Keeping Their AI on the Ball - US Copyright Office Issues Guidance on the Copyright Protection of AI Generated Works

At this point there probably is no one on Earth that has not heard of, or even tested, various AI content generation systems, including ChatGPT, Google Bard and Midjourney. The tools are already impressive and are only slated to get better, so many legislatures and national bodies are (finally!) getting to grips with AI, its implications, and legal issues around the technology. One such aspect is whether AI generated works can, or will be protected by copyright, as the area remains firmly hazy as the law stands, including in the common law. One of the first off the blocks is the US Copyright Office which recently released guidance on the protection of AI generated works. 

The guidance, titled "Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence" is brief and to the point, covering most of the issues to give better light on copyright protection on these emerging works.

The guidance initially starts with the basics, noting that for works to be protected by copyright they must have human authorship. The main decision in this regard is Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v Sarony where the US Supreme Court confirmed that  an author is “he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker; one who completes a work of science or literature”, which specifically can only be a human author. Subsequent decisions have confirmed the position to be the same, with precedent being clearly set in stone since 1886.

The same requirement is extended to the registration of copyright protected works by the Copyright Office, with its Compendium noting this position clearly. Any works created by AI systems are treated as the result of “mechanical reproduction” instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form”, so the authorship of AI generated works will depend on the circumstances, e.g., how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. 

The Copyright Office notes that this includes simply giving the AI system a prompt and it then produces a new work, which is how most of the systems operate currently, as then the "'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology". What users would have to do is exercise ultimate creative control how such systems interpret any given prompts and then generate the material for them to have human authorship. 

Human authorship is possible, however, if a user "select[s] or arrange[s] AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship", or if an artist modifies the works created by the AI systems to meet authorship requirements. 

The guidance is a clear sign that legislation is behind the times and legal requirements for authorship would need to be updated to reflect the new paradigm of AI generation of works and their protection in some form. The protection would still have to balance the remuneration of artists whose works are used in the training data and/or source of any derivative works, while encouraging the development of these AI systems and to remunerate them accordingly. This will be a difficult balance to strike, especially since legislatures across the world are woefully behind the development of these technologies.  

Yet Another Rejection - US Copyright Office Rejects Registration of Copyright in AI Created Artwork

How works created by artificial intelligence, or AI, are treated by various jurisdictions has been a hot topic recently, including in this very blog (for example here and here). It seems that, despite a briefly celebrated win in Australia, the technology is seeing setback after setback on whether AI-created works will be covered by IP and this seems more unlikely every day. The US Copyright Office was the latest blow in the battle for IP protection of AI-created works, which leaves the technology in a bit of a bind, however, it featured a familiar individual yet again. 

The US Copyright Office's Review Board recently released a decision on the copyright protection of a work, A Recent Entrance to Paradise, created by an AI program called Creativity Machine, developed by Steven Thaler. While the Creativity Machine was the author of the work, Mr Thaler was listed as the claimant alongside it as its owner. The work was autonomously created by the Creativity Machine, but Mr Thaler wanted to register the work as a work-for-hire to the owner of the program, himself. 

The US Copyright Office initially rejected the registration of the copyright in the work in 2019 as it "lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim", which Mr Thaler subsequently appealed this decision arguing that the "human authorship requirement is unconstitutional and unsupported by either statute or case law". Despite this, the Copyright Office rejected the registration on the same basis as before and noted that Mr Thaler had not provided any evidence of sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in the work and that the Copyright Office won't abandon its longstanding interpretation of this matter which is based on precedent from the courts, including the Supreme Court. 

Being ever-persistent, Mr Thaler then yet again appealed, arguing in a familiar fashion that the Office’s human authorship requirement is unconstitutional and unsupported by case law. Mr Thaler also argued that there is a public policy piece to this where the Copyright Office 'should' register copyright in machine-created works because doing so would "further the underlying goals of copyright law, including the constitutional rationale for copyright protection". Mr Thaler also again rejected the Copyright Office's assertions of supporting case law. 

At the beginning of its decision, the Review Board accepted that the works were indeed created by AI without any creative contribution from a human actor. However, the Board noted that copyright only protects "the fruits of intellectual labor that are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind". Mr Thaler was therefore tasked with either proving that the work was created by a human, which it hadn't been, or somehow convincing the Board to depart from long-established precedent.

The Review Board then moved on to discussing the precedent relevant to the matter at hand. 

Paragraph 306 of the US Copyright Compendium sets out that "the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work".  As such, human authorship is a prerequisite to copyright protection in the US. 

Similarly, 17 USC 102(a) affords copyright protection to "original works of authorship", and, while the phrase is very broad in its definition, it still requires human authorship. This has been supported by US Supreme Court decisions in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v Sarony and Mazer v Stein where the Supreme Court required human authorship for copyright protection. In addition to the highest court in the US, the lower courts have also followed these decisions. 

Although the courts haven't directly decided on AI authorship in relation to copyright just yet, Mr Thaler has featured in a recent decision in the case of Thaler v Hirshfeld (the very same individual as in this decision) where the court decided that, under the Patent Act, an ‘inventor’ must be a natural person and cannot be an AI. 

The Board also discussed a recent report by the USPTO who discussed IP issues around AI. In this report, the USPTO noted that "existing law does not permit a non-human to be an author [and] this should remain the law". 

The Board also briefly touched on Mr Thaler's secondary argument, which was that AI can be an author under the law because the work-made-for-hire doctrine allows for non-human, artificial persons such as companies to be authors. The Board rejected this argument since the work was not made for hire. This was due to the requirement for such a work to be prepared by e.g. an employee or one or more parties who agree that the work is one for hire. No such agreement was in place between Mr Thaler and the Creativity Machine. Even outside of this, the doctrine merely addresses ownership and not copright protection, so human authorship is, yet again, required. 

The Board, therefore, rejected the appeal and refused to register the work. 

The decision by the Board is by no means surprising, as the status of AI-created works seems to be more and more established as the years go by as a no-go. While copyright protection could be possible in some jurisdictions, as discussed in the above blog articles in more detail, it seems highly unlikely to be possible in the US without legislative intervention. As AI develops the law will have to address this and potentially grant AI-creation some level of protection, however, this will take some time to come true. 

Function Above Form - CJEU Discusses Copyright Protection over Functional Designs

Protection over functionality in relation to copyright is a bit of a contentious subject. Many laws around the world, including in the EU, preclude protection from extending to methods of procedures, potentially including functional aspects of a particular form of expression. The idea of this is to prevent the use of copyright in the way of patents to protect some specific function, giving the rightsholder a much longer period of protection than under patent legislation. Nevertheless, the issue has been litigated before, and the CJEU was set to decide on the matter once and for all earlier this Summer, and finally handed down its decision in June 2020. 

The case of Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get concerned a folding bicycle sold by Brompton, whose design's comprises three different folding positions. The design was patented, however the patent has expired. Get2Get sold a similar bike (called the "Chedech"), which also featured three folding positions. Brompton subsequently took Get2Get to court over copyright infringement, with the defendant arguing that you cannot have copyright in functional designs, i.e. the technical function of the bike design. After a period of litigation in the Belgian courts the matter ultimately ended up with the CJEU. 

The CJEU was asked two questions, which it combined into one; "...whether Articles 2 to 5 of [the InfoSoc] Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the copyright protection provided for therein applies to a product whose shape is, at least in part, necessary to obtain a technical result", meaning, can Brampton have copyright in the three-fold design of their bike. 

The court first discussed the requirements for a "work" under EU case law, namely, that it has to be an original subject matter which is the author’s own intellectual creation and an the expression of that creation. This is slightly different when it comes to subject matter that has been dictated by technical considerations, such as the design of a bike. 

In relation to originality, the courts will have to keep in mind that there can be no "work" as such if "...that subject matter cannot be regarded as possessing the originality required for it to constitute a work", which leaves it ineligible for copyright protection. In relation to expression of that 'work' it needs to be identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity. 

With that said, the Court noted that "...a subject matter satisfying the condition of originality may be eligible for copyright protection, even if its realisation has been dictated by technical considerations, provided that its being so dictated has not prevented the author from reflecting his personality in that subject matter, as an expression of free and creative choices". This would allow for works with functional designs to be protected, provided that the technical considerations included in that design haven't prevented the author from creating it using their own determination as discussed above in relation to originality. 

The Court then moved onto discussing the actual design of the Brampton bike and whether it could be protected by copyright. 

The design of the bike is clearly necessary to obtain a certain technical result, namely that the bicycle may be folded into three positions. Even though there remains the possibility that choice shaped the design of the bike, the Court was unable to conclude that it was indeed a 'work' pursuant to the above Articles, as further evidence would be required. 

The Court further noted that even though the existence of other possible shapes which can achieve the same technical result makes it possible to establish that there is a possibility of choice, this does not in itself show that the design is an original one. In addition, the intention of any alleged infringer is not relevant for the assessment of originality, but courts can indeed consider the existence of a patent over the design (even if expired), but only to the extent that the patent(s) make it possible to reveal what was taken into consideration in choosing the shape of the product concerned.

After all of the above discussions the Court summarized their decision on the matter: "... Articles 2 to 5... must be interpreted as meaning that the copyright protection provided for therein applies to a product whose shape is, at least in part, necessary to obtain a technical result, where that product is an original work resulting from intellectual creation, in that, through that shape, its author expresses his creative ability in an original manner by making free and creative choices in such a way that that shape reflects his personality, which it is for the national court to verify, bearing in mind all the relevant aspects of the dispute in the main proceedings". 

The decision opens the door for national courts to consider the application of copyright in relation to functional designs, and will be quite important for companies wishing to protect those designs going forward. The big hurdle will be evidence, at least in this writer's opinion, as it will be difficult to demonstrate clear decision-making and choice by the author simply by showing designs of a bike. It would clearly have to show a trail of decision-making, potentially even deviations from earlier designs, to show that the author has exercised sufficient thought and scrutiny to fulfill the requirements of originality. It will remain to be seen how national courts will apply this going forward, and what evidence will/might be sufficient to establish copyright in functional designs. 

All Luxury - CJEU Decides on the Legality of Selective Distribution Agreements for Luxury Goods

Prestige and exclusivity are the cornerstones of luxury goods, and the maintenance of that perception is paramount to both retaining customers and to drawing in new purchasers. As discussed in a previous article, the sale of these goods online can be difficult, especially when considering the retention of the above image. After the Advocate General's opinion in September the question of restricting the sale of luxury goods online has finally landed on the CJEU's desk, who handed down their judgment only last week.

As a brief primer, the case of Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH concerned the sale of luxury cosmetics made by Coty. The company selected distributors for its network, which included a selective distribution agreement that included a provision on the preservation of the brand's luxury image. Akzente was one of these distributors, primarily selling through their store, website and Amazon as a third-party seller. The agreement was amended by Coty sometime after, which stipulated that all internet sales have to be done through an 'electronic shop window' that preserves the luxury image of the goods. Akzente refused to sign this supplement, and Coty took matters to court in order to prohibit the sale of their goods on Amazon.

The matter ended up in the CJEU who had to answer four questions in the proceedings dealing with anti-competitive practices, and whether the selective distribution arrangements are exempt from the anti-competition provisions.

The first question posed to the Court asked, in essence, "…whether Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed, primarily, to preserve the luxury image of those goods can comply with that provision". The Article prevents any agreements on undertakings that may affect trade between Member States and have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the EU.

In considering this question, the Court reiterated that selective distribution networks are allowed under Article 101 if the resellers are chosen on the basis of objective criteria of a qualitative nature; the criteria are not applied in a discriminatory fashion; the characteristics of the products necessitate such a network to preserve those characteristics; and the criteria don't go beyond what is necessary. With regards to luxury goods, the Court saw that selective distribution networks may be necessary for luxury goods, where the quality and allure and prestige of those goods is essential and should be protectable. The same applies for mandatory displays in sales to preserve that image.

In answering the first question the Court concluded that "…a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed, primarily, to preserve the luxury image of those goods complies with that provision"; however, they still have to conform to the criteria set out above.

The second question asked "…whether Article 101(1)… must be interpreted as precluding a contractual clause… which prohibits authorised distributors in a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed, primarily, to preserve the luxury image of those goods from using, in a discernible manner, third-party platforms for the online sale of the contract goods". In other words, it is asking whether a selective distribution agreement can prohibit the sale of luxury goods on websites like Amazon.

The same criteria as set out above apply to the lawfulness of the clause in the second question. Should it satisfy them it will not fall foul of Article 101.

The CJEU looked at the clause and its provisions, and concluded that it didn't contravene Article 101. The objective of the requirements on online sales is to preserve the image that it is exclusively associated with the distributor. The aim was therefore legitimate in the light of the protection of the luxury image the goods have. What the prohibition also achieves is to ensure the goods are sold in an environment that corresponds to the qualitative conditions that were agreed between Coty and Akzente. This allows for the supplier to make sure, and enforce, the sale of the goods online and to prevent any harm against the luxury image of the goods.

Luxury is worth the price (Source: HistoryTwins)

The CJEU looked at the clause and its provisions, and concluded that it didn't contravene Article 101. The objective of the requirements on online sales is to preserve the image that it is exclusively associated with the distributor. The aim was therefore legitimate in the light of the protection of the luxury image the goods have. What the prohibition also achieves is to ensure the goods are sold in an environment that corresponds to the qualitative conditions that were agreed between Coty and Akzente. This allows for the supplier to make sure, and enforce, the sale of the goods online and to prevent any harm against the luxury image of the goods.

The Court then moved onto whether the prohibition goes beyond what is necessary for the objective pursued. Due to the prohibition only applying to third-party websites, and not the Internet as a whole, the distributors are still free to sell the goods online, albeit only through a store window. Studies have also shown that the majority of online sales are made through distributors' own websites, leading to very little detriment through the prohibition (although third-party sites are growing in importance). The measure therefore does not go beyond the objective pursued.

The CJEU looked at the clause and its provisions, and concluded that it didn't contravene Article 101. The objective of the requirements on online sales is to preserve the image that it is exclusively associated with the distributor. The aim was therefore legitimate in the light of the protection of the luxury image the goods have. What the prohibition also achieves is to ensure the goods are sold in an environment that corresponds to the qualitative conditions that were agreed between Coty and Akzente. This allows for the supplier to make sure, and enforce, the sale of the goods online and to prevent any harm against the luxury image of the goods.

The answer to the question was set out as "…Article 101(1)… must be interpreted as not precluding a contractual clause… which prohibits authorised distributors in a selective distribution system for luxury goods designed, primarily, to preserve the luxury image of those goods from using, in a discernible manner, third-party platforms for the internet sale of the contract goods, on condition that that clause has the objective of preserving the luxury image of those goods, that it is laid down uniformly and not applied in a discriminatory fashion, and that it is proportionate in the light of the objective pursued, these being matters to be determined by the referring court".

The Court considered the third and fourth questions together, which asked, in essence "…whether Article 4 of Regulation No 330/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that… the prohibition imposed on the members of a selective distribution system for luxury goods, which operate as distributors at the retail level of trade, of making use, in a discernible manner, of third-party undertakings for internet sales constitutes a restriction of their customers, within the meaning of Article 4(b)... or a restriction of passive sales to end users, within the meaning of Article 4(c)".

If the distribution agreement would restrict who the distributor can sell the goods to or authorised passive sales to end users, it will not be caught by the Article 2 exemption and treated as unlawful.

The Court quickly observed that the agreement does not prohibit the use of the internet as a means of marketing the goods, nor circumscribe who can buy the goods online. Additionally, the agreement allows distributors to advertise the goods online, and considering all of the above, there is no restriction on distributors as to who the goods can be sold to or passive sales.

In short, the third and fourth questions were answered as "…the prohibition imposed on the members of a selective distribution system for luxury goods, which operate as distributors at the retail level of trade, of making use, in a discernible manner, of third-party undertakings for internet sales does not constitute a restriction of customers… or a restriction of passive sales to end users".

The case is quite an important one, which considers issues that will often pertain to the sale of luxury goods, particularly on the Internet. Clearly the image of the goods is protectable through contractual arrangements, including through some restrictions on those sales, and both distributors and brand owners should heed the decision and ensure their contracts are up to snuff.

Source: IPKat

Needs Formatting - TV Show Formats Potentially Protected by Copyright

As companies like Netflix and Hulu are entering the fray of traditional TV production, creating their original content and licensing others, the value of more typical TV competition for eyeballs on particular timeslots has become negligible. Grabbing the attention of viewers are a fixed time, competing with other networks for the same slot, used to be a competition of outsmart and 'outcreate', giving TV formats incredible value if done right. Even if the specific production of 'prime time' TV has diminished due to the shift towards on-demand, TV formats still have value under IP laws. The matter rarely sees the light of day in a court room, but a recent UK High Court decision discussed whether a TV format can be protected under copyright.

The case of Banner Universal Motion Pictures Ltd v Endemol Shine Group Ltd & Anor concerned a TV gameshow called "Minute Winner", which was created by Derek Banner, the owner of Banner Universal Motion Pictures. Allegedly Mr Banner had disclosed a document detailing the format of the show to Friday TV (the second defendant in the matter), a Swedish TV production company at a meeting in 2005. Mr Banner also claimed that the defendants had misused confidential information to create and broadcast a show called "A Minute to Win It" in 2011, infringing on BUMP's rights in the format, breaching confidence in the same and passing off. The defendants contested the rights in the format document, that a breach of confidence claim was estopped due to a decision earlier by the Swedish courts and the passing off claim.

The Court first addressed the issue of whether the format document was a copyright protected work, specifically as a dramatic work under section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

As discussed, for example in SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd, a work has to be 'original', i.e. "…the work must be an expression of the author's own intellectual creation". This is assessed by looking at the whole of the work, not just its constituent parts, including both novel and non-novel parts. A dramatic work itself is defined as "…a work of action, with or without words or music, which is capable of being performed before an audience".

There has been some degree of case law on TV formats; however, only in the far-away land of New Zealand. The leading authority is Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand, where the New Zealand Court of Appeal considered that merely the idea of a TV format is not sufficient to be a dramatic work protected by copyright. This was in that "…because [the format] could not be acted or performed, being no more than a general scheme for a proposed entertainment", and "…in what way the underlying idea has been distilled out and translated into an expression thereof in a material form sufficiently identifiable to be copied". Due to this lack of tangible expression, bar an idea, leaves the subject matter unclear and therefore not protectable.

Brad was truly captivated by the TV format

Justice Snowden disagreed with the New Zealand authorities, and set out that TV show formats could arguably be protected by copyright under certain criteria. These would be, as a minimum: "…(i) there are a number of clearly identified features which, taken together, distinguish the show in question from others of a similar type; and (ii) that those distinguishing features are connected with each other in a coherent framework which can be repeatedly applied so as to enable the show to be reproduced in recognisable form". Under the criteria, Justice Snowden concluded that BUMP had a low likelihood of success to meet them for an arguable case of infringement, due to a lack of "…a coherent framework or structure which could be relied upon to reproduce a distinctive game show in recognisable form". All of the features of the show were commonplace and indistinguishable from other similar shows (including its name). Even if there were copyright in the work, the show that was produced differed from the BUMP work in many ways, and there would be no infringement.

The second matter was of breach of confidence. Having considered the principles of estoppel and res judicata, Justice Snowden determined that the action would fail due to Mr Banner being estopped from pursuing the claim as it is res judicata or an abuse of process. The legislation in the UK and Sweden is sufficiently similar so as to not require further determination.

Finally, the Court considered the matter of passing off. As discussed in Starbucks (HK), to establish a claim under passing off the claimant has to "…establish that it has actual goodwill in this jurisdiction, and that such goodwill involves the presence of clients or customers in the jurisdiction for the products or services in question". Even without a physical presence in the country it is possible to have goodwill. Justice Snowden swiftly dismissed this argument, as Mr Banner never had any customers in the UK who purchased the rights to the TV show. He did have a website displaying his formats, but the TV show in question was only one of several on that site, and it was nonetheless one of many sent to ITV by email after the meeting in 2005. No goodwill was therefore established in the UK, and the passing off claim failed.

The case has opened the door for claims on TV show formats, but clearly sets a high threshold to establish actual rights in that format. As no UK authorities have dealt with this subject matter, the case is a welcome one, even though the matter is a very niche one. A good TV show format is still very valuable, and protection should be offered, but not willy-nilly.

Source: IPKat

A Collective Effort - The Impact of the GDPR on Collective Management Societies

This article was kindly drafted by Axel Beelen, who writes the blog IP News (focusing on EU and Belgian IP developments). He can also be found on Twitter here. He is also a data protection specialist.

The rules surrounding personal data are about to change on 25 May 2018 when the new General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR) will enter into force. Because collective management organisations (CMOs) process their members' personal data, they will have to be compliant with the GDPR next year. Fines can be very high in the case of non-compliance. Below you will find the key points introduced in the GDPR concerning CMOs.

Data-subjects’ rights enlarged and more defined

The processing of personal data is lawful only if, and to the extent that, it is permitted under the GDPR. If the data controller (here the CMO) does not have a lawful basis for a given data processing activity (and no exemption or derogation applies) then that activity is prima facie unlawful. A lawful basis would be the consent of the data subject to do so, contractual necessity, compliance with legal obligations, the vital interests of the data subject, necessary for public interest or the legitimate interests of the data controller.

The "legitimate interests" lawful basis, under Article 6, is the more difficult to understand. It requires the balancing of the legitimate interests of the CMO against the interests and fundamental rights of the data subject (the rightholder).

To be a member of a CMO, rightholders (for example, authors, publishers, artists and producers) enter into an agreement with the CMO. This contract will generally be the lawful basis for the future processing of the rightholder’s data.

Members must be informed before any processing

The GDPR requires that the members of the CMOs have to be clearly and fully informed about their set of rights, including new rights that have been introduced, before the collection and processing of their personal data. CMOs are strongly advised to adapt their privacy provisions, communications and information to meet the requirements of the GDPR.

CMOs will also need to ensure that they have effective systems in place to enable them to give effect to these rights without any costs to the rightsholders. In the case of non-compliance, fines can be very steep: €20 million or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the CMO for the preceding financial year.

CMSs have gone through quite the change,
even before the GDPR (Source: Oatmeal)

The GDPR expands the existing set of rights provided in the 1995 Data Protection Directive, and creates several entirely new rights increasing the ability of members of CMOs to better control their personal data. CMOs must provide any requested information in relation to any of the rights of their members within one month of receiving such a request. Only where CMOs receive large numbers of requests, or especially complex requests, may the time limit be extended by a maximum of two further months. Internal policy enabling the CMO to quickly reply to a member request will need to be written.

Members’ rights under the new GDPR

In a nutshell, members have the following rights under Articles 12-22:

• Right of access: members of CMOs (as data subjects) have the right to obtain information relating to (i) confirmation of whether, and where, CMOs are processing their personal data, (ii) the purposes of the processing, (iii) the categories of data being processed, (iv) the categories of recipients with whom the data may be shared, (v) the period for which the data will be stored, (vi) the existence of the rights of erasure, rectification and restriction of processing and to object to processing, (vii) the existence of the right to complain to the DPA, (viii) the existence of, and an explanation of the logic involved in, any automated processing that has a significant effect on data subjects. Additionally, members may request a copy of the personal data being processed by their CMO;
• Right of rectification regarding any inaccurate personal data possessed by the CMO;
• Right to erasure (the "right to be forgotten"): following the Google Spain ECJ ruling of 2014, the GDPR now allows data subjects to request that their personal data be erased if (e.g.) the data are no longer needed for their original purpose (and no new lawful purpose exists) or the data subject exercises the right to object, and the controller has no overriding grounds for continuing the processing;
• Right to restrict processing;]
• Right of data portability: members will now have the right to receive a copy of their personal data in a commonly used machine-readable format, and request that these data are transmitted directly to another data controller (which could be another CMO). This new right has been the subject of Guidelines written by the Article 29 Working Party (Article 29 WP consists of representatives of the national supervisory authority in data protection);
• Right to object to processing for the purposes of direct marketing (including profiling); and
• Right to not be evaluated on the basis of automated processing: members have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing which significantly affects them (including profiling). Such processing is permitted where (i) it is necessary for entering into or performing a contract with the data subject provided that appropriate safeguards are in place, (ii) it is authorised by law or (iii) the data subject has explicitly consented and appropriate safeguards are in place.

CMOs shall provide the data subject with all of this information at the time when personal data of the members are obtained.

A DPO to supervise the personal data activities

CMOs will have to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO) to supervise their personal data processing activities. CMOs will have to involve the DPO properly and in a timely manner in all issues which relate to the protection of personal data.

Each CMO will ensure that its DPO does not receive any instructions regarding the exercise of those tasks. The DPO cannot be dismissed or penalised by his CMO for performing his tasks. The DPO will directly report to the highest management level of his company. A DPO can be an employee of the CMO or an outside consultant.

The DPO may be contacted by the members with regard to all issues relating to processing of their personal data and to the exercise of their rights under the GDPR.

Conclusion

 For many collective management organisations, compliance with this new GDPR will be very challenging and expensive. They would be well advised to urgently carry out a legal assessment of the current status of their compliance in order to ascertain any gaps. CMOs will then need to implement adequate solutions and monitor their suitability. All of that before May 25th next year.

Pretty Cheesed - Will GIs Remain Protected in the UK After Brexit?

With the impending Brexit launch date looming in only two months, the repercussions of the UK's possible decision to leave the EU casts a shadow over nearly every aspect of the law in the country. While the nuances of its effects remain largely unclear at this moment, despite the government's white paper published earlier this month, and this leads to a wealth of speculation, even in the field of IP law. This writer recently came across the article below by the Guardian that discussed Brexit's impact on geographical indications (more on which here), and clearly, there could be some interesting issues presented should this not be resolved during the negotiations.

By way of exposition, Geographical Indicators (including PGIs and PDOs for the sake of simplicity) protect the specific origins or specifications of goods in the EU, allowing only those who comply with the specifications of a given GI to use the name in conjunction with their product (i.e. acting as a form of provenance of legitimacy). For example, Parmigiano Reggiano and Feta can only be used for cheeses that follow the specifications, i.e. have been produced in a particular region using particular milk. These are protected, among international treaties, under the GI Directive.

What remains interesting is that over 60 British products, such as Stilton blue cheese and the Cornish Pasty, will remain protected under EU law even after the UK's departure from the EU (as no membership is required); unless the Union will amend its laws or simply rescind protection for UK GIs.

Peter was unsure what to do with
all of his faux "parmesan" after Brexit

On the flip-side of this conundrum, all of the EU GIs would be free to be used in the UK, provided that the legislation that remains does not reflect the EU position as it was prior to Brexit. Even though individuals could make Birmingham "Champagne" or Newcastle "Parma Ham", the goods would not be allowed to enter the EU market (or those with reciprocal agreements with the EU, such as Canada under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement). Internal competition in the UK could lead to branding issues for GIs, but it seems unlikely that many domestic producers would willingly go against prior practice and laws.

An additional twist to the tale are the various conventions that the UK is party to, including the TRIPS Agreement and Madrid Agreement, would still remain in force, protecting GIs in the UK outside of EU legislation.

Although Brexit will present its challenges to the UK and EU economies, this writer doubts that GIs will be an issue, and that business will continue as usual, with protection being extended to GIs both in the UK and the EU. Reciprocal protection will most likely be extended to intellectual property rights in negotiations, or at least conversions, where needed, would be provided to those wishing to retain their rights, and equivalent legislation will nonetheless have to be introduced as a part of international obligations outside of the EU.

The hypothetical scenario of a lawless GI landscape in the UK is an entertaining one, but is very much a near impossibility should the UK want to remain relevant in the global market.

Source: The Guardian

I Looked it Up - Original Research Not Protected by Copyright in Canada

Research is incredibly labor intensive, and can take great leaps to achieve a given result (whether intended or not) or to argue a specific line of thinking. This expended effort into creating a work of merit or intrigue can be something that many would want to defend and benefit from, while preventing others from doing the same without putting in the very same work. With that being said, would one therefore be able to protect their research through copyright? This question was answered by the Federal Court of Canada in early May.

The case of Judy Maltz and others v Jennifer Witterick and Penguin Canada Books Inc. dealt with the documentary "No. 4 Street of Our Lady", which delved into the life of Francizska Halamajowa and her daughter Helena, who lived in Polan during World War 2 during the country's occupation by the Germans. During this time Ms. Halamajowa hid three Jewish families from the Nazis for nearly two years, as well as some German soldiers who deserted the Nazi army towards the war's end. The documentary was produced and directed by the claimant (along with her co-claimants), Ms. Maltz, who used her Moshe Maltz's, her grandfather's, diary for the factual background of the work. Jennifer Witterick, the defendant, after learning about the story of Ms. Halamajowa, wrote a book about her (although in a fictional context, incorporating some facts from the documentary in the book) titled "My Mother’s Secret". Ms. Maltz subsequently took the parties to court, asserting copyright infringement in her work.

The Court faced the questions of whether the work is protected by copyright, whether Ms. Maltz's moral rights had been infringed, and if she could claim damages for the same.

An interesting submission by the claimant is the use of 'small facts' versus 'big facts'. This distinction is made on the basis that big facts, such as World War 2 as a whole or other associated major events, cannot be protected by copyright, but the use of small facts, pertaining to very specific, possibly niche or unknown events, would be protectable through copyright.

Justice Boswell, handing down the judgment of the Court, first dealt with the copyright protection of the work. He acknowledged that (which stood undisputed by either parties) that the documentary was indeed a protected work, and Ms. Maltz would have rights to assert against any substantial copying of that work. He further affirmed, as has been accepted since the judgment in CCH (discussed more here on this very blog) that 'sweat of the brow' (work and effort, in other words) is not protected, but a proper exercise of skill and judgment in the creation of any given work. Similarly, this does not extend to mere facts.

Bill just never knew when to stop asking questions

Justice Boswell saw that "Mrs. Halamajowa’s story is not in and of itself covered by the Applicants’ copyright in the Documentary. The factual details of her story are also not covered by the Applicants’ copyright. It is not the story that the Applicants’ copyright protects but, rather, the Applicants’ specific expression of it through the exercise of their skill and judgment". As has been firmly established in copyright, it extends to the expression of ideas and not those ideas alone. Justice Boswell also handidly rejected the claimant's argument in 'small' or 'big' facts, as determined that "[c]opyright law recognizes no such difference or distinction. Facts are facts; and no one owns copyright in them no matter what their relative size or significance". The use of the facts from the documentary therefore would not infringe copyright. Arguably, this makes perfect sense, since facts are always facts, irrespective of their size or notoriety. Allowing for the protection of 'small' or even lesser known facts would create an area where the law would be at odds with itself, and the interpretation of Justice Boswell makes sense in preventing this issue.

