Back to Fashion

Earlier in the semester, we read and discussed arguments over whether fashion is copyrightable.  While fashion currently is not (and should not be, in my opinion), logos and the like upon clothing can be trademarked, and in turn can be enforced through copyright law.  This is clear on Gucci, Fendi, Dior and Louis Vuitton products, among others, and explains why they can pursue legal action upon illegal street vendors on Canal Street -- who tend to alter the trademarked logos intentionally.

A friend of mine is starting a fashion line very soon, but logistically, his plans are still in the works.  I was talking to him recently and, amid this discussion, he mentioned that he's "all set" and is going to head to the copyright office within the next few weeks to copyright the design for his shirts.  I asked him what he meant by that, and he clarified that he wanted to place a copyright on his t-shirt logo.  I informed him that he actually cannot copyright any kind of design or logo, but if it is a logo that he'd like intellectual property over, he could seek to attain a trademark for it.  I then had to explain the nuances of each of the different types of intellectual property, until he understood why he couldn't just copyright the logo that he made.  On the one hand, it was good since it showed me that I really understood what we learned in class this semester.  On the other hand, it also demonstrated that people -- just the public in general -- really needs to be educated on matters of intellectual property, beyond just fashion but mainly when it comes to music and issues of "piracy."  If people only knew more about all of this...I think there would be plenty more of us leaning towards the copyleft.

Musicians Who Ask For It

Just as Lessig practices what he preaches by providing free downloads of his books, I appreciate when I go to concerts and musicians - who are realistic about how people acquire music today - promote downloads of their music, and only ask that you purchase a t-shirt or CD if you (a) have the money and (b) if you'd like to.  Before I started college and internships and 2nd jobs and had zero time during the school year, I used to go to concerts ALL the time.  Even then, I found musicians who promoted free downloads to not only be realistic and well, nice, but I saw them as smart.  I for one would not know about so many bands, had I not downloaded their music first.  And for the ones I liked, I'd go out and spend my own money on their CD(s).  People really just want to sample music beyond the standard iTunes 30 seconds.  More artists are acknowledging this -- I just wish that large record companies would too.

IP & Makeup

Over the last 6 months, I interned for a large beauty company that's over 100 years old and makes billions of dollars in revenue.  While I didn't work in the legal department, I know that, like every other large corporation, this company had intellectual property lawyers.  I found this interesting for a few reasons.  First of all, I think it's great that this company can patent its state-of-the-art skincare technologies (i.e. in the age-defying field) since they are really special and provide a competitive edge for just 20 years.  However I wonder what other IP rights a makeup company would like to pursue.  Would it try to retain IP rights over its packaging?  Color combinations for makeup?  What about logos?  I was never able to ask, but it's interesting, since IP certainly could serve dual purposes here.  In the case of beauty technologies, though, I think it's great that companies can patent their innovative finds.

Macy's Trademark

I cannot for the life of me find this commercial on YouTube, though I can find every other Macy's commercial from the past few months there.  Anyway, as Macy's gears up for the holiday season, every channel has been inundated with all kinds of Macy's holiday commercials.  Beyond the holidays was Macy's celebration of its 150th Anniversary.  Of these ads, the one that I found most interesting/significant was one that discussed how Macy's acquired its Red Star trademark.  It's a very simple and kind of funny story, but one that ultimately describes how a simple symbol is now Macy's intellectual property.  Macy's founder had a tattoo of the red star, liked it, and voila - it became Macy's trademark.  Not only was it on its founder perpetually, but now Macy's as an institution can hold it hostage for as long as it wants to as well!

Guilt Tripping Pirates

I just came across this and thought it was really interesting, very well done. I bet it would work in some way. seriously, check it out: guilt tripping pirates.

I figure it would have to work to some extent. Maybe I'd still use the code, but go out and buy it eventually. It reminds of me the In Rainbows CD by Radiohead, using the message: hey, we're the good guys. you guys can have it for free, but if you appreciate us and our work, pitch in.

not a terrible idea.

A Polemic Against Free Speech Restrictions: Immortal Technique's "Freedom of Speech"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCYbZZTEwiM&feature=PlayList&p=0EC15B796E524E38&playnext=1&index=2

Immortal Technique is a rapper whose songs scrutinize the status quo; criticizing elements of American culture from Bill O'Reilly, to the prevalence of racism, the inaccuracy of Fox News, the corruption of the Bush administration (for more on this, check out his track Bin Laden with Eminem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA_xXWSXyFI&feature=related), corporate America, major media outlets, and even Disney.

