Obama and Intellectual Property

Tags

Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age. Let’s set high standards for our schools and give them the resources they need to succeed. Let’s recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability. Let’s make college more affordable, and let’s invest in scientific research, and let’s lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America.” 

— Barack Obama

Whitehouse.gov lists some of the President’s new initiatives related to intellectual property and technology.  We’ll be tracking his administration’s performance on these initiatives over the next four (4) years:

  • Protect American Intellectual Property Abroad: Work to ensure intellectual property is protected in foreign markets, and promote greater cooperation on international standards that allow our technologies to compete everywhere.
  • Protect American Intellectual Property at Home: Update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation, and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated.
  • Reform the Patent System: Ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration. Give the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and open up the patent process to citizen review to help foster an environment that encourages innovation. Reduce uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation.
  • Promote American Businesses Abroad: Support a trade policy that ensures our goods and services are treated fairly in foreign markets. Fight for fair treatment of our companies abroad.
  • Invest in the Sciences: Double federal funding for basic research over ten years, changing the posture of our federal government to one that embraces science and technology.
  • Invest in University-Based Research: Expand research initiatives at American colleges and universities. Provide new research grants to the most outstanding early-career researchers in the country.
  • Make the R&D Tax Credit Permanent: Invest in a skilled research and development workforce and technology infrastructure. Make the Research and Development tax credit permanent so that firms can rely on it when making decisions to invest in domestic R&D over multi-year timeframes.
  • Ensure Competitive Markets: Foster a business and regulatory landscape in which entrepreneurs and small businesses can thrive, start-ups can launch, and all enterprises can compete effectively while investors and consumers are protected against bad actors that cross the line. Reinvigorate antitrust enforcement to ensure that capitalism works for consumers.

Warner Music Group sues SeeqPod, targets key DMCA provision

Tags

,

Warner v. Seeqpod Complaint

Click for full text

The music industry is at it again.  Warner Music Group  has brought suit against SeeqPod, an increasingly popular search engine for music and video.  The suit targets a key provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) that allows search engines to safely link to content on other folks’ servers. 

Section 512 of the DMCA protects online service providers (OSPs) from liability for information posted or transmitted by subscribers if they quickly remove or disable access to material identified in a copyright holder’s complaint.

Fred Von Lohmann, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, breaks down the complaint (click image for full text):

“This is the latest in a string of lawsuits against Web 2.0 companies. Together, the suits represent an attack by the entertainment industry on the DMCA safe harbors that protect hosting services and search engines. Other similar cases have been filed against YouTube, MP3Tunes.com, Veoh, PornoTube, and Divx/Stage 6.

The SeeqPod case is different, however, because it is among the first that directly tests how copyright law applies to search engines. Despite the success of search engines like Yahoo and Google, there has been remarkably little case law developed on the copyright front. Part of the reason is because Congress stepped in with the DMCA safe harbors in 1998, creating some degree of certainty where the background legal concepts (e.g., contributory infringement) did not. In addition, by endorsing a notice-and-takedown regime, the DMCA safe harbors created a solution for many copyright owners that is cheaper than litigation.”

My thoughts:

1.  Expect an immediate rise in SeeqPod’s popularity.  Lawsuits have a funny way of making this happen.

2.  Music industry behemoths really need to get it together.  How about creating their own search engine and capturing some (or all) of that revenue themselves?  Or, since the brains at SeeqPod have done it for you, why not license the technology from them? Copyright lawsuits are always interesting because whereas patent and trademark lawsuits are typically fought between competitors, copyright owners are often targeting the very companies that help transmit their works to consumers.  Hopefully, in 2009, the music industry will start viewing these situations as opportunities for partnership and licensing, rather than traditional knock-down litigation.

3.  SeeqPod…what’s up?  No federal registration for your trademark?  Check out this post and give us a call…we can help.

SeeqPod USPTO

4.  I was able to listen to some really cool Beatles’ Christmas recordings I had never heard (nor had any idea they existed) while checking out SeeqPod for this post.  This underscores the real value that music/video-specific search engines like SeeqPod can provide.  There simply has to be a better way to harness these technologies to the benefit of everyone…artists, labels, publishers and consumers.  Compensation, not control.

I’ll be keeping a close eye on this lawsuit and provide updates as they arise.  Thanks to Ryan C. for the story.

Dear KLF Legal,

From time to time, people write in with short questions about intellectual property law.  We’re always happy to help educate the public about their IP rights, so KLF Legal tries to respond to each inquiry as best we can.   The answers tend to be brief since the questions don’t typically include a lot of information.  However, I thought it might be helpful to share these questions from time to time in a new post category entitled “Dear KLF Legal”…enjoy!

