Source: http://the1709blog.blogspot.fr/2015/01/
Timestamp: 2018-02-18 21:46:56
Document Index: 535775552

Matched Legal Cases: ['§101', 'CJEU ', '§504', '§505', '§502', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

On January 12, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a decision of the Southern District Court of Florida which had granted summary judgment to Washington Shoe, finding that Olem Shoe had infringed its copyright in several designs adorning rain boots, albeit not willfully. The case is Olem Shoe Corp. v. Washington Shoe Corp, No. 13-14728.
Washington Shoes designs and sells rain boots. In the fall of 2009, it sent a cease-and-desist letter to Olem Shoe Corporation, a shoe wholesale company, claiming that one of Olem’s rain boot models infringed Washington Shoe’s copyright in its “Ditsy Dots” design, a particular polka dot pattern.
Olem filed suit to have the copyright declared invalid. Washington Shoe counterclaimed, and sent another cease-and-desist letter in early 2010, claiming copyright infringement in its “Zebra Supreme” design. Both of the allegedly infringing Olem models had been sourced in China. Pictures of all these models can be found on p.31 of the case.
Olem filed a motion to dismiss Washington Shoe’s counterclaim, asserting that Washington Shoe’s copyrights protected only the two-dimensional drawings filed with the Copyright Office, not the boots themselves. But the district court found in April 2010 that, while the utilitarian functions of boots could not be protected by copyright, the designs printed on their surface could be protected.
Washington Shoe then filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted it with respect to the copyright claim, but denied it with respect that the infringement was “willful.” Washington Shoe appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, Olem cross appealed, and the court affirmed.
Filing the Copyright Infringement Suit
The plaintiff in a copyright infringement suit must prove that he owns a valid copyright, meaning that the work is original and that plaintiff has obtained a registration certificate. The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant has copied elements of his work which are original.
Olem argued in front of the district court that the registered Ditsy Dots design was not original enough to be protected by copyright, as it was too generic to be sufficiently original. However, the district court found that the polka dots design was sufficiently original to be protected by copyright, relying on PrinceGroup, Inc. v. MTS Products, a 1997 Southern District of New York case, where the court had found that a particular polka-dots fabric pattern met the low threshold of creativity to be protected by copyright.
In our case, the district court found that “the particular arrangement of different sized dots at varying distances along vertical and horizontal planes… [was] an artistic decision that distinguishes Ditzy Dots from generic polka dots.” However, some irregularities in dot-shape could not be protected by copyright, as they “surely derive[d] from the process of stretching a two-dimensional design over a three-dimensional boot.”
Proving Copying of Constituent Elements of the Protected Work
Also, the district court was mindful to note that “only… the conceptually severable patterned designs on the face of the boots… not any utilitarian functions of the boots themselves” are protected by copyright. Indeed, U.S. Copyright law does not protect useful articles. However, §101 of the Copyright Act provides that “the design of a useful article… shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.” The District Court found that Olem Shoe had copied constituent elements of the designs which were original.
Another Utilitarian Aspect of Rain Boots
As Washington Shoe could not prove copying, it had to establish access and substantial similarity with its designs. The district court found that Olem had “access” to the registered designs, as the boots bearing the protected designs were sold nationwide at Target, which has numerous stores in Florida, were Olem is located. The boots were also sold at Target.com. Also, Washington Shoe had presented these boots in tradeshows which had been attended by Olem. For all of these reasons, Olem was found to have had access to the protected designs.
The district court also found the designs on Plaintiff and Defendant’s boots to be substantially similar, after having compared them from four different angles, and concluded that Olem had infringed Washington Shoe’s copyright. The Eleventh Circuit noted that two works essentially or virtually identical are strikingly similar, and that the copying elements of an infringement claim was satisfied in this case. The Eleventh Circuit found the polka dots and the zebra stripes designs virtually identical and thus strikingly similar, and affirmed the district court’s finding that Olem had copied Washington Shoe’s design.