His song "Freedom of Speech" deals with a lot of concepts prevalent to this class. Most significantly, he discusses the suppression of the recording industry, and how he has made his money by utilizing either illegal or unconventional techniques (he references "bootlegging"). Despite many offers, he has always refused to sign with a recording company, based on his political beliefs that they exploit artists for their own capital gain).

His raps are highly politicized, and actually contain really intelligent and quality lyrics (a refreshing change from the typical bitches/hos rap). I listed some of the most striking lyrics below.

Interestingly enough, his song contains a mashup with Pinnochio's "I've Got No Strings." He uses the lyrics from Disney to simultaneously reject the concept of being tied down as a puppet for the recording industry, and to confront and reject Disney culture. His profane lyrics, coupled with the Disney mashup and an outcry against free speech, make for a fascinating (and wholly applicable) song.

Fuck a record deal, I want development land.
With my benevolent clan.
And that's the reason why I only trust my fam.
40,000 records sold
$400 grand
Fuck a middle man, I won't pay anyone else
I'll bootleg it and sell it to the streets myself
I'd rather be that than signed and stuck on a shelf
And because of this, executives try to diss me
(Fuck y'all)
Racism frozen in time like Walt Disney
And now they say they want to get me signed to the majors
If I switch up my politics and change my behavior
Tryin' to tell me what to rhyme about over the beat
Bitch n***** that never spent a day in the street
...
This is America, I thought we had freedom of speech?
But now you want to try to control the way that I speak

Definitely check out more of his songs if you have a chance; they're all excellent and have really strong political messages.

ART AND INFLUENCE AS CROSS-CULTURAL EPHEMERA

The Key Players...

Brad Pitt (actor): He's HUGE in Japan.

Wes Anderson (director): The quintessential new-school cool auteur's TV spots have been in high demand ever since his innovative 2006 AmEx short.

SoftBank (producer): The Japanese cellphone company has boatloads of money and doesn't mind spending it on commercials (they've worked with Brad Pitt before, in addition to other megastars like David Beckham).

Jacques Tati (inspiration): The ad is a remake of a scene from the 1953 Jacques Tati film M. Hulot's Holiday, which introduced the seminal French comedic personage Monsieur Hulot. Somewhat akin to Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau, Hulot has also been cited as a key influence for Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean.

France Gall (sound design): The 60's Franco-pop chanteuse's "Poupee de Cire, Poupee de Son" serves as the advert's soundtrack. Serge Gainsbourg wrote the song, but it's been covered by many including Belle & Sebastian and Arcade Fire.


Why Copyright is Relevant: In Lessig's Free Culture, he invokes the notion of film sampling. More specifically, he speaks of a reported Mike Myers/Steven Spielberg project in which the man behind Austin Powers was going to be digitally reinserted into classic films to "allow audiences to see old films in a new light."  This venture never came to fruition, possibly due to copyright barriers.  Anyhow, the sampling of film styles is nothing new, as homage is considered one of the highest forms of flattery and outright remakes are commonplace.

In regards to the SoftBank commercial, the reference to Tati will probably boost his film sales and all parties will be satisfied, but the Internet seems to present a number of unforeseen issues.  When a clip was uploaded to YouTube, it was quickly removed due to a claim of infringement, and now the only version on that website is completely in Japanese.  I'm not familiar with the country's copyright laws, but they may have something to do with all this.

Furthermore, Wes Anderson has taken liberal influence from a number of other filmmakers to develop a style that is distinctly his own.

There's quite a bit to unpack here, but it's a lovely gem of a video.

K-Pop Plagiarism?

Lee Hyori, a Korean pop-star was accused of plagiarism by Britney Spears' creative team a few years ago for her song, "Get Ya" which was deemed to have plagiarized the beat of Spears' song as well as the intonation of Spears' chorus. Hyori says "I'm gonna get ya" with the same inflection as Spears' line "Why don't you do something". Below is a link to a mix of the two songs together. Hyori's people immediately pulled the song from promotion once Spears went after them which didn't help them culpability. However looking back on our course dicussions about the difference between copyright and plagiarism, when you listen to the song it's pretty clear that Hyori says the line in a way that is very evocative of Spears' delivery but even still I don't consider that infringement. You can't copyright a way of speaking. This is more a matter of ethics than legality if you ask me. Anyway, enjoy the video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3QvbKoQ-bk

Radiohead's flexible business model

While doing research for my exploration of new music business models appropriate for the developing digital and online environment, I found countless articles on Radiohead's recent album "In Rainbows"



They released their third album at first only on their official website, available for download "pay-what-you-like" and then released in hard-copy cds and premium box sets.


