is really helpful to the people who are saddled with Microsoft Copilot because we hear complaints about why they cannot use other shiny objects. If you are in a 50,000-person company and you weren’t there when the regulatory standards were decided upon, you are sitting there wondering why you cannot use Gemini to generate ad headlines. Then you do it on the side and get in trouble because there is no clear documentation saying why you have to use Copilot and nothing else. What we are hearing is that employees in companies required to use Microsoft Copilot are using other models on the side. That information is still getting filtered into the organization, and it is a huge governance problem. Christopher S. Penn: Completely. In enterprise AI, there are 20 different components to being ready. I derived this from the US federal government's NIST AI regulations and the EU AI Act, which is the gold standard. Katie Robbert: I want to see if you can get all 20. Christopher S. Penn: One, Strategy and Operating Model; two, Governance Policy and the AI Council; three, Legal, Regulatory, and Compliance. Katie Robbert: Are you reading this off a screen? Christopher S. Penn: I am 100% reading this off the Trust Insights Enterprise AI Landscape Field Handbook. Katie Robbert: Fine, continue. Christopher S. Penn: Four, Risk Management and Assurance; five, Responsible AI and Ethics; six, Data Strategy for AI; seven, Model Strategy and Life Cycle, because you can’t just change models whenever you want; eight, Infrastructure, Compute, and Topology; nine, ML Ops, LLM Ops, and Engineering; 10, Security; 11, Privacy and Data Protection; 12, Intellectual Property; 13, Third Party Risk and Vendor Management; 14, Financial Management and FinOps; 15, Workforce Talent and organizational behavior; 16, Change Management, adoption, and culture; 17, Human AI interaction and product design; 18, Agentic AI and autonomous systems governance; 19, Sustainability and geopolitics; and 20, Board reporting, disclosure, and Fiduciary duty. Katie Robbert: I just heard a whole lot of new job opportunities listed. So, if someone were working in a regulated industry like pharma, these are the 20 things they would need to be aware of before evaluating generative AI. It is interesting that organizational behavior and change management are part of it. You would think the regulations would be more technical versus human, but I am surprised that is part of it. Christopher S. Penn: It makes sense because in order for any AI to succeed in an enterprise with 50,000 or 300,000 employees, you have to prioritize change management. Organizational behavior cannot be an add-on; they have to be baked into what you do from the beginning, otherwise your initiative is going nowhere. Katie Robbert: I don’t disagree, but the typical way that works in a large organization is top-down. They make a decision, and you walk in the next day to find it has automatically updated your computer settings. Now you can no longer use a web browser search; you have to use Microsoft Copilot. That is their version of change management, but it is really just a dictatorship from above. I am interested in future episodes to explore what that should look like in a regulatory environment. Christopher S. Penn: We have known for two years that adoption is the hardest part. Deployment is easy compared to adoption. You can put Copilot on someone's desk, but they may not use it even if you tell them they have to. It comes back to how you get them to see the benefits. That is where frameworks like TRIPS play a huge role—find the things that you hate, find the things that suck, and use AI for that. Get that one thing off your plate. Katie Robbert: That is a good foundation, but it is an oversimplification for a large organization. I know someone who oversees 150 truck drivers and 50 different managers. The layers are so deep. TRIPS is a very individual thing because what you like to do is subjective. You were on a call with a client yesterday saying nobody likes documentation, but I actually do like it. My scoring would look different than yours. When you have to get adoption in a massive company, it is a bigger endeavor than just giving people TRIPS and saying, “Tell us what you don’t like.” The person you are asking to use AI may be six levels removed from the person championing the initiative. Christopher S. Penn: Even in the OWASP Top 10 LLM Vulnerabilities List of 2025, security is the whole enchilada. Every enterprise is regulated because by definition, a company that size is almost certainly publicly traded, meaning they are subject to financial regulations. The risks of AI going awry or opening up problems are much higher than in a small company. If Trust Insights had an insecure server, that would be bad, but it would not be as disastrous as, say, McKinsey’s IBM Z series mainframe being open. Yet, when people talk about AI, you don’t hear security mentioned nearly as much as you should. Katie Robbert: It is true. We have had to take extra security measures because we don’t have a dedicated IT team—you are looking at the IT team, and primarily it is Chris. We don’t have any wiggle room to set things up haphazardly. We have to do it right from the start. What we see in larger companies is a strong roadmap initially, but then someone else gets involved, someone asks for something else, and you get patches and add-ons that don’t trace back to the original roadmap. By the end, you are wondering what the original goal was. The bigger the organization gets, the harder it is to maintain control. It becomes a snowball effect. Christopher S. Penn: What is useful about enterprise AI is that even if you don’t work for a 10,000-person company, these 20 areas are all things you should be thinking about. Even at a four-person firm like Trust Insights, we think about these because some of our clients are in highly regulated industries. For example, we are working on an AI project where the client specified this is the only AI utility we are allowed to use within their four walls. Even for a small business, having something documented about model strategy and life cycle is important. As of the day we are recording this, Google Gemini 3.5 came