‘Please let me get what I want’: can artists stop politicians from using their songs?; The Guardian, January 30, 2024

Matthew Cantor , The Guardian; ‘Please let me get what I want’: can artists stop politicians from using their songs?

"How much power do artists actually have in this scenario? It depends on the circumstances, says Ben Depoorter, a professor at University of California Law San Francisco. In the US, licensing companies including Ascap and BMI manage copyright issues on behalf of artists. Generally, venues like convention centers have their own licenses with these companies, meaning that, broadly speaking, the venues can play whatever they want.

However, the rules are a little different when a third party is involved. When a candidate “walks on and they play music, that is actually not covered by the standard license of the venue”, Depoorter says. Political campaigns often don’t realize that they need their own music licenses, under which musicians can opt out of having their music played. “When these authors are saying, ‘Hey, I don’t want him to play my music any more,’ it’s actually a legal right they have,” Depoorter explains."

California copyright-case leaves tattoo artists in limbo; Fox26 Houston, January 29, 2024

Tom Zizka

, Fox26 Houston ; California copyright-case leaves tattoo artists in limbo

"Patent and Copyright expert Joh Rizvi, known at The Patent Professor, says the California case never got to the issue of whether images reproduced in tattoos are fair to use as art and expression. 

"What I find is the more interesting question is, 'Is a tattoo different? Is this free speech?'" he wonders.

Fair Use has been the subject of countless lawsuits, and Rizvi says this one leaves artists in a legal gray area, with no precedent."

Training Generative AI Models on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use; ARL Views, January 23, 2024

Katherine Klosek, Director of Information Policy and Federal Relations, Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and Marjory S. Blumenthal, Senior Policy Fellow, American Library Association (ALA) Office of Public Policy and Advocacy |, ARL Views; Training Generative AI Models on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use

"In a blog post about the case, OpenAI cites the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) position that “based on well-established precedent, the ingestion of copyrighted works to create large language models or other AI training databases generally is a fair use.” LCA explained this position in our submission to the US Copyright Office notice of inquiry on copyright and AI, and in the LCA Principles for Copyright and AI.

LCA is not involved in any of the AI lawsuits. But as champions of fair use, free speech, and freedom of information, libraries have a stake in maintaining the balance of copyright law so that it is not used to block or restrict access to information. We drafted the principles on AI and copyright in response to efforts to amend copyright law to require licensing schemes for generative AI that could stunt the development of this technology, and undermine its utility to researchers, students, creators, and the public. The LCA principles hold that copyright law as applied and interpreted by the Copyright Office and the courts is flexible and robust enough to address issues of copyright and AI without amendment. The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

On the question of whether ingesting copyrighted works to train LLMs is fair use, LCA points to the history of courts applying the US Copyright Act to AI."

Prominent journal editor fired for endorsing satirical article about Israel-Hamas conflict; Science, October 24, 2023

 SCIENCE NEWS STAFF, Science; Prominent journal editor fired for endorsing satirical article about Israel-Hamas conflict

"Michael Eisen, editor-in-chief of the prominent open access journal eLife and a longtime critic of traditional journals, says he is losing that job for publicly endorsing a satirical article that criticized people dying in Gaza for not condemning the recent attacks on Israel by the Palestinian group Hamas...

Eisen has previously been a frequent, feisty participant in debates about scientific publishing, doggedly supporting the development of free access to journal articles. In 2003, he co-founded the Public Library of Science (PLOS), whose journal PLOS ONE grew to become one of the largest open-access journals. Authors pay a fee so that their articles in PLOS journals are free to read when published. Eisen has criticized the paywalls still in place at many subscription journals as slowing the progress of science and the diffusion of useful findings. But critics of PLOS’s model have suggested author fees create an incentive for journals to maximize the number of papers published at the expense of adequate peer review and quality and can create barriers for authors with limited resources."

‘Trump Too Small’ Fight Splits First Amendment Trademark Views; Bloomberg Law, September 22, 2023

Kyle Jahner, Bloomberg Law; ‘Trump Too Small’ Fight Splits First Amendment Trademark Views

"A dispute over a “Trump Too Small” trademark application hinges on whether a statutory ban offends the First Amendment, as the US Supreme Court recently found two other restrictions did."

