, The New York Times; U.S. Accuses Harvard Scientist of Concealing Chinese Funding
“Charles M. Lieber, the chair of Harvard’s
department of chemistry and chemical biology, was charged on Tuesday with
making false statements about money he had received from a Chinese
government-run program, part of a broad-ranging F.B.I. effort to
root out theft of biomedical research from American laboratories.
Dr. Lieber, a leader in the field of nanoscale electronics, was one of three
Boston-area scientists accused on Tuesday of working on behalf of China. His
case involves work with the Thousand Talents Program, a state-run program that
seeks to draw talent educated in other countries.
American officials are investigating hundreds of cases of suspected theft of
intellectual property by visiting scientists, nearly all of them Chinese
nationals or of Chinese descent. Some are accused of obtaining patents in China
based on work that is funded by the United States government, and others of
setting up laboratories in China that secretly duplicated American research.”
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Kobe Bryant filed 'Mambacita' trademark for his daughter Gianna in December; CBS Sports, January 28, 2020
Chris Bengel
, CBS Sports; Kobe Bryant filed 'Mambacita' trademark for his daughter Gianna in December
"Kobe Bryant was proud to be a father and was even planning the future of his 13-year old daughter, Gianna, before their deaths. According to People Magazine, Bryant filed to trademark the nickname "Mambacita" for his daughter, and planned to use the nickname on athletic clothing.
The trademark was reportedly filed on Dec. 30, 2019 by Kobe Inc., which was a company that Bryant founded back in 2014. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Bryant's trademark is still pending.
Of course, "Mambacita" is derived from Bryant's nickname "Black Mamba," which was used as the Lakers legened's alter ego throughout the second half of his NBA career."
"Kobe Bryant was proud to be a father and was even planning the future of his 13-year old daughter, Gianna, before their deaths. According to People Magazine, Bryant filed to trademark the nickname "Mambacita" for his daughter, and planned to use the nickname on athletic clothing.
The trademark was reportedly filed on Dec. 30, 2019 by Kobe Inc., which was a company that Bryant founded back in 2014. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Bryant's trademark is still pending.
Of course, "Mambacita" is derived from Bryant's nickname "Black Mamba," which was used as the Lakers legened's alter ego throughout the second half of his NBA career."
The Decade In Trademark Litigation; Above The Law, January 28, 2020
Gaston Kroub, Above The Law;
"Considering that we are starting a new decade while continuing to face such questions as “Are We Running Out of Trademarks?,” I thought it would be a good idea to first look at what existing trademark owners did with the trademarks they had last decade. If only because that is easier to quantify for a practitioner than existential challenges to the “assumption that there exists an inexhaustible supply of unclaimed trademarks that are at least as competitively effective as those already claimed.” The latter issue is in the capable hands of Professors Beebe (who I was lucky enough to take Trademarks with in law school) and Fromer, who along with their academic colleagues have contributed mightily to our understanding of where trademark law can and may be going in the near future. But my aims for this column are more prosaic, because I think there is still a lot we can learn from looking at the decade past at a macro level, especially in as fragmented a field as trademark litigation."
The Decade In Trademark Litigation
"Considering that we are starting a new decade while continuing to face such questions as “Are We Running Out of Trademarks?,” I thought it would be a good idea to first look at what existing trademark owners did with the trademarks they had last decade. If only because that is easier to quantify for a practitioner than existential challenges to the “assumption that there exists an inexhaustible supply of unclaimed trademarks that are at least as competitively effective as those already claimed.” The latter issue is in the capable hands of Professors Beebe (who I was lucky enough to take Trademarks with in law school) and Fromer, who along with their academic colleagues have contributed mightily to our understanding of where trademark law can and may be going in the near future. But my aims for this column are more prosaic, because I think there is still a lot we can learn from looking at the decade past at a macro level, especially in as fragmented a field as trademark litigation."
Our privacy doomsday could come sooner than we think; The Washington Post, January 23, 2020
, The Washington Post; Our privacy doomsday could come sooner than we think
"The
case underscores with greater vigor than ever the need for restrictions
on facial recognition technology. But putting limits on what the police
or private businesses can do with a tool such as Clearview’s won’t stop
bad actors from breaking them. There also need to be limits on whether a
tool such as Clearview’s can exist in this country in the first place.
Top
platforms’ policies generally prohibit the sort of data-scraping
Clearview has engaged in, but it’s difficult for a company to protect information that’s on the open Web. Courts have also ruled against platforms
when they have tried to go after scrapers under existing copyright or
computer fraud law — and understandably, as too-onerous restrictions
could hurt journalists and public-interest groups.
Privacy legislation is a more promising area for action, to prevent third parties
including
Clearview from assembling databases such as these in the first
place, whether they’re filled with faces or location records or credit
scores. That will take exactly the robust federal framework Congress has
so far failed to provide, and a government that’s ready to enforce it."