The judge then turned to the matter of whether the work had been copied substantially. He emphasised that this would not include any facts presented in the documentary, but only the expression of those facts (as mentioned above). Justice Boswell concluded that there was very little verbatim copying from the book in the documentary, and its impact on the documentary's value would be minimal, or even non-existent, as the documentary's popularity had already been on the wane before the book's publication. He ultimately deemed the works to be wholly different in their expression, and although share the same story, would be separate, protectable works in their own right.

Finally, Justice Boswell addressed the issue of moral rights, and whether the book had infringed on those rights after its publication, which he deemed to be not infringed, due to no evidence existing that supported this notion. He dismissed the claim and awarded no damages to Ms. Maltz as neither her copyright or moral rights had been infringed.

Although the case is a very straightforward application of the law, it still presents an interesting notion on nuanced research or factual knowledge. While being able to present a niche argument, or a very little known story, can be a valuable asset, factual subject matter should not be protected through copyright, which would impede on the dissemination of freely available factual information by those who desire to create a different work entirely. Justice Boswell's judgment is a common sense one, but this writer enjoyed the mental exercise put forth by Ms. Maltz in her case.

Source: The Globe and Mail

Plain and Simple - Australia Wins Plain Packaging Challenge in Asia

Plain Packaging, the initiative to effectively remove all identifying markings (one could say the only distinctive features in tobacco), is a debate that has been raging on for years, with both sides voicing very valid concerns. Australia has been on the forefront of plain packaging, passing the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 over 5 years ago, and the Act has not been without its challenges. Currently there still are suspended proceedings at the WTO, initiated by Ukraine, over the legality of the Act (discussed, prior to the suspension, here); however, this has not been the only battleground the Act has been fought over in.

In a recent action in the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) challenged the legislation under the 1993 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Hong Kong for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, which sets certain rules for both countries in relation to foreign investments from those countries. These are, inter alia, that "[e]ach Contracting Party shall encourage and create favourable conditions for investors of the other Contracting Party to make investments in its area" and that "[i]nvestors of either Contracting Party shall not be deprived of their investments nor subjected to measures having effect equivalent to such deprivation in the area of the other Contracting Party except under due process of law". The latter of the two is the more important argument, as Philip Morris argued that Australia infringed this Article (Article 6) through its plain packaging law. Additionally Philip Morris argued that the law did not treat their investment fairly and equally (as mandated by Article 2(2)).

Without discussing the merits of Philip Morris' case, Australia argued a lack of proper jurisdiction for the Court of Arbitration, as, among other factors, Philip Morris Asia had only acquired the full shareholding of their Australian counterpart after the introduction of the legislation, leaving them fully aware and accepting of the potential negative influence on their investment by the law's passing.

The Tribunal decided on this late last year (with the decision not having been published as of yet, due to confidentiality reasons, which this writer was waiting for) that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and dismissed Philip Morris Asia's case.

The decision, albeit very low in substance of the intellectual property laws that underpin plain packaging, is an interesting one, and a worthwhile illustration of the power of international trade agreements. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the controversy surrounding it only makes this more pronounced, which could, potentially, afford similar routes for corporations to challenges laws that make like difficult for them. In any event, this writer found the case interesting, although underwhelming in its substance, and would have liked to see things debated in more length as to the actual law and its possible infringement of the Agreement.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

Copyright Calm - Yoga Poses Refused Copyright Protection in the US

Many in the legal community could benefit from more relaxation and meditation, and today's fitness culture harbors a great appreciation for activities like pilates and yoga. As many of you will be aware, yoga (and similar forms of exercise) are composed of a variety of poses and movements, allowing for the targeting of specific muscle groups and/or physical (and mental) benefits as a result. If the different poses and exercises were not enough to confuse many, there are several different styles of yoga, all encompassing different methodologies and exercises, such as Ashtanga and Hatha yoga, some of which have been developed fairly recently by modern yogis. One of these is Bikram Yoga, developed by Bikram Choudhury, comprising of 26 poses conducted in a hot, humid environment. As the style has been designed and 'created' by Mr. Choudhury, one could imagine the program or poses could be protected; a fact that Mr. Choudhury has vigorously asserted over the years. To that end, could a yoga pose or series of poses be protected by copyright?

The US Court of Appeals recently took this question on in the case of Bikram Yoga College of India v Evolution Yoga, LLC, which dealt with the aforementioned yoga style. Bikram Choudhury's version of Hatha yoga consists of 26 different 'asanas', or in other words, poses, and two breathing exercises, all collectively known as the Sequence. He also released a book called "Bikram's Beginning Yoga Class" in late the 1970s, and registering its with the US Copyright Office along with a 'compilation of exercises' some time later. The final chapter in the development of his yoga empire was the launch of a Bikram Yoga instructors course in the late 1990s, called the "Bikram Yoga Teacher Training Course", where individuals could learn the Sequence and the underlying philosophy of Bikram Yoga and instruct others in the same. In the early 2000s, Mark Frost and Zefea Samson participated in the course, and subsequently founded Evolution Yoga, where they taught, among other classes, "hot yoga", which was similar to Bikram's take on yoga. Mr. Choudhury subsequently took the two to court, alleging copyright infringement of his copyright protected works.

The case stems from the idea-expression dichotomy, which separates the protection of ideas without an expressive manifestation in a tangible form. The Court therefore had to assess whether the Sequence would amount to a mere idea, or whether it would be a form of expression protected by copyright.

Yoga isn't always all fun and stretches

Under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), many different forms of works are covered by copyright; however subsection (b) specifically excludes protection from "...any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work". Judge Wardlaw, handing down the Court of Appeals' judgment, extensively considered precedent dealing with the Court's view on the division of ideas and expression. Baker v Selden, dealing with the protection (or lack thereof) for a book-keeping system, and Palmer v Braun, dealing with the protectability of meditation exercises, illustrate the unavailability of copyright protection for ideas, even if they are 'expressed' in some sort of tangible form.

Ultimately, the Sequence was deemed to be not protected by copyright. Even though Mr. Choudhury's Sequence promotes health and the development of human mental and physical well-being, the Court determined it fell short from copyright's remit. Judge Wardlaw did, however, remark that "...if it is entitled to protection at all, that protection is more properly sought through the patent process". The prevention of competition was also a consideration for the Court, as they saw that "[c]onsumers would have little reason to buy Choudhury's book if Choudhury held a monopoly on the practice of the very activity he sought to popularize. Rather than "stimulat[ing] artistic creativity for the general public good," copyright protection for the Sequence would prevent the public from engaging with... [the] idea and building upon it".

Mr. Choudhury also argued that the Sequence should be protected as a compilation work under 17 U.S.C. § 103. Judge Warlaw quickly rejected this argument, as, for a work to be awarded protection under section 103, it would first have to qualify as a protectable work under section 102; something that, as the above shows, it failed to do. The argument was based on Mr. Choudhury's arrangement and organization of the poses and exercises within the Sequence, but this still does not extend copyright to subject matter that it did not protect to begin with. This makes sense, as it seeks to prevent the protection of non-qualifying works, since the extension of compilation protection to works not covered by section 102 could open the floodgates for works not contemplated by the legislature in drafting the law.

