Clara Turnage, Chronicle of Higher Education; Elsevier Wins $15 Million in Copyright Suit Against Piracy Sites
"A federal court has ruled in favor of one of the world’s largest science publishers in its lawsuit against websites that provide free, pirated access to millions of scholarly-journal articles, Nature.com reported on Thursday.
In a judgment handed down this week, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the U.S. District Court in New York City ruled for the company, Elsevier, in the absence of any representatives of the defendants, which include Sci-Hub, LibGen, and related sites, and awarded the publisher $15 million in damages for copyright infringement."
Friday, June 23, 2017
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Paul Zukofsky, Prodigy Who Became, Uneasily, a Virtuoso Violinist, Dies at 73; New York Times, June 20, 2017
Margalit Fox, New York Times; Paul Zukofsky, Prodigy Who Became, Uneasily, a Virtuoso Violinist, Dies at 73
"He was also known to literary scholars as an ardent defender — too ardent, some said — of the intellectual property of his father, the American poet Louis Zukofsky...
Such behavior also colored Mr. Zukofsky’s guardianship of his father’s copyright. He denied some scholars the right to quote from Louis Zukofsky’s writings altogether. He granted others permission in exchange for payment — an unorthodox demand.
“I don’t think Paul knew anything at all about the academic world,” Mr. Quartermain said. “He was convinced that we were all busy making money on his father’s writings.”
In 2009, in an act that engendered astonishment and rage among scholars, Mr. Zukofsky escalated prevailing tensions by posting a manifesto on Z-site, the official online companion to Louis Zukofsky’s work. His manifesto — since removed — included these provisions:
• “You may not use LZ’s words as you see fit, as if you owned them, while you hide behind the rubric of ‘fair use.’ ”
• “For your own well-being, I urge you to not work on Louis Zukofsky, and prefer that you do not. Working on LZ will be far more trouble than it is worth.”
• “One line you may not cross i.e. never never ever tell me that your work is to be valued by me because it promotes my father. Doing that will earn my lifelong permanent enmity.”
Mr. Zukofsky made securing permission to quote his father so difficult, Mr. Quartermain said, that “I know of people who simply gave up” on Louis Zukofsky scholarship, “and one or two people who gave up on their academic careers, because they could not get anywhere: They’d done their Ph.D.’s and they wanted to publish, but they’d somehow offended Paul.”"
"He was also known to literary scholars as an ardent defender — too ardent, some said — of the intellectual property of his father, the American poet Louis Zukofsky...
Such behavior also colored Mr. Zukofsky’s guardianship of his father’s copyright. He denied some scholars the right to quote from Louis Zukofsky’s writings altogether. He granted others permission in exchange for payment — an unorthodox demand.
“I don’t think Paul knew anything at all about the academic world,” Mr. Quartermain said. “He was convinced that we were all busy making money on his father’s writings.”
In 2009, in an act that engendered astonishment and rage among scholars, Mr. Zukofsky escalated prevailing tensions by posting a manifesto on Z-site, the official online companion to Louis Zukofsky’s work. His manifesto — since removed — included these provisions:
• “You may not use LZ’s words as you see fit, as if you owned them, while you hide behind the rubric of ‘fair use.’ ”
• “For your own well-being, I urge you to not work on Louis Zukofsky, and prefer that you do not. Working on LZ will be far more trouble than it is worth.”
• “One line you may not cross i.e. never never ever tell me that your work is to be valued by me because it promotes my father. Doing that will earn my lifelong permanent enmity.”
Mr. Zukofsky made securing permission to quote his father so difficult, Mr. Quartermain said, that “I know of people who simply gave up” on Louis Zukofsky scholarship, “and one or two people who gave up on their academic careers, because they could not get anywhere: They’d done their Ph.D.’s and they wanted to publish, but they’d somehow offended Paul.”"
UM System announces plan to adopt open educational resources; Missourian, June 21, 2017
Gabriela Velasquez, Missourian; UM System announces plan to adopt open educational resources
"Open educational resources are published with open access copyrights, are free for students and can be distributed and used for little to no cost. Instructors also can write and add chapters to tailor textbooks to specific courses. They are accessed online, usually as PDFs, and can be revised and updated fairly quickly, according to previous Missourian reporting.
The UM System and MU will partner with OpenStax and with faculty members to develop open educational resources for students."
"Open educational resources are published with open access copyrights, are free for students and can be distributed and used for little to no cost. Instructors also can write and add chapters to tailor textbooks to specific courses. They are accessed online, usually as PDFs, and can be revised and updated fairly quickly, according to previous Missourian reporting.
The UM System and MU will partner with OpenStax and with faculty members to develop open educational resources for students."
4 Common Reasons for a Trademark Registration Refusal; JDSupra, June 22, 2017
Anderson Duff, JDSupra; 4 Common Reasons for a Trademark Registration Refusal
"When someone applies for a federal trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), it is possible for the trademark registration application to be refused. While this is often disappointing, it is possible to appeal a trademark registration refusal. An experienced trademark registration lawyer will be able to help you understand your trademark registration grounds for refusal and can help you try to overcome the refusal, either by providing evidence of secondary meaning associated with your trademark, or through the appeals process.
"When someone applies for a federal trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), it is possible for the trademark registration application to be refused. While this is often disappointing, it is possible to appeal a trademark registration refusal. An experienced trademark registration lawyer will be able to help you understand your trademark registration grounds for refusal and can help you try to overcome the refusal, either by providing evidence of secondary meaning associated with your trademark, or through the appeals process.
Most Common Grounds for Trademark Registration Refusal
There are several possible grounds for trademark registration refusal, which include:
- Likelihood of confusion with an existing registered trademark.
- The trademark is merely descriptive.
- The trademark is deceptively misdescriptive.
- The trademark is primarily merely a surname."
Patent Record Broken 2 Years in a Row; PittWire, June 21, 2017
PittWire; Patent Record Broken 2 Years in a Row
"Pitt innovators have been issued a total of 92 U.S. patents through May, already surpassing the previous record of 80...
"Pitt innovators have been issued a total of 92 U.S. patents through May, already surpassing the previous record of 80...
Along with the record-breaking fiscal year, in an overlapping measure of the University’s increasing strength in innovation, Pitt advanced into the top third of the Top 100 Worldwide Universities Granted U.S. Utility Patents Ranking for 2016.
Pitt moved up eight slots from last year to rank No. 27 — topping Duke University, Yale University and other top research institutions. The National Academy of Inventors and Intellectual Property Owners Association has published the ranking annually since 2013 to highlight the important role patents play in university research and innovation.
Those rankings are compiled by calculating the number of utility patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that list a university as the first assignee. Utility patents are issued for the invention of a new or improved useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and generally permit the owner to exclude others from making, using or selling the invention for a period of up to 20 years."
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Breaking: Gene Simmons Abandons Hand Gesture Trademark Application; Forbes, June 21, 2017
Ronald Abrams, Forbes; Breaking: Gene Simmons Abandons Hand Gesture Trademark Application
"Although images or stylized drawings of hand gestures can function and be registered as trademarks either by themselves or as part of a design mark, hand gestures in and of themselves cannot function as trademarks. And, even if they could, there would be no practical way to enforce the trademark against others (often referred to as “policing the mark”). Compounding the non-registerability of the “devil horn” hand gesture is the fact that the gesture means “I love you” in sign language.
"Although images or stylized drawings of hand gestures can function and be registered as trademarks either by themselves or as part of a design mark, hand gestures in and of themselves cannot function as trademarks. And, even if they could, there would be no practical way to enforce the trademark against others (often referred to as “policing the mark”). Compounding the non-registerability of the “devil horn” hand gesture is the fact that the gesture means “I love you” in sign language.
Now, less than two weeks later, Mr. Simmons has apparently reconsidered whether he might have valid trademark rights to the hand gesture, as he expressly abandoned the application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It is also noted that his application drew a fair amount of criticism from fellow musicians and others who saw the application as a shameless overreach by Simmons. Simmons, one of the most successful musician-entrepreneurs in history, owns a stable of other trademark registrations through his Gene Simmons Company. Nice try, Gene."
Current copyright regime makes entertainment industry boring; The Daily Texan, June 18, 2017
Usmaan Hasan, The Daily Texan; Current copyright regime makes entertainment industry boring
"The current system of copyright and intellectual property protections quells artistic expression gives consumers the short end of the stick.
"The current system of copyright and intellectual property protections quells artistic expression gives consumers the short end of the stick.
Mickey Mouse, as a property of Disney, enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. He was created in 1928, and under the existing copyright regime of the time, Disney’s right to Mickey should have ended in 1956 at the soonest, 1984 at the latest. Yet with some Disney magic, without fail, Congress expands copyright protections every time the Mickey is about to lapse into the public domain.
The hypocrisy coming from Disney is staggering. It has gained its immense wealth by monetizing properties in the public domain – like Cinderella, a centuries old fairy tale owned by no one – lobbying for copyright protections for those properties, and then reworking properties while constantly expanding the lifetime of their protections. It is a company that has managed to exercise artistic reinterpretation of cultural touchstones while making it nearly impossible for others to do the same. In fact, Disney has made its wealth by making movies on at least 50 works in the public domain."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)