Copyleft – Great Idea or a Legal Minefield?

Although it gives the impression that it is the opposite of copyright, it is not. Copyleft is still a license in the legal sense. Ironically enough, a copyleft work still has copyright.

A copyleft license has five characteristics:

1. Free Use
2. Freeree Distribution
3. Free Modification and Derivation
4. Free Combination
5. Universal Application

When owners of IP want to share their work, they often shy away from putting it in the public domain which would entail that they forfeit their IP and all legal claims to their program or work. The legal problem with public domain is that once a program or work is part of it, anyone can take it, amend or adjust it, and copyright or patent it. 

Examples of copyleft license:

CC-SA

CC-SA is a small set of copyleft licenses rapidly growing in popularity, particularly in Free Culture communities rather than Open Source Software communities. It is a set of Creative Commons Share-Alike License. These copyleft terms for Creative Commons licenses are offered in two different Creative Commons licenses, providing the CC-BY-SA (Attribution/Share-Alike) and CC-BY-NC-SA (Attribution/Non-Commercial/Share-Alike).

GPL

By far the most prominent and popular copyleft license is the GNU General Public License, or GPL. In addition to the usual copyleft terms and preferential treatment (but not prescriptive requirement) for noncommercial uses, it adds additional restrictions and reinforcements of restrictions based on earlier versions.

MPL

The Mozilla Public License, or MPL, is used by Firefox Web browser and is hence one of the best-known pieces of open source software in the world.

Marks and Spencer’s copycat case – honest mistake or huge marketing blunder?

Marks & Spencer started selling a line of T-shirts featuring a floral pattern. A young textile designer, Rachael Taylor, spotted the T-shirts in the show window of M&S Oxford Street shop. She noticed the striking resemblance with her own signature design of hand-drawn flowers.

As shown in the image, the design is almost identical. Ms. Taylor never gave permission to use her design, stating: “This design is my hand drawn original and has been part of my signature collection for quite some time. It's sold on my own branded products 'Rachael Taylor Designs' from kitchen textiles through to stationery. The design has also achieved international success as a licensed design, appearing on numerous home decor products in the UK, Europe & USA.”

Marks & Spencer have withdrawn the garments from sale while it investigated the complaint. M&S emphasized that they had bought them 'in good faith' from a direct supplier. A spokesperson stated: “We are sorry for any disappointment caused to Rachael Taylor Designs from the sale of a T-shirt that we bought in good faith from a direct supplier.”

Ms. Taylor started legal action, stating: “I believe a copyright infringement has been made by Marks and Spencer from using my design and making it into a garment, then selling in their stores. Not only has my design been used for profit without my permission, I believe in standing up for the civil rights of myself and anyone else who has encountered this in their own professional life.”

In a statement, Patricia van den Akker, Director of The Design Trust, said: “I hear daily of cases like this. It really hurts these small designers, both financially and emotionally.”

Keep posted!

(Image ©Rachael Taylor Designs Ltd. as featured in the Daily Mail)

A painful lesson in copyright and graphic design – inspired by Steve Jobs

Social media has changed the game; in more ways than one. Let’s look at the case of Mr. Mak.

Mr. Mak, a university student in Hong Kong who is an aspiring graphic designer. Upon the passing way of Steve Jobs, he designed a graphic of the Apple logo with a silhouetted profile of Mr. Jobs. It went viral and was even picked up by news media. Even actor Ashton Kutcher posted the design on his Twitter account. So far, so good...

But then, it was noticed that his design has an uncanny resemblance to the design of Chris Thornley, a British graphic artist.

Mak developed his design in late August using a white Apple logo on a black background. He used a black silhouette of Mr. Jobs indented in the apple as a tribute to Mr. Jobs after he stepped down as chief executive of Apple.

Although Mak said he had searched across the Internet both to ensure he was not infringing on another design, he did not come across Mr. Thornley’s design.

But his design turned out to be similar Mr. Thornley’s. Thornely designed a black Apple logo on a white background, with a white silhouette of Mr. Jobs. The angle is slightly different from Mak’s design.

A shocked Mak said he had received notification from Mr. Thornley’s wife, Julia, about the similarities of the two designs.

In the world of graphic design, similarities between images are quite common. This case illustrates once more how easy it has become to unearth similar images or outright copies. Mr. Thornley, a 40-year-old living in Darwen, England, acknowledges the dangers the digital age presented to creativity.

He is following the controversy while receiving treatment for a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He stated that he first developed his design in May 2011. He wanted to celebrate the fact that someone who had cancer was still working, still driving forward and still thinking positively about the future.

“The Internet can be a double-edged sword,” he said. “You need to use the Internet in order to promote yourself, but in order to do this you are making yourself vulnerable to these situations.”

Mr. Thornley went on to say that he hoped to speak with Mr. Mak soon about the two designs.

“J. Mak has been as honest as he can about the situation, I think,” he said. “It is important to have the debate about this, and J. Mak has to be credited for opening up the debate and not hiding from it.”

Mr. Mak said that he learned a valuable lesson.. “It really taught me to be very careful about what I say and do. With all the negative publicity I received in Hong Kong, it taught me to be very careful. At the same time, I need to stay true to my sense of aesthetics.”

Posted by Tip Top PR at 5:39 PM 0 comments

Copyright Challenged

The U.S. Supreme Court justices are dealing with an interesting issue - to grant copyrights to works by foreign authors. The potential stakes are huge and n pit old industry against new. The publishing and movie industries say that robust enforcement of foreign copyrights in the US is essential to ensuring reciprocal protection of their copyrights overseas.

In contrast, companies such as Google (which has digitized millions of public domain works and placed them online) state that their investments could be jeopardized.

In 1994, Congress sought to give protection to foreign works under the Berne Convention, which gives US works reciprocal protection overseas. The 1994 law applies only to works that were never copyrighted under old US copyright law. Nowadays, all foreign artists receive the copyright protection they get in their home countries.

Granting copyright removes a work from the public domain. This means that works that would be free for anyone to use, republish, perform or build upon is not allowed anymore. Works that long had been available to all (e.g., Picasso, Nabokov and J.R.R. Tolkien) could be withdrawn if the owners assert their ownership.

A group including musicians, filmmakers and archivists who rely on public domain works challenged the law. They claim that it exceeds Congress's power to grant copyrights, and infringes on the First Amendment free speech rights.

Anthony Falzone of Stanford Law School stated that once a copyright's "limited time" expires, a work permanently enters the public domain. Since foreign authors never had copyrights at the outset, Congress can't extend them now.

Justice Ginsburg argued that there was a difference between restoring copyrights that had expired and granting copyright for the first time. However, several justices doubt that taking books and music by long-dead authors out of the public domain could promote the "progress" the Constitution sought to spur through copyright.

A decision in the case, Golan v. Holder, is expected soon.

Google launched its improved copyright plan

Google (GOOG) pledged to change its policy and to act on copyright takedown requests within 24 hours. According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), content hosting sites are generally not held responsible for infringing material on their sites providing they immediately follow up on takedown requests.

"As the Web has grown, we have seen a growing number of issues relating to infringing content. We respond expeditiously to requests to remove such content from our services, and have been improving our procedures over time," Kent Walker, Google general counsel, wrote in a blog post. "But as the Web grows, and the number of requests grows with it, we are working to develop new ways to better address the underlying problem."

Starting with Blogger and Web search, Google announced that it will build tools in Blogger and Google search to make it easier to submit DMCA takedown requests.
Walker promised that Google will reduce its average response time to 24 hours or less for copyright owners who use the tools responsibly. Google will also improve its "counter notice" tools for people who think their content was wrongly removed.

Google will also improve its AdSense anti-piracy review. Apart from banning AdSense on websites with pirated content, Google will also identify violations.

Google is also looking for ways to make authorized content (e.g., music clips) easier to index and to search for, which is applauded by the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA). Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the RIAA, wrote in a blog post. "We look forward to working with Google on all the steps necessary to effectively combat infringement."

Geoff Taylor, the chief executive of music industry body the BPI, also welcomed the new Google policy. However, he noted that further to eliminate digital piracy should be taken. He stated that Google search overwhelmingly directs consumers looking for music and other digital entertainment to illegal sites. He urges Google to work together with the BPI to find a "technical solution that points music fans to sites that reward artists and everyone involved in creating music".

(Image courtesy of Google Public Policy Blog)

Google's Chinese Legal Trouble

Google finds itself in hot water again – this time from a Chinese novelist. Mian Mian, a counterculture writer known for her lurid tales of sex, drugs and nightlife, has filed a lawsuit against Google for scanning her latest novel "Acid House" without permission and putting it in its online library. Mian Mian is quite a colorful character (the pic is a file photo). Based in Shanghai, she shot to fame in 2000 when she published the novel "Candy," which caused a stir with its graphic depiction of heroin use. Most of her work is banned in China, though pirated copies are widely available. “Candy” is translated into English and widely available for purchase online.

At the court session, which consisted of a two-hour hearing, a Beijing judge told the two sides to hold talks on a settlement. Mian Mian is seeking damages of 61,000 yuan ($8,950) and a public apology.

A Google spokeswoman in Beijing, Marsha Wang, said the company removed Mian Mian's works from its library as soon as it learned of the lawsuit, adding that Google had no further comment on the suit or Tuesday's hearing. She added that Mian Mian's lawsuit was the first that she knew of in China over the scanning plan. The company has removed Mian Mian's works from its libraray.

Mian Mian’s lawyer stated that a negotiated settlement was a possibility and the court set no deadline, adding "we think even if they remove Mian Mian's work, their previous behavior is a violation of her rights. We demand a public apology."

This is the latest snag in Google's efforts to crate an online library, where printed works are available online. Previously, Google was under attack from writers in the United States and Europe (among others). Google reportedly has already scanned more than 10 million books, many of them still under copyright. Google negotiated a $125 million settlement last year with American authors and publishers, and it trying to avoid potential copyright infringement in Europe by only books scanning books over 150 years old. The European Commission said in October 2009 that it might change copyright law to make it easier for companies such as Google to scan books and distribute copies over the Internet.

In China, the China Written Works Copyright Society (a government-affiliated group) is taking on Google and negotiating compensation for Chinese authors whose work is scanned into its library. Mian Mian however, doesn have any connection to the Chinese writers' group. Commenting on Mian Mian's lawsuit, the group called on Chinese writers to band together to negotiate terms with Google instead of suing. It said it is due to hold settlement talks with the company in January. According to the group, Google has scanned more than 80,000 works by Chinese authors into the library.
It will be interesting to see how the Google’s Chinese troubles will pan out….