Article 13: UK will not implement EU copyright law; BBC News, January 24, 2020
BBC News; Article 13: UK will not implement EU copyright law
Several companies have criticised the law, which would hold them accountable for not removing copyrighted content uploaded by users, if it is passed.
EU member states have until 7 June 2021 to implement the new reforms, but the UK will have left the EU by then.
The UK was among 19 nations that initially supported the law.
That was in its final European Council vote in April 2019."
"Universities and Science Minister
Chris Skidmore has said that the UK will not implement the EU Copyright
Directive after the country leaves the EU.
Several companies have criticised the law, which would hold them accountable for not removing copyrighted content uploaded by users, if it is passed.
EU member states have until 7 June 2021 to implement the new reforms, but the UK will have left the EU by then.
The UK was among 19 nations that initially supported the law.
That was in its final European Council vote in April 2019."
Friday, January 24, 2020
America’s Innovators Need Clear Patent Laws; Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2020
"America is the world’s leader in technological innovation, and that’s unlikely to change. But in the global economy, information and investments flow instantaneously, and America’s most important asset--intellectual property--is easily copied and counterfeited.
Making matters worse, a string of court decisions have weakened U.S. intellectual property rights."
In serving big company interests, copyright is in crisis; BoingBoing, January 22, 2020
, BoingBoing; In serving big company interests, copyright is in crisis
"One of the biggest problems with copyright in the digital era is that we expect people who aren't in the entertainment industry to understand and abide by its rules: it's no more realistic to expect a casual reader to understand and abide by a long, technical copyright license in order to enjoy a novel than it is to expect a parent to understand securities law before they pay their kid's allowance."
"One of the biggest problems with copyright in the digital era is that we expect people who aren't in the entertainment industry to understand and abide by its rules: it's no more realistic to expect a casual reader to understand and abide by a long, technical copyright license in order to enjoy a novel than it is to expect a parent to understand securities law before they pay their kid's allowance."
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Keeping digitised works in the public domain: how the copyright directive makes it a reality; Europeana Pro, January 21, 2020
Andrea Wallace, Ariadna Matas, Europeana Pro; Keeping digitised works in the public domain: how the copyright directive makes it a reality
"The principle that works in the public domain should remain in the public domain once digitised, which Europeana has defended for almost ten years, was recently incorporated into European law. In this post, we interview Andrea Wallace, Lecturer in Law at the University of Exeter, about the importance of this provision for the cultural heritage sector and her research on Article 14.
Because of this, cultural heritage institutions, picture library agencies, and other owners have been able to build business models around claiming copyright in public domain reproductions and charging the public a fee to use the images. But this has the effect of excluding the public from accessing out-of-copyright artworks, and it contradicts the rationale underlying the expiration of copyright and a work passing into the public domain. The public domain should be available for everyone to use for whatever purpose: to make new cultural goods, generate new knowledge, and so on."
"The principle that works in the public domain should remain in the public domain once digitised, which Europeana has defended for almost ten years, was recently incorporated into European law. In this post, we interview Andrea Wallace, Lecturer in Law at the University of Exeter, about the importance of this provision for the cultural heritage sector and her research on Article 14.
For several years, Europeana – through its policies, standards, and
communications – has advocated against the practice of institutions
using Creative Commons licences on digital copies or surrogates of a
work, when the original is out of copyright and they are neither the
creators nor rightsholders. Our Public Domain Charter
establishes that in order to achieve a healthy and thriving public
domain, digitising a public domain work should not take it back to being
protected and non-reusable. There is a danger of undermining the public
domain, a central principle in copyright law.
After working to raise awareness on the issue, Europeana celebrates the adoption of Article 14 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive.
This provision establishes that works of visual arts in the public
domain shall remain in the public domain once digitised, unless the
digitisation is original enough that it can attract copyright
protection. All 28 member states will have to adopt it and make it
national law (by June 2021). Andrea Wallace, together with Ellen Euler, has been researching the Article and its implications.
What issue is Article 14 trying to address?
Article
14 confronts the long-standing practice of claiming a copyright in
non-original reproductions of public domain works. To attract
protection, a work has to be sufficiently 'original' under copyright
law. For a while now, there has been a lack of binding legal authority
on whether reproductions of public domain works, like photographs of
public domain paintings, are original enough to attract their own
copyright.
Because of this, cultural heritage institutions, picture library agencies, and other owners have been able to build business models around claiming copyright in public domain reproductions and charging the public a fee to use the images. But this has the effect of excluding the public from accessing out-of-copyright artworks, and it contradicts the rationale underlying the expiration of copyright and a work passing into the public domain. The public domain should be available for everyone to use for whatever purpose: to make new cultural goods, generate new knowledge, and so on."
