, The Conversation; US-backed vaccine patent waiver: pros and cons explained
"So what are the pros and cons of this waiver and what are the alternatives?"
My Bloomsbury book "Ethics, Information, and Technology" was published on Nov. 13, 2025. Purchases can be made via Amazon and this Bloomsbury webpage: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/ethics-information-and-technology-9781440856662/
Farasat Bokhari, The Conversation; US-backed vaccine patent waiver: pros and cons explained
"So what are the pros and cons of this waiver and what are the alternatives?"
Geoffrey A. Fowler, The Washington Post ; Want to borrow that e-book from the library? Sorry, Amazon won’t let you.
Anandashankar Mazumdar, Library of Congress; Houdini and the Magic of Copyright
"Magicians do not always reveal their tricks, even when they register their copyright claims. The legendary Hungarian immigrant Harry Houdini registered three of his famous illusions as “playlets,” or short plays, with the U.S. Copyright Office between 1911 and 1914. The playlets were registered as dramatic compositions, which have been eligible for copyright protection since 1856. Houdini’s deposited playlet scripts are now held within the Reader’s Collection, Library of Congress Copyright Office Drama Deposits."
Anandashankar Mazumdar, U.S. Copyright Office; The Marrakesh Treaty in Action: Exciting Progress in Access to Published Works for the Blind and Print-Disabled Communities
"The following is a guest blog post by Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office
Domestic stakeholders, congressional staff, and the U.S. government all worked collaboratively to implement the treaty obligations into our law. In the 2018 Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act (MTIA), Congress made a few amendments to the scope of the existing exception in section 121 of the Copyright Act, and added a new section 121A. The latter allows nonprofit or governmental entities that serve blind or print-disabled persons—known as “authorized entities”—to import and export accessible format copies for the benefit of those patrons. For more details, the Copyright Office has information on both the treaty and the MTIA posted on our website.
The Marrakesh Treaty has already been a tremendous achievement for the blind and visually impaired communities in the United States. Since it entered into force in May 2019, much has been done, including here at the Library of Congress, to start reaping its benefits. The Library’s National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled (NLS), founded in 1931, has long administered a free national library program that provides braille and recorded materials to people who cannot see regular print or handle print materials. U.S. membership in Marrakesh has allowed NLS, as an authorized entity, to make thousands of accessible format works available throughout the world, as well as to import over 1,700 foreign titles in at least 10 languages for its patrons. NLS has developed a number of practices and policies to support its work as an authorized entity under the MTIA.
One of NLS’s partners in leveraging the Marrakesh Treaty to maximize the availability of accessible format works worldwide is the Accessible Books Consortium’s (ABC’s) Global Book Service (GBS), a project under the aegis of WIPO."
Dean Baker, February 8, 2021; Want to Reverse Inequality? Change Intellectual Property Rules.
Dennemeyer – The IP Group - Irene Corn, Lexology; The ultimate crash course on protecting Intellectual Property
"Why is it essential to protect your IP?
Your IP — including blueprints, artistic representations, and other information regarding your products, services, publications and branding — is your organization's lifeblood. Without it, those assets would simply not exist because you would have no incentive to create them in the first place.
If IP in business were free for the taking, overall competition among different companies in the same field would be severely limited. It would ultimately be dependent on mundane factors, like marketing and distribution budgets. Moreover, businesses and individual authors alike would get stuck and feel no pressure to create something new; similarly, in the patent field, thousands of the most notable technological advancements of the last century might not have come to pass. The stakes may not be as high for trademarks, but they are still immensely important because of how they express your brand's identity."
Eriq Gardner, Billboard; A Supreme Court Without RBG May Impact Hollywood's Grip on Intellectual Property
[Kip Currier: This is a note I posted for my Intellectual Property and Open Movements course I'm teaching this term...
Timely and fascinating article regarding the recent passing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her "copyright hawk" impact on many landmark Intellectual Property cases, like some we have already examined this term, e.g. Golan v. Holder (public domain) and Eldred v. Ashcroft (20 year extension of U.S. copyright protection period to Life of the Author plus 70 years.) In noting Ginsburg's judicial philosophy that tended to favor copyright maximalism, while a staunch civil rights defender and advocate for the equal rights of marginalized persons to the end, this article reminds us that people are often much more complex and less easily-defined than the boundaried labels that are often ascribed to them. And Justices are no different in that regard.]