This album sold more copies (in every form) than all of their previous albums combined, 3 mil total. (not to mention bit torrent and limewire) Their hard-copy album sales, surprisingly, made up more than half, 1.75 mil. which is also more than each of their other albums. They also sold 100,000 box sets, at 40 euros a piece. This is a clear indication that the market is shifting, as well as larger currents of social organization around production/consumption. This is the flexibility that will determine who survives these changes.

Gore Tex and 'lo Sweaters

RAEKWON SINGS MICHEAL JACKSON from Urban News Network on Vimeo.

Wow. Is this a public performance? Or does the club already pay ASCAP a blanket fee? Either way, this is absolutely insane.

Viva la Vida

Not sure if anyone has been following this, but guitarist Joe Satriani filed a lawsuit against Coldplay for allegedly plagiarizing his 2004 song "If I could Fly" with their single "Viva la Vida." Coldplay's public reaction was one of surprise, as they claimed that any relation to Satriani's song was purely coincidental. According to the article, "King said it's common for musicians to be influenced by other works and incorporate it into their own, sometimes a little too closely. But he said that the reaction is usually different when the similarities are pointed out."

that was quick...

So, I was trying really hard not to blog about the lawsuit of copyright infringement over Tyler Perry's "Diary of a Mad Black Woman" BUT I finally gave in because was extremely shocked how quickly the case ended up being splashed across the media from news to settlement. The lawsuit was filed in May 07 but it was not until the last two weeks or so that the media coved the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by Donna West on the grounds of copyright infringement. She believed that "Perry lifted material her 'Fantasy of a Black Woman.' The play was performed three times in 1991 in Dallas and West contended Perry could have gained access to the script in 1998 when he presented his plays at the Dallas Black Academy of Arts and Letters.Perry, who testified during the trial, insisted that his screenplay is an original work. His work on the film gained him several awards and nominations." West was asking for damages and profits. It was found that Perry did not infringe on copyright. It seems as though there is an overwhelming cases of copyright infringements in the news in todays day and age. From Madonna to Coldplay...when is it(both the infringing and the accusation) going to stop? Why is this the case? Have we just run out of originality?

RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs

A few weeks ago I was browsing around and I ran into this

FINAL PAPER: any suggestions?

I know this is long, but it's my research for the final paper, if any one has any comments or ideas I would really appreciate it. Thanks! -Dani

"Good Artists Copy. Great Artists Steal."

CASE/RULING:

Rogers v. Koons, 751 F. Supp. 474 (S.D.N.Y.) aff’d 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cit. 1992)

-Leading U.S. court on copyright, dealing with the fair use defense for parody

-Ruling: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that an artist copying a photo could be liable for infringement when there was no clear need to imitate the photo for parody.

 

BACKGROUND:

-Art Rogers, professional photographer, took a black and white photograph of a Mr. and Mrs. Scanlon who hired him to photograph them with their new German Shepherd puppies. Over 10,000 reproductions of the image were made. The photograph was entitled “puppies” and was used on greeting cards and other generic merchandise.

-Jeff Koons, famous artist, found the picture on a postcard and decided to make a wood-painted sculpture based on the picture for an art show (“Banality Show”) at Sonnabend Gallery on the theme of banality of everyday items.

-Koons had been in the habit of creating sculptures and other works of arts from photographs by others. He believed this to be much like the file of images he worked from, stating that it was typical and commonplace—as an image part of the mass culture, “resting in the collective sub-consciousness of people regardless of whether the card had actually ever been seen by such people.”

-Koons ripped off the portion of the postcard which contained the photographs copyright information and gave the picture to his assistants with specific directions on how to model the sculpture. He instructed his assistants to copy as much detail as possible while making the puppies blue with exaggerated noses. He also asked that hey add flowers to the hair of the man and woman.

-The sculpture entitled “String of Puppies” became a huge success at the Sonnabend Gallery where it was displayed on November 19, 1988.

