News and Other Events
Hey, Content Creators!
It’s time to understand your rights and fair fee standards on social media.
In our fast-paced digital world, your creative work is an asset that deserves protection. Unauthorized use of your content – be it a catchy phrase, distinct sound, or your unmistakable persona – can lead to issues such as trademark infringement, unfair competition, misappropriation, and false endorsement. Even if no trademark is registered, common law rights or claims of unjust enrichment might apply when your work is used without permission.
Being vigilant is key. If your unique content is exploited without consent, you might have legal grounds based on personality rights. Such rights protect your image and public identity from being exploited for commercial gain. Moreover, if an agreement or license was implied, any overstepping may be considered a breach, ensuring that you receive due compensation for prior unauthorized exposure.
When discussing compensation, industry standards often rely on CPM – the cost per 1,000 impressions. The rate depends on the influencer status. For creators on platforms like TikTok and Instagram, a rate in the $20–$25 range is generally seen as fair for a macro influencer (~2M followers). Exceptional performance that pushes engagement beyond expectations might support higher rates, sometimes around $40 CPM, though this premium requires strong, demonstrable results.
Negotiation is an art. Blending fixed fees with performance bonuses can make balanced deals to reflect upfront value and actual campaign impact. Even if infringing content is removed quickly, compensation for earlier views and engagements remains important. Understanding these layered approaches strengthens your negotiating position and ensures fair market value.
Consider that a campaign generating viral traction—where views exceed your follower count—signals powerful shareability and reach. Such success reinforces your case for premium rates. Whether it’s a small-scale project or a large, branded campaign, knowing the standard fee structures, from baseline CPM rates to premium pricing, arms you with the confidence needed to secure equitable deals.
Ultimately, protecting your creative rights is as much about legal awareness as it is about market savvy. Transparent negotiations, clear contracts, and familiarity with compensation benchmarks ensure that every post, story, or video truly reflects the worth of your influence. Stand firm, remain informed, and let your creativity drive forward a fair and balanced digital ecosystem.
Remember: Every view, like, and share testifies to your creative impact. Demand fair pay for your work. Encourage your peers to champion transparent, balanced deals that honor artistry and drive a thriving digital future.
Claim your worth! We’re here to help.
#CreatorRights #InfluencerMarketing #DigitalCompensation
September 8, 2025 - AI Inventions just got a little easier to patent.
The August 2025 USPTO memorandum represented a significant shift in examiner evaluation of AI and software patents, clarifying Section 101 eligibility requirements and enforcing that claims must explicitly describe any abstract ideas rather than rely on general descriptions of mathematical formulas or operations performable by a human mind. Examiners have frequently rejected AI patent applications based on abstract recitations, and such rejections, often based on uncertainty and speculation, have led to expensive appeals.
The memorandum mandates examiners to support rejections with a preponderance of evidence and provide a concrete basis for challenging uncertain eligibility findings. This guidance is part of broader policy changes at the USPTO, which had previously reduced eligibility rejections and increased clarity in claim analysis.
Innovators should file their applications promptly to seize the new opportunities offered by these changes. Please contact me for assistance.
September 1, 2025
AI is transforming law—not by replacing lawyers but by empowering those who adopt it. Lawyers who work with AI will likely outpace those relying solely on traditional methods. The debate splits between advocates who see AI reducing costs and expanding access and skeptics who insist on the necessity of human judgment. Legal work still demands contextual understanding, strategic decision-making, and risk assessment, as illustrated by the costly Oxford comma case. Integrating AI calls for a balanced approach that leverages tech capabilities while preserving the critical human element in legal analysis and decision-making.
August 25, 2025 –
AI and the Horse Manure Crisis
At the turn of the 20th century, New York City was drowning in horse manure. With over 100,000 horses powering carriages, streetcars, and delivery wagons, each animal was responsible for producing 15–30 pounds of manure per day. The odor was unbearable, the streets were clogged, and public health was at risk—a true crisis that demanded a radical solution.
Enter the car.
Automobiles didn’t just add speed. In time, they replaced the horses entirely, eliminating the overwhelming manure. This wasn’t a simple fix to an old problem—it was a wholesale transformation of urban life. As late Harvard Prof. Clay Christensen once said: “Disruptive innovation doesn’t just fix the old problem—it replaces the whole context.”
Cars did not manage manure better. They made it obsolete. They changed the underlying framework of transportation. Cars were disruptive.
