COPYRIGHT

January 17, 2008

Scrabble v. Scrabulous

Check out this statement from an article that I read today:   

Now, as if you needed more proof that we live in a time in which stuffy lawyers don't dig the digital age, take a look at this: It looks like toy-makers Hasbro and Mattel have sent their legal goons to Facebook and demanded that it remove the immensely popular 'Scrabulous' from its site.

Woah, woah, woah.  Come on, that wasn’t very nice.  Let me explain.  Hasbro and Mattel have probably asked their Intellectual Property attorneys to look into this matter.  Intellectual property attorneys dig the digital age.  In fact, we are advocates for the digital age.  That is why we have chosen to devote our working lives trying to protect the very technology and innovation that you create. 

If intellectual property attorneys did not step in and advocate for our clients intellectual rights, like the copyright and trademark rights of Scrabble®, everything would be free game and copying and stealing would suddenly become the norm.  In fact it’s legal goons like us that advocate and protect the copyright held in the very article written above.

Trust me, I may be a legal goon, but I dig the digital age. 

Posted by Emily Campbell at 02:01 PM.
Permalink: Scrabble v. Scrabulous
| Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

COPYRIGHT

June 07, 2007

Is "Knocked Up" a Knock-Off?

Canadian author, Rebecca Eckler, is claiming one of the best romantic comedies of the summer (one movie that I have actually had a chance to see) was stolen from her book of the same name, “Knocked-up.”  It looks like she is in for an uphill battle since her main contentions are:

• the cover of her book and the cover of the screenplay are similar;
• the main character gets pregnant after celebrating; and,
• the father is a Jewish Canadian.

I guess the real question is whether this is just another a knock-off of the Da Vince Code lawsuit.

Posted by Laura C. Wood at 05:23 PM.
Permalink: Is "Knocked Up" a Knock-Off?
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

COPYRIGHT

May 22, 2007

the magical kingdom of copyright law

Disney characters say it best in this humorous and informative recitation of copyright principles that includes an overall demonstration of fair use.  The beginning is a little jumpy so if you only have a couple of minutes to view it, I suggest skipping to around the five minute mark.  I can almost hear the sounds of Disney’s legal department cringing. 

 

 

Posted by Laura C. Wood at 01:54 PM.
Permalink: the magical kingdom of copyright law
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

COPYRIGHT

March 30, 2007

No "Big Love" for use of a Mormon Trademark

In a recent article by the Associated Press, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a cease and desist letter to Just Add Coffee, a Utah coffee shop, for using the image of a robed angel holding a trumpet up at an angle as coffee is poured into it.  The Utah coffee shop used the image in ads and to sell t-shirts and greeting cards.  The church claims that the image of the angel Moroni is a registered trademark. 

What’s even more interesting is the lengths to which the church has gone to protect its intellectual property rights.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has set up a non-profit corporation, the Intellectual Reserve, Inc., which owns most of the church’s intellectual property.  Most notably, in 1999, the Intellectual Reserve filed suit against Utah Lighthouse Ministries, Inc. seeking a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement.  The Intellectual Reserve claimed that the defendants were infringing their copyrights held in a Church Handbook of Instructions by posting it on a website.  The court granted the preliminary injunction.        

Sidebar comment: While writing this article I couldn’t help but to think back to the great South Park episode “All About Mormons”.  If you haven’t seen it, you can check out a summary of the episode here.

Posted by Emily Campbell at 04:47 PM.
Permalink: No "Big Love" for use of a Mormon Trademark
| TrackBack (0)

COPYRIGHT

February 08, 2007

UT Regents Hacked, I mean Saw'ed Off, with Aggieland Outfitters' Use of Longhorn Logo

As a precursor, I am a graduate from the University of Oklahoma and I have admittedly participated in the OU/TX college rivalry by displaying upside-down longhorns on numerous t-shirts as well as the back windshield of my car. So I simply could not pass up the opportunity to share this story with you about two of OU’s rival schools.

The University of Texas Board of Regents recently filed suit against Aggieland Outfitters, a Texas A&M apparel store owned by Fadi Kalaouze in College Station, Texas.

Aggieland Outfitters sells various apparel items featuring the "Saw’em off" logo (seen right). The lawsuit asks that Kalaouze destroy all current logos and refrain from using the "Saw’em off" logo in the future. The UT Regents argue that the similarity of the marks is likely to create consumer confusion and that Aggieland has been and continues to be unjustly enriched at UT's expense by the unauthorized use of the "Saw’em off" mark. Kalaouze argues that the mark is a parody and is protected by the First Amendment.

What are your thoughts? Is this a parody? Is this just poor sportsmanship? Do you think consumers would confuse the UT longhorn silhouette with an upside-down longhorn or one with sawed-off horns? Isn’t this just all part of college rivalry?

Boomer Sooner!

P.S. As a side note, Aggieland Outfitters has set up a legal defense fund at, http://www.sawemoff.com.

Posted by Emily E. Campbell at 04:01 PM.
Permalink: UT Regents Hacked, I mean Saw'ed Off, with Aggieland Outfitters' Use of Longhorn Logo
| Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)

COPYRIGHT

November 17, 2006

andy griffith sues andrew griffith

And you thought all the news about political campaigns and intellectual property would be over now that elections have ended. Don’t worry, it’s not over yet. Check out this story. William H. Fenrick, candidate for sheriff in Grant County Wisconsin, recently legally changed his name to Andy Griffith, allegedly in hopes of increasing his chances of winning the election. Andy Griffith, the actor, found out and recently filed suit against Fenrick alleging he violated various trademark, copyright, and privacy laws. The actor claims that Fenrick changed his name for the "sole purpose of taking advantage of Griffith’s notoriety in an attempt to gain votes." Fenrick argues that he did not benefit from the name change as he lost the election and that the lawsuit is absurd because no one would actually think that he was the actor. Looks like he should have tried appropriating a different name. One of the posted comments to this story suggested that Fenrick should hire Matlock as his attorney.

Posted by Emily E. Campbell at 02:33 PM.
Permalink: andy griffith sues andrew griffith
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

COPYRIGHT

November 10, 2006

Alleged Copyright Infringement: Jodi Cobb v. Geisha House

Jodi Cobb, a photojournalist, recently filed suit against the LA restaurant, Geisha House, alleging that the restaurant used the picture from the cover of her book Geisha: The Life, the Voices, the Art (seen on the right at the top).  A

llegedly, Ms. Cobb’s picture was used in the restaurant’s signage on Hollywood Boulevard (seen on the right at the bottom), on business cards, matchbooks, menus, and even chopstick holders.  The Geisha House argues that it is not the same photograph. 

The restaurant stated that they wanted to use Cobb’s picture however, her licensing fees were too high.  Instead, the restaurant argues that they created their own version of Cobb’s picture.  It appears that the restaurant may have been trying to assert the defense of independent creation by arguing that they independently created the work.  However, according to Nimmer on Copyright, evidence of access and substantial similarity are sufficient to create an inference of copying.  It seems to me that the Geisha House may be in a bit of Geisha-trouble.

