Your Copyrights Are Already Protected on Facebook

I was going to let this story slide, but it seems to be driving everyone into a frenzy - including some very intelligent people whom I respect greatly - so I thought I would take a moment to address it here. If you've been on Facebook anytime in the last week, then you've probably seen your friends posting this notice on their timelines:

In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention).

For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!

Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place them under protection of copyright laws. By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook's direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates...

Short version: Facebook is not seeking ownership of your copyrighted works, nor is it doing anything with your copyrighted works that you don't already know about. Posting a notice about it doesn't give you any copyright protections than you didn't already have.

Long version: I understand the talismanic purpose of posting something like that. If enough people do it, it functions like a protest against some of Facebook's more heinous sharing strategies; a preemptive strike against a company that seems to change its terms of service on a whim. But posting that notice is not legally binding. Let me state that again so that it is clear and definitive: posting that notice is completely, totally, and unequivocally useless from a legal standpoint. Here's why:

(1) As I've mentioned before, the moment you create a work of artistic expression, it belongs to you. You are the copyright holder and you are never required to declare to anyone that your copyright has attached to those works. By law, it attaches from the moment it is created.  If, however, you have reason to believe that your copyright has been outright stolen by Facebook or as a result of their practices, that's another matter for which you should seek legal representation.

That copyright covers photos, videos, drawings, writings... anything creative that you make. But copyright does not cover facts or ideas. So while your status update may be copyrightable, your relationship status, name, and other biographical information are not. That means Facebook can share that info without your consent. Furthermore, not all the content on your timeline is your copyright. For example, if your friend posts a photo on your timeline, then you are NOT the copyright holder unless you took the photo.

(2) The Facebook terms of service do not claim ownership over your copyrights, and they have not been changed to claim ownership over your copyrights. The Facebook legal terms page clearly states that:

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.

Instead, Facebook has a license to use your copyrighted works for as long as you possess a Facebook account, but you can limit how much of your information Facebook shares with advertisers and other users through your use of the privacy settings.  And for the record, that's always been the case.

(3) By creating a Facebook account, you have entered a valid, legally binding contract with Facebook.  As a result, there are two effects. First, you cannot retroactively change the terms of a contract just because you don't like the terms.  In other words, you've agreed to let Facebook license your copyrighted works simply by signing up for an account and you can't rescind that term.  You can't plead ignorance to the terms either because in contract law, it is presumed that both sides know what they're getting into before they sign on the dotted line.

Second, Facebook owes you a duty to live up to their side of the bargain as well.  You've already agreed to let Facebook license your copyrighted materials, so it can't just change its terms of service to say "we now own all the material you previously licensed to us."  To do so would be a breach of contract.

But looking beyond the law for a moment, there seems to be a fear that Facebook can arbitrarily change its terms of service to dupe you into relinquishing your copyrights. Certainly Facebook can change its policy to make users sign away their copyrights but why would it? It would be a massive PR migraine, and considering the IPO debacle, Facebook isn't going to engage in an activity that puts its reputation in further jeopardy. If Facebook were to make a massive change like that to its user agreement, it would only apply to new users who sign up after the change is made, not to any of the one billion existing Facebook users.

(4) The fact that Facebook is publicly traded means nothing and has no bearing on the copyright ownership situation. As far as I can tell, "open capacity entity" isn't an actual thing and therefore doesn't mean anything.  Also, it's the "Berne Convention," not the "Berner Convention."

(5) Your copyrights are already protected, regardless of what Facebook does, but what about your privacy? I've seen a lot of people confusing the copyright issue with the privacy issue, but they're not the same. The copyright issue deals with things that you've already posted to Facebook and whether Facebook's use of your copyrighted works constitutes copyright infringement (it doesn't). Privacy deals with who Facebook can share that information with. I won't get into the privacy issue here except to say that you can't claim a right to privacy when you voluntarily place your copyrighted works  in a public or semi-public place, such as your Facebook profile. [Obviously this is a bigger issue, but since it's not at stake here, I'll save it for another time.]

So once again, don't bother posting a copyright notice on your Facebook timeline. All you're doing is wasting valuable space that could be better filled with kitten videos.

The Avengers and Copyright Reform

In honor of the most shoppingest weekend of the year, I'd like to discuss how The Avengers got me thinking about copyright reform.