Bad Spaniel's: barking the line between permitted parody and trademark infringement; Reuters, February 15, 2023

Deirdre M. Wells, William H. Milliken, and Kristina Caggiano Kelly, Reuters; Bad Spaniel's: barking the line between permitted parody and trademark infringement

"The 9th Circuit ultimately vacated the district court's judgment on trademark infringement, based on the two-part Rogers test. The Rogers test was established in the 1989 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Rogers v. Grimaldi, and balances trademark and free speech rights. Under this test, a trademark can be used without authorization as long as it meets a minimal level of artistic expression and does not explicitly mislead consumers.

To overcome VIP's First Amendment right to humorous expression, Jack Daniel's was required to show that VIP's use of its trademarks is either (1) not artistically relevant to the underlying work, or (2) explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or content of the work. The trial court did not apply the Rogers test as part of its analysis...

The 9th Circuit's application of the Rogers test — which has traditionally been used for expressive works like movies, music, and books — to the commercial setting has garnered the attention of attorneys and brand owners alike. The outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for gag gifts, novelty T-shirts, and even subtler fashion products."

Here’s How the Supreme Court Could Impact Creative Trademark Use; Bloomberg Law, December 29, 2022

Dorothy Auth, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Howard Wizenfeld, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Bloomberg Law; Here’s How the Supreme Court Could Impact Creative Trademark Use

"The upcoming term for the US Supreme Court includes an ambitious schedule of intellectual property cases, spanning patent, trademark, and copyright law...

Jack Daniel’s

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC addresses creative works in the context of trademark law, asking whether humorous use of another’s trademark is protected by the First Amendment. 

Under normal circumstances, a trademark infringement is determined based on whether the use of another’s mark is “likely to cause confusion” with that of the trademark owner.

However, when a mark is used in an artistic manner, courts instead use the Rogers test, which is intended to protect the free speech. Unlike the likelihood-of-confusion test in the Lanham Act (Trademark Act of 1946), the Rogers test allows use of another’s mark as an expressive work unless the use contains no artistic relevance or explicitly misleads about the source or content of the work.

As a result, the Rogers test narrows the scope of protection for the mark. Here, VIP created a squeaky toy named “Bad Spaniels,” closely resembling Jack Daniel’s famous whiskey bottle and label.

While the original bottle has the words “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the toy humorously proclaims, “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet” which is “43% Poo by Vol” and “100% Smelly.” 

Should the court affirm the squeaky toy is an expressive work, for being humorous, under the Rogers test, or should a traditional Lanham Act analysis be applied? The court’s answer may have significant implications for companies that sell items with a humorous message based on another’s trademark."

Online Copyright Piracy Debate Ramps Up Over Proposed Legal Fix; Bloomberg Law, March 23, 2022

Riddhi Setty, Bloomberg Law; Online Copyright Piracy Debate Ramps Up Over Proposed Legal Fix

"Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Intellectual Property Subcommittee, recently proposed the SMART (Strengthening Measures to Advance Rights Technologies) Copyright Act of 2022, which aims to hold service providers accountable for fighting copyright theft."

American Girl Walks Back Threat to Sue 'Karen' Doll Parody Meme; Comic Book Resources, July 8, 2020

Kelvin Childs, Comic Book Resources; American Girl Walks Back Threat to Sue 'Karen' Doll Parody Meme

"American Girl has walked back its previous assertion that it would take legal action against a spoof ad for a "Karen 2020 Girl of the Year" doll.

On Twitter, the company said, "American Girl has no intention of censoring this parody meme and anything shared to the contrary was in error. We apologize for any misunderstanding.""

Facebook and Twitter took down a Trump campaign video over copyright concerns; Vox, June 5, 2020

Theodore Schleifer, Vox; Facebook and Twitter took down a Trump campaign video over copyright concerns

"This is not the first time Twitter has removed content posted by Trump due to copyright reasons. But notably, this takedown comes shortly after a series of much more controversial decisions by Twitter to limit the reach of Trump’s posts because they either did not pass a fact-check or, in Twitter’s opinion, glorified violence.