 

 

Posted by Emily E. Campbell at 03:36 PM.
Permalink: Alleged Copyright Infringement: Jodi Cobb v. Geisha House
| Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

COPYRIGHT

November 03, 2006

Mele Kalikimade is the Hawaiian's way

Things are getting hot out in the Pacific, and it isn’t at the luau.  Kim Taylor Reece, known internationally for his hula photography, claims Leialoha Colucci’s stained glass art, offered for sale at a Kaliua gallery, infringes on his photo “Makanani.”   The Ilioulaoklalani Coalition is claiming that Kim Taylor Reece is just trying to copyright the hula move itself saying that “Makanani” is just a photo of a woman in a particular hula pose on the beach. 

This isn’t just an ordinary snapshot of a hula dancer.  The photo was actually taken with Kim Taylor Reece lying in water with the model kneeling in the sand putting emphasis on the upward reach of her right arm and hand.  Leialoha’s stained glass, interestingly enough, has the same kneeling position, at the same angle, and just to take it one step further – the same windblown hair. 

Not surprising – the court held Reece’s photo had copyrightable aspects including the particularities of her pose, the angle Reece captured her, and her expression.   Somewhat surprising – the term “racist” is being thrown around.  Mahalo.

Posted by Laura Wood at 10:45 PM.
Permalink: Mele Kalikimade is the Hawaiian's way
| Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

COPYRIGHT

November 02, 2006

Flickr Interestingness Rankings Patents Released

Over at the SEO by the SEA blog, William Slawski has posted on newly published patent applications filed by Yahoo convering an implementation of the concept of “interestingness search.” 

There is a pretty good exchange in the comments between William and Thomas Hawk – a celebrated photographer on the Internet and someone who is directly involved with the Zooomr web photo service. 

Zoomr is a direct competitor with Flickr, which is now owned by Yahoo.  Presumably Zoomr may have some issues if the patents are ever issued.  As a word of caution to Thomas (and all other bloggers out there) – I would be very careful in what you say about your technology and when/how/who it was developed.   All of your comments could be used as admissions down the line.

Anyway…

While the discussion between Thomas and William follows the typical “software patent discussion framework”(TM) of outrage, more outrage, denial, and chest thumping about how “Person X, Y, Z” came up with the idea 1, 2, 4 or 100 years ago… I was pleased to notice that William and Thomas actually took some time to thoughtfully discuss what Yahoo was trying to do with its patent applications and how they fit in with the overall search and photo-sharing market out there.

My only quarrel with their discussion: like all that fall within the “software patent discussion framework”(TM) — they failed to look at the actual claims of the patent and instead debated the description that the inventor drafted.  Once again – it is the claims that control the scope of the patent, not the description directly. 

All discussion of patents or patent applications should start first and foremost with the claims… it is the claims that control.

As a taste of what to expect over at SEO by the SEA:

Flickr Interestingness Rankings Patents Released

posted @ 2:17 am in [ Social Search ] by William Slawski

I’ve posted some pictures to Flickr, but I’ve never really paid much attention to the “interestingness” rankings the site uses.

Interestingness and clustering were first used in August of last year, as announced by Stewart Butterfield on the Yahoo Search Blog and the Flickr blog.

Blog posts about Flickr’s interestingness, and a February Flickr forum post on changes to the interestingness rankings, show a lot of interest in the “secret sauce” on how photos are determined to be interesting. A couple of patent applications were published by Yahoo this week that delve into interestingness rankings, clustering of pictures, and metadata associated with Flickr images.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 12:32 PM.
Permalink: Flickr Interestingness Rankings Patents Released
| Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

COPYRIGHT

November 01, 2006

EFF Sues Michael Crook for Bogus DMCA Claims

Be very careful when you make threats against ISPs under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  The Electronic Frontier Foundation is taking the issues seriously and are pushing for a preliminary injunction to stop the potential harassment and abuse. 

As a primer: under the DMCA, a copyright holder can request that an ISP remove offending material from the web.

With respect to the EFF action (at Laughing Squid):

"The EFF has just filed suit against Craigslist copycat scammer Michael Crook for filing bogus DMCA claims. In September, a blog post about Michael Crook on 10 Zen Monkeys (which is run by Jeff Diehl) used a screen shot from Fox News of Michael Crook. Michael then send a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown notice to Jeff’s web host, claiming that he had a copyright on the image. Jeff’s web host then forced him to remove the image or his account would be suspended. Jeff then moved 10zenmonkeys.com to Laughing Squid Web Hosting (the web hosting company that we run). Within 24 hours, our data center was sent a DMCA claim from Michael Crook, requesting that the image be removed. I immediately contacted Jeff to discuss the situation, as well as Jason Schultz, an attorney at The Electronic Frontier Foundation. A few weeks later, EFF filed the complaint."

Source: Laughing Squid » EFF Sues Michael Crook for Bogus DMCA Claims

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 08:55 PM.
Permalink: EFF Sues Michael Crook for Bogus DMCA Claims
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

COPYRIGHT

October 26, 2006

Boy Scouts team up with the motion picture association of america to fight piracy!

According to a recent report by the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), movie pirating contributed to a lack of jobs for more than 140,000 Americans.  But have no fear, the Boy Scouts are here!  On October 20, the Motion Picture Association of America announced that it has joined forces with the Los Angeles Area Boy Scouts of America to help raise awareness about the value of copyrights.

Now troops can choose from a number of activities that qualify them to earn a “Respect Copyrights” patch.  A couple examples of the activities include creating a public service announcement demonstrating the importance of copyright protection or visiting a movie studio to learn about the people, time, and costs associated with making a movie.

So it appears that the Boy Scout Oath should now be amended to say something like …

On my honor I will do my best to not become a thief of intellectual property

and to obey the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Scout Law;

To help other people at all times except by way of illegal file sharing;

To keep myself physically strong so that I can fight the war against piracy,

mentally awake, and morally straight.

Posted by Emily E. Campbell at 04:47 PM.
Permalink: Boy Scouts team up with the motion picture association of america to fight piracy!
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

COPYRIGHT

August 13, 2006

opps! even a governor is subject to federal copyright law

I love the political season – which seems to be never ending these days.  Politicians kissing babies, shaking hands and asking for contributions – and those campaign commercials, can you really think of anything that displays American mores and values more than political commercials? 

As you might assume – the above is a bit snarky and disingenious.  Truth is – I am tired of all the election hoopla as are –  I am sure – the vast majority of Americans.

Well, other than voter backlash, campaigns also need to take into account the pesky federal copyright laws.  Ignore them, and suffer the wrath and ire of the creator.

Object lesson:  the Pennsylvania Gubernatorial campaign of Edward Rendell (official Pennsylvania Governor Website).  It appears that Mr. Rendell has republished and “remessaged” at least one editorial written about his opponent by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  This editorial was posted to Mr. Rendell’s campaign website without the permission of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  It was also apparently used in fundraising activities.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review was not happy.  They were not amused.  And, they decided to write about it.

Mr. Rendell might keep in mind the quote that has been attributed to Mark Twain:

“Never Pick a Fight with Someone Who Buys Ink by the Barrel”

I would imagine that the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review probably buys ink by the truckload, so it is no surprise that they used such ink (electronic and “old world printed page” to blast Mr. Rendell for wrongfully using their copyrighted editorials.

