• Shut down the luge track to prevent any more deaths… check.
• Conduct an internal investigation… check.
• Let an “independent” authority do its own investigation… check.
• Make immediate modifications to the luge track to stop future accidents… check.
• Make a press release, expressing regret, but denying all responsibility… check.

All perfectly acceptable anticipated responses. So why is this an IP story, you ask? Well, when the above-described actions failed to push this embarrassing catastrophe under the rug, the IOC turned to their attorneys, asking what else could be done to hush the whole thing up. Video clips of Kumaritashvili losing control of his sled and crashing into a steel pole were popping up all over the internets, repeatedly showing the world what happened. The answer from their legal team: Those people are violating our copyright in that clip! We can use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to have that material removed from the web — so no one else will see it!

Now, giving the IOC the benefit of the doubt, I’m sure their intentions in suppressing the accident footage were honorable. Don’t misunderstand me. I recognize that what happened was horrible, and Kumaritashvili’s family and teammates are likely still reeling from the impact of it all. If they have to see that clip everywhere they turn on the web, that’s not ideal — especially if any of the commentary employing the clip was in poor taste, which I’m sure some of it was.

Even where all of this is true, U.S. copyright law was not implemented to choke off the flow of facts and news reporting. In fact, § 107 of the Copyright Act specifically limits a copyright owner’s rights in these kinds of situations. The IOC cannot use DMCA takedown notices to silence the speech it does not like. In fact, sending those notices may end up costing the IOC, unless they can successfully make the case that they considered whether use of the clips could be fair use before making their demands. Just ask the artist currently known as Prince. This will be tough argument for the IOC, considering this isn’t the first time they’ve tried to misuse their copyrights.

Unfortunately, groups like the IOC don’t recognize that the appropriate response to inappropriate speech is not to look for the most expedient suppression mechanism — it’s more speech. The marketplace of ideas is perfectly capable of recognizing which commentary is a legitimate dissemination of news about the tragedy and which ones are morbidly childish. Sending out demand letters that essentially state “you have to pay if you want to show our Faces of Death video” is equally deplorable, no matter what the IOC’s intentions actually were.

The article was originally published on The Tactical IP Blog

This 2 hour seminar will examine social attitudes toward law, lawyers, and legal institutions through the viewing and examination of Hollywood films.  Film depictions of law students, juries, and judges will also be considered.  Each seminar session will focus in as much depth as possible on a particular film or films and a particular problem or aspect of law, law practice, ethics, or the image and status of the lawyer in American culture raised by the film(s).  The majority of the films will be viewed outside the classroom and will be considered as texts providing contemporary depictions of the subject matter to be examined in class.  In addition, readings will be assigned for each film and will form the basis for class discussion.  The films will be reserved in the library.  This will be a paper course which may be used to satisfy the Upper Level Writing Requirement.

My understanding is that this course is just another excuse for chicks in law school to watch Legally Blonde (2001) for the 4,821st time.  What a great way to spend your tuition dollars at a professional school!

Normally, I’m not the one in this forum to bitch about the state of legal education.  Marco & Co. do it regularly enough that I don’t have to.  (See here, here, and here.)  On the whole, my law school experience was a good one.  I took as much advantage of our externship program as I could, and I went out of my way to take classes from adjunct professors who I knew actually practiced what they were preaching.  What I object to is courses that have students watch reruns of “L.A. Law” (1986), or other fictional portrayals, as a means for teaching about the practice of law.  Aren’t there other subjects that could be presented that have more merit?

One subject jumps quickly to my mind, and regular readers of this blog will recognize it immediately.  I would call it “Streisand 101,” taking its name from actress and singer, Barbara Streisand, who effectively demonstrated that simply filing a lawsuit can bring about the exact opposite result from what you hoped to achieve.  It would be a skills course, aimed at training young lawyers to talk their clients down from filing certain kinds of lawsuits — the kind that end up splashed all over blogs like this one, fueling negative publicity for the client.  The intent would be to teach how to 1) determine the unintended consequences of a particular cause of action; and 2) effectively communicate those consequences to the client, giving them the opportunity to back away before doing any real damage.  The primary pedagogical tools would be roll playing and reviewing news stories about past P.R. blunders.

Finding great teaching examples would be about as challenging as falling off of a log.  Just this week, outdoor clothing maker, The North Face (TNF), is in the news again, moving forward with their lawsuit against The South Butt (TSB).  (You can find my previous coverage of the case here.)  Before TNF filed their lawsuit, TSB had a whopping $5,000 in gross sales — after months of being in business.  Now, TSB’s selling that much every hour.  Their attorney claims that, with 14 new employees, TSB has created more jobs in its home state than the Obama’s $800 billion stimulus plan.  (Source.)

The only downside that I see to so educating the next crop of attorneys is that a huge source of entertainment will be snuffed out.  What will we read about for fun when Micheal Jordan’s attorney convinces him not to sue the people who congratulate him?

This article was originally published on The Legal Satyricon

No.  It was those champions of copyright policy, the Rosemont Police.  As it turns out, Illinois has a relatively new anti-bootlegging statute, which criminalizes knowingly operating an audiovisual recording device in a movie theater without permission.  See 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/21-10.

Now, don’t get me started about what a moron this woman is.  Clearly, she’s not the brightest crayon in the box, but I’m not sure she should be looking at three years in the state pen for being a moron.  Her conduct can arguably be defended as fair use, avoiding any civil liability for copyright infringement.  Even if it’s not newsworthy to the most of us, the reason that Ms. Tumpach gives for making the recording, i.e., preserving her sister’s birthday activities for posterity, likely does satisfy the first prong of a fair use analysis in her favor.  With a recording that comes in at a whopping four minutes, the amount-and-substantiality factor should go her way as well.  And it isn’t likely that Ms. Tumpach’s video will replace the needs of these screaming Twilight moms to see Jacob’s rippling six pack.

With respect to federal criminal liability, Ms. Tumpach’s activities don’t seem to satisfy those requirements either.  She didn’t make her video for personal commercial gain, and she hasn’t distributed anything.  So I’m scratchin’ my head, trying to figure out why this chick had to cool it in the clink for a few days and is now awaiting a full-blown criminal trial.  Has being a rude, inconsiderate, i’d-answer-my-cell-phone-if-it-rings-during-this-movie titwank finally become illegal?  She does admit to talking throughout the film, which in my book should be punishable — but more in the corporal variety, e.g., the slap-a-bitch treatment.

Now write the date and time down somewhere, because this may be the only time you’ll ever hear me make the following statement:  I don’t think that the state of Illinois has the power to enforce its bootlegging statute.  Normally, I’d say the federal government should get the hell out of the way, and let the states do their thing, but not this time.  You see, the United States Constitution provides the authority to the Congress to create legislation to protect the exclusive rights of copyright owners.  Any right that the states have to recognize or enforce copyrights has been expressly preempted by the federal government.

Making these criminal charges stick, solely based on the statutory language, may be a slam dunk for some prosecutor, but I’m not sure it would be constitutional.  What say you Blevins?  Would you throw the book at this chick?

UPDATE:  Cook County prosecutors have dropped the charges against Ms. Tumpach (source).  Summit Entertainment, the film’s producer, and Muvico, the theater involved, have both made press releases, declaring that, while they are happy that Ms. Tumpach got off with only an attorney bill and a couple of nights in a holding cell, they are committed to a zero-tolerance policy, recommended by the MPAA, for handling camcorder use.

This article was originally posted on The Legal Satyricon

The “originality” requirement of our copyright statute is a very low hurdle.  As long as you created it, and as long as it has the smallest amount of creativity, then a work of authorship qualifies for automatic protection.  Only the most basic and unoriginal material is considered ineligible for protection.  For example, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that alphabetized lists of names and contact information (e.g., phonebooks) are not original enough to be protected by copyright.  Also, anything that can only be expressed in a limited number of ways, e.g., contest rules or contract terms, will not be afforded protection.  Anything else is fair game.

Where many people run into trouble is the “fixation” requirement.  There is no protection for unexpressed ideas.  The statutory language is careful to point out that there is no limitation on what medium must be employed, but unless the expression is fixed in such a way that it can be duplicated, then you cannot stop someone else from getting it down and claiming their own expression.