Sharing the love: OSU librarian works to increase educational resources for students and faculty; O'Colly, January 16, 2020
, O'Colly; Sharing the love: OSU librarian works to increase educational resources for students and faculty
"As the cost of textbooks rises, students are forced to either comply with textbook companies and buy their product or turn to their classmates and share resources...
Christian Maldonado is also a junior, but he hasn’t had a class with an OER. He said that while he thinks they would help him in college, he can see why some classes still don’t use them.
“I can see points on both sides,” Maldonado said. “The author who wrote [the textbook] is selling a product, so they are entitled to set the price.”"
"As the cost of textbooks rises, students are forced to either comply with textbook companies and buy their product or turn to their classmates and share resources...
Christian Maldonado is also a junior, but he hasn’t had a class with an OER. He said that while he thinks they would help him in college, he can see why some classes still don’t use them.
“I can see points on both sides,” Maldonado said. “The author who wrote [the textbook] is selling a product, so they are entitled to set the price.”"
Provost’s office accepting OER grant applications; The Pitt News, January 16, 2020
Provost’s office accepting OER grant applications
"The University is accepting proposals from faculty until Feb. 19 for projects to adapt, adopt or create open education resources for current course offerings.
The third iteration of the funding program is part of a series of initiatives run by Provost Ann Cudd’s office to encourage the use of OERs. OERs are course materials like textbooks, lab notebooks and videos that are free for Pitt students and allow for legal adaptation and open use with attribution to the original author. They are typically free or less expensive than traditional textbooks.
Faculty can apply for smaller grants, ranging from $500 to $2,000, to adopt or adapt an open textbook or OER course component such as online homework, lab manuals or support materials. Larger grants, between $2,000 and $5,000, are available to support individual or team-based development of open textbooks, or combining an open textbook with course-specific development."
"The University is accepting proposals from faculty until Feb. 19 for projects to adapt, adopt or create open education resources for current course offerings.
The third iteration of the funding program is part of a series of initiatives run by Provost Ann Cudd’s office to encourage the use of OERs. OERs are course materials like textbooks, lab notebooks and videos that are free for Pitt students and allow for legal adaptation and open use with attribution to the original author. They are typically free or less expensive than traditional textbooks.
Faculty can apply for smaller grants, ranging from $500 to $2,000, to adopt or adapt an open textbook or OER course component such as online homework, lab manuals or support materials. Larger grants, between $2,000 and $5,000, are available to support individual or team-based development of open textbooks, or combining an open textbook with course-specific development."
Buying textbooks: 'A sense of desperation'; The Exponent (Purdue University), January 23, 2020
Joseph Ching, The Exponent (Purdue University); Buying textbooks: 'A sense of desperation'
"[Justin] Race [director of the Purdue University Press] said a major misconception is that people who purchase a physical book are buying the actual book itself. By this logic, online content would be inherently free.
“It’s much better to think of it as, ‘I am buying the intellectual property,’” Race said. “The distilled expertise by a scholar, the copy editing, proofreading, the design, the cover design — and not so much for the paper and binding.”
Purdue Libraries is in the early stages of its Open Bytes project, a partnership with the College of Engineering to create educational resources accessible to the world. These resources include textbooks, lecture notes and case studies available beginning mid-2020, according to a University press release."
"[Justin] Race [director of the Purdue University Press] said a major misconception is that people who purchase a physical book are buying the actual book itself. By this logic, online content would be inherently free.
“It’s much better to think of it as, ‘I am buying the intellectual property,’” Race said. “The distilled expertise by a scholar, the copy editing, proofreading, the design, the cover design — and not so much for the paper and binding.”
Purdue Libraries is in the early stages of its Open Bytes project, a partnership with the College of Engineering to create educational resources accessible to the world. These resources include textbooks, lecture notes and case studies available beginning mid-2020, according to a University press release."
State Fair Corny Dog Icon Fletcher’s Wins Messy Family Trademark Battle; Eater Dallas, January 21, 2020
Eater Dallas; State Fair Corny Dog Icon Fletcher’s Wins Messy Family Trademark Battle
"Perhaps most damningly, the judge ruled that Fletcher’s Original State Fair Corny Dogs was able to produce evidence that it was actually losing business because of the confusion caused over Fletch’s name. “Fletcher’s submitted evidence showing that it has lost potential business at several venues because Fletch was selected when the venue thought it had hired Fletcher’s,” the order reads. “Based on all of this evidence, Fletcher’s has met its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm.""
"Perhaps most damningly, the judge ruled that Fletcher’s Original State Fair Corny Dogs was able to produce evidence that it was actually losing business because of the confusion caused over Fletch’s name. “Fletcher’s submitted evidence showing that it has lost potential business at several venues because Fletch was selected when the venue thought it had hired Fletcher’s,” the order reads. “Based on all of this evidence, Fletcher’s has met its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm.""