But when the Trib also chides Republican gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann -- for either adopting the personnel or ways of the GOP's good ol' pols network (one that's eerily similar to that of liberals and Democrats) -- well, Camp Rendell has been quick to post those editorials and columns on its campaign Web site.

It's the political version of the adage about how the sometimes enemy of your enemy, even if that first enemy is your enemy, too, sometimes can be your friend.

But there's a little problem. It's called federal copyright law. The Rendell campaign never sought permission -- nor would it have received permission had it sought it -- to reformat and reproduce such material in full on its Web site.

Worse, it was using material illegally reproduced to solicit campaign money for Big Ed, based on the proximity of the ill-gotten words to the solicitation ad.

Picking a fight with a newspaper is probably not the best of ideas – even if it is over a pesky copyright issue.  Mr. Rendell’s campaign decided to engage the paper and defend their use of the materials. 

Exposed Sunday last in an editorial, then called on the carpet again last week, Rendell campaign spokesman Dan Fee first, and with little equivocation, defended the practice.

"This has been litigated before and has been deemed to fall into fair use," he wrote in an e-mail. "If you have other information you'd like us to review in order to reconsider, please send it along. But this is actually pretty well established case law."

The paper goes on to basically spank Mr. Fee, a non-lawyer, on his legal interpretation of copyright law — an interpretation that, as the paper pointedly explains, is completely at odds with actual legal precedent. 

So – for you budding politicians reading PHOSITA – be careful what you do and the roles your campaign staffers “play”.  Copyright effects us all – just because you call it “fair use” — doesn’t make it so.  

And for Mr. Rendell’s campaign staffers – you might want to take a look at New York Tribune, Inc. v. Otis & Co., 39 F. Supp. 67 (S.D.N.Y. 1941) (Lexis).

 

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 09:12 AM.
Permalink: opps! even a governor is subject to federal copyright law

COPYRIGHT

May 29, 2006

Recently on Rethink(IP)'s RSS Mojo Blog

• Listings of recently filed IP Lawsuits
  
  
• Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 27, 2006)
• Patent Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 27, 2006)
• Copyright Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 27, 2006)
• Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 21, 2006)
• Patent Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 21, 2006)
• Copyright Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 21, 2006)
  
  
• USPTO Notices:
  
  
• Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program between the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Japan Patent Office (signed 22May2006)
• Notice of Collection of Practitioners’ E-mail Addresses
• Commerce Deputy Under Secretary to Address Midwest Businesses On U.S. Government Efforts to Combat Counterfeiting and Piracy in China
• USPTO Exam Guide for Geographical Indications Used on Wines and Spirits
• Request for Comments on Patents Search Templates (16May2006)
• Commerce Deputy Secretary to Speak at USPTO's Community Day
• U.S. GOVERNMENT BRINGS ANTI-COUNTERFEITING AND PIRACY PROGRAM TO OHIO

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 10:58 AM.
Permalink: Recently on Rethink(IP)'s RSS Mojo Blog

COPYRIGHT

March 22, 2006

the lion rests better tonight

I really enjoy writing about intellectual property matters when it appears that an injustice has been righted. 

No one is saying how many millions will go to the daughters of the late composer Solomon Linda, who died in poverty from a curable kidney disease in 1962 at age 53.

But the family's settlement with New York-based Abilene Music, which gives Linda's heirs 25 percent of past and future royalties, has broad implications.

Linda composed his now-famous song in 1939 in one of the squalid hostels that housed black migrant workers in Johannesburg. According to family lore, he wrote the song in a matter of minutes and was inspired by his childhood tasks of chasing prowling lions from the cattle he herded.

It was sung, in true Zulu tradition, a cappella. Linda's innovation was to add his falsetto voice, an overlay of haunting "eeeeeees," to the baritone and bass main line. To this day, this style is called Mbube in South Africa.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 09:41 PM.
Permalink: the lion rests better tonight
| Comments (1)

COPYRIGHT

December 11, 2005

IP and Music - A Documentary

Steve Cummings at Hodges Partnership was kind enough to send me a link to an interesting documentary (documentary is enttiled “What Do you Think?”) he directed for the IP Institute at the University of Richmond School of Law.

It is a great tutorial and raises some interesting questions relating to intellectual property, file sharing, copyright and the role of each in today’s society.  While geared toward undergrad students, I think it would be a useful tool for any class or academic situation exploring these issues.

Thanks for the link Steve!

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 12:34 PM.
Permalink: IP and Music - A Documentary

COPYRIGHT

November 08, 2005

Engines of Growth - Report of the Economic Contributions of the US Intellectual Property Industries

According to an article entitled Content must catch up with new-media world, the real world ramifications of “rampant” intellectual property theft are shocking:

A study released by NBC Universal on Monday put a fine point on just what is at risk not only to media and entertainment industries but also to the overall U.S. economy. "Engines of Growth: Economic Contributions of the U.S. Intellectual Property Industries," (PDF) commissioned by NBC Universal, yielded "shocking" conclusions according to NBC Uni chairman and CEO Bob Wright regarding copyrighted music, books, TV shows, films and patents.

The piracy of intellectual-copyrighted products is costing the U.S. about $250 billion annually. Globally, it is estimated that more than one-third of all software is pirated. Domestically, what hits home is that 40% of the growth of U.S. private industry contributing to the all-important gross domestic product is from intellectual property-related industries. In other words, this still problematic matter is a U.S. economy-buster.

Well worth the read, whether your are pro-IP or a copyfighter at heart – thanks to IPcentral for hosting the PDF. 

I would suggest reading the report in tandem with Nicholas Carr’s blog post entitled “The Amorality of Web 2.0” – why you may ask?  Well, take this excerpt for example:

But the yearning for a higher consciousness didn't burst with the bubble. Web 1.0 may have turned out to be spiritual vaporware, but now we have the hyper-hyped upgrade: Web 2.0.

. . . .

The promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the professional. We see it in their unalloyed praise of Wikipedia, and we see it in their worship of open-source software and myriad other examples of democratic creativity. Perhaps nowhere, though, is their love of amateurism so apparent as in their promotion of blogging as an alternative to what they call "the mainstream media."

To those of you copyfighters who want everything free, open and accessible without limitations on access – I have a question:

Is free information that is incorrect, inaccurate, incomplete and incoherent really free?

Just asking.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 09:58 PM.
Permalink: Engines of Growth - Report of the Economic Contributions of the US Intellectual Property Industries
| Comments (5)

COPYRIGHT

November 01, 2005

support the creative commons

Offering your work under a Creative Commons license does not mean giving up your copyright. It means offering some of your rights to any member of the public but only on certain conditions.

What conditions? You can find an overview of the Creative Commons licenses here. All of our licenses require that you give attribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

Click on the button and give to this very worthwhile effort:

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 08:00 AM.
Permalink: support the creative commons

COPYRIGHT

October 07, 2005

eTV: Another Attack on Entertainment Industry

Digital Video Recorders (DVRs), such as TiVo are sweeping the country. If you do not have at least one DVR, you are really missing a new way to watch television. When you choose to record your favorite programs, you get to watch what you want, when you want. If you do not own a DVR, you can Rent my DVR. Okay, so it is not my DVR, but that is the name of the site. You can have someone record five shows for a Euro. Of course, you must click a box saying that you have the right to view the programs. If you do not have Discovery, Comedy Central, Showtime, or FX Network, you technically should not ask them to record shows that air on those channels. This is not the only way to transmit recordings from the TV broadcast to a computer. In fact, TiVo ToGo allows transfers to PCs, DVD, or mobile devices.

Another example, wwiTV has 1047 stations listed around the world, and even tells you how to record programs using your computer. I could not find anything talking about permission to broadcast. However, it does seem that most of the stations are local broadcast stations.

While the advancements above are suspect, more clear violations are happening.

Did you know that you can watch ESPN and Discovery Channel without paying? See PPLive (in China), and coolstreaming (in Hong Kong and currently shut down due to copyright infringement allegations). There is little question that this online sharing of premium content violates the owner's copyright. However, enforcement is already difficult. An ipFrontline article discusses the copyright challenges this poses. For example, the server with information about violators may be out of the jurisdictional reach of the copyright owners.

What is an entertainment industry to do?

Posted by Melody Wirz at 10:38 AM.
Permalink: eTV: Another Attack on Entertainment Industry

COPYRIGHT

September 21, 2005

"Cheap" Logo Design Can Be Costly

Today, I came upon the boingboing post Logo rip-offs, which links to an internal page on Bad Design Kills. The page, titled LOGOWORKS.COM RIP-OFFS, shows several logos that are suspect from a trademark view.

For example, the logo on the right looks strikingly similar to the one on the left. According to the sources I could find on the internet, the one on the left was created by the discount logo designers at logoworks.com.

This caused me to think about the liability of the designers for trademark infringement. I looked to their Terms and Conditions of Use and discovered that "no trademarks or service marks . . . are being conveyed." Unfortunately, the design firm is not responsible for any kind of trademark clearance. This would likely be true even without such a disclaimer.

While I believe that the "copycat" designers may have a copyright problem, I think they're probably okay when it comes to trademarks. They are not using the mark to sell similar goods. Rather, they're selling the mark itself.

The moral of the story: Call your favorite trademark lawyer before using a new logo, especially if the logo comes from a discount designer.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 02:43 PM.
Permalink: "Cheap" Logo Design Can Be Costly

COPYRIGHT

September 08, 2005

IP and Katrina

• As many reports plainly show, there is little that survived Katrina.
  
  However, IPFrontline reports Intellectual Property Survives Hurricane Katrina. The author states "it occurred to me that intellectual property - copyrighted artwork, patented inventions, computer code, brand names - may be all that remains of thousands of innovative businesses in the New Orleans, Gulfport, Biloxi, Mobile and other Gulf coast areas. In certain other institutions - hospitals and universities, for example - intellectual property licensing may in fact be the primary way to collect new revenues for some time to come."
  
  I guess the nifty thing about intangible property is that it can survive even a category 5 hurricane.

• There is an interesting post at The Trademark Blog: Seized Counterfeit Goods Given To Katrina Evacuees. The post refers to a Washington Times article, and asks whether this type of distribution has happened before. It also brings up a point about the safety of the goods. Usually seized goods are destroyed (after a final determination of infringement).
  
  I also found another Washington Times article about this. Are the policy reasons for destruction of infringing goods overridden by the necessity of the hurricane victims? What if there has not been a final determination of infringement? Why weren't the goods already destroyed? Things that make me go hmmm.

Update 9-12-05: The USPTO considers Katrina to be an "extraordinary situation," so if you were affected and have late maintenance fees as a result, you're off the hook. But the USPTO urges you to act promptly to remedy the delay.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 10:12 AM.
Permalink: IP and Katrina
| Comments (2)

COPYRIGHT

September 07, 2005

ip memes' newest members

IP Memes will include a couple of new contributors in the next issue due out on September 26 - namely, Matt Buchanan of the Promote the Progress blog and myself.

If you're not familiar with The TechnoLawyer Community...you should be. TechnoLawyer provides a number of great newsletters (including IP Memes), and a forum where "technolawyers" can ask one another questions about technology (i.e., "has anyone every used _______ and what did you think about it?"). It is an excellent resource for all tech attorneys, and has an archive which I have searched from time to time with questions (what scanner to purchase, whether I should upgrade to the latest version of __________, etc.). The best part? It is free. Try it, if you don't agree you can easily unsubscribe.

Over the past year Steve Nipper of The Invent Blog has been writing the IP Memes newsletter. IP Memes is described as “a weekly newsletter that explores emerging technology-related intellectual property issues — or “memes” as we call them. Think of it as your coal-mine canary for intellectual property issues.”

Steve has been doing a solid job this past year - Matt and I are both thrilled to be asked to join him to continue IP Memes' tradition of excellence and join some of the IP community's finest commentators and thinkers - including Dennis Kennedy, Denise Howell, Gail Standish, Kevin Grierson and Kurt Calia - all of whom, are IP Memes alumni.

Click the image above to be taken to the signup form for IP Memes and yes, it is just another example of the collaboration taking place over at Rethink(IP). You never know where we might "pop up" next.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 08:06 PM.
Permalink: ip memes' newest members

COPYRIGHT

September 05, 2005

Bin Laden's image terrorizes abc

Rare photographs of Osama Bin Laden, including exclusive shots of the Al-Qaida leader on a battlefield, were broadcast by the ABC television network without the Egyptian photographers' permission, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

Essam Mohamed Aly Deraz is seeking $10 million in damages in the lawsuit filed Thursday. He is claiming copyright infringement and is asking a judge to prohibit the network or any of its affiliates from using the photographs.

In 1998, Deraz twice agreed to allow the network to use his photographs on a one-time only basis for which he was paid $7,000 and $8,000 respectively, the lawsuit states. But the network continued to use the photographs without Deraz's authorization.

Apparently the images show Bin Laden fighting with the Mujahideen during the 1980s  According to the complaint filed in Denver (PDF), "(Deraz) was the only cameraman with Osama bin Laden in the late 1980s, and his film and photographs were the only ones ever taken then that show Osama bin Laden in the battlefield."

A sampling of the images filed in the action are here: one, two, three and four. All images are scanned PDFs.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 10:41 PM.
Permalink: Bin Laden's image terrorizes abc

COPYRIGHT

September 02, 2005

Katrina Relief - Photo Auction

This isn't really related to IP law, but since the photos fall within copyright, I thought it could be included on a Friday.

Artists have donated photos for an auction to benefit Katrina victims. You can view the photos and bid on them at Katrina Relief Auction.

One photo up for auction is "Promenade on Bourbon St." shown below. You can click on it to go to the auction for that specific photo.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 10:06 AM.
Permalink: Katrina Relief - Photo Auction

COPYRIGHT

August 22, 2005

Copyright Battle Over Freedom Tower

It looks as though the copyright lawsuit surrounding David Childs' Freedom Tower will proceed. The design for the Freedom Tower was unveiled to the public in December 2003. However, a man by the name of Thomas Shine claims that there are substantial similarities between the Freedom Tower and a project he created in 1999. According to this press release, Mr. Shine created a skyscraper design for his graduate work at the Yale School of Architecture. Mr. Shine's work, entitled Olympic Tower, had a similar twisting structural grid with a pattern of interlocking and protruding diamonds. The press release also states that the creator of the Freedom Tower was a panelist judge that commented on the Olympic Tower in 1999.