Finally, the last argument dealt with by the Court was whether the Sequence would be protected as a choreographic work under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(4). Similarly to the above, the claim fails due to a lack of protection as a qualifying work under section 102 from the very beginning. As settled by Judge Wardlaw: "[e]ven if the Sequence could fit within some colloquial definitions of dance or choreography, it remains a process ineligible for copyright protection".

The case remains a novelty in the sphere of copyright, and offers very little that was not known already. Yet, it does highlight an important aspect of intellectual property law: the importance of picking your form of protection. Should Mr. Choudhury sought patent protection for the Sequence, he could have potentially used it to prevent others from using his Sequence, or teaching similar routines at non-affiliated yoga studios. Even so, he did not, and fell foul of copyright and its remit.

Source: JDSupra

Words Reinterpreted - Copyright and Translations

As has been well-established for years, copyright protects the expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves (more on which can be found here), no matter what your expression for that idea may be. Words especially are a very nuanced, often unique way of conveying similar ideas or stories, making them the most malleable out of all forms of more direct expression (when images can be much more subjective, at least in this writer's opinion). Although similar stories have been told for centuries, basing themselves on old folk lore or mythologies, their specific expression has always varied drastically, tacking onto the societal make-up of their time and their respective overarching themes. Translations take those works and make them available to people who otherwise would not be able to access them. With this in mind, can you translate a story and not infringe its copyright, and can a translation be a new form of expression of the same story, potentially being protected by copyright itself?

Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in the United Kingdom, copyright holders have a specific set of rights in their protected works, which includes literary works. Under section 16 of the Act only the copyright holder is able to make an 'adaptation' of the work, which specifically includes translations. Should you choose to make a translation of a work, without seeking a proper license to do so from the copyright holder, you would be infringing their copyright (specifically section 21 of the CDPA). This follows Article 8 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works that gives authors "...the exclusive right of making and of authorizing the translation of their works throughout the term of protection of their rights in the original works".

Is there any way for an individual to translate a work without infringing copyright then? Under the CDPA there are certain exceptions for the use of copyright protected materials that translations could potentially fall under, specifically criticism, review and news reporting and research and private study. Both exceptions provide avenues for a legitimate use of materials so far as the use is for that specific purpose and not merely done under the façade of the exception in order to create an infringing copy. Arguably, translating a copy for criticism, review or news reporting provides a sufficient reason to do so, as the understanding of the underlying material and using it in that task can be said to be fair and a proper use of copyright protected material for that purpose. The same goes for research and private study, especially when no officially translated source material is not available to be used and thus the materials could not be used to advance your own personal education or research. Arguably none of these do allow for the distribution and/or sale of a translated work, but do offer an avenue for legitimate uses of translated works should you require to do so.

Albert was a master linguist (Source: Farmers Weekly)

Other common law countries have very similar provisions dealing with the translation of copyrighted works. In the United States copyright similarly does not allow for the creation of translations of works, as under 17 USC section 106 the copyright holder has the sole right to create 'derivative works', which does include translations. Canada, much like its cousin in the South and across the pond, gives the right to translate works only to the copyright holder under the Canadian Copyright Act. Finally, Australia, much like the previous three, protects translations as a right only bestowed to the copyright holder under the Copyright Act 1968, as they are considered an adaptation of the original. Clearly the ability to translate a work is seen as an important right of the original author, and rightfully so, as the spreading of a work to new territories, often through linguistic barriers that require the translation of your work, and an opportunistic infringer could easily pounce on the popularity of a title only released in a select few countries.

This still poses the question that can a translation be a new work unto its own, and possibly be protected under copyright outside of the original work? In the US the protection in any derivative works (and in turn, translations) only extends to the newly created parts of the work that did not exist in the original. This may seem very vague, which it is, but arguably this would be any changes in expression or artistic flourishes the translator adds to his or her take on the story, either through necessity, linguistic differences or just through their own initiative. This does not create a work in itself, but does show that the translation can incur protection, even if partially so. Canadian legislation takes this a step further as it has been seen in Pasickniak v Dojacek by the Canadian Court of Appeal that a translated work is a copyright protected work in itself, wholly separate from the original work it derives from. This still does not mean the translator attains any copyright title in his/her translation as the copyright automatically vests in the copyright holder, albeit still separately.

Even so, translations can have even vast differences to the original works, and as seen above, potentially should carry more weight as separate literary works themselves without skirting the copyright of the source than you'd think. Great examples of where translations deviate onto a path of their own, at least in some terms, are works by Umberto Eco. His works often contain specific references to regional artists, works and anecdotes; material that has been noted to be changed or even omitted in his works when translated. Mr. Eco is by no means the only writer who has 'suffered' from the changes through translation, and arguably that is a part of the nature of the beast (there are instances where works have been altered for censorship as well). One could argue that when a translations steps beyond the bounds of the original drastically it could be said to be a work in itself; a reinterpretation of a story created prior. Regardless, copyright will probably not allow for the free translation and 'reimagination' of said works any time soon, as its main function is to reward the original author, not subsequent users of said material, arguably using very little imagination of their own (this writer does not, however, want to diminish their work by any means). Any aspiring translators will therefore have to keep their wits about themselves, and apply for relevant licences or approval before starting on their reinterpretation of their favorite foreign book.

Conflicted Owners - Intellectual Property Law and Ownership of Property

Saying something is truly yours is a rare thing these days, especially with the seemingly impossible future of house ownership in a lot of cities (especially for us here in London), and people often derive a huge sense of achievement and gratification from the fact that they've bought something and it is finally theirs to keep. Intellectual property law has rarely concerned itself with the ownership of physical things, but protects the underlying works rather than the tangible object itself, with the exception of counterfeit goods, for example. That said, there often can be confusion among the less IP-savvy of us with this distinction, but after a recent news article this misconception might not be too far off anymore. This begs the question: can intellectual property law interfere with your ownership of your things?

In a recent letter to the US Copyright office, John Deere, one of the largest manufacturers of agricultural, construction and forestry equipment, potentially put in doubt the ownership of individual's or companies in those fields over the equipment they have purchased. John Deere's comments come in the wake of an inquiry into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, potentially allowing for the circumvention of technological measures, currently prevented under 17 USC 1201, under certain classes, for example software relating to cars or other vehicles or equipment. This exemption would allow for the breaking of software protection to aid in the diagnosis and repair of vehicles using that software, especially when it comes to non-licensed, cheaper mechanics than those licensed by John Deere, or even the modification of said software for your own purposes.

John Deere's position regarding the proposed changes is quite strong: "Circumvention of the TMPs for Class 21 will make it possible for pirates, third-party software developers, and less innovative competitors to free-ride off the creativity, unique expression and ingenuity of vehicle software designed by leading vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers". Admittedly, allowing for tinkering and free access to software does provide risks (malfunctioning of the vehicle etc.), but allowing for cheaper maintenance and possible customization potentially outweighs those issues. As for piracy, traditional copyright would still protect the software from being used by competitors or 'pirates', since the exception would only apply to repair, modification and improvements and not misappropriation or its blatant copying.

Brick was trying to find the software on his car, but couldn't

How does copyright impact, at least in John Deere's argument, ownership of your vehicle? Their argument is that "[a] vehicle owner does not acquire copyrights for software in the vehicle, and cannot properly be considered an "owner" of the vehicle software". From a plain understanding of copyright law, the argument runs true; when you purchase a piece of software, you don't 'own' the software itself per say, but garner a licence to use that software. Even with that in mind, the end-user does, and should, have rights in their use of the software, albeit not be allowed to make illegal copies of it and distribute it as they wish. John Deere acknowledge this: "...the vehicle owner receives an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle", which is true, at least in terms of the software. One could say it prevents the proper use of the car or its auxiliary uses (should the software fail or be irreparable due to age or lack of repair facilities), but one has to remember to distinguish ownership of the tangible from the intangible. Your car is still your car; the software isn't.