-Koons sold three of the four copies made for a total of $367,000, and kept the last for himself.

-When Rogers discovered that his photograph had been copied he sued both Koons and the Sonnabend Gallery for copyright infringement.

-Koons admitted to having copied the image intentionally but claimed fair use for parody.

 

-Image of “Puppies” by Art Rogers (1980): http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/rogers_puppies.gif

-Image of “String of Puppies” by Jeff Koons (1988): http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/koons_puppies.jpg

 

COURT RULING:

-The court found “substantial similarity” between the two works and knew that Koons had had access to the photograph, thus ruling that the sculpture was a copy of Rogers’ work.

-“Fair Use” did not suffice as an argument for Koons, as the court stated that this parody could have been constructed without copying Rogers’ specific work.

-The Appellate Court held that a reproduction of a photograph in a sculpture form constituted a definite copyright infringement.

-As applied to the law, the Court found that the facts in this case supported an unauthorized copying by Koons

 

MORE INFORMATION:

-Koons maintains that he creates his work in an art tradition dating back to the beginning of the Twentieth Century, which defines its efforts as follows: when an artist has finished his work, the meaning of the original object has been extracted and an entirely new meaning is set in place.

 

-In October 2006, Koons was commissioned to create a seven painting for the Deutsche Guggenheim Berlin. He drew a part of his work from a photograph by Andrea Blanch titled “Silk Sandals” by Gucci. This photograph had been published in Allure magazine in August of 2000.

-Koons took this image of the legs and diamond sandals from the photo, omitting any background details, and used it in his painting “Niagara,” which includes three other pairs of women’s legs over a landscape of painted cakes.

-In court, Koons’ argued that “Niagara” was “an entirely new artistic work…that comments on and celebrates society’s appetites and indulgences, as reflected in and encouraged by a ubiquitous barrage of advertising and promotional images of food, entertainment, fashion and beauty.”

**Koons notes that it is important for him to use these photographs, to copy—to appropriate or whatnot—rather than painting the legs himself because: “my paintings are not about objects or images that I might invent, but rather about how we relate to things that we actually experience....therefore, in order to make statements about contemporary society and in order for the artwork to be valid, I must use images from the real world. I must present real things that are actually in our mass consciousness.”

-The decision was made in the U.S. District Court found that “Niagara” was a “transformative use” of the photograph and ruled in favor of Koons.

-Blanch comments that she would not have minded this use and would have not taken it to court had Koons simply asked for permission. Blanch has appealed.

 

-Andra Blanch’s “Silk Sandals:” http://iplitigator.huschblackwell.com/Andrea%20Blanch%20Silk%20Sandals%20by%20Gucci.jpg

-Jeff Koons’ “Niagara:” http://ismisms.com/Jeff_Koons/Niagara-koons.jpg

 

OTHER ARTISTS OR CASES I WILL REFFER TO:

-Genre of Appropriation Art

-EX: Andy Warhol (“Campbell’s Soup” (1968), “White Burning Car” (1963)à appropriated images) who faced a series of law suits from photographers for work he silk screened

·       “Art is what you can get away with.”

·       “Good artists copy. Great artists steal.” –Pablo Picasso

-contemporary artists that draw upon our image landscape to create a consciousness about our reality within the minds of their audience.

 

-Up until what point can an artist claim “fair use?”

-Is it the same thing that is happening with music, with mash-ups, with artists such as Girl Talk, with fashion?

-What does this mass use of appropriation tell us about our culture, about where its going, and how do IP laws have to mold in order to fit that?

 

 

 

 

The question is: where do you draw the line between influence and infringement? Here is a GREAT example of the gray area between these two concepts. The first clip is Red Hot Chilly Peppers "Dani California" and the second is Tom Petty's "Last Dance With Mary Jane". The two introductions are different enough to not apply as an infringement, necessarily. However, somewhere between infringement and influence lies- RIP OFF. And even the most unsophisticated music listener can detect a rip off. Personally, the conflict is whether or not it is the music itself being borrowed from, or the general groove. Ultimately, claiming groove is really in the intuition of your listeners. And borrowers, evidently.






I unfortunately couldn't get the original Petty video up because Universal Music Group has disabled all embedding on all his content. Lame. Maybe they deserve to get ripped off.....

2008 Wrap-up

As the semester is coming to a closing I believe it would be helpful for myself and future generations of Copyright students if I made a recollection of my experience. It is safe to say that the course is an extensive study on how copyright affects music, and some other issues as well, but the course maintained a major focused on the music industry. However I was also able to take the information learnt in class and apply it to my own interest in films, understanding how exhausting and discouraging the process of filmmaking can be during modern day. It takes more to clear rights on a movie than to actually produce one. Copyright does not encourage cinematic innovation, as it makes it harder for current filmmakers to be inspired by previous genius of film. There is another aspect of the film that I also regret, the fact that we failed to discuss the culture aspect of the course. I would have liked to discuss the cultural reasons for the ways the copyright laws have become what they currently are in the U.S. but other than that I have enjoyed the course, and can say that Im much more confused than when I started, but at least I tried.

Happy 2009 everyone!

Consolidated Source for IP Litigation

Just found this article about Stanford Law School launching a full scale online database that stores information about and tracks all IP litigation in real-time, as it occurs within the US.  The most important and interesting thing I found in the article was the stated purpose for it: "This publicly available, online research tool will enable scholars, policymakers, lawyers, judges, and journalists to review real time-date about IP leal disputes that have been filed across the country, and ultimately to analyze the efficacy of the system that regulates patents, copyrights, trademarks, antitrust, and trade secrets."  The italics are mine, but I think that this part of the sentence is huge.  It basically means that there will now be a go to source for anyone willing to track this type of information, and hopefully it will finally show that the system that is currently in place, no longer makes sense.  Hopefully having all this raw data in one place will convince someone with power.  Or it could be used by scholars to convince people.  But having all this information easily accessible, for the first time, could change the way scholars and hopefully even policymakers approach and understand the field.

fighting for children and money

The battle that has been raging between Brazt and Barbie hasn't just been commercial. Bratz has been the biggest competition to the Barbie ever and after the Christmas holidays, they will be no more. That's because the creator of the Bratz doll drew his first designs while he was still working for Matel. The creator signed away his intellectual property rights by working as a designer for the company. And a court just upheld that the Bratz design actually belongs to its enemy--Barbie.

Outrunning the Law

There's a new song by independent electronic artist Dam-Funk called "Outrun," which borrows its name from a classic arcade game.  In the promotional video for the song, released on Dam's label's website, the song is laid over a couple minutes of footage from the Outrun video game.

This brings up a couple questions, firstly, is this infringing on the game's copyright, or is it a fair use do to its non-competitive nature?  Secondly, are promotional videos non-commercial (as they're not explicitly sold unless they find their way onto DVD, but they contribute to related streams of revenue)?

In this case, the artist is rather underground, so it won't raise too many questions, and it's probably good promotion for an all-but forgotten arcade title.

Dam-Funk x Outrun from stonesthrow on Vimeo.

Lion King Fan-Art Archive

I found a website
http://fanart.lionking.org/
dedicated completely to fan-art in the 'universe' of Disney's move The Lion King. Fans create profiles and upload their interpretations of the characters:









It seems to me that the nature of fan-art, as a derivative, makes it outside of copyright's protection, and allows for the development of a very specific interactive online community made up of artists sharing and posting their work. Without the possibility of copyright (and thus it's infringement) these artists are free to make their interpretations available online to everyone. This is yet another example that creativity and innovation are not competitive resources; all of this artwork is created by fans, as a way of interacting with their favorite movie and each other, not simply for a profit.

Interestingly, the website has a little section on copyright law and fan-art, explaining that the copyright to all of the Lion King's characters is owned by Disney, and that Disney tolerates the technical infringement of fan-art, because it helps business:

"If you draw Simba or Nala or Kovu, you are creating a derivative work—something that U.S. law explicitly defines as being owned by the creator of the original work. Without Disney's permission, all fan-art and fan-fiction using their characters is in fact illegal. Now, don't panic—most entertainment companies (like Disney, Paramount, Dreamworks, etc.) tend to overlook these kinds of copyright violations.... The Lion King fan-art and fan-fiction community exists solely because Disney allows it to."

I was also going to blog about bratz v. barbie but since it was already blogged about I just want to quickly add something....I think it is interesting that Barbie effectively ran Bratz out of business for "copying" their doll when in reality the original Barbie was based on a European doll and when Barbie was created over here, the first Barbie doll looked EXACTLY like the doll found in Europe.

ok, so being that before the presentations I had never thought that this whole idea of copyright/trademarks and restaurants was even an issue but apparently it is and now 'm beginning to notice it! According to this lawsuit, " CBS is challenging a new Des Moines barbecue restaurant over copyright issues. Jethro's, a restaurant in the Drake neighborhood on Forest Avenue, has been warned it is violating CBS property rights for its references to the Beverly Hill Billies TV show. CBS said Jethro's menu depicts characters clearly recognizable from the popular 60s TV show. Jethro's owners said their artwork is original and portrays a stereotype." Now this I understand as a copyright infringement because they are using the likeness of a TV show character. Its the fact that Jethro's says that the artwork is "original" and shows a "stereotype" that murks up the concept. Being that I have not seen the artwork myself I can not weigh into this argument BUT (a) it is interesting to look at it with the notion that it is a stereotype because it represents a general group not a specific person and (2) the fact that it was an original artwork is interesting but as seen in music it is still a reproduction or copying even if someone else created it first.

Twilight author is a cry baby.

I recently read a post by the Twilight series author, Stephanie Meyer, on her blog. Earlier this year, a partial draft of Midnight Sun was illegally posted on the Internet and has since been distributed without her permission and permission of her publisher. In an effort to educate her fans on copyright, she brought up the copy's online availability on her website. But to deter her fans from going out to look for Midnight Sun online, she decided to make it available on her own website. She views Midnight Sun's initial online distribution as a detrimental violation of her rights as an author and as a human being; she has consequently decided to stop working on that novel all together. "In any case, I feel too sad about what has happened to continue working on Midnight Sun, and so it is on hold indefinitely."

Although I have never read a book of the Twilight series, I feel it is still a shame that a whole novel just went to waste. Ms. Meyer should complete the novel and publish it for her fans. She obviously has a problem with online distribution of her work without consent (understandably so), but I think her decision to give into what is becoming a cultural norm by posting it herself on her website, crying like a baby about it and refusing to complete the work is a bit irrational. Her response is much like a twelve year old's who doesn't get what she wants.

I'm assuming this author had her first drafts copyrighted, which would mean the online distribution of it without her consent was illegal. I was just wondering if there is a difference in value between a copyrighted draft and a complete, published, copyrighted work?

Barbie vs. Bratz

Yesterday, a judge in LA banned MGA Entertainment Inc. from selling Bratz dolls; however he did rule that the ban would take effect after the holiday shopping season.

This decision was made after Mattel, the producers of Barbie, sued MGA for copyright violation, claiming that Carter Bryant, the creator of the Bratz dolls, came up with the concept while still working at Mattel. The decision follows the jury's decision which found MGA guilty of copyright infrigement and awarded Mattel "$10 million for copyright infringement and $90 million for breach of contract" (Flaccus).

However, the jury's findings failed to state which Bratz dolls they considered a copyright/contract violation. Originally there were 4 Bratz dolls (none of which are still produced) and now there are over 40. MGA argued that only the 1st generation of the dolls violated copyright; but in the final ruling the judge deemed that all the Bratz dolls are in violation. Thus, after the holiday season, the Bratz dolls will stop being sold/produced by MGA.

What I find most interesting about this case is that the jury found the Bratz doll a case of copyright infringement. I understand that since Carter Bryant had the idea for the dolls at Mattel and instead sold it to MGA and not Mattel, its can be considered a breach of contract. However, to me it still seems unclear exactly how its a form of copyright infringement.

Associated Press: "Judge bars MGA from selling Bratz dolls"

Patents on DNA and Medical Treatments

We've talked about this in class before, and its been in our readings... but it still intrigues and baffles me quite a bit. Yah, a lot of IP laws hurt a lot of innocent people-- copyright laws hurt start-up artists all the time while favoring the corporate monopolies with the lobbying power and money. But what about these patents on DNA and medical treatments hurting thousands of innocent people just searching for the best possible solution to their problem? Of course, something has to be done in both cases, but it baffles me that it is still an issue. Patents are great to some extent, but there are so many medications out there that cannot be issued to patients in need due to some patent restriction. I came across this article earlier today, about babies diagnosed with epilepsy who may not get the correct exams for diagnosis of a specific kind of epilepsy because of a patent held by Genetic Technologies. 

The tests can be performed at public hospitals, but must be sent to Genetic Technologies for diagnosis and then, if necessary, medication. But these tests must be sent to Scotland and take an average of 16 to 18 months to be reviewed. According to the article, this is too much time for the infants to go on with ineffective epilepsy medications. Also, only infants who have symptoms that are almost identical to those of Dravet Syndrome (the type of epilepsy in question) have test results sent over, but there are several variations that can also be tested by these exams, but never are. The article, and those at the public hospitals, claim that they should be able to conduct the exams in-house to help the patients who really do need it and shouldn't be hurt by a patent.

But anyway, this just brings us back to this same situation about patents and the extent to which they should be enforced and when there should be exceptions. Let's hope the next few years really do bring change and radical improvements to patents laws, as both candidates ardently supported throughout their candidacy. Both McCain and Obama specified that they would ensure rapid review of patents and in depth decisions for issuing them and not. Here's to hoping it does change. People's lives in danger when there ARE available solutions because of patents? I understand it's difficult to invalidate some and not others, but it seems ridiculous that this keeps happening so often.

A Win-Win Situation in Configurable Culture

Shane Mercado is a Youtube hit, raking in over more than 2 million views for a recent video he made. The video a mash-up of Mercado performing the dance from Beyonce's "Single Ladies" cut alongside the video itself. This video has become such a hit that Mercado has media appearances to promote recently appearing on the Bonnie Hunt show. However the larger picture is that these example of configurable culture, of taking Beyonce's copyrighted work and mashing it up in this way (even though it is without her permission) has resulted in a win-win situation for both parties. Beyonce is receiving free-press (for exampleshe probably wouldn't make an appearance on a daytime talk show like Bonnie Hunt's but she just received exposure on that program via Mercado) and Mercado a dancer who is currently out work, is receiving exposure for his talent which might ultimately lead to some career breakthroughs for him in the future. Thinking along the lines of our buddy Tim Wu and the ways in which IP seems to be heavily tied to commerce, it's interesting that we find no take down notice posted on the link to Mercado's video. I'm sure that Beyonce's father her manager and the CEO of her imprint is more than please that his daughter is receiving this huge PR boon... and hopefully a creative fan will receive some benefits too.

See the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ifGHUfR5Ks

My big idea..

Yesterday's presentation on the competing lobster restaurants reminds me of a little IP problem of my own. I am pretty serious about starting a bar in New York City after I graduate. This bar has a very unique idea, one that I am confident will rake in the business. Among other things, the basic idea is that the bar runs on supply and demand. The prices of drinks are constantly changing like stock prices-- prices rise when that specific drink is in higher demand and falls if it is in low demand. The problem is, this sort of thing exists elsewhere in the world, and my vision is to basically copy everything short of the bar's name. In class we discussed that intellectual property rights could be protected for things like decor and recipes, but my question is, can you protect a pretty general idea like this? The intention of this post was not really to complain about my problems, I am genuinely confused and curious on the matter. If anyone can offer any insight so that I can avoid a lawsuit (let's assume I already have the $6 million needed to start it up), it would be greatly appreciated.

20% byebye

Because I am writing on Harvey Weinstein's abuse of copyright ownership I thought it would be appropriate to write on the current news breaks that involves Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company. After years of bullying people around and pushing people away, Harvey Weinstein seems to be looking at a bad financial crisis. Two weeks ago, The Weinstein Company fired 20% of their staff in the same day, accounting for more than 20 people. However it is also sad to recognize how the Weinstein brothers did not pay the price but the hard working people that had to put up with his attitude everyday.

Another example of how too much ownership can destroy lives!

More Obamania

I found some interesting stuff today online, pertaining to Obama's transition website, and thought I'd share.  According to this article, the transition website now has a creative commons license, allowing the public to freely use it.  As much as I keep finding myself trying to find reasons to be down on Obama (as with any politician) I keep finding stuff like this, that just pushes my opinion of him.  Yet again, he is taking the extra step to make sure that everyone has a voice in what he's doing.  It may be superficial and not matter, but it's a step.  Plus his use of the Creative Commons license just goes to show that he knows these things are out there, and may do a better job pushing for our rights in stead of those of the corporations.  Kudos.

