Court Examines Whether AI Images May Receive Copyright Protection

On December 9, 1982, a victim was raped and stabbed multiple times in her Baton Rouge residence. In those harrowing moments, the victim was face-to-face with her assailant and vowed that she would remember the characteristics of her assailant in the unlikely event she survived. A friend arrived at the residence and entered the second-floor room containing the assailant and the wounded victim. Fortunately, at that moment, noise from a postal employee caused the assailant to flee the scene. The investigation began that same day.

Sometime later, Archie Williams became a suspect and was then criminally charged after the victim identified Mr. Williams as her attacker. The victim identified a prominent scar on the assailant which, in an unfortunate twist of fate, tended to match a scar on Mr. Williams. Several of the governmental officers involved in the investigation and the April 1983 criminal trial of Mr. Williams were sued many years later in the case styled Archie Williams v. City of Baton Rouge, ET AL. Keogh Cox attorneys Drew Blanchfield, Collin LeBlanc, Cathy Giering, and Chelsea Payne represented a forensic scientist, a lab technician, and a print examiner in the suit (the “Forensic Defendants.”) In his June 10, 2024 ruling, Judge Brian A. Jackson granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of these defendants, dismissing the claims against them with prejudice.

At the 1983 criminal trial, Forensic Defendants testified that they could not identify Mr. Williams as the attacker. Similarly, both the prosecutor and defense counsel advised the jury that the physical evidence did not implicate Mr. Williams. Nevertheless, Mr. Williams was convicted based upon the passionate but mistaken testimony of the victim. Mr. Williams had not committed these crimes but remained incarcerated until his release decades later.

Mr. Williams consistently denied guilt. In 2008, he hoped DNA testing would help to prove his innocence. However, the DNA evidence was of no assistance. In 1999, The FBI launched its National Fingerprint Database (“IAFIS.”) Yet, a 2009 search generated no matches to fingerprints from the crime scene that had not already been identified. In 2014, Next Generation Identification (NGI) replaced IAFIS. By 2016, NGI held approximately 72,000,000 criminal fingerprints and 50,000,000 civil fingerprints. A 2019 search of this ever-expanding database matched fingerprint evidence taken from the 1983 crime scene to the prints of a convicted rapist who had died in prison years before. Mr. Williams was innocent and was soon released through a joint filing by the State of Louisiana and Mr. Williams. His lawsuit against multiple defendants followed.

In response, the Forensic Defendants filed a Motion that advanced the “qualified immunity” granted to governmental officials. In opposition to the Motion, the plaintiff possessed the burden: 1) to raise a fact dispute on whether his constitutional rights were violated by the defendants’ individual conduct; and 2) to show those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. The Court found that the plaintiff did not meet this burden. Although Plaintiff alleged that certain fingerprint evidence had been “suppressed” in violation of the “Brady Rule,” the Court cited the robust factual record showing that the jury was fully aware that no fingerprint evidence identified Mr. Williams and that unidentified prints were present at the crime scene. The Court also rejected the claim that there was any fabricated exculpatory blood or serology evidence.

The facts in Williams highlight the great technological improvements since the early 1980s which now aid the court system, prosecutors, and defense attorneys to protect against the conviction of an innocent suspect. These facts also tell a sad human story of an individual who spent more than 30 years in jail for a crime he did not commit. While it does not replace the lost years, Louisiana has created a fund which provides some financial resources to wrongfully convicted individuals to help them re-enter society. Williams was able to take advantage of this fund.

References:

Archie Williams v. City of Baton Rouge, ET AL, United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, No. 3:20-cv-00162.

Generally, a provision in a construction contract for private work limiting the contractor's right to recover additional costs arising from delays outside of the contractor's control may be enforceable. However, under the Public Bid Law, such a provision has been found to be against public policy. La. R.S. 38:2216 prohibits any public contract provision that purports to waive, release or extinguish the rights of a contractor to recover delay damages if the delay was caused in whole or in part by the acts or omission of the public entity.

A recent First Circuit decision struck down a contract provision that purported to limit a contractor's right to damages in a public contract. In F.H. Myers Const. Corp. v. State, Div. of Admin. Office of Facility Planning & Control, 2013-2153 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/18/14), reh'g denied (July 22, 2014), a general contractor brought an action against the State for breach of contract, seeking payments for extended-fixed job site overhead.

The State argued that the contract contemplated that the contractor could recover extended-fixed job site overhead only if there was a complete stoppage of work solely attributable to the State. The contractor argued that the contract provision was in violation of La. R.S. 38:2216.

The court found that La. R.S. 38:2216 contemplates that a contractor who is a party to a public contract shall be able to recover for any delay they may suffer from the fault of the State entity. Because the contract waived the contractor's rights to seek damages for extended-fixed job site overhead for any delay short of a complete stoppage of work, the contract imposed a stricter limit on damages than the statute allows. The court also noted that the contract only allowed for damages where the State was 100% at fault, whereas the statute allows recovery even if the State is only partially at fault. As such, the provisions at issue were held to be void and unenforceable.

Tim Berners-Lee, computer scientist and founder of the World Wide Web Consortium, famously stated, “We can’t blame the technology when we make mistakes.” One Louisiana appellate court disagrees.

In Worm v. The Berry Barn, LLC, 20-1086 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/21/21), the Louisiana First Circuit utilized a broad interpretation of Louisiana’s fax-filing statute, La. R.S. 13:850. In Worm, the plaintiff was injured in an accident on October 7, 2018. Plaintiff’s counsel fax-filed the Petition to the Tangipahoa Parish Clerk of Court’s office on Friday, October 4, 2019. The next Monday, the Clerk sent a “Fax Filing Confirmation” to Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel filed the original Petition with the Clerk of Court on October 11, 2019.

Defendants filed an exception of prescription, arguing that the faxed Petition did not interrupt prescription because Plaintiff’s original Petition was not “identical” to the faxed Petition, as required by La. R.S. 13:850. Defendants correctly pointed out that portions of the first and second pages of the fax filed Petition were “cut off … thereby eliminating some of the substance of plaintiff’s allegations.” Plaintiff opposed the exception, arguing that any error in the receipt or printing of the fax filed petition was attributable to the Clerk of Court and/or its fax machine.

The trial court recognized that the difference between the fax filed Petition and the original Petition was “ultimately the result of, we think a machine error.” Nevertheless, the court sustained defendants’ exception and dismissed plaintiff’s claims as prescribed. Plaintiff appealed.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Louisiana’s prescription statutes are to be strictly construed against prescription and in favor of the obligation sought to be extinguished. The court held, “There is no dispute that the physical copies contained in the record show that the fax filed petition and the original petition are different. However, the differences are due to missing as opposed to substantively different or altered portions of the petition. … As reasoned by the trial court, the apparent error in receipt and printing of plaintiff’s fax filed petition by the Clerk of Court was attributable to ‘machine error …’” The First Circuit held that the fax filed Petition interrupted prescription and reversed the decision of the trial court.

While the explicit language of La. R.S. 13:850 requires that a fax filed pleading be “identical” to the original pleading, the First Circuit’s decision in Worm suggests that the statute has at least some flexibility. Although the plaintiff in Worm was able to “blame the technology,” the impact of the decision may ultimately be limited to its specific facts where the “machine error” was caused by the Clerk’s system.