Topic Overview:
The law is concerned with
protecting intellectual property. Protecting intangible property like
expression or ideas is done through copyright law. Trademark law protects
slogans, titles and characters. Patent law protects inventions. Ensuring people
will benefit financially from their creations encourages continual creativity.
Otherwise, there would be no financial incentive to write, paint or invent.
A copyright (CR) is an exclusive
legal right protecting intellectual creations from unauthorized use. It
balances the creator’s rights to restrict the use of their work against
society’s belief some uses should be allowed without permission. CR law
provides society with new creations by stimulating innovation. It protects
“original works of authorship.” The CR holder has complete control over the
work to say who can use the work, for what purpose and for how long but only
for a limited time. CR lasts the creator’s life plus 70 more years. CR’s
initial purpose was not to reward creators but prevent sedition. The first Cr
law was called Statute of Anne in England in 1710. The US Constitution allows
Congress to adopt CR and patent laws. The Supreme court ruled federal law takes
the place of state statutes and any common law CR claims. The Berne Convention
sparked a movement in US CR law to extend protection to 28 years and a renewal
period; the US joined in 1989.
The 1976 CR Act was outdated immediately with new technology like PC, Internet, wireless transmissions and MP3 players. It does not account for the change when CR holders sell their creations to corporations. It protects “original works of authorship” that are “fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” Authorship includes artists, composers, journalists, sculptors, etc. A work must be substantially original to be protected. Originality means “a work independently created by its author, one not copied from pre-existing works, and a work that comes from exercise of the creative powers of the author’s mind.” It must be work no one else has created before. Compilations are granted CR but each work included in the collection retains its own CR. Works must be fixed in a tangible medium; capable of being felt or seen in works pictures on paper, images on tape, music on a CD, etc. Works eligible for protection are literary works, musical works including words, dramatic works including music, pantomimes and choreographic works, pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, motion pictures, and other audiovisual works, sound recordings, and architectural works. Both published and unpublished creations are protected. Work that is not original or in a tangible medium, ideas, history and facts cannot be CR. The INS decision became known as the “hot news” doctrine. Courts find misappropriation of news when a news organization spends money to gather news, the information is time sensitive, another person or company competing with the news organization uses the information without permission or payment, and the news organization’s ability to gather news is threatened by others’ using the information. US government works cannot be CR. Using work without citing may be plagiarism rather than CR violation. Plagiarism is using others’ ideas without attribution. When work is sufficiently similar to another’s creation it becomes CR law violation.
Original work is automatically CR from the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible medium. The creator needs to be registered to sue for CR infringement under federal law. The creator owns CR but it can be owned by more than one creator resulting in joint ownership. CR of work created as part of employment belongs to the employer. Work made for hire occurs when an employee prepares a work as part of his/her regular employment and if the creator and employer agree to that in writing and if the work is specially ordered or commissioned for use in a movie, textbook or other categories. The Court said several criteria to determine one’s status as an employee or independent contractor as: the organization’s right to control how the work is accomplished, who owns the equipment used to create the work, where the work took place, who determined the days and hours the artist worked, whether there was a long-term relationship between parties, and who hired any assistants the artist used among others. CR law allows ownership to be changed by contract. Contracts transferring CR in free lancer material to a newspaper or magazine did not explicitly transfer control to media organizations when they put content online. The Court said online publication reproduced and distributed each individual article not the newspaper as a whole taking them out of context and freelance writers retained CRs.
CR holders have six exclusive rights to their works: right to reproduce work (no one can copy without permission), make derivative works (movie from novel, toys after characters), distribute works publicly (when work is distributed), perform works , publicly display work, and transmit sound recordings through digital audio means. Under US copyright law, creators may have moral rights that protect a work’s integrity and the creator’s reputation; it applies to certain artistic works like pictures or sculptures. Creators claim authorship, may prevent having their name attached to work they did not create, and have a right to prevent intentional harm to or modification of a work that would harm their reputation. Print, broadcast and movies among others are cannot have moral rights. Congress adopted the Family Movie Act (FMA) to allow people to purchase and use technology that will filter material from a movie a viewer does not want to see or hear and does not allow sale of an edited movie without permission from CR holder.
Some protections are not absolute
under CR law; individuals may make video copies of TV programs for their own
use. Recorders merely shift the time a program is watched. Congress allowed
individuals to make copies of recordings for individual use. Libraries have a
limited right to make photocopies; may make a copy to respond to an
interlibrary loan request or to replace a deteriorating copy. Teachers also
have certain copying rights with guidelines established by educational
institutions. CR owners do not have the right to control individual copies of
works after distribution with some exceptions like the “first –sale doctrine.” It
distinguishes between the physical object and the intellectual creation. Once
creators have distributed copies of a work, they no longer regulate what
happens to those copies. Law still restricts the copying, making derivative
copies and so on. It allows copies to be distributed less expensively—used
books, free libraries, secondhand stores, etc. Congress restricts rentals of
recordings without CR holder permission.
When the US joined the Berne
Convention, Congress changed the law so it doesn’t require a CR notice to be
placed on works published on or after March 1, 1989. The ’76 act encourages it.
CR statute allows a court to award damages even if an infringer doesn’t make a
profit from the creator’s work.
CR is a property right. Rights protected can be thought of as a bundle of sticks. Each right includes a number of sticks. Each time the author sells sticks, he/she wants money in return. Whoever buys a stick owns that right. The law gives creators a termination right that allows them or their heirs to require the transferred rights be returned 35 to 40 years after the original transfer; this does not apply to works made for hire. They may also license or lease rights to another person. Licenses are contracts giving limited permission to use a sick. Congress has the right to adopt CR and patent laws for limited times. The Sony Bono CR Term Extension Act of 1998 extended CR periods by 20 additional years. Works made for hire are protected for 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. When the current CR statute took effect, many works were already in the public domain because their CRs expired. Some lost protection because creators failed to renew CRs. Current statue did not works that were already in the public domain. It replaced common law protection for unpublished works and protected them for the author’s life plus 70 years. The Court said extending CR period is constitutional. Limited time is flexible and Congress determines what “limited” time is as long as it’s not forever. The current law balances free speech and CR protection concerns. Original expression is protected, but not ideas or facts. Under the fair use defense, the public can use portions of CR works under certain circumstances. The Creative Commons allows CR holders to license works in whatever way they choose. Creators can register with the Creative Commons as well as the US CR Office.
Creators can complete and submit forms without a lawyer and pay fees at the CR Office’s website. The process also requires submitting two copies of a published work or one copy of an unpublished work to the CR Office (part of Lib of Congress in DC). They send a Certificate of Registration and takes about four to six months for it to be issued. It is inadvisable to wait after a CR infringement occurs before registering CR and a lawsuit because the author cannot recover statutory damages nor can the court require the infringer to pay the author’s attorney fees and court costs. Registration is the best proof. Registering doesn’t mean CR is valid because the CR Office doesn’t have responsibility or the personnel to confirm each submitted item is original. They can also refuse to register a CR is work is not eligible. Congress passed a law that allows cable operators to retransmit radio and TV broadcasts without permission and cable systems pay compulsory fee based on percentage of their annual revenues to the CR Office. DBS pays royalties according to the number of subscribers.
A CR owner can sue for damages and the gov may bring criminal charges. The owner must show proof of valid CR, CR must be registered before lawsuit, can prove direct copying and can win if there is no effective defense. They must show a reasonable possibility of access which may be inferred if the work was widely distributed if works are very similar. Many courts use a two-part test to determine if works are substantially similar. They apply an objective extrinsic test to compare similarities between expressive qualities like plot, dialogue, notes, and colors. If it passes the test, a subjective intrinsic test is applied that considers whether a reasonable person would judge thee works to be similar based on concept and feel. Both test parts must be met. Some courts use an “ordinary observer” test: if an average person would recognize one work was appropriated from another. A plaintiff doesn’t have to prove a CR infringement was deliberate. Even accidental ones violate law. A court may reduce statutory damages on an innocent infringer who unintentionally infringed CR or waive them if the infringer works for a nonprofit library or public broadcaster.
Showing the defendant knowingly
aided or contributed to CR infringement is sufficient. Contributory
infringement may be difficult to prove because fair use is a valid defense.
VCRs can be used for non-infringing purposes like time shifting. If one
customer at a time viewed a program, that program is not publicly performed.
Vicarious CR infringers are those who sell pirated copies without permission.
Individuals or companies who encourage others to engage in CR infringement are
other indirect CR infringers.
A plaintiff may ask for actual damages lost and profits the infringer made from infringement as well as statutory damages. They may ask for a jury rather than a judge to decide how to award statutory damages. The amount depends on the defendant’s actions—if they deliberately infringed or not, if there was no CR notice, or was an innocent infringer. Attorney fees can be awarded to the winning party and the defendant if the law had little merit. CR law allows a court to impose an injunction of works infringing CR. Unauthorized copies may be seized and destroyed. Criminal charges can be brought as long as the infringer received something of value. The No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 allowed prosecution without profit motive.
To be fair “the use must be of a
character that serves the CR instruction without excessively diminishing
incentives for creativity.” Fair use is hard to define and whether a use is
fair or not is not an exact science. Courts don’t agree on what a CR means. The
’76 law sets out four criterial courts use in balancing the plaintiff’s right
to forbid use of work without permission and the defendant’s right to use a
portion of work under certain circumstances.
- The purpose and character of the use- commercial or nonprofit purposes? Criticism, comment, news, teaching, scholarship, research, and parody are seen as fair. Productive or nonproductive? News is a productive use but does not always justify CR infringement. Videotaping for personal use is fair use.
- The nature of the CR work- focuses on the work. Creative, informational, scientific? Courts often find more protection for creative works. Unpublished works are not protected if balancing all four fair use factors shows copying without permission should be permitted.
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used-how much of the work was used without permission? What particular portion of the CR work was used?
- The effect of the plaintiff’s potential market- did the unauthorized copying diminish the CR holder’s likely profits from their creation? Course packets obviate purchase of full texts.
CR infringement occurs on the
Internet as it can in bring. The Digital Millennium CR Act in 1998 amended the
’76 act to bring the Internet and digital media into CR law. It bans software
and hardware that facilitates evading CR protection technology like software
that disables anticopying features. Ti also prohibits removing or changing CR
information like the owner’s name. An ISP violates CR law when subscribers
upload and download CR works without the ISP’s knowledge. Video-sharing sites
allow users to upload material CR by movie studios and TV networks. The DMCA
protects ISPs and video-sharing sites if they remove material a CR holder says
did not have permission to use. Takedown notices must clearly identify
infringed work and give the URL to the ISP. There is no protection if the ISP
knowingly transmits material in violation of CR. When a user rather than a site
posts CR material without permission the law calls it “at the direction of a
user” and CR holders cannot sue the site for monetary damages as they did not
earn money directly and complied with takedown notice. Takedown protections are
called “safe harbors” limiting sites’ liability in CR infringement suits. A
website or blog containing an embedded CR video does not lose DMCA protection
as long as there is a link to another site and no copy is maintained.
Obtaining permission to use CR music involves many steps because there are many CR holders. Compositions are protected by CR. Composers have a right to limit public performances of their work and consent is required to broadcast, record or use the song in a number of ways. Musical works in the CR Act may be used by people because music publishers and composers have music listening organizations that represent them. Performing rights organizations act as intermediaries between performers and the songwriters and publishing companies who want to be compensated for their CR music. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) and the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC) control performing rights and grant licenses giving permission to perform CR songs for specific purposes. Fees are collected from the song users. Licenses are for songs, not complete works like operas or movie scores. Composers join on of the organizations or are represented by a publisher that belongs to one of them. Most music users must have agreements with each of the three groups. It is not practical for broadcast stations to play songs controlled only by ASCAP or only by BMI. A songwriter who joins a performing rights organization does not lose his/her CRs. They may grant performance rights themselves. ASCAP, BMI and SESAC grant blanket license that give permission to perform all songs in their catalog. Fees collected are distributed semiannually to publishers and composers based on how often their songs are played. Employees confirm venues have licenses and if they do not, they issue several warnings or they will sue for CR infringement. The Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998 established that certain businesses would not have to purchase licenses to broadcast music in their stores. Exemption applies to small retail stores and restaurants if no admission is charged and music is not played outside. The act applies only to play8ing music through radio and TC sets, not live performances or other nonbroadcast uses. When a songs CR holder allows one recording to be made, the law grants a compulsory license (statutory license) to anyone else who wants to make a recording. The Cr holder receives compensation based on number of recordings sold. The license only applies to individual songs and does not allow other material to be included in the recording like CDs with images or text info. A mechanical license is permission to record which is obtained from the Harry Fox Agency. The right to record is separate from the right to publicly perform a song. An ASCAP or BMI license allows broadcast stations to both air compositions and stream them on their website.
A sound recording is the series of musical or sounds recorded on a storage medium. They are eligible for CR protection. A sound recording is the recorded composition/captured performance of the sound and words. It must have originality to be CR. Performing bring the composition to life and a record producer may add originality to a sound recording. A producer may choose what sounds to emphasize and edit. The sound recording CR is held by the performers or jointly by musicians and the producer. The law doesn’t require permission to perform the sound recording. CR holders have three rights: no one may copy sound recording w/out permission, consent is required to make a derivative work based on the recording, and only the CR owner may decide to publicly distribute the recording. CR prohibits digitally transmitting sound recordings w/out permission and only applies to sound recordings performed through a digital audio transmission. Interactive services (Spotify) allowing subscribers or users to choose what artist or song will be played or know the recordings that will be played because the service posts that info in a list must negotiate with CR holders. Non interactive services (Pandora) that play no more than two songs in a row from the same album and no more than three in a four hour period can obtain a statutory license. If negotiations fail, users pay royalties established by CR Royalty Board every five years. De minimis copying is copying so little it is not worth a court’s time. A musician borrowing a few notes from a recording is called sampling. A note of a sound recording may be copied w/out permission.
Artists who perform compositions have few CR protections. Musicians sign away their sound recording CRs as part of their contracts with recording companies and receive a share of their recordings’ sales revenue. Congress gives performers one right: making bootleg copies of live performances violates CR law; making copies of live recordings and selling or distributing copies infringes their rights. When a composition is recorded on a digital device, it is a phonorecord. Congress said phonorecords have CR protection. It violates CR law to copy or distribute a phonorecord w/out permission or make adaptations of the phonorecord. Broadcast stations must have ASCAP, BMI and SESAC licenses but not recording company permission (need only if the station copies the recordings). Recording company permission is called a master use (license). A station must have the appropriate ASCAP, BMI or SESAC license and the recording company’s permission to copy the sound recording and phonorecord onto videotape. A synchronization license is needed to synchronize music with images on video (TV, movie). Synchronization rights belong to the composer and music publisher and can be obtained directly from the publisher. Companies can hire composers to write songs and musicians to record the songs to avoid music licensing as the company owns all the rights and can sell as a complete package. The product doesn’t include best-selling recordings but is easier and less expensive to obtain music. Napster allowed a computer user to reach into another’s and retrieve files with CR music and violated CR law. P2P networks were sued. VCRs do not contribute to CR infringement. Lawsuits continue over illegal downloads.
A TM is a word, name, symbol, or design used to identify a company’s good and distinguish them from similar products other companies make. It identifies a particular company rather than a product or service. Federal law protects trade dress including shape, color, texture, and graphics. TM generally includes all four. The law does not protect trade names or dress as completely as TM and service marks. TM advertise a company’s products and services. They may be considered brand names or logos. Logos are designs used to identify a product like the Nike “swoosh.” In addition to words and logos, letters, numbers, domain names, slogans, shapes, colors, sounds and smells can be TM. The Lanham Act protects trademarks eligible for registration with the US Patent and Trademark Office. It was amended to ensure, if a company complies with requirements, no other company may use a word, symbol, slogan or other such item that will confuse consumer. The Lanham Act protects suing a mark to falsely suggest a product’s source even if it isn’t registered.
A TM will only be protected if it is distinctive. There is a spectrum of distinctiveness in TM law. The less unique, the less likely it will be protected. Fanciful marks are incented marks including words that are the strongest and most distinctive category. Arbitrary marks are words that have ordinary meanings but not meanings applied to a product or service like Apple. Suggestive marks hint at a product’s qualities but do not describe what the product is; it implies its user’s business like CarMax implies auto business. A descriptive mark describes the product or service but may or may not suggest what company provided it like “refreshing .” it may be a TM if it acquired a secondary meaning—a distinctive connection to the product beyond the word’s commonly used meaning. Only descriptive marks require secondary meaning. To obtain secondary meaning, the public must associate a word with a product source, not necessarily the product. The Ninth Circuit has a test: whether actual purchasers of the product bearing the claimed TM associate the TM with the producer; the degree and manner of ads under claimed TM; length and manner of use; and whether use of claimed TM has been exclusive. A geographic term cannot be a registered TM if it only describes where the goods are made or offered or if it is deceptive. People’s names must acquire secondary meaning to be protected too. Courts consider 3 factors: the interest of the plaintiff in protecting the good attached to personal name TM, interest of the defendant in using his own name in business activities, and interest of the public in being free from confusion and deception. Generic words can’t be given TM protection because a manufacturer is not allowed to take a commonly used work to describe a product category exclusively for company’s purpose like cracker. Some marks have become generic when the public uses the mark to mean a category of goods rather than a particular product: thermos, cellophane, aspirin and monopoly were all once protected CR that became generic words. If the word means a particular manufacturer, the word will remain a TM. To prevent a TM from becoming generic, a company should select a distinctive mark, advertise the goods using TM and generic word (Kleenex facial tissue), use ads to educate the public that it is a TM not generic words and use TM on several different products.
It is not necessary to register a mark to give it common law protection. A history of using a distinctive mark to identify a product can give it protection even if it’s not registered and the first person or company to use it owns it. An owner may use symbols TM and SM but they are not recognized by statute. Registration is for nationwide use and lets competitors know that a company owns the mark. It dates when the mark was first used and owners may use the statutory symbol for registered marks. If a registered mark is infringed on, owner may sue in federal court. After being registered for 5 years, there are few grounds on which the registration can be contested. A mark must be registered with the PTO to have statutory protection under the Lanham Act: submitting application, drawing the mark and a filing fee. A mark can be registered on either the Principal or Supplemental Register. The Principle Register gives all legal rights to a distinctive mark being used in commerce and can be used for markets that may be used in the future but reserving a mark for the future doesn’t allow a fed registration to be issued. Marks go on the Supplemental Register when owners hope to move them to the Principal when secondary meaning is established. The PTO will not register a mark that does not qualify, if it is considered immoral or deceptive, includes a flag or insignia of another country or us state or city, resembles another mark, includes a name or other ID of a living person w/out consent, or is only a descriptive mark w/out secondary meaning. A mark proposed for registration is published in the PTO’s Official Gazette so nay company believing the mark will confuse consumers or harm a company may object. The PTO will resolve objections and if the PTO examiner approves the mark and there are no objections, it is registered. During the 6th year after registration, an owner must file an affidavit confirming the mark has been in continued use; marks after 1989have a 10-year term. Registrations can be renewed indefinitely.
Domain names may be TM although
suffixes are not included. A cyber squatter is a person who claims domain names
that include TM or famous names. TM owners have often sued successfully. The
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) of 1999 provides civil and
criminal remedies for registering a domain name that disparage or injures a TM.
A defendant must have acted in bad faith to be liable under the statute. TM law
may take precedence over domain registration or the same domain name may be
used when two companies have the same domain name.
Competing marks that confuse customers and lessen a competing TM’s value are grounds for lawsuits. Using marks form informational purposes is fair use. The FA protects a competitor’s TM in comparative advertising. TM infringement occurs when there is a likelihood of confusion. The PTO examiner will not register a mark if it will confuse consumers. A court decides which company will be allowed to use the mark if two are similar. Similar or identical marks may be used if they do not cause confusion—if the goods are not the same. Courts use a variety of criteria to determine confusion including similarities of products or services for which the marks are used, how consumers purchase the goods, how well known the first used mark is, actual confusion that can be probed and how long both marks have been used w/out confusion. Dilution is using a famous TM in a way that disparages the mark or diminishes its effectiveness and can happen if a product is “blurred” or “tarnished.” Blurring is when a product name similar to the TM could make the famous mark less distinctive and draws consumer attention away from it. Tarnishing occurs when a poorly made product using a similar name could cause consumers to think less of the well-known TM. Congress adopted an antidilution law in ’96 and revised it in ’06 permitting companies with famous TMs to show only a likelihood of dilution-not actual dilution of TM effectiveness. Almost half the states have antidilution statutes. Remedies for TM infringement include: a company or individual notified of an alleged infringement may voluntarily stop using the disputed mark, a court may issue an order requiring the infringing company stop using the mark, a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction will stop the disputed mark’s distribution while the court decides, and a permanent one will prevent the disputed mark’s use forever. If a mark owner proves actual consumer confusion, a court may award monetary damages against the infringer.
The Lanham Act lists nine
defenses to TM infringement action. It also provides a fair use defense
permitting using one TM to describe another’s product. Courts accept the
defense if the defendant used the mark to describe goods and not as a TM. The use
cannot cause consumer confusion. Referring to the defendant’s product/service
by using the plaintiff’s mark w/out permission may be a fair use when done in
comparative advertising among other contexts. The antidilution law also has a
fair use exception; when using a famous TM for comparative advertising, parody
or all forms of news reporting and commentary is not infringement.
Key Definitions:
1.
Intellectual property law- legal category
including copyright, trademark and patent law
2.
Public domain- sphere that includes material not
protected by copyright law and therefore available for use without the
creator’s permission
Important Cases:
1.
Eldred v.
Ashcroft- extending CR period is constitutional- Court said author life
plus 70 years is a limited time that does not mean fixed time and may be
flexible. Congress determines what “limited” is as long as it’s not forever.
2.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.-encouraging users to infringe on CR- Court
held Grokster infringed on CR because it knew people used its software to download music files and
encouraged people to infringe on CR; didn’t matter that the software could be
used for legal purposes
Relevant Doctrine:
Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works
The
copyright holder with exclusive rights may:
1.
Reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or
phonorecords
2.
Prepare derivative works based upon the
copyrighted work
3.
Distribute copies or phonorecords of the
copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by
rental, lease or lending (except CDs and computer software)
4.
Perform the copyrighted work publicly in the
case of literary, musical, dramatic and choreographic works, pantomimes, and
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
5.
Display the copyrighted work publicly in the
case of literary, musical, dramatic and choreographic works, pantomimes, and
pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including individual images of a
motion picture or other audiovisual work, and
6.
Perform the copyrighted work publicly by means
of a digital audio transmission in the case of sound recordings
Infringing Copyright
A
copyright plaintiff must prove:
1.
The work used is protected by a valid
copyright—meaning it is an original work fixed in an original work fixed in a
tangible medium
2.
The valid copyright is registered with the
Copyright Office
3.
And either:
a. There
is evidence the defendant directly copied the copyrighted work, or
b. The
infringer had access o the copyrighted work and the two works are substantially
similar
The plaintiff may show the defendant
knowingly aided or contributed to copyright infringement rather than being the
primary infringer. The plaintiff need not show the infringement was deliberate.
Fair Use Defense
1.
Why and for what purpose was the copyrighted
work used without permission?
2.
What was the nature of the copyrighted work that
was used without permission?
3.
How much and what particular portion of the
copyrighted work was used without permission?
4.
What effect did the unauthorized use have on the
copyrighted work’s market value?
Issues/Controversies;
Balancing creator’s right to
restrict the use of their work and the public belief some uses should be
allowed without permission is difficult. There are issues with the monopoly of
the CR holder. Should there be limits to this control or should the creator and
his or her heirs collect rewards forever?
CR law needs to be constantly updated to keep up with new technology. It
also needs to account for when CR holders sell their creations and accompanying
CRs to corporations. The length of time a CR lasts is the only important legal
difference between an individual and a corporation holding a CR. There must be
novelty in compiling or organizing facts in order for a compilation to be
granted a CR. Unfair competition is when one mass medium persistently takes
information from another outlet and presents news as its own. It is not a CR
infringement but is actionable under the common law of individual states.
Issues arise when a website can copy information and post it on a different
site. Congress has not decided if digital copying with the use of TiVo or other
recording devices violates CR law. There are issues around the “first-sale
doctrine” surrounding computers. It is legal or an owner of a book to sell,
rent, or give it away but they cannot transmit a digital copy away. Congress
and the courts struggle to apply CR concepts and laws to computers and the
Internet. Artists and some legal scholars argue that recording company
contracts are unfair to recording artists. They require artists agree recordings
are works made for hire giving them complete control. Technology outpaces CR
law. TM law’s complexity means a TM
attorney needs to e involved in the registration process because it involves
expertise and experience.
Questions/Concerns:
My main concern is accurately distinguishing intellectual property and keeping track of the rules, boundaries and remedies for each.
References:
Image:
No comments:
Post a Comment