...creative commons

just thought this was interesting and could be potentially helpful in the future....
A Book on Intellectual Property by James Boyle was released under Creative Commons
here is the article
here is the book

just found this tidbit of information too so I thought I should add it to the post.... "President-elect Barack Obama's transition team has licensed the site Change.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, giving visitors more freedom to use content from the site."

better late than never

I e-mailed my congressman a few weeks ago regarding the second midterm, and he finally e-mailed me back a couple of days ago. His response to my email, although late, was interesting and thorough. Take a look:

Ms. Erica Fisher
80 Ridgecreek Trail
Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022-2379

Dear Ms. Fisher:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me for your news story. It was good to hear you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I’ll be happy to share my thoughts on the major legislation dealing with intellectual property during the 110th Congress. The most important bill that came before Congress was the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908). This legislation was introduced by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) in April of 2007. The purpose of this legislation was to move the United States Patent system from the first to invent to first to file like the rest of the world. It would also tighten venue requirements which would prevent “patent friendly” district courts from receiving a large number of patent cases, and create new-post grant review process to allow disputes involving patent quality and scope to be settled outside of district court.

This legislation would also have overhauled the current actual contribution clause that under current law rewards a patentee who sues based on infringement for using their patent in larger products. Many products contain multiple patented inventions, and under current law judges have the right to decide the value of the particular part to the product. This legislation would implement a one-size-fits-all standard which would lead to cheaper infringement of patents where the larger provider would be able to steal the part they need and pay a small royalty to the inventor regardless of how important the part is to the final product.

I do believe that patent reform in necessary, but was unable to support H.R. 1908 because of the actual contribution clause. The House passed H.R. 1908 by a vote of 220-175
on September 7, 2007, but it was stalled in the Senate.

Another piece of legislation that did become public law was the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007 which was introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in September of 2007. This legislation extended the moratorium on state and local taxation of Internet access and electronic commerce until November 1, 2014. It also includes an exemption from such moratorium for states that previously enacted Internet tax laws. I voted in favor of this bill, which was signed into law on October 31, 2007.

Lastly, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, introduced originally in the Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in July 2008, was also signed into law. This legislation amended both civil and criminal intellectual property law. It also reformed the federal government’s structure for dealing with enforcement of foreign countries’ Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) obligations. It replaced the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinating Council (NIPLECC) with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC). The IPEC would now coordinate government agency IPR enforcement actions and have representatives from all agencies involved. I voted in favor of this legislation, which easily passed both chambers.

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me again. I remain


Very truly yours,



Steven C. LaTourette
Member of Congress

miShare

Since the downfall of my Zune which lasted a solid month before I decided to completely forsake it, I have been trying to figure out what my next move will be in the realm of mp3 players. Arguably I am going to end up with an iPod touch, its convenient, albeit pricey, but I know how to work the software and the music will at least be mine for the duration of my agreement with Apple. Constantly searching for loopholes in the music purchasing system, while being more or less technologically inept as well as fearful of illegal downloading systems has impeded my ability to be satisfied with iPods but I have finally found a solution that I can be more or less happy with, a miShare. I read about this device about a year ago, but because I actually saw one in a store a week ago, it is less of a myth and thus I am choosing to blog about it now. The miShare is a device that you connect from one iPod to another, and you can share the music. Surprise surprise, it is not affiliated with Apple and I will be interested to see how this plays out, and whether Apple has a problem with the system.

here is a link to the where you can purchase the device, if anyone is interested...it would make a great holiday gift...
https://www.mishare.com/

a small change...

So, according to the wall street journal... the "markets declare truce in copyright wars." The market they are referring to is Google market which finally "conceded that information isn't free" and that the books they digitize (mainly those still under copyright but not in print) need some compensation. It's cool to think that book that we can not access anywhere else, we can access them online through Google. According to the article, "it was unclear what "fair use" meant to determine how much of a book Google could display before having to pay publishers and authors. The settlement agrees that 20% of a book can be previewed without payment. So while fair use is still undefined for other situations, this is an important precedent that benefits both consumers and content owners. It also, of course, benefits the Google colossus by letting it display for free significant excerpts of books it's already digitized." Once again the vagueness of the definition of fair use comes into play here. I don't know if this could be considered a truce, but definitely a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it is a step by a company who has money. "The most fascinating truce in the copyright wars is this month's settlement of litigation between book publishers and authors on one side and Google on the other -- at $125 million, the biggest book deal ever. " Google has the funds to pay for this and it is fortunate for us the consumers who need to access these books but how can other companies continue to do this if they do not have the money? It is not feasible, thus can it really impact anything much further after this deal?