Google Book, launched in 2004, is to books what Google is to the Internet; essentially a search engine that allows users to search inside the full text of books that Google scans and stores in a database.  How many books?  Well, at last count, approximately 15 million volumes are being scanned within a decade – and not just books in the public domain, but also titles still under copyright.  Google Book has been in beta since launch but  nevertheless available to the public.  Users are granted varying degrees of access to the texts (from no access, to a “snippet” preview, to full access) depending on the copyright status of the book.  Proponents hail the project as a huge public benefit, providing access on an unimaginable scale.

Not everyone sees it that way.  Shortly after the launch of the project, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers filed lawsuits claiming Google is committing copyright infringement on a massive scale and commercially benefiting from it (Google is, of course, selling ad space along with search results).  Google claims the copying is “fair use.”

Who’s right?  We’ll never know.  Google recently entered into a settlement agreement with the authors and publishers.  The end result is that Google Book will live on, and probably in better shape than had Google prevailed in the lawsuit.  To visit Google Book and learn more click here.  If you are an author or publisher, learn more about how the settlement agreement effects you here.

–Matt

Earlier this year, Safford & Baker was selected as a 2008 Best of Michigan Business by Corp! Magazine readers.

Thank you, Corp! readers.

–Matt

To date, no court has held that animals have a “right of publicity” akin to that enjoyed by humans.  To my knowledge, there have only been three cases on this issue.  In a New York case, a trial court held that the plaintiff could not invoke New York’s right of publicity statute on behalf of her pet dog when a dog biscuit company used the pooch’s image, without the owner’s permission, in an advertisement.  In a similar case in Missouri, an appeals court reversed a $5,000 jury verdict when the image of the plaintiff’s horse was used in an advertisement, also without permission.  The only other known case comes from Japan, where a Japanese court determined that a video game maker was not liable to the owners of race horses for using their horses’ names in a video game.  The underlining reasoning behind all of these cases is that the right of publicity is, traditionally, a natural right of every human being to control commercial uses of their identity.  The courts were clearly reluctant to extend this traditional right to animals.  See J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy, §§ 4:36-4:38 (2d ed. 2008) (An invaluable resource for anyone practicing in this area of law -ed.).

On the other hand, there is no denying that some animals have very valuable publicity values in cases where animals have achieved a high degree of celebrity status.  Obvious examples include Rin Tin Tin, Lassie, Benji, Trigger, the Taco Bell Chihuahua, and Spuds McKenzie, to name a few.  Some owners of famous animals have asserted that the commercial exploitation of the photograph of their animal infringes on a “property interest” that the owner has in the animal; a very valuable property interest at that.  Although the protection of that interest through “right of publicity” law is suspect for the time being, it may not be long before a class of “famous” animals gets its day in court along with Hollywood celebrities.

–Matt

Our very own Don Baker is quoted in this article appearing in the October 2008 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics.  The article concerns an “inventor” trying to secure a business method patent for a technology commercialization model he claims is novel.  Many others disagree.

Money quote:

The same goes for Donald H. Baker Jr., managing partner at Safford & Baker PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI. There are already foundations that hold entire portfolios for their respective universities doing the very thing Buck envisions, he says, pointing to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation as an example. Other universities have similar outside “holders” of their IP, he adds, and several private companies employ a similar model. “The patent application is very much non-novel and should be disallowed,” he asserts. “The application sounds like a variation in corporate organization, as opposed to creation of something new or beneficial. I think that the business idea is well worth exploring, but the patent spin on it is, to me, unjustified.”

–Matt

The personal blog has become a way for many people to reflect on life, art, politics, religion, and any number of other imaginable topics – even if the blogger is the only one reading it. It’s not surprising then that personal bloggers will, from time to time, turn their attention to their day jobs; after all, for many people, work is the place where they spend most of their time.

Most employers, if they are aware of their employees’ blogging habits at all, tend to look the other way, as long as common courtesy and a certain amount of employer anonymity are respected. Employers can afford to do this because few personal blogs find fame and a mainstream audience. A recent libel lawsuit, however, filed against Cisco Systems over one of its employees’ personal blogs, may stir companies to consider how much they should regulate this otherwise personal activity.

Employers should consider whether implementing a reasonable personal blogging policy is right for their company. If implemented, the policy should, at a minimum, prohibit blogging during work hours and on company equipment, require employees to maintain confidentiality of the company’s proprietary information, prohibit bloggers from linking to the company’s website or speaking on behalf of the company, require bloggers to respect the privacy of other employees, and, finally, prohibit blogs from becoming a forum for raising internal complaints.

Most importantly, as with all company policies, the policy must be enforced uniformly so that all employees, including executives, are subject to it.

–Matt