Posts in Copyright

Earlier this week the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by lawyers from Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project (FUP) and Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP and will review the constitutionality of a federal statute that has removed thousands of foreign works from the Public Domain and placed them under copyright protection. The case presents a two-pronged constitutional challenge to the 1994 law passed by Congress, which amended the Copyright Act. The case will test whether Congress has the authority to remove works from the Public Domain under the “Intellectual Property Clause” of the United States Constitution and whether the 1994 law violates the First Amendment rights of those who performed, adapted, restored and distributed works which had previously been in the Public Domain.

Intellectual property law is premised on incentivizing innovative and creative activities by providing limited property rights for the fruits of such activities in order to increase the storehouse of creative and innovative knowledge for the betterment of society. Excessive overlapping protection undermines the careful balance individually developed under each body of intellectual property law. Expansion of the subject matter protected under either patent, copyright, or trademark law should only occur if it does not undermine the careful balances struck under each of the other bodies of intellectual property law. Being mindful of the balance between protection and public interest can prevent unintended over-protection of intellectual property that would work to skew the balance in favor of rights to creators and innovators at the expense of the public.

Copyright infringement has nothing to do with citation or linking back. A copyright owners rights have been infringed if another reproduces the work without their permission with or without citation. In the minds of some copyright infringement is synonymous with plagiarism. Plagiarism, however, is the passing off of the work of another as your own without citation. Legally, however, copyright infringement is merely copying, with or without appreciation of the wrong. So those who cite and link back are not absolved from copyright infringement. They are misappropriating an original work and free-riding. There is nothing creative, laudatory or commendable about free-riding.

We shouldn’t fool ourselves and try and pretend that the lack of respect for intellectual property rights is limited to those who seek to share movies, music or make a buck selling knock-off products. Everyone who produces original content on the Internet is at risk of having that content stolen; simply cut and pasted onto some other website or blog. Even if it is not passed off as original content and you do get “credit” the copyist is using your work for their own benefit. They are stealing eyeballs, diverting traffic and likely costing you money. At the very least, they are free riding, which is a hard pill to swallow.

United States Supreme Court issued a non-decision in the matter of Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Omega, S.A. The Per Curiam decision simply read: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.” Unfortunately, this non-decision could well signal the beginning of the end for the first sale doctrine given that goods manufactured and sold outside the United States can apparently be controlled downstream by the copyright owner without the copyright owner having exhausted rights through the sale.

Copyright trolls are a relatively new beast, and it’s hard to nail down a definition, so I’m just going to fall back on the immortal words of Justice Stewart’s famed copout “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . .” Boy, you said it, Justice Stewart. Of course, he was talking about obscenity and I’m talking about troglodytes. But to me, copyright trolls are like patent trolls. They have very little or no interest in the progress of the arts and brandish their copyright like a sword. They threaten to sue anyone and everyone who even looks at their copyrighted material without permission.

Earlier today, at 2:32 pm Pacific Time, a jury in the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of California handed down the largest copyright damages verdict in United States history, ordering SAP AG to pay Oracle USA, Inc. the sum of $1.3 billion. After polling, the jury was excused at 2:33 pm and the Court adjourned at 2:35 pm, but this case is certainly long from over. There will likely be innumerable post trial motions and the inevitable bluster about an appeal, which is all but guaranteed. But for today, renowned trial attorney David Bois and his capable team can savor an enormous victory in this monumental case.

The dispute arose because Omega, S.A., sought to prevent the petitioner, Costco Wholesale Corporation, from reselling genuine watches originally sold by Omega to authorized foreign distributors. Omega, a Swiss company that manufactures watches in Switzerland, did not authorize the importation of the watches by Costco, despite the fact that Costco legally purchased the watches abroad. Thus, the question in this case will be whether copyrighted materials made abroad and legally purchased abroad can be imported without the express permission of the copyright owner. In other words, does the first sale doctrine extinguish the rights of the copyright holder when the goods are made abroad and sold abroad.

The fashion industry claims it loses millions of dollars in revenue every year because of copycats buying one very expensive handbag or shoe or other item, deconstructing it, farming it out (usually to some factory in Asia), and making copies of it to be sold for a fraction of the price. There is now proposed legislation attempting to address and put a dent in the very lucrative knock-off market. Enter the “Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act” (S.3728), courtesy of Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Now, imitation is the no longer the sincerest form of flattery, it’s the basis for a lawsuit. Swell. Sen. Schumer is proposing to amend Chapter 13 of the Copyright Statute- Protection of Original Designs. (See the text of his proposed amendment) Fortunately, dear readers, I’m here to make sense of this, or at least give it a hero’s try. It is copyright, after all, and I can only do so much.

As explained by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development in a draft report draft report: “The overall degree to which products are being counterfeited and pirated is unknown and there do not appear to be any methodologies which could be employed to develop an acceptable overall estimate.” The OECD draft report goes on to explain that based on best estimates that international trade in counterfeit and pirated goods could well have accounted for up to US$ 200 billion in 2005, but that figure does not tell the entire story. This $200 billion figure does not include counterfeit and pirated products that are produced and consumed domestically, nor does it include the significant volume of pirated digital products distributed via the Internet.

Late yesterday Oracle announced in an exceptionally brief and direct press release that it has filed a lawsuit against Google. But someone at Google didn’t find this amusing and seemingly tampered with Google’s search algorithm and database by eliminating Oracle altogether. This was brought to my attention earlier today and then confirmed at approximately 3:00pm Eastern Time. By approximately 6:00 pm Eastern Time things seemed back to normal with Google search, someone apparently getting wind that some intentionally harmful and malicious behavior was engaged in by someone somewhere.

Perfect 10, Inc., the former publisher of Perfect 10 Magazine, is back at it with Google over whether Google’s display of certain images of scantily clad women infringes the copyrights owned by Perfect 10. Perfect 10 created and sold pictures of nude models through a now defunct print magazine, and now creates and sells pictures through a password-protected subscription website. Simultaneous actions are pending in both United States and Canada, each with recent rulings over the last two weeks, with a ruling in Canada on July 18, 2010, and a ruling on Google’s motion for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 26, 2010.

The reality is that individuals and companies fuel the piracy market. Simply stated, if there were no demand there would be no supply, so it is quite disingenuous for us to only point the finger at the supplier, but rather we ought to acknowledge that there is plenty of blame to go around, which may be a hard pill to swallow. And while there may an intellectual distinction between sharing software or music with a friend or family member, there exists a cultural indifference that borders on contempt for the rights of creators.

The day-long symposium included discussion of online copyright policy in the United States, specifically the impact of current copyright laws, existing and emerging techniques used to illegally distribute and obtain protected works, the extent and economic impact of infringement, and the role of emerging business models for legitimate distribution of content. During the symposium, it was announced that the Department of Commerce will issue a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) this month seeking public comment on the effectiveness of copyright law, and ultimately will issue a report which will contribute to the Administration’s domestic policy and international engagement in the area of online copyright protection.

Companies enter into software development deals with independent contractors without adequately addressing copyright ownership. Many times, it is assumed by the programmer that the copyright, including the right to modify and prepare derivative works, remains with her or him. From the company side it is generally assumed that when someone is paid to create copyrighted material that flows from the original creation those copyrights will be owned by the commissioning party. Neither assumption is true, which means that when a dispute arises, litigation ensues and unnecessary expenses mount.