Posts Tagged: "copyright infringement"

There has been a recent trend by insurance companies to change their policy forms and use language that provides substantially less coverage for these kinds of claims. Buyers of insurance might still see that the policies they’re buying have “Advertising Injury” coverage that includes “copyright” claims. Nevertheless, these subtle changes to the actual language in the forms (which few policyholders ever actually read before buying their policy) eliminate most, if not all, of the benefits of the coverage. Careful companies buying insurance and concerned about the risk of copyright infringement lawsuits need to watch out for these two changes that could leave them exposed to costly lawsuits.

After nearly twenty years with the DMCA, the Copyright Office has launched a new study to examine the impact and effectiveness of this system, and voices on both sides of the debate have filed comments expressing their views. For the most part, frustrated copyright owners report that the DMCA has not successfully stemmed the tide of online infringement, which is completely unsurprising to anyone who spends a few minutes online searching for copyrighted works. Unfortunately, some commentators are also pushing for changes that that would make things even more difficult for copyright owners.

Earlier this week a friend posted a magazine article, “The Rise of Fakes and False Attributions in the Art World,” on social media. The article was about art authentication and due diligence. Before I reached the end of the first paragraph, I realized that I was reading a plagiary of my article, “Purchasing Art in a Market Full of Forgeries: Risks and Legal Remedies for Buyers,” published in the International Journal of Cultural Heritage. The author structured her article on my work, a piece that includes extensive research and that is partially based on experience that I cultivated while working with major art collectors. And rather than just using the outline of my article or presenting some of my arguments, she copied entire sentences. In fact, she went as far as copying entire paragraphs. Shockingly, she even kept the same punctuation, quoting words that I had placed in quotations marks in my article.

According to the Association of American Publishers, the publishing industry as a whole has lost $80 to $100 million dollars to online piracy annually. From 2009 to 2013, the number of e-book Internet piracy alerts that the Authors Guild of America has received from their membership had increased by 300%. During 2014, that number doubled. I’m certain that in 2016, the statistics will go even higher.

The ownership of ideas and creations are among the most valuable assets to any company. Businesses invest in these ideas and rights and use the value they create to help promote and grow business for years to come. Printer manufacturers, for example, invest heavily in new ink and toner technologies and realize a return over the life of the device through the sale of supplies and consumables. When third-party supplies manufacturers, particularly manufacturers of new build ‘cloned products’, violate IP rights and take products to market, they are effectively stealing from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) – reducing the ability of the OEM to realize the full potential of their investment and, through their sale, securing financial benefit from the OEM who receives no compensation for this lost revenue. These organizations effectively take a ‘free ride’.

Mark Towle owns Gotham Garage, which manufactures and sells replicas of automobiles featured in famous motion pictures and television programs. Gotham Garage specifically sold fully constructed cars as well as kits which allow customers to modify their car to look like the Batmobile, and advertised its replicas as “Batmobiles” while marketing its business via the domain name batmobilereplicas.com. In May 2011, DC Comics filed suit against Towle for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition arising out of Towle’s marketing and sale of Batmobile replicas. Towle countered that the Batmobile – at least as it appeared in the famous 1966 television series and the 1989 motion picture, the main inspirations for Gotham Garage’s designs – was not subject to copyright protection.

The EFF wants an exemption for people who want to modify their purchased games in order to bypass access controls when a publisher shuts down the server. Specifically, the EFF would like for any piece of software with server-based functions that are shut down by a publisher or developer to be considered “abandoned” six months later. This means that someone who owns a copy of a game that no longer has an online play component would be able to modify the game to eliminate authentication checks or access controls in the game itself so they can still play online using a third party server. This may also include reverse engineering and making intermediate copies of the game, which goes well beyond the skill set of the casual user.

Thicke maintains that the Gaye family doesn’t own a genre, a style, or a groove and he’s right. The Gayes point out no other musicians or songs of the era were compared with “Blurred Lines,” and they’re right, too. A viable criticism of the verdict is that it could have a chilling effect on new music for fear of overzealous copyright owners attempting to expand this concept to their cases. Is it possible that a ruling of this nature would stifle creativity? Perhaps, but people were saying the same thing when the music sampling cases happened, and the industry adapted just fine.

Marvin Gaye enjoyed tremendous success during this decade and his song Got to Give it Up topped the charts in 1977. Fast forward nearly forty years to 2013, when the tremendously popular singer / songwriter, Robin Thicke recorded his number one hit, Blurred Lines. Got to Give it Up was recorded in 1976 and released in 1977, which means its copyright is governed by the 1909 Act. Now, under the 1909 Act, a work had to be published with notice or a deposit had to be made in the Copyright Office. Mere distribution of a song did not meet the publication requirement. Blurred Lines, however, is protected under the 1976 Act. A notable difference between the two statutes is that the 1976 Act gives automatic protection to any original work fixed in a tangible medium.