Fast forward to today. We face a crisis of a different kind: a digital one. The explosion of data, misinformation, spam, and redundant content has created immense "digital waste." AI, particularly agentic and generative models, is not only churning out more content—It is designed to sift through this digital overload. Much like cars replaced horse-drawn carriages and removed the manure problem, AI promises to reorganize our information landscape. It offers new ways to curate, filter, and verify the massive amounts of data we produce every day.
But the analogy goes beyond waste management. Cars made transportation faster, more efficient, and opened new possibilities for commerce and urban design. In the same way, AI augments our human capabilities. It speeds up research and editing, handling tasks within minutes that once took hours or days. This acceleration isn’t about having less information—It’s about making sense of an ever-growing pile of digital waste, transforming it into valuable insights.
AI is disruptive.
Both historical and digital transitions remind us that disruptive innovation reshapes our environment. The NYC manure crisis teaches us that sometimes the solution isn’t to improve on the old methods but to replace them entirely, to not fear innovation. Today’s AI revolution follows that same transformative logic, not simply managing information but remaking how we consume, process, and benefit from it.
LinkedIn post
August 18, 2025 – ChatGPT is not your lawyer.
It is not your friend.
It is not even a person.
Several clients have come to me, citing AI (ChatGPT in particular) as an authority for legal matters and other things. Sometimes, they have even sent the output to third parties.
This is a terrible idea for many reasons:
Unreliability and "Hallucinations"
AI outputs are often factually incorrect or invent legal precedent. ChatGPT, and similar tools, can hallucinate fake statutes, nonexistent cases, or incorrect citations. Several documented cases have resulted in sanctions against lawyers who used AI-generated legal research without verification. Hallucination rates for legal queries can range from 58%-82% in general-purpose chatbots.
Lack of Judgment and Legal Nuance
AI lacks human judgment and context—essential in legal analysis, strategy, and document drafting. Legal reasoning requires not just knowledge but also experience and interpretive skill that AI simply does not possess.
Ethical Violations and Professional Rules
Lawyers are ethically bound to ensure competence (duty of technological competence), supervise non-attorneys, avoid misleading the court or third parties, and protect client confidentiality. Unchecked use of AI-generated advice risks all these duties.
Risks of Defamation, False Statements, and Misleading Content
AI can produce defamatory, unsubstantiated, or misleading statements. Sending AI-generated content to third parties (especially as legal advice or binding documents) exposes users to personal liability for defamation, false advertising, or consumer protection violations. Courts rarely accept “the AI did it” as a defense.
Copyright and Data Privacy Hazards
AI-generated documents may infringe on third-party copyrights or include personal data. Outputs may include protected content or improperly disclose confidential or private data. AI providers often use submitted material for further training, increasing the risk of privacy law violations.
Missing Regulatory and Strategic Awareness
Law is constantly evolving. AI outputs may be outdated, miss local peculiarities, or fail to account for pending legislative or court changes. AI lacks awareness of subtle arguments, precedent history, or strategic opportunities in negotiations and litigation.
Economic and Systemic Risks
Risk of automating poor practices or undermining legal professional trust. Over-reliance on AI can threaten the integrity of legal service delivery, erode public confidence, and destabilize the lawyer-client relationship, especially if errors occur.
Look, folks, I’m in favor of AI tools. I use them often for drafting and research. You can get general information and find typical forms, among many other things. But these tools supplement and augment our abilities, not replace or substitute them. If you need help with intellectual property or business legal matters, please reach out.
August 12, 2025
While Denmark is pioneering new copyright protections for personal features, U.S. citizens cannot currently register copyrights for their faces, voices, or behaviors. Protection comes from copyrighting expressive works you create, and, in some cases, trademark law. Unfortunately, no direct copyright avenue curing exists for simply "owning" your face, voice, or personal mannerisms under US law. For this, we need legislation at the federal and state levels.
If you are concerned about exploitation of your face, voice, or behavior, the right of publicity appears to be the main avenue for legal recourse. For example, the right of publicity in Georgia covers the exclusive use of one's name and likeness. Liability arises when someone uses another's name or likeness without consent for financial gain. Decisions such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products, Inc., 250 Ga. 135, 296 S.E.2d 697 (1982), have confirmed the right of publicity in Georgia and define it as including protection from the unauthorized, commercial use of a person's name, likeness (including images or sculptures), and identity.
July 3, 2025 – Software Patents
Current scholarship and industry opinion on the value of software patents—especially for inventions that recombine known processes—remains divided and nuanced.
