New Tools For Policing Internet Piracy: One Step Forward or One Step Back?

It is probably nothing less than a given these days that on multiple levels the Internet can be seen as both a blessing and a curse. One of those levelhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifs - the hijacking and pirating of copyrightable content and brands/trademarks - is perhaps amongst the most obvious. Trademark and brand owners and content owners like motion picture studios and record labels have tried a variety of techniques to cut down on Internet piracy - including filing lawsuits first against individual unauthorized downloaders and now against anywhere from 500 - 20,000 "John Does". [Initially the "John Does" are only known by their Internet addresses - not their true names]. Those techniques have been less than overwhelmingly successful.

Now there are efforts afoot to create a new tool to try to stop counterfeiting, piracy and bootlegging: Senate Bill S 968 is designed to get online advertising networks, companies that process payments and search engines to shut off support for any website that is found by a court to be dedicated to copyright or trademark infringement. Here is a good short analysis of some of the pros and cons of Senate Bill S 968. It makes for very interesting reading.

Copyright Wars: $100 Million Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Oprah Dismissed

We believe in the copyright law. It's been part of our laws since the Constitution was enacted. It's there for a good reason: "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". We advised and represent quite a few copyright owners. But every so often an over-zealous copyright owner goes too far. This could be one of those cases.

Charles Harris wrote a booklet called "How America Elects Her Presidents". During the 2008 election, Oprah read aloud on her tv show questions that were based on material in the book. Apparently one of the questions was literally taken from Harris' book: "Which one of our presidents weighed the most?". [Answer: William Howard Taft at over 325 pounds]. Harris filed a lawsuit which requested millions of dollars in damages. Oprah filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and the judge agreed when he ruled that the allegedly infringed parts of his book were not original, and that Oprah's recitation of the Taft fact, even if she did take it from Harris' book, was not an actionable copyright infringement.

10 FOR '10: BRANFMAN'S HOT IP TIPS #2

This is the second in the series:

IP TIP #2: YOUR EMPLOYEES AND EX-EMPLOYEES MAY BE OUT TO GET YOU:


Do you have employees - or better yet disgruntled ex-employees - who might be tempted to turn you in for a million dollar reward? If so, the Business Software Alliance ("BSA") has for several years been offering "rewards" of "up to" $1 million to anyone who turns in a business that is using software that is not properly licensed. [The BSA is a trade association made up of a few little companies like Apple, Microsoft, Symantec, Adobe and about 10 others].

And what does the BSA consider to be "not properly licensed"? Even if you purchased the software you are using legitimately, if you haven't kept the proofs of purchase, receipts, etc., then as far as the BSA is concerned you are guilty of copyright infringement and subject to financial damages of up to $150,000 per infringement. The BSA also considers Microsoft Office to be five (5) separate programs, so if you have an unauthorized copy of Office the BSA claims you are liable for up to $750,000 in damages.

The BSA has been very successful in scaring businesses into paying huge sums of money to avoid a lawsuit. The irony is that sometimes the BSA extracts financial settlements from businesses that exceed what the damages would be if the business went to court and then worked out a court-supervised settlement with the BSA.

Forewarned is forearmed. We have helped several businesses negotiate resolutions of these kinds of disputes with the BSA.

10 FOR '10: BRANFMAN'S TEN HOT IP TIPS

We recently wrote an article called "10 FOR '10: TEN HOT IP TIPS FOR LAWYERS AND THEIR CLIENTS" which highlights ten interesting intellectual property law legal developments and topics. Rather than reprint the whole article here, we will post one of the tips every few days in order to give each of the tips some room to breathe and an opportunity for comment. Here is the first one:

IP TIP #1: Photo-Shock:

Did your website designer grab some nice photos from somewhere to put up on your website? If so, it's time to check the terms and conditions of the license your web designer entered into for you (or didn't!) to make sure you have the right to use those photos for what you are using them for. Three large photo libraries (Corbis, Getty Images, and MasterFile)have recently embarked on a massive campaign which threatens big-time lawsuits in order to extract thousands of dollars (or more) from innocent businesses who have no idea they are using photos on their websites that aren't properly licensed.

We have handled several of these cases just within the last year.

Copyrights: For Songwriters - Registering Copyrights vs. Registering with ASCAP/BMI/SESAC

One of the questions we frequently receive is whether it is necessary for a songwriter to register his/her songs with both ASCAP (or BMI or SESAC) and the Copyright Office. One of the main things about the U.S. Copyright Office application/registration is that in the U.S. you need either a pending copyright application on file or an actual issued copyright registration certificate IF you have to sue someone for copyright infringement - depending on which legal jurisdiction you have to file your lawsuit in. So...in our experience it is better to file a copyright application sooner rather than later and it is not a question of either filing with ASCAP/BMI/SESAC or the Copyright Office; it is a matter of needing to do both.

Copyright Wars - Why Bother Registering A Copyright?

Of all the forms of intellectual property protection - patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets - copyrights are the most affordable to register. Copyrights are the lifeblood of just about every creative type of business, entrepreneur and artist. The general rule in the U.S. is that the copyright in a work MUST be REGISTERED with the U.S. Copyright Office BEFORE a copyright infringement lawsuit can be filed. There are some exceptions to that general rule, most notably in the 9th Circuit due to a recent court decision here. The 9th Circuit consists of California, Alaska, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana. Thus in the 9th Circuit a copyright infringement lawsuit can be filed if the copyright owner has merely filed a copyright APPLICATION, even if the registration certificate hasn't issued yet. But in states where the general rule applies, it can be a real drag if you have to wait for the Copyright Office to process your copyright application before you can file your lawsuit. That can take anywhere from 8 - 18 months (or more) - UNLESS you want to pay a "Special Handling" fee of $760 on top of the regular $35 fee. The Special Handling fee will usually get the Copyright Office to register your copyright in about 10 days or less. When it comes to copyrights, our motto is: "Register early and often".

Copyright Wars: Google Wins Round 1 in Viacom Lawsuit

For better or for worse, the wheels of justice can sometimes move at something less than lightning speed. Viacom Inc. filed a $1 billion federal court copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube more than three years ago and only this week the judge in the case 86d Viacom's complaint. [In technical legalese the judge granted YouTube's motion for summary judgment]. This doesn't mean that the case is over, and Viacom may still get its "day in court" - but the granting of the summary judgment motion is a bad sign for Viacom. Now it will have to appeal the court's decision to the federal court of appeals. We predict that the case will eventually end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is a good article which describes the latest developments in this case in greater detail.

Digital Music Royalties Waiting to Be Paid - Part 1

These days, there are so many various ways that musicians (recording artists), songwriters, record labels and music publishers can get paid (or not get paid - as the case may be) when recorded music is played on traditional AM/FM radio, satellite radio, Internet streaming, cable TV, etc., it can make your head spin. For example, for many years three organizations (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) have collected royalties paid by traditional AM/FM radio stations for playing music and then distributed those royalties to the songwriters who wrote the songs and the music publishers who own the copyrights in them. But due to a long-standing tradition and legal exemption, the singers and musicians who perform on the records played on AM/FM radio stations - as well as the record labels who own the recordings - DON'T get paid any share of the royalties collected by ASCAP/BMI/SESAC from the radio stations. And to make it even more confusing, when those same songs are streamed over the Internet by the companies that own the AM/FM radio stations, everyone - including the recordings artists and record labels - DO get paid. Go figure.

Needless to say, it's a confusing situation for most recording artists, songwriter, music publishers and record labels. But as a starting point, we highly recommend that songwriters and music publishers affiliate themselves with either ASCAP, BMI or SESAC so that they can paid what they are due when the songs they write and publish get played on traditional AM/FM radio and in other public performances. We also recommend, of course, that songwriters and publishers REGISTER THEIR COPYRIGHTS with the U.S. Copyright Office.

We are also recommending that recording artists and record labels get familiar with a non-profit organization called Sound Exchange (click here) so that they can get paid when their songs are played on satellite radio such as SIRIUS/XM, Internet streaming radio stations, etc. We will have a more detailed report about Sound Exchange in an upcoming blog entry. In the meantime, please call or write if you have any questions about these kinds of issues.

Are Mardi Gras Costumes Copyrightable?

