Posts Tagged ‘Copyright’

Share via email

Rogers and Hammerstein.  Abbot and Costello.  Timbaland and, well, everyone.  When two or more people come together to make with the intent to beautiful music, or whatever, together, that usually gives rise to a joint work to which those parties who contributed to its creation have an interest in.  However, often one or more of the authors is not aware of their rights, or wrongly believes the actually have no rights.  Let’s clear the air a little bit.

 

 

A joint work is created when two or more authors collaborate in the creation of a work with the intent both to create a unified work and to be co-authors.  Additionally, each author must make more than a minor contribution to the work.  In some jurisdictions, each contribution must be independently copyrightable in and of itself.

Every joint author has an undivided interest in copyright of a joint work, all rights that come with copyright ownership.  That means each joint author is free to make reproductions or derivative works, distribute, perform,, play, or transmit the work.  However, each joint author has a duty to account to (read: share profits with) all other joint authors for any profits reaped from use of the copyright, such as licensing.

Of course, all of this is in the absence of an agreement between the joint authors.  A common situation is a “work for hire,” where all creative contributions of everyone who is “hired” becomes the property of another.  If an agreement between the parties does not include such a specific requirement, a number of factors will be considered, including  the provision of employee benefits, the tax treatment of hired party, the skill required in the performing the creative work, the right of the hiring party to control manner and means of creation, and the right of the hiring party to assign new projects.

The moral of the story?  Unless you like unwelcome surprises, it is best to set the expectations of everyone involved in the creation of a creative work before any work gets done by getting it down in writing.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

For weeks now I have been going round and round with some folks on twitter about the legitimacy of copyright law. Of course, this prompted me to write some articles proving why they are wrong (see the articles here, here and here).  As you can imagine, that did not stop the discussion.  Why would a voice of reason, or any rational thought at all stand in the way of their ridiculous musings.

I think I got to the bottom of some of what they are preaching.  It took me a while, but it is funny how their entire argument revolves around a lack of understanding of copyright law.  The argument that was getting irresponsibly made was that once they had obtained a copy, it was their “right” to do whatever they want with it.

This is somewhat backpedaling from the original argument of “I have a RIGHT to copy.”  That argument was simply intolerable, which is why I remained engaged with them.  Another part is that we are both clearly bullheaded about this topic, and I am just not going to let them have the last word – especially not when that word is egregiously wrong!  There clearly is not “right” to copy.  Ok, that is a broad statement.  There can be a right to copy, but you have to pay for that right.  There is no “natural right” to copy (yes, that is another one of their ridiculous arguments).

Let’s assume that the copyright abolitionist has obtained a copy of a work of art by lawful means.  For this group, that is a stretch, but that is the only way that I am able to explain the first sale doctrine of copyright law.  So now that they have obtained a copy of the work of art by lawful means, i.e., paid for the song and downloaded it off of iTunes, or went to Barnes & Noble and purchased a book, etc., I would actually agree that they have the right to use that copy… and only that copy!  Can they resell that copy?  Absolutely!  That is why I am able to purchase used books at garage sales.

The line is blurred in the digital age though.  These nincompoops (yeah – I’m bringing that one back) think it is ok to retain a digital copy of the work on their hard drive and distribute as many copies of the work as they want.  That is simply not the case.  Let’s consider this – how much do you think it truly costs a group like the Dave Matthews Band to create an entire album?  It is not as though five guys sat around a campfire one night, hammered out a few songs and recorded them.  There are months and months of writing and experimenting with different types of rhythms and lyrics, followed by months in a studio trying to get just the right version of the song recorded.  That studio time costs money, the instruments cost money, the band has to eat and live somewhere during the production, then the songs have to get distributed to radio stations and the band has to make appearances in order to promote the songs, and on and on and on.  I’d be surprised if it took less than $2 or $3 million to accomplish the feat of bringing a hit album to the market.  And yet, somehow, you are able to purchase this compilation of songs on a CD (or download it from iTunes) for $12.

That is the beauty of copyright law.  Copyrights allow artists like the Dave Matthews Band to readily create hit albums, but control how the music is distributed so that they can recoup the costs and make profits on the song.  If I buy a CD and I am tired of listening to it (highly unlikely) then, pursuant to the first sale doctrine, I am free to sell it or give it away to someone, but I cannot retain a copy of that music on my computer.  The dawn of digital files is where the problem lies.  Now, to help the copyright abolitionist make his argument, I would agree that if you paid the Dave Matthews Band $3million for the CD, then you have bought all the rights to the album and all the songs, and it is your right to do with it what you want.  Copyright law, however, appreciates that people who do not have $3million (me for example) may still like to hear the wonderful tunes of the Dave Matthews Band and this is the way to make it affordable for me to hear their music.

