Open Access and Academic Freedom; Inside Higher Ed, 12/15/15

Rick Anderson, Inside Higher Ed; Open Access and Academic Freedom:

"As they have gained momentum over the past decade, the open access (OA) movement and its cousin, the Creative Commons licensing platform, have together done a tremendous amount of good in the world of scholarship and education, by making high-quality, peer-reviewed publications widely available both for reading and for reuse.

But they have also raised some uncomfortable issues, most notably related to academic freedom, particularly when OA is made a requirement rather than an option and when the Creative Commons attribution license (CC BY) is treated as an essential component of OA.

In recent years, major American and European funding bodies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and Research Councils UK have all instituted OA mandates of various types, requiring those whose research depends on their funding to make the resulting articles available on some kind of OA basis. A large number of institutions of higher education have adopted OA policies as well, though most of these (especially in the United States) only encourage their faculty to make their work openly accessible rather than requiring them to do so."

The 4 worst patents of 2015; Washington Post, 12/14/15

Larry Downes, Washington Post; The 4 worst patents of 2015:

"This was another depressing year for patent law, which long ago lost sight of its constitutional moorings as a balanced and limited source of incentives for innovators. Though Congress, the courts and the Patent and Trademark Office each tried in their own way to rein in a system widely-regarded as out of control, in the end nobody made much progress...

The polite name for such companies is “non-practicing entities,” but most of us know them as patent trolls. And according to the Consumer Technology Association, these parasites have drained over $150 billion from the U.S. economy since 2013, at a pace that is accelerating.

Beyond the trolls, there’s a more fundamental problem. The mismatch between expanding patent coverage and the quickening pace of disruptive change has become one of the greatest sources of danger to the innovation economy.

That’s especially true of patents granted for basic software and abstract business methods — categories that have only recently been recognized in the first place."

‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ lines up trademarks for ‘Star Wars’ mayonnaise, wind chimes, baby blankets and pretty much everything else; New York Daily News, 12/17/15

Gersh Kuntzman and Dziemianowicz, New York Daily News; ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ lines up trademarks for ‘Star Wars’ mayonnaise, wind chimes, baby blankets and pretty much everything else:

"The new sci-fi epic opens on Friday — but “Star Wars” corn chips, diaper bags, marshmallows, cork screws, dry erase writing boards and a host of other mundane products may be hitting stores soon after.

And you can thank the moviemakers’ legion of lawyers, which has been hard at work for months locking down trademarks on pretty much everything in the film that moves...

“They need to be aggressive about protecting the franchise’s new characters right out of the gate,” says New York lawyer Kenneth Falcon (no relation to Millennium), who focuses on copyright and trademark litigation. “People will try to rip off the ‘Star Wars’ brand forever because it’s so lucrative.”

The company began securing the rights to all products back in 2014, Patent and Trademark Office documents show. Some other trademarks were sought earlier this year, as plotlines and characters were being finalized."

Heirs of Abbott and Costello Lose Copyright Claim Over ‘Who’s on First’; Associated Press via New York Times, 12/17/15

Associated Press via New York Times; Heirs of Abbott and Costello Lose Copyright Claim Over ‘Who’s on First’ :

"A federal judge ruled on Thursday that Abbott and Costello’s heirs had failed to get past first base with copyright claims against the producers of the Broadway play “Hand to God,” in which a character uses a sock puppet to perform part of the comedians’ “Who’s on First” routine...

Judge George Daniels of United States District Court in Manhattan tossed out the lawsuit on Thursday, saying the play transformed the original routine enough that it did not violate copyrights."

Jeff Koons sued for appropriating 1980s gin ad in art work sold for millions; Guardian, 12/15/15

Guardian; Jeff Koons sued for appropriating 1980s gin ad in art work sold for millions:

"Jeff Koons, a US pop artist whose works can fetch millions, is facing allegations he used a New York photographer’s commercial photo from the 1980s in a painting without permission or compensation, according to a lawsuit filed Monday.

The photographer, Mitchel Gray, said in the complaint filed in Manhattan federal court that Koons reproduced his photo, which depicts a man sitting beside a woman painting on a beach with an easel, “nearly unchanged and in its entirety”.

Gray is also suing New York-based auction house Phillips Auctioneers and an as-yet-unnamed former owner of the Koons print, which sold for $2.04m in London in 2008...

There is a three-year statute of limitations on copyright actions, but “the clock doesn’t start ticking until the plaintiff learns of the infringement”, his lawyer, Jordan Fletcher, of the law firm Kushnirsky Gerber, said in an interview."

Samsung’s Patent Loss to Apple Is Appealed to Supreme Court; New York Times, 12/14/15

Steve Lohr, New York Times; Samsung’s Patent Loss to Apple Is Appealed to Supreme Court:

"The case, if heard, could have far-reaching implications for design patents, which cover how a product looks, and the sort of financial penalties allowed under the law. Design patents are far less common than utility patents, which cover how a product functions.

The legal framework for design patents, according to Samsung, some other major technology companies and legal experts, is largely shaped by a 19th-century law intended to protect the designs of carpets, fireplace grates and ornamental spoons.

Back then, the design was the heart of such products, so seizing most or all of the gains of a copycat — known as the “total profit rule” — was justified. But today, a complex product like a modern smartphone is a dense bundle of intellectual property with more than 100,000 patents conceivably laying claim to some small aspect of the phone...

Beyond this case, design patents will probably get more legal attention in the future, said David J. Kappos, a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. As high-tech products become increasingly complex, the skill that yields a competitive advantage is making products easy to use. “And usability comes down to design,” said Mr. Kappos, a former director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office."

Congressman troubled by Taylor Swift's attempt to copyright '1989'; CNN, 12/14/15

Deena Zaru, CNN; Congressman troubled by Taylor Swift's attempt to copyright '1989' :

"Rep. Justin Amash and pop star Taylor Swift may not quite have bad blood just yet, but efforts by the musician to trademark certain common words, phrases and dates might have him seeing red.

The Michigan Republican's sour note followed reports that Taylor Swift's rights-management company has filed for trademark requests on use of -- among other words -- the number "1989," which is the year of her birth and the name of her fifth studio release."

Pitt among medical research groups cited for failure to report findings; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/15/15

Kris B. Mamula, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Pitt among medical research groups cited for failure to report findings:

"The University of Pittsburgh was among top research institutions that did not report clinical research findings to a public government database, violating a federal law that was intended to advance medicine and help doctors and patients make treatment decisions.

Pitt along with drugmakers, hospitals, federal agencies and other universities nationwide failed to report results of trials involving human volunteers to a public database operated by the federal government, according to Stat News, a Boston-based startup media outlet that is affiliated with the Boston Globe newspaper. Federal law requires these findings to be submitted to clinicaltrials.gov, a website operated by the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md...

“These laws get put on the books, but no one is there to enforce them,” he said. “The level of enforcement is extremely poor.”"

Taylor Swift makes 'Swiftmas' trademark bid; BBC News, 12/11/15

BBC News; Taylor Swift makes 'Swiftmas' trademark bid:

"Taylor Swift is seeking to trademark the word "Swiftmas" and "1989", the name of her album, in the US.

It is the 25-year-old's latest attempt to stop others from using phrases associated with her on merchandise.

"Swiftmas" is the word the singer's fans use to describe the random acts of kindness she makes, such as giving them unexpected presents.

Earlier this year Swift applied to trademark some of her song lyrics such as "this sick beat".

The pop star submitted her requests to the US Patent and Trademark Office on 3 December."

Germany, Italy Leading Resistance To EU Ratification Of Marrakesh Treaty, Blind Union Says; Intellectual Property Watch, 12/10/15

Intellectual Property Watch; Germany, Italy Leading Resistance To EU Ratification Of Marrakesh Treaty, Blind Union Says:

"The World Intellectual Property Organization Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled was adopted on 27 June 2013. In a press release today, the European Blind Union (EBU) said “while a range of countries such as India, Mexico, El Salvador, Argentina, Paraguay, Mali and others have already ratified the Marrakesh Treaty, the EU and its members are still failing in doing so.”...

According to the release, 21 EU member states have expressed their consent for a proposed compromise, while seven members “led by Germany and Italy,” have rejected the compromise and “are forming a blocking minority which stalemates the ongoing ratification negotiations.”...

This week, WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), which negotiated the Marrakesh Treaty, is meeting for discussions on further exceptions and limitations to copyright, this time for the benefit of libraries, archives, research and educational institutions, and people with other disabilities than visual impairment (IPW, WIPO, 7 December 2015)."

Intellectual Property: The Secret Sauce Of Great Products; Forbes, 12/7/15

David Pridham, Forbes; Intellectual Property: The Secret Sauce Of Great Products:

"Intellectual property (IP) is much in the news of late. But unfortunately, the coverage is mostly about patent litigation and patent reform.

Lost in all this reportage is the positive and powerful role IP plays outside of the courtroom — in the daily operations of the enterprise. Here, largely unnoticed, IP serves as one of the key drivers of business success in today’s Knowledge Economy.

Take corporate revenues. These are often heavily dependent upon intellectual property — margins and market share are buttressed by brands, trademarks and patents, after all — but this fact is largely unreported by the media. Similarly, IP and other intangible assets, while compromising up to 80% of the market value of public companies today, are rarely reflected on corporate balance sheets, thanks to a 600-year-old accounting system designed for a bygone era in which tangible assets like plant, equipment, and raw materials were the chief sources of wealth.

It’s no surprise, then, that some people call IP “the secret sauce of corporate value creation.”

I’ll be revealing many of IP’s secrets with this new “IP at Work” column you’re reading — the first-ever regular column in a mainstream business publication that focuses on the ways that intellectual property can be deployed inside the enterprise to enhance corporate performance."

A misguided attempt to “defend trade secrets”; Washington Post, 12/2/15

David Post, Washington Post; A misguided attempt to “defend trade secrets” :

"Along with 41 colleagues, I recently joined a letter submitted to the Committee opposing DTSA in which we tried to point out some of the ways in which putting this weapon in the hands of trade secret owners is likely to backfire, becoming a “strategic weapon” that will be used mostly for anti-competitive purposes that have nothing to do with preventing “cyber-espionage.” [A more detailed critique of the ex parte seizure provisions can be found in this article by Eric Goldman, one of the authors of the law professors’ letter]

It is often difficult, when considering intellectual property law, to see the downside of proposals meant to strengthen legal protection (while relatively easy to see the upside). Trade secret law has profound effects on employee mobility; the vast majority of trade secret litigation in this country involves employees moving from one company to another (and allegedly taking their former employer’s trade secrets with them). The DTSA will have little or no effect on Chinese government agents, but it is likely to have a deeper and much more lasting effect on the health of the labor market in this country, and not for the better."

The Defend Trade Secrets Act: IP legislation ready to move forward now; The Hill, 12/2/15

David J. Kappos, The Hill; The Defend Trade Secrets Act: IP legislation ready to move forward now:

"The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015 (DTSA), for which identical bills were proposed with bipartisan support in both the House and Senate on July 29, 2015, would significantly improve federal protections to curb trade secret theft and thus secure the value of trade secrets. In our modern knowledge economy where (no surprise) knowledge is a source of immense value, American companies are finding themselves the victims of trade secret theft at an alarming rate. Unscrupulous business practices free-riding off of the investment of innovative competitors is hardly a recent phenomenon. But the impact of mass digitization has enabled theft on an unprecedented scale. A 2013 U.S. Chamber of Commerce study estimated the cost of cybercrime to the United States was upward of $120 billion; a 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers/CREATe.org report estimated that theft of trade secrecy amounts to 1-3 percent of U.S. GDP."