With a couple of exceptions, initial ownership of copyright belongs to the person, or persons, who create a work of authorship.  In most cases, the protection starts from the moment of creation and lasts until 70 years after the author’s death.  Where an employee creates a work of authorship within the scope of her employment, this is known as a “work made for hire,” and the company is considered to be the “author” of the work.  However, since companies can potentially live forever, the life-plus-70 rule fails on works made for hire.  In these cases, protection lasts for 95 years from the date of first publication, or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever ends first.

As I’ve been pointing out all along, copyright protection exists automatically.  To use the word that Congress chose, protection “subsists” in the work upon creation — meaning that the author does not have to do anything special, apart from creating the work, to obtain the protection of the federal government.  However, depending on how you would like to use your protection, registration with the United States Copyright Office may be required.  For example, if you ever want to sue someone who has wrongfully copied your protected work, without a registration, you would not be able to obtain statutory damages or recover your attorneys’ fees.  Registration is a simple and fairly inexpensive process, and it can be done online for most works.  Everything you need can be found on the Copyright Office’s website.

A few last things that you should know about copyright are the major limitations to protection that exist.  There are some situations where you cannot sue someone for behavior that may seem like infringement.  For example, unlike patents or trademarks, independent creation is a defense to a claim of infringement.  This means that, even if someone duplicates your copyrighted work exactly, as long as she did it on her own, without actually copying your work, she cannot be successfully sued for infringement.  Copyright protection is only meant to protect an author from “wrongful appropriation.”  Additionally, the copyright statute specifically limits liability for so-called “fair use” of copyrighted materials.  This means that copyright protection cannot be used to prevent someone from copying your work for such things as criticism, news reporting, or research.

Copyright protection provides an important mechanism for ensuring that your business can reap the proper reward from materials that could be copied by an unscrupulous rival.  As an example, companies that invest thousands of man-hours in developing a software product would be unlikely to begin such a project knowing that a competitor could just steal the resulting lines of code without recourse.

The Back Story

Most will probably remember that there was an annoying pop song, which was recorded back in the 90′s, called “Barbie Girl.”  The group Aqua‘s single claim to fame was a huge success, despite being about as appealing to listen to as nails on a chalkboard — don’t let the number of stars assigned to this YouTube clip fool you.

If anything, I have to admit that I find the song amusing, and unlike 2 Live Crew’s “Pretty Woman,” I can believe that Aqua actually created the song to poke fun at the materialistic nature of Mattel’s Barbie franchise, instead of coming up with that justification after a lawsuit has been filed.  True to form in those days, Mattel was not amused with Aqua’s parody, and decided to do what it always did back then… file an infringement lawsuit.  While the case was pending, a Mattel spokesperson went on record, criticizing the defendants for not respecting their intellectual property rights, which of course spurred a defamation counterclaim.

The trial court made short work of both sides’ allegations, dismissing all with a summary judgment.  The court determined that the Aqua song incorporated Mattel’s trademark as a means of identifying Mattel, not to unfairly compete with the toy company.  That’s fair use.

Everyone appeals, hilarity ensues

Hon. Judge Kozinski (who is probably better known for more recent events) sets the tone for his now-famous opinion in the first line:  “If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong.”  From there, he explores a brief history of the Barbie doll’s origins as an adult toy, modeled after a German hooker — something I’m sure that Mattel would rather not have reported on.  Moving on to an expert legal analysis of the balance between the First Amendment and intellectual property rights, Kozinski concludes by boiling down the defamation claim as unsustainable:

MCA filed a counterclaim for defamation based on the Mattel representative’s use of the words “bank robber,” “heist,” “crime” and “theft.”  But all of these are variants of the invective most often hurled at accused infringers, namely “piracy.”  No one hearing this accusation understands intellectual property owners to be saying that infringers are nautical cutthroats with eyepatches and peg legs who board galleons to plunder cargo.  In context, all these terms are nonactionable “rhetorical hyperbole,” Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 863 (9th Cir. 1999).  The parties are advised to chill.

Mattel slunk away, licking the wounds of its latest intellectual property litigation defeat.  For the next several years, it appeared as if they had not learned their lesson (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here).  However, yesterday morning, the doll maker launched an ad campaign that demonstrates that they may have finally hired a decent attorney who gives better advice grown up.  (source)