Harvard Law School‘s Cyberlaw Clinic, based at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, provides high-quality, pro-bono legal services to appropriate clients on issues relating to the Internet, technology, and intellectual property. Students enhance their preparation for high-tech practice and earn course credit by working on real-world litigation, client counseling, advocacy, and transactional / licensing projects and cases. The Clinic strives to help clients achieve success in their activities online, mindful of (and in response to) existing law. The Clinic also works with clients to shape the law’s development through policy and advocacy efforts. The Cyberlaw Clinic was the first of its kind, and it continues its tradition of innovation in its areas of practice. The Clinic works independently, with law students supervised by experienced and licensed attorneys. In some cases, the Clinic collaborates with counsel throughout the country to take advantage of regional or substantive legal expertise. The Cyberlaw Clinic advocates with or on behalf of collaborators and clients on a variety of law and policy topics. The Clinic generally does not take positions in its own name. It makes client selection and other decisions relevant to its practice mindful of a set of core values and actively seeks to advance those values through its work. Values at the heart of the Clinic’s practice and teaching activities include: promotion of a robust and inclusive online ecosystem for free expression; advancement of diversity as a key interest in technology development and tech policy; elimination or mitigation of the impact of bias in the development and deployment of technology; respect for and protection of privacy, vis-à-vis both private and government actors; open government; transparency with respect to public and private technical systems that impact all citizens (and, in particular, members of vulnerable populations); access to knowledge and information; advancement of cultural production through efficient and balanced regulatory and enforcement regimes; and support for broad participation in public discourse
From the Blog
Since 2018, the Cyberlaw Clinic has had an internal style guide, to ensure consistency across our publications and assist students’ development of strong legal writing skills. As we drafted it, we made frequent reference to other style guides, including the classics like Strunk & White, but also some that have been shared freely on the internet. Now that we’ve road-tested our style guide for a full academic year, we thought it was time to pay it forward, and we are making the fall 2019 version of the Cyberlaw Clinic Style Guide publicly available under a CC-BY 4.0 license (click the link to download a pdf copy). →
Alongside the rapid development of artificial intelligence, we’ve seen a proliferation of AI “principles,” or guidelines for how AI should be built and used. Governments, companies, advocacy groups, and multi-stakeholder initiatives have all advanced perspectives. This project emerged from our curiosity about these principles. Were they wildly divergent, or was there enough commonality to suggest the emergence of sectoral norms? Some were framed as ethical in nature; others drew from human rights law. How did that impact their content? We wanted a way to look at the principles documents side by side, to assess them individually and identify important trends, so we built one. →
JENZABAR, INC. v. LONG BOW GROUP, INC. | No. 2011-P-1533 | Mass. App. Ct. January 18, 2012 | The Cyberlaw Clinic prepared this amicus brief (pdf) on behalf of the Digital Media Law Project, supporting documentary film production company Long Bow Group, Inc. The case concerns Long Bow’s use of Jenzabar’s name in metadata on web sites containing speech critical of Jenzabar and its founder. The brief argues that Jenzabar’s attempt to use trademark law to prohibit the use of its name in metadata was an effort to render Long Bow’s protected speech inaccessible on the Internet and was therefore barred by the First Amendment and Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.