Everyone invited: `Great Gatsby’ copyright to end in 2021; Associated Press, January 22, 2020
Hillel Italie, Associated Press; Everyone invited: `Great Gatsby’ copyright to end in 2021
"The novel’s copyright is set to expire at the end of 2020, meaning that anyone will be allowed to publish the book, adapt it to a movie, make it into an opera or stage a Broadway musical. No longer will you need to permission to write a sequel, a prequel, a Jay Gatsby detective novel or a Gatsby narrative populated with Zombies."
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
It’s Copyright Week 2020: Stand Up for Copyright Laws That Actually Serve Us All; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 20, 2020
Katharine Trendacosta, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); It’s Copyright Week 2020: Stand Up for Copyright Laws That Actually Serve Us All
"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, addressing what's at stake and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation...
We continue to fight for a version of copyright that does what it is supposed to. And so, every year, EFF and a number of diverse organizations participate in Copyright Week. Each year, we pick five copyright issues to highlight and advocate a set of principles of copyright law. This year’s issues are:
As we said last year, and the year before that, if you too stand behind these principles, please join us by supporting them, sharing them, and telling your lawmakers you want to see copyright law reflect them."
"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, addressing what's at stake and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation...
We continue to fight for a version of copyright that does what it is supposed to. And so, every year, EFF and a number of diverse organizations participate in Copyright Week. Each year, we pick five copyright issues to highlight and advocate a set of principles of copyright law. This year’s issues are:
- Monday: Fair Use and Creativity
Copyright policy should encourage creativity, not hamper it. Fair use makes it possible for us to comment, criticize, and rework our common culture. - Tuesday: Copyright and Competition
Copyright should not be used to control knowledge, creativity, or the ability to tinker with or repair your own devices. Copyright should encourage more people to share, make, or repair things, rather than concentrate that power in only a few players. - Wednesday: Remedies
Copyright claims should not raise the specter of huge, unpredictable judgments that discourage important uses of creative work. Copyright should have balanced remedies that also provide a real path for deterring bad-faith claims. - Thursday: The Public Domain
The public domain is our cultural commons and a crucial resource for innovation and access to knowledge. Copyright should strive to promote, and not diminish, a robust, accessible public domain. - Friday: Copyright and Democracy
Copyright must be set through a participatory, democratic, and transparent process. It should not be decided through back-room deals, secret international agreements, unaccountable bureaucracies, or unilateral attempts to apply national laws extraterritorially.
As we said last year, and the year before that, if you too stand behind these principles, please join us by supporting them, sharing them, and telling your lawmakers you want to see copyright law reflect them."
Listening Session on Appointment of Next Register of Copyrights; The Library of Congress, January 2020
The Library of Congress
"Listening Session on Appointment of Next Register of Copyrights
At 10:00 AM on Tuesday at the Library of Congress, Madison Building, 101 Independence Ave. SE, Mumford Room (LM-649), Washington, D.C. 20540.
On January 5, Maria Strong’s tenure as Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office began a few weeks after her appointment by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden. This event will be the first of two listening sessions hosted by the Library of Congress this week to explore the appointment of the next Register of Copyrights to take over the position full-time after Karyn Temple stepped away from the Copyright Office in December. The session will feature a briefing from Librarian Hayden and Copyright Office staff on the selection process and will include time for comments and questions from attendees."
"Listening Session on Appointment of Next Register of Copyrights
At 10:00 AM on Tuesday at the Library of Congress, Madison Building, 101 Independence Ave. SE, Mumford Room (LM-649), Washington, D.C. 20540.
On January 5, Maria Strong’s tenure as Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office began a few weeks after her appointment by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden. This event will be the first of two listening sessions hosted by the Library of Congress this week to explore the appointment of the next Register of Copyrights to take over the position full-time after Karyn Temple stepped away from the Copyright Office in December. The session will feature a briefing from Librarian Hayden and Copyright Office staff on the selection process and will include time for comments and questions from attendees."
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits; The Rolling Stone, January 9, 2020
Amy X. Wang, The Rolling Stone;
How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits
"Artists, songwriters, producers, and labels are now awaiting the next Zeppelin verdict, with many hoping that a judgment in Page and Plant’s favor could unwind some of the headache-inducing ambiguity introduced by the “Blurred Lines” ruling. Others see the case, which has a chance of going all the way up to the Supreme Court, as a reopening of Pandora’s box. Will the latest ruling clarify the scope of music copyright — or muddy it even further? “At what point is an element of creative expression protectable?” says media intellectual-property attorney Wesley Lewis. “Litigators are all hoping for more clarity.”"
