• Home
  • About Us
  • Our People
  • Practice Areas
  • Our Clients
  • Contact Us
  • Our Blog
  • Articles
  • Startup Legal Products
  • Copyright
  • Film and Video
  • General Business
  • Internet
  • Mobile
  • Music
  • News
  • Patent
  • Publishing
  • Right of Publicity
  • Software
  • Trademark
  • Uncategorized
  • rss feedFeed
  1. Program on Copyright Law

    posted: April 8, 2010

    The Grand Rapids Legal News provides a nice recap of the Program on Copyright Law and Fair Use for Creative Artists that I participated in last Saturday at Grand Valley State.  From the article:

    Julie Ahrens of the Stanford Fair Use Project, speaking to a small group of attorneys gathered April 3 in Grand Rapids, quoted Lawrence Lessig’s wry observation: “‘Fair use’ in America is the right to hire a lawyer.”

    The remark may be humorous, but it is also an accurate comment on what legitimately results from the fair use language.

    The doctrine is written in a way that lends to each individual case having to be decided by a judge.Ahrens was at Grand Valley State University’s DeVos Center as part of a “Copyright Basics and Fair Use” conference held by the ACES (Arts,  Communications, Entertainment and Sports) Section of the State Bar, led by Matthew Bower of Safford and Baker in Bloomfield Hills. It was co-sponsored by the Right to Write Foundation, a clearinghouse on fair use law and a fund to help artists defend fair use cases which operates out of Muskegon.

    You can read the whole article here.

    –Matt

    Category: Copyright | News | Publishing

    Tags: ACES | Copyright | Copyright Infringement | Copyright Law | entertainment law | Fair Use | First Amendment | Intellectual property | News | Publishing

    Comments (0)


  2. Program on Copyright Law and Fair Use for Creative Artists

    posted: March 18, 2010

    On Saturday, April 3, 2010, the Arts, Communications, Entertainment & Sports (“ACES”) Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan is co-hosting with the Right to Write Fund, in association with the Stanford Fair Use Project and Grand Valley State University, a lecture on copyright law basics for creative artists followed by a panel discussion on the recent fair use case Rowling v. RDR Books.

    Lee VanOrsdel, Dean of University Libraries, will be providing introductory remarks.  The copyright lecture will be lead by Grand Rapids copyright lawyer Jeff Nelson of Warner Norcross.  I’m moderating the panel discussion and will be joined by Roger Rapoport, owner of RDR Books, and Julie Ahrens, Associate Director of the Stanford Fair Use Project.  The program will run from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the DeVos Center, 401 West Fulton, Lecture Hall 136 E, Grand Rapids, MI 49504.

    The seminar will provide information and materials for Michigan creative artists and lawyers on important issues of copyright law, fair use, and the First Amendment.  The cost of the event will be $30 per participant ($20 for students), which includes a lunch.  A reception will follow the conference and sponsored by the Right to Write Fund and ACES.

    If you are interested in attending, please RSVP to me, Matthew Bower, at mbower@saffordbaker.com or (248) 646-9100.

    About Rowling v. RDR Books.  Muskegon publisher Roger Rapoport, owner of RDR Books, and writer Steve Vander Ark, founder of “The Harry Potter Lexicon” fansite, became embroiled in a copyright battle with J.K. Rowling, author of the hugely popular Harry Potter books, and Warner Bros., producers of the hit Potter films.  When the Michigan natives sought to publish a book version of the Lexicon website (a reference guide for all things Potter), Rowling and Warner Bros. claimed that publication would constitute copyright infringement.  RDR Books claimed the right to publish the Lexicon under the fair use doctrine.

    The case began in October 2007, when Warner Bros and Rowling filed a lawsuit against RDR Books in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to block the Lexicon’s publication.  On November 8, 2007, Judge Robert B. Patterson Jr. issued a temporary restraining order, voluntarily entered into by both parties, delaying RDR’s publication of the book.  Anthony Falzone and Julie Ahrens of the Stanford Fair Use Project joined RDR’s trial team.

    Following a highly publicized three-day trial in April 2008, the court issued a lengthy decision in  September 2008, ruling in Rowling’s favor and blocking RDR’s publication of the book.  In his opinion, Judge Patterson held that “because the Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling’s creative work for its purposes as a reference guide, a permanent injunction must issue to prevent the possible proliferation of works that do the same and thus deplete the incentive for original authors to create new works.”  Judge Patterson awarded the plaintiffs less than $7,000 in damages for infringement, the minimum amount possible.

    Although RDR lost the case, it may have won the larger war.  In deciding the case, Judge Patterson concluded that reference guides in general, including the Lexicon, are transformative in nature and capable of fair use protection, and that the Lexicon could be published with less appropriation from the original works.  Judge Patterson’s opinion also held that creative artists like Rowling do not have a monopoly on companion guides to their own works and encouraged authors like Vander Ark to include more original critical commentary.  On January 16, 2009, RDR Books did just that, releasing another unauthorized Harry Potter guide (The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Harry Potter Fiction and Related Materials), which included far more commentary than the original.

    About the Fair Use Project.  The Fair Use Project (FUP) is part of the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society and is the only organization in the country dedicated specifically to providing free and comprehensive legal representation to authors, filmmakers, artists, musicians and other content creators who face unmerited copyright claims. Founded in 2006 by Professor Lawrence Lessig and Executive Director Anthony Falzone, the FUP defends and promotes the right to create, speak and communicate freely through two principal areas of activity. The FUP litigates copyright cases across the country to secure the rights of its clients to create and distribute their work. It has litigated several precedent-setting cases and won national recognition for its work. In addition, the FUP counsels clients to minimize legal risk, and helps them insure against it where necessary. Through its Documentary Film Program, the FUP works with filmmakers to help them understand and exercise their fair use rights, and obtain insurance against potential claims.

    Julie A. Ahrens is associate director of Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project, where she represents writers, filmmakers, musicians, and others who rely on fair use in creating their art, documentaries, scholarship, critiques, or comments.  Before joining Stanford, Ahrens was a litigation attorney in the San Francisco office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

    About the Right to Write Fund.  The Right to Write Fund was formed to be an educational repository and clearinghouse for the 21st century freedom of expression and “fair use” issues writers and publishers encounter when moving between the worlds of print, internet, film, the fine arts, and new media.  The Fund will collect and disseminate legal briefs, facts and analyses as well as literary and media accounts of copyright, trademark and other intellectual property statutes in order to define first amendment rights in a technological age.  The Fund will promulgate and protect the democratic values of our founding fathers – free speech, the freedom to write, fairness, openness and honesty – while establishing the ground rules for future artistic expression.

    About the ACES Law Section of the State Bar.  For thirty years the Arts, Communications, Entertainment & Sports Law Section and its members have helped thousands of artists and entertainers by participating in and supporting the cultural organizations and activities of the arts, communications, entertainment and sports industries of Michigan.  ACES supports these industries through partnerships, seminars, public service programs, advocacy, and publications, as well as through fostering and developing the professional skills and knowledge of its members.  Membership in the ACES is open to all members of the State Bar of Michigan.

    –Matt

    Category: Copyright | Music | Publishing

    Tags: ACES | Copyright | Copyright Law | entertainment law | Fair Use | First Amendment | Intellectual property | News | Publishing

    Comments (2)


  3. Court reporters don’t own the copyright in their transcripts.

    posted: September 9, 2009

    It has become a matter of course that any commercial publication is going to have a copyright notice slapped on it by the publisher regardless of the actual copyrightability of the material.  I first noticed this when perusing a book store several years ago and came across a published copy of Congress’s 9/11 Commission Report.  The Report is non-copyrightable as a government work.  In this case, a publisher republished the Report in its entirety in book form, without adding any additional material, but nevertheless placed a copyright notice on the book in the publisher’s name.  Over the years, I’ve notice copyright notices on all manner of materials otherwise devoid of copyrightable content, including some deposition transcripts.

    The Exclusive Rights blog now points to an interesting unpublished opinion from the 10th Circuit concerning court reporters and their transcripts.  A transcript, of course, is nothing more than a written record of all of the oral testimony and arguments made during court proceedings; the transcript is expected to be an exact and unedited record of every spoken word, with each speaker indicated.  As such, transcripts are not copyrightable because, among other reasons, the reporters are not “authors” under the Copyright Act — the material, to the extent it is copyrightable at all, is not original to the court reporter.