Dear KLF Legal

Q: I would like to use selected quotations (varying in length from 1 sentence to 1 paragraph) as part of lecture materials available on a website. The quotes are from books that are not public domain, and they will be properly cited. The lectures will be posted with a Creative Commons License. Do I need to request permission to use the quotations?

A: You’re using someone else’s copyrighted work, so your instincts are correct to request permission. It’s always better to err against infringement. However, depending on your specific circumstances, your use may be considered “fair use,” in which case you would not be required to request permission in order to avoid infringing.

Quick explanation: One of the rights accorded to copyright owner is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies. This right is subject to certain limitations found in the Copyright Act. One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use” in Section 107, which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. *NOTE* that acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

Depending on your circumstances, you may want to have someone familiar with copyright law look at the selected quotes and help you make that analysis. It sounds like your situation might qualify for “fair use,” but it’s not possible to advise further without more details.

Hope this helps.

KLF Legal

Dear KLF Legal

Q: I want to create a collectible card game. I want to use the basic rules from another card game. I am changing the terms and how certain things work and the basis of the game itself. I plan on trying to publish and sell this game. I am wondering if I will be fine legally? If not how much of the original rules need to be changed before it is considered a new property?

A: There is no special category of copyright protection for games as a whole. Copyright does not protect the idea or concept behind a game, nor does it protect the information as to how the game is to be played. Ideas, information and styles are not protected by copyright. 

Note that copyright laws may protect a particular written expression of the rules. Your best option is to completely rewrite the rules in your own words.

Also be careful to avoid the use of any trademarks or trade dress associated with the original game.

Good luck with your game!

KLF Legal

Change is coming!

On this historic inauguration day, it’s easy to get caught up in the excitement and hope that surrounds a new beginning.  I know I am.

In fact, I’ve got an announcement of my own…I am proud to introduce a new Indianapolis-based Intellectual Property law practice, KLF Legal.

The practice is centered upon the importance of helping our clients acquire, maintain, monitor and enforce their intellectual property rights.  I aim to provide a level of service and engagement unrivaled by existing intellectual property professionals. We utilize the latest technology and legal resources to achieve these goals.  I serve businesses, non-profits, artists and entrepreneurs…because these are the people who will be instrumental in turning that hope of a bright future into a very bright reality.

This blog will focus on intellectual property and technology issues of particular importance to our clients.  I hope this blog, together with our website (http://www.klflegal.com), will serve as a comprehensive and helpful resource for clients and visitors alike.

The author, Kenan Farrell, is a registered patent attorney and a member of the Indiana bar. I previously served as Chairman of the IBA Intellectual Property Committee and currently sit on the board of the IBA Solo and Small Practice Committee.  I am a frequent author and speaker on intellectual property and internet law.

Thanks…I look forward to working with new and existing clients, colleagues and friends, as we venture forth into a bright and exciting future.

Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/klflegal

Follow on Twitter:  @klflegal

Trademark Protection of iPhone App Logos

Tags

Apple recently announced that there are now over 15,000 apps available on the iPhone, with over 500 million (!!!) downloaded since the App Store opened on July 10, 2008.  This seems to me a fairly definitive indication that users are loving the apps and all the additional functionality they provide.  In fact, it’s already hard to remember the iPhone pre-App Store.

500 million Apps downloaded since July 10, 2008

Of course, each of those 15,000+ apps is represented on the iPhone screen by a logo.  Moreover, each of these logos is a trademark.  With over a half billion downloads, it’s pretty clear that consumers are interacting with these trademarks on a regular basis.

This post is meant to serve as a reminder to small businesses, in particular small web/tech firms who are developing apps for the iPhone, to not underestimate the importance of protecting their logos through the trademark registration process.

Some companies use an app logo very similar or identical to their main business logo (i.e. Yellowpages.com, Myspace, Google Earth).  However, I’ve noticed that several (most?) apps are using different logos.  For example, here is the Safari logo as it appears on a Mac.  This logo is registered by Apple.

Safari design mark

On the other hand, here’s the Safari logo as it appears on the iPhone.  Surprisingly, I haven’t found either a registration or application on the trademark database.  That seems to be the case for several popular iPhone app logos.

Safari iPhone app

So is it worth it to obtain federal trademark registration for an app logo?  That’s a discussion for another post, but given the phenomenal rate of downloads so far, it seems like a foregone conclusion.  Companies struggling to find a market before may suddenly have an audience in the millions.  It’s not improbable that your app logo will become more recognised than your primary logo.  And if you’re a web/tech company who doesn’t have an iPhone app yet, be advised that you’re passing on a growing and highly enthusiastic market.