U.S. copyright law protects a lot of content - everything from books and art to motion pictures, TV shows, sculpture and choreography - and lots in between. But certain things are not copyrightable: ideas, concepts, short titles and useful articles like clothing designs. But here is a recent article that explores the boundaries of the law regarding clothing designs. It addresses the question of whether those grandiose and fabulous Mardi Gras costumes way down in New Orleans are suitable (no pun intended) for copyright protection. We do not know if this issue will be tested in court or how a judge might rule if presented with the issue. But we do believe that these kinds of Mardi Gras costumes are way more than merely functional clothing designs and therefore they should be copyrightable. If that happens, however, is it just going to clog up the courts with more lawsuits when one Mardi Gras costumer designer decides that another costume design is too close to his or hers and constitutes copyright infringement? We will see.

Copyrights: When Does Flattery Become Infringement?

A recent article about an art world dispute raises an interesting problem that has perplexed lawyers, judges, artists, and photographers for years: how much legal protection is to be given to a photograph? The dispute the article describes pushes the boundaries of what has been and continues to be one of the most challenging and controversial issues in copyright law: when does someone go beyond permissible "copying" of an unprotectible idea and cross over into illegal copying of the "expression" of that idea? Lawyers, law students and judges have grappled with this "idea-expression dichotomy" for decades - perhaps longer. The shorthand way I have often tried to explain the idea-expression dichotomy is this: if Shakespeare had been alive at the time the play and subsequent film "West Side Story" were produced, he wouldn't have had a legal claim to stand on. Why? Because although "West Side Story" copied the idea of "Romeo and Juliet", the expressed of that idea in "West Side Story" was new and different.

In this recent case, photographer David Burdeny is accused of duplicating the look and feel of several photographs by Sze Tsung Leong and copying mulitple text descriptions of the photos. [Note: to the best of our knowledge, no law suit has been filed yet; the case currently resides in the "exchange of angry letters" mode].

In terms of photography, typically no one photographer can claim the exclusive right to the idea of taking a documentary style photo of a building or landscape, for example, the Ponto Vecchio in Florence or a pyramid in Eqypt. [To the contrary, of course, if Leong had combined a photo of the pyramid with a waterscape photo such that the pyramid appeared in the water, Burdeny would have a dead-bang loser case if he copied that expression]. Thus if Burdeny was alleged to have "copied" only one of Leong's photographs, I believe Burdeny would have a much cleaner defense. But when you take into account the combination of the number of photographs Burdeny is alleged to have copied plus the written descriptions of the photos, the case for Leong and against Burdeny gets more compelling - at the very least to the extent that a jury might be swayed to believe that Burdeny crossed the line. Frankly, the argument for infringement by Burdeny is much stronger with respect to the descriptions of the photos. Burdeny's descriptions may not be "identical" to Leong's, but they are "substantially similar" - and that's the standard for copyright infringement under U.S. law.

More to follow as the case develops.......

Questions? info@branfman.com or www.branfman.com

Copyrights: Online Copyright Application Tips

The U.S. Copyright Office ("USCO") may have implemented an online copyright application system a little more than a year ago, but there are still some serious bugs in the system that need to be worked out. Here are a few important tips to keep in mind when filing a copyright application online: print out and keep hard copies of (1) your copyright application; (2) the application filing receipt you receive by email from USCO after you file your application; (3) the fee payment receipt you receive from USCO; and the deposit specimen receipt you receive from USCO. Keep all the hard copies in a safe and easy-to-locate place until you receive your actual registration certificate. Why? Because it will probably take USCO anywhere from 12-18 months to process your application and issue the actual Copyright Registration Certificate. In the meantime you may need your complete copyright application package if you need to prove to anyone - including a court - when you filed your application and that you filed everything properly. Along those lines, be sure to keep an exact copy of the work (screenplay, novel, computer program, illustrations, etc.) you submitted to USCO with your copyright application. The reason: since authors and creators often develop different versions of the original work, it is vitally important to be able to prove exactly what version of your work you submitted with your copyright application.

Copyrights & Music:Does a Cell Phone Ringing in Public Violate Copyright Law?