The United Kingdom does not have a similar set of broad protective measures against the circumvention of technological protection, although section 296 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 does prevent an individual from using devices to circumvent such protections (for example using 'mod-chips' to play illegal copies of video games on their consoles). Software is very much protected in the UK under copyright (more on which can be found here), and alleged misuses of vehicle software would very much be protectable against.

Copyright is a complex beast, and it does prevent one from enjoying the things you buy in the manner than some would hope to (i.e. as if they own the right to distribute the content etc.), but does not prevent you from using it in a legitimate, allowed fashion. However, do other IP rights prevent you from using your hard-earned items?

Trademarks apply to the sale of products, aiming to identify those of a certain quality or pedigree, and don't lend themselves well to the interference of ownership. Once you buy a bottle of Coca-Cola (or any brand, per your preference), the company cannot prevent you from using it to trick your siblings, or to make a mess; qualities it would possibly not enjoy associating with its brand. There has been an instance where Deadmau5, a popular electronic music producer, was told by Ferrari to remove unwarranted modifications to his Ferrari Spyder (such as changing the logo to a jumping cat one), and even though, on the face of it, it can seem like an interference with his right to use his own property, one could say the issue was probably more contractual than IP related.

Patents, similarly to trademarks, only really apply in a commercial context, and don't provide an avenue through which a patented item could be prevented from being used in a particular way. Even if your vacuum cleaner has a patented method of collecting refuse, you can still vacuum your pets without a worry or fear of interference from your vacuum brand. Any illegal copying or misuse of patented material would clearly be covered, which steps beyond the bounds of everyday use of said items.

That being said, John Deere and the other parties rallying against an exception to circumvent car software are not, as the article cited here would say, interfering with your ownership of your own items or seeking to do so. The protection of your software has been a long-standing ability within the world of IP, and their aim is not to prevent you from using your tractor that you have rightfully purchased. Whether the exception is introduced or not remains to be seen, but this writer would like to assure you your tractor is still very much yours to keep, at least for now.

Source: Wired

Retrospective - Computer Software and Copyright

In a world where everything is becoming more and more digital and reliant on computers to handle most tedious or complex tasks, software is king; it is what executes these tasks and makes things easier to do on the aforementioned devices. With the software business booming, more and more value can be placed on having the right software for the right task in the highly competitive space, and with that the desire to protect your product. Even in the wake of the Alice decision some time ago (discussed on this very blog here and here) the protectability of software still remains, albeit quite hindered. In light of the more difficult protectability of software through patents, copyright shines brighter and as a possible alternative, yet poses a question which might be less glaringly obvious to most: is software protected under copyright?

A fairly recent case in the UK Court of Appeals, SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd, attempted to take on this issue and decide once and for all whether copyright does afford protection to software and its underlying code. The SAS Institute is a software development company well-known for its analytical software, often referred to as the SAS System (or just plainly SAS). A core component of the SAS System is SAS Base; a piece of software which allows the user to easily write and run scripts to analyze and use data. The scripts themselves were written in a programming language developed by SAS called SAS Language. Finally, the SAS Base software can be extended upon by three additional components: SAS/ACCESS, SAS/GRAPH and SAS/STAT respectively. In addition to the software SAS have also written manuals for the use of its software. The SAS environment was quite tightly controlled, and customers had no secondary options which to use in the execution of their developed scripts for the platform (the SAS Language only functioned through SAS' System). Their competitor, World Programming, sought to create an alternative piece of software capable of utilizing the SAS Language, so that any programs written in the Language can be used in both their suite and SAS' - the end-result being a program called the World Programming System. The software endeavored to mimic SAS' System as closely as possible; however they had not accessed SAS' source code in their development, merely copying the outputs and inputs of the System. Due to this, SAS sued WPL, asserting that the company had copied its manuals; through the copying of the manuals they had infringed SAS' copyright in their extension components; WPL had infringed its copyright in a version of its System, the Learning Edition, and breached its terms in its misuse; and WPL had infringed SAS' copyright in its manuals after creating its own version called the WPL Manual.

Being 'creative' in programming can be difficult

Confusion in terms of acronyms aside, the court was therefore faced with the ultimate determination of whether copyright exists in SAS' software, and whether WPL had infringed that copyright. Under EU legislation, more specifically Directive 91/250/EEC (now governed by Directive 2009/24/EC with no substantive differences), computer programs are wholly protected by copyright as a form of expression; however the underlying principles of those programs are not. To put this into more simple terms, the code executing a specific function in its particular expression can be protected, but the idea of that execution is not, allowing anyone to create a program doing the same thing, so long as the expression of that execution is not the same as other expressions of it (i.e. different code, same result). Computer programs have since been included in the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, under section 3.

To look at things further, the scope of what is protectable under the above Directives was left quite open, but was subsequently added to in the case of Infopaq International v Danske Dagblades Forening, where the European Court of Justice saw that copyright protects an author's "...intellectual creation" (the wording used in the Berne Convention), potentially encompassing programs quite readily if it can be seen as such a work - supplanting this definition in the Directive's interpretation. What is important in this term's application, in the Court's judgment, lies within whether a computer program can be seen as an 'intellectual creation', and in assessing this the court must decide that if the expression within the computer program is purely a technical one (i.e. derived from necessity for things to work right), the work cannot be seen as an intellectual creation under this definition. To put things in more simplistic terms: "...the author [has to be] able to express his creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices". If a programmer, in the creation of a specific application, can express his or her creativity and choices in how the program works, it can be protected by copyright. Even if the program has very specific functionality, or combines several different functional approaches to the execution of its desired task, the law does not protect it under copyright. In the court's view the copyrightability of functions or functionality, no matter how well used or combined, would be tantamount to the copyrightability of an idea, and therefore is not within the remit of copyright.

Finally, the court had to assess whether the manuals created by SAS are protected as works, and whether WPL had infringed those manuals' copyright protection.Their content was largely informative, and therefore would encompass most of the 'ideas' expressed in the aforementioned programs, or as expressed by Lord Justice Lewison: "...what counts as an idea, for the purposes of a computer program, also counts as an idea for the purposes of a manual". With this in mind, should the manual express the idea in a way which can be seen as protectable, it can fall within the remit of the law. His Lordship dismissed both claims on the manuals, effectively dismissing their protection due to a lack of any protectable expression, as they merely described the function of the programs without adding anything original on the author's part.

In the end SAS lost their appeal and the Court of Appeal closed the door on the copyright protection for programs, at least for the most part. The case was appealed to the UK Supreme Court, however leave was not given, solidifying the law's position through the Court of Appeal's judgment. The position presented in the case differs drastically to what has been discussed in the United States, where programs can be protected by copyright. Nevertheless the case is without a question an important milestone in relation to copyright and computer software, and this writer for one believes it will stay as such for a while.

Birds Of A Feather - Twitter and Copyright

Social media has changed how we interact with others, both online and to an extent, in real life, but its impact on creativity and the spreading of such materials is unrivaled, with content that goes 'viral' producing unprecedented revenue figures in recent years. With this in mind, capitalizing on such successes for others seems like an easy opportunity to make some money, and using social media to do so gives us all an avenue where it's both effortless and instantaneous. One such platform is Twitter; something which most people are aware of these days (even this blog has its own Twitter account). For the hopelessly uninitiated, Twitter allows you to share content, be it links, statements or quotes, with relative ease to all of your followers (and their followers, should they choose to share - i.e. retweet - your content), but allows you to only do so within the limit of 140 characters. With such restrictions, and the medium itself considered, would a tweet be enough to merit copyright protection? Furthermore, can you infringe copyright by tweeting someone else's content?

