Mind Your Language! - CJEU Decides on the Registration of Offensive Trademarks

Rude language can be a sore point of contention for many people. The offensive nature of trademarks has been litigated quite a bit in high-profile cases recently, including the case regarding the band "The Slants" (discussed more here) in the US. The European courts have faced the question of offensive trademarks sometime ago, and Advocate General Bobeck looked at this in some detail in the Summer of 2019. Following the AG's decision, the CJEU has finally considered the question of offensive trademarks and handed down their judgment earlier this year.

The case of Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v EUIPO concerned an application to register the name "Fack Ju Göhte" (EUTM 13971163), which is the name of a German comedy film produced by Constantin. The film saw tremendous success in the year it was published, and Constantin released a subsequent two sequels under the same name. The EUIPO refused the application under Article 7(1)(f) of the CTM Regulation, which prevents the registration of trademarks "...which are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality". Constantin then appealed the decision, which ultimately ended up with the CJEU.

The Court began by limiting the scope of the issue, following the guidance of the Advocate General, to only consider whether the mark was contrary to accepted principles of morality, as the matter didn't relate to any issues of public policy.

To consider the above, the Court noted that, to determine the scope of Article 7(1)(f) "...it is not sufficient for the sign concerned to be regarded as being in bad taste. It must, at the time of the examination, be perceived by the relevant public as contrary to the fundamental moral values and standards of society as they exist at that time". This clearly shows that the morality the courts will be concerned with is transient, and the standard can fluctuate as morality does within wider society; however, the examiner will have to consider it within a snapshot in time when applied for.

Mittens just couldn't handle Rover learning any more bad words

Furthermore, the Court saw that this would be determined according to "...the perception of a reasonable person with average thresholds of sensitivity and tolerance, taking into account the context in which the mark may be encountered and, where appropriate, the particular circumstances of the part of the Union concerned". This includes "...elements such as legislation and administrative practices, public opinion and, where appropriate, the way in which the relevant public has reacted in the past to that sign or similar signs, as well as any other factor which may make it possible to assess the perception of that public".

Reviewing the judgment of the General Court, the CJEU determined that they had misapplied the law concerning Article 7. In their assessment, the General Court should have included, among the things they considered, the great success of the comedy, the fact that its title does not appear to have caused controversy, as well as the fact that access to it by young people had been authorised and that the Goethe Institute (which promotes the German language abroad) uses the movie for educational purposes. The General Court should not have merely considered the inherent vulgar nature of the English phrase it was compared to, namely "Fuck You", to decide that the mark would be contrary to public morality.

The Court also noted that one would have to take into account the freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when considering any infringement of Article 7(1)(f). The General Court considered that this would not be the case, which the CJEU clearly did not agree with.

Following the dismissal of the General Court's decision the CJEU then moved onto consider the trademark in question under Article 7(1)(f).

The CJEU thought that, following a discussion of the Board of Appeal's decision, the title of a film need not be descriptive of its content in order to constitute a relevant contextual factor in assessing whether the relevant audience perceives that title and an eponymous word sign as contrary to accepted principles of morality. Additionally, although the success of a film does not automatically prove the social acceptance of its title and of a word sign of the same name, it is at least an indication of such acceptance which must be assessed in the light of all the relevant factors in the case in order to establish the perception of that sign in the event of use of that sign as a trademark.

As said above, the movie spawned a further two sequels with the same name, all of which have had great success, and is used in educational purposes, it goes to show that it isn't against the public morality in Germany. The Court did note that, however, the perception of the phrase "Fuck You" will be different between German-speaking countries and English-speaking ones, especially when dealing with a phrase written phonetically and inclusive of other words, such as the name Goethe.

The CJEU determined that the EUIPO has failed to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard that Article 7(1)(f) precludes registration of the mark applied for under the above grounds.

The case is a very important one and highlights the potential evidence looked for when determining whether a mark is contrary to public morality or not. The case also demonstrates that freedom of expression is very relevant in this exercise, which this writer agrees with since the remit of trademarks should by no means be exempt from freedom of expression even though one could describe it as "commercial expression" rather than traditional expression as you would commonly think of it.

Cast Aside - Recording of TV Through the Cloud Infringes Copyright, Says CJEU

Many foreign nationals who have immigrated abroad yearn for a piece of home, either through food, music or TV and movies. Often this is done using online or on-demand services, and this interest can create opportunists who wish to capitalise on the home-sickness of ex-pats. Quite a few websites offer both legitimate and illegitimate means of doing so. In that vein, would the recording of TV shows for users, without copying it into your own servers, infringe copyright?

The case of VCAST Limited v RTI SpA concerns this question, where VCAST offered a service to users enabling them to record Italian television on-demand to an external storage provider of their choice. The user would select which show on which channel they would want to record, which VCAST then recorded for them onto their storage provider's servers. VCAST was subsequently sued by RTI, an Italian TV channel, for copyright infringement, ending up all the way at the CJEU.

The CJEU was posed two questions in the proceedings, which it subsequently merged into one, as they asked two sides of the same coin. The question was whether "…[the InfoSoc Directive], in particular Article 5(2)(b) thereof, precludes national legislation which permits a commercial undertaking to provide private individuals with a cloud service for the remote recording of private copies of works protected by copyright, by means of a computer system, by actively involving itself in the recording, without the rightholder’s consent". In other words, is it possible for national legislation to prevent the private copying of copyright protected works using a cloud recording service.

As set out by the Court: "…Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29, Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial". So long this use doesn't conflict with the works' normal exploitation or prejudice the legitimate interests in the works, exceptions and/or limitations are allowed.

According to case law, the CJEU considered that copying by natural persons acting in a private capacity would be likely to cause harm to the rightsholders concerned if prior authorisation from them isn't sought. This position was developed further in ACI Adam where the Court allowed for rightsholders objecting to infringements that might accompany the making of private copies, even though the exception prohibits them from objecting to private copying. Finally, third-parties can be involved in the making of private copies, provided they are a precondition to it.

The distinction between a mere third-party copying content and VCAST is VCAST's provision of the programs themselves, which the user then selects from. They therefore both copy and make available the copyright protected works to the consumer.



The Cloud can makes emotions run high

Even though rightsholders are prohibited from preventing the private copying of copyright works, as discussed above, they are not prohibited from preventing access to the works that are desired to be privately copied. This allowed the Court to move onto the matter of communication to the public, which third-parties cannot do. The distinction between simply copying, where the entity does not make the content available in a wider scale, and making works available and then copying them on request, is important and requires the court to address this point.

When assessing 'communication to the public' Courts have to consider two cumulative criteria; an 'act of communication' that is done to a 'public'. The former is a transmission of protected works, irrespective of technical means, and the latter an undetermined amount, although impliedly large, of people as possible recipients.

Through their service VCAST records broadcasts of TV shows and makes them available for its users. The amount of users is clearly enough to constitute a 'public', while the original transmission through VCAST's service is transmitted to that public. The service therefore infringes the right to communication to the public, and would require the authorisation of RTI (and other relevant parties not involved in the litigation).

The CJEU concluded that VCAST's service does not fall under the scope of Article 5(2)(b). In different words, answering the question posed: "…Directive 2001/29, in particular Article 5(2)(b) thereof, precludes national legislation which permits a commercial undertaking to provide private individuals with a cloud service for the remote recording of private copies of works protected by copyright, by means of a computer system, by actively involving itself in the recording, without the rightholder’s consent".