For more information, see the Business Week article Architect's Lawsuit Over Freedom Tower Moves Forward, the New York Times article Suit Claiming Similarities In Tower Design Can Proceed, or Copyright Trial Over Freedom Tower Design (ag-IP-news).

To view renderings of the Freedom Tower, click here.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 11:00 AM.
Permalink: Copyright Battle Over Freedom Tower

COPYRIGHT

August 11, 2005

FedEx Fuming Over Boxy Furniture

From the Wired News story, Furniture Causes FedEx Fits:

Most of us have been there. You can just barely afford to pay the rent. But forget about buying furniture -- not if you want to eat, anyway. . . . But instead of scouting street corners for a ratty, unwanted couch, [an innovative guy] got creative and built an apartment full of surprisingly sturdy furniture -- out of FedEx shipping boxes.

The creator of FedEx furniture has posted a blog, and an entire website devoted to his works. So, you think FedEx would be pleased. After all, this is proof that their boxes are VERY sturdy, right? Not really.

Apparently FedEx has sent a letter insisting that the furniture itself, along with the internet website and the pictures violate the copyright and trademark rights held by FedEx. The letter even claims that the actions fall within the purview of the DMCA. Luckily, the creator is represented by the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society who sent this letter in response.

While I am not familiar with the entire dispute, my guess is that FedEx doesn't want people using their "free" boxes for anything but FedEx shipping. However, I think claiming copyright and trademark infringement is an unproductive way of stopping poor folks from using boxes for furniture.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 08:59 AM.
Permalink: FedEx Fuming Over Boxy Furniture
| Comments (1)

COPYRIGHT

August 08, 2005

IP Oversight Costs "Dukes of Hazzard" $17.5 Million

Acccording to MTV.com, "The Dukes of Hazzard" made more than $30.5 million last weekend, placing it in the number one spot. However, the intellectual property debacle behind the scenes has been less publicized by the studio.

As you probably know, the movie was based on a popular television show from the 1970s. What you may not know is that the television show was based on a little known 1974 movie, Moonrunners. Warner Brothers attained the rights to make the movie into a television series in 1978. According to a lawsuit earlier this year, the movie rights remained with the producer of the original movie. In fact, a preliminary injunction ordered Warner Brothers to cease marketing and postpone the release until the issue was resolved. Since Warner had already spent $53 million making the movie and had started the $30 million advertising push, settlement was definitely an option.

In the end, the copyright holder obtained $17.5 million for the rights to a movie that nobody has seen. Of course, if I come upon Moonrunners in the future, you can bet I'll watch now.

The moral of the story? Be sure you actually hold the intellectual property rights before you spend huge sums of money to produce anything, whether it be a movie, a production facility, or any other large scale project.

For more, see How a lingering legal issue threatened 'Dukes of Hazzard' or Dukes Pays $17 Million for Lawsuit.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 10:01 AM.
Permalink: IP Oversight Costs "Dukes of Hazzard" $17.5 Million
| Comments (1)

COPYRIGHT

July 21, 2005

Copyright Question of the Day

Q: How can search engines legally re-display internet content for the purpose of generating revenue?

A: First, the revenue is not generated by selling a copy of the work. Rather the income comes from advertising. However, making money from copying is not a requirement for copyright violation. Therefore, the search engines must still comply with copyright law.

Copyright violation requires a copying. The search engines do not appear to be copying entire websites, so there is probably not a copying of a substantial portion of the work. 17 U.S.C. § 101 defines derivative work and would preclude search engines results from being such because they are not changing the copyrighted work (the web sites). Instead, they are merely referencing a small portion of the websites. Additionally, the search results are not "fixed" because of their temporary nature or "transitory duration," and they may not even be considered copies of the works.

Lastly, under a fair use analysis, the search engines are actually adding value to the website content by directing targeted traffic to the site.

Further References

• 17 U.S.C § 106 - Copyright Holder's Rights
• 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Fair Use
• New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001)
• Kelly v. Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003) (pdf)

Thanks to Chris W. for the question and to Anthony for finding the answer.

UPDATE 7-22-05: In a related story, Perfect 10 tests copyright law - An adult website is suing Google and A9 for copyright infringement for displaying thumbnails of valuable copyrighted photographs in search results.

 

Posted by Melody Wirz at 02:21 PM.
Permalink: Copyright Question of the Day

COPYRIGHT

July 19, 2005

Are Playlists Copyrightable?

I was recently asked whether radio station playlists are considered intellectual property. My first response was a simple "yes." However, I got to thinking a little more. I even asked around to find out what others thought. The result? A bunch of confusion.

As long as the expression is recorded in a fixed medium, it is copyrightable as a compilation. So, if the playlist is written on a page, or if the broadcast is recorded on a tape, then it is protected.

However, in order to violate the copyright, there must be copying of at least a substantial portion of the work. If the taped broadcast includes commercials and DJ commentary, but the copy omits these things, it looks less and less like the copyrighted work. The same is true if the copy changes the order of the "replay." As the copy gets more and more different from the original, issues of proof also arise. A number of stations play "Top 40," so a copy may have to play several songs in the exact same order to prove copying, rather than coincidence.

So, the simple answer is "yes," radio station playlists are considered intellectual property. However, copying of these playlists must meet certain requirements to be considered a violation of copyright law.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 04:39 PM.
Permalink: Are Playlists Copyrightable?

COPYRIGHT

July 13, 2005

Internet Archive sued under DMCA and CFAA

Created in 1996, the Internet Archive is an extremely valuable tool for researching historical website content. In fact, my most recent use of the WayBackMachine was to look at a product that was the subject of a recent Federal Circuit decision. The decision upheld a district court decision requiring the product be pulled from the market. Without the Internet Archive, I would have never been able to actually see the disputed product.

According to Web archive sued over use in another suit, it "is also routinely used by intellectual property lawyers to help learn, for example, when and how a trademark might have been historically used or violated."

However, the Internet Archive was sued last week by a company who claims that "the access to its old Web pages, stored in the Internet Archive's database, was unauthorized and illegal." The lawsuit claims copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:38 AM.
Permalink: Internet Archive sued under DMCA and CFAA
| Comments (1)

COPYRIGHT

July 07, 2005

Mark Cuban on the DMCA

This post by Mark Cuban talks about the Macrovision suit against Sima and Interburn.

He states:

According to MacroVision CEO Bill Krepick, “Sima and Interburn infringe Macrovision’s intellectual property by offering products that enable users to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted content by illegally removing our copy protection system.”

Now maybe I’m reading this wrong, but the way I understand it, the CEO of MacroVision, a company that sells copy protection software to DVD publishers, is sending out a press release saying…

”Our software doesn’t work. It sucks. We can’t stop a bunch of little companies from writing software that completely busts our copy protection that we are selling for millions of dollars to publishers.”

An interesting take on the protection provided in the DMCA.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 05:20 PM.
Permalink: Mark Cuban on the DMCA

COPYRIGHT

July 06, 2005

TV Technology - The Next Great Copyright Case?