You see, following the mammoth success of The Avengers this past summer, Marvel Entertainment (owned by Disney) planned to release a six-film box set just in time for the holidays that contained Blu-rays of The Avengers, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America. The films would arrive in a package that replicated the metal briefcase used in The Avengers to carry the film's MacGuffin, the "tesseract."  Here's what it looked like:

Unfortunately for Marvel, the release of the box set was put on hold when German luggage manufacturer Rimowa GmbH sued for trademark infringement and trademark dilution, alleging that the silver briefcase for the six-movie collection was too similar to one of its products, and that releasing the box set would hurt its brand.  The good news for consumers is that while it won't be ready for your holiday shopping needs, the set WILL be released in April with new packaging and special features.

When I read Rimowa's complaint, I rolled my eyes at their claim of trademark dilution claim (they may have a good case on the infringement claim... but I won't use this space to weigh the merits of that argument).  "Here we go again" I thought.  "Another instance of one giant company wielding their intellectual property as a weapon against another giant company so they can squeeze out a few more pennies."  Then my next thought was "at least it's Disney getting sued and not some poor struggling artist."

As you know, I'm a big supporter of intellectual property protection, especially as it pertains to individual artists and creators.  But when the copyright holder is a multinational corporation, my support for protection becomes less absolute.  I don't like bullies and I especially don't like it when giant corporations use their copyrights* to trample over innovation, even if that innovation means some copyrights get infringed.  And to my surprise, a Republican staffer named Derek Khanna agrees with me, writing a policy paper on copyright reform that recently caused a stir.  In the paper, Khanna argues chiefly that our current system of copyright law actually harms the free market, hurts the consumer, and stifles creativity and innovation.  Khanna further argues that the powers to protect intellectual property granted to Congress in the Constitution were designed not solely to benefit the creator.  Rather, they were created to benefit the public, and creator compensation was just a way to fulfill that need.  FYI, the actual text of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 reads that Congress shall have the power:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Khanna recommends several fixes, most of which I agree with.  Expanding Fair use protections (basically, allowing more people to use copyrighted material for certain purposes without paying for it), lowering statutory damages (current damages can see you paying upwards of $150K for each infringed work.  Khanna argues that it's un-American to charge someone millions of dollars for downloading a few dozen songs), punishing false copyright claims (I've talked about this issue before), and significantly lowering the length of copyright ownership from "life of author + 70 years" to 14 years, renewable every 14 years while the author is alive.  Khanna's paper proved so controversial that 24 hours after publishing it, his Republican bosses removed the paper and issued a letter stating that the paper hadn't been properly vetted.  Which makes sense after all; the major media companies (who are also the biggest copyright holders in the world) are big political donors.

In the case of Rimowa v. Marvel, the stakes aren't very high for the average consumer.  People will get the box set they want eventually and if they can't wait, they can go out and buy the films individually.  Disney is going to be just fine... maybe a few million bucks poorer, but that's about it. The underlying issue here is larger than whether I can go and buy a cardboard case filled with movies.  It even goes beyond how much power our current copyright law grants to companies that can use those copyrights to bully the small artist and innovator.  The issue really boils down to whether companies have the same rights as individuals.  Should a company get the same rights I get under the law?  While Khanna's paper rarely singles out corporations as the biggest profiteers and abusers under our current copyright law, it's difficult to imagine that he wasn't thinking about them directly while writing it.   In one passage, he says that "Current public policy should create a disincentive for companies to continue their copyright indefinitely..."  The whole point of the paper seems to be this: copyright too often is used as a weapon to harm individual creators.  Disincentivize that by making copyright ownership less profitable for the corporate owner.  I wholeheartedly agree.  Actually, I will agree with and support just about any reform that takes the power out of the hands of the corporate copyright owner and gives it back to the individual creator.  Art should belong to the artist.

And if the end result is that I can get my Avengers box set sooner than later, then that will be a welcome side effect.

* For the record, yes I do know the difference between copyright and trademark.  For the purpose of this post, however, I'm treating them as interchangeable because they protect different types of the same thing... intellectual property.

For Best Karma, Don't Torrent Copyrighted Works

When I was 20 years old, I became a thief of movies and music and I never even had to leave my house.  1999 to 20003 were boon years to what I call "stay at home theft" because you could download just about any song, TV show, movie, or computer program by means of peer-to-peer networks like Napster, Imesh, Aimster, and Kazaa. Any piece of copyrighted work was at your fingertips, and it was all free and for the taking.  From a copyright enforcement standpoint, those peer-to-peer networks were insidious: every time one of them died in a lawsuit, another took its place.  And when Limewire, the last of the peer-to-peer networks, finally went down in a hail of fire in 2010, it didn't matter.  It was replaced by a system of online file sharing known as "torrenting."

For the record, I have long since abandoned the practice of file sharing (and I do mean long since.  I haven't downloaded a file without paying for it since 2004).  I do not own a single pirated piece of software, MP3, or movie.  Every single song I had downloaded illegally, I have long since deleted and replaced with legal versions through iTunes.  I stopped it because, as I found work in the entertainment industry, I began to realize that people were putting long dedicated hours into creating something special; they shouldn't be rewarded by having that work stolen.  The file-sharing issue finally hit home when I visited my wife (then my girlfriend) at college and spoke to a friend of hers.  Upon hearing that I worked in the television industry, he proudly announced that he had illegally downloaded entire seasons of One Tree Hill.  My first thought was, "Really?  That's what you spent your time downloading?"  But my second thought was, "If you like it enough to download entire seasons of it (which were readily available on DVD at Best Buy), why don't you support the creators by paying for it?"

I used to think of torrenting as a harmless vice, but it really isn't.  Here are three reasons why:

1. Torrenting is illegal!  That's right, it's not just immoral, it's not just frowned upon, it is against the law to download a file that you didn't pay for through the regular channels of commerce. Torrenting without pay is stealing and is no different from walking into a Best Buy, sticking a DVD under your shirt and then walking out the front door. Even worse, if you're caught you could be liable for fines up to $150,000 for each willfully torrented work, or you could even face jail time.  So ask yourself: is that episode of Gossip Girl really worth it?
2. Torrenting results in the little guy getting ground into dust!  From a policy standpoint, torrenting files without paying for them results in the copyright holders - often large corporations - mercilessly suing file-sharers into oblivion.  Have you heard of Joel Tenenbaum?  He downloaded 31 songs from Kazaa and now owes various record labels $675,000.  I already wrote about how the large copyright holders have so much power that they end up going after people who have a legal right to use their copyright, but when people use copyrights for which they DON'T have legal permission, situations like this happen [short version: thirteen record companies sued Limewire for $75 trillion!! They ultimately settled for $105 million and Limewire went kaput].  Suing a poor kid for $700K is bad policy, even if he broke the law maliciously.  But because torrenting is such a huge problem, this kind of policy ends up being encouraged and even embraced by our lawmakers.  Hell, it's gotten so out of hand that record companies have even sued children and dead people for illegally downloading music.
3. Torrenting is bad for innovation!  When people download copyrighted files without paying, that results in studios and networks (who are literally paralyzed with fear over pirating) greenlighting only proven moneymakers. That's why every band sounds like Nickelback and every movie looks like it was directed by Michael Bay.  Those artists still make money despite the rampant pirating.  Think about it: the smaller something is, the harder it is to gain traction and the harder it is to become profitable.  If that work gets pirated from the outset, then the studios will make less money off an already untested product.  It's just easier to greenlight Transformers 9: Optimus Prime's Colonoscopy because no matter how many people pirate it, it will still make a metric sh*t ton of cash at the box office.  Take a look at this chart.  Eight of the top ten films of 2011 were sequels to established franchises and the other two were comic book adaptations. Ever wonder why most movies these days are sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, and adaptations?  Established brands means that the studio will make some money, regardless of the pirates.

Here's what it boils down to: when you legitimately purchase copies of movies and music, you're telling the artist that you support her. You put her in a place financially where she can continue generating the stuff you love.  When you steal a movie or piece of music, you're telling the artist that you don't care if she can make a living and you're threatening her ability to continue generating that work.  Help me keep artists working and put a stop to the torrenting.

Filmmaker-2-Filmmaker: Tip 3 - Sweat The Business Stuff

Have you seen Night of the Living Dead?  Even if you haven't, you are probably aware of its influence.  The 1968 George Romero horror film is the progenitor of every modern zombie trope; the shambling, the flesh-eating, the brain-lust.  Dawn of the Dead, 28 Days Later, Resident Evil, World War Z, the list of imitators and followers extends to infinity.  Everything you know about zombies came from this film.  On top of that, the film is great.  It was terrifying in a way that horror films just weren't until then.  The black and white cinematography is among the most beautiful ever put on film.  And forty-four years later, the film is still teaching us... about copyright?