The case is quite surprising, since the matter didn't involve communication to the public at the face of it, only private copying. Even so, the connection made between the two makes sense, and is a relevant consideration in the wider issue. Third-parties making copies for users is still very much allowed; however, the stumbling block will be the making available of that content to users as done by VCAST.

Press Pause - Sale of Multimedia Players to Facilitate Copyright Infringement is a Communication to the Public

The question of what amounts to a 'communication to the public' under EU law has been debated and adjudicated on fiercely in the last couple of years (discussed more here, here, here, here and here) with very little or no end in sight in the near future. Every decision seems to make an ultimate determination more and more elusive, and this writer for one thinks that the matter will never be decided. Even so, the Court of Justice of the EU has been busy yet again, and a recent decision discussing the sale of devices that aid the infringement of copyright was awaited keenly by many. After some time, the CJEU finally rendered its verdict last week.

The case of Stichting Brein v Jack Wullems dealt with the sale of a multimedia player (Filmspieler) that came pre-loaded with applications and open-source software that allowed you to access pay-for content online for free using your own TV. The Filmspieler was sold on a variety of websites, including Mr Wullems' own website. Stichting Brein found out about the sale of the Filmspieler, and requested that Mr Wullems stop selling the device, which he refused to do. Stichting Brein then took the matter to court, which ultimately ended up in the CJEU, where Stichting Brein asked four questions from the Court.

The first and second questions were dealt with together by the CJEU, which asked in essence "...whether the concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of [the InfoSoc Directive], must be interpreted as covering the sale of a multimedia player… on which there are pre-installed add-ons, available on the internet, containing hyperlinks to websites… on which copyright-protected works have been made available to the public without the consent of the right holders".

What 'communication to the public' entails requires a certain set of criteria to be fulfilled, namely an ‘act of communication’ of a work and the communication of that work to a ‘public’. Whether there has been an act of communication requires a more flexible approach where certain complementary criteria, taken holistically, are applied to the act. A particular focus is on whether, in making the act of communication, in full knowledge of the consequences, intervenes to give access to a protected work to a customer, and without their intervention, the customer would not have had access to the work in question.

A 'public' is defined as an indeterminate number of potential viewers, but implies a fairly large number of people viewing the work. The works have to, however, be communicated to a 'new public' or via new means that were not used in its prior communication. Finally, whether the communication makes a profit or not is not a wholly irrelevant criterion in this determination.

The Court therefore had to assess whether the sale of a multimedia player, as described above, would amount to a 'communication to the public'.

Dave was too lazy to care about his Filmspieler no longer working

While the InfoSoc Directive does expressly exclude the provision of physical facilities enabling or making a communication to the public, the Court determined that this didn't in itself limit it from the sale of such devices. The CJEU focussed on the pre-installation of the applications allowing for the infringing activities, which, according to the Court: "...enable[ed] a direct link to be established between websites broadcasting counterfeit works and purchasers of the multimedia player, without which the purchasers would find it difficult to benefit from those protected works", separating it from the mere provision of physical facilities for doing so.

Through this the CJEU considered that "...the provision of a multimedia player such as that at issue in the main proceedings enables, in view of the add-ons pre-installed on it, access via structured menus to links that those add-ons which, when activated by the remote control of that multimedia player, offer its users direct access to protected works without the consent of the copyright holders and must be regarded as an act of communication". Clearly the Court distinguishes between the provision of a device that would have the capability of utilizing such applications, and the pre-installation of those applications on the same device, where the proactive step of installation puts it beyond the 'mere provision of physical facilities' under the Directive.

Whether the act of communication had been done to a 'public' still remained, and the Court decided that, as the Filmspieler had been purchased by a large amount of people, and continued to be available for further purchases, and clearly the communication was therefore aimed at an indeterminate number of people amounting to a 'public' under the Directive. The Filmspieler made the protected works also available to a 'new' public, as the material accessed was not freely available online for all to view, and the Filmspieler made it available to a 'new' public beyond the contemplation of the rightsholder when the works were published. Mr Wullems knew, or ought to have known, that the hyperlinks posted provided access to works illegally placed online. Finally, if the posting of the hyperlinks is done seeking gain or profit, it is expected that the poster would check the links for legality, presuming that any illegal hyperlinks would have been included within the full knowledge of the poster. Mr Wullems sought profit through the sale of the multimedia player, and thus, his sale of the Filmspieler amounted to a communication to the public.

The CJEU was then faced with two questions, which dealt with the streaming of content, but the questions themselves were only treated as hypotheticals and didn't directly apply to the case at hand. The questions asked "...whether the provisions of Article 5(1) and (5) of [the InfoSoc] Directive… must be interpreted as meaning that acts of temporary reproduction, on an multimedia player such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a copyright protected work obtained by streaming from a website belonging to a third party offering that work without the consent of the copyright holder satisfies the conditions set out in those provisions". The Article in question provides that, in essence, any temporary reproductions that are transient or incidental (e.g. streaming) are exempt from the rights afforded in the Directive in Article 2.

For Article 5 to apply, certain conditions need to be fulfilled, namely: the act is temporary; it is transient or incidental; it is an integral and essential part of a technological process; the sole purpose of that process is to enable a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or a lawful use of a work or protected subject matter; and that act does not have any independent economic significance. All of the conditions are cumulative, and need to be fulfilled for the exemption to apply. Additionally, the use under the exemption cannot conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and prejudice the interests of the author.

The key aim of Article 5 is therefore to protect innocent conduits between two parties or entities, such as the ISP, not causing liability for transient copying of works for the facilitation of services between other parties.

The Court ultimately saw that "...temporary acts of reproduction, on a multimedia player such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of copyright-protected works obtained from streaming websites belonging to third parties offering those works without the consent of the copyright holders are such as to adversely affect the normal exploitation of those works and causes unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the right holder, because... that practice would usually result in a diminution of lawful transactions relating to the protected works, which would cause unreasonable prejudice to copyright holders". Due to the prejudice to the legitimate interests of the rightsholders through the streaming of content through the Filmspieler, the temporary copies made for the purpose of streaming would not be exempt by Article 5.

The decision in the case is clearly a positive one for rightsholders, particularly trying to combat the sale of multimedia devices such as in the case. What remains key in the case is the provision of physical facilities (in itself not infringing) in addition to facilitating copyright infringement can turn the provision of physical facilities into an infringing act. One would have to therefore be careful about the content and usability of devices that have the capability of infringing copyright, particularly with pre-installed software. While the case does not settle things once and for all, it remains an important step in the progression of the definition of a 'communication to the public' under the Directive.

Source: IPKat

Link Away - CJEU Decides Hyperlinking to Images is Not Communication to the Public

After the Advocate General's opinion on the GS Media (discussed here) case some 5 months ago, many people in the IP sphere have awaited the ultimate decision of the CJEU with baited breath. While the Advocate General's opinion reflected a pragmatic, very liberal interpretation of the legislation, some seemed skeptical on whether the CJEU would follow his thoughts. After, what felt like a small eternity to this writer, the CJEU has released its judgment on the case yesterday.