How the TPP Will Affect You and Your Digital Rights; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 12/8/15

Maira Sutton, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); How the TPP Will Affect You and Your Digital Rights:

"The Internet is a diverse ecosystem of private and public stakeholders. By excluding a large sector of communities—like security researchers, artists, libraries, and user rights groups—trade negotiators skewed the priorities of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) towards major tech companies and copyright industries that have a strong interest in maintaining and expanding their monopolies of digital services and content. Negotiated in secret for several years with overwhelming influence from powerful multinational corporate interests, it's no wonder that its provisions do little to nothing to protect our rights online or our autonomy over our own devices. For example, everything in the TPP that increases corporate rights and interests is binding, whereas every provision that is meant to protect the public interest is non-binding and is susceptible to get bulldozed by efforts to protect corporations.

Below is a list of communities who were excluded from the TPP deliberation process, and some of the main ways that the TPP's copyright and digital policy provisions will negatively impact them. Almost all of these threats already exist in the United States and in many cases have already impacted users there, because the TPP reflects the worst aspects of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The TPP threatens to lock down those policies so these harmful consequences will be more difficult to remedy in future copyright reform efforts in the U.S. and the other eleven TPP countries. The impacts could also be more severe in those other countries because most of them lack the protections of U.S. law such as the First Amendment and the doctrine of fair use."

Senate Panel Leaders Condemn Companies for Drug Price Hikes; Associated Press via New York Times, 12/9/15

Associated Press via New York Times; Senate Panel Leaders Condemn Companies for Drug Price Hikes:

"The leaders of a Senate panel are condemning four companies for aggressively increasing prices for prescription drugs. They say the companies have exploited a system lacking in competition to hike prices for critically needed medicines.

An investigation by the Senate Special Committee on Aging focuses on Turing Pharmaceuticals, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Retrophin Inc. and Rodelis Therapeutics. The first two faced especially harsh criticism.

"The Turing and Valeant price spikes have been egregious," Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who heads the panel, said at a hearing Wednesday.

Collins added that like those two companies, Retrophin and Rodelis also bought the rights to brand-name drugs whose patents had expired and then hiked their prices.

Public outrage boiled over this fall after news that Turing increased by more than 5,000 percent the price of Daraprim, a drug used to treat a life-threatening infection, jacking it up from $13.50 to $750 per pill."

The Tarnished Trump Brand; New York Times, 12/11/15

Editorial Board, New York Times; The Tarnished Trump Brand:

"It takes a lot of work to make brands successful, and they can be undone quickly by controversy and scandal. Thanks to Mr. Trump himself, his name increasingly stands for bigotry and racism. His licensees should ask themselves if they want to be linked to a brand that carries those connotations."

Edward S. Curtis's The North American Indian; Northwestern Digital Library Collections, Northwestern University

Northwestern University, Northwestern Digital Library Collections; Edward S. Curtis's The North American Indian:

"Sensitive images and text

This site presents the complete contents of The North American Indian originally published by Edward S. Curtis between 1907-1930. The images and descriptions reflect the prevailing Euro-American cultural perspective of Curtis’s time, that Indians were “primitive” people whose traditions represented a “vanishing race”. Contemporary readers should view the work in that context.

In The North American Indian some ceremonial rituals and objects are portrayed which were not intended for viewing by the uninitiated. No material has been excluded or specially labeled in this online edition. All descriptions and images are included in order to represent the work fully."

Copyright and use restrictions

This online edition has been derived from a copy of The North American Indian held by the Charles Deering McCormick Library of Special Collections, Northwestern University Library. Northwestern University Library is not aware of any current U.S. copyright or other restrictions to the use of the original work.

The contents of this site are provided for educational, personal, and non-commercial use, provided that the site is properly credited.

Sample credit line:

Northwestern University Library, Edward S. Curtis's "The North American Indian," 2003.

http://curtis.library.northwestern.edu/site_curtis/

Written request for permission is required for any publication, distribution, or transmission of data, images or text presented on this web site, beyond that allowed by fair use."

WIPO Copyright Committee Hears Case For Exceptions For Museums; Intellectual Property Watch, 12/10/15

Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch; WIPO Copyright Committee Hears Case For Exceptions For Museums:

"A study [pdf] was presented yesterday on the need for copyright exceptions and limitations for museums by Lucie Guibault, co-authored with Jean-François Canat, and Elisabeth Logeais, who collaborated on the study.

According to the authors, the study investigates the issue of limitations and exceptions to copyright for museums and means to raise the international understanding on the need for museums to have adequate limitations to copyright. The study gives an overview of relevant existing legislative provisions.

Museum collections include diverse objects, such as objects of art, texts, drawings, paintings, photographs, maps, films and sound recordings, according to the study. Museums have to adapt to the digital age and consider digitising and disseminating their collections via the internet.

In principle, said the authors, museums need rights holders’ permission to reproduce any copyright-protected objects in their collections, unless an exception or limitation to copyright applies. Of the 188 WIPO members, only 45 of them have laws which contain provisions specifically allowing museums to make certain uses of works in their collections without prior authorisation of the rights holder, the study found."

Batman v Superman: the latest exercise in corporate fan fiction; Guardian, 12/9/15

Noah Berlatsky, Guardian; Batman v Superman: the latest exercise in corporate fan fiction:

"Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster ended their creative input in the 1940s; for decades the duo’s main involvement with Superman was lawsuits over rights. Batman’s main creator, Bill Finger, was denied credit from the beginning by artist Bob Kane, and he died in poverty. Not much of a dawn of justice there.

At this point, there is no right or wrong version of Superman, or Batman, or Lex Luthor. Batman v Superman is just the latest exercise in corporate fan fiction, remixing bits and pieces of fan fiction based on fan fiction past. The result may be good, or bad, or mediocre, and you can love or hate Jesse Eisenberg’s performance for any number of reasons. But to say he’s not true to Luthor is to pretend that there’s some “true” version of Luthor to begin with – and to create a platonic, real Luthor who exists separately from, and overshadows, the original folks who, intentionally or by accident, came up with the character. Better to just take the upcoming film on its own merits, or lack thereof – and maybe give a nod to Leo Nowak, and his own stumbling lack of fidelity to Lex Luthor past."

