A Can of Copyright - US Supreme Court Rules on Fair Use in Andy Warhol's Work

From the iconic lithographic cans of Campbell's soup to the Marilyn Monroe, Andy Warhol's art is iconic and one that most (if not everyone) recognises. However, with success and notoriety comes potential legal battles, particularly if artists "take inspiration" from works of other artists. In the US the doctrine of fair use is very broad and can encompass several acts, but it's remit in relation to more direct copying as 'inspiration' has been hazy. A recent, and rare foray into the realm of the US Supreme Court was set to make matters clearer, and the awaited decision was indeed handed down earlier this Summer. 

The case of Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc. v Lynn Goldsmith concerned the aforementioned iconic art of Andy Warhol, namely his lithographs of the music artist Prince. The lithographs used a picture taken by a famous photographer in her own right, Ms Goldsmith, in 1984 for Vanity Fair magazine as an "artist reference". Ms Goldsmith had licenced the picture to Vanity Fair with the strict condition that it only be used once in the magazine. Mr Warhol created 15 lithographs of Prince in total, and later his Foundation licenced one of those works to Conde Nast for a story about Prince. Ms Goldsmith subsequently informed the Foundation that they had infringed her copyright in her picture, which then lead to the Foundation suing Ms Goldmith asserting fair use. The lower courts have reached differing outcomes on the matter, which lead to the case ending up in the Supreme Court for final decision.  

The Foundation did not challenge the conclusion made by the Court of Appeal that the lithograph and the series of works created by Warhol are substantially similar. This left the question of whether Mr Warhol's use of the photograph was 'fair use'. In addition, the only factor within the assessment of fair use remained the first factor, i.e. whether "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes" weighs in Ms Goldsmith's favor or if the work would be considered 'transformative'.

The first factor specifically looks at whether, as has been firmly established in Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc: "an allegedly infringing use has a further purpose or different character, which is a matter of degree, and the degree of difference must be weighed against other considerations like commercialism". This means that even though the expression may be new (as the Foundation argued), it, by itself, is not enough to deal with the first factor. 

Justice Sotomayor, handing down the majority's decision, focussed on the meaning of the first factor at issue. She noted that it "considers the reasons for, and nature of, the copier’s use of an original work", and specifically asks "whether the new work merely ‘supersede[s] the objects’ of the original creation… (‘supplanting’ the original), or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character". In other words, does the new work 'substitute' the other work, or is its purpose the same or highly similar to that of the original work. 

The preamble to section 107 of the US Copyright Act does give helpful guidance on what may be included in this factor, which includes, but is not limited to: "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching… scholarship, or research". The similarly will be a degree of similarity, rather than a clear cut similarly assessment, so the Court will not restrict itself to just these categories. 

If a use has a further purpose or different character it is deemed to be 'transformative', which is, yet again, a matter of degree. However, there is a minimum threshold for transformative use, specifically that the "degree of transformation required to make “transformative” use of an original must go beyond that required to qualify as a derivative". 

To summarize a very lengthy and detailed discussion of the minutiae of the definition of the first factor, Justice Sotomayor summarized it as: "the first fair use factor considers whether the use of a copyrighted work has a further purpose or different character, which is a matter of degree, and the degree of difference must be balanced against the commercial nature of the use. If an original work and a secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is of a commercial nature, the first factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying".

Justice Sotomayor then moved on to considering whether the particular 'use' of the protected works would be an 'infringement'. 

Ms Goldsmith's pictures were used in a variety of ways: (i) to create the Vanity Fair illustration and the other Prince Series works; (ii) Vanity Fair then used the photograph when it published Warhol’s illustration in 1984; and (iii) the Foundation used the photograph when it licensed an image of Warhol’s Orange Prince to Condé Nast in 2016. However, only the latter 2016 use has been argued to be infringing. 

Typically photographs, such as Ms Goldsmith's, are used accompanying articles relating to the given celebrity or subject. As such, the use by Condé Nast and the Foundation in 2016 was substantially the same. The use was also clearly of commercial nature, as the images were licenced from the Foundation, weighing against a finding of fair use. Taken together these factors weigh against fair use absent some other justification for copying, i.e. any transformative nature of Mr Warhol's work.

Justice Sotomayor then moved on to considering whether Mr Warhol's work was transformative. As described in the Campbell decision, as mentioned above, transformative use is one that "alter[s] the first [work] with new expression, meaning, or message". Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, Justice Sotomayor noted that "any secondary work that adds a new aesthetic or new expression to its source material is necessarily transformative", however, the courts should not attempt to evaluate the artistic significance of a particular work. 

The key, in the Court's view, is what the purpose of the new, potentially transformative work, really is and if the use is distinct from the original. In this case, the licensing of the lithographic image by Condé Nast is similar to the use of the original work, namely as illustrating a magazine about Prince (although acknowledging difference between them). 

Justice Sotomayor noted that "[t]o hold otherwise would potentially authorize a range of commercial copying of photographs, to be used for purposes that are substantially the same as those of the originals". 

Despite arguments made by the Foundation, the Court rejected their argument that the Warhol lithographic was commentary on the dehumanizing nature and effects of celebrity. According to Justice Sotomayor, the commentary could not stand on its own two feet, and the commercial use of it required compelling reasons to see otherwise.  

Ultimately, the Court held against the Foundation, determining that "Goldsmith’s original photograph of Prince, and AWF’s copying use of that photograph in an image licensed to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share substantially the same purpose, and the use is of a commercial nature[, and]  AWF has offered no other persuasive justification for its unauthorized use of the photograph". This means that the first factor would weigh in favor of Ms Goldsmith. 

The scathing dissent by Justice Kagan highlights the contentious nature of this decision, and its potential impact on both copyright holders and artists trying to take inspiration of other works. The decision does limit the scope of artistic inspiration in the world of fair use, and potentially may have a cooling effect on art creation (though this remains to be seen). It does, however, add further weight to the copyrights held by individuals and entities, which they will undoubtedly receive with open arms. As said, the impact of the decision will be interesting to see and whether more derivative, or 'inspired' works will be litigated in the future. 

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.  

Just Can't Catch a Break - US Court of Appeals Decides That AI Cannot be an Inventor of Patents

Artificial intelligence's road to recognition as a legal entity keeps hitting obstacle after obstacle, and as things stand it looks like right's in AI created works or inventions will be questionable without proper legislative intervention. Despite the continuous stumbling blocks, it seems that some inventors are very interested in continuing the fight, so yet another important decision has been reached on AI inventorship of patents in the US. The Court of Appeals recently handed down its decision on the matter, which continues on the near never-ending line of decisions across the globe that have been discussed on this blog before many times (for example here, here and here). 

The case of Stephen Thaler v Katherine Vidal concerned the DABUS AI system, which will be very familiar to the readers of this blog by now. DABUS was created by Mr Thaler and set out to create a number of inventions, and subsequently Mr Thaler applied for patents for some of these inventions (at issue specifically applications 16/524,350 and 16/524,532). In these applications Mr Thaler listed DABUS as the sole inventor. Mr Thaler also handled all of the filing formalities for DABUS, including a number of documents setting out why it is the inventor of the inventions. The USPTO rejected both applications due to them lacking a valid inventor and therefore being incomplete. The District Court, on appeal, found that "an 'inventor' under the Patent Act must be an 'individual' and the plain meaning of 'individual' as used in the statute is a natural person", and Mr Thaler therefore appealed to the Court of Appeals. 