To summarize, the first sale doctrine is the answer to the copyright abolitionist’s theory.  That is what provides them the right to do what they want to with a copy that they have rightfully obtained.  The problem they have with it is that they want to retain copies and distribute even more.  The hole in their theory is that they cannot understand that they have only lawfully obtained one copy.  That does not give you the right to turn your one copy into hundreds of copies.

 

 

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article about overenforcement of copyrights.  In that particular article, I gave the example of a software copyright case (at least it was filed in Federal Court as a software copyright case) where the attorney was trying to argue everything but copyright.  Of course, he lost.

In that case, the attorney continuously argued that since my client’s software performed the same function, it must have infringed the copyright on his client’s software.  He could not have been further from correct, as was evident in the summary judgment that was awarded in favor of my client.  In short, copyright does not protect function.  Copyright, by definition, provides the author of an original work various rights to exploit that work and to prevent others from exploiting the original work without authorization for a fixed period of time (yes, I will write about the “fixed” period of time and how it magically extends every so often). I expect to receive several comments from the copyright abolitionists that I have been arguing with lately.  To see my previous articles on trying to figure out the arguments of the copyright abolitionists, click here and here.  Don’t worry, I’ll get back to proving why the copyright abolitionists cannot articulate an argument that makes any sense whatsoever soon.

Back to the issue at hand – why did this attorney so blur the lines between patents and copyrights? Short answer – there was likely a competence issue.  Another possibility, however, is that both copyright and patents can be used to protect software.  Copyrights, however, only protect the authorship and artistic expression that is the result of software, whereas patents protect the function that the software carries out.  For example, the actual lines of code used to write the software are copyrightable, and the expression of the software on the screen, e.g., a website design and layout, is also copyrightable.

The function that the software carries out, however, is not copyrightable.  Instead, that is protectable by patents.  Although this is a simplistic example, software that provides a function of linking several users together so that they can purchase and sell items in an on-line setting (eBay) may be patentable.  In other words, an application directed to patentable subject matter could be written that protects the function of an on-line auction system.  The issue there, however, is that something so broad would never in a million years be allowed.  There is so much software out there, and so many people that are developing software that the amount of prior art is tremendous.  That is why folks who are embarking on the software patent process need to understand that such patent applications are extraordinarily expensive and, if allowable, will only cover limited scope.  Gone are the days of preposterously broad software patents.  I believe that is one of the advantages of software patents – it is not as though a patent will be allowed for something as broad as an on-line auction site.  Instead, a patent that could possibly be allowed on software would need to include several details and be narrowly tailored to the specific unique and non-obvious function that the software carries out.

Therefore, to unblur the lines between copyrights and patents, just remember one simple rule.  Under no circumstance is function protectable using copyright.

 

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

As you know, I have been in somewhat of a debate with some folks on Twitter.com regarding copyright protection.  See my previous article for more information.  Today it all kind of became clear to me.  The copyright abolitionist does not have any problem with copyright law.  Instead, the copyright abolitionist has a problem with anyone but the author of the original work actually making money on the copyright.

This became evident when the copyright abolitionist that I have been debating with indicated to me that he planned on writing a novel.  I kept calling it a “book” which apparently was inaccurate.  I was informed that he was not writing a book, but instead was writing a novel.  Personally, this is just semantics.  He indicated to me that a book is just a bunch of bound pages…whatever.  Since I heard that he was creating an original work, I decided to take his point of view and told him that as soon as it was available anywhere, I intended on photocopying it and selling it myself for a profit.

Copying a book is so easy, even a monkey can do it.

After all, the view of the copyright abolitionist does not provide a mechanism for preventing me from committing such an act.  So raise your hands if you think I actually talked any sense into my adversary.  I don’t see any hands up.  Of course not.  I was then informed that he intends on selling the first copy of the novel for $100,000.  After that, he does not care who copies it and for what price.

Anyone ready to come back to reality? Pardon the language, but who in the hell would pay $100,000 a book?  Yes, I called it a book.  I understand if it is some sort of rare book that is clearly not a reproduction, i.e, the bible that Abraham Lincoln swore the presidential oath on, or something along those lines.  That’s not even close to what we are talking about here.  In this case, what my adversary misses is that the value in this book will be in the exclusive right to use it and/or profit from it.  Copyright allows the owner such exclusive rights.

Without copyrights, there is no enforceable rights that the holder of the original work has.  Unless there is some sort of market that provides for ridiculous prices for the ranting of a mad man on Twitter that puts his words onto paper, then there is no way that the book could possibly be worth $100k.  Instead, if he was selling the original work along with the right for the purchaser to exploit the work as he/she deemed fit, then perhaps there would be a market because the purchaser could have the exclusive right to copy and sell the original work.  That’s the way the $100k investment could be turned into a profit.

Again, the copyright abolitionist has made my point for me.  Despite that fact, I will continue to listen to their ridiculous arguments on Twitter and laugh about them as copyrights will continue to be the only way to protect original works of authorship.  Before you go commenting against this article, understand that I am not taking the position that copyright reform is not in order.  I am merely taking the position that copyright abolition is not feasible or realistic.

Share via email

Your company has decided to conduct an audit to take inventory of its intellectual assets (IA), and has an idea of the level of abstraction at which it will identify those assets.  So where should the company start seining for IA information?  The following tips may be helpful.

Start At The Top

Audits are almost never organically-spawned, academic exercises, but instead are typically directed by executive management edict and conducted for a specific business purpose.  The person responsible for spearheading an intellectual asset (IA) audit should check first with the sponsoring executive to learn the rationale behind the project and the desired  “end game” of the effort.  For example, some recent (even active) legal action may have prompted the audit request, so the IA auditor must be prepared to tailor his focus to deliver precisely the litigation support the company needs.  Also, the executive in charge of the business unit to be audited typically has unique insight into the list of key players in the company from whom the auditor will likely need to glean information.  The auditor should get this list early so as to avoid wasting his time and that of others by talking to the wrong people during the audit process.

Just A Formality

If the company can produce proof of intellectual property rights (IPR) recognized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or by some other domestic or foreign authority, that IP certainly goes on the auditor’s intellectual assets list.  Record of maintenance or annuity fees paid to any recognizing authority is a good clue that IPR may be in place.  However, the IA auditor should not content himself to review just formalities such as grants of patents and registrations of trademarks and copyrights.  For example, a closer look at the file history for a patent may uncover that the company claimed less than it had a right to claim in the patent.  Such potential IPR “left on the table” should be brought to the audit sponsor’s attention.  Also, a quick inspection of the company’s marking practices may reveal that the company is not properly marking its patented products, or not displaying trademark and/or copyright symbols where needed.

Follow The Money

Where the IA auditor finds money changing hands, he will likely find an asset as the subject of that exchange.  Certain sales artifacts, such as license agreements (royalties change hands) or assignment documents (purchase price changes hands), may explicitly define the subject of those exchanges as intellectual assets.  Other sales artifacts may be more subtle.  For example, where the auditor finds product sales invoices and/or service contracts, there are likely intellectual assets such as product designs, service offering names, original creative expressions, and even customer contact information.  The auditor should also review the company’s marketing artifacts (e.g., advertising expenditures, sales literature, and website content) to ascertain what IA the company is trying to sell, even if it has not yet succeeded in doing so.

Meet The Family

The IP auditor should assess the extent of the company’s rights to any IA created by its employees.  First, invention records such as engineering notebooks may help identify which company employees contribute as inventors.  For these employees, review signed employee agreements, paying particular attention to IP ownership and confidentiality clauses.  Also, look for any documentation of explicit transfer of ownership rights via execution of an assignment.  Finally, the IP auditor should check employee termination letters for language governing handling of trade secrets.

Fences and Neighbors

Artifacts that define a company’s relationships with external entities are possible sources of information on intangibles that the company considers intellectual assets.  Nondisclosure agreements (NDA), for example, may identify specific information to be shared (and protected from further disclosure) by the signatories to the agreement.  Correspondence between entities regarding enforcement of ones purported IP rights against the other is a strong clue as to a company’s belief that it owns a particular intellectual asset.  Also, the fact that outside funding (e.g., industry, federal grant, sponsored research) was used during development of an intellectual asset should prompt the IA auditor to investigate the potential that the funding entity may retain some subset of the bundle of rights associated with that IP.

Spreading The Wealth

What a company commits time and money to communicating, both inside and outside the company, is an indicator that the subject of that communication is of value.  How a company communicates regarding its IA, and especially its trade secrets, can impact the extent to which those assets may be legally protected.  The IP auditor should inquire as to the means employed to publicize the details of an asset both outside the company (e.g., publications, seminars, and trade shows) and inside the company (e.g., in-house training, either formal or informal).  For intangibles that the company specifically identifies as not for public disclosure, the IP auditor should assess protection procedures in place, such as use of access controls (e.g., password protection, locked file storage), visitor controls (e.g., temporary badge procedures), and copy controls (e.g., shredding practices).

Whew!  With all these possible sources of input for an audit, the IA auditor needs to prioritize those which promise to best support the ends of the executive sponsor.  More on that next time.


Subscribe

Login



THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 15468 access attempts in the last 7 days.