A Tool That Removes Copyrighted Works Is Not a Substitute for Fair Use; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 20, 2020
Katharine Trendacosta, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);
"By making eliminating material flagged by Content ID so easy—just click here!—and making challenging matches so perilous, YouTube has put its thumb on the scale against fair use and in favor of copyright abuse. That thumb gets especially heavy given how few real alternatives to YouTube exist.
Hosting creative content should mean a robust commitment to fair use. Fair use enriches our culture and our understanding of it. It is what ensures that copyright doesn’t strangle free expression and creativity. Subtle reinforcement of anti-fair use ideas enacted by private companies, done by the largest players in the ecosystem, does real damage."
A Tool That Removes Copyrighted Works Is Not a Substitute for Fair Use
"By making eliminating material flagged by Content ID so easy—just click here!—and making challenging matches so perilous, YouTube has put its thumb on the scale against fair use and in favor of copyright abuse. That thumb gets especially heavy given how few real alternatives to YouTube exist.
Hosting creative content should mean a robust commitment to fair use. Fair use enriches our culture and our understanding of it. It is what ensures that copyright doesn’t strangle free expression and creativity. Subtle reinforcement of anti-fair use ideas enacted by private companies, done by the largest players in the ecosystem, does real damage."
Here’s How The Supreme Court Can Stop Google From Stealing People’s Ideas; The Federalist, January 17, 2020
David Hogberg, The Federalist;
"Google has long abused intellectual property protections and thus far managed to skirt any severe negative repercussions for it. But the tech giant may soon be held responsible for its borderline illegal behavior.
The Supreme Court will rule this year on Google v. Oracle, a case some say is the copyright case of the century. When it does, it will have the opportunity to rein in both Google and the legal doctrine of “transformative use,” an abuse of the “fair use” exceptions to copyright laws."
Here’s How The Supreme Court Can Stop Google From Stealing People’s Ideas
The Supreme Court will rule this year on
Google v. Oracle, and when it does, it can rein in both Google and the
legal doctrine of 'transformative use,' an abuse of the 'fair use'
exceptions to copyright laws.
"Google has long abused intellectual property protections and thus far managed to skirt any severe negative repercussions for it. But the tech giant may soon be held responsible for its borderline illegal behavior.
The Supreme Court will rule this year on Google v. Oracle, a case some say is the copyright case of the century. When it does, it will have the opportunity to rein in both Google and the legal doctrine of “transformative use,” an abuse of the “fair use” exceptions to copyright laws."
EFF Asks Supreme Court To Reverse Dangerous Rulings About API Copyrightability and Fair Use; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 13, 2020
Press Release, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that functional aspects of Oracle’s Java programming language are not copyrightable, and even if they were, employing them to create new computer code falls under fair use protections.
The court is reviewing a long-running lawsuit Oracle filed against Google, which claimed that Google’s use of certain Java application programming interfaces (APIs) in its Android operating system violated Oracle’s copyrights. The case has far-reaching implications for innovation in software development, competition, and interoperability.
In a brief filed today, EFF argues that the Federal Circuit, in ruling APIs were copyrightable, ignored clear and specific language in the copyright statute that excludes copyright protection for procedures, processes, and methods of operation."
EFF Asks Supreme Court To Reverse Dangerous Rulings About API Copyrightability and Fair Use
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that functional aspects of Oracle’s Java programming language are not copyrightable, and even if they were, employing them to create new computer code falls under fair use protections.
The court is reviewing a long-running lawsuit Oracle filed against Google, which claimed that Google’s use of certain Java application programming interfaces (APIs) in its Android operating system violated Oracle’s copyrights. The case has far-reaching implications for innovation in software development, competition, and interoperability.
In a brief filed today, EFF argues that the Federal Circuit, in ruling APIs were copyrightable, ignored clear and specific language in the copyright statute that excludes copyright protection for procedures, processes, and methods of operation."
Sunday, January 19, 2020
The National Archives was wrong to alter history. Fortunately, it reversed course.; The Washington Post, January 18, 2020
, The Washington Post; The National Archives was wrong to alter history. Fortunately, it reversed course.
"This editorial has been updated.
And
how reassuring to read the Archives’ forthright — and, for Washington,
extraordinary — statement on Saturday: “We made a mistake. . . . We have
removed the current display. . . . We apologize.”
The Post’s Joe Heim reported
Friday that the Archives made numerous alterations to a photograph
included in an exhibit dedicated to the 100th anniversary of women’s
suffrage. The photo shows the massively attended Women’s March held in
January 2017 to protest President Trump’s inauguration. But Archives
curators altered signs being carried by the women to delete references
to Mr. Trump — and thereby they seriously distorted the meaning of the
event. “A placard that proclaims ‘God Hates Trump’ has ‘Trump’ blotted
out so that it reads ‘God Hates,’ ” The Post reported. But “God Hates”
was not the message of the protester carrying that sign. Another sign
that reads “Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women” has the word ‘Trump”
blurred out.
