Category: Copyright

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT BY CHRYSLER?

Tuesday, 07 February, 2012 16:43 Written by danieldavidson 3 Comments
Share via email

By Daniel Davidson

The Big Game (I will attempt to not use any of the words that you are banned from using in a commercial during football’s final event) does not just draw crowds for the battle of two teams scrapping for the glory of number 1.  The game also attracts because of the zillion dollar commercials.  With over 100 million viewers, companies make sure they create a lasting impression in their commercials. 

The past few years, Chrysler has made some epic commercials which last approximately 2 minutes.  This year, they used Clint Eastwood to narrate a commercial that refers to the American economic downturn as “halftime.”   Portraying Detroit and their losses due to the financial crisis, Clint gives hope for a new tomorrow, or “second half.”  Unfortunately, the commercial almost didn’t see a second half.

In the subsequent days since the game the G-Men won a silver trophy, Chrysler made the commercial available on their YouTube page.  The page featured interactive buttons to share the commercial on social media sites.  This would be cool and all except for the fact that instead of a commercial, there was a notice which read, “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by NFL Properties, LLC.”

NFL Properties, LLC is a subsidiary of the National Football League, Inc. which handles its trademarks and such (I have lost my attempt at refraining from using words not allowed in Super Bowl commercials).

I went ahead and watched the commercial multiple times to see what, if any, part of the commercial could infringe upon an NFL copyright.  In my attempt, I found none.  I am sure many others have done the same.  This is probably why the commercial has been reinstated on Chrysler’s YouTube page.

Did the NFL maybe believe they were the owners of the rights to the commercial since it was aired during the Super Bowl?  Maybe they thought they owned the rights to the word “halftime?”  Nonetheless, it seems that the NFL has retracted their copyright infringement claim, for now.  Cheers.

NEWT GINGRICH SUED FOR USE OF ‘EYE OF THE TIGER’

Tuesday, 31 January, 2012 17:50 Written by danieldavidson 0 Comments
Share via email

By Daniel Davidson

These past few years, musicians have made it no secret that they prefer that the Republican Party not use their music.  Last year I reported on a story that consisted of David Byrne, lead singer of the Talking Heads, against Charlie Crist, Florida Govener.  You may recall, Crist was running for the U.S. Senate and ran an ad which contained Talking Head’s song “Road to Nowhere.”  In that case, Crist accepted settlement of a YouTube video where he “sincerely” apologizes for his misappropriation of the song.

In a recent case filed by Frank Sullivan, co-author of the inspirational song “Eye of the Tiger,” another Republican politician has become a target, this time Newt Gingrich.  This instance smells vaguely familiar to John McCain’s run in with musician Jackson Brown for he and the Ohio Republican Party’s use of “Running on Empty” at a rally.

No response has been filed on behalf of Newt, yet, but I would expect a fair use defense to be applied.  In most of the cases filed against politicians involving unauthorized use of songs (since fair use isn’t a defense to rendezvous in the oval office), a fair use defense has been raised, but no opinion has ever been given by the courts.  This leaves the question of whether politicians are able to use a song under the fair use blanket.  Also, if the campaign had purchased an ASCAP or SESAC license, a defense that they have authorized use is also plausible.  Newt’s worker bees have yet to comment on this present situation.

I would imagine that a quick resolution will be reached between the parties since Newt has no time to deal with a lawsuit while trailing in the polls.  This is unfortunate because I would like to see one of these taken all the way to the end.  That way the long running question will be answered.  Cheers.

Terms of Service and Your Copyrights

Thursday, 26 January, 2012 07:52 Written by Scott Nyman 3 Comments
Share via email

Upon logging into my Gmail this morning, a mandatory step in my daily routine, I noticed an alert that Google is consolidating the privacy policies and terms of service for all of its various online offerings. Being in the business of law, I felt compelled to read through the changes to see how Google will handle managing information about a user.

