Posts Tagged: "copyright"

The Copyright Claims Board (CCB), established by the CASE Act passed in December 2020, is now up and running and taking cases. The CCB is an alternative to federal court. Just like patents, copyrights are bound by federal law. Previously, a copyright owner would have to take their case to federal district court to in order to seek damages or relief. But the CCB allows a claimant to bring a copyright suit before a tribunal at the Copyright Office instead.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is set to hear Andy Warhol v. Lynn Goldsmith in October. It will be the latest in a series of cases the Court has taken on over the last decade-plus that promise to change U.S. innovation as we know it. The case will be heard on the heels of other controversial SCOTUS decisions that have drastically changed the legal landscape, with rulings that transfer power from the federal government to the individual states (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) or that reduce federal oversight altogether (West Virginia v. EPA). It has also put limits on specific executive powers and plans to rule soon on affirmative action. Not getting as much attention, but arguably equally important, are some recent and not-so-recent decisions that have changed the landscape of the rights of authors and inventors, and the upcoming Warhol case, which may effectively remove them altogether. Unfortunately, many people, including politicians and academics, don’t understand—or refuse to recognize the importance of—intellectual property rights for the advancement of civilization.

Intellectual property (IP) provides us a front row seat to the cutting-edge of technology. The legal questions arising at this frontier are often as complex as the resulting inventions and creative works. The Federal Circuit’s recent Thaler v. Vidal opinion clarifies an important patent law concept, specifically whether an artificial intelligence (AI) may be listed as the inventor of a patent. The current industrial revolution powered by blockchain and crypto continues to raise issues about how it meshes with our current IP legal framework…. The latest question at the cutting-edge of “who, or what may, be an inventor” begs whether a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), a new type of digital blockchain-based organization, can participate in IP-related activities, including the invention, ownership, licensing, and enforcement of patent rights.

On August 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in McGucken v. Pub Ocean Ltd. that reversed a Central District of California’s sua sponte grant of summary judgment to Pub Ocean on McGucken’s copyright infringement claims. The case involved Pub Ocean’s unauthorized use of photos of a lake that formed in Death Valley, California, in March 2019. The Ninth Circuit found that all of the fair use factors weighed against a determination that Pub Ocean’s unlicensed use of the photographs were transformative.

Ray Young started RightsLedger.com to give creators control of their content and opportunities for IP monetization, using blockchain technology to authenticate ownership. His latest venture, Milio.io, is the first social media platform to fairly share advertising revenue with users, and already has over a million users. Young spent over two years, since Dec 2019, in Manila working on the company’s launch and is focused on rewarding small and independent content creators with the ability to both protect and monetize their IP. I spoke with Young to better understand how he is helping creators to safeguard and profit from their content online.

On August 1, the U.S. Copyright Office sent a report  addressed to Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) detailing the results of the agency’s study into the feasibility of a deferred registration examination (DRE) option for copyright applicants seeking registration under U.S. law. While the Office recognized the genuine concerns of those seeking the creation of such an option, the report issued by Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter concluded that alternative approaches for addressing those issues would achieve better results than the proposed deferred examination option.

In a recently filed suit involving the popular videogame Fortnite, the Central District of California faces an important question regarding copyright law: does a copyright in a registered choreographic work extend protection to a smaller portion of the work when that portion is copied by a third party and implemented as a dance move in a video game? Owned and developed by Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”), Fortnite is a “battle royale” style videogame where players fight to be the last person standing. Fortnite players can purchase “emotes,” which are dance moves or other gestures performed by their avatar. Plaintiff Kyle Hanagami owns a copyright registration for a choreographic work called “How Long Choreography.” Hanagami alleges that an emote called “It’s Complicated” copies “the heart” of his work, as it is the only section of the How Long Choreography that occurs ten times throughout the original.

With the advent of augmented reality systems, unique opportunities exist for retail businesses. The ability to provide dynamic and layered advertisements can add a new dimension and effectiveness to attracting consumers to a brick-and-mortar retail location. However, a number of intellectual property pitfalls appear to be awaiting those retailers that utilize the emerging augmented reality platform to reach and attract customers. For instance, a retailer may find that they do not own the exclusive rights to display augmented reality content to customers despite the customers being physically present in their own store.

The metaverse is commonly known as “a collective virtual shared space, created by the convergence of virtually enhanced physical reality and physically persistent virtual space, including the sum of all virtual worlds, augmented reality, and the Internet.” The metaverse may eventually provide a three-dimensional or virtual world for users to shop, play games, travel, learn, socialize, work, compete, or otherwise experience life in a virtual environment. Users may eventually visit the metaverse for an activity or even choose to live much of their life in this virtual world.

Today’s software is built like a Lego model. Instead of a singularly developed string of code, multiple building blocks of existing code are used to create a codebase. Some of those building blocks are developed in-house by the software vendor. Others are developed by third-party commercial software providers. And a lot of them come from open-source projects. When you’re a company that puts that codebase into your final product, you must take precautions to minimize the risks that each type of code presents to you and to your customers. This is what is meant by protecting your software supply chain. It’s also how you maximize the value of the code for you and your customers. Each type of code has its own set of benefits and risks that need to be understood and managed. This article addresses just one type of those building blocks: open source software (OSS).

On June 30, the U.S. Copyright Office officially published a report titled Copyright Protections for Press Publishers, which explores existing frameworks in nations around the world providing additional rights under copyright law for news publishers, and includes recommendations regarding similar changes that could be effected under U.S. law. The Copyright Office’s study concludes that, while the news publishing industry is facing significant problems in obtaining adequate funding during the Internet era, those problems are not due to any current shortcomings in the state of U.S. copyright law.

Can something called a “Bored Ape” be embodied in a non-fungible token (NFT) and be associated with smart contracts? How could this present unique and challenging issues regarding copyright law? Over the course of the last two months, the general public has tracked what started out as a phishing scam involving actor Seth Green’s NFT from the Board Ape Yacht Club. It then evolved into a public quest to regain the NFT and the rights to develop a broadcast program based on the character depicted in the digital image. The trials and tribulations related to Seth Green’s efforts to ultimately regain his “lost” NFT made for interesting media clicks. It also raised awareness to copyright issues that are yet to be fully resolved. Seth Green may rest easy knowing he is again the rightful owner of his Bored Ape NFT, but the legal community should not be as quick to move on.

A bipartisan group of senators on Friday sent a letter to Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, expressing their concern about a letter sent by the Digital Licensee Coordinator (DLC) to the Office requesting that any obligation of DLC member companies to make retroactive royalty payments to copyright owners as a result of an imminent decision be delayed. The letter clearly stated that the senators are opposed to any concessions to DLC companies that would extend the timeline for payments to songwriters.

Following a denial of rehearing en banc by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in February, publishing company Canada Hockey L.L.C., doing business as Epic Sports, and Michael Bynum, a sportswriter and editor, have now filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in their appeal of a copyright case against both Texas A&M University and a pair of school officials. The petition claims the Fifth Circuit’s decision leaves copyright holders “at the mercy of state infringers.” In their petition, the plaintiffs argue that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling affirming the Southern District of Texas’ dismissal of copyright claims over Texas A&M’s unauthorized reproduction of portions of Bynum’s manuscript on the nearly 100-year history of the famed “12th Man” tradition at Texas A&M erred in failing to find constitutional violations of both the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Texas ruling followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2020 decision in Allen v. Cooper, which declared that Congress’ abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act was unconstitutional.

Headline-grabbing copyright infringement complaints are nothing new – especially recently. Robin Thicke, Ed Sheeran, and Dua Lipa have all faced copyright infringement lawsuits seeking eye-popping damages claims. At a quick glance, the $20 million lawsuit filed this month by Andy Stone against Mariah Carey, co-writer Walter Afanasieff, and Sony Music is just one more in a string of these cases. But a closer look at the Complaint, and a comparison of the 1989 Vince Vance & The Valiants song, “All I Want for Christmas is You,” with Mariah Carey’s 1994 song of the same name, raises more questions than answers.