In
their initial weak defense, Archives officials noted that they had not
altered articles they preserve for safekeeping, only a photograph for a
temporary exhibit. We did not find that reassuring, as we said in the
first published version of this editorial. Photo alteration long has
been the preserve of authoritarian governments, most famously Soviet
dictator Josef Stalin, who erased comrades from historical photographs one by one as he had them executed.
The
United States government should never play the same game, even on a
small scale. The goal in this case may have been not to irritate the
snowflake in chief residing up Pennsylvania Avenue from the Archives.
After all, the Women’s March harks back to one of the foundational lies
of the Trump presidency, when he falsely insisted, and insisted that his
officials likewise falsely insist, that his inauguration crowd was the
largest of all time. Mr. Trump’s refusal to back down then set the
pattern for his presidency: Lies are acceptable, and evidence can be
ignored.
Rather
than remind anyone of such unpleasantness, the Archives chose to
falsify history and pretend that the Women’s March had nothing to do
with Mr. Trump. That, as we wrote, offered a terrible lesson to young
visitors to the exhibit about how democracies deal with news, with
history — with truth.
Now
the Archives has presented a far more uplifting lesson. Admitting and
correcting a mistake are usually a lot harder for any of us than erring
in the first place. But in their statement, officials did not flinch.
The Archives will replace the altered image “as soon as possible with
one that uses the unaltered image. We apologize, and will immediately
start a thorough review of our exhibit policies and procedures so that
this does not happen again.”
Good for them."
The Washington Post; National Archives says it was wrong to alter images; The Washington Post, January 18, 2020
and , The Washington Post; National Archives says it was wrong to alter images
"Officials
at the National Archives on Saturday said they had removed from display
an altered photo from the 2017 Women’s March in which signs held by
marchers critical of President Trump had been blurred.
In tweets on Saturday, the museum apologized and said: “We made a mistake.”
“As
the National Archives of the United States, we are and have always been
completely committed to preserving our archival holdings, without
alteration,” one of the tweets said.
“This
photo is not an archival record held by the @usnatarchives, but one we
licensed to use as a promotional graphic,” it said in another tweet.
“Nonetheless, we were wrong to alter the image.”...
Marchers in the 2017 photograph by Mario Tama of Getty Images were shown
carrying a variety of signs, at least four of which were altered by the
museum. A placard that proclaimed “God Hates Trump” had Trump blotted
out so that it read “God Hates.” A sign that read “Trump & GOP —
Hands Off Women” had the word Trump blurred. Signs with messages that
referenced women’s anatomy were also digitally altered."
The National Archives used to stand for independence. That mission has been compromised.; The Washington Posty, January 18, 2020
, The Washington Post; The National Archives used to stand for independence. That mission has been compromised.
"Now the Archives has foolishly compromised the public’s sense of its independence, so artfully embedded in its landmark building. By blurring out details from protest signs
in an image of the 2017 Women’s March, including the name of President
Trump and references to the female anatomy — a decision the Archives
publicly apologized for
on Saturday — it has damaged the faith many Americans, particularly
women, may have had in its role as an impartial conservator of the
nation’s records. It has unnecessarily squandered something that cannot
easily be regained.
There must be consequences.
An
Archives spokeswoman told The Washington Post the changes to a
large-format image included in an exhibition about women’s suffrage were
made “so as not to engage in current political controversy.” If that
was the intent, they obviously failed, embroiling the institution in
exactly the controversy they say they wanted to avoid. But no matter the
proferred explanation or statement of apology,
the decision indicates a lack of leadership and distinct confusion
about the mission at the Archives. If the Archives wants to teach
Americans about history, then it must be scrupulously honest in its
presentation of all documentary evidence."
Saturday, January 18, 2020
National Archives exhibit blurs images critical of President Trump; The Washington Post, January 17, 2020
, The Washington Post; National Archives exhibit blurs images critical of President Trump
""There's no reason for the National Archives to ever digitally alter a
historic photograph," Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley said.
"If they don't want to use a specific image, then don't use it. But to
confuse the public is reprehensible. The head of the Archives has to
very quickly fix this damage. A lot of history is messy, and there's
zero reason why the Archives can't be upfront about a photo from a
women's march."...
Karin
Wulf, a history professor at the College of William & Mary and
executive director of the Omohundro Institute of Early American History
and Culture, said that to ensure transparency, the Archives at the very
least should have noted prominently that the photo had been altered.
"The
Archives has always been self-conscious about its responsibility to
educate about source material, and in this case they could have said, or
should have said, 'We edited this image in the following way for the
following reasons,' " she said. "If you don't have transparency and
integrity in government documents, democracy doesn't function.""
Textbooks are pricey. So students are getting creative.; The Washington Post, January 17, 2020
, The Washington Post; Textbooks are pricey. So students are getting creative.
