Supreme Court turns down EFF’s “Dancing Baby” fair use case; Ars Technica, June 19, 2017

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica, Supreme Court turns down EFF’s “Dancing Baby” fair use case

"The Supreme Court has decided not to take up the case of Lenz v. Universal, a ten-year-old copyright lawsuit initiated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that helped determine the boundaries of "fair use."

Today's order leaves standing an earlier ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. EFF called that ruling a "strong precedent," while at the same time acknowledging it did not go far enough...

Now that the 9th Circuit precedent stands, EFF will have to decide whether or not it wants to push forward with a jury trial. The damages boundaries have already been set by earlier judicial decisions, so Lenz wouldn't be able to get more than "nominal" damages. That wouldn't be much, since her video was removed for only a couple weeks and has remained up since, garnering more than 1.9 million views.

EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry said she's disappointed the Supreme Court didn't take the case, since DMCA abuse is "well-documented and all too common."...

At the end of the day, the Lenz case is a clear demonstration that Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which allows for lawsuits and damages against copyright owners, is unlikely to ever be a powerful tool. From a user's perspective, it's hard to imagine what could be a more clear case of fair use than the Lenz video, which features less than 40 seconds of staticky-sounding background music. If copyright owners can say they satisfied the legal requirement by saying, "We considered fair use, but didn't see it," then not much can stop them from basically blowing off 512(f). Few future plaintiffs will be able to summon the legal resources that Lenz did."

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

Julieta Chiquillo, Dallas Morning News; 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name In Trademark Dispute; NPR, June 19, 2017

Bill Chappell, NPR; The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name In Trademark Dispute

[Kip Currier: A big 8-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision for Asian American rock band The Slants today. I met The Slants at an April 27, 2017 event, hosted by Duquesne University's School of Law and Mary Pappert School of Music, discussing conflicting aspects of U.S. trademark law (specifically, the Lanham Act's provision addressing "disparaging trademarks") and the 1st Amendment and freedom of expression. Some photos I took at that event:]

"Members of the Asian-American rock band The Slants have the right to call themselves by a disparaging name, the Supreme Court says, in a ruling that could have broad impact on how the First Amendment is applied in other trademark cases."

Amazon has a patent to keep you from comparison shopping while you’re in its stores; Washington Post, June 16, 2017

Brian Fung, Washington Post; Amazon has a patent to keep you from comparison shopping while you’re in its stores

"Amazon was awarded a patent May 30 that could help it choke off a common issue faced by many physical stores: Customers’ use of smartphones to compare prices even as they walk around a shop. The phenomenon, often known as mobile “window shopping,” has contributed to a worrisome decline for traditional retailers.

But Amazon now has the technology to prevent that type of behavior when customers enter any of its physical stores and log onto the WiFi networks there. Titled “Physical Store Online Shopping Control,” Amazon’s patent describes a system that can identify a customer’s Internet traffic and sense when the smartphone user is trying to access a competitor’s website. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos is also the owner of The Washington Post.)...

Just because a company wins a patent doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll use it. Sometimes companies file for patents to ensure they have the option to put the idea into practice later, or to keep other companies from implementing the concept. So, a system such as the kind Amazon’s envisioning might never be rolled out. And even if it is, chances are shoppers could still get around the system by staying off the in-store WiFi."

114-year-old Taj Palace becomes first Indian building to get trademark; The Times of India, June 19, 2017

Reeba Zachariah & Vipashana V K, The Times of India; 114-year-old Taj Palace becomes first Indian building to get trademark

"MUMBAI: The iconic Taj Mahal Palace in Mumbai has just got itself trademarked. This makes the 114-year-old building the first in the country to get such a registration. The hotel, which has been a defining structure of Mumbai's skyline, has joined the elite and small club of trademarked properties in the world which includes the Empire State Building in New York, the Eiffel Tower in Paris and Sydney Opera House.

Usually, logos, brand names, combination of colours, numerals and even sounds are trademarked but the registration of an architectural design has never been attempted since the Trademark Act came into force in 1999."

European court of justice rules Pirate Bay is infringing copyright; Guardian, June 15, 2017

Alex Hern, Guardian; European court of justice rules Pirate Bay is infringing copyright

"The European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled that BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay is directly infringing copyright, in a move that could lead to ISPs and governments blocking access to other torrent sites across Europe.

The ruling comes after a seven-year legal battle, which has seen the site, founded in Sweden in 2003, blocked and seized, its offices raided, and its three founders fined and jailed."