Government Can't Deny Trademarks Over Offensive Names, Appeals Court Rules; NPR, 12/23/15

Eyder Peralta, NPR; Government Can't Deny Trademarks Over Offensive Names, Appeals Court Rules:

"The court ruled that their name — The Slants — is private speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The government, the court writes, has no business trying to regulate it by denying the band a trademark.

At issue in the case was Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to deny or cancel a trademark if it is "disparaging" of persons, institutions or national symbols.

In a 10-2 decision, the court decided parts of that section were unconstitutional. Conferring a trademark, the court argues, does not make the band's name government speech.

Here's the comparison the majority uses: "The PTO's processing of trademark registrations no more transforms private speech into government speech than when the government issues permits for street parades, copyright registration certificates, or, for that matter, grants medical, hunting, fishing, or drivers licenses, or records property titles, birth certificates, or articles of incorporation.""

Re-Print of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' Unleashes Row in Germany; Reuters via New York Times, 12/23/15

Reuters via New York Times; Re-Print of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' Unleashes Row in Germany:

"For the first time since Hitler's death, Germany is publishing the Nazi leader's political treatise "Mein Kampf", unleashing a highly charged row over whether the text is an inflammatory racist diatribe or a useful educational tool.

The 70-year copyright on the text, written by Hitler between 1924-1926 and banned by the Allies at the end of World War Two, expires at the end of the year, opening the way for a critical edition with explanatory sections and some 3,500 annotations.

In January the 2,000 page, two-volume work will go on sale after about three years of labor by scholars at Munich's Institute for Contemporary History."

Protecting Rudolph - trade marks and copyright helping commercialise Christmas songs; Lexology, 12/23/15

Marks & Clerk, Lexology; Protecting Rudolph - trade marks and copyright helping commercialise Christmas songs:

"With festive songs from years gone by playing on the radio and familiar family films returning to our television screens, many of us are ready for Christmas. It is no secret that many businesses have spent months, if not the whole year, readying themselves for the holiday season, which is one of the key events in their annual sales cycle. Indeed, it is thanks to strategic commercial planning on the part of businesses that many of these films, songs and books which we enjoy during the Christmas period make a return year after year. This strategic forethought almost always involves IP protection, including trade marks and copyright.

Some of the most memorable songs like Irving Berlin’s “White Christmas” first released in 1942 and Johnny Marks’ “Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer”, composed in 1949, have long histories, in which copyright and trade marks play key roles.

Copyright and trade marks are closely associated but protect different legal rights. In legal speak, copyright serves to protect original literary and artistic works from unauthorised copying; trade marks seek to guarantee the commercial origin of particular goods and services. This distinguishes those goods and services from their competitors’."

Ruling Could Help Washington Redskins in Trademark Case; New York Times, 12/22/15

Richard Sandomir, New York Times; Ruling Could Help Washington Redskins in Trademark Case:

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington made the ruling in a case involving an Asian-American dance-rock band that sought to register a trademark for its provocative name, the Slants. The court said the First Amendment “forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others.”

Writing for the majority, Kimberly A. Moore, a judge on the appeals court, said: “It is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys.”...

Still, Tuesday’s ruling was considered a major one in trademark law — the striking down of a provision of the nearly 70-year-old Lanham Act that deals with disparaging or offensive trademarks.

“The majority opinion is a very broad rejection of the proposition that the federal government can refuse registration or use of a trademark based on whether certain groups find the mark to be disparaging,” said Jeremy Sheff, a law professor at St. John’s University School of Law who specializes in intellectual property. “It was exactly on that basis that the Redskins’ marks were canceled.”

Whatever happens in the appeals court to the Redskins’ registered trademarks, the team’s use of its name is not in jeopardy. Although it symbolizes racism and intolerance to some, and has inspired groups to demand that it be replaced, the Redskins’ owner, Daniel Snyder, has vowed never to drop it. He has fought a public battle to prove the name does not offend all Native Americans. And he has the backing of the N.F.L., which has been paying the costs of defending the trademarks."

Kim Dotcom's extradition to US cleared by New Zealand judge; Guardian, 12/22/15

Guardian; Kim Dotcom's extradition to US cleared by New Zealand judge:

"A New Zealand court has ruled that Kim Dotcom, the Megaupload founder, can be extradited to the United States to face charges of copyright infringement, racketeering and money laundering.

The decision, which can be appealed, comes almost four years after New Zealand police first raided Dotcom’s mansion west of Auckland at the behest of the FBI. US authorities shut down the entrepreneur’s file-sharing website, which had been used to illegally download songs and movies...

US authorities say Dotcom and three co-accused Megaupload executives cost film studios and record companies more than US$500m and generated more than US$175m in profits by encouraging their paying users to store and share copyrighted material, such as movies and TV shows.

The New Zealand prosecution, which argued the case for the US government, said Dotcom and his executives had encouraged and paid users to upload the pirated films and music to generate profit."

UK journal Library and Information Research has published a special issue on copyright in LIS, Vol. 39 No. 121 (2015)

UK journal Library and Information Research has published a special issue on copyright in LIS:

"Library and Information Research has just published its latest issue at http://www.lirgjournal.org.uk. (This is an open access journal, published by the Library & Information Research Group, a special interest group of CILIP that encourages practitioners to engage in research and promotes collaboration between faculty and practitioner-researchers.)

This is a special issue focusing on copyright and related rights and library and information services, guest edited by Adrienne Muir.

View the table of contents and then visit the journal website to read the articles."

All Bill Information (Except Text) for H.R.4241 - Copyright Office for the Digital Economy Act; Introduced 12/11/15

All Bill Information (Except Text) for H.R.4241 - Copyright Office for the Digital Economy Act: