[Podcast] Cape Talk Radio; HOW TO PROTECT YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY | CAPE TALK RADIO
"How can creatives defend their work from intellectual property theft? Partner, Steven Yeates, talks to Cape Talk’s Mpho Molotlegi about patents, designs, copyright and trade marks – and provides practical examples for monetising your creative assets."
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Blurred Lines Songwriters Have Got to Give It Up for the Gaye Family: Pharrell Williams v. Frankie Christian Gaye; The National Law Review, April 27, 2018
Jodi Benassi, The National Law Review; Blurred Lines Songwriters Have Got to Give It Up for the Gaye Family: Pharrell Williams v. Frankie Christian Gaye
"The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s judgment after a jury trial, ruling that the song “Blurred Lines” infringed Marvin Gaye’s 1970s song “Got To Give It Up.” Pharrell Williams, et al. v. Frankie Christian Gaye, et al., Case No. 15-56880 (9th Cir., Mar. 21, 2018) (Smith, J) (Nguyen, J, dissenting)...
Judge Nguyen issued a strong dissent, stating that the decision allowed the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyrighting a musical style. In her view, the two works were not objectively similar as a matter of law under the extrinsic test because they differed in melody, harmony and rhythm. She believed the majority established a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere."
"The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s judgment after a jury trial, ruling that the song “Blurred Lines” infringed Marvin Gaye’s 1970s song “Got To Give It Up.” Pharrell Williams, et al. v. Frankie Christian Gaye, et al., Case No. 15-56880 (9th Cir., Mar. 21, 2018) (Smith, J) (Nguyen, J, dissenting)...
Judge Nguyen issued a strong dissent, stating that the decision allowed the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyrighting a musical style. In her view, the two works were not objectively similar as a matter of law under the extrinsic test because they differed in melody, harmony and rhythm. She believed the majority established a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere."
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Supreme Court Upholds Procedure That’s Said to Combat ‘Patent Trolls’; The New York Times, April 24, 2018
Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Supreme Court Upholds Procedure That’s Said to Combat ‘Patent Trolls’
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of a procedure that makes it easier to challenge questionable patents.
The procedure, created by Congress in 2011, resembles a trial in federal court, but is conducted by an executive-branch agency. Supporters say it helps combat “patent trolls,” or companies that obtain patents not to use them but to demand royalties and sue for damages.
Opponents say the procedure violates the Constitution by usurping the role of the federal courts, violating the separation of powers and denying patent holders the right to a jury trial.
By a 7-to-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the procedure was a permissible way for the agency that administers patents to fix its mistakes."
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of a procedure that makes it easier to challenge questionable patents.
The procedure, created by Congress in 2011, resembles a trial in federal court, but is conducted by an executive-branch agency. Supporters say it helps combat “patent trolls,” or companies that obtain patents not to use them but to demand royalties and sue for damages.
Opponents say the procedure violates the Constitution by usurping the role of the federal courts, violating the separation of powers and denying patent holders the right to a jury trial.
By a 7-to-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the procedure was a permissible way for the agency that administers patents to fix its mistakes."
Monkey can't sue for copyright infringement of selfies, 9th Circuit rules; The Los Angeles Times, April 23, 2018
Maura Dolan, The Los Angeles Times; Monkey can't sue for copyright infringement of selfies, 9th Circuit rules
"A federal appeals court decided unanimously Monday that animals may not sue for copyright protection.
The ruling came in the case of a monkey that took selfies with a wildlife photographer's camera. The photographer later published the photos."
"A federal appeals court decided unanimously Monday that animals may not sue for copyright protection.
The ruling came in the case of a monkey that took selfies with a wildlife photographer's camera. The photographer later published the photos."
Monday, April 23, 2018
What Harley Davidson’s $19.2M Throttling Of Sunfrog REALLY Means… And It’s Not The Money; Above The Law, April 23, 2018
Tom Kulik, Above The Law; What Harley Davidson’s $19.2M Throttling Of Sunfrog REALLY Means… And It’s Not The Money
When it comes to intellectual property rights, companies ignoring their impact do so at their own risk.
"The point here is that rapid growth and success makes being proactive even more essential to the business. Rather than follow-through with significant steps to stop the printing of infringing products, something got lost in the process and Sunfrog simply couldn’t get its arms around the scope of the problem. In effect, Sunfrog’s failure to effectively address this problem made Sunfrog a counterfeiter — it permitted the printing of infringing designs on T-shirts sold through its website, making Sunfrog a nice profit in the process. Of course, this was never Sunfrog’s intent — it set out to create a highly successful platform for printing custom T-shirts online, and in fact, succeeded in doing so. That said, it also underestimated the extent to which a sizable part of its business model required intellectual property oversight — an oversight that is now costing them in both monetary and reputation damages.
Ultimately, the Sunfrog case is highly instructive on a number of levels, but the failure to appreciate the scope and extent of intellectual property oversight by Sunfrog is telling. Whether your company or client is a startup or an already successful going concern, the use of intellectual property can never be taken for granted. When it comes to intellectual property rights, companies ignoring their impact do so at their own risk. The good news is that warning signs usually present themselves at some point. The bad news is that such signs can be ignored or otherwise under-appreciated. That is the real point here, and a risk that your company (or client) shouldn’t take — just ask Sunfrog."
New Tattoo Copyright Infringement Case Filed By Artist Who Inked WWE Wrestler Randy Orton; Forbes, April 18, 2018
Darren Heitner, Forbes; New Tattoo Copyright Infringement Case Filed By Artist Who Inked WWE Wrestler Randy Orton
"A new lawsuit will once again test the extent that Copyright Law applies when tattoos are involved. Catherine Alexander, the tattooist who inked WWE wrestler Randy Orton, has filed a lawsuit against WWE and 2K Games (the publisher of video games such as WWE 2K) for allegedly using her designs in a commercial manner and without her consent.
"A new lawsuit will once again test the extent that Copyright Law applies when tattoos are involved. Catherine Alexander, the tattooist who inked WWE wrestler Randy Orton, has filed a lawsuit against WWE and 2K Games (the publisher of video games such as WWE 2K) for allegedly using her designs in a commercial manner and without her consent.
Alexander makes the claim that the video games featuring Orton contain exact replications, in digital design, to multiple tattoos, including a tribal tattoo that she placed on the wrestler's upper back, and that the use constitutes copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, indicates that Alexander even made prior efforts to come to an agreement with the WWE."
Frida Kahlo Barbie doll banned from shop shelves in Mexico; BBC, April 20, 2018
BBC; Frida Kahlo Barbie doll banned from shop shelves in Mexico
"A court has barred sales in Mexico of a controversial Frida Kahlo Barbie doll, ruling that members of her family own the sole rights to her image.
"A court has barred sales in Mexico of a controversial Frida Kahlo Barbie doll, ruling that members of her family own the sole rights to her image.
The toy company Mattel launched a range of new Barbie dolls based on "inspiring women" - artist Frida Kahlo among them.
But some of Kahlo's relatives said the manufacturer had used the painter's image without permission."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)