Before the film was released, it was originally titled Night of the Flesh Eaters, and like all movies of it s day, there was a copyright mark next to the title (that famous little © followed by a date).  But when the title was changed to Night of the Living Dead, the copyright mark was negligently removed.  Based on the copyright law of the time, the absence of the © rendered the film's copyright invalid and the movie immediately entered the public domain.  That meant that anyone could make money off the movie and Romero couldn't do anything about it.  Today, the film is sold on home video by a number of different distributors and is available to view or download free on Hulu and YouTube.

Night isn't the only movie currently in the public domain, but it's rare to see a film on that list that isn't from the 20s, 30s, and 40s.  Thankfully, that law became defunct in 1988 and today artists are no longer required to place the © mark on their work in order to maintain the copyright, although I still recommend doing it (For information on how to protect your copyright, please see my previous post on how and why to register).  Romero has since gone on to make seven million zombie films (only a slight exaggeration), and he owns the copyright to many of them.

So why am I writing about this?  First, because it's an awesome anecdote and an appropriate one for the first day of October.  Second, because it functions as a cautionary tale for every artist out there.  It's tempting to say "I'll take care of the art now and worry about the business stuff later" because as artists, that's where our passion lies.  Our instinct says that if the art is good enough, the business stuff will just fall into place on its own.  Of course, that isn't the reality.  I can attest to that from personal experience...people will try to take advantage of you, either by design or accident.  No one is going to protect your work for you, which is why you need to sweat the business stuff from the moment you begin a project until the moment you deliver it.  It may not be fun to labor over copyright applications or contracts, but that's how you prevent the world from gaining unfettered access to your work (and let's face it, if you're an artist your work isn't just a living, it is an extension of you).  To Romero, the image of zombies in a field was the most terrifying thing he could think of.  To me, it's the idea that because of a little negligence, someone else can make money off your work.

If you're an artist or a filmmaker, you need to condition yourself to take the business side seriously from the beginning.  Don't leave it to the end and certainly don't leave it entirely in the care of another.  Here are some things you should be asking yourself:

1. Is my original work registered with the U.S. Copyright Office?  If not, it should be.
2. Regardless of whether I registered my copyright, did I put ©, the date of publication, and my name on the work?  If not, I should.
3. Do I know what my value is?  If not, I should figure it out and stick by it.
4. Do I have a contract?  If not, I should have one.  It doesn't need to be long or lawyer-y.  It just has to state the terms.  It doesn't even have to be drafted by a lawyer (although it helps).
5. If I'm pitching original ideas, did I have people sign non-disclosure agreements?  I should.
6. Do I own the copyright or does my employer?  This is called work-for-hire and the general rule is that if you are hired to do a creative work for someone, the employer, not you, owns the copyright (this is a bigger issue and I'll tackle it in a future post).
7. Did I double and triple check all my papers (including papers that I had other people sign and papers that other people had me sign)?

Bottom line: pay attention to every little particular because the devil - or in this case, the zombies - are in the details.

Lululemon is Literally Suing The Pants Off Calvin Klein: Intellectual Property Upheaval in The Fashion Industry

It will come as a surprise to no one that I don't know thing one about fashion or the fashion industry.  In fact, I recently suggested to my wife that she start a blog called "Things I Make My Husband Wear" that would chronicle her efforts to teach me about the importance of clothing and turn me from someone who looks like  a shiftless farmhand into a professional adult.  Time will tell if she decides to take on this monumental endeavor.

But even I know when something strange is afoot at the Circle K*, and the month of September has seen the rumblings of a shift in the way the fashion industry operates, as designers scramble to protect their work in ways that have historically been off-limits.  A few weeks ago, my friend Lauren sent me this link explaining how popular yoga-pant trafficker Lululemon is suing Calvin Klein for infringing its patent by copying its "Astro" pant design; specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Calvin Klein ripped off the Astro's waistband as well as two other design elements.

Here are the pants in question:

The lawsuit is surprising, since copycatting in the fashion design industry is so generally accepted.  In the fashion world, suing a copycat over patent infringement is uncommon because design patents are so hard to obtain in the first place and even harder to protect.  There are two kinds of patents: Design patents which protect "original and ornamental design" and utility patents which are far more common and protect physical inventions that possess some level of usefulness. [Copyright law doesn't apply here since copyright protects forms of expression, whereas patent law protects items that are functional.]  So why are design patents so hard to get in the fashion world?  According to attorney Adrian Pruetz, "[i]t's very hard to come up with something that's new and that hasn't just been part of the clothing vernacular."  After all, everyone wear some variation of pants, shirts, and shoes, and finding something unique is difficult because the history of clothing design extends back for over a thousand years.