Facebook has made different decisions, citing its commitment to free speech, and has been willing to leave Trump’s posts up.

Complaints about copyright violations are not uncommon in the world of social media."

The Copyright Lawsuit in Tiger King Is an Outrage; Slate, May 7, 2020

Joshua Lamel, Slate; The Copyright Lawsuit in Tiger King Is an Outrage

"Copyright is the perfect vehicle for SLAPP suits. First of all, copyright is a government-granted, exclusive right to speech. There is no better way to prevent someone from publicly criticizing you than to use copyright law. Copyright lawsuits are expensive and place enormous costs on defendants. Fair use has to be raised once you are sued, so defendants will likely have to spend more. The potential damages are extreme: For every violation of a copyright, you can get $150,000 in statutory damages. Additionally, copyright law has injunctive relief—you can actually stop the speech from happening.

One would think that Congress would recognize this and specifically include copyright in federal anti-SLAPP efforts. But that is not happening anytime soon. Instead, thanks to their lobbying and fundraising, copyright holders have been successful in convincing senior members of Congress in both parties to exclude copyright. These members have told federal anti-SLAPP advocates that they need to be willing to give up copyright for a chance of being successful. There is not a single good policy argument to exclude copyright. Copyright litigation abuse is exactly what anti-SLAPP legislation should be designed to prevent. This type of abuse is the reason we need a federal fix.

In my dream world, the saturation of Joe Exotic’s story will help everyday Americans understand the relevance of copyright law in our daily lives—maybe even spur federal lawmakers to introduce and pass anti-SLAPP law without a special carve-out for copyright."

EU approves tougher EU copyright rules in blow to Google, Facebook; Reuters, April 15, 2019

Foo Yun Chee, Reuters; EU approves tougher EU copyright rules in blow to Google, Facebook

"Under the new rules, Google and other online platforms will have to sign licensing agreements with musicians, performers, authors, news publishers and journalists to use their work.

The European Parliament gave a green light last month to a proposal that has pitted Europe’s creative industry against tech companies, internet activists and consumer groups."

The Marines don’t want you to see what happens when propaganda stops and combat begins; The Washngton Post, March 15, 2019

Alex Horton, The Washington Post; The Marines don’t want you to see what happens when propaganda stops and combat begins

"Lagoze found himself in a murky gray area of free speech and fair-use government products. U.S. citizens can already go on Pentagon-operated sites and download free military photos and video.Their tax dollars fund it, and federal government creations are not protected by copyright.

So could Lagoze take the moments he filmed with government resources and make something new?

He worked with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University to push back against the military’s claims of impropriety. The Marine Corps relented this month."

Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands; The Washington Post, January 4, 2019

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post; Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands

"The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision...

The case,Iancu v. Brunetti , will probably be heard at the Supreme Court in April."

Tech Giants Win a Battle Over Copyright Rules in Europe; The New York Times, July 5, 2018

Adam Satariano, The New York Times; Tech Giants Win a Battle Over Copyright Rules in Europe

"It’s a fight nearly as old as the internet.

On one side are news organizations, broadcasters and music companies that want to control how their content spreads across the web, and to be paid more for it. On the other are tech companies such as Facebook and Google, which argue that they funnel viewers and advertising revenue to media outlets, and free-speech advocates, who say that regulating the internet would set a dangerous precedent and limit access to information.

That battle flared up in Europe on Thursday. Two powerful industries faced off — technology against media, platforms against publishers — in an unusually aggressive lobbying campaign in the European Parliament over a bill that would impose some of the world’s strictest copyright laws, which would have required tech companies to filter out unlicensed content and pay for its use.

On this occasion, tech prevailed; the proposal was voted down."

After Supreme Court Decision, People Race To Trademark Racially Offensive Words; NPR, July 21, 2017

Ailsa Chang, NPR; After Supreme Court Decision, People Race To Trademark Racially Offensive Words

"CHANG: I wondered about the intent, too, so I set off to find this other guy. And he turned out to be a patent lawyer in Alexandria, Va., Steve Maynard.