New EU copyright rules would give travelers cross-border Netflix access; ArsTechnica.com, 12/9/15

Glyn Moody, ArsTechnica.com; New EU copyright rules would give travelers cross-border Netflix access:

"The European Commission says it wants to tackle the lack of consistency across the EU when it comes to copyright exceptions. As it notes: "The fragmentation of copyright rules in the EU is particularly visible in the area of exceptions. The exceptions set out in EU law are, in most cases, optional for Member States to implement and are often broadly defined. As a consequence, an exception in the law of one Member State may not exist in a neighbouring one, or be subject to different conditions or vary in scope."

In its new copyright framework, the European Commission proposes a number of initiatives in this area. These include: finally ratifying the Marrakech Treaty, which allows for the creation and distribution of special formats of print material for people with disabilities, without needing additional licences; permitting "public interest research organisations" to carry out text and data mining of material they have already licensed; and clarifying the scope of an exception for teaching materials.

The Commission also wants to sort out the freedom of panorama issue—the public's ability to take pictures of external objects like buildings and to distribute them without permission of the architect."

‘Happy Birthday’ Copyright Case Reaches a Settlement; New York Times, 12/9/15

Ben Sisario, New York Times; ‘Happy Birthday’ Copyright Case Reaches a Settlement:

"After more than two years of litigation, “Happy Birthday to You” — often called the most popular song in the world, but one that has long been under copyright — is one step closer to joining the public domain.

In September, a federal judge ruled that Warner Music, the song’s publisher, did not have a valid copyright claim to “Happy Birthday,” which has been estimated to collect $2 million a year in royalties. But what that ruling meant for the future of the song — and Warner’s liability — was unclear, and a trial had been set to begin next week.

In a filing on Tuesday in United States District Court in Los Angeles, the parties in the case said they had agreed to a settlement to end the case. The terms of that deal are confidential. But if the settlement is approved by the court, the song is expected to formally enter the public domain, meaning that it will not be covered by copyright and can be performed freely."

Milano cookie battle: Pepperidge Farm sues Trader Joe’s over copyright infringement; Fox News, 12/7/15

Fox News; Milano cookie battle: Pepperidge Farm sues Trader Joe’s over copyright infringement:

According to a complaint filed on Wednesday in New Haven, Conn., federal court, the grocery chain’s version of a sandwich cookie, called Trader Joe’s Crispy Cookies, look too similar to the Milano cookie and the products’ sale is “damaging its goodwill and confusing shoppers,” reports Reuters.

Milano cookies, which were introduced to the market in 1956, are crispy oval-shaped vanilla cookies with a chocolate crème filling. Over the years, variations have been introduced, including mint chocolate, orange chocolate and even pumpkin spice. The cookie was trademarked in 2010."

War of the Worlds sequel sets 2017 publication date; BBC News, 12/4/15

BBC News; War of the Worlds sequel sets 2017 publication date:

"A sequel to HG Wells's The War of the Worlds is to be published in 2017 when the copyright on the original expires.

Written by Stephen Baxter, The Massacre of Mankind will see the Martians from Wells's story invading Earth once more, having learned from the mistakes they made first time around.

Gollancz will publish the sequel in hardback and eBook on 19 January 2017.

The copyright on the original, which was published in book form in 1898, lasts until 31 December 2016."

Hong Kong Copyright Law To Be Fiercely Debated; Variety, 12/7/15

Patrick Frater, Variety; Hong Kong Copyright Law To Be Fiercely Debated:

"Hong Kong’s legislature is Wednesday to debate a bill that seeks to make the territory’s copyright laws appropriate for the Internet age.

The government seems certain to win the vote in the Legislative Council (LegCo), but the bill is likely to be fiercely contested and extra security may be drafted outside the LegCo building.

Opponents say that the bill reinforces the position of business and copyright owners, but stifles freedom of speech.

In particular, they say that the proposed law does not take enough account of user-generated-content and that it will narrow the scope for sampling of copyright works for parody."

China vows copyright protection for online news media; Reuters, 12/4/15

Reuters; China vows copyright protection for online news media:

"China will crack down on illegal reproduction of online news, the country's media watchdog said, days after an influential Chinese news magazine complained publicly about what it described as unauthorized republishing of its stories.

China's government has long vowed to rein in intellectual property infringement from knock-off goods to the theft of commercial secrets. But violations remain rampant.

While the republishing of other news outlets' articles is common practice in China, some companies in the country's increasingly competitive media industry have become more vocal about what they say is unauthorized use of original content."

[Post-Public Draft 2016-2020 Strategic Plan] Positioning the United States Copyright Office for the Future: Strategic Plan 2016-2020; U.S. Copyright Office, December 2015

[Post-Public Draft 2016-2020 Strategic Plan] Positioning the United States Copyright Office for the Future: Strategic Plan 2016-2020:

[Excerpt]"This Strategic Plan organizes and prioritizes objectives for the next five years. It draws on four years of internal evaluations and public input — that is, two initial years of fact-findings, public inquiries, and special projects, and two additional years of public roundtables, reports, and Congressional hearings. These initiatives, announced in October 2011, coincided with government-mandated budget cuts as well as staff reductions and backlogs. We seized these challenges, however, as an opportunity to examine inefficiencies, dismantle dated practices, and propose new paradigms. Much of this exciting work and our accomplishments to date are described in the back of this Plan. We also introduce here a revised mission statement that better captures our statutory mandate.

Here is my vision for a modern Copyright Office:

Customers should be able to transact with the Office easily, quickly, and from anywhere at any time, using mobile technologies and any number of consumer-friendly platforms and devices to secure rights or access data. They should have at their fingertips an integrated life-cycle of copyright information — not only the date on which a work was created, published or fell into the public domain, but also all of the authors, owners, licensees, derivative uses, rights, and permission information that are both relevant to the marketplace and invaluable to meaningful research. The Office should have businessto-business capabilities that both leverage and support private sector activities, while ensuring and facilitating transparency and fairness.

