Commons and Growth: The Essential Role of Open Commons in Market Economies
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Commons and Growth: The Essential Role of Open Commons in Market Economies on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Commons and Growth: The Essential Role of Open Commons in Market Economies on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Commons and Growth: The Essential Role of Open Commons in Market Economies on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Commons and Growth: The Essential Role of Open Commons in Market Economies on LinkedIn
This Essay was written, in part, while Schottenfeld was a lawyer for the NAACP, but it does not necessarily reflect the views of the NAACP. Both of us have worked with or represented members of the Sandridge community and other communities mentioned in this Essay; the views expressed in this Essay are ours alone, but we are deeply grateful for the inspiration and insight we have drawn from these communities and their members. We thank Richard Buery, Devon Carbado, David Chen, Daniel Harawa, and Erika Wilson for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts. We are grateful to Chloe Bartholomew, Suchait Kahlon, Nina McKay, and Briana Thomas for their research assistance; to Kathleen Agno for her ongoing research support; and to Helen Zhao and the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for greatly improving this Essay. We also appreciate the insights received from participants of the Lutie Lytle Black Women Scholarship Workshop. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge support from the Filomen D’Agostino and Max E. Greenberg Research Fund, New York University School of Law.
This Essay was written, in part, while Schottenfeld was a lawyer for the NAACP, but it does not necessarily reflect the views of the NAACP. Both of us have worked with or represented members of the Sandridge community and other communities mentioned in this Essay; the views expressed in this Essay are ours alone, but we are deeply grateful for the inspiration and insight we have drawn from these communities and their members. We thank Richard Buery, Devon Carbado, David Chen, Daniel Harawa, and Erika Wilson for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts. We are grateful to Chloe Bartholomew, Suchait Kahlon, Nina McKay, and Briana Thomas for their research assistance; to Kathleen Agno for her ongoing research support; and to Helen Zhao and the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for greatly improving this Essay. We also appreciate the insights received from participants of the Lutie Lytle Black Women Scholarship Workshop. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge support from the Filomen D’Agostino and Max E. Greenberg Research Fund, New York University School of Law.
Historic discrimination in the process of siting and constructing physical infrastructure has sacrificed the Black communities that bear the costs associated with new roads, power lines, and sewage plants while receiving few of the benefits. This Essay advances a "community equity" framework to recognize and protect the sources of value that people hold in their communities. This approach looks beyond the traditional domains of civil rights and land use law. Instead, it embraces analogies in public nuisance and common law torts doctrines as mechanisms for recognizing community harms above and beyond the aggregate of individual claims.
Critics of generative AI often describe it as a “plagiarism machine.” They may be right, though not in the sense they mean. With rare exceptions, generative AI doesn’t just copy someone else’s creative expression, producing outputs that infringe copyright. But it does get its ideas from somewhere. And it’s quite bad at identifying the source of those ideas. That means that students (and professors, and lawyers, and journalists) who use AI to produce their work generally aren’t engaged in copyright infringement. But they are often passing someone else’s work off as their own, whether or not they know it. While plagiarism is a problem in academic work generally, AI makes it much worse because authors who use AI may be unknowingly taking the ideas and words of someone else.
Disclosing that the authors used AI isn’t a sufficient solution to the problem because the people whose ideas are being used don’t get credit for those ideas. Whether or not a declaration that “AI came up with my ideas” is plagiarism, failing to make a good-faith effort to find the underlying sources is a bad academic practice.
We argue that AI plagiarism isn’t—and shouldn’t be—illegal. But it is still a problem in many contexts, particularly academic work, where proper credit is an essential part of the ecosystem. We suggest best practices to align academic and other writing with good scholarly norms in the AI environment.
Beware dark patterns. The name should be a warning, perhaps alluding to the dark web, the “Dark Lord” Sauron, or another archetypically villainous and dangerous entity. Rightfully included in this nefarious bunch, dark patterns are software interfaces that manipulate users into doing things they would not normally do. Because of these First Amendment complications, the constitutionality of dark pattern restrictions is an unsettled question. To begin constructing an answer, we must look at how dark patterns are regulated today, how companies have begun to challenge the constitutionality of such regulations, and where dark patterns fall in the grand scheme of free speech. Taken together, these steps inform an approach to regulation going forward.