For those that are unaware, a privacy policy generally comprises a statement from a company regarding the handling of a user’s personally identifying information. The privacy policy is typically accompanied by a terms of service, which sets out the rules a user must abide by to gain access to a service. The terms of service may often define the legal relationship between a user and a service provider, the ways in which the service may be used, and the procedure to follow in the event the terms are violated.

Of course, being an intellectual property attorney, I immediately look to see how the rights relating to user owned copyrights and other IP is handled. Google’s terms of service reads:

Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

Sounds amazing, right? But, if you read on…

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps).

So, if a user posts one of his or her copyrighted materials on onc of Google’s services, the user in effect grants Google a non-revocable license to use the material, essentially, how they see fit, for “operating, promoting, and improving service, and develop new services,” a pretty broad group of categories.

This peaked my interest as to how a user’s copyrighted materials are handled on other popular social sites, such as Facebook.  Again, things start out rosy:

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.

 But the devil is in the details:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

To my surprise, Facebook seems to make less of a grab on your copyrighted materials than Google. Of concern, Facebook claims the right to transfer and sub-license your content. However, it appears that any and all of Facebook’s rights in your content ends upon deletion of the content from Facebook’s system by the copyright holder and those with whom the content has been shared.

As a little bonus, section 5.6 of Facebook’s terms of service states, “You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Wall and 32665), or any confusingly similar marks, without our written permission.” So, allegedly, the word “face” is now owned by Facebook. If this turns out like the Superbowl-”Big Game” situation, we may have to start referring to our faces as our “head fronts.”

SOPA, PIPA, and a Criminal Copyright Indictment Against Megaupload.

Saturday, 21 January, 2012 09:00 Written by Rene Dial 0 Comments
Share via email

By Rene Dial

What a week in the world of intellectual property protection!

Okay I am trying to figure this one out.  Legislation is/was being pushed through with regard to SOPA and PIPA.  Read Danie Roy’s article here.  Then a couple of days after Wikipedia, Craig’s List, Google, and a bunch of other sites were down in protest to SOPA and PIPA the government shows that they do have the power to stop online piracy overseas. On Thursday the US Justice Department and FBI shut down Hong Kong based company Megaupload, seized $50 million in assets, and begun extradition proceedings in New Zealand for the company founder according to Robot6.comicbookresources.com.

Let me get this right the government has the ability to shut down a site for alleged copyright infringements, freeze assets, extradite those involved from other countries but yet we need SOPA and PIPA to allow us to basically do what was just done to Megaupload.  Not sure about you but how about we utilize the laws we already have in place instead of enacting new broader legislation.

To be honest I never heard of Megaupload before this hit the news.  I am one of those guys that believes in paying the artist so that the artist can continue to put out music or movies that I love.  A lot of the problems with the industry now is getting the product to the masses in a cheaper and more efficient way.  The music industry has done a great job but movies are a different story.  A person can go to a Redbox and rent a movie for a dollar but if they want to stream the movie from a website or cable provider the provider wants somewhere between $5 to $7 to stream the same movie and they do not have to deal with inventory or with maintenance of a box somewhere. Okay I will stop my rant and get back to Megaupload.

According to ABCnews.go.com the indictment alleges that Megaupload caused a half-billion dollars in copyright losses.  A copy of the indictment can be found at onlinewsj.com.  As this is a criminal indictment I am curious to see how this plays out and if the hearings will occupy the news stations as some other well known criminal trials have in the past.  On ABC.com the article had a quote that was placed on Megaupload before the site was taken down. “Ira P. Rothken, a lawyer for Megaupload in Novato, Calif., said “the allegations do not appear to have support in the law, and the company is going to vigorously defend against them.”"  Something tells me that they really do not have a choice but to vigorously defend themselves as they are facing criminal not civil charges.

Have a great weekend!

SOPA and PIPA vs The Internet: The Epic Copyright Battle

Wednesday, 18 January, 2012 15:40 Written by Danie Roy 2 Comments
Share via email

Danie Roy

Before we begin, I’d like to make some statements that you may remember from when I discussed embryonic stem cells: this article is largely meant to be informative, although it is very difficult to stay completely unbiased when I am informing you about the opinions of other people. I apologize in advance if my own opinion shines through too brightly, largely because this seems to be an issue that is polarizing people more than stem cells ever could. Add the previous sentence to the list of things I never thought I’d say. Then again, this is the internet.

By now, you’re probably aware that you can’t access Wikipedia or Craigslist as you normally would. You’ve gone to see teh lolcats or hang with your bronies, and you’ve been greeted with a popup begging you to take action. The Google doodle is now a black box. Even the news stations are talking about the sites going down. What’s going on? Just a preview of what could happen if SOPA and PIPA pass in their current forms.

SOPA and PIPA are bills in the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, that were intended to stop online piracy from overseas sites like The Pirate Bay. Currently, nobody can touch The Pirate Bay, as evidenced by their response letters (or, as Scott called them, f/u letters). The language of the bills is entirely too broad, however, and reeks slightly of “did not do the research.” For instance, you don’t have to infringe to be taken down, you just need to be capable of infringing: that is, have a comment box, text, links, a link to someone else’s link, etc. And you may be guilty until proven innocent.

These are popping up everywhere today.

I’ll be the first to admit that most people have no idea what’s going on in Congress most of the time. I personally would rather read image file wrappers, watch paint dry, or have a root canal than watch C-SPAN. It’s boring, and in a language called “legalese.” Great for curing insomnia, though.

Before I get too far into this, I’m going to be perfectly clear: I am FOR protecting intellectual property. I’d be an out-of-work hypocrite if I wasn’t; protecting intellectual property is my job as a patent agent. However, I personally believe that SOPA and PIPA can’t protect intellectual property in their current forms.

Here’s why people are protesting and your favorite sites are dark:

  • A site does not necessarily have to infringe to be taken down. A site that could infringe, in other words, has a comment box, links, or any upload capability, can be targeted.
  • If you’ve been accused, there is no real defense: you’re assumed guilty until proven innocent, and the bill makes proving yourself innocent extremely difficult. In order to be innocent, your website must not have the functionality to infringe; which of course, all websites have. So, you’re either infringing or you’re perjuring yourself. Take your pick.
  • Takedowns are incredibly easy to initiate. The RIAA already has a history of using questionably ethical legal tactics to take out legitimate businesses. Imagine what they can do with SOPA and PIPA on their side.
  • Ever posted anything to any website? YouTube, ICanHasCheezburger?, even Facebook? Yep, you’re a potential target.
  • Ever used Gmail, Yahoo! mail, or AOL mail? Same deal.
  • Fair use will be practically considered obsolete… and ignorance will not be a defense.
  • Anyone working for the government (like our wonderful Congresspeople) is immune from the consequences of violating SOPA and PIPA.
  • The link I posted to the f/u letters? That could be a violation of SOPA/PIPA, due to The Pirate Bay’s unsavory activities.
  • Earlier versions (and possibly later versions) allowed for destabilizing the infrastructure of the internet in order to “protect” IP. That is, addresses could be removed from the universal internet lookup system, DNS, which would make site spoofing that much easier… hello viruses and stolen personal info!

To quote a godly entity, you “should pretend like it is a big deal, because it is.” Whether you’re for or against SOPA/PIPA, you really need to speak up about this issue. It affects the internet as we know it, and it affects intellectual property, too. If you’re like me, you’re for protecting intellectual property, but against seriously inhibiting the free flow of the internet.

To read more:
Tim O’Reilly’s thoughts (with some from Nancy Pelosi)

Wikipedia’s two working English pages: SOPA and PIPA

LA Times: Three congresspeople drop support, including FL Senator Marco Rubio

PCWorld’s rather factual take

« Older Entries

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1045 access attempts in the last 7 days.