"The exact toll taken by college textbook costs is in dispute. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
shows that even as tuition has risen, no cost of college life has
increased faster than textbooks. The bureau found that book prices rose
88 percent between 2006 and 2016, and the College Board — which
administers the SAT exam — reported that students budget more than $1,200 each year for textbooks and other class supplies, including technology.
Student
Monitor, a New Jersey research firm, has published a much lower
estimate for student textbook costs — about $500 annually — and said
student spending has been on the decline...
George Mason and hundreds of campuses throughout the country — including
American University and the University of Maryland — are slowly
adopting open educational resources, materials that are written by
academics for the public domain and available at no cost to students and
professors."
Missouri could jail librarians for lending 'age-inappropriate' books; The Guardian, January 16, 2020
Alison Flood, The Guardian; Missouri could jail librarians for lending 'age-inappropriate' books
"A Missouri bill intended to bar libraries in the US state from stocking “age-inappropriate sexual material” for children has been described by critics as “a shockingly transparent attempt to legalise book banning” that could land librarians who refuse to comply with it in jail.
Under the parental oversight of public libraries bill, which has been proposed by Missouri Republican Ben Baker, panels of parents would be elected to evaluate whether books are appropriate for children. Public hearings would then be held by the boards to ask for suggestions of potentially inappropriate books, with public libraries that allow minors access to such titles to have their funding stripped. Librarians who refuse to comply could be fined and imprisoned for up to one year."
"A Missouri bill intended to bar libraries in the US state from stocking “age-inappropriate sexual material” for children has been described by critics as “a shockingly transparent attempt to legalise book banning” that could land librarians who refuse to comply with it in jail.
Under the parental oversight of public libraries bill, which has been proposed by Missouri Republican Ben Baker, panels of parents would be elected to evaluate whether books are appropriate for children. Public hearings would then be held by the boards to ask for suggestions of potentially inappropriate books, with public libraries that allow minors access to such titles to have their funding stripped. Librarians who refuse to comply could be fined and imprisoned for up to one year."
Can R.E.M. stop Trump campaign from playing its songs at rallies?; CBS News, January 17, 2020
Kate Gibson, CBS News; Can R.E.M. stop Trump campaign from playing its songs at rallies?
"As R.E.M. threatens legal action to stop President Donald Trump from playing its classic hit songs at campaign rallies, the iconic band joins other musicians who have objected to their work serving as backdrops for politicians. Legal experts say artists do have a say in how their music is used, but getting their day in court can be costly and take years to pursue."
"As R.E.M. threatens legal action to stop President Donald Trump from playing its classic hit songs at campaign rallies, the iconic band joins other musicians who have objected to their work serving as backdrops for politicians. Legal experts say artists do have a say in how their music is used, but getting their day in court can be costly and take years to pursue."
Thursday, January 16, 2020
AI Update: WIPO Begins Public Consultation Process on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy; Lexology, January 15, 2020
"The World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) recently announced a public consultation process on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy. As part of the consultation process, WIPO concurrently published and has requested feedback on a wide-ranging draft IP Policy and AI Issues Paper that is intended to help define the most pressing AI-related questions likely to face IP policy makers in the areas of patents, copyright, and data.
The Issues Paper follows other recent WIPO activity pertaining to AI-related IP issues. In January 2019 WIPO issued a publication that surveyed the landscape of AI innovation since the field first developed in the 1950s, and in September 2019 WIPO held a Conversation on IP and AI.
Recognizing the significance and potential implications of the intersection of AI and intellectual property, two of the leading patent offices have now requested public comment. As discussed in a previous blog, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a “Request for Comments on Patenting Artificial Intelligence Inventions” on August 27, 2019. The USPTO subsequently issued a “Request for Comments on Intellectual Property Protection for Artificial Intelligence Innovation” on October 30, 2019, in which it seeks comments on the copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property rights issues that may be impacted by AI."
Why Patents and Copyrights Matter; Ayn Rand Institute, Janaury 15, 2020
Why Patents and Copyrights Matter
"Why do patents and copyrights matter? What do they protect? What to make of the objections against them? For instance: that no one is really hurt by violations of copyrights or patents; or that these rights are obstacles to progress and innovation; or that they’re an unfair, government-granted privilege or favor?
To explore these issues, I talked to Professor Adam Mossoff, who teaches law at George Mason University. Mossoff is an expert on intellectual property law and policy, who has published extensively in academic journals and popular outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Politico, among many others. He has testified several times before the Senate and the House of Representatives."
"Why do patents and copyrights matter? What do they protect? What to make of the objections against them? For instance: that no one is really hurt by violations of copyrights or patents; or that these rights are obstacles to progress and innovation; or that they’re an unfair, government-granted privilege or favor?