Although technology improvements are an essential part of the future, true modernization involves much more than making incremental upgrades to hardware or software. It requires re-envisioning almost all of the Copyright Office’s services, including how customers register claims, submit deposits, record documents, share data, and access expert resources, and it requires meeting the diverse needs of individual authors, entrepreneurs, the user community, and the general public.

Maria A. Pallante

United States Register of Copyrights,

Director, U.S. Copyright Office

Judge: Company must pay $684k for suing Life360 in “exceptionally weak” patent case; ArsTechnica.com, 12/2/15

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.com; Judge: Company must pay $684k for suing Life360 in “exceptionally weak” patent case:

"Family networking service Life360 won a patent trial earlier this year against a Florida company called Advanced Ground Information Systems (AGIS) that sued it for patent infringement. Now it has won a significant chunk of its legal fees for fighting the case.

Yesterday, US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks ordered AGIS to pay Life360 the sum of $684,190.25. That amount represents the legal fees paid from November 21, 2014, when Middlebrooks issued a claim construction order, through the end of the trial on March 13, 2015."

Sharing of television news clips hangs in the fair-use balance; ArsTechnica.com, 12/2/15

David Kravets, ArsTechnica.com; Sharing of television news clips hangs in the fair-use balance:

"Fox News is winning more than just the news network ratings wars. It's also winning the battle against copyright's fair use doctrine.

In August, a federal judge sided (PDF) with the news station's copyright-infringement lawsuit against a television and radio clipping service known as TVEyes, which charges as much as $500 a month for its service. A New York federal judge ruled that wanton sharing, time searching, and downloading of Fox News' news segments is not fair use. Then in November, US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled TVEyes could not allow its clients—like the White House, American Red Cross, members of Congress, and others—to download Fox News clips. The judge also ordered TVEyes to block users from searching Fox News clips and from allowing them to share them on social media...

All of this begs the question of what is fair use. It's complicated, and there is no bright-line rule."

COPYRIGHT OFFICE NEEDS MORE TECH AND DATA EXPERTS; NextGov.com, 12/2/15

Hallie Golden, NextGov.com; COPYRIGHT OFFICE NEEDS MORE TECH AND DATA EXPERTS:

"To keep pace with the demands of the digital age, the U.S. Copyright Office needs fewer file clerks and more techies, Maria Pallante, the office's director, told lawmakers on Wednesday.

“It used to be catalogers, now it needs to be technology and data [experts],” Pallante described the agency’s hiring needs. “I don’t know how we can administer the law without it.”

Every year, the Copyright Office's staff examines and register hundreds of thousands of copyright claims submitted by book authors, music artists, software manufacturers and other creators of intellectual property.

The office needs to restructure its workforce, Pallante told members of the Committee on House Administration during a hearing on the office’s tech plans. The office would like to eventually “morph” about a third of its staff -- 150 employees -- into tech and data experts, she said.

“These experts should not merely be assigned or on-call from another part of the agency, but rather be integrated into the copyright office mission where they can work side by side with legal and business experts,” she said."

Library of Congress, Copyright Office butt heads over IT vision; FedScoop.com, 12/2/15

Whitney Blair Wyckoff, FedScoop.com; Library of Congress, Copyright Office butt heads over IT vision:

"During the hearing, U.S. Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante reiterated a call for more autonomy over her agency’s technology. She referenced a report her agency released Tuesday that laid out a five-year plan that heavily focused on technology improvements.

“What we’re asking for is the autonomy to make sure that IT is intertwined with our business and legal expertise,” Pallante said. (Some House lawmakers have been shopping a draft bill to make the office an independent agency, but the legislation has yet to be introduced.)

Pallante also underscored the need to update the office’s 10-year-old copyright registration system, called eCO — which she said was “probably outdated by the time it was implemented.” The system, she said, simply replaced rather than improved upon paper copyright registration forms. It doesn't have a digital interface that is interoperable with the private sector technology and isn't flexible enough to be updated as copyright law evolves, she said...

“Your predecessor did many wonderful things in his long career,” Lofgren said to acting Librarian Mao. “Being a techie was not one of his fine points. So you have your work cut out for you.”"

Copyright Register: IT outage shows why agency must modernize; FedScoop.com, 11/30/15

Whitney Blair Wyckoff, FedScoop.com; Copyright Register: IT outage shows why agency must modernize:

"U.S. Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante still grimaces at the mention of a major IT outage that struck her agency this summer.

What started as routine data center maintenance shuttered critical Library of Congress IT systems — including those at the Copyright Office — for nine days. Pallante said it forced her staff, who were unable to fix the problems directly, to field angry calls from customers unable to register their songs, books or other creative works online.

“This is an illustration of the fact that my IT, and my databases, are in the hands of people who are not statutorily responsible for that information,” she told FedScoop, speaking in a Copyright Office conference room lined with the portraits of past registers. She added, "I just really feel that people who work on Copyright Office IT should be in the Copyright Office, in the mission, working side by side with the other experts."

It’s a point alluded to in the Copyright Office's five-year strategic modernization plan, finalized and released Tuesday. The 65-page document includes overarching goals that span from building a robust and flexible technology enterprise to recruiting a diverse workforce. But woven into the report is the need to tailor the office's technology to the needs of the people it serves.

“I think the main message of this is that the Copyright Office has to be directly involved in technology — for one, we can’t administer the law without having control of tools to allow us to do that,” said Pallante, who spent nearly 10 years as intellectual property counsel and director of the licensing group at the Guggenheim Museums before coming to her current job in 2011."

Scholars Unveil New Edition of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’; New York Times, 12/1/15

Alison Smale, New York Times; Scholars Unveil New Edition of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ :

"Not since 1945, when the Allies banned the dubious work and awarded the rights to the state of Bavaria, has Hitler’s manifesto, “Mein Kampf,” been officially published in German. Bavaria had refused to release it. But under German law, its copyright expires Dec. 31, the 70th year after the author’s death.

That allows a team of historians from a noted center for the study of Nazism, the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, to publish its two-volume, 2,000-page edition, a three-year labor complete with about 3,500 academic annotations.

The intention is to set the work in historical context, to show how Hitler wove truth with half-truth and outright lie, and thus to defang any propagandistic effect while revealing Nazism."

James Bond goes to Ottawa in For Your Eyes Only remake; Guardian, 12/1/15

Andrew Pulver, Guardian; James Bond goes to Ottawa in For Your Eyes Only remake:

"A duo of low-budget Canadian film-makers have announced plans to remake the James Bond film For Your Eyes Only, thanks to a loophole in copyright laws.

Lee Demarbre and Ian Driscoll, whose back catalogue includes the Mexican-wrestler thriller The Dead Sleep Easy and comedy musical Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, say they are planning to take advantage of Canada’s 50-year copyright limit to start work on a new adaptation of Ian Fleming’s 1960 short story. Unlike most other major film markets, Canada does not enforce the Berne convention that extended authors’ copyright to 70 years after death, meaning that Fleming, who died in 1964, is in the public domain in the country...

The film-makers concede that copyright regulations mean they would be unable to release the proposed film in the US, limiting potential investment, but suggest that the restriction would not apply to “China and most of Asia”."

YouTube to Pay Fees for Some Video Makers to Fight Takedowns; New York Times, 11/19/15

Cecilia Kang, New York Times; YouTube to Pay Fees for Some Video Makers to Fight Takedowns:

"Constantine Guiliotis, who goes by Dean and whose channel dedicated to debunking sightings of unidentified flying objects has just over 1,000 subscribers, is one of the video makers YouTube will defend. Mr. Guiliotis has received three takedown notices from copyright holders of videos that he has found online and posted to his YouTube channel, U.F.O. Theater.

In his videos, Mr. Guiliotis includes the videos he found but also provides analysis and commentary, which YouTube argues is within the guidelines of fair use rules. The site reposted the videos after its review and told Mr. Guiliotis it would defend him against any future legal action. Like the other creators YouTube has selected, Mr. Guiliotis has not been sued for his videos.

“It was very gratifying to know a company cares about fair use and to single out someone like me,” Mr. Guiliotis said.

YouTube is starting small, initially supporting four video creators, but it said it may expand its program.

The company said it wanted to protect free speech and educate users on fair use."

Why Facebook Is Monitoring Your Private Videos; Huffington Post, 11/18/15

Huffington Post; Why Facebook Is Monitoring Your Private Videos:

"Parker Higgins, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, explains how Facebook's hunt for copyrighted material is playing out in users' private posts."

Matter of rights: Was Otto Frank really Anne Frank’s co-author?; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 11/18/15

Editorial Board, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Matter of rights: Was Otto Frank really Anne Frank’s co-author?Matter of rights: Was Otto Frank really Anne Frank’s co-author? :

"Otto Frank, her father, was the only family member who survived the Holocaust. It was his efforts that led to the publication of her diary. Until his death in 1980, he was acknowledged as the book’s “editor,” but gave full credit for the text to his daughter.

This is an important point given the new controversy surrounding the book’s copyright. Seventy years after her death, the European copyright is set to expire, but the Swiss foundation that holds the rights wants to prevent it from moving into public domain. The foundation is filing an extension of the copyright based on new information — the claim that Otto Frank is the book’s co-author.

This is contrary to descriptions made about the book since its publication. If the diary had been co-written by her father, then it cannot be properly called a girl’s reflections.

Extending the foundation’s control, until 2050, over “The Diary of Anne Frank” by now claiming Otto Frank is the co-writer is a cynical attempt to control a major revenue stream.

“The Diary of Anne Frank” belongs to the world. Treating it like a mere commodity detracts from its moral authority. Worse than that, making Anne Frank a mere collaborator in her own story is an insult to her memory and what she endured."

Frankenstein TV: what happens when literary classics drop out of copyright; Guardian, 11/16/15

Mark Lawson, Guardian; Frankenstein TV: what happens when literary classics drop out of copyright:

"One reason that the field of Brit Lit spin-offs is becoming so crowded is that Mary Shelley, Charles Dickens and Robert Louis Stevenson invented archetypes and situations that are familiar even to people who have never read the books. This rapid name-recognition is presumably why Fox originally gave its planned drama about a dead cop who is brought back to life to solve mysteries the title Frankenstein, even though it has no more than a vague metaphorical connection with the Shelley story. After objections of literary grave-robbing, the series is now, more sensibly, called Second Chance.

In tight financial times, it is also financially canny to plunder the vaults of out-of-copyright books. Adapt a classic novel that is still controlled by an estate and the budget is swollen by a rights fee, with the additional risk that the keepers of the author’s flame may also interfere artistically. Some copyright holders have been so acquisitive or restrictive that, for a decade or so, cultural democrats in various countries have celebrated Public Domain Day on 1 January each year, the date on which literary copyrights cease, 70 years after the writer’s death in many territories, but 95 in America. TV producers, you suspect, are among those whooping most exuberantly as another crop of plots and protagonists become free."

I’m Bullish about Copyright Policy for Libraries and I’m Not Crazy; American Libraries, 11/16/15

Alan S. Inouye, American Libraries; I’m Bullish about Copyright Policy for Libraries and I’m Not Crazy:

"The stimulus for this piece, however, is the copyright policy conference on November 17 hosted by the Re:Create Coalition. You may recall that the American Library Association (ALA) is a founding member of this new coalition that was born in spring 2015, which includes a range of important, influential, and ideologically diverse players such as the Consumer Technology Association (just renamed from the Consumer Electronics Association), Electronic Frontier Foundation, and R Street Institute. This first-ever public event of the coalition is a major milestone for heightened national advocacy for a balanced copyright regime in the digital era."

Anne Frank’s Diary Gains ‘Co-Author’ in Copyright Move; New York Times, 11/13/15

Doreen Carvajal, New York Time; Anne Frank’s Diary Gains ‘Co-Author’ in Copyright Move:

"Copyright protections vary from country to country. The classic novella “The Little Prince” fell into the public domain this year in much of the world but remains under copyright in France because of an exception that grants a 30-year extension to authors who died during military service in World War I and II.

Some critics of the foundation have already tested its resolve by posting bootleg copies of the diary online.

Olivier Ertzscheid, a lecturer in communications and researcher at the University of Nantes, received a warning letter this month from a French publisher of the diary after he started circulating a copy online in protest. He removed it, but he and a French politician, Isabelle Attard, said they were waiting to see what happens in January before pressing forward with a plan to encourage publication of the original manuscript more widely online.

“The best protection of the work is to bring it in the public domain, because its audience will grow even more,” said Ms. Attard, who noted that her own Jewish relatives were hidden or deported during the German occupation in France. “What is happening now is a bluff and pure intimidation.”

The foundation insists that by issuing an early warning of its intent to extend the copyright, it is acting ethically to prevent publishers from pursuing a course that might be unproductive and costly.

But if the foundation succeeds, publishers may wind up waiting even longer than the 70 years allowed after Otto Frank’s death."

The monkey 'selfie' copyright battle is still going on, and it's getting weirder; Washington Post via Chicago Tribune, 11/11/15

Abby Ohlheiser, Washington Post via Chicago Tribune; The monkey 'selfie' copyright battle is still going on, and it's getting weirder:

"The U.S. Copyright office clarified last year that it only registers copyright claims for human authorship, meaning that neither the macaque, nor the nature photographer David Slater, have a valid claim to it, according to the office.

That clarification came after a years-long disagreement between Slater and Wikimedia Commons, which hosted the image in the public domain.

Slater said he should own the rights to the photograph, telling The Washington Post last year that the selfie's distribution by Wikimedia and Techdirt as public domain was "ruining my business."

"If it was a normal photograph and I had claimed I had taken it," he added, "I would potentially be a lot richer than I am.""

4 Key Takeaways From Copyright Reform Committee's Silicon Valley Listening Tour; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 11/10/15

Parker Higgins, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 4 Key Takeaways From Copyright Reform Committee's Silicon Valley Listening Tour:

"The House Judiciary Committee, tasked with copyright reform in the Next Great Copyright Act process, has taken its long-running hearing show on the road. This week, members of the committee attended sessions in northern and southern California. The line-up of experts in Santa Clara yesterday was diverse and impressive, and included people like Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, noted musician Zoe Keating, iFixit CEO and DMCA activist Kyle Wiens, and of course EFF's own staff attorney Kit Walsh.

Given the wide range of experts, the conversation covered a lot of ground. More than other hearings in this series, though, it got deep into some of the specifics necessary to address shortcomings in current law. Here are four crucial points that got discussed."

[Job Position] Open Data and Knowledge Manager; Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh

[Job Position] Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh; Open Data and Knowledge Manager:

"POSITION TITLE: Open Data and Knowledge Manager

LOCATION: CLP- Main

POSTING DATE: October 30, 2015

REQUISITION NUMBER: 151123

Job Summary: Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh has a strong interest in using data to achieve our strategic goals and mission. The candidate is responsible for helping CLP staff treat information as an organizational asset, bootstrapping a unified data repository and working to ensure consistent, reliable, and easily accessible sources of library data. The candidate will help make strategic decisions in how the library creates, structures, manages, shares, and uses information, assisting CLP staff to incorporate data literacy into public service. The candidate will develop and update a series of organizational metrics to track progress. The candidate will also collaborate with external stakeholders to use information to improve the communities we serve, and develop open data sets to aid in regional civic data projects."

2 Illegal Movie-Sharing Websites Are Closed; New York Times, 11/3/15

Michael Cieply, New York Times; 2 Illegal Movie-Sharing Websites Are Closed:

"Two websites that film companies said had jointly become a clearinghouse for illegal movie viewing were closed last month by orders from courts in Canada and New Zealand, the Motion Picture Association of America said on Tuesday.

The Popcorntime.io site, commonly referred to as Popcorn Time, was closed under an Oct. 16 order from the Federal Court in Ottawa. YTS.to, a BitTorrent site whose films were often reached through Popcorn Time, was closed under an interim injunction in a separate suit filed on Oct. 12 in the High Court of New Zealand, the M.P.A.A. said."

MPAA Adds New Rating To Warn Audiences Of Films Not Based On Existing Works; The Onion, 10/20/15

The Onion; MPAA Adds New Rating To Warn Audiences Of Films Not Based On Existing Works:

"“We recognize how distressing it can be when viewers go into a film and suddenly find themselves confronted with jarring scenes containing a protagonist they’ve never encountered before, which is precisely why we created this rating,” said Joan Graves, head of the MPAA’s ratings board, who said the new category was added in part due to the thousands of complaints the organization has received from moviegoers who were upset they weren’t given advance notice that they’d have to make sense of the scenarios unfolding onscreen. “It’s important that today’s movie fans are aware upon entering the theater that none of what they will see has been adapted from a well-known comic book, television series, novel, video game, historical event, previous movie, or theme park ride.”

“Ultimately, it will be up to the consumer’s discretion as to whether a film is suitable for themselves and their family, but the O rating will explicitly caution people that they will have to pay attention during the movie and follow the storyline on their own,” Graves added.

Though sources said films requiring the new rating are comparatively rare, a spate of high-profile movies over the past several years that do not stem from any previously existing source material—including The Kids Are All Right, Her, WALL-E, Birdman, and Nebraska, among others—have left many viewers angered and perplexed. Citing test audiences they have observed, MPAA officials said that many moviegoers spent the entirety of such films in a state of distress, waiting for the moment when the Incredible Hulk, Katniss Everdeen, Wolverine, or another recognizable character from an established franchise would appear onscreen and clarify the meaning and direction of the film."

