Printstagram Gets Smacked by Instagram Over Trademark Dispute, Turns Lemons Into Lemonade

2014 has been a big year for me personally. As many of you know, Steph and I were happy to welcome our first child last month, a baby girl named Hannah. We also bought our first house back in June, which is what sparked today’s blog post.

With more wall space to cover than our two previous (and oh so tiny) apartments combined, Steph and I decided to frame a bunch of pictures and hang them up. We found Printstagram, a popular online service that - yup, you guessed it - allows you to upload your Instagram photos and print them on high quality photo paper. We gave it a shot last week and really fell for it.

Our timing was odd because the day after we placed our order, I got this email from Social Print Studio, the company that runs Printstagram.

The competition idea is a really clever way to deal with what must be a devastating legal blow. Starting last year, Instagram (and parent company, Facebook) began cracking down on apps and services that used any combination of “insta” or “gram” in their names in order to give a wide berth to Instagram’s valuable trademark. This is a switch from the company’s original policy which had encouraged derivative apps to use either word (but never both). But now that it’s a multi-billion dollar company, the MO has changed. Money will do that I guess.

Although to be honest, as tough as this must be for the Printstagram people, Instagram kind of has an argument. A central tenet of The Lanham Act (the law that governs trademark protection and infringement issues) is that similar marks that are "likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association” may be liable for trademark infringement. That is, if the general public could reasonably assume that Printstagram was actually affiliated with Instagram, that could cause confusion in the marketplace and, potentially, drive revenues away from Instagram. That would be enough to rise to a trademark infringement claim.

I’d be interested to hear the argument Printstagram could’ve mounted in its defense. However, considering the similarity between the names and the nature of Printstagram’s service, they probably would have lost... and they knew it, which is why they’re changing their name.

Anyway, kudos to them for turning lemons into lemonade. They got hit hard but decided to roll with it in a fun way, rather than get bogged down in messy litigation. The email lists several strict but hilarious guidelines for the contest, such as:

• Name must get us into legal trouble, but not for at least 2 years.
• Name must be a future failed band name.
• Name must be more beautiful in Spanish.
• Name must reference a Bill Murray role.
• Name must be something your mother once whispered into your ear.
• Name must be appropriate for the back of a boat.
• Name must have a corresponding gif.

The winning choice will end up with a bunch of free printing, so I might give the contest a shot. I still have some wall space available.

My Take On The Great Monkey-Selfie Copyright Controversy

Happy Friday friends! No doubt you've all heard about the Monkey-Selfie heard 'round the world and I thought I'd weigh in briefly with my take. In 2011, nature photographer David Slater set up his camera in the Indonesian rain forest to photograph the indigenous fauna. When he turned his back for a moment, a black crested macaque took the camera and started snapping selfies. That photo (possibly the greatest selfie in history) was later placed up on Wikimedia Commons and Slater sued to have it taken down, claiming copyright infringement.

Wikipedia, the company behind Wikimedia Commons refused to remove it, however, because it argues that Slater doesn't own the copyright and thus cannot enforce his claim. According to Wikipedia, the monkey took the photo, and because a monkey cannot own and enforce a copyright, the photo is owned by no one and exists in the public domain. Slater of course disagrees, and has spent thousands fighting this case. He even claims that it's even starting to ruin his business.

The case has sparked an interesting discussion online and I've seen many arguments in favor of Slater (it was his camera equipment, he did all the legwork required to get the photo and pressing the shutter was only the final step in a long series of steps that he, and only he, participated in, etc.) and as many against (ownership of the equipment doesn't impute copyright ownership, Slater didn't press the shutter and that's all that matters, there was a lack of intent and creativity on Slater's part, etc.). There's a rundown at Slate from a bunch of law professors explaining why Slater will lose.

Far be it from me to quarrel with a law professor, but I think Slater will win this fight for one very simple reason: copyright laws in this country prioritize financial reward for creativity above other rights. Chris Sprigman, a law professor at New York University, says in the Slate article that, “copyright’s not there to reward people for their labor—it's to incentivize people to create new books or poems." While I agree with Professor Sprigman that the original intent of including copyright protection in the U.S. Constitution was for the benefit of society as a whole, I don't think the legislative history really supports that argument very well these days... especially as far as corporate copyright holders are concerned. The Mickey Mouse Act extending copyright term limits is a great example of Congress prioritizing economic rights over moral rights.

And boy oh boy, if Slater wins, there's a ton of money to be had in monkey selfies. When you consider the fact that the only party in this case that could be financially harmed would be the monkey (who, for obvious reasons, cannot represent himself or be represented in the case), there's really no downside in granting the copyright to Slater. All the rest is window-dressing that a court can easily rationalize away.

What do you think?