"Ginsburg gravitated to intellectual property disputes almost from the moment the Brooklyn, NY-born attorney was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993. More often than not, when a big ruling on the subject was on the table, it was she who carried the big pen. Notably, in 2003, Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft that blessed an extension of the copyright term over a free speech challenge. Almost a decade later, she reached a similar conclusion in Golan v. Holder, which dealt with works taken from the public domain to comply with an international treaty. Ginsburg also shaped who could sue for copyright infringement — and when — with her majority opinions in Petrella v. MGM (2013) and Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019). She also wrote a concurring opinion in MGM Studios v. Grokster, the case which apportioned secondary copyright liability in the file-sharing age.
Ginsburg was certainly hawkish when it came to copyright. And her view can be most sharply contrasted with those of Justice Stephen Breyer, demonstrating that there's more to judicial philosophy than a conservative-liberal divide...
Now comes Google v. Oracle, which has been hailed for good reason as the
"copyright case of the century." It concerns Oracle's efforts to punish
Google for allegedly infringing computer code to build the Android
operating system. At issue in the case is the scope of copyright. Does
the structure, sequence, and organization of application programming
interfaces get protected? And separately, does Google have fair use to
whatever is copyrighted? The movie industry is backing Oracle in the
case —and the high court's conclusions will surely have an outsized
influence both on the development of technology as well as how future
copyright cases get adjudicated. Ginsburg's passing is probably bad news
for Oracle's chances here. Of all the justices, she was least likely to
read limits to copyright protection."
Gene Maddaus , Variety; Judge Rules in Favor of Nicki Minaj in Tracy Chapman Copyright Dispute
"A judge handed a significant win to Nicki Minaj on Wednesday, finding that she did not commit copyright infringement when she created a song based on Tracy Chapman’s “Baby Can I Hold You.”
The ruling protects the industry practice of developing a new song based on existing material, and then seeking a license from the original artist prior to release. U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled that Minaj’s experimentation with Chapman’s song constitutes “fair use” and is not copyright infringement."
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, JD Supra; Google v. Oracle: Fair Use and the Seventh Amendment
"On August 7, 2020, Google and Oracle submitted their final written arguments to the Supreme Court regarding their decade-long copyright battle over the source code animating the Android platform. Now, we focus on the second question presented to the Supreme Court: whether Google’s copying of Oracle’s Java source code is a non-infringing fair use.
Recall that in December 2019 we introduced “the copyright lawsuit of the decade.” In March 2020, we covered the first of two questions presented to the Supreme Court: whether Java software interfaces are protected by copyright. Before we could address the second question presented, however, the Supreme Court delayed oral arguments on the matter to the October 2020 term due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court also requested that Google and Oracle submit supplemental briefs addressing the standard of review relating to the fair use defense—i.e., whether the Federal Circuit gave the proper deference to the jury’s finding of fair use when it reviewed it de novo and reversed it...
Conclusion
The Supreme Court is finally set to resolve important questions regarding the scope of copyright protection and the fair use doctrine that could have huge ramifications for the software industry … or is it? As detailed above, the Supreme Court may lean on the standard of review applied by the Federal Circuit to delay further comment on whether Google’s copying constituted fair use. We will update you again after oral argument, which is scheduled for October 7, 2020."
Matt Novak, Gizmodo; Censoring Jon Hamm's Penis Doesn't Violate Copyright Law, Federal Judge Rules
"The lesson for all you meme-makers out there? Make sure your images are transformative and put a black box over those bulging packages."
Lila Wallrich, Comstock's Magazine; When a Right Click Is Wrong
How to avoid creative copyright infringement in your promotion and presentations
"Check the Public Domain
When copyright expires or is voluntarily surrendered, work enters the public domain and becomes available for all. Exclusive rights are nonexistent, and no permission is needed. You just need to do some research to find what you need, starting here:
Anandashankar Mazumdar, Library of Congress; Historic Court Cases That Helped Shape Scope of Copyright Protections
"As the Copyright Office celebrates its 150th birthday, we can look back more than 240 years through the history of copyright protections in the United States to see how the law has changed in response to changing technologies and economics.
The authors of the U.S. Constitution believed that copyright was important enough to explicitly grant the federal government the power to grant authors the exclusive right to their writings.
When the first U.S. Congress convened in 1789, it put enactment of the country’s first Copyright Act on its agenda. The Copyright Act of 1790 extended copyright protections to “maps, charts, and books.” But copyright protection in 2020 covers many more types of creative expression.
The federal courts have been crucial in looking at creative media and setting the boundaries of what is protected and what isn’t. This is a look back at some of the most important court rulings on what is and isn’t protectable throughout the years under U.S. copyright law.
These cases reflect some of the landmarks for American courts for defining the scope of copyright protection: (1) Is a system of accounting and its ledgers protected? (2) Is a photograph protected when the law doesn’t explicitly mention photographs? (3) Is an advertisement protected? And (4) Is a creative work incorporated into a useful article protected?"