Owners, Borrowers & Thieves 2.0 : Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP : First Amendment, Commercial Speech

Coming soon to a blogoshpere near you . . .

As regular readers of this blog know, we have often used this space as a means to follow and comment on the continuing tension that results from trying to fit new technologies, new types of content and new content delivery systems into old paradigms of intellectual property law.  Sometimes it's copyright -- for example, YouTube's assault on (or defense behind) the DMCA;  sometimes its trademark -- for example, whether Google Keyword ads constitute trademark use for purposes of an infringement claim; sometimes it's even Comics!

Recently we've realized that our mutual interest in emerging technologies and how the law practice can adapt to a changing IP environment has been prompting us to adapt our blogging to fit our own new paradigm.  We're very excited about some changes that will be coming shortly, including adding a fresh new voice or two.

We hope we've been "fairly useful" (to borrow Professor Sag's great blog title) so far, and hope you'll check in regularly as we go forward.

Stay tuned . . .  

Subscribe to Pete Salsich III

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The new year opened with an intriguing study by two American University professors that concludes that many online videos which use copyrighted materials do so in ways that are eligible for fair use consideration under copyright law.  These are, of course, the very same uses of copyrighted material under siege by a variety of "anti-piracy" measures online.

The study--Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video--identifies nine kinds of uses of copyrighted material that are eligible for fair use consideration. They range from the incidental (such as a video maker’s family singing “Happy Birthday”) to parody (a Christian takeoff on the song “Baby Got Back”) to pastiche and collage (finger-dancing to “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger”).

Better yet, the study contains links to dozens and dozens of videos--many of which are brilliant and hilarious--that demonstrate these various kinds of uses. WARNING: For those of you who've lost an hour or so of office time to the lure of the Sirens of the Island of the YouTube Concert Videos, prepare to land on Calypso's Island of Transformative Use, where you will be tempted by the vicious satire of George Bush Don't Like Black People and the astounding tour de force of History of Dance and the marvelously clever Ten Things I Hate About Commandments. And many, many more.

Kudos to the study's authors, Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, for shedding some coherent light on this vital new realm of fair use.  Pat Aufderheide is a professor in American University’s School of Communication and the director of the school's Center for Social Media.  Peter Jaszi is a professor in American University’s Washington College of Law and co-director of the law school’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property.

Subscribe to Michael Kahn

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It used to be pretty simple.  You went to a record store (or mailed in your record-club form), bought an album or CD, and you owned it.  As the owner, you had certain rights--under the First Sale and Fair Use doctrines, you could make a copy for your own personal use, give it away,  share it, even sell it.  Easy, right?

Well, the times they are a'changin'.  Like many people, I haven't bought a new CD in a long time -- I have all my music on my iPod and download it from iTunes (legally, of course).  Now I'm excited about Amazon.com's new MP3 Store, which promises cheaper music downloads, better sound, and--most importantly--the music is DRM-free, meaning I can play it on any device.  Great! 

But not so fast . . .

Subscribe to Pete Salsich III

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While death has ended James Brown's reign as Hardest Working Man in Show Business, his post-mortem litigation may yet snatch from Elvis the title Hardest Work Corpse in Lawsuits.  His latest appearance was in the Illinois Appellate Court, where he was the headliner in the appeal of a right-of-publicity claim against a company that licenses copyrights for stock photographs.  The case presents an intriguing and somewhat confusing fair-use struggle along the border between right of publicity and copyright law.

The basic facts are straightforward: The main defendant, Corbis Corp., licenses the use of stock photographs and images. Its customers range from newspapers and magazines to advertising agencies.  It had, for example, given Rolling Stone Magazine a license to use certain photographs of James Brown in a profile the magazine published under the title Being James Brown.

So far, so good.  Entirely proper, no cause of action.

Subscribe to Michael Kahn

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"The law is a seamless web."  Whether Oliver Wendel Holmes or Frederick Maitland first made that enigmatic claim, one way to put it to the test is to set aside the familiar cubbyholes we use to sort out legal issues -- antitrust, copyright, UCC, trusts & estates -- and instead pick a theme.  My fellow blogger Geoff Gerber has picked comic books as his theme.  Study the law of comic books, O Spidey, and you may indeed find yourself in a seamless web.  My current seamless -- or perhaps seamy -- web is the realm of dirty words and dirty pictures, a/k/a, "Censorship & the First Amendment," a course I teach at Washington University School of Law.

But if you'd prefer to earn a Juris Doctor Dre or would rather be sippin' on Gin & Jurisprudence, try the Law of Hip Hop, which traces its origins to the Mack Daddy of "fair use" cases, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. How can you not love a U.S. Supreme Court decision that quotes these timeless lyrics from Luther "Luke" Campbell's version of the Roy Orbison classic, "Pretty Woman":

Big hairy woman, you need to shave that stuff
Big hairy woman, you know I bet it's tough
Big hairy woman, all that hair it ain't legit
Cause you look like "Cousin It"
Big hairy woman

Subscribe to Michael Kahn

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

That might be an increasingly popular refrain heard by Canadian pop star Avril Lavigne, who is getting a lot of attention right now for her songwriting practices.  Last week, Lavigne was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit over her song "Girlfriend."  The plaintiffs are the founder and former road manager of the '70's pop band the Rubinoos.  They claim that Lavigne's hit infringes their 1978 release "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend."  As you would expect, you can already find many comparisons on YouTube and elsewhere, including the Rubinoos own website.  (Of course, all those who posted snippets of both Lavigne's and the Rubinoos' copyrighted music on YouTube and elsewhere should have a fair use right to do so, as long as they only used as much of the songs as was necessary to facilitate their commentary.)  Eminent copyright scholars like William Patry and almost everyone else seems to have weighed in on whether the suit has merit. 

Lavigne publicly responded this week by essentially asserting a "no access" defense -- that is, she claims she never heard the Rubinoos' song, so couldn't possibly have copied it.  Curiously, Lavigne does not say whether her co-writer, producer/remixer Dr. Luke, ever heard the song.

The "never heard it" defense won't help Miss Lavigne out of her most recent copying flap, however.  In the last two days, similar copying claims have surfaced regarding another of her songs, "I Don't Have To Try."  This time Lavigne allegedly copied the song "I'm The Kinda" by Peaches, an artist (and song) that Lavigne recently publicly stated was one of her biggest influences. 

I'm no musicologist, but at first blush both claims appear to have some merit, and they can't be good for the young pop star's reputation.  It may be great to be in Rolling Stone and on Perez Hilton, but there are better ways to be noticed.

Subscribe to Pete Salsich III

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Launch day for perhaps one of the most widely anticipated - and certainly one of the most wildly hyped - consumer electronics products in years seems an appropriate time to reflect on the state of the digital music revolution. Apple's iPhone combines, among other features, the high-end cell phone and the now ubiquitous iPod music player. (For deep background, see Marty Schwimmer's analysis of the brief trademark fight Apple stumbled into when it announced the name of the new product nearly six months ago here and here.) As such, it represents the convergence of the phenomenon often credited with pushing the music industry into its current state of plunging sales and the phenomenon much of the industry is looking to for salvation. Regardless of one's view of file-sharing web sites and CD-ripping laptops, the fact that the iPod has been a catalyst to major changes in the way consumers acquire and listen to music cannot be denied. Less certain is whether the practice of purchasing ring tones and other tunes for cell phones will provide the new and sustainable stream of revenue the industry so desperately needs.

Subscribe to Gary Pierson

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Is YouTube guilty of massive copyright infringement?  Or is it protected by the so-called "safe harbor" of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512(c)?  Yet another lawsuit now seeks to determine the answer to that question. 

(For a good primer on the DMCA's Safe Harbor provisions, see this very helpful FAQ at the internet law collaborative Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.)

The first big copyright challenge to YouTube's business model came last summer with a lawsuit filed by Robert Tur, a Los Angeles photojournalist whose video footage of the beating of Reginald Denny in the post-Rodney King verdict riots in 1992 became world-famous.  See Robert Tur v. YouTube, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-04436-FMC-AJW, United States District Court for the Central District of California, July 14, 2006.  Tur alleged that his Denny footage, along with copyrighted footage of the OJ Simpson chase and other events was posted on YouTube without his consent and viewed more than 1,000 times.  YouTube has defended by claiming that it is an Online Service Provider (OSP) protected by the DMCA safe harbor because it is not aware of and does not receive a financial benefit from the presence of infringing works on its site and its notice and take-down provisions meet the statute's requirement that infringing works be quickly removed.  YouTube filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of this defense, which is currently set to be heard on May 21.  Tur has also filed a motion for summary adjudication on more narrow grounds, specifically challenging YouTube's claim that it does not receive a financial benefit from the presence of infringing works on its site.  This motion is also currently scheduled to be heard on May 21. 

The second front opened up in March of this year, when Viacom filed suit against YouTube and its parent Google, alleging massive copyright infringement of hundreds of thousands of Viacom properties.  See Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-02103 (LLS), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Like Tur, the Viacom case will likely turn on whether YouTube's business model fits within the safe harbor provisions of section 512(c).     

Most recently, just days after filing its Answer in the Viacom lawsuit, and while it awaits the summary judgment ruling in the Tur case, YouTube and its parent Google were hit with another legal challenge to its highly successful but highly controversial business model.  This time it comes in the form of a class action complaint filed by the Football Association Premier League Limited (the top division of English soccer) and Bourne Co. (an independent music publisher in New York). 

Many of the contours of this lawsuit are similar to Tur and Viacom, but the class action approach is a new angle.  For one thing, you too might be a class member if you own the copyright or relevant exclusive rights in a registered copyright or certain sound recordings that have appeared on YouTube any time after December 15, 2005.  Obviously, that potential class is enormous, and probably renders many of YouTube's most fervent devotees potential plaintiffs against it.  I'm not going to try to address all the class certification issues that may come up, but suffice to say that will be a battle in itself.

One of the main substantive challenges brought by the plaintiffs in all three of these cases focuses on YouTube's claim that it does not derive a financial benefit attributable to the presence of infringing material on its site.  YouTube sells advertisements that run along side its video clips, including infringing clips, but these ads are not directly triggered by or connected to any particular video clip, infringing or otherwise.  There can be no doubt that YouTube has made huge amounts of money from these ads, and the plaintiffs all argue that YouTube would not be making the money it has but for the presence of so much infringing material on its site.  This could ultimately be a decisive factor in these cases, in part because a court could find YouTube outside of the safe harbor without having to address the propriety of its notice and take-down procedures.

It will be interesting to watch if any more suits are filed, or if other potential plaintiffs will wait for a key ruling in one of these cases.  The Tur case could lead the way depending on how the court rules on YouTube's pending summary judgment motion.  While the Central District of California's ruling will not be binding on the Southern District of New York, it will likely carry significant weight. 

Almost certainly aware of this, and obviously interested in the pending motions on YouTube's assertion of the DMCA's safe harbor defense, last week Viacom and NBC Universal asked permission to file an amici curiae ("friends of the court") brief in support of Tur's claims on this issue.  According to the court's electronic filing database, however, on Tuesday the court denied this request, finding that the brief was not offered to aid the court in its decision-making (as required for submission of such briefs), but was in reality "an effort by parties engaged in similar litigation against Defendant, to intervene in this case for their own benefit."  Like the rest of us, Viacom and NBC will just have to watch from the sidelines.

We'll be watching these cases closely, and should have more analysis of some of the specific legal issues later. 

Subscribe to Pete Salsich III

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Confused or conflicted about copyrights and music downloads and the RIAA's aggressive practice of suing its customers?  Me too.  In fact, I don't know how many times this has happened to me:  I'm talking with someone (old friend or brand new acquaintance, it doesn't matter) and it comes up that I am an attorney with a copyright and entertainment practice, and the other person says some version of  either "I can't believe the record companies are suing their customers over music downloads" or "I can't believe people think it's OK to just steal music", etc., etc.  I usually just make a serious face and say "well, of course it depends on several factors, and lawyerblah, lawyerblah, lawyerblah . . . "

I found this post today and I think it neatly sums up the two camps on this issue, and even offers a "modest proposal" for a future "annual license" model as a way to resolve the issue.  It's very interesting reading -- well written and thoughtful (along with the comments and internal links).  I'm not sure it would work, but it's an example of the kind of creative thinking that becomes necessary when new technology stretches the limits of old legal models.

Subscribe to Pete Salsich III

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks