Social Paws or Arrested Pa’s?

Speaking of Social commerce, did you know that one in 10 UK pets has a profile on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube. Many within the U.S. have also set up a profile for their pet. Although, it is hard to determine how many pets are signed up on Facebook, it appears that at least several thousand pets, including dogs and cats along with less common pets such as birds, hamsters, ferrets, turtles, fish and rabbits are signed up. In fact, some animals are believed to be even more popular than some celebrities using Facebook.

Pet ownership and pet industries appear to be recession proof and continue to be one of the fastest growing and thriving industries. Due in part to the pet owner’s devotion, there appears to be a growing number who pose as their pet on social networks including, signing into the social networks and posting updates, videos and other stories about what is going on. While it is understood that most (?) of these posts are being made on behalf of the pet, Facebook doesn’t like it. In fact these owners are violating Facebook’s terms and condition and according at least one legal interpretation, they are committing a crime.

Facebook and other social network sites do not allow someone to create multiple accounts or create an account which impersonates anyone or anything. This means, Facebook doesn’t allow fake profiles for pets. Facebook users must provide their real names and information. In addition, users of Facebook must not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than themselves without permission and must not create more than one personal profile.

As part of the Terms and Conditions of a website, these statements are part of a contract, addressing what users of the website have permission to do and what type of access to the website is authorized. This is effectively a contract agreement, which is being violated by the creation of false or ficticious accounts.

The pet owners actions, while a breach of the agreement between the website user and the website owner, doesn’t seem like criminal action. Therefore, you might be asking where does the criminal part come into play. Well the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) specifically provides that one who accesses a computer in violation of a websites terms and conditions may be criminally liable for their actions. This means that if someone violates the terms and conditions of a website, they may be liable, criminally, for their breach. In U.S. v. Lori Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D. Cal. 2009) a mom was found guilty for violating Myspace’s terms by creating an false Myspace account. However, the Judge overturned the finding stating that allowing a violation of a website’s Terms of Service to constitute an violation of CFAA would “result in transforming the [relevant section of the CFAA] into an overwhelmingly overbroad enactment that would convert a multitude of otherwise innocent Internet users into misdemeanant criminals.”

Therefore, while Facebook doesn’t like it that these four-legged friends are finding widespread attention on social networks, it is unlikely that anyone will be bringing criminal charges against these pet friendly advocates.

Posted in CFAA, Copyrights, DMCA, Newsletter | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

Facebook Pirates?

Protecting Intellectual Property in Social Commerce

The Internet and e-commerce are becoming the standard mode of business in today’s global economy.  The current projection is that e-commerce in 2011 will account for 188 billion dollars with a hundred billion dollars in growth being projected by 2015 as a result of mobile commerce, social commerce and daily deal sites, like GROUPON.  As the social media world continues to displace more traditional forms of advertising, it is becoming more and more important for companies to monitor, evaluate and enforce their intellectual property (IP) including trademark and copyright concerns.  Today some of the largest vehicles for commerce involve the Internet and include EBAY, FACEBOOK and GOOGLE.  In addition, promotion of products involves other electronic media sites like TWITTER, YOUTUBE and various blogs.  Each of these non-traditional modes of commerce are frought with potential illegitmate use of intellectual property, including:

  • Trademark infringement, including the non-authorized use of a companies name, slogan, brand names and logos in connection with the sale of competing goods or services;
  • Copyright infringement, including the non-authorized use of text, graphics, images, sounds and recorded video materials;
  • Unlawful counterfeit or knock-off products which copy the companies protected product,
  • Invasion of Privacy or Publicity by posting non-authorized images of a person;
  • Defamation, such as slander or libel for making false public statements about a person on the Internet; and
  • Breach of Confidentiality by disclosing confidential information such as trade secrets to others.

Protecting your Intellectual Property

The first step to curbing the theft of intellectual property begins with protection and notifying the world of your legal claim.  Protecting your intellectual property involves registering it with a governmental organization, either at the local or national level and usually involves some form of legal advise in deciding how to register the work.  Whether a company chooses to register its trademark/service mark or copyrights, it should still notify everyone of its claim to protection under trademark or copyright laws by using an appropriate notice of its claim to its intellectual property in connection with its copyright or trademark materials.  In some cases, this may involve the use of a superscript TM, in other cases it may involve the use of the © designation or in other cases the ® designation.  Before deciding which of these notices to use, you should contact an attorney to advise you, but in any event, you should properly mark your trademark and copyrighted material with the appropriate legal designation.

Monitoring your Intellectual Property

Once you have protected the mark or work and properly placed the appropriate notice on the work, you should develop a plan for detecting and monitoring any unauthorized trademark, copyright and trade secret activity.  You should begin by developing a reasonable policy and educating internal users about the appropriate usage of the company’s intellectual property, its name, materials, brands and confidential information.   The volume of postings and other electronic messages sent using social media can be overwhelming.  Some people post over 200 messages a day on Facebook.  Because of all of the social media activity, it can be difficult to keep pace with potential violators.   In addition, infringing copies of copyrighted works can be unlawfully accessed and shared by thousands, or even millions, of Internet users in a given day.  But not all infringements are equal. For example, some YouTube video’s have a short life, watched by only a few people before being superseded or buried by more recent postings. Some videos or blog postings, however, are very influential or are read by many people and are therefore more problematic or urgent. In some cases, a post a wide following may be viewed many times or is otherwise influential. In other cases, a posting may be linked or forwarded to others.   Therefore, it is important to set up a reasonable, rationale plan to educate and monitor intellectual property violations.

Creating a Company Branded Site

In addition to policing against unlawful violations, the company should set up its official Internet accounts.  Besides an official company website, many companies need to create official Facebook, Twitter, Ebay and Google accounts using the company name or generally recognized brand names.  Once created, only authorized individuals should be able to access these accounts and post messages, pictures or blogs.  It is recommended that there should be some accountability to who has the responsibility and permission to post information on the Internet with multiple people monitoring the ongoing Internet activities.  One way to monitor for various activities would be to set-up a daily Google alert or subscribe to commercial watching services related to various keywords relevant to the company’s name or other intellectual property concerns.

Recording Infringement Activities

Monitoring violations of IP rights should include the ability to recording information about the unlawful activity or the dissemination of the unlawful material.  This information may be critical to demonstrating the harm and potential damage caused by the unlawful activity.  Because the social media consciousness is fleeting, any evidence of unlawful activity may be lost in a relatively short time, making it difficult to recover from the inflicted harm.  Without evidence, it can be difficult to prove that any unlawful activity actually took place or that if it did, that there was any real impact as a result of the unlawful activity.  Therefore, it is important that a policy for monitoring infringement activity include the ability to record and preserve evidence of any wrongdoing which can, if needed, be proven at trial if a suit is brought to stop the unlawful activity.

Conclusion

Protecting, monitoring and enforcing intellectual property rights against infringement might seem impossible; However, with the proper development and implementation of a strategy against infringements, an companies intellectual property asset can continue to grow and prosper in today’s e-commerce world.

 

Posted in Newsletter | Comments Off

Patent Reexamination

Paul Allen, former Microsoft co-founder recently brought a patent infringement suit based upon 4 of his patents against many notable companies including Apple, Google, Facebook, NetFlix, AOL and others.  Last week the district court granted a stay while the patents are being reexamined.

Two of the reexamination requests (those for patents 6263507 and 6034652) were filed as ex parte reexamination requests. That means the requesting party has submitted what they believe to be relevant prior art, but it is entirely up to the patent examiner to assess the relevance of that prior art and apply it with no further input from the requesting party. In the other two cases (patents 6788314 and 6757682) the requests are for inter partes reexaminations, meaning the requesting party is an on-going participant to the reexamination process. Because two of the patents were issues after November 11, 1999, the requesting parties could only request ex parte examination on those patents.

A patent reexamination offers several benefits over traditional court litigation, including helping the defendant’s avoid costly discovery during the course of the USPTO proceeding, which can be rather lengthy.

In addition to deferring discovery costs, a reexamination proceeding can make it easier to challenge a patent because in a USPTO reexamination proceeding, there is no presumption of validity, unlike in the courts. In addition, the USPTO does not require that the requesting party only needs to demonstrate patent invalidity by a “preponderance of the evidence” standard rather than the  “clear and convincing” standard required by the courts.

In considering if Plaintiff’s interests would be prejudiced by the delay in litigation which may be required for the USPTO to conclude the reexamination process, the court emphasized the fact that Plaintiff is a holding company ( generally referred to as a Patent Troll).

In deciding whether the Plaintiff would be prejudiced by a stay, the court explained:

[T]he Court is not able to find undue prejudice to [Plaintiff] by granting the stay. [Plaintiff], a holding company, does not compete with Defendants and there is no danger it will lose customers, market share, or other intangible benefits. Rather, it can likely be compensated for damages suffered even if a stay is issued. The Court also does not believe that the stay will produce a clear tactical disadvantage to [Plaintiff].

The full decision may be found (here).

Posted in Newsletter | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

Tattoo Copyright Settled

As a follow-up to the recent Tattoo article, on Monday, Warner Bros. announced that it had settled the lawsuit brought by Missouri tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill over the mark on Helms’ face, for which Whitmill claimed infringed a copyrighted tattoo he created for boxer Mike Tyson.  Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Posted in Newsletter | Comments Off

Copyright Termination of Musical Works

Beginning in 2013, musicians and others who create sound recordings (or their heirs in the event of their death) may terminate previously assigned copyrights.  Customarily, many recording artists assign or otherwise transfer their rights for their music under one-sided agreements with record companies for a fraction of the commercial value of the music in exchange for having their music published. In fact, most artists make very little money in exchange for the transfer of copyrights in their work.

As an example, America’s first professional songwriter, Stephen Foster wrote “Oh! Susanna”, “Camptown Races”, “Old Folks at Home” (“Swanee River”), “Hard Times Come Again No More”, “My Old Kentucky Home”, “Old Black Joe”, “Jeanie with the Light Brown Hair”, and “Beautiful Dreamer.” These songs are still popular more than 150 years after his death.  Despite the success Mr. Foster had with these songs he died at the age of thirty-seven with 38 cents in his pocket.

As Congress stated in passing the 1976 amendments to the Copyright laws,  more than any other industry, recording artists are probably the most common artist who is “ripped-off” by record companies with a business model designed to commercially exploit the music while refusing to provide commercially reasonable contract terms  for the use of artist’s music.

As a result, in 1976 Congress enacted changes in the Copyright law, which gives musicians, or their heirs, the right to terminate copyright assignments after thirty-five years.  Those changes will first be in effect in 2013 and as a result it is anticipated the record companies will fight over the ability of the musicians to reclaim their work through the termination provision.

By way of background, under copyright law, the author or owner of a work of art has many exclusive rights including the right to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute copies of the work to the public, publicly preform the work, publicly display the work and in the case of sound recordings, publicly preform the work by means of a digital audio transmission.  In the music world, these rights are typically transferred by the musician to the record company based upon industry standard language which is very draconian, for the “benefit” of greater marketing and distribution of the musical works.  Often, the contract language will indicate that the work is assigned, in other cases, the contract states that the work is a work-made-for-hire.  By classifying the transfer as a work-made-for-hire, the record company is usually attempting to avoid the right of the artist and their heir to terminate their copyright transfer and regain their copyright ownership in the musical work.

The purpose of the right of termination is to give artists, and their heirs,  who cannot know the future value of their work, the ability to reevaluate the licensing of their work when the value is determined by the market presumably after thirty-five years.  If the artists is able to terminate the copyright transfer, the artist can at least partially realize the true commercial value of the work.  However, this is obviously contrary to the record companies current profit making business model, which is to pay a minimal amount of money for the ownership of commercially successful musical works and to be able to use the works in almost any manner to commercially exploit.

The 1976 Copyright Act, specifically provides that the unless the work is a work for hire, a transfer of the copyright may be terminated.  In addition, the Copyright Act indicates what works may be considered works for hire and sound recordings are not covered within the statutory language.  While record companies have attempted to influence Congress and the courts before, they have failed.  However, record companies have deep pockets and strong alliances through the RIAA.  Musicians and other artists who create the musical works, are generally individuals with limited resources who can’t afford to battle the large record company institutions.

Therefore, it is expected that as musicians attempt to exercise their termination rights in 2013 under the 1976 Copyright Law, the record companies will fight back trying to claim the works are not covered by the termination provision.  Ultimately, litigation may be necessary before it is clear that the artist can excercise the right to terminate copyright assignments.

If you have assigned your rights under copyright, feel free to contact us to discuss the implication of these transfers and the right, if any, to terminate such agreements.

 

Posted in Copyrights, Licensing, Newsletter | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

Copyright Infringement of Tattoos

In an interesting Hollywood movie side-drama consistent with Hollywood theatrics, the creators of the upcoming Hangover II movie are finding themselves fighting to defend themselves against a tattoo artist seeking an injunction over the unauthorized use of a tattoo. The tattoo artist, Victor Whitmill, created an original tattoo for boxer Mike Tyson, who appears in both “Hangover” films.  In response to the unauthorized use of Mr. Whitmill’s artwork, he filed a copyright infringement suit seeking an injunction and damages for the unauthorized use of his tattoo in the Hangover II movie.

In general, the lawsuit is based upon the depiction by Warner Bros. of Mr. Whitmill’s artwork, the tattoo, on actor Ed Helms.  The suit does not name Mr. Tyson’s because Mr. Tyson obtained an agreement with the artist allowing Mr. Tyson to appear in movies with the tattoo.  Warner Bros. did not obtain an agreement which is why the suit was filed.  During settlement negotiations, apparently Mr. Whitmill asked for a $30 million settlement.

The artist lost the the preliminary injunction hearing because issuing an injunction against the film’s release would inflict irreparable harm on the studio, which has spent more than $80 million to market the film.  So the film will be released on schedule.  However, the judge’s ruling, denying the injunction, is allowing the case to proceed because Mr. Whitmill demonstrated a ‘strong likelihood of success’ on the merits of his copyright infringement lawsuit.

According to Mr. Whitmill’s attorney, “Judge Perry recognized copyright law protects tattoos and that Warner Bros. had no permission to use Mr. Whitmill’s artwork in the movie.”

