Last April, Christin Romer opened a cafe in Bonn, Germany, called Apfelkind. The cafe’s logo features a child’s head in profile on a red apple. Naturally, Apple has sent Romer a cease and desist letter claiming that the cafe’s logo violates Apple’s trademark. Romer will face tremendous pressure to change the logo. So far, though, she is standing firm.
I recently blogged about Creative America, a content-industry organization that disseminates misinformation about copyright law.
This afternoon, as I was crossing the campus at the University of Southern California following a talk about my book, I was stopped by a young woman with a clipboard who asked me if I had “five minutes to save American jobs.” I said I was happy to listen. She then told me that she wasn’t asking for any money, just seeking my support, by way of a signature, for Creative America, which, she said is devoted to “stopping online piracy which costs Americans $50 billion every year.” The remainder of our conversation was roughly as follows:
Me: Online piracy, huh? I know what a pirate is. What is an online pirate?
Creative America Representative: Online pirates use websites to download illegally copyrighted movies and music.
Me: So they’re not really pirates?
CAR: Well….
Me: No eye patch?
Last month, the European Court of Justice held that procedures dependent upon human stem cells are ineligible for patent protection. Pharmaceutical companies and biotech firms have criticized the decision as hampering investment in research. Nature, however, sees a “silver lining” in the decision. The journal notes that the decision may in fact hasten innovation by lowering competitive barriers. Additionally, Nature points out that patents are still available for technologies used to exploit stem cells and that there are other means of insulating proprietary information from competitors. According to Nature, by “creating an anything-goes atmosphere,” the court ruling could attract scientists from abroad, making Europe the leading center for stem cell research.
MP3 Download Pro is an Android app that, like much technology, can be used for lawful as well as lawful purposes. The Recording Industry Association of America wants Google to block access to the app because some, perhaps many, consumers use it to download copyrighted music onto their phones. So far, Google has refused to comply, on the ground that the app has lawful uses (such as downloading music that is in the public domain or that has been made available by the copyright owner). The RIAA can easily intimidate individual consumers but in Google it has likely met its match.
Here we go again.
Warner Brother has admitted using DMCA takedown notices to target materials in which it doesn’t own a copyright.
This isn’t the first time the brothers Warner have have gotten grabby.
In 1947 when the Marx Brothers were about to begin production of A Night in Casablanca, Warner Brothers threatened to sue them if they did not change the movie’s title.
Warner Brothers said the title infringed their own rights in the 1942 hit Casablanca starring Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman. In response, Groucho Marx sent Warner Brothers a letter that began,
Dear Warner Brothers,
Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.
It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.
I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.
You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were.
This time around, Hotfile, the target of the phony DMCA notices, is seeking damages for Warner Brothers’ conduct.
Fordham University School of Law is hosting a full-day conference on November 11 on IP Bullying or Proactive Enforcement? There is a great line-up of academics and lawyers and panels devoted to coverage of copyright, trademark, and patent law issues. The panelists will address a key question: “Where is the line drawn between fair and effective enforcement of intellectual property rights and so-called ‘bullying’?” The event is free and open to the public.
Tech show host extraordinaire Mario Armstrong at Sirius discusses copyfraud. He says: “Copyfraud is happening everywhere.”
Contracts governing the use of creative works are now common. An important emerging question is whether and when contractual provisions are preempted by the federal Copyright Act. The Supreme Court has never tackled the issue. And today, the Court denied review in Montz v. Pilgrim Films, a case decided en banc in May by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question in the case was whether the Copyright Act preempts an agreement between a screenwriter and a producer in which the screenwriter agrees to shows a movie script to the producer on the understanding that if the producer later uses the ideas embodied in the script the producer will pay the screenwriter compensation. The Ninth Circuit held that such an agreement is not preempted by federal copyright law. According to the court, allowing these kinds of contracts, known in the business as “Desny” agreements (after a 1956 California state court decision), promotes creativity: “The Desny innovation serves to give some protection for those who wish to find an outlet for creative concepts and ideas but with the understanding that they are not being given away for free. Without such legal protection, potentially valuable creative sources would be left with very little protection in a dog-eat-dog business.”
To publicize its opposition to proposed legislation that would criminalize unlawful streaming, Fight for the Future says the law would have punished Justin Bieber for posting online videos of himself doing cover songs. The organization has launched a Free Bieber campaign showing Justin Bieber behind bars. But Justin Bieber’s lawyers doesn’t want his name associated with this campaign. They have issued a cease and desist letter asserting violations of his intellectual property rights. As for Justin Bieber himself, he thinks that Senator Amy Klobuchar, the sponsor of the bill, should be “locked up–put away in cuffs.” EFF is on the case.
What’s a protest if you can’t make money off it? As has been widely reported, Robert and Diane Maresca have sought to trademark “Occupy Wall Street” so they can sell merchandise with the phrase. Hoping to fuel a trend, one Brad Delhover is also seeking to trademark “Occupy This” with a downward arrow — for sale on t-shirts. And finally OWS’s organizers have just filed their own trademark application.