To explore these issues, I talked to Professor Adam Mossoff, who teaches law at George Mason University. Mossoff is an expert on intellectual property law and policy, who has published extensively in academic journals and popular outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Politico, among many others. He has testified several times before the Senate and the House of Representatives."
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Brexit Update - January 2020; Dehns via Mondaq, January 15, 2020
Clare Mann, Dehns via Mondaq; Brexit Update - January 2020
"On 9 January 2020, MPs voted in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, the legislation which will implement the Government's proposed Withdrawal Agreement. The Bill has now passed to the House of Lords for further review and it is expected that the Withdrawal Agreement will be ratified by the European Parliament later this month.
The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 January 2020. Assuming the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified, an 11-month transition period until 31 December 2020 will commence immediately upon the UK's exit, during which the status quo will remain. EU trade mark registrations will continue to have legal effect in the UK during the transition period and UK trade mark attorneys will retain their rights of representation before the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
At the end of the transition period, EU trade marks which are fully registered will be automatically cloned in the UK by the creation of comparable UK national rights which will retain the EU filing dates (and any relevant priority/seniority dates). These national rights will be created by the UK Intellectual Property Office free-of-charge.
EU trade marks which are the subject of pending applications when the transition period ends will not be automatically cloned in the UK. Instead, their owners will have a period of nine months in which to re-file in the UK while retaining the EU filing date and, if appropriate, priority/seniority date(s). Regular official filing fees will apply."
"On 9 January 2020, MPs voted in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, the legislation which will implement the Government's proposed Withdrawal Agreement. The Bill has now passed to the House of Lords for further review and it is expected that the Withdrawal Agreement will be ratified by the European Parliament later this month.
The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 January 2020. Assuming the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified, an 11-month transition period until 31 December 2020 will commence immediately upon the UK's exit, during which the status quo will remain. EU trade mark registrations will continue to have legal effect in the UK during the transition period and UK trade mark attorneys will retain their rights of representation before the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
At the end of the transition period, EU trade marks which are fully registered will be automatically cloned in the UK by the creation of comparable UK national rights which will retain the EU filing dates (and any relevant priority/seniority dates). These national rights will be created by the UK Intellectual Property Office free-of-charge.
EU trade marks which are the subject of pending applications when the transition period ends will not be automatically cloned in the UK. Instead, their owners will have a period of nine months in which to re-file in the UK while retaining the EU filing date and, if appropriate, priority/seniority date(s). Regular official filing fees will apply."
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Maria Strong Appointed Acting Register of Copyrights; Publishers Weekly, December 18, 2019
Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Maria Strong Appointed Acting Register of Copyrights
"Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden has appointed
Maria Strong as acting register of Copyrights and director of the U.S.
Copyright Office, succeeding register of Copyrights Karyn Temple, who announced last week that she will be leaving the Copyright Office to accept a new position as the global general counsel of the Motion Picture Association. Strong's appointment will begin January 5, 2020.
Strong
has served as associate register of Copyrights and director of Policy
and International Affairs since April 23, 2019. She joined the Copyright
Office in 2010, and prior to that spent 19 years in private practice in
Washington, DC, representing clients from the media, technology, and
entertainment sectors. She began her legal career as a staff attorney at
the Federal Communications Commission."
Apple Lawsuit Against Cyber Startup Threatens ‘Dangerous’ Expansion Of Copyright Law; Forbes, January 13, 2020
Thomas Brewster, Forbes; Apple Lawsuit Against Cyber Startup Threatens ‘Dangerous’ Expansion Of Copyright Law
"As Apple and Corellium head towards mediation talks, the iPhone maker has been criticized for “dangerous” claims that the cybersecurity startup has broken copyright laws. Critics say the lawsuit could lead to an expansion of U.S. copyright law and legally endanger software creators and security researchers tinkering with Apple tech.
Corellium “virtualizes” Apple iPhones. In other words, it creates software-only versions of the devices, helping researchers and developers better test hacks or the functionality of apps. For instance, if a developer wanted to see whether their app crashes iOS or breaks a phone entirely, they won’t have to restart or buy a new iPhone if they can just spawn a new software version at speed.
But Apple believes this amounts to illegal replication of its famous phone."
"As Apple and Corellium head towards mediation talks, the iPhone maker has been criticized for “dangerous” claims that the cybersecurity startup has broken copyright laws. Critics say the lawsuit could lead to an expansion of U.S. copyright law and legally endanger software creators and security researchers tinkering with Apple tech.
Corellium “virtualizes” Apple iPhones. In other words, it creates software-only versions of the devices, helping researchers and developers better test hacks or the functionality of apps. For instance, if a developer wanted to see whether their app crashes iOS or breaks a phone entirely, they won’t have to restart or buy a new iPhone if they can just spawn a new software version at speed.
But Apple believes this amounts to illegal replication of its famous phone."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)