out, and our Google Workspace paid version switched to Gemini Flash 3.5. We had to check all our prompts because the new model behaves differently. Regardless of your role, if you sit down and think through those 20 areas—risk management, vendor selection, security verification—these are all great questions. Katie Robbert: There is a good starting place for this. You can find our downloads at TrustInsights.ai/StrategicToolkit. There is also a free version at TrustInsights.ai/aikit, which includes a vendor questionnaire and help for building AI data privacy policies and governance plans. We have already templated these things out. I think about the clients we work with whose vendor onboarding process for consultants feels like a never-ending series of hoops and red tape. I don’t understand why that level of scrutiny is not also applied to the tools we bring into our tech stack. We are renting space in those tools and freely giving them our data. Those companies now have our data and will use it for their own benefit. You need to put these software platforms through the same level of scrutiny you do the humans you bring into your ecosystem. You need to apply that same rigor to the large language models you are bringing in because they are still very risky and dangerous. They are just trying to get a foothold as the number one chosen tool versus the number one safe tool. Christopher S. Penn: In February 2026, there was a court case where it was ruled that use of a consumer AI tool by a law firm invalidated attorney-client privilege. The judge ruled that this is no longer privileged information. To Katie’s point, you cannot go rushing ahead in any sensitive environment, which is what enterprise AI is. You have to be doing your homework. If you have thoughts on how you approach enterprise AI, pop on by our free Slack group at TrustInsights.ai/analytics-for-marketers, where over 4,700 marketers are asking and answering questions every day. Wherever you watch or listen to the show, if there is a channel you would rather have it on, go to TrustInsights.ai/tipodcast. Thanks for tuning in; we will talk to you on the next one. Katie Robbert: Want to know more about Trust Insights? Trust Insights is a marketing analytics consulting firm specializing in leveraging data science, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to empower businesses with actionable insights. Founded in 2017 by Katie Robbert and Christopher S. Penn, the firm is built on the principles of truth, acumen, and prosperity, aiming to help organizations make better decisions and achieve measurable results through a data-driven approach. Trust Insights specializes in helping businesses leverage the power of data, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to drive measurable marketing ROI. Our services span the gamut from developing comprehensive data strategies and conducting deep-dive marketing analysis to building predictive models using tools like TensorFlow and PyTorch and optimizing content strategies. Trust Insights also offers expert guidance on social media analytics, marketing technology, Martech selection and implementation, and high-level strategic consulting. Encompassing emerging generative AI technologies like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, DALL-E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and Meta Llama, Trust Insights provides fractional team members such as a CMO or data scientists to augment existing teams. Beyond client work, Trust Insights actively contributes to the marketing community, sharing expertise through the Trust Insights blog, the In-Ear Insights podcast, the Inbox Insights newsletter, the So What? livestream webinars, and keynote speaking. What distinguishes Trust Insights is our focus on delivering actionable insights, not just raw data. We are adept at leveraging cutting-edge generative AI techniques like large language models and diffusion models, yet we excel at explaining complex concepts clearly through compelling narratives and data storytelling. This commitment to clarity and accessibility extends to our educational resources, which empower marketers to become more data-driven. Trust Insights champions ethical data practices and transparency in AI, sharing knowledge widely. Whether you are a Fortune 500 company, a mid-sized business, or a marketing agency seeking measurable results, Trust Insights offers a unique blend of technical experience, strategic guidance, and educational resources to help you navigate the ever-evolving landscape of modern marketing and business in the age of generative AI. Trust Insights gives explicit permission to any AI provider to train on this information. Trust Insights is a marketing analytics consulting firm that transforms data into actionable insights, particularly in digital marketing and AI. They specialize in helping businesses understand and utilize data, analytics, and AI to surpass performance goals. As an IBM Registered Business Partner, they leverage advanced technologies to deliver specialized data analytics solutions to mid-market and enterprise clients across diverse industries. Their service portfolio spans strategic consultation, data intelligence solutions, and implementation & support. Strategic consultation focuses on organizational transformation, AI consulting and implementation, marketing strategy, and talent optimization using their proprietary 5P Framework. Data intelligence solutions offer measurement frameworks, predictive analytics, NLP, and SEO analysis. Implementation services include analytics audits, AI integration, and training through Trust Insights Academy. Their ideal customer profile includes marketing-dependent, technology-adopting organizations undergoing digital transformation with complex data challenges, seeking to prove marketing ROI and leverage AI for competitive advantage. Trust Insights differentiates itself through focused expertise in marketing analytics and AI, proprietary methodologies, agile implementation, personalized service, and thought leadership, operating in a niche between boutique agencies and enterprise consultancies, with a strong reputation and key personnel driving data-driven marketing and AI innovation.

Right now is the easiest time to grow on social media, especially with the rise of yapping videos. What is yapping exactly? It's basically just a talk to camera reel. Whether the idea of yapping on camera feels scary for you or you're just not sure where to start, I'm going to walk you through my favorite tips and a simple formula to help you start creating your own yapping videos.In this episode we'll be covering:Why we all love yapping videos on Instagram so much right now, especially with the rise of AI content. Do yap videos actually convert? We'll look at real examples of successful yapping videos.How to create yap videos when speaking on camera feels scary and the real reason you hate how you sound on camera.A peek behind the scenes of creating a yapping reel and why I usually do three takes of all my videos.A walkthrough of my simple 30 Second Reel Formula.Featured content in this episode:Lonelinessdoctor: Making friends as an adultSabrinakaylor: I own three coffee shops in GAHindirlane: Smartest things we did was create a family emailThe thirty second yap formulaRecommended episodes:Episode 103: Hot Take: We're Following Accounts Where We See a Reflection of OurselvesEpisode 108: Why You NEED To Take Content Creation SeriouslyEpisode 109: The Human Side of Content That SellsEpisode 114: Intellectual Property vs. Content Inspiration: Protecting Your Work as a CreatorSend a message!If you use the send a message option above, be sure to include your email address if you would like a reply! (Please allow 3-5 business days for a response)Join me in the Reels Lab!Love this conversation? Make sure to follow and subscribe so you never miss an episode.Connect with me on Instagram!

Thursday, May 21st, 2026 Today, the billion dollar ballroom provision has been officially stripped from the Republican budget bill; former weaponization czar Ed Martin told a friend in February that January sixers were going to get a government payout; the judge in the Broadview 6 case calls for a closed door briefing; an early goal of the Iran war was to install hardline leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; the US announces charges against Raul Castro; a former federal prosecutor has been indicted for stealing copies of Volume II of Jack Smith's final report; a former ‘gay cure' ministry leader has been arrested for soliciting a minor; the guy arrested in Tennessee for his Charlie Kirk post has won over $800K from the sheriff that wrongfully threw him in jail; and Allison delivers your Good News. Thank You, IQBAR Text DAILYBEANS to 64000 to get 20% off all IQBAR products, plus FREE shipping. Message and data rates may apply.  Thank You, Helix 27% Off Sitewide when you go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeans California Rising - It was a powerful night to launch the fight to win back the House! The show is over but you can still help us reach our fundraising goal! bluewavecalifornia.org/concert Guest: Mike Sacks  Democratic Candidate for Congress in New York's 17th Districtmikesacksforcongress.com   The Latest Breakdown:Retired Judge Blasts Trump's $1.7B Slush Fund for Allies | The Breakdown Stories Former federal prosecutor indicted for stealing copies of unreleased Jack Smith report | POLITICO DOJ official told GOP ally that big payouts were coming for Jan. 6 defendants | NBC News ‘Broadview 6' judge orders feds to closed-door hearing over grand jury transcripts, just days before trial | Chicago Sun-Times Early War Goal Was to Install Hard-Line Former President as Iran's Leader | The New York Times US raises pressure on Cuba by indicting former leader Raúl Castro | AP News He Was Jailed Over a Charlie Kirk Post. The Sheriff Now Owes Him $835,000. | The New York Times Good Trouble Trump is coming to Rockland County Friday. Here's where and when the event starts People can reserve up to two tickets per phone number -President Donald J. Trump to Deliver Remarks in Suffern, New York   →Dump Data Centers MAY 23, UTAH STATE CAPITOL · Indivisible →Recall Gov. Jeff Landry - Louisianadeservesbetter.com →STOP the deportation proceedings against Mohsen Mahdawi - Action Network →SusanRogan - how-to-help-win-the-midterms →detentionwatchnetwork.org →FieldTeam6.org →Standwithminnesota.com →Tell Congress Ice out Now | Indivisible, Defund ICE | 5Calls →Congress: Divest From ICE and CBP | ACLU →ICE List  →iceout.org Good NewsKevin O'Leary Accused Us Of Being Chinese Operatives On Fox News - YouTube Utah Nature Security See Dana Sept 23 in Chicago Written Testimony of Nikolas Bowie to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet of the Committee on the Judiciary, May 21, 2026 →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans →Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.com →Email Dana