"Days after the Supreme Court weighed in on digital copyright infringement issues in the MGM v. Grokster case, select consumer electronics chains began stocking a product some predict could spark the entertainment industry's next showdown over intellectual property rights." TV technology at edge of legal frontier

Grokster made it clear that selling a device that has the stated purpose of infringement isn't okay. However, there was no mention of "space-shifting" or "place-shifting." Perhaps this means that the current law allows the newest in entertainment technology, as long as the marketing is done correctly.

For years, we've been setting a device to record our favorite programs while we aren't home (time-shifting). First with the VCR, and later with DVRs. However, we've been waiting for the ability to view programs remotely (space -shifting).

Every time I've spent the night in a hotel, I've missed my DVR. I can't stand flipping through the channels, hoping to find something interesting when I know that I've got great programming waiting for me at home. Or even worse, missing a program and hearing the outcome the next day before I get a chance to view it. With the newest in TV technology, you can view your recorded programs before you get home.

From the article: "New to the shelves of Best Buy and CompUSA this month is Slingbox, a brick-sized device that enables viewers to route the live television signal coming into their homes to a portable device anywhere on the globe via broadband connection."

The ability to "space-shift" seems a natural extension of the "time-shift" of Sony. As long as the companies market the use I've described, space-shifting may be viable. As for the entertainment industry, I recommend they "sell" programs to people who forgot to record them (or who don't subscribe to the channel of the program).

Posted by Melody Wirz at 11:08 AM.
Permalink: TV Technology - The Next Great Copyright Case?
| Comments (2)

COPYRIGHT

June 27, 2005

Grokster Decided

In a unanimous decision, the music industry won.

• Entertainment Industry Wins U.S. Supreme Court Fight on Piracy (Bloomberg)
• Court rules Internet file-sharing services can be held responsible for music theft (WOOD-TV)(AP Story)
• Web file-sharing sites may be sued, justices rule: Decision OKs lawsuits if service encourages illegal swapping (MSNBC)

I couldn't find the decision yet, but I'm sure it will be interesting.

UPDATE: The decision is here.

Basically, the Court held that when there is intent for users to infringe, the software provider is in deep doo-doo. I was sad to see the Court avoid the Sony decision, but Breyer's concurring opinion does a good job of explaining why we should leave the Sony decision alone (as much as possible).

The two different concurring opinions are interesting. Ginsberg, Rehnquist, and Kennedy all seem to think that a re-interpretation of Sony may be in order. This concurrence states: "If, on remand, the case is not resolved on summary judgment in favor of MGM based on Grokster and StreamCast actively inducing infringement, the Court of Appeals, I would emphasize, should reconsider, on a fuller record, its interpretation of Sony's product distribution holding."

Breyer, Stevens, and O'Connor seem to focus on the development of technology. Their concurrence points out the factual similarities with Sony and nearly admits that the software is a staple article of commerce. They still come down on the side of the music industry. However, they appear to limit the holding to cases where the entity "actively seeks to advance the infringement."

Of the opinion and the two concurrences (55 pages total), I recommend the Breyer concurrence (last 18 pages).

Comments?

Posted by Melody Wirz at 10:19 AM.
Permalink: Grokster Decided
| Comments (2)

COPYRIGHT

Grokster Ruling Expected Today

I think we've all been holding our breath long enough. Hopefully, we'll be able to breathe again today. For a few stories on the expected ruling, check out the following:

• Grokster ruling expected: U.S. justices could decide file-sharing suit brought by entertainment firms
• Grokster Reader's Guide

Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:05 AM.
Permalink: Grokster Ruling Expected Today

COPYRIGHT

June 22, 2005

Copyright notice taken too far?

From Legal Lessons Learned:

So I'm reading a National Geographic booklet aimed at elementary school students . . I see a picture of a paramecium, labeled 'Paramecium x110." Next to it there's the following chunk of text:

'Check it Out

Suppose you have permission to photocopy the picture of Paramecium, and you enlarge it to twice its size. Would the magnification of x110 still be correct? Explain.'

The author of the post points out that the phrase "suppose you have permission to photocopy the picture" is a little over the top for a theoretical experiment aimed at elementary students, stating:

I imagine the writer put it more simply before a lawyer or editor touched it up. Because we wouldn't want 4th graders running around with enlarged b&w photocopies of a paramecium taken from Visuals Unlimited. Knowing kids, they might digitize the photocopies and post them on the internet[], or store them on their iPods. How would VU make money THEN?

I also imagine copyright-conscious kiddies, attentive to the wording's specific subtext, enchanted by the possibilities of a Creative Commons future. "Suppose you have permission..." Wow! Suppose I have permission! It's telling me to imagine a wondrous world where I'm legally allowed to photocopy this image I hold in my hands! What a spectacular sight that would be! Then I could perform ALL KINDS of measurements on it! But, aw shucks, for now I'm just stuck with my dreams.

The author of this post fails to mention something that struck me as particularly interesting. 17 USC § 107 deals with the "fair use" exception to copyright protection. Specifically, it addresses copies made for teaching. While the four factors listed must be considered, I'm convinced that a student making a copy to measure magnification would fall squarely within fair use.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 01:18 PM.
Permalink: Copyright notice taken too far?

COPYRIGHT

June 14, 2005

Legal Guide for Bloggers

The EFF has released a Legal Guide for Bloggers. Included in this guide are sections on defamation, reporter's privilege, public records, and workplace blogging. But, the best section that interested me was Bloggers' FAQ: Intellectual Property. This section covers copying of other blogs, government documents, Creative Commons, licensing of comments, deep linking, copying of images, the DMCA, trademarks, and right of publicity. If you have any questions about intellectual property and blogging, check it out.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 10:56 AM.
Permalink: Legal Guide for Bloggers

COPYRIGHT

May 26, 2005

IP Rights in Software

Although the article was posted nearly a month ago, I thought you may like to read about A NEW PARADIGM FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SOFTWARE on the Duke Law & Technology Review. This article provides a pretty good starting point if you don't really know what the debate is about. While I would probably have to read some of the articles from the footnotes to be able to actually discuss the issue with anyone, I definitely have a better understanding.

UPDATE: I got an e-mail message that included a link to Patents and Software: The history of intellectual property protection and software has an anomoly that brings strong reactions to software patents. This is easier to read than the above article, and highlights the debate well.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:24 AM.
Permalink: IP Rights in Software
| Comments (1)

COPYRIGHT

May 25, 2005

Finally - Revenge of the Sith DVD in Pakistan

According to Pirated Star Wars hits Pakistan, you can finally buy a DVD of the newest installment in the Star Wars series. The movie would have been available much sooner, but there was a recent crackdown in copying facilities.

Three of Karachi's estimated 11 replication facilities were raided by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) earlier in the month.

The owner and manager of one facility were arrested and more than 300,000 pirated DVDs were recovered from the three plants.

Still, sales within Pakistan are projected to be about 50,000 copies in the first two weeks. However, the raid has made shopkeepers nervous. For the risk of being caught, prices are up over 30%, bringing the cost of the newly released "Revenge of the Sith" to just over $2. Additionally, customers can also buy a DVD containing all five previously released episodes for another $2. So, for about the price of a soft drink at the movie in the U.S., you could buy the entire "boxed set" in Pakistan.

I guess the disparity in the prices between the legitimate version and the pirated version really highlights the value of the intellectual property of the films.