‘Star Wars’ Doesn’t Belong to George Lucas. It Belongs to the Fans.; New York Times, 10/29/15

Manohla Dargis, New York Times; ‘Star Wars’ Doesn’t Belong to George Lucas. It Belongs to the Fans. :

"Mr. Lucas’s true genius may be in marketing, including of his vision. Like other filmmakers who came of age in the 1960s, when American directors became auteurs, he has strong views on authorship. In a 1997 interview with Wired, he addressed the studios’ and artists’ rights, arguing that a copyright should belong to “the artist” of a film and not the large corporation that owns it. “I solved the problem by owning my own copyright,” Mr. Lucas said, “so nobody can screw around with my stuff. Nobody can take ‘Star Wars’ and make Yoda walk, because I own it.” When asked about the changes that he had made to his earlier work, including to “Star Wars,” he said: “It’s my artistic vision. If I want to go back and change it, it’s my business, not somebody else’s.”...

Years before the popularization of the idea of participatory culture, a term for those who are at once pop-culture consumers and contributors, “Star Wars” fans had staked their claim on this world. That engagement sometimes took Mr. Lucas aback. “It’s always amazing to me when people take them so seriously,” he is quoted as saying in Dale Pollock’s essential book “Skywalking” (1983).

In the years since, Mr. Lucas has clearly embraced his destiny as a force. And while it may seem strange, given his hatred of the studios, that he sold Lucasfilm to Disney in 2012, he found it a perfect home. Mr. Lucas helped shape modern conglomerate cinema, to borrow a term from Mr. Schatz, but it was Disney that really pioneered cradle-to-grave entertainment. In 1929, Walt Disney sold the rights to use Mickey Mouse (soon called the “million dollar mouse”) on children’s writing tablets, signing his first licensing contract a year later. “The sale of a doll to any member of a household,” Roy Disney, Walt’s brother, said, “is a daily advertisement in that household for our cartoons and keeps them all ‘Mickey Mouse Minded.’ ”"

Appeals Court Rules 'Point Break' Parody Is Entitled to Copyright Protection; Hollywood Reporter, 10/30/15

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; Appeals Court Rules 'Point Break' Parody Is Entitled to Copyright Protection:

"On Friday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals took up a dispute that is a bit of a mind-bender and delivered an opinion that determines that a parody is entitled to copyright protection.

The dispute concerns playwright Jamie Keeling's theatrical adaptation of the 1991 film Point Break, which starred Keanu Reeves as a federal agent who goes undercover as a surfer. In the film, Reeves is unintentionally hysterical, so Keeling got the bright idea to have an audience member chosen at random to recite his lines.

The production company behind the live version stopped paying Keeling, did its own version, and took the position that that Keeling had no right to her script since it was based on the film. This set up the fascinating question of whether someone who creates a parody of copyrighted material could sue someone else who also is doing a parody.

In December 2012, after a judge said absolutely, a jury returned a $250,000 verdict in favor of Keeling. What followed was the appeal where 2nd Circuit judge Jose Cabranes decides that even an unauthorized work that makes fair use of source material is protected."

Victory for Users: Librarian of Congress Renews and Expands Protections for Fair Uses; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 10/27/15

Parker Higgins, Mitch Stoltz, Kit Walsh, Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Victory for Users: Librarian of Congress Renews and Expands Protections for Fair Uses:

"The new rules for exemptions to copyright's DRM-circumvention laws were issued today, and the Librarian of Congress has granted much of what EFF asked for over the course of months of extensive briefs and hearings. The exemptions we requested—ripping DVDs and Blurays for making fair use remixes and analysis; preserving video games and running multiplayer servers after publishers have abandoned them; jailbreaking cell phones, tablets, and other portable computing devices to run third party software; and security research and modification and repairs on cars—have each been accepted, subject to some important caveats.

The exemptions are needed thanks to a fundamentally flawed law that forbids users from breaking DRM, even if the purpose is a clearly lawful fair use. As software has become ubiquitous, so has DRM. Users often have to circumvent that DRM to make full use of their devices, from DVDs to games to smartphones and cars.

The law allows users to request exemptions for such lawful uses—but it doesn’t make it easy. Exemptions are granted through an elaborate rulemaking process that takes place every three years and places a heavy burden on EFF and the many other requesters who take part."

It's OK to hack your own car, US copyright authorities rule; Reuters via Guardian, 10/27/15

Reuters via Guardian; It's OK to hack your own car, US copyright authorities rule:

"Car owners and security experts can tinker with automobile software without incurring US copyright liability, according to newly issued guidelines that were opposed by the auto industry.

The Library of Congress, which oversees the US Copyright Office, agreed with fair use advocates who argued that vehicle owners are entitled to modify their cars, which often involves altering software."

Thanks to a landmark ruling, information just got a little more free; Atlantic, 10/20/15

Robinson Meyer, Atlantic; After 10 Years, Google Books Is Legal: Thanks to a landmark ruling, information just got a little more free:

"In other words, Google Books is legal.

And not only that, but the case is likely resolved for good. In 2012, a district court ruled that Hathitrust, a university consortium that used Google Books’s scans to make books accessible to blind students, was not only a legal form of fair use but also required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Experts say that the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear an appeal, because so many district court judges, and two different federal circuits, have found themselves so broadly in agreement about the nature of transformative use online.

“The Authors Guild is deluding itself to think that this is an area that is open and controversial in the view of the lower courts,” Grimmelmann said.

This isn’t only good news for fans of Google Books. It helps makes the legal boundaries of fair use clear to other organizations who may try to take advantage of it, including libraries and non-profits.

“It gives us a better senses of where fair use lies,” says Dan Cohen, the executive director of the Digital Public Library of America. They “give a firmer foundation and certainty for non-profits.”"

Strategic Plan 2016-2020 Public Draft: Positioning the United States Copyright Office for the Future; U.S. Copyright Office, 10/23/15

U.S. Copyright Office; Strategic Plan 2016-2020 Public Draft: Positioning the United States Copyright Office for the Future:

"Register of Copyrights Maria A. Pallante today released a public draft of the Copyright Office’s Strategic Plan, setting forth the Office’s performance objectives for the next five years.

Reflecting the results of four years of internal evaluations and public input, the Strategic Plan lays out a vision of a modern Copyright Office that is equal to the task of administering the Nation’s copyright laws effectively and efficiently both today and tomorrow. It will remain in draft form for 30 days to permit public feedback, and will take effect on December 1, 2015."