No Independent Creation But No Willful Infringement Either
Olem had unsuccessfully argued in front of the district court that it had independently created its own design, submitting testimonies that the company had received these designs from a Chinese supplier, and then used them on its boots without knowing that they were protected by copyright.
While this was not sufficient to establish independent creation, the district court nevertheless took it into consideration to hold that Olem had not willfully infringed Washington Shoe’s copyrights. As the parties did not cite any Eleventh Circuit cases, nor did the District Court identify cases establishing willful infringement standards, the district court had adopted as definition of willful copyright infringement a Second Circuit definition, where courts examine “whether the defendant had knowledge that [its] product represented infringement or perhaps recklessly disregarded the possibility.”
The Eleventh Circuit noted that “[g]enerally, establishing a reckless state of mind in a copyright case requires a showing that the infringer possessed particular knowledge from which willfulness could be inferred, such as evidence that the infringer was given samples of the copyrighted work prior to producing the infringing work” (p. 13).
The Eleventh Circuit was not convinced by Washington Shoe’s argument that, merely because the designs were strikingly similar, Olem recklessly disregarded the likelihood that it infringed Washington Shoe’s copyright, reasoning that “striking similarity… says little about the state of mind of the copier” (p. 12).
Of the Importance of Sending Detailed Cease-and-Desist Letters
The Eleventh Circuit was not convinced either by Washington Shoe’s argument that the cease-and-desist letters sent to Olem prove that it knew that it was infringing protected copyright.
Indeed, Washington Shoe had sent Olem two cease-and-desist letters, but Olem could still “reasonably and in good faith have believed that there was no infringement,” according to the district court, as the letters did not include identifying information for the registration or a sample of the allegedly infringing work. Therefore, these letters were not probative evidence that Olem knew that it infringed Washington Shoe’s copyright, and the copyright infringement was thus not willful.
The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court on this point, noting that the letters, as sent, “provided nothing from which Olem could have determined that the claim was legitimate” (p.11).
This should give pause to copyright practitioners when writing their next cease-and-desist letters. These documents should include enough information as to effectively put the receiver on notice that he does indeed infringe their client’s copyright.
Image of the birdhouse is courtesy of Flickr user JB Kilpatrick under a CC BY 2.0 license.
Image of the boots is courtesy of Flickr user Ali Millteer under a CC BY-ND 2.0 license.
Posted by Marie-Andree Weiss at 7:58 pm No comments: Links to this post
Labels: copyright, copyright infringement, fashion law
Those same lobbyists will no doubt be deeply disappointed that the consultation response decides to take no action for now, other than to undertake further discussions to deal with some of the difficult issues raised by various consultation respondees.
At least this is one issue ticked off the "to do" list at the IPO in what looks like being a busy year for copyright policy, led by the European agenda.
Posted by John Enser at 9:48 am 1 comment: Links to this post
Labels: "2039" works, protection of unpublished works, United Kingdom
It started off with the first published speech by the new IP Minister, Baroness (Lucy) Neville-Rolfe at an event called the "Intellectual Property Annual Seminar Mentor Dinner" (no, me neither) on 8 January, which you can read in full here. This is really a round up of all of the activities of the outgoing administration in the IP arena, with very little forward-looking vision, save that, the Baroness observed
"So what are the challenges for the next 5 years?
Our focus will continue on strengthening the UK IP framework to maximise support for business innovation and help drive growth.
There will be an increasing concentration on the European and international scene.
We are working with the EU on the successful delivery of the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court, with its pharmaceutical division to be based here in London.
Consumers should be able to buy a wide range of digital products and services and use them wherever they are in the EU, just as they can with physical products. Their online subscriptions to music or film should still be available when they travel and they should be able to buy [So - this is not just about free movement but an actual obligation to supply; outside of market power situations, it is rare for the EU to legislate to require companies to supply, indeed it is not clear where the Government thinks this power lies in the TFEU, or that this is an approach which one would expect from a libertarian centre-right government] online content not easily accessible from a home provider [who decides what is easily available? does that mean I can have access to parts of Netflix France, but only the bits which have programmes not on Netflix UK?]: Europe’s creative output is one of its richest resources, and those who want to enjoy it should be able to pay to do so, even when it is only sold in another Member State [but not, apparently, if it is supplied other than for sale? such as ad supported VOD?]. At the same time, Europe needs to maintain choice and diversity by protecting intellectual property in a way that ensures a flourishing and innovative creative sector. Our enforcement of the intellectual property regime must have teeth. The Commission should ensure that consumers can access lawfully-available content on fair and reasonable terms across borders [again - no talk of removing barriers, but a positive obligation to ensure access].
...the EU should support copyright exceptions to allow research, education and text and data mining to take place across the market, and reject copyright levies in all forms [now there is a very direct statement of intent], providing a major boost to European innovation
In case anyone wonders what that means the Govt position is, yet another minister Ed V popped up earlier this week at an event called "Let's Go Connected" saying (according to Advanced TV Markets) that "the continued existence of the [audiovisual] sector depends on the ability of creatives to monetise their work ... and that requires a robust and properly-enforced copyright framework ... to ensure that creatives were fairly rewarded for their endeavour."
Posted by John Enser at 9:27 am No comments: Links to this post
Labels: government policy, United Kingdom
We understand how difficult it is to provide detailed comments in the time available. The IPO has tight time limits in which to consider and provide advice to ministers on CJ cases. In order to help us provide the right advice, we just need a short email by the deadline stating whether you think the UK should intervene and some general points about how you think we should answer the questions.
NOTE: since this piece was posted, our friend and reader Axel Paul Ringelhann has furnished us with his English translation of the referring court's decision. Thanks so much!
Labels: article 5(2)(b) InfoSoc Directive, CJEU reference, jurisdiction
Mark Anthony Miller is a Brooklyn street artist, known as CAM, whose works can be seen in Brooklyn’s DUMBO neighborhood. His work is often inspired by stained glasses, as could be seen last year in the Always be Mindful of your Ability to Fly exhibition at the DUMBO Art Festival.
On January 21, he filed a complaint in the Eastern District Court of New York for copyright infringement against Toll Brothers, Inc., a real estate development company, claiming that Defendant used without permission a reproduction of one of his works, a mural in DUMBO now destroyed. The case is Craig Anthony Miller v. Toll Brothers, Inc.,no. 1:15-cv-0032. Here is a link to the complaint, courtesy of New York attorney Mark Jaffe.
Plaintiff, as part of the 303 Collective, painted in 2009 a90-foot “elephant mural” on a warehouse located at Water Street in DUMBO. The owner of the wall had given the artists permission to paint it. The work was a striking piece, featuring lush vegetation, angels, and wild animals, including elephants, over a vivid orange background. As explained on his web site, CAM is inspired by the Hindu God Ganesh, who is represented as having the head of an elephant. The elephant mural was painted over in 2009, and the warehouse itself was eventually torn down for make way to, surprise, surprise, a luxury apartment development.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant used in 2012, without his permission, a photograph of the elephant mural in advertisements for its 205 Water Street in Brooklyn luxury condominium development. At the time, the mural had not yet been destroyed, and had, according to the complaint, “served as the backdrop for countless videos, weddings, engagements, fashion shoots, television and print advertisements” (p.2). Defendant’s advertisements were posted in the New York City subways, telephone booths and bus shelters, and also in the print and the online version of The New York Times.
The complaint states that Plaintiff contacted Defendant after learning about the advertisement and that they engaged in negotiations over possible compensation for this unauthorized use. However, while “Plaintiff produced work for [Defendant] for a number of months,… no projects ever materialized and no payment was ever made to Plaintiff for the infringing use of the [elephant mural]”(p. 4).
Plaintiff has registered the copyright for the mural, and he is claiming infringement of his exclusive rights. He is seeking either actual or statutory damages, as provided by §504 of the Copyright Act, attorney’s fees, as provided by §505 of the Copyright Act, and injunctive relief, under §502 of the Copyright Act, asking the Court to order Defendant to destroy all copies of the allegedly infringing advertisement.
There have been several similar cases lately, where graffiti artists sued a company for infringement of their copyright (see here, here and here). It will be interesting to see when this trend will die down, signaling that corporate counsels are finally aware that street art is, well, art, and as such, original enough to be fully protected by U.S. copyright.
Image is courtesy of Flickr user dumbonyc under a CC BY-SA2.0 license.
Posted by Marie-Andree Weiss at 9:24 pm No comments: Links to this post
Labels: Brooklyn, copyright infringement, graffitiGone, street artist
So can we expect another epic battle along the lines of the legal claim photographer David Slater instigated? It was Slater whose camera was seemingly stolen by a black macaque monkey. You will remember the monkey then took some selfies - but further use of the snaps prompted Slater to take on Wikipedia who published one photo without Slater's permission.
Top snapper Mr Binturong
Interestingly the Edinburgh Zoo photos, posted on the Express website, seem to have a credit (possibly a copyright credit) on them, and are marked 'SWNS' - which I am guessing stands for South West News Service - the UK news agency that supplies editorial copy and pictures to national and international clients. The Express also has a link to a series of other animals selfies which contain the credit 'Marcus Bird/ Barcroft media'. The SWNS website itself restricts re-use of material posted on that website but I couldn't find any koalas generated images there (although I did find plenty of other animals) nor were the zoo selfies apparent on the SWNS twitter feed - so I suspect the pictures were sent out as a news feed. The zoo pictures can be found on the Scotsman - credited to 'Hemedia', Reveal had the copyright notices of '(c) HTC' on all the shots and the Irish Examiner marks them all 'Edinburgh Zoo'.
Another copyright conundrum? It seems the cameras were provided by HTC, and Ben Walsh from HTC told the Scotsman: “We know the most popular thing on the internet is funny pictures that owners take of their pets so at HTC were glad we’ve made a camera so brilliant and simple that animals can finally join us humans and start taking selfies too. With koalas taking the most pictures of themselves, expect to see their Instagram feeds full of koala selfies”. This statement, and the actions taken by the Zoo in releasing the photos, seem to indicate that the photos were freely distributed - and that they are currently free to use. Jon-Paul Orsi, digital manager for the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, is quoted in one article saying “We do a lot of our own photography on-site and these shots offer something completely different.
But MIGHT there be more of a copyright claim on the facts here - well more than Mr Slater has or had? My own personal feeling is that the author has to be a person and that person still has to be a human (although there have been conflicting opinions on this blog). Maybe just maybe there might be a human involved in the issue of ownership of copyright here - but which human? The HTC cameras in the zoo were set up to be triggered by animal movement or touching - rather than the Macaque case where it seems the monkey actually took the photo by pressing a button and it appeared holding the camera (just like Bradley). Does HTC have a claim to ownership of copyright in the selfies? It also seems that some of the cameras were positioned to take certain shots at certain angles or with certain backgrounds in frame, and this might tend towards suggesting the person or persons who did the setting up might own a copyright. So perhaps the handlers have a claim? Or perhaps the Zoo can claim ownership as this was 'work for hire'? We also don't know about editing of any of the koala selfies (eg by cropping, colouring, re-positioning): if there has been editorial input, this might again pass a copyright to a human. Mr Slater belatedly let it be known that he had set up the camera the monkey used - and had also amended the shots as he sought to establish ownership of the macaque snapped selfie. But so far, to no avail; but maybe things are different here? So maybe here IF copyright became as issue it IS possible one or more persons might be the author.
