Posts Tagged: "copyright"

In January of this year, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) sent a letter to Matthew Wiener, Acting Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), and Todd Rubin, ACUS Counsel for Congressional Affairs, asking that the ACUS “conduct a study on whether Congress should create a unified, stand-alone, and independent Intellectual Property Office.” But Wiener replied to Tillis’ letter on March 7, indicating that ACUS “has neither the expertise nor resources to conduct” such a study. Instead, Wiener suggested asking an entity better positioned to undertake the task, such as the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), which Tillis wrote to today.

Last week, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a pair of final rules to establish various procedures governing proceedings at the Copyright Claims Board (CCB), a small copyright claims tribunal within the Copyright Office. The CCB was implemented as part of the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act enacted under a larger omnibus bill on COVID-19 issues in December 2020. The rules establish procedures for designating service agents for receiving notices of initiated proceedings at the CCB, as well as opt-out procedures for libraries, archives and any claimants who are notified of class action litigation filed in U.S. district court covering their own copyright claim.

Blockchain technology has brought the world a collection of cutting-edge investment opportunities, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) among them. And with the advent of these unique digital assets, comes an entirely novel product segment subject to intellectual property law. For months now, the media has covered stories about NFTs selling for obscene prices. But behind these headlines—and given the onslaught of NFTs that continue to flood the market—are questions regarding trademark and copyright issues raised by these non-interchangeable units of data.

The struggles that most artists endure include creativity blocks and economic hardship; however, British artist Banksy seems unaffected by either of these. His street art is celebrated all over the world for its anti-authoritarian tone and his extremely secretive personal identity. Recently, he has even been venturing into Non-Fungible Tokens. But unwittingly, and rather humorously, Banksy is facing a different kind of dilemma in terms of either revealing his overtly confidential identity or losing exclusive rights to his works.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation today voted 14-14 to advance the nomination of Gigi Sohn to serve as a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission. Committee Ranking Member Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) opposed the nomination, explaining that “the committee’s vetting process has clarified she’s not the right choice to fill this vacancy” due to several conflicts of interest. Groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also vocally opposed Sohn’s nomination this week. In December, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) wrote a letter to President Biden asking Biden to withdraw Sohn’s nomination, explaining that her role as a co-founder of the open Internet advocacy group Public Knowledge poses a threat to copyright owners in particular. “[Sohn] is a radical open-content activist with no respect for intellectual property rights,” Tillis wrote.

On February 21, Houston, Texas-based professional photographer Jim Olive filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of its petition for writ of certiorari asking the nation’s highest court to grant an appeal in Olive’s copyright infringement suit against the University of Houston System. This case is one of two separate suits seeking to hold Texas public universities accountable for copyright infringement; while sovereign immunity defenses have staved off liability thus far, a recent Takings Clause decision by the Supreme Court has created a path forward for these and other IP owners looking to hold state entities accountable for their IP infringements.

On February 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., No. 20–915 (Feb. 24, 2022). The Court held that a copyright registration applicant, if unaware of legal inaccuracies in a copyright application, does not submit those inaccuracies “knowingly” for purposes of Section 411(b)(2), and as such, does not lose the protections of the Copyright Act’s safe harbor for registrations with inaccuracies. Undoubtedly, the decision is a win for authors that, during the copyright application process, unwittingly submit inaccurate information to the U.S. Copyright Office (e.g., because they did not understand the law, and/or were not assisted by competent copyright counsel). That said, the decision does not do away with the risks associated with honest mistakes in U.S. Copyright Office filings, and authors should take care to mitigate such risks.