Strategic Value and Upsides –
Competitive Edge & Monetization:
Software patents provide a significant strategic advantage by protecting the underlying functionality of your software, rather than just its expression. This can prevent competitors from copying your core processes. Patents can be licensed or sold, creating additional revenue.
Investor Confidence & Company Valuation:
A patent portfolio can increase investor confidence and company valuation. IP can account for up to 80% of a company's value and is often used as leverage in negotiations, acquisitions, and fundraising efforts.
Legal Protection:
Patents offer enforceable rights for 20 years, allowing the holder to act against infringers and collect damages, which can be a powerful deterrent.
Costs, Risks, and Limitations –
High Cost and Time Commitment:
Filing, prosecuting, and maintaining software patents is expensive and time-consuming. Total costs can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars over a patent’s lifetime.
Incremental Innovation & Patent Quality:
Much software innovation is incremental or recombines known techniques. Obtaining broad, defensible patents is challenging.
Risks:
The cost of enforcing a patent can be prohibitive for startups and small firms. The risk of being “surrounded” by competitors’ patents (blocking or derivative filings) is real.
Changing Legal Landscape:
Software patent law is in flux. Standards around patent eligibility and obviousness are evolving, especially in the US and Europe, adding uncertainty to the value and enforceability.
Other Strategies –
Trade Secrets:
For innovations that are difficult to reverse-engineer, trade secrets offer indefinite protection while secrecy is maintained.
Copyright:
Copyright protects the specific codebase but not the underlying processes or methods. It’s easier and cheaper to obtain but narrow.
First-Mover Advantage & Proprietary Development:
Many software entrepreneurs prioritize rapid development, market entry, and continuous innovation over patenting, especially when the technology evolves quickly or secrecy can be maintained.
Conclusion: Is It Worth It?
Patents are most valuable when the software innovation is novel, non-obvious, and widely adopted or licensed, or for companies seeking to raise capital, negotiate partnerships, or position themselves for acquisition.
For incremental or recombinatory inventions, or in fast-moving markets, the high cost and uncertain scope of software patents may not justify the investment. Here, focusing on rapid development, market traction, and protecting proprietary information through trade secrets or copyright may be more effective.
A balanced IP strategy uses patents for core, defensible innovations and trade secrets or copyright for other aspects.
May 20, 2025 – Regulatory Considerations Part 3: Wrapping Up with Practical Tips
Building on previous posts about regulations for drugs, devices, supplements, animal health, and GMO crops, here are some practical insights to navigate these complex paths:
Regulatory Risk Shapes Your Business Model
Regulatory hurdles impact time to market, cost, and your choice of business strategy. For example, lengthy FDA drug approvals mean biotech startups often need substantial upfront capital and investor patience. In contrast, medical devices cleared via 510(k) may reach the market faster but still require careful risk management.
Early Engagement with Regulatory Bodies
Startups benefit from early dialogue with regulators (FDA, USDA, EPA). Agencies offer guidance meetings, pre-submission consultations, and sometimes expedited programs for breakthrough or high-need products. Building relationships and clarifying expectations early can save months or years.
Documentation and Quality Systems Matter
Regulators expect detailed data on safety, efficacy, manufacturing processes, and labeling. Investing in robust quality management systems early on helps ensure compliance and smoother approvals.
Regulatory Strategy Is Dynamic
Regulations evolve. For example, standards for biosimilars are still developing, and GMO oversight involves intersecting agencies. Stay updated through professional networks, publications, and expert advisors to adapt your strategy.
Balance Innovation with Compliance
While innovation drives your product’s value, compliance protects your market access. A clear, realistic regulatory plan aligns innovation with what is practically achievable.
May 9, 2025 – Regulatory Considerations Part 2: Supplements, Animal Health, and GMO Crops
Following our earlier post on regulatory paths for drugs and medical devices, let’s explore additional areas: dietary supplements, animal therapeutics and devices, feed additives, veterinary biologics, and genetically modified (GMO) crops.
Dietary Supplements
Dietary supplements face a separate regulatory framework under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). Manufacturers must ensure their products aren’t adulterated or misbranded before marketing. Supplements containing “new ingredients” — those not marketed before October 15, 1994 — require FDA notification with evidence supporting safety. Since no authoritative pre-1994 ingredient list exists, companies are responsible for proving their ingredient’s status or pursuing regulatory clearance as a new dietary ingredient.
Animal Therapeutics
Animal drugs are regulated by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) via three application types:
NADA (New Animal Drug Application): Like human NDAs, requires safety and efficacy data.
ANADA (Abbreviated New Animal Drug Application): For generics after patent expiration, shortening approval time.
CNADA (Conditional NADA): Allows conditional approval for drugs targeting minor uses or species after proving safety, while effectiveness data is collected over up to five years.
Veterinary Devices
Veterinary device manufacturers are not required to register establishments or list devices with the FDA. However, they must ensure their products are safe, effective, and properly labeled. The FDA can take enforcement actions if devices are misbranded or adulterated and recommends reviewing product labeling and promotional materials to meet regulatory standards.
Animal Feed Additives
Approval of new animal feed additives requires submitting a Food Additive Petition (FAP) to the FDA with data on identity, composition, safety, use levels, labeling, and environmental impact. Ingredients classified as GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) can be self-affirmed with FDA notification unless the agency objects. After FDA approval or non-objection, products must be listed in the AAFCO Official Publication, a yearly listing essential for market acceptance in the U.S. Pet food and meat producers typically rely on this listing.
Veterinary Biologics
To manufacture and sell veterinary biologics, companies must hold both establishment and product licenses from the USDA. Products undergo a rigorous approval process assessing:
Efficacy: Ability to prevent, treat, or diagnose animal disease.
Safety: Mild or rare side effects, with ongoing post-market surveillance.
Potency: Sufficient active ingredient remains effective up to expiration.
Purity: Free from contaminants affecting effectiveness or safety.
GMO Crops
FDA: Developers submit a Safety Assessment addressing potential toxicity, allergenicity, and nutrient equivalence to traditional crops. Evaluations are complete only when FDA scientists are satisfied with safety and compliance.
EPA: Oversees pesticidal substances produced by GMO plants under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The EPA sets tolerances for pesticide residues to ensure the safety of food crops. Additional state and local pesticide regulations may also apply.
May 5, 2025 – Regulatory Considerations: The Landscape
When starting a life science company, navigating the regulatory landscape is an early and important step. Regulatory authorities play a heavy role in approving and monitoring products — impacting how quickly you can reach the market and even shaping your business model. Because regulatory requirements demand significant time and investment, they are often seen as a key risk by investors. Being clear about them from day one not only builds confidence but can guide your fundraising efforts effectively.
Understanding the Regulatory Path
Each product type has its own pathways and rules. For biotech startups, knowing which agencies govern your specific category — drugs, biologics, devices, diagnostics, dietary supplements, animal therapeutics, or GMO crops — helps you plan realistic timelines and budgets.
Drugs, Biologics, and Vaccines
Generic drugs: Approved via an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA). Generics rely on patents of innovator drugs having expired, and they mainly prove their product is like the original with proper manufacturing controls. ANDAs shorten time to market and cut costs dramatically.
Biosimilars: The FDA is developing standards for biologic “generics,” but achieving interchangeability (exact matching) for biologics is more complex than for small-molecule drugs. As of now, clear paths are evolving.
Medical Devices and Diagnostics
The FDA divides devices into three classes based on risk:
Class I: Low-risk (e.g., sunglasses); often exempt from full FDA review.
Class II: Moderate-risk (e.g., blood glucose meters); usually require pre-market review via a 510(k) clearance or sometimes PMA.
Class III: High-risk (e.g., heart valves); always require Pre-Market Approval (PMA), which demands evidence of safety and effectiveness.
A less stringent 510(k) clearance may apply if your device is substantially equivalent to a previously approved “predicate” device. The Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) allows clinical trials before final FDA approval.
Diagnostic Tests and CLIA
Some diagnostics reach the market as Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs), created within CLIA-certified labs. CLIA certification is a non-trivial process that lets labs develop and use their own diagnostic tests. Startups sometimes partner with or build CLIA labs to use this approach.
Stay tuned for the next post where I’ll cover regulatory aspects for dietary supplements, animal therapeutics and devices, feed additives, veterinary biologics, and GMO crops.
April 25, 2025 – Why Research the Market?
“If you build it, they will come.” It’s a nice thought, but in business, things rarely work that way. Many good ideas fail because entrepreneurs didn’t take customers into account. Before you invest time and money, ask yourself: If I build it, will they come?
Market research helps you find the answer by figuring out whether people will pay for your product or service and whether the market is big enough to support your business.
What Is Market Analysis?
Broadly, market analysis evaluates your product’s or service’s chance of success. It focuses on:
Market Size: This means how many units of a product are sold and at what price over a period. For example, in March 2025, about 1,525,200 new cars were sold in the US at an average transaction price of about $47,462 each, resulting in a total market value of roughly $72.4 billion for that month. Not all cars are alike. A luxury electric vehicle, for example, does not compete directly with an economy sedan. Tesla, however, once a niche player targeting a small segment of high-tech, eco-conscious buyers, now operates in a rapidly expanding and increasingly competitive market.
Customer Research: Once you know your relevant market, dig deeper to find out who your customers are, what they want, why they buy, and how they decide. Learning what motivates customers and what features they value helps you tailor your product and messaging. Trends here can tell you if demand will grow or fade.
Competitor Research: Know who else sells similar products or services. What are their strengths? Where do they fall short? This helps you refine your unique offering or decide if the market is too crowded.
Barriers to Entry: Some challenges make it tough to enter a market—like regulations (more on this later), customer habits, or big sales forces. Identifying these up front lets you prepare strategies to overcome them. Plus, these barriers can protect you from future competitors once you’re in.
Key Questions to Answer in Your Market Analysis
What product or service am I offering? How does it meet a specific customer need?
Who exactly are my target customers? What do they want or need?
What value does my product or service provide?
How big is the total market? More importantly, how big is the relevant accessible market now and later?
Who are the competitors? How do their offerings compare? How many customers do they serve?
What barriers exist to entering the market? How will I overcome them? How might these barriers protect me later?
Answering these helps you focus on real opportunities, reshape your product to fit the market, and avoid wasting effort on ideas that won’t take off.
In Short
Market research isn’t just data — it’s knowing your customers, your competition, and the real market you want to enter. It gives your business a much better chance to succeed.
So, before you build anything, start by asking: Will they come? Then do the work to find out.
April 17, 2025 – Business Formation: Choosing the Right Entity for Your Startup
Forming a company officially under State and Federal IRS rules is the first step to becoming a recognized legal entity. This entity shields the founders’ personal assets from liabilities, such as debts or lawsuits, that may arise from business activities. In this roadmap, we focus on two popular business types for startups: the Limited Liability Company (LLC) and the Corporation. Note, the term “C-Corp” refers to a tax status, not an entity type, though corporations are taxed as C-corps by default unless they opt for S-corp status.
LLCs and Corporations: What’s the Difference?
LLCs offer flexible tax options. A single-member LLC is generally ignored for tax purposes (a “disregarded entity”) unless it opts for corporate tax treatment (C-corp or S-corp). Multi-member LLCs typically face partnership taxation but can elect corporate taxation if they prefer. Corporations taxed as C-corps face what’s called “double taxation,” where both the company profits and the individual dividends are taxed.
Which Entity to Choose?
Startups often debate whether to form an LLC or a Corporation. Corporations are typically favored by professional investors, such as venture capitalists. However, LLCs may offer tax advantages to startups planning to generate early profits with minimal investment. Transitioning from an LLC to a corporation is feasible and, when handled by legal professionals, can be done within about a week.
Why Form a Corporation?
Corporations exist as independent legal entities owned by shareholders. This setup protects owners from personal financial risk if the business fails or faces lawsuits. This “limited liability” is the main protection corporations provide — your personal assets remain separate from business debts and obligations.
Why Opt for an LLC?
LLCs also offer limited liability akin to corporations but have the appealing feature of “pass-through” taxation. This means the company’s income is taxed only once at the owner level, avoiding the corporate tax layer. LLCs can also pass losses through to investors, which can be attractive to angel investors.
Tax Elections: C-Corp vs. S-Corp
Both LLCs and corporations can choose tax treatment as C-corporations or S-corporations. C-corps pay corporate taxes and are subject to double taxation — company profits taxed at the corporate level and again at the shareholder level when distributed as dividends.
S-corps pass income directly to shareholders, avoiding double taxation, but have limitations: Only one class of stock and up to 200 shareholders. Despite these perks, many investors prefer C-corps because the tax filing and compliance duties rest with the corporation itself, not the individual shareholders. Also, C-corps can issue multiple classes of stock — an important feature for financing flexibility.
* * *
March 21, 2025 – Midtown IP featured on the Mountain Echo Podcast
Please check out my new podcast interview with Will Newberry at the Mountain Echo. In it, I share my journey from a space-loving youth in Huntsville to becoming a chemistry PhD and a leading IP attorney in Chattanooga. Tune in to hear how I'm using my expertise at Midtown Intellectual Property, PC, to support the industry and commerce of Chattanooga and its surrounds.
➡️ Listen now: www.themountainecho.org, Apple Podcasts