The case of GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV dealt with pictures of Britt Dekker (a famous Dutch TV personality), commissioned by Sanoma Media for publication in Playboy magazine. Prior to their publication, the images were somehow acquired and posted by a user on the file-sharing service Filefactory; a link to which was subsequently sent to the website GeenStijl, which is operated by GS Media. GeenStijl shared a part of one of the images of their website, with an additional hyperlink to Filefactory where users could download the images onto their computers. Although vehemently demanded by Sanoma Media, GS Media refused to remove the link from the website, although the content itself was removed from Filefactory. Sanoma Media then took GS Media to court for copyright infringement, which ultimately ended in the CJEU.

The Court had to determine "...whether, and in what possible circumstances, the fact of posting, on a website, a hyperlink to protected works, freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29".

The context is important here too, as the images in question had not been published prior to their leaking to the website and then to GS Media, and their hyperlink makes the finding of the files a lot easier and they had, or ought to have had, the knowledge that the works' publication on that particular website was not authorized.

Following the judgment in Svensson (discussed more here), the concept of a 'communication to the public' under the Directive consists of two criteria, specifically  an 'act of communication' that was communicated to a 'public'. While the Court followed its earlier decisions on the nuances of what amounts to a communication to the public, the meat of the matter lie in the application of this in the current scenario.

As was decided in Svensson, posting hyperlinks on a website to works freely available on another website does not constitute a ‘communication to the public’ (followed in the BestWater case). The Court did distinguish that, in both of the aforementioned cases, the content linked to was authorized by the copyright holder, i.e. the content was legally on the website that the hyperlink lead to (meaning there was no new public for the content) As further clarified by the Court: "...as soon as and as long as that work is freely available on the website to which the hyperlink allows access, it must be considered that, where the copyright holders of that work have consented to such a communication, they have included all internet users as the public". This clearly distinguishes this case from both Svensson and BestWater, as the content was not authorized and therefore, arguably, the communication happened to a 'new public'.

The Court refused to infer the above, and stated that, to protect the freedom of expression and the Internet as we know it, one cannot simply categorize all linking to unauthorized content as a communication to the public. They further saw that, in assessing whether a communication to the public in such a scenario, one has to consider "...when the posting of a hyperlink to a work freely available on another website is carried out by a person who, in so doing, does not pursue a profit, to take account of the fact that that person does not know and cannot reasonably know, that that work had been published on the internet without the consent of the copyright holder". What remains interesting is the potential liability of an unknowing sharer, who still makes a profit by doing so. Ultimately, this seems to just raise the bar for negligence (or a willful blind eye), but is a curious consideration made by the Court.

Hyperlink profiteers enjoying their unlawful gains for one last time

The judgment did not, however, give everyone a free pass: "In contrast, where it is established that such a person knew or ought to have known that the hyperlink he posted provides access to a work illegally placed on the internet, for example owing to the fact that he was notified thereof by the copyright holders, it is necessary to consider that the provision of that link constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)". This makes sense, and would offer a safe harbor for those who were notified of any infringing content, especially if it had been placed there without the express authorization of the rightsholding party. The Court also put the onus on checking the content on those who gained a profit from sharing hyperlinks to other websites: "...it can be expected that the person who posted such a link carries out the necessary checks to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published on the website to which those hyperlinks lead, so that it must be presumed that that posting has occurred with the full knowledge of the protected nature of that work and the possible lack of consent to publication on the internet by the copyright holder. In such circumstances, and in so far as that rebuttable presumption is not rebutted, the act of posting a hyperlink to a work which was illegally placed on the internet constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)". Knowledge, or presumed knowledge, is key here, and clearly the Court wants to curtail profiteers who would use this 'loophole' for their own benefit by sharing links to infringing, unauthorized content.

The Court then finally summarized their findings to the questions posed: "...the answer to the questions raised is that Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether the fact of posting, on a website, hyperlinks to protected works, which are freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed".

The decision is a very interesting one, and this writer had been waiting for it for some time. What seems surprising is the emphasis of financial gain, but it makes sense, as often those who do not pursue pure monetary gains will be more honestly ignorant to the content  they have shared than those who aim to profit from it (often knowing full well what they are sharing, as it is the source of their users).

Clear Enough? - CJEU Further Clarifies Communication to the Public

The CJEU does not seem to be able to make its mind up on the topic of what amounts to a 'communication to the public', as is perfectly illustrated by the recent decisions in Svensson, C More Entertainment, BestWater and the Advocate General's opinion prior to the decision in GS Media (the very decision so many are waiting for). This difficulty in establishing a firm position on this very important subject has created many headaches for IP practitioners, who, by now, are grasping for any concrete and consistent judgments to this effect. While we have to still wait on the CJEU tackling GS Media, there is potentially some respite in the air via a decision discussing, yet again, what a 'communication to the public' might entail.

The case of Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v GEMA dealt with the a rehabilitation center, Reha Training, which provides post-operative treatment to better rehabilitate those who needed it after their medical procedures. The center itself included two waiting rooms and a training room (similar to a gym), where, between June 2012 and June 2013, they showed television programs for the patients who used the facilities in their recovery in installed TVs in the rooms. No permission was requested from GEMA (a German collection society) to display the content for the patients. GEMA then took Reha Training to court, asserting that the display of the TV content amounted to a 'communication to the public' under the InfoSoc Directive.

The referring court essentially asked whether the broadcasting of TV programmes in a rehabilitation center constitutes a communication to the public under several provisions (including the above Directive).

The CJEU first observed that, as the question referred to dealt with two Directives that mention a 'communication to the public', the provision in the InfoSoc Directive applies without prejudice to the application of the Rental Right and Lending Right Directive (which, similarly, offers the exclusive right to the author to communicate to the public a work, though through a more monetary provision). Although the wordings in each of the above Directives differs somewhat from each other, the Court concluded that their interpretation should be the same in order to keep a unified and coherent legal standard. They further clarified this, establishing that "...the different nature of the rights protected under those directives cannot hide the fact that, according to the wording of those directives, those rights have the same trigger, namely the communication to the public of protected works". Arguably, the interpretation of what amounts to a 'communication to the public' should be clear across the board, and this writer would agree that, unless specifically needed, the interpretation should be the same irrespective of the context of a given directive.

The Court then moved onto discussing the actual interpretation of the phrase. As the Court stated, this involves the assessment of several criteria, and the phrase has to be interpreted broadly. The criteria that are looked at are whether there has been an 'act of communication', and if that has been done to a 'public'.

No, Chuck, you can't communicate what you want,
even with a megaphone

In putting things in simple terms, the Court stated, as established, that an 'act of communication' is "...any transmission of the protected works, irrespective of the technical means or process used", and that every such transmission, to be legal, has to be authorized by the author of that work. Following on, the transmission of the work, to be an infringement of the above rights, has to be communicated to a 'public', which is deemed as "...an indeterminate number of potential recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of persons". The public cannot be a restricted, small subset of people, but 'persons in general'. The CJEU has also established that the communication has to happen to a 'new public', meaning people who the author did not take into account when they authorized the communication of the work (i.e. if the content is paywalled, any people who do not have access through said paywall would be, prima facie, a 'new public'). This also involves a clear and calculated part by the person communicating the work to the new public, where their intervention is essential for the user to receive that broadcast. Without the intervention and the clear 'targeting' by the communicator, there would be no communication to a public.

In the earlier decision in SCF v Marco Del Corso the Court discussed this type of communication in a similar context, holding that the broadcast of TV programming in a dentist's office is not a communication to the public, as the patients do not visit the office to primarily watch TV, which in turn does not increase the users of that particular practice (or its attractiveness to a new public).

The Court concluded that Reha Training had indeed communicated the works to a public, as, drawing an analogy to previous case law involving restaurants, spas and hotels "...the operators of... [the] establishment carry out an act of communication where they intentionally broadcast protected works to their clientele by intentionally distributing a signal by means of television or radio sets which they have installed in their establishment". The clientele would not be an insignificant number, and the intervention of the operator of the center is key for their enjoyment of those works, and were not in the contemplation of the original broadcaster as an audience for the works, making them a 'new' public. The communication of the works also makes the center more attractive to prospective clients, giving it a competitive advantage (and thus benefiting from the communication).

The case is a curious development, and further cements the CJEU's position on the concept of a 'new public', which has been somewhat rejected in the Advocate General's opinion in GS Media. As the decision in the case looms in the horizon, it will be interesting to see whether this decision has a big impact on it, and whether the mere provision of hyperlinks would be an intervention that is indispensable for the enjoyment of the works, especially considering the material is freely accessible online to begin with (rather than locked behind a paywall). This writer believes the CJEU will not deem the sharing of hyperlinks to be a communication to the public, but the Court's track record does show that there are no guarantees to this effect.

Source: IPKat

Links A-OK - Hyperlinking to Infringing Material Online is OK, Says AG Wathelet

Since the CJEU's decision in Svensson the fate of hyperlinking in a European context has been up in the air, especially when it comes to copyright infringing materials and directly linking to that content. This is an incredibly important issue, and one that might have ramifications beyond our wildest imaginations, leading to great issues to how the Internet operates in today's world. While the CJEU deliberates its decision in the matter, Advocate General Wathelet provided us with a preview on the potential swing of the CJEU's vote in an opinion that was awaited by many.

The case of GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV dealt with the sharing of images online, specifically linking to images that have been deemed to infringe copyright. Sanoma Media, the publisher of the famous magazine Playboy, had commissioned a photographer to take photos for the magazine of Britt Dekker, a Dutch TV personality. Prior to their publication in Playboy the photos were leaked, and found their way onto an Australian file data storing website Filefactory. These images were then published on the website of a Dutch tabloid magazine, GeenStijl, who linked directly to the photos' location on Filefactory (where they could be downloaded as a zip file). Despite Sanoma's demands to do so, GeenStijl refused to remove the link to the website, although they were eventually removed from Filefactory. After pursuing GS Media through the courts, GeenStijl repeatedly posted new links to the photos in subsequent articles about the litigation, and the matter eventually ended up for the CJEU to decide.

The questions referred to the CJEU essentially dealt with whether the sharing of a hyperlink on another website containing infringing materials would be a 'communication to the public' under the InfoSec Directive.

In his opinion, AG Wathelet summarized the first question asked from the court as "...whether Article 3(1) of [the] Directive... must be interpreted as meaning that the provision on a website of a hyperlink to another website operated by a third party, which is accessible to the general internet public and on which works protected by copyright are made available to the public, without the authorisation of the copyright holder constitutes an act of communication to the public". Additionally, the Advocate General had to give an opinion on whether this question would be impacted by knowledge on part of the sharing party as to the lack of consent to share the content, and whether the previous publication of the work (or lack thereof) is of any relevance.

What remained a point of contention in the case is the findings in both the Svensson and BestWater cases, which the Advocate General first addressed. What both of the cases ultimately boiled down to was that the provision of hyperlinks to works that are freely available would not amount to a 'communication to the public', and therefore escapes infringement. Authorization of the initial publication was never an issue (although not approved in BestWater), or seemed to affect both decisions according to his opinion.

Ultimately, the Advocate General looked at the two criteria set out to establish a communication to a public, meaning looking at whether there has been 'an act of communication', and that it has been done to a 'public' (or a new public, considering Svensson).

Some links can lead to unsavory results

In answering the first criterion, the Advocate General took the position that the provision of a hyperlink to another website containing infringing works would not be an act communication, explaining that: "Although it is true that hyperlinks posted on a website make it much easier to find other websites and protected works available on those websites and therefore afford users of the first site quicker, direct access to those works, I consider that hyperlinks which lead, even directly, to protected works do not ‘make available’ those works to a public where the works are already freely accessible on another website, but merely facilitate the finding of those works". The Advocate General therefore distinguishes between the provision of the materials, and the finding or accessing of those materials, even if they infringe or not. What seems important in his opinion is the initial provision of the works, and not their subsequent sharing even via hyperlinks. He further iterated this position through the decision in Football Association Premier League and Others, where the intervention of the materials (and their subsequent provision for the first time as infringing copies) was key, which a hyperlink would not do, as it does merely facilitate an already available work. He concluded that "...in order to establish an act of communication, the intervention of the ‘hyperlinker’ must be vital or indispensable in order to benefit from or enjoy works". In his opinion GS Media therefore did not communicate the works, as their intervention was not indispensable in order to access the infringing works. He also considered that, as the question was answered in the negative, the question of a lack of authorization (and knowledge thereof) was irrelevant, even through 'nefarious' intentions.

The Advocate General then considered the question of whether the act of communication was done to a 'public'. He outright rejected the applicability of the 'new public' consideration borne in Svensson, deeming it not applicable in this instance (and potentially in other instances as well as a result). This would only be applicable when the work has been authorized, and thus accessed illegally for the benefit of a new public (i.e. from behind a pay-wall). Even if it applied in the event of a lack of authorization, the above intervention considerations would still apply, negating the assessment as the hyperlink would not add to the potential public that already could access the materials. He concluded that question 2 would therefore be answered in the negative.

The Advocate General made general observations as to this issue and the Internet: "...aside from the fact that, in principle, the posting of the hyperlinks in the main proceedings does not, in my view, constitute a ‘communication to the public’... I consider that any other interpretation of that provision would significantly impair the functioning of the Internet and undermine one of the main objectives of [the] Directive... namely the development of the information society in Europe. Such an interpretation could also distort the ‘fair balance of rights and interests between the different categories of rightholders, as well as between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject-matter’". He further emphasized the necessity of hyperlinking for the functionality of the Internet, and the lack of ability of Internet users to check sources of materials and whether they were authorized or not. If the posting of hyperlinks were to infringe copyright, users would not post them as readily, which would impede the development of the worldwide web.

The opinion leaves the matter quite open, and departed from the CJEU's previous considerations in Svensson and BestWater. Whether the CJEU follow the Advocate General's opinion remains to be seen, but as he wisely raised in his opinion, hyperlinking is essential to how the Internet works, and a balance has to be struck between the provision of links, but the protection of intellectual property from those seeking to blatantly benefit or even undermine this privilege. This writer will await the CJEU's decision with great intrigue, and hopes they will follow along the lines of the Advocate General.

Source: IPKat 

Free to Sing - 'Happy Birthday to You' In Public Domain After Settlement

The recent saga dealing with the song 'Happy Birthday to You' has been discussed at length by many intellectual property commentators, including in this very blog here and here. The ownership of the copyright in the song, and the licencing practices surrounding it handled by Warner/Chappell, have been a big point of contention, with a recent ruling by the District Court of Central California declaring the copyright in the works to not reside with Warner/Chappell due to a lack of proper transfer of the rights to the ultimate entity. Warner/Chappell undoubtedly would have appealed the earlier decision, but the matter has since come to an abrupt end after a settlement between the relevant parties.