On February 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s dismissal of a copyright suit filed against Apple Inc. and other defendants explaining that dismissal was improper at the pleading stage because reasonable minds could differ on the issue of substantial similarity. The suit was brought by Francesca Gregorini—writer, director, and producer of the film The Truth About Emanuel. She claimed that the first three episodes of Defendants’ AppleTV+ series, Servant, infringed her copyright. In May 2020, U.S. District Judge Walters dismissed Gregorini’s complaint on the ground that the works were not substantially similar as a matter of law. Gregorini appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

In a 6-3 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 411(b) of the U.S. Copyright Act “does not distinguish between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact; lack of either factual or legal knowledge can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration under §411(b)(1)(A)’s safe harbor.” The decision comes after Unicolors, Inc. petitioned the Court in January of last year, asking whether the Ninth Circuit erred in determining that Section 411 required referral to the Copyright Office on any inaccurate registration information, even without evidence of fraud or material error, in conflict with other circuit courts and the Copyright Office’s own findings on Section 411.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) today revealed its 2022 International IP Index, “Compete for Tomorrow,” which is now in its tenth edition. Last year, the report focused on the role of effective intellectual property (IP) frameworks in helping economies to combat and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and identified several emerging economies that had made significant improvements. This year, the report analyzes ten years of data, which reveals that the global IP environment has steadily improved overall, including in the last two years of turmoil, and that emerging economies are particularly making a conscious decision to bolster their IP regimes.

In an opinion letter dated February 14, 2022, the Review Board of the United States Copyright Office (Review Board) affirmed a decision of the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) denying registration of a two-dimensional artwork generated by Creativity Machine, an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm created by Dr. Stephen Thaler. Established by regulation in 1995, the Review Board is responsible for hearing final administrative appeals following two opportunities for a claimant to appeal copyright registration refusals. Thaler filed an application to register the computer-generated work, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” on November 3, 2018. On the application, Thaler listed Creativity Machine as the author of the work and indicated himself to be the claimant, with a transfer statement explaining he acquired ownership of the work because of his “ownership of the machine.”

You may have heard that on January 1, 2022, Winnie-the-Pooh and the other characters from the Hundred Acre Wood are now in the public domain. But did you know that not all of Christopher Robin’s friends are treated the same in the eyes of copyright law? The characters have multiple authors, including A.A. Milne who first published Winnie-the-Pooh in 1926, and The Walt Disney Company, which brought the stories to the screen. Milne’s characters from his 1926 books entered the public domain at the beginning of this year, but Disney’s iteration remains copyright protected for now.

If you follow Reese Witherspoon on Twitter, you may notice she has been tweeting about non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, a lot. She currently features an NFT as her Twitter profile picture (abbreviated “pfp” for those in the know). In October 2021, Witherspoon became a partner in an NFT art collection called World of Women, or WoW, which was created and illustrated by the artist Yam Karkai. Through an auction-style bidding process, the WoW collection is currently available on OpenSea, one of the largest NFT marketplaces. As of publication, an individual WoW NFT auction starts at around 7 Ethereum (ETH), the cryptocurrency used to purchase on OpenSea, which currently equates to approximately USD 20,000.

Publishers scored a win yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland when the court granted their request for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Maryland Act, which essentially calls for compulsory licensing of electronic literary works to libraries on “reasonable terms”. The law went into effect on January 1, 2022. The lawsuit was brought by the Association of American Publishers (AAP) against the state of Maryland and charged that the Maryland Act was preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act. The Maryland Act requires publishers to 1) offer to license copyrighted electronic literary products, such as eBooks and digital audiobooks, to public libraries, and (2) to ensure the terms of such licenses are fair. The goal was to avoid up-charging and stringent licensing restrictions on libraries.

The ability of copyright owners to experiment with different marketing strategies is fundamental to copyright law. Indeed, the U.S. Copyright Act promotes the public good by granting exclusive rights to copyright owners that incentivize the creation and dissemination of new works on their own terms. These exclusive rights are the reason why copyright owners invest time, energy, and money into creating new works, and why they have a chance to recoup expenses and perhaps make a profit. The Copyright Act has always celebrated the right and ability of copyright owners to choose whether, how, when, and where their works are distributed to the public. And under our dual system of government, where federal law reigns supreme, it is well-settled that the states are powerless to interfere in ways that conflict with the nationwide scheme established by Congress. Nevertheless, there is an alarming new trend of states pursuing laws that would force publishers, many of whom are also authors, to grant licenses to public libraries for access to their digital works, such as eBooks and audiobooks.