In other news, apparently FOX [is] issuing takedown notices to Sith downloaders.

We saw it coming.  BayTSP’s claim that they could track BitTorrent file swapping, the recent MPAA threats targeted at Revenge of the Sith downloaders, and an overall increasing presence from the dark side have been a few clues.

For comments on this article, see this Boing Boing post.

And now some free legal advice: Don't download "Revenge of the Sith," and don't buy a DVD of the movie before it is released by the studio. If you already have a copy: absolutely, positively DO NOT copy it.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:20 AM.
Permalink: Finally - Revenge of the Sith DVD in Pakistan

COPYRIGHT

May 24, 2005

Reading, Writing, Arithmetic .... and File Sharing

I have been a very bad blogger – thank goodness Melody has been on such a great roll.

I did have to come out of hibernation for this one C|Net, however:

Sixth-graders in American Fork, Utah, will start their journey to middle school on Tuesday with a warning from the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office about the ills of illegally downloading music, movies and games from the Web.

Director Jon Dudas is scheduled to deliver this year's commencement speech at Legacy Elementary School, situated in the suburbs south of Salt Lake City.

How much do you want to bet that at least 75% of the kids had some sort of illegally downloaded music on their person?

Image from the “Bob Hope and American Variety” online exhibit sponsored by the Library of Congress.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 12:58 AM.
Permalink: Reading, Writing, Arithmetic .... and File Sharing

COPYRIGHT

May 19, 2005

Piracy of the Sith

It sure didn't take long for the movie Revenge of the Sith to be available for download into your living room. You probably can't get the full theater experience from the "work print copy" available through the internet. However, this didn't stop more than 16,000 people from downloading the film. By the way, this activity is a copyright violation.

Revenge of the Sith leaked online states that: "DVD pirates are preparing to flood the market with illegal copies of the film" and "Sleeves for pirate copies of the film and discs with director George Lucas' introduction have been seized in London."

Another apparent leak can be found in Star Wars III Bootleg Hits the Internet. This one looks to be from a video camera in the theater.

Either way, I'm guessing that somewhere, there are more than a few people trying to stop the pirates from spreading the loot.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 02:42 PM.
Permalink: Piracy of the Sith

COPYRIGHT

May 13, 2005

Britney Sued for Copyright Infringement

It appears that my favorite pregnant pop star who married two different guys in the last year may have legal problems.

The lawsuit was filed May 5 by an Indiana man claiming authorship of the song "Sometimes." He claims to have written the song in 1990, but didn't file for a copyright until 2003. Instead, he mailed a copy of the work to himself to get a "poor man's copyright." While this act isn't necessary for copyright protection, I guess it could provide some proof that he was the first author. Other proof he may use, according to EOnline:

He claims he shopped the song to publishers in 1994 and entered it in a Pennsylvania lyrics concert in 1997. A side-by-side comparison shows that Wallace's lyrics are nearly identical to the ones Spears sings in her version of "Sometimes."

Included in Wallace's court filing is an email allegedly from Spears, in which she writes: "I now know for a fact that you wrote 'Sometimes.' But there's nothing I can do about it. That's all I can say about it."

For more information, see the article by Chart Attack.

If you would like to see the complaint itself, it was filed on May 5, 2005 in the Southern District of Indiana (1:05-cv-00660-JDT-WTL). You can obtain the filing through PACER for $0.08 per page. It cost me $1.28 to get the complaint and the exhibits. There wasn't anything interesting that isn't in the articles linked above, though.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:43 AM.
Permalink: Britney Sued for Copyright Infringement
| Comments (1)

COPYRIGHT

May 06, 2005

US appeals court tosses FCC's broadcast flag rule

From the Washington Post:

A U.S. appeals court on Friday struck down a Federal Communications Commission rule designed to limit people from sending copies of digital television programs over the Internet.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the FCC had "exceeded the scope of its delegated authority" with the 2003 rule, which would have required TV set manufacturers to start using new anti-piracy technology by July 1.

The full 34-page opinion is available here.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 04:30 PM.
Permalink: US appeals court tosses FCC's broadcast flag rule

COPYRIGHT

May 05, 2005

Scout Merit Badge for IP Respect

According to the press release issued by the MPA (the international version of the MPAA),

On April 30, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), Hong Kong Scout Association, Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department (IPD) and Hong Kong Customs & Excise Department launched the Intellectual Property Badge Award Program, the world’s first Scout merit badge program focused on respect for and protection of intellectual property.

I'm not quite sure whether this is a great move, or a questionable one. It's wonderful that Hong Kong officials have taken action to encourage the youth to respect intellectual property. However, I'm a little cynical about the involvement of the MPA to accomplish this. For more on the issue, see the comments to the article MPA Launches Scout Merit Badge Program for Intellectual Property Respect.

Additional links on this subject:

• Hollywood creates Boy Scout merit badge on copyright
• New Scout Badge on Copyright

Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:27 AM.
Permalink: Scout Merit Badge for IP Respect

COPYRIGHT

April 27, 2005

congress is washing your DVD's mouth out with soap

President Bush signed into law a bill (S. 167 and H.R. 357 entitled the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005) that is intended to protect technology (and especially the companies which have developed and employ the technology) which strips DVDs of material deemed offensive by parents. 

Both sides of the issue, pro and con, have weighed in on this legislation and I doubt that this is the end of the battle.  How the courts reconcile this legislation with the current copyright laws and free speech guarantees will be interesting.

My take: more special interest legislation run amok.

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 05:55 PM.
Permalink: congress is washing your DVD's mouth out with soap
| Comments (2)

COPYRIGHT

April 08, 2005

Grokster Transcript

Michael at Pierce Law IP News Blog provides links to the Grokster oral argument transcript. If you're interested, here's the pdf, html, and ASCII versions.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:27 AM.
Permalink: Grokster Transcript

COPYRIGHT

April 07, 2005

History of the Technology/Copyright Clash

The Grokster case is the most recent example of the clash between technology and copyright owners. However, the underlying issue certainly isn't new.

File-Sharing Is the Latest Battleground in the Clash of Technology and Copyright explores the long history of the struggles between copyright owners and the newest and best way to passively entertain ourselves. Copyright owners have protested the sharing of music for at least a century now. The article mentions player pianos as a new technology that pushed copyright law to the edge.

The article also talks about how the copyright owners can profit handsomely if they pick the proper price point and embrace the new technology.

The whole issue reminds me of a quote from my moot court partner in law school. When arguing for the advancement of technology, even at the expense of established industry, he stated "we didn't stop cars from being produced in order to protect the buggy whip industry."

Posted by Melody Wirz at 05:40 PM.
Permalink: History of the Technology/Copyright Clash

COPYRIGHT

March 30, 2005

Grokster Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Grokster case. Following are several links to the show.

• Court conflicted over file-swapping - an account from the "inside" provided by SCOTUSblog
• Grokster: From the Courthouse Steps - another insider account provided by EFF
• Grokster Day - IP central
• A Few Notes from the Grokster Argument - a fairly thorough account by Timothy K. Armstrong
• Grokster argument, the electronica mix - closing argument from the lower case, set to music. Provided by BoingBoing
• The Grokster Case's Silent Majority - from the LA Times, today.

Update 4/1/05: For more on the case from a guy who was there, go here.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:08 AM.
Permalink: Grokster Arguments Before the Supreme Court

COPYRIGHT

March 18, 2005

Fiona Apple's Unreleased Album is a Hit

Fiona Apple's most recent album was finished years ago, but it has not yet been officially released. In fact, Sony made a decision to "shelve" it.

But somehow, a Seattle radio station got a copy, and the album is a hit. Fans are going crazy for the music. However, since there are no proper channels for purchase, fans are downloading the songs in droves. One report claims that 38,000 users in the United States are downloading songs from the album "Extraordinary Machine" at any given time.

There is no indication that Sony is attempting to prevent the "leak," but it is certain that people are violating the rights of Sony. While there is little doubt that downloading an unavailable song constitutes copyright violation, it will be interesting to see whether Sony enforces its copyright interest in a song that was merely sitting in storage.

If only I weren't such a goody-goody, I would download the songs and see if they're really worth all the buzz.

For more on this story, check out the following:

• Fiona Apple's Extraordinary Songs Leaked On The Radio (MTV.com)
• In Brief: Fiona, Stones (RollingStone.com)
• Who Will Free Fiona Apple? Suddenly on the Internet: A flood of unreleased bootlegs sung by a goddess. What gives? (The San Francisco Chronicle)
• The unsad tale of Fiona Apple
• Fiona Apple Is Cookin' on the Net
• MP3 Frees the Music of Fiona Apple
• REVIEWS AND COMPLAINTS-Fiona's Extraordinary Machine

Posted by Melody Wirz at 04:15 PM.
Permalink: Fiona Apple's Unreleased Album is a Hit
| Comments (2)

COPYRIGHT

March 17, 2005

Oklahoma Residents Sued for Piracy

KOTV reports Record Companies Suing Oklahomans For Music Piracy. "In Oklahoma, eight cases ended with more than $34,000 paid to record companies."

That's an average of $4,250 each. For that kind of payout, they could have actually purchased about 4,250 songs at $1.00 each. There are also the "unlimited download" music sites. For $30/month, the pirates could have unlimited downloads for almost 12 years. For $10/month, the $4,250 would buy unlimited downloads for over 35 years!!

I'm not sure that these sites can actually pay the proper royalties for $10/month, but I'm pretty old fashioned when it comes to music. Growing up, I listened to 8-tracks, LPs, and eventually cassette tapes. I didn't get a CD player until college, and I downloaded my first mp3 yesterday. I doubt I will get a portable mp3 player anytime soon. So, it's easy for me to think of music pirates as "bad guys."

In my mind, there is little doubt that sharing files usually violates copyright law. However, in the Grokster case set to be heard by the Supreme Court later this month (March 29, 2005), I support the companies that enable file sharing. If you would like more information on documents related to the Grokster case, EFF is a good resource.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 08:50 AM.
Permalink: Oklahoma Residents Sued for Piracy

COPYRIGHT

March 13, 2005

is downloading legal in france?

Maybe (from Donna Wentworth at Corante)… any French legal authorities out there who could provide additional insight/info? 

My first of many questions:  is the 22–year old really only using the copies for “private use of the copyist” when he is sharing them with friends?  Is downloading a copy of a movie (presuming he didn’t pay the copyright owner) personal use?

Via Frank Field @ Furdlog, this news from Audionautes.net: "On Thursday, the French Court of Appeal of Montpellier released a 22-year-old Internet user free of charges after he was sued for copying nearly 500 movies on Internet, burning them on CDs and sharing them with friends. The Court based its decision on the article L-122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code stating that 'authors can't forbid copies or reproductions that are only intented for the private use of the copyist.'"

CoCo blog (who helpfully provides a link to the statute in English):

This does not mean that the Court has judged that movie downloading is now legal in France on a general basis. Though I have not (yet) seen the judgment, it (probably) gives the indication that private use may be a defense against a claim of copyright infringement for downloading. While this might be called a recognition of the private copying clause in the digital environment, it is not clear if this will hold up. There are currently about 50 comparable criminal cases pending, and in the past users have been sentenced for these acts.

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 11:37 AM.
Permalink: is downloading legal in france?

COPYRIGHT

March 09, 2005

"Robin Hoods of Cyberspace" Plead Guilty

According to an AP story available at the star online:

Three men dubbed the "Robin Hoods of cyberspace'' by prosecutors pleaded guilty Tuesday to putting millions of dollars worth of copyrighted computer games, movies and software on the Internet so that people around the world could make copies for free.

All three said they made no money on the scheme, and did just did it for fun.

I guess they were really modern day "Robin Hoods." Somehow, I doubt they will be remembered as fondly as the original, though.

Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:26 AM.
Permalink: "Robin Hoods of Cyberspace" Plead Guilty

COPYRIGHT

February 20, 2005

hey dj - record fine

An Italian DJ was fined $1.8 million dollars after he was caught with 2,000 allegedly pirated MP3s and 500 video clips.   

Ciao! That’s amore for you….

 

 

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 08:01 AM.
Permalink: hey dj - record fine

COPYRIGHT

January 20, 2005

Copyright Legislation in the New Term

PCWorld has a great article discussing likely legislation in the new congressional term, New Copyright Protection Bills Likely in 2005. Along with spyware, spam, and cybersecurity, lawmakers are expected to address file sharing.

Telecommunications reform may command a significant amount of attention from tech-focused lawmakers this year, but congressional observers also expect a push for new legislation that would focus on discouraging file sharing using peer-to-peer software.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 09:29 AM.
Permalink: Copyright Legislation in the New Term

COPYRIGHT

December 19, 2004

should you copyright your source code?

Thomas Stockwell has an interesting article over on Mc|Press Online debating the merits of copyrighting source code.

Last week, on December 14, 2004, intellectual property (IP) consultant Greg Aharonian filed a lawsuit in a San Francisco court, asking the court to remove software from protection of the U.S. copyright laws. According to Aharonian, companies can better protect software using patent law, and the copyrights are unduly creating obstacles to technological advancement.

While on the surface this lawsuit seems arcane, the question of copyrights vs. patents has significant importance to those of us who write code for a living. How the laws are interpreted reflects a confusing legal realm where the concept of IP stretches to the tools we use and our expression of ideas in computer code.

It is an interesting article (and, well worth the read) debating the use of patents vs. copyrights for the protection of source code.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 04:23 PM.
Permalink: should you copyright your source code?

COPYRIGHT

December 18, 2004

scanning books & plagiarism

So, Google is planning on scanning books and making them available on the Internet …

Working with major libraries, Google is hoping to scan millions of books and periodicals into its popular Internet search engine during the next several years as part of an effort to bring more of the world’s collective knowledge online.

… and IP Updates has a post on say your sorry, and avoid plagiarism lawsuits …

A coincidence?

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 07:55 PM.
Permalink: scanning books & plagiarism

COPYRIGHT

December 10, 2004

Supreme Court to Hear File Sharing Case

The Supreme Court will consider the file swapping cases we have all been talking about. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 04-480 should have a ruling by July after arguments in the spring.

For more background, see previous posts on PHOSITA:

• Inside a File Sharing Court Proceeding
• iPod a Contrubutory P2P Infringer?