These conclusions may (or may not) not be agreeable to the 5% of our readers who felt that with the black macaque snap, "Whichever human gets to it first can keep it, just like any other bona vacantia" or those who commented on earlier blogs - or the 4% who felt that "The United Nations should set up a special agency to own and control uses of all non-human works like this" or the aforementioned. And I have to disagree with the 6% of readers who felt "The monkey owns the copyright: she's the author, after all". It seems unlikely is that Mr Penguin or Mrs Koala will be an author in the United Kingdom anytime in the near future - and I am still of the opinion that there is no copyright in works authored by animals and that "they are a gift to humanity which we can all use" although the efforts of the campaign group Nonhuman Rights Group, whilst unsuccessful in New York and Austria, were more successful in persuading a court in Argentina to allow a claim for habeas corpus for Sumatran orang-utan Sandra - who had been born in captivity and was being held at Buenos Aires Zoo - finding she deserved the basic rights of a non human person. So maybe a monkey (and koala) copyright soon!
Posted by Ben at 7:08 pm 4 comments: Links to this post
Labels: animal, black macaque, koala, selfie
Now there's that old saying isn't there - "where there's a hit - there's a writ" and whilst this blogger often spies claims of plagiarism, sampling and sometimes even downright copying which usually result in at least the threat of a lawsuit in the film, TV and music sectors, a claim in relation to the Oscar winning movie 12 Years a Slave has also thrown up claims violations of moral rights (under the copyright laws of Germany and France) - but in a US court. And elsewhere, a pop tune claim seems to have come to a sensible conclusion with at least the acknowledgement that an earlier Tom Petty work may have influenced the hit Stay With Me from the ever so soulful Sam Smith.
The Hollywood Reporter lets us know that a U.S. civil lawsuit has been filed on behalf of composer Richard Friedman against composer Hans Zimmer, along with 20th Century Fox, Sony Music and various companies connected to the movie, for the alleged inclusion of a copyrighted music composition into the film's main musical theme.
The lawsuit's "quirkiest bit" is the assertion of the violation of Friedman's moral rights in the fourth and fifth claims for relief. The film, of course, had international distribution. The claim under (VII) relates to German law ('The German Copyright Statute of 1965') and refers to (in a translated form) the "right of recognition of authorship" and the author's right to prohibit "any distortion or mutilation of the work" before going on to apply the restricted acts in German law - here of reproduction, distribution and broadcast. The fifth claim under French law (VIII) is brought under 'The Republic of France the Code of Intellectual Property 1992' which seemingly provides that (in a translated form) L121.1 "an author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work" before going on the outline L121.2 (the author's right to divulge his work) and L122.1 (the author's right of exploitation ... the right of performance and the right of reproduction) and the lawsuit asks for relief under the relevant French and German law. This makes for uncomfortable reading when compared with the claim's choice of court for a jury trial in (II) Jurisdiction and Venue: the court selected is the District Court of the Central District of California Western Division and the claim is oddly silent on why French and German law claims are included, whilst also asserting that the District Court has "original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this civil action under the Copyright Act 17 USC ss411 and 511", that the court has supplemental jurisdiction over a claim of unfair competition and that venue is the proper location as the defendants transact business within the District and can be found there and that many of the infringing acts were performed and occurred within the District.
Rather handily TMZ has a comparison of the two works: One rather amusing comment goes "Oh puh-leeze! Mr. Zimmer also has two legs and is right-handed. Coincidence? At least in this excerpt, Mr. Friedman's piece is a very generic idea. They probably both ripped off me! And Beethoven. And Mozart. And. And. And....".
Posted by Ben at 6:16 pm No comments: Links to this post
Labels: hans zimmer, infringement, moral rights, plagiarism, sam smith
The World Intellectual Property Organization has just issued a media release, Marrakesh Notification No. 6: Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled: Ratification by the Republic of Paraguay.
The event which this release records is the deposit by the Government of the Republic of Paraguay of its instrument of ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. The date of entry into force of this Treaty will be three months from the date on which it secures the requisite number of 20 accessions or ratifications required under Article 18. At present there are just six countries which have taken this step: three from Latin America, plus India, the United Arab Emirates and Mali. Things are a little silent in Europe, however ...
Labels: . Marrakesh Treaty, Paraguay
Talking scents? On Tuesday 24 February the IPKat weblog teams up with the British Literary and Artistic Copyright Association (BLACA) for the second year running to host an exciting meeting on sensory copyright. Topics under review include the scent of perfume, the taste of cheese and other sensory works of authorship that fall outside the classic foursome of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.
Is it an aerial photo of the wilds of Canada? A close-up of a chunk of marble?
Or a shot of a distant planet? No -- it's the surface of a cheese ...
The order of ceremonies runs like this: doors open at 4.30 pm for a 5 pm start. After the serious side of the programme there will be some sensory delights -- whether protected by copyright or not -- in the form of refreshments kindly provided by our hosts. There is no admission fee.
The venue only holds 100 people so if you are planning to come, do email Polly Taylor at polly.taylor@blplaw.com to register your interest and be put on the guest list. It is likely that this event is going to be oversubscribed and we are unable to reserve places. The seats will be allocated on a first-come first-serve basis on the day so do arrive early to ensure yourself a place.
Posted by Jeremy at 3:47 pm 1 comment: Links to this post
Labels: blaca, event, IPKat, Sensory copyright
Silhouette comparisons of Jacobus Rentmeester's photo of Michael Jordan,
left, and Nike's Jumpman logo, right. Taken from court documents
Labels: 007, 1972, Canada, david, jerry fisher, michael jordan, michaelangelo, moses, new riders of the purple sage, nike, Rentmeester, turtles, zenbu
For many years, internet service providers (ISPs) have tried, and sometimes succeeded, to block access to The Pirate Bay (TPB), known as the world's largest illegal file-sharing site, in several countries around the world. However, this time, it’s “in real life” and not, as expected, on the internet, that thepiratebay.se domain was shut down.
Launched in September 2003, The Pirate Bay website has since been involved in a number of lawsuits, mainly accused of copyright infringement and of authorizing the infringement of its users. Eleven years later, on December 9, 2014, Swedish police carried out a raid at the Nacka Station data centre, in Stockholm, seizing a huge treasure: servers, computers, and other equipment. As a result, the site has been taken offline and dragged down several other popular BitTorrent services (i.e. open Internet application for content distribution) with it, such as EZTV, Zoink, Torrage.
As a consequence, many people have been looking for Pirate Bay alternatives. Following the raid, many Pirate Bay “copies” flourished. For instance, the IsoHunt.to, a de facto replacement of the original site that reached a settlement with MPAA stipulating $110 million reimbursement for damages in 2013, launched an OldPirateBay.org to “save the Freedom of information on the Internet” and to “keep on sharing”. They also launched “The Open Bay” initiative, a new torrent landscape, allowing anyone to create a Pirate Bay copy on his/her own domain.
Pirate Bay users expect full recovery. Film-makers and distributors, television, and various creative industries combating online copyright infringement are however hoping that the phoenix will not rise anew from the ashes. However, with just a few days of the countdown timer left, the site is showing much more signs of life than ever before.
Posted by Jeremy at 2:39 pm No comments: Links to this post
Labels: endgame, The Pirate Bay
Posted by Jeremy at 10:49 am 1 comment: Links to this post
Labels: CJEU judgment, infringement, jurisdiction, online access
Significantly, the InfoSoc Directive does not contain a proviso found in European trade mark legislation, notably in Article 7(2) of the Trade Mark Directive 2008/95, that exhaustion shall not apply
Allposters, through its websites, markets posters and other reproductions depicting the works of famous painters, which are covered by the copyright exploited by Pictoright. Among other products, Allposters offers its clients reproductions in the form of posters, framed posters, posters on wood and images on canvases. In order to produce an image on canvas, a synthetic coating (laminate) is first applied [by Allposters] to a paper poster depicting the chosen work [for which the copyright is managed by Pictoright]. Next, the image on the poster is transferred from the paper to a canvas by means of a chemical process. Finally, that canvas is stretched over a wooden frame. The image of the work disappears from the paper backing during the process.
The Hoge Raad der Nederlanden referred the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:
Posted by Jeremy at 10:09 am 1 comment: Links to this post
Labels: altered works, CJEU judgment, exhaustion
The district court correctly held that Omega misused its copyright “by leveraging its limited monopoly in being able to control the importation of [the Globe Design] to control the importation of its Seamaster watches.” The district court did not clearly err in finding that: (1) Omega copyrighted the Globe Design, at the advice of its legal department, to control the importation and distribution of Omega watches into the United States; and (2) Omega told its authorized distributors that the purpose of suing Costco was to “stem the tide of the grey market” and the “unauthorized importation of Omega watches into the U.S.” In other words, Omega attempted to use the copyrighted Globe Design to decrease competition in the U.S. importation and distribution of its watches by it and its authorized dealers—an obvious leveraging of a copyright to control an area outside its limited monopoly on the design.
Omega argues that its anti-competitive motives are irrelevant to the issue of copyright misuse. According to Omega, our inquiry should instead focus on the copyright holder’s objective conduct or use. But Omega’s semantic hairsplitting is unpersuasive. By definition, “use” includes an inquiry into purpose.... However, we need not decide whether Omega’s motives are sufficient to establish copyright misuse. The undisputed record shows that before this lawsuit consumers were able to a buy a genuine Omega Seamaster watch from Costco for 35% less than Omega’s suggested retail price. This is no longer the case. Thus, at least one consequence of Omega’s lawsuit has been a reduction of intrabrand price competition for uncopyrightable Omega watches in the United States.
Posted by Ben at 10:46 pm No comments: Links to this post
Labels: copyright misuse, first sale doctrine, omega
The case of course brings to mind the much reported Aereo case - the now defunct controversial streaming video service which used the much mentioned 'mini antennae' to deliver its service to paying customers. In June 2014 the Supreme Court ruled (6-3) that Aereo had violated US copyright laws by “capturing broadcast signals on miniature antennas and delivering them to subscribers for a fee". But Gee found difference between the now defunct Aereo and DISH, noting that Aereo neither owned the copyright to the broadcast works nor held a license from the copyright owners to perform those works publicly, concluding that Dish's "sling" technology, did not constitute a "public performance" that infringed Fox copyrights saying
“DISH does not, however, receive programs that have been released to the public and then carry them by private channels to additional viewers in the same sense that Aereo did” adding "“DISH has a license for the analogous initial retransmission of the programming to users via satellite”.
“Aereo streamed a subscriber specific copy of its programming from Aereo’s hard drive to the subscriber’s screen via individual satellite when the subscriber requested it, whereas DISH Anywhere can only be used by a subscriber to gain access to her own home STB/DVR and the authorized recorded content on that box” adding “Any subsequent transfer of the programming by DISH Anywhere takes place after the subscriber has validly received it, whereas Aereo transmitted its programming to subscribers directly, without a license to do so.”
In a statement, DISH said it welcomed the ruling saying: "Consumers are the winners today, as the court sided with them on the key copyright issues in this case".
In a statement Fox spokesman said the company welcomed Gee's contract rulings, but were disappointed by her copyright findings saying: "This case is not, and has never been, about consumer rights or new technology," adding "It's always been about protecting creative works from being exploited without permission."
Judge Gee's 63 page decision was in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dated the 12th January, and had been under seal, and was released in redacted form. Fox Broadcasting Co et al v. Dish Network LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 12-04529.
More here from Reuters and on PCWorld here and The Hollywood Reporter here.
Posted by Ben at 11:09 am No comments: Links to this post
Labels: ABC v Aereo, dish, fox