In an important ruling for the millions of cell phone users whose ringtones play in public - and for the cell phone companies that provide the ring tones - a federal court in New York just ruled that merely playing the ring tone in public for personal (not commercial) purposes is not a "public performance" that would trigger a royalty payment to the copyright owner of the song the ring tone is based on. One of the keys to the decision was that it is limited to personal uses of ringtones "without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage". Thus to the extent someone might be interested in playing ringtones in public for commercial purposes - let's say a "Battle of the Ringtones" contest - this ruling would not apply. Beyond that, one of the interesting tidbits that came out of the court ruling is confirmation of the amount of money the cell phone companies pay in royalties for reproducing the song to begin with: 24 cents. Here is a summary of the court opinion and for those who are really ambitious, here is a copy of the court opinion itself.

Veoh Video Website Defeats Copyright Infringement Lawsuit by Major Studios

In a decision that portends big problems for Viacom's lawsuit against Google's YouTube website, a federal court decided last week that Veoh's video posting website is not guilty of copyright infringement. This case is not only important because of the pending Viacom vs. Google lawsuit, but because it details WHY Veoh was not guilty of copyright infringement even though the website does post copyrighted material without permission. Although this Court's decision is not binding on other courts around the country, the decision essentially outlines possible ground rules for a video-sharing website business model that is legal. It is worth comparing and contrasting how Veoh operates as compared to Napster and Grokster and other music-sharing websites that have been declared illegal. It will also be interesting to compare and contrast Veoh's service to YouTube's to see how they line up and how they differ.

Copyrights & Music: Ellen DeGeneres Rolls Into Court

Last week - at virtually the same time she was named the new judge on "American Idol" to replace Paul Abdul - Ellen DeGeneres' production company was sued by several major record labels for regularly and routinely using music on her daytime TV show without a license. The lawsuit alleges that about 1,000 songs have been used without permission. We don't watch the DeGeneres show regularly, but we understand that she's a music lover and has a segment each show where she dances to a popular song selected by a DJ. But that's a use that requires a license and according to the lawsuit when the show's producers were advised the program needs a license, their response was "We don't roll that way". Perhaps not. But since the U.S. Copyright Act allows for damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed, the show could be exposed to up to $150 million in damages. We don't really think the production company is going to end up paying anywhere near that. But they probably will pay something and probably more than it would have cost them if they had gotten the licenses to begin with. This, of course, raises the age-old question: is it better to ask for permission or forgiveness?

When Is The Best Time To File A Copyright Application?

Recently we were asked whether an author of a book-in-progress should file a copyright application to protect the book now or wait until the book is finished. In this situation it sounded like there isn't a big need to file the copyright application now because it is not a situation where there is a high likelihood of pre-publication piracy as there often is with sound recordings by popular recording artists or major motion pictures. If you are concerned about pre-publication piracy, then the scale tips in favor of registering the copyright in the unpublished version or using the Copyright Office’s “pre-registration” system. (Check the Copyright Office website for more info about the “pre-registration” procedure). On the other hand, given the relatively low filing fee for a copyright application ($35 if filed online), it might make the author “feel” better to know that the unpublished version has been registered for copyright purposes. But…….registering the preliminary unpublished version is no substitute for registering the copyright in the finished version when it is available. Thus doing it twice will increase the costs. But given the relatively low cost of the filing fee, that may not be much of an impediment. Another issue to consider in this kind of situation is whether there is enough original authorship in the work now to support a copyright application. If all you have is a one paragraph summary of what the book is going to be or just an outline, it is not clear that the Copyright Office would accept the copyright application. What is enough original authorship for copyright registration purposes is a difficult question to answer with any precision and is probably worth a blog entry all of its own.

The Value of a Name: Pirate Bay

Logic tells us that a McDonalds franchise location probably wouldn't be worth as much without the ability to use the McDonalds name, the golden arches and the familiar McDonalds color scheme. Those unique identifiers - trademarks - help make each McDonalds location worth a lot more than a restaurant in the same spot that didn't have those familiar icons. The same can be said about many familiar franchises and brands. But how do we place a value on what a name and trademarks are worth? Here is a recent story about the efforts by a Swedish internet cafe operator to buy an online file-sharing website called Pirate Bay for almost $8 million - even though the current operators of the website were criminally convicted in April and were ordered to spend a year in prison and pay almost $4 million in damages and the Motion Picture Association of America has requested that a court in Sweden stop the website from making available unauthorized copies of movies, TV shows, videogames, etc. Why is Pirate Bay worth $8 million plus whatever it will cost to operate it going forward? Apparently because the new buyer believes it can convert about 10% of Pirate Bay's current 20 million subscribers into legit customers who will pay for downloads.