    This didn’t prevent a court reporter from complaining, however, when an attorney obtained copies of the reporter’s trial transcripts under New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act, instead of paying the court reporter for a copy at a higher fee.  When the attorney was ordered to pay the court reporter a little over $4,000, the attorney appealed and the 10th Circuit overturned finding that to require the attorney to pay the fee would effectively give the court reporter a copyright in his transcripts:

    In broad terms, [the court reporter's] fee claim rests on the tacit premise that court reporters in some legal sense own the content of the transcripts they prepare, such that they are entitled to remuneration whenever a copy of a transcript is made (even if they played no role in making the copy). To accept this premise would effectively give court reporters a “copyright” in a mere transcription of others’ statements, contrary to black letter copyright law. See 2 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright, Ch. 4 Noncopyrightable Material, § 4.88 (Updated Sept. 2008) (court reporters are not “authors of what they transcribe and therefore cannot be copyright owners of the transcript of court proceedings”).

    –Matt

    Category: Copyright | Publishing

    Tags: Copyright | Copyright Law | Publishing

    Comments (0)


  4. Google Books Settlement and Privacy Concerns

    posted: August 16, 2009

    NPR had a radio story the other day on the Google Books settlement and the privacy concerns raised by authors and publishers.  It’s short but does a great job of covering the the issue.

    For those that don’t know, Google has been working on a project to scan millions of library books and put them online.  Essentially, doing for books what Google has already done for the Internet; making them searchable and accessible.  The project is the subject of a copyright lawsuit filed by authors and publishers and a tentative settlement is waiting approval from the judge (which is likely to come this fall).  The problem for some authors and publishers, however, is that the settlement covers the copyright issue but doesn’t address Google’s practice of tracking and storing users’ personal search and reading habits.  The danger is that this private information could be used inappropriately.  The example given in the NPR piece is where your health insurance company may find out what medical books (and diseases) you are searching for and reading.  The EFF and ACLU don’t want Google to save this kind of reader data.

    To get a better understanding of the issue, I recommend listening to the full NPR story.

    –Matt

    Category: Copyright | Publishing

    Tags: authors and publishers | Copyright Law | Google Book | privacy | Publishing

    Comments (0)


  5. The law of blogs, wikis, and online forums

    posted: April 20, 2009

    “A 12-person jury deliberated six hours over two days in January before awarding [the plaintiff] $50,000 in compensatory damages.  The verdict made him the first plaintiff awarded damages in a libel suit against a blogger….The case is one of at least 50 similar suits filed in the past several years.” — Kansas City Daily News, October 26, 2006

    “Social media – always fun until someone gets sued.” — FP Legal Post, March 16, 2009

    What are blogs, wikis, and online forums?

    Blogs, wikis, and online forums are part of the Web 2.0 social media explosion that are changing the way we do business and work with each other. Web 2.0 represents one of the greatest opportunities of our lifetime to share ideas and work collaboratively.

    However, Web 2.0 also represents one of the newest legal threats to people and companies utilizing these tools.  Whether you are new to Web 2.0 or a relative old-timer, you have probably witnessed more and more stories every day about people and companies getting in trouble for what they or their users have posted online.

    What legal liability issues can arise from my blog, wiki, or online forum?

    Generally, you face the same liability issues as anyone making a publication available to the public. The main legal liability issues include:

    • Defamation
    • Intellectual Property (Copyright/Trademark)
    • Trade Secret
    • Right of Publicity
    • Invasion of Privacy

    Whenever you open the Web 2.0 door, inevitably someone will publish information or post content that others don’t want published.  Someone might, for example, publish something that someone considers defamatory or private, republish someone’s copyrighted content without permission, or misuse or tarnish someone’s trademark in a way that confuses consumers.

    What can I do to protect yourself and my company?

    • Understand your rights to link to information, quote from articles and blogs, or otherwise use someone else’s creative works.
    • Understand how and when you can use the brand name of a good or service in your blog, wiki, or online forum.
    • Develop and implement company policies and procedures for employees using Web 2.0 tools.
    • Post clear and conspicuous terms and conditions for users.
    • Implement a comprehensive and expeditious “notice-and-take-down” procedure for the removal of copyrighted material.
    • Understand your rights and responsibilities under Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996.

    –Matt

    Category: Copyright | General Business | Internet | Publishing | Right of Publicity | Trademark

    Tags: blog | Communication Decency Act | Copyright | Defamation | DMCA | Intellectual property | online forum | Trademark | Web 2.0 | wiki

    Comments (0)


  • Previous Entries »
  • Next Page »

Creative Commons License