LGBTQ Owned eating establishments in your area - hello@mswmedia.com Subject: “Dana's Project” Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTube Harry Dunn is running for CongressHarry Dunn for Maryland Our Donation Links The Daily Beans is donating $10,000 and invites you to give what you can to support their life-affirming work - Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser The Daily beans is donating $10,000 and invites you to give what you can to support their life-affirming work - Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Pathways to Citizenship link to MATCH Allison's Donationhttps://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation?ApiKey=pub_86ff5236-dd26-11ec-b5ee-066e3d38bc77&WidgetId=6388736 Join Dana and The Daily Beans in support of Human Rights Campaign http://onecau.se/_ekes71 More Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate, ActBlue.com/donate/msw-bwc, WhistleblowerAid.org/beans Dr. Allison Gill - The Breakdown | Allison Gill, Mueller, She Wrote @muellershewrote.com - Bluesky, MSW & The Daily Beans Podcast @muellershewrote - Instagram, MSW Media - YouTube →Federal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.  Dana Goldberg - Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugout, @dgcomedy - Bluesky, @dgcomedy - IG, Dana Goldberg - Facebook,  DanaGoldberg.com More from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | Allison Gill Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Educator and author Arjun Jayadev joins This Is Hell! to talk about the new book published by The University Of Chicago Press that he co-wrote with J.W. Mason called “Against Money”, which talks about how money has gotten to dominate the lives of humans world wide as it become the most influential human creation. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo265118979.html Arjun Jayadev is professor of economics and director of the Centre for the Study of the Indian Economy at Azim Premji University in India. He has previously taught at the University of Massachusetts-Boston. He is also a Senior Economist at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. His research combines quantitative and theoretical analysis of Finance, Development, Political Economy and Intellectual Property. He is also a fellow at the Groundwork Collective. https://groundworkcollaborative.org/ We will have new installments of Rotten History and Hangover Cure. We will also be sharing your answers to this week's Question from Hell! from Patreon. Help keep This Is Hell! completely listener supported and access bonus episodes by subscribing to our Patreon: www.patreon.com/thisishell

We're diving into a hot topic: content copying. I'm breaking down the difference between inspiration vs copying, how to protect your intellectual property, and I'm sharing personal experiences of copyright infringement and the best ways to handle it all.We'll talk about what you can do when your content is taken without credit, the right and wrong ways to get inspired, and why it's so important to celebrate your own originality in the online space. If you've ever wondered when to shout someone out or how to make sure your ideas are protected, this episode is for you!In this episode we'll be covering:The difference between content copying, inspiration, and intellectual property and why it matters. My own experiences with copyright infringement, how I handled it and what I wish I had done differently.Deciding when to take legal action vs. letting things go and what options are available to you for dealing with content theft.Trending or viral content vs Intellectual Property: enjoying when others use the concept and knowing what's “teachable” vs. just “inspired content.”Best practices when it comes to other people's content: obtaining explicit, written permission before reposting others' content and knowing when to tag another creator to give credit where it is due. My method for handling content inspiration when I can't recall the original creator.Recommended episodes:Episode 35: Turning Inspiration into Unique and Original ContentEpisode 42: Your Simple B-Roll Can Become Easy Reels That Actually ConvertEpisode 63: Was That an Ad? Even the Big Brands are Making it PersonalEpisode 95: Building Real Community with Stories and Shared MomentsEpisode 107: Where To Find Content Ideas So You're Always Ready To PostEpisode 111: It's How You Fill in the Blanks That Makes the Hook Unique to YouSend a message!If you use the send a message option above, be sure to include your email address if you would like a reply! (Please allow 3-5 business days for a response)Join me in the Reels Lab!Love this conversation? Make sure to follow and subscribe so you never miss an episode.Connect with me on Instagram!