Why swastikas?

STEVE MAYNARD: Because the term has an incendiary meaning behind it.

CHANG: Yeah.

MAYNARD: And it's currently used as a symbol of hate. And if we can own the brand, we will be able to control the sale of the brand and the use of the brand as well.

CHANG: Oh, so you're trying to basically grab the swastika so real, actual racists and haters can't grab the swastika as a...

MAYNARD: Correct.

CHANG: ...Registered trademark.

MAYNARD: Correct.

CHANG: But there's a catch. Maynard can't just get the trademark, put it in a drawer and make sure nobody else uses it. To keep a trademark, he actually needs to sell a swastika product. So he will - blankets, shirts, flags. But he plans to make these products so expensive he's hoping no one will ever buy them."

Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination.; Washington Post, June 21, 2017

Robert S. Chang, Washington Post; Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination.

"Unfortunately, Reyna’s hypothetical is an actuality of sorts. In Florida and other states, gun store owners have placed signs on their establishments declaring themselves to be a “Muslim Free Zone.” As the owner of one of the stores, Florida Gun Supply, said: “My goal is to make sure they don’t feel welcome here so I don’t have the need to discriminate in the first place.

Following Matal v. Tam, nothing will prevent the owner from obtaining federal registration of “Muslim Free Zone” as a trademark, accomplishing through speech what he might not be able to do through direct denial of service. For businesses not covered by Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nothing will prevent the creation and federal registration of trademarks such as “No Gays Allowed” or, for that matter, “Whites Only.”

The federal government, though, should not be required to register these trademarks. The government should not be required to participate in discrimination.

This is where we are following the Supreme Court decision. This is the mischief that will come."

Free Speech at the Supreme Court; New York Times, June 19, 2017

Editorial Board, New York Times; Free Speech at the Supreme Court

"The Supreme Court reaffirmed core free-speech principles in two cases on Monday, both decided without dissent...

"The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the name under a provision in a 70-year-old federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that “disparage” any “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the law violates a “bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” That’s the right call. The First Amendment bars the government from discriminating among speakers based on their viewpoints. In this case, the Trademark Office did that by blocking only registrations for trademarks it determined to have negative connotations. The free-speech clause doesn’t apply to the government’s own speech, but registered trademarks can’t be put in that category — otherwise the government would have to argue that it endorses each of the more than two million trademarks it has already registered.

The decision is likely to help the Washington Redskins, who lost their trademark protections in 2014 after years of complaints from Native American groups. At the time, this page supported the Trademark Office’s decision, and we still regard the Redskins name as offensive. Based on this case, however, we’ve since reconsidered our underlying position."

Why the Supreme Court protects offensive trademarks but not Texas plates with Confederate flag; Dallas Morning News, June 19, 2017

Julieta Chiquillo, Dallas Morning News; 

Why the Supreme Court protects offensive trademarks but not Texas plates with Confederate flag

"When Alito struck down efforts to equate the Oregon case with the one in Texas, he highlighted three points:

First, license plates have long been used by states to convey messages. Second, license plates are usually identified with the state because they are considered a form of government ID, one that is manufactured by the state and generally designed by the state. Third, Texas "maintained direct control" of the messages in its plates.

"None of these factors are present in this case," Alito wrote in The Slants opinion."

The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech; Washington Post, June 19, 2017

Editorial Board, Washington Post; The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech

"THE UNITED STATES is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about — freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds — college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washington’s National Football League franchise.

Now comes the Supreme Court with a strong statement in favor of free speech, to include speech that many find offensive. With the support of all eight justices who participated in the case (new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the exception), the court struck down a 71-year-old law requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to deny registration to brands that may “disparage” people or bring them “into contemp[t] or disrepute.” The ruling means that a dance-rock band may henceforth call itself “the Slants” on the same legal basis that, say, Mick Jagger’s bunch uses “the Rolling Stones” — even though many Asian Americans find the term derogatory and demeaning...

As the court’s decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing."