Posts Tagged: "copyright"

Changes were made in the copyright laws of the United States in order to ensure that what David LaMacchia did would be criminal in the future. Nevertheless, those changes to the copyright laws did not put an end to piracy on the Internet, nor could they have been realistically expected to do so. Corporations, entrepreneurs, artists and creators have lobbied the United States Congress for changes in the law to help them protect their copyrighted works, but they have also increasingly relied upon technological measures to protect their copyrighted works. While there is no legal requirement that a copyright holder take steps to secure or sequester material in order to avail themselves of the protection offered by U.S. copyright laws, there is no prohibition against copyright owners seeking to use technological means to preserve their rights. Prudence dictates content creators continually monitor to see if there is ongoing infringement, take steps to make such infringement more difficut and do whatever can be done to address infringement when (not if) it is discovered.

As a general rule, a copyright lasts for the life of the creator PLUS another 70 years. So your grandchildren and great-grandchildren can benefit from your creation well after you have left this earth. For the price the rights you obtain with a federal registration are a true bargain! File early and often my friends! You can never have too many copyrights, and invariably if you pick and choose when to file you will wish you had applied for a copyright sooner once someone is infringing. By then it will be too late for statutory damages and attorneys fees, which is unfortunate. The early bird gets the worm, and those quick to file a copyright application reap the most rewards.

With the new school year rapidly approaching I thought I might take this opportunity to provide some answers to questions I am frequently asked relating to copyrights by educators and administrators. I have tried to be as thorough as possible, but thorough and complete answers are well beyond the scope of this article. Complete thoroughness is also difficult any time you are dealing with copyrights, particularly in an educational context, because the creator owns “exclusive rights,” but “fair use” grants permission to anyone, particular educators, to use at least portions of copyrighted works.

Last week, the 8th Circuit handed down a ruling saying that knickknack companies can’t use Warner Brothers’ copyrighted images on their merchandise even if they use public domain elements. Shocking. But for reasons unknown, some Hollywood types took this to mean that “every Wizard of Oz movie is in jeopardy”. Ummmm… no. Granted, the issues deal with one of the quirkier concepts in copyright law but just… no. At the end of the day, my pretties, it all boils down to what is protected by copyright, what is not, and what you can do with that stuff.

Apple doesn’t have to worry about being an infringer under the copyright laws of the United States even if someone uses an Apple device to make an unauthorized recording or capture unauthorized images. That is because there are so-called substantial non-infinging uses capable for the iPhone, for example. So why then would Apple pursue disabling technology and put the keys to your iPhone in the hands of a third party who can disable certain functionality at will without your permission? That is a good question indeed.

Currently, the term for copyright protection is life of the author plus 70 years. To put this into perspective for you, Steamboat Willie initially aired in 1928. The copyright is ruled by the 1909 Act and has a shorter term of protection that the current scheme. Steamboat Willie is due to go into the public domain in 2023 unless Congress extends the copyright term again. I’m not sure if nearly one hundred years is a limited term (almost everybody alive during the initial air date will be dead before they can use it), but I guess Congress and Disney think so.

One of the costliest mistakes a startup can make is mismanaging intellectual property rights. A company needs to not only manage its own IP rights, but also avoid those of third parties, including competitors. To be on the safe side, therefore, intellectual property management should include efficiently protecting the startup’s IP rights while also avoiding the IP rights of others.

I don’t doubt that the Google Legal Team is an excellent department, and undoubtedly praiseworthy. It is also correct to say that they are dealing on nearly a daily basis with cutting edge issues that relate to the use of intellectual property in a still young medium — the Internet. It is also true to observe that they have had to deal with antitrust matters, patent litigations, copyright and trademark matters, not to mention the undoubtedly countless private matters that we haven’t yet learned about and many we won’t ever learn about. Nevertheless, I wonder whether there is a premature victory lap or recognition that is just slightly ahead of accomplishment. Certainly if Google scores a final victory in the Rosetta Stone appeal on trademarks (more below) and can resurrect the book settlement (more below) that would go a long way to justifying this award, I just wonder whether it might be a year ahead of schedule and a bit akin to President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize after only a few months in Office.

Imagine a world where the dulcet tones of “Inagaddadavida” never graced the airwaves. Gasp you should! According to the artist currently known as, but formerly known as “The Artist Formerly Known as, Prince,” once a song is covered the original artist’s version doesn’t exist anymore. Soooo…Iron Butterfly’s iconic song no longer exists because Slayer remade it in the late 1980s. Yeah, I don’t think so, but let’s explore, because Prince does make an interesting point and he’s kind of right to be miffed, even if it’s for the wrong reasons. He was talking about the compulsory licensing requirements in copyright law and the “original work is banished to music purgatory once it’s covered” argument is his way of explaining his indignation.

As James Madison stated in Federalist Paper No. 43, the usefulness of the Congresses power to award both patents and copyrights “will scarcely be questioned.” Madison, Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, at 512-13 (Hunt and Scott ed. 1920). Given that today’s business world is increasingly based on a company’s ability to innovate and acquire intangible assets in the form of both copyrights and patents, it would appear as if the constitutional goal of stimulating creativity and invention has been wildly successful.

I don’t think anyone will disagree that a digital library of this size would provide access to works that would otherwise never be seen, or worse, destroyed. The idea of a digital library is, quite frankly, awesome and one that I thoroughly applaud. More people would have access to works, the knowledge base of humans would increase exponentially, and there would be more availability of audio and Braille books for the hearing and vision impaired. Out of print and otherwise forgotten and falling apart books would be rejuvenated, precious written words would be rescued from certain ruin, and a whole world heretofore unheard of would take center stage. The heavens will part, champagne will fall from the sky, and unicorns will prance gleefully in the tulip fields. Ok, maybe not that last part, but still…

The China Road Show is a series of two-day China IP events that the USPTO is hosting across the country to help educate businesses about the realities of piracy and counterfeiting—which cost the American economy approximately $250 billion annually. Day 1 is largely devoted to understanding the patent, trademark and copyright laws in China, as well as enforcement of those rights. Day 2 of the seminar will address § 337 Infringement Investigations by the International Trade Commission (ITC), the challenges presented by counterfeiting and piracy on the Internet and the development of global IP strategies even for small businesses.

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.

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.