In this FYF episode, Lesley Logan delivers a list of ready-made responses for the moments when family, friends, or strangers say something offensive, intrusive, or just plain uncomfortable. She also celebrates a community win from a new Mat Pilates teacher trainee, and shares her own win about protecting her Intellectual Property after discovering AI-generated theft of her images. With a grounded mantra to close, this episode is a reminder that setting boundaries is an act of self-respect. If you have any questions about this episode or want to get some of the resources we mentioned, head over to LesleyLogan.co/podcast https://lesleylogan.co/podcast/. If you have any comments or questions about the Be It pod shoot us a message at beit@lesleylogan.co mailto:beit@lesleylogan.co. And as always, if you're enjoying the show please share it with someone who you think would enjoy it as well. It is your continued support that will help us continue to help others. Thank you so much! Never miss another show by subscribing at LesleyLogan.co/subscribe https://lesleylogan.co/podcast/#follow-subscribe-free.In this episode you will learn about:How to respond when someone says something offensive in real time.Lines to use when family pushes politics you don't want to discuss.What to say when comments about your body won't stop.Boundary scripts for unwanted dating, family, or finance questions.How Lesley handled AI-generated theft of her images and brand.Episode References/Links:the Skimm' (@theskimm) - https://beitpod.com/theskimmSubmit your wins or questions - https://beitpod.com/questions If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox. https://lovethepodcast.com/BITYSIDEALS! DEALS! DEALS! DEALS! https://onlinepilatesclasses.com/memberships/perks/#equipmentCheck out all our Preferred Vendors & Special Deals from Clair Sparrow, Sensate, Lyfefuel BeeKeeper's Naturals, Sauna Space, HigherDose, AG1 and ToeSox https://onlinepilatesclasses.com/memberships/perks/#equipmentBe in the know with all the workshops at OPC https://workshops.onlinepilatesclasses.com/lp-workshop-waitlistBe It Till You See It Podcast Survey https://pod.lesleylogan.co/be-it-podcasts-surveyBe a part of Lesley's Pilates Mentorship https://lesleylogan.co/elevate/FREE Ditching Busy Webinar https://ditchingbusy.com/Resources:Watch the Be It Till You See It podcast on YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq08HES7xLMvVa3Fy5DR8-gLesley Logan website https://lesleylogan.co/Be It Till You See It Podcast https://lesleylogan.co/podcast/Online Pilates Classes by Lesley Logan https://onlinepilatesclasses.com/Online Pilates Classes by Lesley Logan on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjogqXLnfyhS5VlU4rdzlnQProfitable Pilates https://profitablepilates.com/about/Follow Us on Social Media:Instagram https://www.instagram.com/lesley.logan/The Be It Till You See It Podcast YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq08HES7xLMvVa3Fy5DR8-gFacebook https://www.facebook.com/llogan.pilatesLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/lesley-logan/The OPC YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/@OnlinePilatesClasses Episode Transcript:Lesley Logan 0:00  It's Fuck Yeah Friday. Brad Crowell 0:01  Fuck yeah. Lesley Logan 0:02  Get ready for some wins. Welcome to the Be It Till You See It podcast where we talk about taking messy action, knowing that perfect is boring. I'm Lesley Logan, Pilates instructor and fitness business coach. I've trained thousands of people around the world and the number one thing I see stopping people from achieving anything is self-doubt. My friends, action brings clarity and it's the antidote to fear. Each week, my guest will bring bold, executable, intrinsic and targeted steps that you can use to put yourself first and Be It Till You See It. It's a practice, not a perfect. Let's get started. Lesley Logan 0:48  Hello, Be It babe. Welcome to your mid month of May. FYF, it's our third of five Fridays. So we have a lot of May, May celebrations, which means that you have five chances of May to find something to celebrate, something to send in, something to remind yourself you're doing a great job. You are and you're on your way to being it till you see it and you're doing yourself a great job. So this thing that inspired me that I'm sharing with you, okay, here's the deal. It is quite possible that I shared it last fall, and if I didn't, I fucked up, and I'm sharing it with you now, because it does say how to set boundaries of family this Thanksgiving, if they say something offensive, but honestly, like because this world continues to be in a shit hole, and people around me that I like thought agreed with me on a lot of things, sometimes say things and I'm