This is quite a change for Warner Bros., a company known for making copyrighted works and for being an institution for the commercial exploitation of these works of art, such as movies, records, books, plays, etc.. Why didn’t Warner Bros.  obtain an agreement to use the artwork in the movie?  Clearly Warner Bros. is not a novice copyright owner, unfamiliar with complexity of copyright law.  Most likely this was simply an oversight by Warner Bros.  But copyright law is not kind to oversights.  Copyright law, as some may say, “is a harsh mistress.”  Copyright law holds one strictly liable for unauthorized use of a copyright work.  In general, if one violates the rights of an artist, one is liable for copyright infringement.  Simple.

This case, while seemingly clear from a liability standpoint provides an intriguing perspective.  Absent an agreement or a work-for-hire situation, tattoo artists clearly have rights to their artwork.  Most artwork is displayed on walls, in books or on radios.  Tattoos are not, they are displayed on persons.  Any image of a person may include an image of the tattoo and anyone obtaining a copy of the tattoo may find themselves liable for copyright infringement over the picture related to the commercial/public display of the tattoo.  For example, if you have a bunch of pictures on Facebook with your tattoo could they sue you?  While model releases are not uncommon for pictures involving people, the possibility of a tattoo provides an additional layer of complexity.  Not only is a model release possibly required, but also a tattoo artist release may be required if the picture depicts the tattoo.  Obviously the best time to get the tattoo release would be at the time of the tattoo.

In addition, tattoo artists may also have so called moral rights under copyright law, which means the artist has a right to attribution and to the integrity of the work.  If applied in a traditional sense, this would mean that the tattoo artist has a say in the surroundings in which the work is displayed.  If the work is displayed in a way which is not flattering, the tattoo artist may have a right to limit the display of the work.  Exactly how this would work out in real life is unclear.  For example, does this mean that if you get a little less physically attractive, the tattoo artist may have a right to remove the tattoo…. Interesting.

If you have the urge to get a tattoo, feel free to contact one of our attorney’s to go with you and negotiate that license agreement in advance. Who knows, maybe the artist would be willing to tattoo the agreement as well.

Posted in Newsletter | Tagged , , | Comments Off

Presumption of Patent Validity Affirmed

Today, the Supreme Court affirmed the high presumption of validity associated with an issued patent in Microsoft v. i4i. In trying to overturn a $250 million patent infringement award against Microsoft, Microsoft attempted to argue that the presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. §285 associated with an issued patent should be lower than the current standard.  Currently, the standard of proof in attacking the validity of an issued patent requires one to prove that the patent is invalid by clear and convincing evidence, one of the highest standards of proof. Microsoft attempted to argue that the presumption should be lower. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Microsoft’s argument clearing the way for payment of the trial court’s $250 million dollar award to i4i based upon infringement of i4i’s patent.  If you have any questions related to the presumptions of patent validity or this case, feel free to contact our firm.

Posted in Newsletter | Tagged , , | Comments Off

Google looking for Patents

Patents are becoming highly prized pieces of intellectual property in the high tech arena. While, Google has admitted that it has far fewer patents than many of its rival technology companies, Google made a $900m bid to acquire the patent portfolio of Nortel Networks, a bankrupt Canadian telecommunications manufacturer.

Google believes the additional patents could help it with potential lawsuits against its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system.

According to one report, experts believe the final price could go well over $1billion and may be as high as $2billion.

The amount of money being spent helps illustrate just how important many companies believe patents are worth and how fierce the patent wars have become for companies like Apple, Google, Nokia and HTC, as they become increasingly involved in patent litigation.

If you have a patent or are interesting in discussing the use of patents in patent litigation, contact one of our Patent Attorneys.

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patents | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Charlie Sheen Trademarks

Charlie Sheen has recently filed 22 Trademark Applications related to many of his catchphrases, including “Duh, Winning” and “Tiger Blood,” according to reports.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New Patent Application Examination Rules

On May 5, 2011 the United States Patent Office (USPTO) will begin the implementation of new rules for prioritizing patent examination.  Under Track One, the patent office will expedite the examination of Patents, within twelve (12) months for an additional $4,000 payment. Small entities will receive a 50% discount on the expedited examination fee.

It currently takes between three to five years, on average, before review of a patent application occurs. Track One is part of a new Three-Track examination system, which will allow patent applicants to decide how quickly their patent application is examined.  Under Track Two, patent applicants will receive traditional examination procedures and Track Three will allow the patent applicants to obtain a delay of up to thirty (30) months.  Track Three is expected to roll-out by September 30, 2011.

If you have any questions related to the expedited patent examination rules, feel free to contact on of our Patent Attorneys.

Posted in Application, Examination, Intellectual Property, Patents, United States Patent Office, USPTO | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment