Listen to the Audio Casebook: ABC v. Aereo (S.Ct. 2014) (broadcast television DVR)
Following the live blog, the bullet points were posted as the decision was being handed down, and upon a quick reading of the case shortly thereafter.
Rosen v. Global Net (C.D.C.A. June 20, 2014)
A cautionary tale. DMCA takedown notices are complete when they are sent to the designated agent, not when (or if) they are received. Global Net listed contact information for DMCA takedowns, and Barry Rosen emailed and faxed one for unauthorized posting of his photographs of a few celebrities (Amy Weber, Daisy Fuentes, and Gena Lee Nolin). Global Net never took down the photos, and Rosen sued. (more…)
You can sell your used records, books, and other copies of creative works without needing permission from the copyright owner of those works. This is the “first sale” doctrine (17 U.S.C. §109), and has been the law of the land for over a century. In the Internet age, songs and other works are bought and distributed digitally, and may never exist in a traditional physical form like a CD or cassette tape. Does the first sale doctrine still exist for digital works? Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) takes a look at the issue, and explores the cutting edge of the first sale doctrine.
Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
Franklin Mint Corp. v. Nat’l Wildlife Art Exch., 575 F.2d 62 (3d Cir. 1978)
The Trend of Enforcing of Copyright Term Limits
Understandably, intellectual property owners try to extend copyright protection for their successful works and characters beyond their term. Superman, Micky Mouse, Betty Boop, Amos and Andy, the song “Happy Birthday,” and any number of other characters and works have been involved in attempts to extend the creative monopoly of copyright. Sometimes owners simply ask Congress to extend the term, sometimes owners claim trademark protection when they’re really trying to protect the copyright, or offer creative copyright theories to skirt around the notion that copyright protection shall exist “for limited times” as mandated in the Constitution. However, a recent trend in courts has popped up, enforcing those copyright limits against intellectual property owners, and rejecting efforts to further extend protections of works that otherwise might have entered the public domain. See, e.g., Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 654 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2011). Today’s decision in Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd. (7th Cir.) continues the trend. (more…)
We are waiting on the ABC v. Aereo (remote DVR service for broadcast television) decision from the Supreme Court. Decisions are generally issued at 10am on Mondays and Thursdays in May and June. The opinions trickle out at a pace of about 3-6 opinions per day, for a total of approximately 70 this term. You can find out more details and follow along at the fantastic SCOTUSblog.com live coverage of new decisions announced from the bench. Because Aereo was argued so late in the term (April 22) and involves a fairly complicated technical issue that the justices will want to handle thoughtfully, SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe predicts that the decision will come towards the end of the term. The Supreme Court has three remaining days scheduled to issue opinions: Thursday June 19, Monday June 23, and Monday June 30. I wouldn’t be surprised if it Aereo was issued on the last day of the term, but I’ll be watching the live feed on each of those days.
June 23, 2014 update: Still no decision on ABC v. Aereo from the Supreme Court. The Court will be announcing decisions on Wednesday, June 25 and Thursday June 26, and possibly on the final day of the term, Monday June 30. Amy Howe from SCOTUSblog still predicts that ABC v. Aereo will be announced on the last day due to the complexity of the technology at issue, whichever day that happens to be.
The point of a 3D scan of an object (like a shoe or a banana) is to slavishly recreate that object in a new medium. What if there is a conflict over whether one scan of an object infringes another scan of that same object? There are very few decisions about 3D scanning, so we need to look at decisions in other media for guidance. Franklin Mint Corp. v. Nat’l Wildlife Art Exch., 575 F.2d 62 (3d Cir. 1978) addresses whether one naturalistic painting of a pair of cardinals in nature infringes another, and gives us insight into 3D scanning and copyright law.