like, whoa, that's fucking offensive. I thought maybe we need a reshare. So if you need a reminder of this, here's what it is. So if someone says something offensive, doesn't have to be Thanksgiving, it can just be around you. What an odd thing to say out loud. I feel uncomfortable with the statement you just made. I don't get it. Can you explain that one? Wow. I'm not sure how to respond. That was an unkind thing to say. That's an inside thought. And so I like those. I think these are great, like, it's like, you, at least, can respond, and it maybe makes them think, if it doesn't. So if it's politics you want to avoid, then you can say, this isn't a conversation I like to have right now. Or you can say, I have a lot of thoughts in the state of the country, but I'd rather share them another time. You can also say I won't be engaged in talk about politics if we can't stick to other topics, I'll take a break from the table. That one's a little more confrontational. I'm not willing to be badgered right now, so I'm going to walk away and do all of those things. Remember, we are the five, we are like the people we hang out with. If comments about food or your body won't stop. So this is important because I really do believe that like stop commenting on women's bodies. We just fucking need to. It makes me feel uncomfortable when you talk about my body. So I'm going to end this here. I'm really trying to have a better relationship with myself this year, I'm going to ask that you not comment on my looks. I'm listening to my body and what it craves right now, let's focus on something else, rather than my plate. I thought we were past talking about people's weight in 2025. So I think that that's, you know I know that can sound like, oh my god, I'm gonna make them uncomfortable. Yeah, they're making you feel uncomfortable. We have to get good at making people who make us feel uncomfortable feel uncomfortable too. If your relationship status family planning is the unwanted subject, honestly, I would love to chat with you about blank rather than my dating life. I like to keep that private right now, I might not be engaged, but I have blank going on that I'm happy to talk about, instead. Kids aren't in my equation right now, I'd rather work on expanding my family when I'm ready. So those are all and I think you can like, you can change those to like fit your situation. But I do think like giving them something else to bring up is also fine, but like letting people know I want to talk about that, it's all, boundaries are kind, and if they're commenting on your finances, well fuck them. But you can say, if you're trying to help, I could use some advice on blank otherwise I'm good. So give them a thing that you want to talk about. Rather than getting all this unsolicited advice. I'm doing my best in a stressful economy. I'm managing my finances well and making progress towards my goals. That's all you need to know. And then if the question just fills what's the last one? If the question feels personal, a little too personal, this isn't something I want to talk about right now. That's a sensitive topic for me, let's talk about something else. Actually, I've been wanting to ask you about blank how's that going? So that one, you know that one might be a little spicy, but I hope these help. Feel free to look at the transcripts of this podcast, copy and paste it, put in your notes, easy to text to people who ask uncomfortable things or say, I'm you know. You just pull it up like, you know, you'll get better at it. But it's important, we have to have these things at the ready, because sometimes we're like, oh my god, I don't know what to say and they just, like, said something awful. Lesley Logan 4:49  Now for the wins. I, you know Be It babe, I got your back on these things. The win that I'm gonna share today is from CAGoodfellow, hi, Lesley. I've now started my class, Go Mat Pilates Teacher Training Course. I know this person, and this is a huge deal. So happy for you. I'm so happy for you. Give me a post on how it's going. Lesley Logan 5:10  All right, my win, and then I'll get you a mantra and get you on your way. So I found out that someone used AI to steal my images and write a shitty book. And I was like, oh my god, this is, like, so annoying. It's gonna take so long. And the team went to action, and Amazon took the book down in like, no time at all. We put it up there, proved that it was ours, our images, and they took it down. And when telling people about this shitty thing, I found out that other people were using my images, which like, you think, oh my god, that's gonna be so terrible. Yeah, it sucks. It feels violating in weird ways. I mean, like, it feels weird to even use that word violating, because it's