Per the Settlement Agreement, accessible here on Scribd, there are some terms of interest that must be mentioned.

The Settlement was a bitter-sweet end for Lisa

Section 2.1 of the Agreement mandates the establishment of a Settlement Fund, aimed at remunerating those who have paid licencing fees for the use of the song 'Happy Birthday to You'. The maximum amount allocated to the fund, if needed, would be $14 million, clearly demonstrating the understanding that there will be a considerable amount of entities with the relevant Settlement Class (considering that each licence is roughly $1500). This would include all persons who have paid such licencing fees since the 3rd of September 1949 (including, among others, to collecting societies or direct licences to Warner/Chappell). Even so, the realistic periods and sums of payment are set for two specific groups: payments made on or after the 13th of June 2009, or payments made before that date. The former group is entitled to all of their payments, but the latter only a share of 15% of what they have paid out. The difference, according to the claimant's lawyers, is due to the Statute of Limitations, enabling them to recoup some of their costs even in the absence of a proper claim due to the limitation period.

Additionally, section 2.2 sets out an express relinquishment of all claims of ownership over the song, and a requirement to no longer pursue any fee payments over the use of the song. Furthermore, the parties agree that the song is (under all likelihood, outside of any third-party claims in rights) in the public domain after the 8th of February 2016. However, Warner/Chappell did expressly defend their position in the settlement, and retained their position as the holders of the rights in the song. This seems to be mainly a point of principle, as the settlement does dictate that the song is in the public domain.

The Agreement also stipulates certain actions that need to be taken, such as the creation of a website and other administrative duties involved with the settlement and the payment of the settlement fees.

Arguably, the settlement is not much to write home about, but is an important illustration of the importance of challenging even the oldest, most well-known rights, when needed. The first instance decision set the tone for the settlement, and it shows in the one-sidedness of the Agreement, especially in the financial side of things. Nevertheless, the Happy Birthday saga has been an interesting one, and this writer, although underwhelmed by a settlement rather than a prolonged legal battle, is happy that we can all once again sing the song where ever and when ever we want.

Source: Ars Technica

No Cause for Celebration - Happy Birthday To You Deemed to be Out of Copyright

Birthdays are a peculiar phenomenon when fully dissected and thought through, yet they evoke an image of youthful bliss and happiness, along with often copious amounts of presents and sugary foods. Almost every language and culture celebrates birthdays (bar some religions etc.), and wishing someone a happy birthday can be as colorful and varied as the cultures themselves. A big part of Western birthday traditions is the song "Happy Birthday to You" (and other regional variants thereof), which has been held under lock and key by Warner/Chappel Music, and as discussed over two years ago on this very blog, the saga challenging its copyright protection has been a long and arduous one. The case has since reached its newest milestone, which will be cause for celebration for many, and a loss for the few.

For the uninitiated, the case of Rupa Marya v Warner/Chapell Music Inc dealt with the aforementioned song "Happy Birthday to You", which was created by the Hill sisters, Mildred and Patty, in the late 1800s (although only in melody). Their original song, "Good Morning to All", featured the melody we associate with the above song, however the lyrics were only changed some time after the publication of Good Morning to All in a collection of songs by Clayton Summy, who had acquired the rights to the song in the 1890s. The author of the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You is largely unknown. Rupa Marya, as a part of a class-action lawsuit, asserted that Warner/Chappell did not own the copyright in the song, and that "...they should be compelled to return the “millions of dollars of unlawful licensing fees” they have collected by wrongfully asserting copyright ownership in the Happy Birthday lyrics".

The first consideration for the District Court for the District of Central California was whether the copyright in the lyrics to the song actually vested in Warner/Chappell. As the acquisition and transfer of the rights to Good Morning to All, and the creation of the lyrics to the derivative work Happy Birthday, remained unclear, the Court had to discern whether the rights to the work vested in their alleged owner (i.e. who wrote the song Happy Birthday), and if so, whether they were correctly assigned onwards affording Warner/Chappell enforceable rights to the song.

Warner/Chappell had very little to celebrate after the decision

In determining the ultimate author of the song, judge King saw that, even though claiming so under oath in a deposition, Patty Hill had not written the lyrics, as several other authors either directly or indirectly had claimed to have done so, and very little evidence illustrated that Patty Hill had concretely written them. Also, under old US law, an author could lose their rights in a word if they publish it before seeking proper registration or publishing it without proper notice, effectively forfeiting their federal and state common law rights. Judge King saw that, in the absence of authorized publication of the song, the defendant had not divested their rights through publication. Although claimed, the court did not find that the lyrics had been abandoned by Patty Hill, even though evidence was put forth to this effect, as the hearsay evidence provided was non-conclusive. As no author was clear, the motion was denied and the Court moved onto the question on ownership of the rights.

The main focus of the case was then the transfer of the rights to Mr. Summy by the Hill sisters in 1934. Through two separate agreements, neither of which has survived from their drafting in the 1930s, the defendant alleged that it had indeed transferred the rights to the lyrics to Mr. Summy. The Court rejected their arguments, and saw that the only transference that had occurred was for the piano melody of the song Good Morning to All, with no reference to the lyrics or the derivative work Happy Birthday to You being a part of either agreement. Judge King therefore concluded that the rights to the lyrics for the song Happy Birthday to You had not been transferred to Mr. Summy, and ultimately to Warner/Chappell Music. The case leave the ownership of the copyright for the song in doubt, potentially causing for the song to fall into the public domain before the end of its copyright term.

The case shows an important facet of copyright and intellectual property, the importance of the chain of evidence. Should there have been concrete provenance of a transfer of rights, the rights in the lyrics to Happy Birthday would have vested in Warner/Chappell Music. In the end, the uncertainty in evidence and the inception of the lyrics to the song left them with very little recourse to protect their rights, and lost them as a result. No repayment of license fees was discussed by judge King; a point that might be contested in court some time in the future. Whether Warner/Chappell will appeal remains to be seen, but this writer doubts the likelihood of this.

Source: The Guardian

Monkey Business - When Copyright and Simians Collide

The law and the world surrounding it can often be dry and, quite frankly, boring to those who don't love it as most of us working within the legal profession. However, sometimes a topic comes through that permeates that misconception and brings the law and its impact into the discussion at large, often through more unconventional events. In this vein a question can be posed: can an animal own the copyright to a work? This writer for one had never considered this and found himself pondering it a bit longer than I would like to admit. Due to this extended contemplation this answer should be shared for those interested in the implications of animal artistry and copyright.

This issue came to light after an image of a macaques taking a 'selfie' was spread around the Internet, springing up a discussion of both copyright and whether the trend of the 'selfie' has well and truly gone too far. The photograph was taken with a camera which the monkey appropriated from David Slater, a nature photographer in his own right. After his acquisition of the camera the monkey took several pictures, a few of which turned out quite fantastic and display the monkey grinning and staring at the camera. The images were shortly thereafter uploaded to Wikimedia, and have remained there since as freely usable images, with Wikimedia firmly contesting any and all assertions of copyright in the pictures and argue they are in the public domain. As posed above the question still stands: can this monkey own the copyright to its 'selfie', or can Mr. Slater claim the rights over the picture even though he did not take the picture himself?

Rick wanted to ride the animal selfie fame train as well

Under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 a work is only protected by copyright if it is created by an 'author', defined as "...the person who creates [the work]". Arguably, at least on the face of things, the monkey will have no rights in the pictures as animals are not 'persons' within the meaning of the Act, making the work ineligible for copyright. Although Mr. Slater owned the camera and potentially set up the photo he still does not own the copyright for the work as he himself did not take the photograph. Sometimes the final piece of the puzzle is the most important, especially in intellectual property law.

In the United States there is no real definition of an 'author' under US Copyright law, leaving the matter, on the onset, in limbo. However, through the guidance of the United States Copyright Office's Copyright Compendium, the term 'authorship' used in the US legislation "...implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable", and that non-human authors such as monkeys, therefore cannot hold the copyright to a work.

The photographer has since argued that the monkey "...was [his] assistant", potentially causing a case of joint authorship in the work or even affording the rights to Mr. Slater outright. Through his own admission Mr. Slater "...set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right", giving the final shot to the monkey itself. Right from the start one has to be slightly incredulous about Mr. Slater's assertion here, and with no evidence bar his own word, as the monkey has refused to comment on the matter, his presentation of what happened has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Should he have effectively directed and set out the shot for the monkey he could potentially claim authorship, as framed by Brad Newberg: "If the photographer actually developed it in a certain way, made some tweaks, used some lighting to make some original choices, and said essentially 'Look at my collaboration with this monkey,' then he would have had some part of the creative process", and could potentially claim the rights to the work. In the end this would be a matter he would have to argue in court, and would be hard-pressed to do so.

So far the monkey's picture has lost Mr. Slater over 10,000 pounds since 2011, and clearly presents him with an incentive to pursue the matter further, especially due to the notoriety of the case at the moment. This writer for one would absolutely love to see the argument go into litigation and hopes Mr. Slater will pursue the matter further, if not just for the legal profession's enjoyment. The case would decide the rights of dozens of animals and who knows, maybe one of them will be the new big thing in nature photography.

Source: Ars Technica

Can You Infringe Copyright by Browsing the Internet?

Browsing the web can be full of pitfalls, both legally and in terms of your own safety. It's this world that we endeavor to navigate on our times surfing, but often don't think about the unknown issues or are blissfully unaware of the implications of our digital actions. It's because of this many things can slip through the cracks. Web browsers have made temporary copies of the content we read, look at and watch for years, more often than not without our knowledge, and this can present legal issues when dealing with copyrighted content, whether we want it or not. Whether just innocent surfing can infringe copyright is an interesting question, and this writer for one automatically thought the answer would be obvious, yet one would be surprised about the nuances behind the answer.

The case which dealt with this interesting conundrum was Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd, having been referred to the European Court of Justice by its UK counterpart earlier on in 2013. The Public Relations Consultants Agency (PRCA) is an association public relations professionals, who among other duties monitor the news for their clients, clearly to safeguard or preempt any potential PR disasters. The members of this association used a service provided by the Meltwater group of companies; one which used software to automatically compile an index of words used by newspapers in their content online. To better utilize this service Meltwater's clients provide them with a list of search terms which interest them, which are then used to create an index which is oriented around those key words. In the service's results the opening words of the article, the key word and a few surrounding words and a hyperlink are provided for the client, allowing them to find the article containing their desired content more easily. The service does not circumvent any paywalled articles, and the client will have to pay for that specific content should they wish to view it. The respondents of the appeal objected to this use of their content, and took the Agency to court, culminating in the UK Supreme Court in the earlier part of 2013.

The button that all internet users wished existed for certain purposes

The question faced by the ECJ therefore was, as iterated by the Supreme Court: "The question which arises on this appeal is whether [Internet users reading the an article online] are nonetheless infringing copies unless licensed by the rights owner [by creating temporary copies of those works]". More specifically whether this infringes Directive 2001/29/EC, and through which the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Under Article 5 of the Directive incidental copies are treated as not infringing copyright should they be "... temporary, transient or incidental, which are an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable... a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use... and has no independent economic significance". Arguably, on the face of it, the matter is quite clear-cut, as temporary copies are essential to how the internet functions and how we both conserve and make internet traffic more efficient. Nonetheless, the matter is still not that simple, at least from a legal perspective.

The court quickly saw that the temporary copies made through the viewing of websites indeed do satisfy the first requirement under Article 5, as the copies are lost once the user moves on from the website and other content is subsequently brought in to replace the temporary copies of the prior page. This makes those copies wholly temporary in nature. The court then moved on to the third requirement, under which the copies have to be essential for the technology to work properly; or as presented in Infopaq International v Danske Dagblades Forening: "...first, the acts of reproduction are carried out entirely in the context of the implementation of a technological process and, secondly, the completion of those acts of reproduction is necessary, in that the technological process could not function correctly and efficiently without those acts". As the user has to say (mostly) in the creation or deletion of these copies, the technology needs for those copies to be created in order to function as intended, as they are a part of its process. The copies are, as said above, essential to the internet's proper function and help prevent excess volumes of traffic, which would undoubtedly choke the internet beyond use. The court seemed quite satisfied with the technology satisfying the second requirement, meaning that the technology is needed for the process to function properly and efficiently, and therefore satisfies the third requirement.

Under the second requirement the copies have to be transient or incidental, and as the copies, as stated above, are deleted once the user switches to a different page, they are transient, even if there is some level of human intervention in their deletion. Finally, the copies are created as a part of the technology which uses them, and do not by themselves exist independent of it nor have a purpose outside of it, making the copies incidental for the purposes of Article 5. The court therefore saw that the temporary copies created during web browsing do not infringe copyright and are excluded as a part of Article 5.

As one can see the ECJ's decision was one of pragmatism and common sense. The prevention of transient copies in the viewing of content on the web would be detrimental to how the internet functions today, potentially even causing issues in its overall usability. As said above the answer to the question seemed obvious, and quite frankly, should not have even been argued in court this far. The matter will be passed onto the Supreme Court to decide on ultimately; however the ECJ's word is a powerful one and clearly demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise the net as we know it for the sake of copyright.

Source: The Guardian

Aereo's Streaming Service Infringes Copyright, Says Supreme Court

Having discussed the Aereo saga quite extensively through its litigation life cycle (speculation on the Supreme Court decision can be found here, discussion on the District Court decision here), this writer for one bated his breath waiting for the US Supreme Court decision on the case. Arguably the outcome of the Justices' deliberation is important, especially as the Internet is slowly overtaking traditional means of media distribution all over the world. Netflix alone has over 30 million subscribers, showcasing how the paradigm is shifting towards a more convenient, on-demand consumption of media. In the end the final word was the Supreme Court's.

For the uninitiated, the American Broadcasting Companies Inc v Aereo Inc case dealt with the web-based service Aereo, which offered, for a subscription fee, the streaming, recording and live watching of TV programming. This was done on an individual basis, and relied on the subscribes' request to watch a given show, live or not. Subsequently several broadcast companies objected to this as the service potentially infringed on their copyright, and took Aereo to court. Initial judgments have gone Aereo's way, and the final word fell on the Supreme Court.

The question for the court boiled down to whether Aereo's service was a public performance of copyrighted works under 17 USC section 106, or in other words a transmission of a performance, and as such, infringed the provision. In the vein of the historical decisions of Fortnightly and Teleprompter, the court equated Aereo's service to those of cable providers, with Justice Breyer (in the majority's opinion) stating that "[t]he subscribers of the Fortnightly and Teleprompter cable systems also selected what programs to display on their receiving sets... The same is true of an Aereo subscriber". Through this likeness the court decided that Aereo was indeed performing for the purposes of the provision, and Congress' intent was to prevent just that with the amendments after the aforementioned cases. The latter part of whether this performance was public remained in the Justices' deliberation.

Justice Breyer's decision assessed whether the performance was a transmission to the public mostly through the court's view on Congress' legislative intent, largely ignoring technological differences of the transmissions. Whether the transmissions are made to individuals makes no difference as "...the members of the public capable of receiving the performance... receive it in the same place or inseparate places and at the same time or at different times", which does not make a difference to whether it is to 'a public'. As long as several people have the potential to watch those programs, the transmission is to a public within the scope of the provision.

Sharon was distraught after the decision

Justice Breyer summarized the judgment well: "...having considered the details of Aereo's practices,we find them highly similar to those of the CATV systems in Fortnightly and Teleprompter. And those are activities that the 1976 amendments sought to bring within thescope of the Copyright Act. Insofar as there are differences, those differences concern not the nature of the service that Aereo provides so much as the technologicalmanner in which it provides the service. We conclude that those differences are not adequate to place Aereo's activities outside the scope of the Act". Aereo therefore infringed the copyright of the TV broadcasts it transmitted, and was held liable.

Justice Scalia in the dissenting opinion saw things differently, and equated the service to more of a library card rather than an on-demand video service, as users access freely available content through a small antenna. The service is not automatic, and wholly relies on the user, furthering Justice Scalia's opinion. He outright rejects the majority's opinion on Aereo's potential performance, stating that "...Aereo does not “perform” for the sole and simple reason that it does not make the choice of content. And because Aereo does not perform, it cannot be held directly liable for infringing the Networks’ public-performance right".

The majority's opinion is an odd one, at least from the stand-point of argumentation. It relies heavily on Congress' intent, rather than the wording of the provisions. As was presented by Mitch Stoltz from SCOTUSBlog: "...the majority’s approach in Aereo transformed interpretation of the transmission clause into a common-law-style exercise in judicial discretion", leaving the provision very open to future application. Mr. Stoltz further argues that "[t]he opinion sets out guidelines that more closely resemble the open-ended fair use analysis, or perhaps the proximate cause analysis in a tort case", which one can wholly agree with. The future of the Transmit Clause remains less certain after the ruling, and its future effects on Internet service like Aereo will remain to be seen. Aereo for one will have to take steps and modify its service to remain usable.

Source: The Verge

The US Supreme Court Faces Aereo and Web Streaming

Ever since its emergence in early 2012 the tech company Aereo has ruffled some feathers within the broadcasting sphere, and rightfully so. As discussed prior on this very blog, the website offers the ability to both stream and watch TV on-demand for a subscription fee, and functions much like a online DVR system as opposed to a licence based service provider such as Netflix. Although initially winning in the District Court of New York, the case has finally come to the US Supreme Court for final judgment, and presents a curious argument which will potentially affect the future of online streaming quite significantly.

The initial article on this blog discussed the Aereo case in the District Court of New York where the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they would prevail on the merits of their infringement case, after which the case was subsequently appealed and went to the US Court of Appeals. It is worth discussing the issues again in light of this decision, facing final consideration in the US Supreme Court.

Under US copyright a copyright holder has an exclusive right to publicly perform their copyrighted works such as TV shows. Through this the Court was faced with determining whether Aereo's broadcasting of TV shows to its subscribers, whether live or on-demand, would amount to an infringement of this right as no licence was sought or paid for from the copyright holders of their respective contents broadcast over Aereo's systems.

"There has to be a better way!", thought Terry

The case largely hinges on the Transmit Clause within the US Copyright Act 1976, under which a public performance of a copyrighted work includes its transmission via cables, such as cable TV programming. The Clause's interpretation in the case of Cartoon Network v CSC Holdings, or more commonly known as the Cablevision case, is highly important in relation to Aereo and their potential infringement of the aforementioned public performance right. Under the Cablevision interpretation of the Transmit Clause, the Court of Appeals had to first consider the potential size of the audience of the transmission. A smaller amount of viewers, or a restricted ability to view the content, such as individual copies, would clearly weigh against the finding of a public performance of the copyrighted work. Secondly the court would have to avoid aggregating private transmissions of the works, making it irrelevant for the court to consider a large number of individual transmissions as opposed to a single, viewable by all transmission. This is important when assessing the first point, as a restricted and isolated transmission of a work would not be a public performance, clearly then not infringing that right. Thirdly the court would have to aggregate any transmissions made from a single copy of the work, i.e. if a single DVD is played in a player and distributed to several TVs. That transmission would clearly be a public performance of the work, at least more so than individual transmissions from individual copies. Finally, the court would have to take into account the factors which limit the potential size of the public who would view the transmission (emphasis the court's) in applying the Transmit Clause.

The Cablevision decision hinged on the very fact that all copies of the TV shows which were recorded through their DVR system were individual copies, and not merely a copy which was available to all. This limited both the actual and the potential amount of viewers for the copied transmission, clearly not making the performance a public one. Aereo's service functions much like Cablevision's DVR system, only creating a single copy viewable by that particular user upon their request to record it. As such Aereo's copies would, arguably at least, not be public performances, and not infringe the plaintiffs' rights in that content. Aereo's lack of licence is irrelevant as one is only required for public performances; something which Aereo's services are not doing. The Court of Appeals also reject the aggregation of Aereo's transmissions, as Cablevision's DVR functioned in a very similar way, and aggregating Aereo's transmissions would mean that Cablevision's transmissions would also have to be aggregated, clearly going against the precedent set by the case. The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs' appeal, which is now being taken to the highest court in the US for final consideration.

The decision would have quite wide-ranging implications for both cable broadcasters and services much like Aereo. As the company pays no licencing fees to copyright holders, should they be allowed to operate and be deemed not to infringe copyright, similar services would undoubtedly spring up and cause significant losses to cable providers. On the other hand should the Supreme Court decide that Aereo infringes copyright, it could potentially restrict the future of the Cloud and cloud computing, further restricting the freedom of use over copyrighted content, at least on a commercial level. What ever the result will be, this writer for one is very interested in the decision and its potential impact on either side of the field.

Sherlock Holmes is In the Public Domain, At Least Partially

As was discussed on this blog a few months ago the famous fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes, had been an issue of contention since a lawsuit had been filed almost a year ago. The matter at hand was whether Sherlock Holmes, or more specifically his characteristics, would exist in the public domain despite still being under copyright in the United States. This was contested by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Estate, and the case has reached it's first decision just after Christmas.

In a summary judgment by the District Court of Illinois Justice Ruben Castillo was faced with the task of deciding whether Mr. Holmes would still be protected by copyright in the US. The initial complaint was filed by the plaintiff Leslie Klinger over the payments of licencing fees in discussing the detective in his book "In the Company of Sherlock Holmes"; the fees having been 5,000 dollars.

Mr. Klinger sought to have the court declare "...that the Sherlock Holmes Story Elements are free for public use because the stories where the elements were first introduced have entered the public domain". The counter-argument against Mr. Klinger's view is that the elements have been developed over the course of all of Mr. Holmes' adventures, leading to them only entering the public domain once all of those stories have fallen out of copyright protection. The case was concerned with elements developed both prior and after 1923, the former of which would have more value as they have been out of copyright for Mr. Klinger's purposes.

In discussing pre-1923 elements Justice Castillo his Honor rejected the Estate's argument, calling it 'novel', utilizing the precedent set in Silverman v CBS. Although his Honor did agree that even though the pre-1923 stories do add to the subject matter which is protectable under copyright regarding the Holmes stories, once the works have entered the public domain they are no longer protected under copyright and are free to use by others. The Estate contested that this would create two different versions, a copyright protected and a public domain version, of the Sherlock Holmes works; something which the courts have previously done and was subsequently accepted by the court in question. This would allow the use of stories and characters from the earlier works, while still protecting latter works from free use without a licence fee.

After Justice Castillo's placement of the pre-1923 works in the public domain, his Honor had to further evaluate whether the post-1923 works would fall in the public domain, or remain under copyright. Both Mr. Klinger and the Estate accepted that certain characteristics differed from the pre-1923 works, having only originated from works written past 1923. The court utilized the 'increment of expression' test, set in Schrock v Learning Curve International, to determine which elements would fall under copyright in the latter works. Under this test "...the only 'originality' required for [a] new work to be copyrightable... is enough expressive variation from public-domain or other existing works to enable the new work to be readily distinguished from its predecessors". This principle, although prima facie would seem to apply to wholly new works, has been deemed to apply to derivative works as well; something which the court accepted that the post-1923 written works be. Mr. Klinger's argument failed as no evidence was given to disprove the differences between the pre-1923 works and the post-1923 works, offering protection for the latter even in the absence of protection for the former.

In its final determination the court saw that Mr. Klinger, and others, could use the pre-1923 stories and characters, while still protecting the later works. The Estate's lawyer stated that they are "...exploring an appeal but asserted that the ruling did not imperil any existing licensing agreements or the estate’s separate claims under trademark law". Under his legal victory Mr. Klinger released a statement, seeing that "...people want to celebrate Holmes and Watson. Now they can do so without fear of suppression by Conan Doyle’s heirs".

The decision is very important, not necessarily in terms of legal precedent, but due to the sheer popularity and fame which the Sherlock Holmes name carries in itself and its intricate stories. Even though the court only accepted that the pre-1923 works belong in the public domain, one can imagine the freedom will inspire many to create their own stories involving the famous detective and his sidekick. Whether the Estate will go forward with their appeal remains to be seen, but many will undoubtedly be glad of Mr. Holmes being open for use, at least partially.

Source: Arts Beat

Christmas and Intellectual Property Law

I'd like to personally wish everyone a very merry Christmas 2013, not forgetting those who don't celebrate this holiday, so happy Holidays to you too! In the spirit of the festivities I wanted to take a quick look at Christmas and its relation to intellectual property law. Even though the holiday is incredibly old (with further ties to pagan traditions aside from its religious connotation), it still ties in very deeply with modern intellectual property rights in a lot of ways.

The more notable image of Christmas these days is arguably the Coca-Cola campaigns which hit the scene every year. Some efforts have been made to thwart St. Nick's ties with the popular soda pop brand, with little or no damage done to the association between the two, especially during Christmas. The image of Santa in the Coca-Cola adverts is actually protected as a registered trademark; something which most people will not necessarily think of. The popular image was concocted by Haddon Sundblom in 1931 for the beverage company - having been used for almost a century. For a more Coca-Cola oriented history of old St. Nicholas, please refer to their 5 Things You Never Knew About Santa Claus and Coca-Cola article from 2012.

Some of St. Nick's weight could be attributed to his choice of beverage

Certain songs also evoke feelings of Christmases past, sitting around with your family and enjoying the season in the ways you had done for years, maybe even generations. Classics like "We Wish You a Merry Christmas", dating back to the 19th century, and "The Twelve Days of Christmas", dating all the way back to the 16th century, are a part of the holiday for most cultures which celebrate them all over the world. These songs have long since passed their copyright prime; however newer renditions of older songs or even modern creations still may remain under copyright. For example a very popular song in the US for the Spanish speaking community is the song "Feliz Navidad", and the song "Frosty the Snowman" both remain protected under copyright, limiting their use even during the season. This has very little impact on people overall, but still remains a notable thing for most. A selection of song remain very popular during Christmas, and showcase quite well how important the public domain is, and how profitable it also can be.

As one can see Christmas is still very entwined with intellectual property rights, even in the modern day. This should still not serve as a deterrent for your own personal celebrations. I hope you will all have a great break from work, enjoy some quality time with those who you love and remember, 'tis the season of giving. Have a happy end of the year!

Streaming TV Does Not Violate Copyright

In a time when services like Netflix and Hulu are showing the cable companies what's what through convenience, choice and pricing, one would imagine there would be no need for people to stream content outside of a wide array of services enabling you to watch almost what ever you want, when ever you want. This however, is a reality, and access to content is still tough for some either due to monetary or because of regional restrictions.

A website, Aereo, operates by receiving TV signals and then converting them into a different format, allowing subscribers to watch TV shows on-demand through their service via the Internet for a subscription fee. In this manner, the service is much alike Netflix; however allowing you to watch recently aired shows as opposed to entire seasons once on offer via Netflix. Aereo does allow you to watch live TV as well as programs which have been recorded once they have aired. Two media companies, Hearst Stations and WCVB-TV, objected to this and sued Aereo for copyright infringement.

In a recent ruling, the District Court of Massachusetts had to decide whether Aereo's activities would indeed infringe copyright under section 106; more specifically the ability to perform (i.e. transmit) the copyrighted content publicly. The Court in its assessment had to determine whether the service would be a remote recording service, much akin to a DVR in a home, drawing from the case of Cartoon Network v CSC Holdings (Cablevision), where a remote DVR service was seen to not infringe copyright as the recorded programs was not deemed a 'public performance'.

Some love streaming TV a 'bit' too much

Clearly one can draw also from the US view of fair use, more specifically time shifting, where a viewer can record a show to view on a later date and that act would not infringe copyright. Much like the case of Sony Corporation of America v Universal City Studios, the user selects which programs it would like to record on Aereo, therefore arguably time shifting the content they wish to view. The case at hand however did not touch upon this fact. Hearst was also unable to show irreparable harm resulting from Aereo's service, only citing the possibility of harm through the possible loss of cable subscribers and their bargaining position when dealing with cable companies; an argument which was rejected by Justice Gordon, stating that it would "...take several years to materialize".

The Court did consider other factors, but these remain the most relevant. In concluding the Court saw that Aereo did not infringe copyright through their service, although different courts in the US have seen this to be different. The plaintiffs have since sought the right of appeal from the US Supreme Court, attempting to have them finally decide this issue, due to other services like Aereo having been shut down in New York and California. The Supreme Court, should they choose to take the case on, would have to decide "...whether the performance of their copyrighted programming via Aereo is "public" and therefore prohibited by the copyright law, or if Aereo is engaged in tens of thousands of "private" performances to paying strangers".

Source: Gigaom