It should be interesting to see how this works out.

The Problem With Net Profits Deals: Ask the Tolkien Heirs

Whenever we have clients consult us about a movie, TV, book or other deal where they are supposed to be paid for their work on a net profits basis, our red flags start going up. Here's an example of why that happens to us. As you will see, even after all this time and three hugely successful films, the heirs of "Lord of the Rings" author J.R.R. Tolkien are yet to receive any of the net profits they are entitled to.

COMIC-CON UPDATE: "Comic Book Law School"

Like the "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" that took over the countryside back in the 80's, Comic-Con has arrived once again in San Diego and is taking over the town for the next few days. What started as a small little geek-fest some 20 years ago has become a cultural epicenter for all kinds of entertainment, science fiction, movies, music, and - of course - comic books. We are pleased to have been invited again to speak at Comic-Con on current legal issues relevant to the Comic-Con crowd. Here is the entry from the Comic-Con programming guide about the panel discussion we will be participating in today:

3:30-4:30 Comic Book Law School: Hot Topics— Move over Whoopie and Barbara! It's time for these savvy legal minds to share their views on the ever-evolving legal world, spotlighting cutting-edge, evolving issues being faced by the creators, publishers and distributors of creative works. An all-star panel of attorneys—David Branfman, Alexander Harwin, and David Lizerbram, with moderator Michael Lovitz—shed light on important issues facing individuals and companies alike. Topics will include the new online copyright application process, preregistration of copyrights, fair use, piracy, and the growing popularity of the CopyLeft movement. (Please note: The Comic Book Law School seminars are designed to provide relevant information and practice tips to practicing attorneys, as well as practical tips to creators and other professionals who may wish to attend. This program is approved for one credit of California MCLE.) Room 10

For any of you who will be at Comic-Con today, please stop by and let us know what you think about all of this.

Copyrights: Copyright Office Application Backlog

The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office ("PTO") implemented an online trademark application filing system years ago. But it took the U.S. Copyright Office until last July to develop and implement an online copyright application system. That was the good news. But while the new Copyright Office system was supposed to make things simpler and quicker, it has had the exact opposite effect. Instead of taking 6 to 8 months for the Copyright Office to process a copyright application and issue a copyright registration certificate, it is now taking upwards of 18 months - three times as long as it used to. Here is an interesting article about the problem.

There are, however, two bones we have to pick with the Washington Post article. First, the article implies that the copyright owner shouldn't perform or display their work until the copyright registration is officially registered with the Copyright Office. We think that is an overly restrictive approach. Why? Because once the copyright registration is issued by the Copyright Office, it will be given an effective date of registration retroactive to the date the copyright application was filed. Additionally, you can put the world on notice that you consider your work to be protected by copyright law by placing a proper copyright notice on your work. For example: Copyright 2009 David P. Branfman.

Second, the Washington Post article suggests that the ONLY way to stop someone from copying your work is to file a copyright application. That's not entirely accurate. What is important to understand is that the copyright owner can not sue someone for copyright infringement until the copyright application for the work in question has been filed. [Some courts require the actual registration certificate in order to maintain a copyright infringement lawsuit, but more and more courts are allowing a lawsuit to be filed as long as the copyright application has at least been filed - even if the registration certificate hasn't been actually issued at the time the lawsuit is filed. Those courts then require the copyright registration certificate before a copyright infringement case can go to trial].

Copyrights and the Radio

It's one thing to be the songwriter of a hit song that gets tons of radio airplay. But it's another thing if you're the singer and/or the band that performs the song but didn't write it. This article explains why. In a nutshell: due to a long-standing policy in the United States (but not Europe, for example), only songwriters and music publishers get to share in the royalties that are paid by radio stations when songs are played on the radio. The band and the singer doesn't. Musicians have been trying to get the law changed for years, but so far haven't had much luck. That may change if a piece of legislation in Congress passes.