Articles - Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.

When Your Expert Uses AI, the Prompts Are Fair Game: Reading the CLF v. Shell Order

On May 18, 2026, Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish granted a motion to compel in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (D. Conn. No. 3:21-cv-00933), ordering the plaintiff to produce the artificial intelligence prompts and queries its expert used to build her report. The ruling is short. Its logic is the part worth your attention. CLF's expert, Dr. Naomi Oreskes, used an AI workflow to cull Shell's large document production down to a working subset for her analysis. When the defendants asked for the prompts and outputs behind that process, CLF resisted on [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-07T11:18:08-04:00June 3rd, 2026|Artificial Intelligence, Litigation|

As AI Risk Shifts to Customers, Contracts Matter More Than Ever

For years, business customers approached software contracting with a familiar expectation: if a vendor’s technology infringed someone else’s intellectual property rights, the vendor would defend the claim and cover resulting losses. As AI companies entered the enterprise market, those protections quickly became table stakes. That assumption is becoming increasingly unreliable. Litigation involving AI systems is accelerating. According to Prof. Edward Lee’s team at ChatGPTisEatingTheWorld.com, 111 copyright infringement cases involving AI have already been filed. Insurers are narrowing coverage. Vendors are narrowing indemnities. And businesses adopting AI tools are increasingly retaining risks that vendors once absorbed. When it comes to [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-07T11:27:39-04:00May 21st, 2026|Artificial Intelligence, Contracts, Licensing, Litigation|

First AI copyright infringement settlements – both within a week: Anthropic and Eleven Labs avoid risking billion-dollar valuations.

Big news: Vacker v. Eleven Labs and Bartz v. Anthropic have settled. Why did they settle, and what does this mean for the other 46 AI copyright infringement cases currently pending? Vacker v. Eleven Labs: Aug. 20th Stipulation to Stay Proceedings Bartz v. Anthropic: Aug. 26th Order re: Settlement in Principle First, there are a few common themes: The alleged copyright infringement was blatant and intentional The companies faced both reputational and financial harm Both were raising money based on valuations of billions of dollars Their losses could potentially damage or destroy the business model (some companies training on everything, [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2025-09-12T13:27:05-04:00August 28th, 2025|Artificial Intelligence, Contracts, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Licensing|

Judge: Meta Wins but Transformative Element of Fair Use Doesn’t Outweigh Market Impact

"Every battle is won before it is ever fought." - Sun Tzu. Meta just won an early skirmish in the battle over whether AI training is fair use - but AI companies may end up losing overall if they focus on only the transformative element of copyright law's fair use test without addressing the market impact. Judge Chhabria's June 25, 2025 Order in Kadrey v. Meta Yesterday, in Kadrey v. Meta, Judge Chhabria granted Meta summary judgment, and said that even if training AI models on copyrighted works is transformative - "As a factual matter, there’s no disputing [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2025-09-12T13:38:54-04:00June 26th, 2025|Artificial Intelligence, Contracts, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Licensing|

This is Not Mocha Mousse

This is definitely not Mocha Mousse (Pantone 17-1230) The color you’re seeing in this image may look like Pantone’s 2025 Color of the Year, Mocha Mousse. It might even share the same hexadecimal value, straight from Pantone’s official Connect platform. But it’s not Mocha Mousse. Why not? Because unless you’ve licensed Pantone’s color system, or are using tools that have, you can’t officially use that color in design work. And for businesses, that distinction matters. Wait, What Is Mocha Mousse? Every year, Pantone selects a Color of the Year that captures the cultural moment. In 2024, it was [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2025-09-12T12:25:30-04:00April 18th, 2025|Intellectual Property, Licensing|

Congratulations to Josh Waterston and Lewis Sorokin on receiving the Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional certification

Wilftek is pleased to announce that Josh Waterston and Lewis Sorokin have each earned Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). AI governance professionals are tasked with the critical responsibility of evaluating AI, integrating relevant standards and best practices, and developing and implementing strategies for compliance with applicable laws and regulations. With the global expansion of AI technology, there is a rapid, cross-industry need for these professionals to understand and execute AI governance in a safe and responsible manner. At Wilftek, we help our clients create new businesses, move forward with business opportunities, and [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2025-09-12T12:20:20-04:00October 23rd, 2024|Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property|

USPTO AI Guidance for Lawyers: You can use AI – but don’t blame it for your mistakes.

Today, the USPTO issued its new guidance on using AI. This is for lawyers and others who practice before the patent and trademark office, and builds upon its internal guidance from this past February. The document is "Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office", released this morning (Press release here / draft Federal Register notice here), and is similar to its internal guidance to the PTAB and TTAB on February 6th. The guidance (especially Section III) clarifies to practitioners that: Existing rules still apply (candor, good faith, review and certification of submissions, confidentiality, [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2025-09-12T16:38:04-04:00May 17th, 2024|Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property|

AMC to Pay $8 million for Disclosing Users’ Viewing Histories

The 1998 Video Privacy Protection Act is very much alive and well. It was originally passed in response to Judge Bork’s video rental history being shared with the public during his unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination hearings, and it also applies to modern-day streaming services. Of course, data brokers and advertisers can still monetize the heck out of your data; that’s just the American way… https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/amc-to-pay-8m-for-allegedly-violating-1988-law-with-use-of-meta-pixel/ Photo 178262595 | Amc © Erik Lattwein | Dreamstime.com

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2024-02-20T14:50:21-05:00February 16th, 2024|Privacy|

The King is Dead – Long Live the King

What happens when you depend on a platform or device and the company behind it moves on without you? Google is retiring the Bard name and releasing Gemini as both a chatbot and successor to Assistant, which it has used for its smartphones and smart home speakers. Coincidentally, it has begun deprecating certain features built in to Assistant, which is probably upsetting anyone with an old device. As someone who has experienced smart devices being left in the dust as companies continue their onward march into the future, I recommend against buying into one company's platform, since you'll end [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2024-02-20T14:41:19-05:00February 8th, 2024|Intellectual Property|

Josh Waterston is Now a Certified Information Privacy Professional (U.S.)

I am pleased to announce that I am now a Certified Information Privacy Professional (U.S.), a certification provided by the International Association of Privacy Professionals. My firm and I regularly advise clients on privacy matters. I’ve drafted privacy policies and privacy statements, and have advised clients on biometric privacy requirements, texting and telemarketing requirements, and more. I work on client agreements where the parties have to protect personal data, including sensitive personal data (including PHI). I’ve also written and spoken about how intellectual property and artificial intelligence developments will affect our clients. At Wilftek, we help our clients create new [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2024-02-19T22:24:40-05:00December 29th, 2023|Privacy|