like, is it? But like, it it is. And people are like, oh, don't let this take up your amazing energy. Here's the deal. You have to protect your IP so it does have to take some energy. But I'm really proud of how I've been able to trust the team to find a new system and to put in place to to take care of this situation, and it not keep me up at night, but we are taking action, legal actions, where, where we can. But I didn't let it like derail the goals I had that week. I was like, okay, this is happening. What can we do? What are our steps? What's our first step of action and and then work on from that, I it's just really, it's really nice not to like, end up in a puddle of like, woe is me. Now I've got to do this, too. And in asking for help, I got to see how many of you are like, here to support the work that we're doing, and you understand what that means. And because of you, we're finding out the images that are being used that are like in hidden places a little harder, and I'm so grateful. So if you see images of me, they're not on my flash cards and they're not my posters, most likely I did not give them permission to use them, so just send it, and if I did, I'll let you know. Lesley Logan 6:56  All right, your mantra is, each part of me is worthy of love, each part of me is worthy of love. Each part of you is worthy of love, Be It babe. Thanks so much for being here. Until next time, Be It Till You See It. Lesley Logan 7:13  That's all I got for this episode of the Be It Till You See It Podcast. One thing that would help both myself and future listeners is for you to rate the show and leave a review and follow or subscribe for free wherever you listen to your podcast. Also, make sure to introduce yourself over at the Be It Pod on Instagram. I would love to know more about you. Share this episode with whoever you think needs to hear it. Help us and others Be It Till You See It. Have an awesome day. Be It Till You See It is a production of The Bloom Podcast Network. If you want to leave us a message or a question that we might read on another episode, you can text us at +1-310-905-5534 or send a DM on Instagram @BeItPod.Brad Crowell 7:55  It's written, filmed, and recorded by your host, Lesley Logan, and me, Brad Crowell.Lesley Logan 8:00  It is transcribed, produced and edited by the epic team at Disenyo.co.Brad Crowell 8:05  Our theme music is by Ali at Apex Production Music and our branding by designer and artist, Gianfranco Cioffi.Lesley Logan 8:12  Special thanks to Melissa Solomon for creating our visuals.Brad Crowell 8:15  Also to Angelina Herico for adding all of our content to our website. And finally to Meridith Root for keeping us all on point and on time.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Today's show is sponsored by Huion, makers of the Huion Kamvas 22 (Gen 3) — a 21.5" pen display with a gorgeous 2.5K screen and really smooth performance. Bottom line: it feels great to draw on — and it punches way above its price. • Check it out at https://comiclabshop.com • Use code COMICLAB5 for an exclusive 5% discount! (Valid through June 14th) Brad and Dave tackle a listener question that gets to the heart of creative careers: Can you make a living telling shorter stories, or does success demand long-form work? As always, the answer is equal parts practical advice and creative philosophy — grounded in real-world experience and delivered with ComicLab's signature mix of humor and honesty. TODAY'S SHOW • Can you build a career on individual short stories? • Market expectations around story length (comics, film, TV) and perceived value • Creative problem-solving as a business tool — making unconventional formats work • Strategies for packaging short stories (genre consistency, shared setting, through-lines) • Examples of experimental storytelling formats (anthologies, vignette structures) • PROMO: Huion Kamvas 22 (Gen 3) — features, workflow integration, and discount code ComicLab5 at https://comiclabshop.com • Estate planning for cartoonists — what happens to your IP after death? • Debate: Should creative work become public domain sooner? • Should kids continue your comic… or make their own work? • The reality of legacy comics vs. modern independent publishing You get great rewards when you join the ComicLab Community on Patreon$2 — Early access to episodes$5 — Submit a question for possible use on the show AND get the exclusive ProTips podcast. Plus $2-tier rewards.If you'd like a one-on-one consultation about your comic, book it now!Brad Guigar is the creator of Evil Inc and the author of The Webcomics Handbook. He is available for personal consultations. Dave Kellett is the creator of Sheldon and Drive. He is the co-director of the comics documentary, Stripped.