Whether tweets are indeed protected by  copyright is an assessment of whether they can be deemed to be literary works under such regimes. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 in the UK, and other similar laws within the common law, does not set out any word or character limits to what can be deemed as a literary work. Should the tweet itself be original, and admittedly this writer for one has seen his share of funny or interesting tweets over the years, it could be considered a literary work and thus be protected by copyright. Tweeting about pictures or videos one has made does not in itself afford copyright protection to that particular tweet, but the copyright in those standalone works still quite well exists by its own merits. This question does not have a straightforward answer at the end of things, but should your Twitter output be interesting, funny or creative enough, you can rest easy your 140 character gold will most likely be protectable.

Some tweets are less 'original' than others, quite frankly

Copyright infringement on the other hand is a wholly different beast when it comes to Twitter, and as stated above can be something your average tweeter might not think about in the casualness of the medium. Albeit not exactly a tweet, an advertisement in the New York Times used a tweet by A. O. Scott, a film critic of some note, as a form of endorsement (one which was not approved by the critic himself) landed them in a bit of hot water, and prompted a conversation on whether tweets carry copyright protected subject matter. As can be seen above they arguably do, and this instance further enforces that notion. Some estimates have put a worth of several thousands of pounds on a celebrity's tweet, which only goes to show that even without much literary merit, a tweet can still be quite valuable, and therefore, worthy of protection. Using other people's tweets therefore can be an issue, should one do so without proper authorization.

But getting back to your average Twitter user; can you infringe copyright by retweeting someone else's tweet? Should someone post a tweet which infringes copyright, say an unauthorized excerpt from a famous book, containing an integral part of the story, one could potentially infringe copyright by retweeting that same excerpt. Should that part be deemed substantial enough to infringe copyright under the CDPA 1998, a retweet could very well infringe copyright. Again, retweeting and infringing copyright has no clear-cut answer, and given the length of each tweet, infringement would have a much harder time if dealing with more extensive works and excerpts of those works in the twittersphere.

Albeit a very brief consideration, one can see above that Twitter does provide us with an interesting sphere in which copyright resides. Most users of Twitter are incredibly casual with the medium, and although it will probably not cause any major issues for most copyright holders, some frequently more hilarious tweeters might want to be on their toes when they hear the birds chirping.

Can You Own a Recipe? When Food Meets Intellectual Property Law

Food is quite important to all of us, and not just because of its nourishing quality and necessity for life, but also for the sheer enjoyment of a dish which has been prepared with care and love. This writer for one will freely admit that he loves to both cook and eat (often the latter more than the former), which prompted me with a thought in the process of seeking out recipes to make: can you own a recipe, or if anything, are recipes protectable under intellectual property law? Upon initial thinking the question seems to beg an answer, since recipes are undeniably creations of great creative efforts, planning, knowledge and skill, which, prima facie at least, should afford it some level of protection. This aside, food is ubiquitous to all cultures, peoples, and as said above, a necessity, which would render their protection draconian or even preventative of the enjoyment of cultural aspects for the larger masses should recipes be isolated to only a select few. The question indeed deserves an answer, and I shall endeavor to do so below, separating the matter into each type of intellectual property.

Recipes and Copyright

Often people's first memories of recipes is a dusty old tome which their grandparents have kept and compiled over the years, containing family recipes and secrets from generations ago. Whether it is Gordon Ramsay or your lovely grandma, recipes take effort and skill to create and compile, being put into tangible form either on paper or online. Under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and similarly its US, Australian and Canadian counterparts, copyright protection is afforded to original literary works; however this protection is given to the expression of those literary ideas, not the ideas themselves (expanded more on this very blog here and here). Recipes, therefore, potentially could be protected under copyright should they be expressed in a very specific or original manner; however the ideas of the recipes themselves (for example the concept of a pancake) cannot be protected by copyright.

Some recipes are more 'original' than others

This was specifically discussed by the Australian IPO (link leads to an external PDF file), which this writer thinks is an accurate representation of the laws' applicability in most common law countries: "[t]he owner of copyright in a recipe has certain limited rights to control the manner in which their written recipe is used. This does not include, for example, preventing people from making the dish, or from writing their own descriptions of how to make it". To expand on this, the individual or entity can protect their recipe to an extent, but cannot prevent others from making that particular dish or writing down their version of the recipe. As expression is protected, and not ideas, mere techniques, information on ingredients or methods or the 'idea' of an overall recipe cannot be protected.

Copyright leaves recipes quite exposed, but does offer some level of protection should someone try to use your recipe which has been published in a book or in another protectable form. However should they want to publish their own version or efforts, even writing down a specific recipe in their own words after following someone cooking it, they are free to do so.

Recipes and Trademarks

The names of dishes can be quite valuable, especially if they gain a high level of traction. A famous dish can be highly desirable to protect in name, and under the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 (and similarly under its American, Australian and Canadian counterparts) a sign, an indicator of a goods' origin, can be protected, which easily encompasses the names of dishes or recipes. A recent example of this is the fabled Cronut, a mixture between a croissant and a donut, which became seemingly huge overnight. Arguably the recipe for a Cronut can be very valuable, and many have shared their takes on the item, but what truly brings protectability to the doughy foodstuff is its name - something its creator trademarked promptly. As illustrated above the idea of a Cronut is not protectable as is, but the name does prevent others from selling the item under the recognizable moniker, which is very often more valuable than attempting to prevent the use of a recipe. 

This is not to say protecting a dish or a recipe can result in a positive outcome. Last year a Vietnamese restaurant in London faced some backlash after it asserted its trademark on the dish "Pho", albeit used in the restaurant's name rather than as a means to protect a specific recipe. Whether it is a food related name or a distinct recipe with an elaborate or distinct name, trademarks do serve as a great tool to protect recipes, yet are limited to only truly distinct cases, as one cannot simply just trademark a common recipe or dish.

Recipes and Patents

The more interesting choice of the three was an option this writer had never even considered; patenting a recipe. More often than not patents protect inventions, which encompasses a very wide array of things, but one would never think of a recipe as an 'invention' no matter how inventive the approach can be. Nevertheless, this is still quite possible, although any aspiring food patent seeker will be fighting an uphill battle at best.

Intricate methods of cooking often lead to mixed results

Under the UK Patents Act 1977 for an invention to be patentable it has to fulfill certain criteria: it has to be something new; involve an inventive step; and be capable of industrial application. On the face of things a recipe could be exactly that, and fall under each category; however one can imagine this would pertain more to an industrial recipe, rather than a single kitchen in a single restaurant. A good example of a food related patent is Cadbury's patent for chocolate that doesn't melt (and for the sake of balance Nestle's equivalent is here). The recipe clearly calls for a specific method of creation, a way to make the recipe, rather than the recipe itself. Chocolate is way too common for it to be afforded patent protection, but a novel way to produce chocolate could easily be patented if it falls under all of the requirements. For a great in depth look at the matter in the US, please do read Gene Quinn's article, which covers recipe patents under US law very comprehensively.

Patents are a tougher sell as a method for protecting recipes, but are still quite viable and an option should you dish be created in a very unconventional, new way, and possibly include a more industrial approach rather than one which relates to looks or flavor alone. It won't protect the recipe per say, but it will protect the method through which that recipe is produced.

Conclusion

In short, can you own a recipe? Yes and no. To own a recipe in its most truest sense, it seems nearly impossible under current intellectual property laws, and rightfully so, since no nation would want to deprive its citizens of the multifaceted world that is the culinary world. One can easily own an aspect or two to a recipe, for example its name or a specific structure if it entails a strict layering process for example, or even a printed recipe, but the limits the law imposes on those rights are very strict and nuanced. Being able to buy a lasagna outside of a certain restaurant in Italy is truly a blessing for us all, and we can take that availability for granted.

A message to all aspiring chefs and current culinary professionals: focus on the quality of your product rather than its protectability under intellectual property law.