Justice Stark noted that the sole issue in the case is whether an AI software system can be an "inventor" under the Patent Act. 

The Patent Act expressly sets out that inventors are 'individuals', which is means "the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention". The key here is the word individual, which Justice Stark highlighted to meaning "...a human being" (as decided by the Supreme Court in Mohamad v Palestinian Authority). Unless defined otherwise by statute this remains the definition, as is the case under the Patent Act. 

When not inventing, AI likes to take it easy with
a little light gardening in the evenings

Despite the wording 'whoever' being used in the Patent Act, the fact remains that these provisions are still subject to the above, i.e. that an inventor be a human being. Mr Thaler also noted that AI software programs should qualify as 'inventors' since otherwise patentability would depend on "the manner in which the invention was made". Justice Stark rejected this position, specifying that this isn't about inventorship, and also that that inventions may still be non-obvious even if they are discovered during 'routine' testing or experimentation. 

Existing precedent supports this position, with, for example, the decision in the University of Utah v Max-Planck setting out that "inventors must be natural persons and cannot be corporations or sovereigns", and in Beech Aircraft Corp v EDO Corp where it was decided that "only natural persons can be 'inventors'". Justice Stark noted that, while they deal with a different question (i.e. corporate ownership), the cases nonetheless support the position that the plain meaning of 'inventor' in the Patent Act is limited to natural persons.

Justice Stark then touched on Mr Thaler's various arguments to round out their decision. Mr Thaler had argued that inventions generated by AI should be patentable in order to encourage innovation and public disclosure. Justice Stark determined this to be purely speculative and lacking in basis under the Patent Act. Mr Thaler also argued constitutional avoidance where permitting AI programs to be inventors would support the constitutional purpose of patents "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" and that not recognizing AI as an inventor undermines such progress, raising potential constitutional concerns that we should avoid. Justice Stark also readily rejected this position, setting out that the lack of AI inventorship would be unconstitutional, since Congress has decided to legislative limiting inventorship to human beings. 

The Court of Appeals therefore rejected Mr Thaler's appeal. 

The decision was, by no means, a surprise and continues the trajectory of rejection that AI inventorship has faced over the last several years (despite the South African CIPC registering DABUS' inventions as patents, being the only jurisdiction to do so so far). It remains to be seen whether Mr Thaler will want to try and take the matter to the Supreme Court, but it would seem unlikely to be picked up due to the sheer clarity of the matter in the US. A future involving AI inventorship would clearly require further steps from legislatures across the board, but currently there seems to be very little appetite to do so.

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. 

Not as the Oracle Foretold - US Supreme Court Decides on Copyright Infringement in relation to APIs

APIs, or Application Programming Interfaces, are absolutely everywhere these days. APIs allow for two pieces of software to 'speak' with each other, sharing information across to allow for interactivity and interconnectivity between different software applications. While many providers share their APIs freely for implementation, there is still certain rights that attach to those APIs in the form of copyright over the code itself. Just like text in a book, code can be protected by copyright and, in many instances, is absolutely worth protection if a particular coding language becomes very popular. This has been the central focus of an epic legal battle between Oracle and Google in the US, which has spanned for nearly 10 years (discussed previously on this very blog), and the highly anticipated US Supreme Court decision has finally been handed down in early April 2021. 

The case of Google LLC v Oracle America Inc. concerned the Java SE program, which uses Oracle's Java programming language. Parts of the Java SE program's code (roughly 11,500 lines of code) was used in the development of Google's Android operating system, which formed a part of the Java SE API. Java SE is commonly used to develop programs primarily to be used on desktop and laptop computers, which also extends into the realm of smartphones. Oracle subsequently sued Google for copyright infringement over this copied code, and the matter finally ended with the Supreme Court after a long 10-year journey through the US courts. 

The Supreme Court were tasked at looking at two questions: (i) whether Java SE’s owner could copyright the portion that Google copied; and (ii) whether Google’s copying nonetheless constituted a “fair use” of that material. 

Justice Breyer, handing down the majority's judgment, first started off discussing the basic requirements for copyright protection. This means that the work has to be one of authorship, original and fixed in a tangible medium. Copyright encompasses many types of works, such as literary, musical and architectural works, but in a more unconventional manner it includes 'computer programs', which are "...a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result". In terms of limitations, copyright does not extend to "...any idea procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery". In addition to copyright protection in general, one has to consider the remit of 'fair use', which allows for the use of copyright protected works for various purposes, e.g. criticism, satire and news reporting. 

The first question, as set out above, concerned whether the provision extending copyright protection to 'computer programs' includes APIs and/or whether they are excluded as 'processes', 'systems' or 'methods of operation' from copyright protection. However, the Supreme Court skipped the copyright aspect of the matter and immediately dove into whether Google's use of the API was fair use.

Justice Breyer noted that computer programs differ from other 'literary works' in that such programs almost always serve functional purposes, which makes the application of copyright to them more difficult. He also mentioned that, in discussions to extend copyright to computer programs, it should not "...grant anyone more economic power than is necessary to achieve the incentive to create". The key is to not allow copyright to stifle innovation in the realm of computer programs. 

Justice Breyer also mentioned that fair use can be used to distinguish between expressive and functional features of computer code where those features are mixed, and allow for different programs to be more readily distinguished in the light of protection. 

Turning to actually considering whether Google's copying fell into fair use, the Supreme Court had to look at the well-established factors of fair use: (i) the nature of the copyrighted work; (ii) the purpose and character of the use; (iii) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and (iv) market effects. 

In relation to the first factor, the Supreme Court discussed the use of APIs in general as a way for computer programs to speak to each other. APIs also comprise three different 'functional' aspects, which are various parts of code that handle different aspects of the APIs functionality. Justice Breyer highlighted that the parts are inherently functional and bound together by uncopyrightable ideas (i.e. task division and organization) and new creative expression in the form of Android's implementing code. In their view the nature of APIs diminishes the need for copyright protection over them.

In terms of the second factor, the focus is on the transformative nature of a copyright protected works use. Google sought to make new products using the API and to expand the usefulness of the Android OS - argued to be transformative and innovative around the copying of the API. The Supreme Court also noted that one has to consider both the commerciality and good faith in relation to the copying. Justice Breyer determined that, while Google's use of the API was a commercial endeavor, it doesn't mean that the use cannot be transformative. Good faith was not a consideration in the case, but Justice Breyer did highlight that the other factors on the copying of the API weight towards a finding of fair use. 

The Court then moved onto looking at the amount of the work copied. As discussed above, Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of code, which was a mere fraction of the totality of 2.8 million lines in Java SE. While the amount is important, it's the substance of what was copied that is the most important part when thinking about substantiality. Why the lines were copied was to enable Java experienced programmers to work with Android; without which this would have been very difficult. This objective for the copying was to enable the expansion of Android, not to replace Java SE, and the Court did see that this favored a finding of fair use.

Finally, the Court turned to the market effects of the copying, i.e. did it impact the market value of the protected work. Thinking of the use of the code, it was in a market sector where Sun Microsystems (Oracle's predecessor) was not well-positioned, and the primary market for Java SE was PCs and laptops. Android used in smartphones was in no way a substitute for traditional computers where Java SE was typically used. However, the code's implementation did benefit Android through attracting developers to improve the OS. The Court saw that the copying didn't impact Sun Microsystem's position in the marketplace, and issues with an impact on creativity within the development of programs like Android, weighed for a finding of fair use. 

Rounding things off, Justice Breyer discussed the application of copyright in the world of computers and the difficulties the old concept has in adapting to this new environment. In his view, copyright very much persists in computer programs (and their underlying code), but emphasized the fair use doctrine's place in the same. 

The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that Google's copying was fair use as a matter of law and therefore there was no infringement of Oracle's code.

The case is a massive milestone in the application of copyright in computer programs and code, and as the court observed, Google only took "...what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program". This is curious and can open the door for others to copy code as and when needed, without licensing, if it is used to allow for innovation through the implementation of well-established technologies. Justice Thomas did indeed write a very strong dissent to the majority's verdict, which highlights the blurring of copyright in relation to code. It remains to be seen how this precedent is applied by the courts in future cases, but it could very well lead to the limits of fair use in relation to code being tested sooner than you think. 

An Emotional Case - Can Sherlock Holmes Exhibiting More Emotions be Copyright Infringement?

 The world of copyright often springs up very odd cases and arguments for copyright infringement, and the character of Sherlock Holmes is by no means unfamiliar in that particular world (discussed on this blog, for example, here and here). With some of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's iconic stories falling out of copyright some years ago, it would be easy to assume that the character is totally out of copyright and that an inevitable free-for-all on the character will be hitting various screens and mediums soon. However, there are still stories that the author penned that remain protected by copyright (specifically the stories written in the early to mid-1920s), and the estate of the deceased author will got to great lengths to protect those rights. With this in mind, a new case has sprung up revolving around the detective, bringing the question of whether the exhibition of emotions can showcase copyright infringement. 

According to numerous news outlets the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has sued Netflix and the author Nancy Springer for copyright infringement relating to their new movie, Enola Holmes, which focusses on Sherlock Holmes' teenage sister, based on the books by Nancy Springer on the same character. 

In their complaint the estate argue that the character of Sherlock Holmes changed in the last 10 books from an aloof, near emotionless individual to one that actually had a heart and could form friendships and express his emotions, and respect women (one can appreciate that this stance was probably quite progressive in the 1920s). Mr Holmes' relationship also changed with his companion Watson to one of actual friendship and not merely one of master and assistant. 

In the Enola Holmes movie by Netflix (and also the books by Ms Springer), Sherlock Holmes showcases the detective transforming from a cold, aloof individual to one who is warm, respectful and kind in his relationships. He also worries about his friend Watson's health during altercations in those stories. Sherlock also exhibits other emotions such as that of worry and distraught, being unable to eat due to his internal turmoil. Finally, Sherlock also shows that he cares for his sister Enola and shows brotherly love towards her. 

The estate argues that this emotional depth is never exhibited in the books that are in the public domain, and therefore are protected by copyright as it relates to the latter 10 books where Sherlock Holmes evolves into a more fleshed out, emotionally open person. 

Arguably, the estate's argument is quite flimsy, since, unless either Ms Springer or Netflix have copied the actual expression within the last ten books by the author, it will be hard to stretch copyright protection over the simple aspect of emotional depth or development. There are near countless adaptations of Sherlock Holmes, which, to varying degrees, will showcase emotions or the lack thereof. While it is arguable that some specific expressions of emotions could be protected by copyright (for example, as noted by the Verge, Sherlock caring about dogs), overall emotional depth or availability will be hard to stretch to cover any thematic arcs in the books themselves. 

Although the courts have acknowledged in Klinger v Conan Doyle Estate that Sherlock Holmes as a character is protectable (within the relevant term), the extent of "roundedness" that could extend outside of the term is very debatable. The court also discusses the alleged incremental nature of copyright in the depiction of the characters and denies that such an incremental approach could be taken. 

There is a very good chance that this case will never see the light of day in court, as the parties will undoubtedly settle the issue out of court, but it would be interesting to see whether the courts would consider emotional development for characters to be something that copyright would protect. This writer is very doubtful that the courts would find any infringement here, but bigger surprises have been created by the courts in the past.

Significant Damage - US Courts Order Immense Damages for Music Copyright Infringement

The following article was written by Assaad Lyn, who is a US attorney specializing in Intellectual Property, seeking to help artists, entrepreneurs, and creatives by helping them through the legal issues they may encounter so they can keep working on their craft. You can find Assaad's LinkedIn profile here and his website at www.assaadlynlaw.com.

Remember when Napster first came out? It was a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing service that allowed people to download music. While Napster was eventually shut down (and later brought back), the issues of downloading music on P2P networks persist, and was the reason for a court case in the US where the jury gave an unprecedented damages reward.

The case of Sony Music Entertainment v Cox Communications Inc is a class action lawsuit where Sony and other music companies alleged that Cox Communications did not stop ongoing copyright infringement after receiving notice of the alleged behavior. Sony and the others are music companies that make, license, manage, and sell music. As a primer, copyright law separately protects the musical composition (the sheet music and lyrics) and the sound recording (what we hear on radio or streaming services), so Sony had to prove that it owned, controlled, or otherwise managed the works in question.

Once a work of art (such as a book, a movie, or music) is created, ownership in the copyrighted work automatically exists in it. The author of the work can then transfer all or some of these rights to any other party. In order to prove that you are the rightful owner of a copyrighted work, a copyright owner usually registers the copyrighted work with the United States Copyright Office. Luckily, registration is not the only way to prove ownership, and transfer agreements and documents such as licenses can show a chain of title and may suffice to prove ownership. Sony asserts that they protect their copyrights through registration with the United States Copyright Office and through written agreements where they own or control the copyrighted works. Sony was able to prove they own various songs through the online Copyright Catalog, works registered as works made for hire, declarations, and more.

Cox Communications is a broadband communications network, and acts as an internet service provider, or ISP, to customers throughout the United States. Cox Communications has a department with the purpose of monitoring internet security issues, such as copyright infringement (through illegal downloads for example), and has adopted a policy in order to respond to alleged abuse of its network and systems.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), acting as the agent for Sony, hired MarkMonitor, an anti-piracy company, to scan the internet for infringing file sharing on P2P networks. MarkMonitor participated in the P2P networks in order to gather data from the potentially infringing users, and create infringement notices. MarkMonitor’s reports contained information such as the timestamp of the infringement detection, the date the notice was sent, the Cox user (identified by IP address and port), and more. They then sent the infringement notices to Cox Communications on the behalf of Sony. Cox Communications received and processed those notices through their in house system. The question therefore is, did Cox Communications have enough information to be viewed as contributorily liable for the infringement occurring on its network?

Contributory infringement can be found when one “(1) has knowledge of another’s infringement and (2) either (a) materially contributes to or (b) induces that infringement.” Generally, knowing that infringing activity is occurring on an ISP’s network is not enough to prove contributory infringement. The question is if Cox Communications had enough information in order to do something about the infringing activity. The detailed MarkMonitor reports show that Cox Communications could have acted in various ways, such as, evaluating a subscriber’s activity, or even terminating said subscriber. Since Cox Communications did not take appropriate action after being notified of the infringing activity, the jury found Cox Communications liable for contributory infringement and vicarious liability of over 10,000 works.

Then came the question of damages. Statutory damages in a copyright case in the US can range from a minimum of $750 or more than $30,000. In a case where the infringement was committed willfully, the award of statutory damages can go up to $150,000. The damage amounts are per work infringed, and not simply a total. Cox Communications was fined $99,830.29 per work, resulting in damages for a total of about $1 billion.

It is shocking to see such high damages being awarded in this case, and that an ISP was not protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor provision. Just because Cox Communications did not do anything about the infringement, does not mean that the infringement was willful. Whether or not this case will affect ISP’s in the future, remains to be seen. As of January 31, 2020, Cox Communications has filed an appeal asking for either 1. a remittitur (lowering of damages), or 2. a new trial.

That's Just Offensive - US Supreme Court Allows for the Registration of 'Immoral' Trademarks

The notion of morality is deeply embedded in human society, coloring most facets of it in some ways. Whether it is laws prohibiting deplorable actions, or simply stopping you from saying hateful things (in some jurisdictions), morality is an important part of the legislative framework. In the world of IP you rarely deal with issues of morality, but sometimes they do crop up. In the last few years, the registration of 'disparaging' trademarks has been a hot topic in the US (discussed more here and here), but what about marks that one could class as immoral? The Supreme Court were therefore tasked with deciding this part of trademark law, and handed down their judgment very recently.

The case of Iancu v Brunetti concerned an application to register the mark "FUCT", which was the brand of Mr Brunetti's clothing line. Under examination by the USPTO, the application was rejected due to it being immoral due to vulgarity under 15 USC 1052(a). Mr Brunetti subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that it infringes on his First Amendment right to free speech, with the case ultimately landing on the Supreme Court's desk.

As decided in the Tam case, preventing the registration of 'disparaging' trademarks violated the First Amendment as it "...discriminate[d] against ideas that offend". The grounds for rejecting trademarks that are 'immoral' falls within the same provision of US legislation as rejecting the registration of 'disparaging' ones.

Justice Kagan, handing down the majority's judgment, swiftly determined that the provision similarly violates the First Amendment. The Government argued that the prohibition was a viewpoint-neutral one, and would only be restricted to certain kinds of immorality, therefore being somewhat restricted. The Court didn't buy this argument, and saw that "...It covers the universe of immoral or scandalous—or (to use some PTO synonyms) offensive or disreputable—material". This means that almost anything that fits that criteria could therefore be rejected by the USPTO.

The Court honed matters down further, noting that the provision aims to suppress certain views, albeit 'immoral' ones, and would violate free speech., even if allegedly captured through the use of "viewpoint-neutral" legislative language.

Justice Kagan wrapped matters up by drawing a line in the sand: "There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment".

While most Supreme Court decisions are incredibly important, the decision in this case is in no way revolutionary. The Court has clearly put an end to the limitation on registering negative trademarks, no matter how offensive or immoral. Applicants can therefore rejoice over the possibility to go ham on registering ever-more offensive marks to their hearts' content...

It Ends Now - US Supreme Court Decides on Trademark Licence Expiry on Bankruptcy

An often overlooked facet of business is the aftermath of bankruptcy, particularly in commercial arrangements that don't directly involve a debt to the solvent third party. An example of such an arrangement is trademark licencing, where the party licensing a trademark merely enjoys the benefit of using the mark, and does not have any monies owed to them through the use of the mark (to put things very simply by way of example). One question that hasn't been fully answered in the US is what happens to the licence after the licensor goes bankrupt. The Court of Appeals has been torn on the issue of whether the company going bankrupt can effectively cancel the licence, which has now been looked at by the Supreme Court, who handed their decision in late May.

The case of Mission Product Holdings Inc. v Tempnology LLC concerned the brand "Coolcore", which was owned by Tempnology. The mark had been licenced to Mission in the US and worldwide and also exclusively allowed them to distribute certain Coolcore products in the US. Tempnology filed for bankruptcy during the licence term, and subsequently requested the 'rejection' (i.e. revocation) of the licence through the US Bankruptcy Court. Mission challenged the rejection of the licence, with the matter ultimately ending up with the Supreme Court.

Under section 365(a) of the US Bankruptcy Code the debtor gives a debtor the option, subject to court approval, to "assume or reject any executory contract", i.e. a contract that neither party has finished performing prior to the bankruptcy proceedings. Any rejection of a contract under the provision is an immediate breach of that agreement under contract law, giving the other party the possible route of seeking damages as a result of that breach.

Michael's strategy was no longer a desirable option

In considering the actual meaning of the provision, the Court set out that the section is there to preserve the rights owned by the company before bankruptcy in bankruptcy, and similarly cannot expand on those rights in the same vein. Any trustee in bankruptcy would, therefore, retain those rights and obligations even once bankruptcy proceedings have begun. The Court continued that "…If trustees (or debtors) could use rejection to rescind previously granted interests, then rejection would become functionally equivalent to avoidance… [and] would roll back a prior transfer". The Court was therefore very careful in protecting granted rights, even in the event of bankruptcy.

The Court also rejected Tempnology's argument that, due to exceptions being present in section 365 (providing for protection after 'rejection' to specific parties), that all other parties would therefore not be protected in the same way, including trademark licensees.

Ultimately, the Court therefore held that, under section 365(a), a rejection of a trademark licence under the provision would amount to a breach of contract, and therefore the company cannot rescind that the contract previously granted.

The decision gives needed clarity due to a split in the Court of Appeals Circuits, but does raise further uncertainties that will need to be answered in the future. This writer understands that those would include the scope of non-debtor parties' post-rejection rights under law outside of bankruptcy. In any event, the decision will have a big impact on any bankruptcy proceedings, and companies will have to take heed if any bankruptcy involves trademark licences.

A Host of Problems - US Court of Appeals Decides on Copyright and Hosting User Uploaded Content

This writer fondly remembers the early days of the Internet when it felt like a totally lawless, open and free space where users could do whatever they wished with whatever they wanted. As the Internet has become more ubiquitous and 'corporate' this had to be reined in, and legislation has slowly caught up to how people use the Internet. One still meddling piece that the legislature and the courts have struggled with is user-uploaded content, where the service provider merely provides the platform for uploading content (infringing or not), and does not actively do it itself. With this in mind, where do you draw the line between freedom and intermediary liability when it comes to user-uploaded content? The US Court of Appeals recently issued an important decision trying to take on this issue.

The case of VHT Inc. v Zillow Group Inc. concerned Zillow, an online marketplace for real estate. VHT is a photography company who take professional pictures of houses and apartments that are then used to illustrate the location for sale to prospective buyers. VHT saves these pictures onto a centralized database, where they are given to clients under a license, which Zillow receives from various real estate related sources. VHT subsequently sued Zillow for copyright infringement for its use of VHT's pictures in its "Listing Platform" and "Digs" pages, exceeding the scope of the licenses issued to VHT's customers.

The first aspect of the case dealt with direct infringement, particularly in the context of Zillow's automated systems. While ownership in the copyright of the works can be easily established, infringement requires direction causation, i.e. volitional conduct. What this means is that "...'direct liability must be premised on conduct that can reasonably be described as the direct cause of the infringement'". What remains key here is who the ultimate selector of the content is; Zillow or the end-user. In order for Zillow to have liability VHT would have to "...show [the alleged infringer] exercised control (other than by general operation of [its website]); selected any material for upload, download, transmission, or storage; or instigated any copying, storage, or distribution" of its photos".

Zillow's systems operate on licensed feeds provided by external third parties, and the providers guarantee those licenses are up to date and authorized. The Court considered that this automated system didn't involve any volitional conduct on part of Zillow, not supporting an argument of direct infringement. This and the various rules within Zillow's systems protected it from direct infringement. Even when notices were filed on behalf of VHT, Zillow acted promptly and removed any infringing images. Overall the Court, therefore, rejected VHT's argument of direct infringement.

Even with this in mind, the jury at first instance did, however, find that Zillow's Digs service did infringe directly on VHT's rights. In considering the evidence issued to the jury, the Court overturned the jury verdict of direct infringement, as VHT had not presented substantial evidence of infringement.

The Court then turned to the matter of fair use in relation to the Digs service. As a short primer, fair use allows for the use of copyright-protected works under certain situations. This is assessed looking at four specific factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. In short, the user would have to do something different with the work, and the more it deviates from the original the more likely it is that fair use applies (in essence), i.e. whether it is 'transformative' or not.

How Digs operated was much like a search engine, allowing users to search for photos of apartments in specific styles or configurations. Recent case law has considered search engines to typically be transformative, but that is by no means a panacea to a claim of infringement.

In assessing the Digs service's features in relation to the first factor, the Court considered that it was not a transformative use, since, while the service tagged the photos and organized them, their intended use and nature remained the same; to display space in an apartment in an artful manner. The images didn't serve a different function from what VHT had intended them for.

In terms of the second factor, the Court quickly concluded that the creativity of the photos is critical to their nature, and therefore potentially deserve a higher degree of protection. While this is true, the fact that the photos were published on the listing platform for Zillow to use did work against them in a finding of non-fair use.

For the third and fourth categories, Zillow copied the entire images, which turned the third factor against them. As they were copied in their entirety, they had a direct impact on VHT's market for licensing photos, including to Zillow. The Court, therefore, rejected Zillow's argument of fair use.

The Court then moved onto secondary liability, which can be established if "...a party (1) has knowledge of another's infringement and (2) either (a) materially contributes to or (b) induces that infringement". A material contribution to infringement would require "...actual knowledge that specific infringing material is available using its system, and can take simple measures to prevent further damage to copyrighted works, yet continues to provide access to infringing works".

Most of Zillow's activities around the works were purely passive. Any evidence adduced in relation to those activities would not, according to the Court, fulfill the requirements for the second prong (even with knowledge of infringing materials). VHT argued that Zillow needed to take proactive steps to prevent infringement, including requesting the URLs of infringing works, which the Court promptly rejected. In the end, the Court considered that no jury would be convinced of secondary liability. In equal mesure, the Court rejected VHT's argument on vicarious liability.

The case is a very interesting one, and yet again demonstrates the difficult position internet services and search engines alike are when it comes to copyright infringement.

Monkey Snap, Monkey Don't - US Court of Appeals Rules Out Animal Ownership of Copyright in Monkey Selfie Case

The rights of animals, whether it is simply to extend human rights to them or even legal rights, are a very contentious and often emotionally charged topic of conversation. A good example of this is the recent monkey selfie legal saga, which grappled with the vesting of intellectual property rights in a monkey (discussed more on this blog here and here). The parties settled the matter out of court late last year, but the Court of Appeals saw to still rule on the matter, irrespective of this settlement (which is within their powers to do). This is very important, since it will set the legal position of animals' rights in IP firmly on one camp; yes or no. This writer has been waiting for the ruling with baited breath, which was published only last week.

By way of a brief primer, the case of Naruto v David Slater concerned a series of photographs taken by a crested macaque in 2011 (named Naruto by its Next Friends in the litigation, PETA). The monkey took the photograph using Mr Slater's camera, which he had configured and left for the monkeys in the area to play with. One such picture became an Internet sensation, leading to Mr Slater asserting his rights in the picture as its author. PETA took the matter to court, claiming the monkey had rights in the picture, and that Mr Slater had infringed its copyrights by publishing it. Even though the parties settled the matter, as discussed above, the Court saw it fit to decide on it anyway due to its importance as a developing area of the law.

Naruto's representatives were aghast at the ruling

Judge Bea, handing down the majority's judgment, started off with determining whether PETA could represent Naruto as its next friends in the case. This is established through showing that "…(1) that the petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability; and (2) the next friend has some significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, the petitioner". The Court agreed that Naruto would indeed fulfil the first requirement, but needed to assess whether PETA had a significant relationship with the animal. PETA agreed that it had does not claim to have a relationship with Naruto that is any more significant than its relationship with any other animal, and thus fails the second requirement.

The Court emphasised that animals do not have authorisation by the courts to be represented by a next friend. In other words "…if animals are to be accorded rights to sue, the provisions involved therefore should state such rights expressly".

Judge Bea then moved onto the matter of whether Naruto itself has standing under Article III of the Constitution. Under a previous Court of Appeals decision in Cetacean Community v Bush, the court rejected standing for "…all of the world's whales, porpoises, and dolphins" under environmental protection laws as animals were not expressly included within the provisions. In short, the court concluded that the test for animal standing as "…if an Act of Congress plainly states that animals have statutory standing, then animals have statutory standing. If the statute does not so plainly state, then animals do not have statutory standing".

Under the Copyright Act there is no express mention of any animal rights for intellectual property. The provisions do, however, imply a requirement of humanity or the possibility of marital relations. The Court did conclude that, based on the statute and the Cetacean decision, "…that Naruto - and, more broadly, animals other than humans - lack statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act".

The case is a very important one, not only for the unusual nature of judgments being issued after settlement, but it puts the rights of animals under copyright to bed once and for all. Clearly, animals cannot have rights, and this writer considers this to be the most logical outcome, even without an express mention to that effect in the legislation. One can therefore finally see a conclusion to all of this monkey business.

As the Oracle Foretold - Court of Appeals Finds no Fair Use for Google's Copying of Java APIs

The Oracle/Google saga has been wagered in the courts for years (discussed on this blog here and here), and many legal scholars enthusiastic about technology have been waiting for the matter to reach its ultimate conclusion. Although the matter is not necessarily over by any means, a recent Court of Appeals decision might have struck the final blow, and ended the matter (and the question of APIs and copyright) for the time being.

The case of Oracle America Inc. v Google LLC concerned the Java software platform, which was developed by Oracle's predecessor, Sun Microsystems. The Java platform also included an Application Programming Interface (API) that allowed for the development of software using pre-written code to execute certain functions without writing the code from scratch, delivered in packages. Google had included some Java API packages in its Android operating system without Oracle's authorisation; specifically 37 Java API packages (amounting to 11,500 lines of code). Android became widely used and very popular, after which Oracle took Google to court for copyright infringement, with proceedings ending up in the Court of Appeals in late March.

The matter focussed on whether Google's copying of the APIs amounted to fair use under 17 USC section 107, which looks at four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Justice O'Malley, handing down the majority's opinion, started with the first factor, which, specifically, looks at whether the purpose of the use was a commercial one, and was it transformative or not so as to lean towards for fair use.

In terms of commercial use, the Court considered that, while the Android platform is freely distributed (including the aforementioned APIs) does not mean the use is not commercial. Also, as Google earns money from advertising on the platform, this will weigh towards a finding of commercial use. Indeed, in the end the Court found that the use was commercial.

The second part of the first factor looks at how transformative the use is, i.e. "…adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message". The use would have to add something new or supersede the original work. The Court determined that Google's use did not change the APIs or their purpose, but used them for the exact same in the Android operating system. The context of the use within smartphones was also not novel. In short, the Court saw that "…where, as here, the copying is verbatim, for an identical function and purpose, and there are no changes to the expressive content or message, a mere change in format (e.g., from desktop and laptop computers to smartphones and tablets) is insufficient as a matter of law to qualify as a transformative use".

Further to the assessment of purpose and character there is also a bad faith argument that the Court considered, meaning whether Google has used the APIs "…in a manner generally compatible with principles of good faith and fair dealing". Even assuming a jury would not be convinced of Google's bad faith use of the APIs, the Court still concluded that the first factor overall weighed against a finding of fair use.

The second factor looks at the nature of the copyright work, i.e. whether the work is more factual or creative, with the latter getting a higher likelihood of protection. The Court did highlight that, while the APIs did involve some level of creativity, they ultimately were for a functional purpose. Even so, the second factor is of very little importance in a finding of fair use, per the Court, they did find that it weighed towards a finding of fair use.

The Court moved onto the third factor, which looks at the substantiality of the copying, which is more an assessment of quality rather than sheer quantity of what was copied. In retaining the functionality of the Java APIs it was necessary to copy only roughly 200 lines of code; however, Google copied nearly the entire API set of 11,500 lines of code. In brief, the Court set out that Google's copying was qualitatively significant and necessary for the creation of the Android OS, and the third factor therefore weighed against a finding of fair use.

Finally, the Court looked at the fourth factor, meaning the copy's effect on the potential market (or the market for any derivative works) or value of the original work. This includes assessing "…the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant… would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the original". Likely market harm can also be presumed by the courts if the use by the potential infringer is commercial and non-transformative.

The Court determined that, there was clear harm to the market in relation to smartphones, as Java had been employed in many phones and tablets at the time of the launch of Android. In the light of the evidence, they indicated that this would clearly lead to a finding of market harm by a jury. There was also impact on the potential market for Java, not just the existing market, specifically with regards to the smartphone market, which was deemed to be "…a traditional, reasonable, or likely to be developed market". Oracle's lack of development of a smartphone or smartphone OS was irrelevant, as the potential still existed for the company that was taken over by Android.

In balancing all of the above factors, the Court found that Google's use was not fair use, but the Court did note that, while this case did not reach the threshold for fair use in relation to computer code or APIs, they did not "…conclude that a fair use defense could never be sustained in an action involving the copying of computer code".

Google's cross-appeal for declaration that the APIs would not be protected by copyright was also dismissed by the Court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court in a petition before this judgment.

The case is very interesting, in the light of potential copying within software development. From what this writer understands, the appropriation and repurposing of code is very common in the industry, and this decision could create an environment where companies would be more readily okay with pursuing copying. Google seemingly will not have the option to pursue the matter to the Supreme Court, and will end up paying significant damages to Oracle.

Source: JDSupra

Limited Harbor Space - When Does an ISP Lose Safe Harbor Protection in the US?

Safe harbor provisions for intermediaries on the Internet are the cornerstone of keeping it functional, open and above all fair. Without protection for intermediaries, including ISPs, many entities could create an environment of monitoring and control by service providers, which would undoubtedly hinder the functionality of the Internet as we know it. Even so, safe harbor provisions should be a shield, and not deflect all responsibility from providers where they could be, arguably, deemed as complicit with illegal activities.  With that in mind, when could an ISP be deemed liable for the copyright infringement of its users? The US Court of Appeals took on this question earlier this month.

The case of BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v Cox Communications dealt with Cox who are an internet service provider for roughly 4.5 million users. Some of these users shared copyright protected files on Cox's service, including music, using the BitTorrent protocol.  Cox's service agreement with their users prevents, among other things, the sharing of infringing content using their service, but has very little by way of automated infringement prevention systems (e.g. through automated notifications and a thirteen-strike policy to suspend a repeat offender's service temporarily). BMG identified that several of their copyright protected works were shared using Cox's service, and used a third-party service provider to send notices to Cox (who had, before this, blocked the third-party provider), with the ISP never receiving those notices. BMG then took Cox to court for copyright infringement via its users.

The Court first dealt with the matter of safe harbor protection for Cox under 17 USC section 512. For an ISP to be covered under the provision, it has to show it "…adopted and reasonably implemented… a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers… who are repeat infringers". This would mean any user who, in short, repeatedly infringes copyrights. Even if those infringements would be mere alleged infringements (i.e. they have not gone to court or been admitted to), the provision would still apply as a requirement.

The need to have a reasonably implemented policy on termination also necessitates the meaningful enforcement of that policy. Cox, through their thirteen-strike policy, never terminated users' accounts even after repeat offenses. Through this they avoided the policy's reasonable implementation. In internal correspondence representatives in the Abuse division at Cox would dismiss the termination of users' accounts, and reinforced their reactivation for DMCA notices.

Even in the light of this, Cox contested that they had no "actual knowledge" of their users' infringing activities. The evidence discussed above contradicted this point, and even though the stance was changed internally later on, the Court still deemed them to have clear knowledge of users' infringements and that they actively ignored correspondence on the same by rightsholders. This also contradicted their stance on active implementation of the policy, as almost no users were terminated. Cox therefore failed to qualify for safe harbor protection.

The matter then turned to jury instructions on contributory infringement, particularly what the jury were instructed to consider. Cox contended that, as the product they sold (Internet service) is "…capable of substantial non-infringing use", it cannot be deemed to be infringing. The Court quickly rejected this, and determined that even if the technology can be substantially used for non-infringing purposes, it doesn't give them immunity from contributory infringement.

Secondly, Cox argued that the instructions issued, to consider the intent necessary for contributory infringement, were wrong. The jury were instructed to impose liability if "…Cox knew or should have known of such infringing activity". The Court agreed with Cox on this point, considering that the instructions were incorrect and the court erred in giving them. To prove contributory infringement one has to, according to the Court, provide proof of "…at least willful blindness [and that] negligence is insufficient". Saying the party 'should have known' is too low of a standard. A note the Court makes is that the wilful blindness has to relate to specific instances of infringement, e.g. where they have been notified of infringement and choose to ignore the notices.

Cox's appeal was dismissed, but due to errors in jury instructions the matter was remanded and sent for a new trial.

The case is very interesting, and amends the standard that juries will have to assess contributory infringement against. Clearly, had Cox responded to notices sent to them, most likely they would have been protected by safe harbour provisions. They wilful ignorance of the notices and issues, in addition to their lack of enforcing their own policy on termination, was their undoing. The case does raise a red flag for all ISPs to ensure that they indeed do implement a policy against infringers and enforce it to enjoy safe harbor protection. While the case is still going to be decided on in the future after remittance, it still is an important consideration ahead of the forthcoming decision.

Source: IPKat

Indexing Free-for-All - US District Court Issues Injunction against Canadian Supreme Court De-indexing Order

After the decision in the Canadian Supreme court in the Equustek case, many, including this writer, raised concerns about the possible abuse of the precedent set by the case. The de-indexing of online content, while well-intentioned in the removal of infringing content, could still be used as a sword more than a shield against legitimate infringement, including against free speech. This writer for one awaited the first application of the case, particularly in a jurisdiction that leans more towards free speech, and seems like the wish has been granted by the District Court of the Northern District of California only a few weeks ago.

The case of Google LLC v Equustek Solutions Inc. concerns the same subject matter as the Canadian case. In short, Equustek sued Google seeking to force Google to block websites selling infringing goods all over the world, not just in Canada where Google had blocked the websites selling the goods. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately issued the order, and forced Google to block access to the websites all over the world.

Google challenged this ruling in the United States, arguing that the order conflicts with the First Amendment right to free speech, and disregards the Communication Decency Act, which affords immunity to interactive service providers.

Justice Davila first looked at the CDA, which affords immunity from claims to "…providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties". This means that should another publisher, using these services, publish infringing content Google couldn't be sued for that infringement. Even so, to qualify for immunity three criteria need to be satisfied: (1) the company is a "provider or user of an interactive computer service"; (2) the information in question was "provided by another information content provider"; and (3) the Canadian order would hold it liable as the "publisher or speaker" of that information.

Looking at the first criterion, Justice Davila concluded that Google was a 'provider of interactive computer services'. This means that the company provides "…any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server", which encompasses Google's search facility, among other services.

As the content, i.e. the website and the information contained in it (including the infringing goods for sale), was provided by Datalink and not Google, the second criteria was also easily fulfilled. The provision of Google's search facility relies on the company 'crawling' websites on the Internet, which it then indexes and makes available through search results. This allows for users to discover the content, which Google does not post, clearly being provided by 'another information content provider'.

The First Amendment - the best kind of pop-up

Finally, the third criterion looks at whether Google would be held liable for the content provided by another under the order made by the Canadian Supreme Court as the 'publisher or speaker' of that content. According to the order Google has to "…de-index the Datalink websites [from its global search results]… [because it is] the determinative player in allowing the harm to occur".

Per the decision in Barnes v Yahoo!, "…removing content is something publishers do, and to impose liability on the basis of such conduct necessarily involves treating the liable party as a publisher of the content it failed to remove". This liability as a third party for the non-removal of content, should Google not do so when ordered, clearly treats Google as the publisher of that content rather than a mere intermediary with no liability.

Justice Davila therefore considered that Google was immune from the claim under the CDA.

The Court then turned to the question of free speech and irreparable harm. Justice Davila swiftly determined that the Canadian order restricts Google's activity protected by the CDA, and deprives of it of benefits given by US federal law. Similarly an injunction wouldn't serve the public interest, as free speech would be restricted if websites "…were to face tort liability for hosting user-generated content". This has been particularly legislated against through the CDA. As the Internet and other interactive computer services "…offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity", the legislature deemed it required protecting for that purpose to flourish.

Justice Davila issued the injunction against the Canadian order as it "…undermines the policy goals of [the CDA] and threatens free speech on the global internet".

The decision is a very interesting one, and strongly advocates for the protection of the Internet from blanket orders requiring the removal of content globally. This writer is very much a proponent of this approach, as, amongst its faults, the Internet is a bastion of freedom and dissemination of information (including this blog as a very example of that). Infringements should be dealt with appropriately, but blanket de-indexing orders might not be the best way; however, with this in mind, third-party service providers do have to take some responsibility on the removal of content when needed.

Distinct as Ever - Google Not a Generic Term, Says US Court of Appeal

When a particular brand becomes hugely successful, it more often than not becomes very valuable, but even the biggest of players are not protected from the ill effects of popularity. A big problem that many brands face is the generification of their brand, i.e. it becomes so well-known and associated with a particular type of good or service that consumers use it to refer to all of those goods or services. Through this the distinctiveness of the trademark becomes diluted, and potentially is lost entirely. Many companies will therefore fight to protect their brands and to establish proper trademark use guidelines (for example, INTA has a set of guidelines for online use) to combat this issue. A case that has dealt with the 'generification' or 'genericisation' of trademarks has been going on in the US for over 5 years (discussion on the first instance decision here), culminating in a Court of Appeal decision in mid-March.

The case of Elliott v Google Inc. deals with the registration of over 760 domain names by David Elliot, which incorporated both the word "Google" and other well-known brands, such as Disney, in the domain name. Google subsequently objected to the registrations, lodging a complaint at the National Arbitration Forum (handling the domain name disputes for the provider). NAF ruled in Google's favor, and the complaint then lodged proceedings in the Arizona District Court for the cancellation of the Google trademarks under 15 USC section 1064(3) as being "...primarily understood as a generic term universally used to describe the act of internet searching". Elliott's case failed at first instance for lack of evidence as to this fact, and the matter since was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The main question for the Court therefore was whether 'Google' had become generic through use; however, as noted by the Court: "…The mere fact that the public sometimes uses a trademark as the name for a unique product does not immediately render the mark generic". Consumers would have to consistently, and for a prolonged period of time, use the marl for it to become arguably generic. Judge Tallman set out the legal test for this, which looks at "…whether the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is [now] the product [and not] the producer".

Judge Tallman continued that the claim for the genericness of a product or service always has to relate to a particular type of goods or services the mark is registered for. Elliott had defined this as 'the act of searching the internet'; however, the marks are not registered for these types of services. The Court rejected his argument, due to a lack of particular good or services designated for which the mark has become generic for.

Elliott's main argument in the proceedings related to the potential use of 'Google' as a verb to describe the act of searching the internet (using Google or not) by the relevant public, having therefore become generic. The Court rejected Elliott's argument, since he failed on two fronts: he failed to recognize that a claim of genericide must always relate to a particular type of good or service, and that he erroneously assumed that verb use automatically constitutes generic use.

Firstly, the Court highlighted Elliott's lack of specificity in setting out the particular type of goods or service the verb relates to. While he did set out that 'Google' related to the act of searching the internet in general, there was no inherent link between the claim of genericide and a particular type of good or service. In other words, Elliott's claim only relates to a broad, undefined action, rather than a particular good or service the mark is registered for.

Junior was unnerved by his own 'googling'

Secondly, the use of a trademark as a verb, according to the Court, does not automatically mean it has become generic. Elliott's argument was that a trademark should only be used as an adjective, and should it be used as a verb it would lose its source-identifying function and become generic. What the Court highlighted as the key consideration, as set out in Coca-Cola Company v Overland Inc., is "what… customers [were] thinking or whether they had a particular source in mind [for the goods or services in question]". What remains key is the consideration is the customers' inner thought processes regarding the goods or services, irrespective of the trademarks use as, for example, a verb or a noun.

This has been referred to as 'discriminate' and 'indiscriminate' use, where the consumer uses the mark as a verb or otherwise either with consideration of the underlying source or not, i.e. being happy with an alternate product or service being used instead of the namesake. The Court assessed that the main inquiry would be "…whether the primary significance of the word "google" to the relevant public is as a generic name for internet search engines or as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular", not simply has the mark has been used as a verb or not.

The Court then moved on to evidentiary matters. In determining whether the mark in question would have become generic, the claimant is "…required to identify sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the primary significance of the word "google" to the relevant public is as a name for internet search engines generally and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular".

Elliott's evidence largely comprised of consumer surveys and generic use by media and consumers at large. Elliott also produced three expert witnesses, who argued that 'google' is used in a generic sense when it's used as a verb. In most of the evidence the word 'google' had simply been used as a verb, which, as the Court pointed out above, does not in itself make a word generic.

The Court concluded that Elliott had failed to produce sufficient evidence that the relevant public primarily understands the word "google" as a generic name for internet search engines and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular.

The case shows that some battles might not be worth fighting. The evidentiary hurdle that a claim has to climb over in a claim for genericness is quite high, and as this case shows, even the biggest of players might not be as exposed as you think. Trademarks offer a versatile and flexible set of rights, which cannot be thwarted by a simple claim of verb use; however, rightsholders still need to remain vigilant over any claims of genericness from third-parties, especially if the name is of some note.

Source: JDSupra

A Lack of Patent Exhaustion - Discussing the Lexmark Case Ahead of US Supreme Court Hearing

Many IP rights give their owners a great deal or rights and capabilities to restrict the use of their rights by other parties, and arguably, rightfully so, as the creation is indeed theirs. Even though this might be the case at face value, the use and exploitation of those rights should still have certain limitations, for example, from preventing an author from allowing certain people from reading their book after they have purchased a copy. This doctrine is called the exhaustion of rights, which means that after a certain point, the rights held by the author or owner of a technology cease to apply, allowing for the party to use their products as they please. Exhaustion of rights is still a developing area of law, and an up-coming case in the US Supreme Court has been primed to tackle this in relation to patents, with the case having ramifications both ways irrespective of the decision. Looking ahead to the decision, it is important to discuss the Court of Appeal case decided over a year ago.

The case of Lexmark International Inc. v Impression Products Inc. dealt with the sale of refilled ink cartridges for computer printers by Impression, who purchased used cartridges from abroad to refill and resell in the US (having a third-party circumvent the protection mechanism preventing reuse in the cartridges). Lexmark holds patents in relation to these cartridges, and most of the cartridges had strict single-use/resale restrictions set by Lexmark both in the US and abroad. Impression had not sought permission to resell the cartridges in the US, and Lexmark subsequently took the company to court for patent infringement.

Under 35 USC section 271, only the patent holder is authorized to sell and import patented inventions in the US. Impression argued that the rights (undisputed to be valid and enforceable) had been exhausted after the first sale of the cartridges to the original consumer, and therefore their resale and importation would not be an infringement of the rights.  The Court disagreed, and saw that "...a patentee may preserve its § 271 rights when itself selling a patented article, through clearly communicated, otherwise-lawful restrictions, as it may do when contracting out the manufacturing and sale". This would therefore allow Lexmark to assert its rights post-sale as per the stickers on the cartridges.

The Court focussed on the aspect of the provision that restricts the sale of the patented 'without authorization', as the lack authorization of resale through the sticker clearly leaves the buyer without rights. Conversely, the sale of an article without the reservation of rights would, arguably, have the right to resale the item. It all comes down to the language used during the sale process. The Court summarized their position, where "...[a] sale made under a clearly communicated, otherwise-lawful restriction as to post-sale use or resale does not confer on the buyer and a subsequent purchaser the "authority" to engage in the use or resale that the restriction precludes", following the decision in Mallinckrodt Inc. v Medipart, Inc.. This means that the patent owning party would retain the rights in the item if expressly and clearly communicated at the time of purchase, provided that no law or policy is violated through the retention of rights.



Patent exhaustion is a real plight! (Source: Good Little Robot)

The legislative position is not any different, according to the Court, from the common law position as set out in Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons (discussed more here), which restricted the rights in items that have been sold (albeit in relation to copyright and not patent rights). The ultimate seller of patent rights can retain some rights in the sold items, which differs from copyright that does not offer the same varying set of rights.

The second question the Court had to grapple with was whether the sale of the items abroad conferred any authority to Impression to import the cartridges to the US and sell them there. Ultimately, following the Jazz Photo Corp. v International Trade Commission case, the Court determined that no legal rule to this effect existed. For there to be an ability to do so, Impression would have to have a licence, implied or direct, to do so, which in the case they did not have. Similarly to the above, the decision in Kirtsaeng does not apply in this instance either (where copyright protected works were bought abroad and imported for sale in the US), as the law in copyright affords an equivocal right to resell the items, which patent legislation does not give.

Ultimately, Impression's case failed and the Court found that they had indeed infringed Lexmark's rights.

Both Judge Dyk and Hughes dissented from the judgment, raising opposing views on both the applicability of Mallinckrodt and Jazz Photo.

In their view, in relation to the first argument of patent exhaustion, the decision in Quanta Computer Inc. v LG Electronics Inc. applies, which sets out that "...the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item". The moment the item involving the patent has been sold with authorization, all rights in the patented aspect cease to apply, even in relation to resale. Additionally, in relation to the second argument, once the item was sold abroad (with no restrictions as to US patent rights), the rights in the patent works are exhausted. This is even more poignant, according to the judges, due to the sale by the patent rightsholder, and not a mere licensee.

The case, once decided by the Supreme Court, could potentially have huge implications to the sale and resale of goods incorporation patent rights in the US. Should the Supreme Court side with Lexmark, it could cause a huge cooling on the resale of products in the US, and an upswing on the incorporation of stricter sale terms in relation to patent rights in any given goods. This could cause prices to rise and items to be less readily available to consumers. On the opposite side, should the Supreme Court agree with Impression, patent rights could be hugely devalued in the US, especially when it comes to the sale of goods at first instance. This could mean higher up-front costs to protect against the loss on resales, but also release a whole swathe of second-hand markets for patent goods, particularly from abroad should the rights have been exhausted. No matter which way the case goes, it will be very important to both consumers and patentees alike, and shape the future of patent exhaustion for years to come.

Source: Gizmodo