The copycatting has gotten so out of control that NY Senator Chuck Schumer sponsored a bill** that would provide some intellectual property protections for designers.  The bill, which just passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, would aim to protect fashion designs that are unique, distinguishable, non-trivial, and non-utilitarian.  Schumer, of course, has some selfish reasons for sponsoring this bill: New York is considered by many to be the nation's fashion capital, employing over 200,000 people in the industry, so this bill is as much about protecting jobs as it is about protecting patentable innovation.

Enough of the news, here's my take: I'm all for the Schumer bill and any reasonable patent protections for fashion designers in general.  A running theme in this blog is my support for protecting the work of artists, and I see no reason to deviate from that now.  But some people have argued that design patents are more trouble than they're worth and should be limited or even abolished.  Ilse Metchek, President of the California Fashion Association, says "[t]his whole notion that you'd grant a patent to anyone who adds a seam or two to a waistband is quite problematic. It's only going to create more litigation, and that's hardly something the fashion industry needs more of."  I can see her concern.  Clothes are a necessity of life and if you permit designers to repeatedly sue other designers for infringement, you affect not just other fashion houses, but literally everyone.  Clothes would become much more expensive and only the companies who could afford to withstand lawsuits would survive.  That would stifle artistic expression and innovation.  Bad medicine indeed.

Which is why the Schumer bill is a good start: its patent protections are very limited and would only extend to designs that are extremely unique and distinguishable.  Furthermore, the protection would only last for three years from the date of publication, would provide certain liability limitations (such as no liability for someone who copies a design for home use only), and would force plaintiffs to plead detailed facts in their initial complaints in order to limit frivolous lawsuits.  Designs that predate the bill's enactment would not be eligible for protection and would thus be public domain.  The entire bill smacks of reasonableness, which frankly means that everyone will hate it.  But the bill is designed around an industry that is built on copying others and it recognizes that reality.  In my opinion, it's a good way to let people protect their work, while still allowing room for copying designs not unique enough for protection.

As for the Lululemon/ Calvin Klein row, I won't debate the merits of the case here since I haven't seen the court documents. I will say that Lululemon is clearly making a stand here against Calvin Klein, Gap, and any other retail chain that threatens its business. I have no dog in this fight, but there are plenty in the fashion industry that do.  It should be interesting to see what happens.

* Sixty quatloos to the person who gets this reference.  Please state your answer in the comments section below.

** Thank you to my lovely wife for pointing out the existence of this bill!

Microsoft And The Amazing Technicolor Trade Dress Infringement

"Good artists copy.  Great artists steal." - Steve Jobs

By that logic, the boys in Redmond are pretty great.  A few weeks ago, I was walking through the Prudential Center in Boston and came across the newly opened Microsoft Retail Store.  If you've seen one, then you probably thought the same thing I did: they totally ripped off the Apple Store!  Here's a picture I took the other day:

And for comparison's sake, here's a picture of the Apple Store I worked at three years ago:

Aside from the visual similarities to the store exteriors, both include well-lit, spartan layouts with wooden tables featuring hands-on product displays.  Both stores are divided by product type: MP3 players, smart phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, accessories. They both feature Genius bars where customers can get immediate tech assistance.  Employees in both stores wear brightly colored T-shirts and lanyards, and walk around with touchscreen tablets to ring up customers.  While Microsoft's store is generally more colorful inside, the design language is obviously Apple's.

"Why hasn't Apple sued them into oblivion?" I thought.  [I must admit a little bias and outrage since I'm a rabid Apple partisan]. The resemblance between the stores was uncanny.  Curiosity compelled me to look into it and this is what I found: Microsoft can get away with ripping off Apple because no one is walking into a Microsoft Store to buy Apple products.

You see, U.S. Trademark Law protects something called "trade dress" which is defined as "the total image or overall design or appearance of a product or its packaging."  Trade dress also includes design and layout of a retail space or restaurant.  In an effort to protect its store designs from theft, Apple registered those designs with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  This past May, the USPTO approved Apple's registration; you can see those documents here.  In response, Microsoft filed an objection to that registration, claiming that Apple's store designs aren't distinct enough to be protectable (so we may actually see a fight over this issue soon).

The distinctiveness issue aside, you can understand why Apple would want to prevent Microsoft from using its store designs.  But if Apple sues Microsoft for trade dress infringement, Apple will lose.  That's because Apple can only prevail by showing, among other things, that the Microsoft Store is so similar that people are likely to get confused and walk in thinking it's an Apple Store.  Frankly, that's a losing argument for the following reason.

In a trade dress infringement case, courts can weigh a variety of factors on the confusion issue, including the relationship between the brands in the minds of the consumers.  In this case, Apple and Microsoft are two of the largest corporations in the world (Apple just passed Microsoft as the world's biggest company as measured by stock market value).  Both companies were founded by men who are/were world-famous geniuses.  People are aware that the two companies are in direct competition with one another and know the Apple logo the same way they recognize the Disney logo, the Coca-Cola logo, or the Superman emblem.  Apple is the world leader in electronics sales, specifically when it comes to the iPod (which revolutionized the MP3 player market) and touchscreen devices like the iPad and iPhone - Last quarter alone, Apple sold 17 million iPads and 2 million iPhone 5's... and the phone hasn't even been released yet!  These devices are synonymous with Apple.  Furthermore, Apple's entire line of notebooks and desktops contain the same well-known design scheme, aluminum casing with black accents and a glowing Apple logo.  By the same token, the public recognizes Microsoft's logo from daily use, since 95% of the world's computers run its Windows operating system.  Nearly every business in the world uses Microsoft Word and Excel.  Microsoft is also the creator of the Xbox 360, one of the most successful video game consoles of all time.

If someone did walk into a Microsoft Store looking for an Apple product, they would immediately discover that they were in the wrong place due to the absence of Apple's logo and dearth of Apple products.  Based on these facts, I think Apple is in no danger of losing sales to Microsoft just because the stores look the same.  That is, after all, the whole point of suing for trade dress infringement... that someone has purposely confused the customer in order to draw sales away from the trade dress owner.

In short, the public knows who Apple and Microsoft are, and no one's mistaking one for the other.  Because the likelihood of confusion between the stores is negligible, it's no shock that Apple hasn't commenced a lawsuit against Microsoft.  Microsoft made its retail store plans public back in 2009, and while I wouldn't completely rule out a legal fight over this at some point, I think Apple knows it doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

[Author's Note: I dramatically over-simplified the trade dress analysis for a few reasons.  First, for the sake of brevity; second, because it can get extremely convoluted and you probably don't care that much; and third, because at the end of the day I truly believe that this case would hinge on the confusion issue.  Of course, if there are any trademark lawyers out there who take issue with my analysis, please feel free to tell me why I got it wrong!]

Filmmaker-2-Filmmaker: Tip 2 - Copyrighting Your Writing

[Author's Note: this post contains legal information but is not intended as legal advice. All the legal information contained in this blog post is public domain and available to everyone.]

Between high school and law school, I wrote 21 screenplays - 5 features, and 16 shorts.  Like many creative types, I only had a vague idea of what copyright was and had no concept of how to use copyright to protect that work.  As a result, I was too scared to show my writing to anyone for fear of theft.  Those scripts sat collecting dust for a very long time.

So when I get a question like this - "If I want to copyright a movie script in the U.S., how do I do it? And do I have to be a citizen?" - I feel compelled to pass on the knowledge and experience that I have been blessed with since that time.  This particular question came from my cousin, a man who is as much a movie buff as I am, and with whom I've spent countless hours geeking out over a wide variety of films.  And while the citizenship question is not one that most of you will face, it does tap into the fundamentals of U.S. Copyright Law.  So let's get to it!

U.S. Copyright Law is really an artist’s dream because there are so many devices built into it that help artists protect their work.  Here are some good ones:

1. The moment you create a work of artistic expression, such as a screenplay, and that work is fixed in a tangible form (i.e. you wrote it down), that work is copyrighted.  No registration of any kind is required.  You don't need official documentation to copyright something and, believe it or not, you don't even need to put that little © on the work (although it’s still advisable… the more information there is to demonstrate authorship and date of creation, the better you can protect yourself).  Basically, the moment you put pen to paper, you are the owner of that intellectual property (minus some exceptions that I won't go into here).
2. Just about everything creative qualifies for copyright protection (you can’t, however, copyright ideas or concepts). For those interested in the specifics, Section 102 of the Copyright Law outlines what is covered.  The list is not exhaustive and is left wide open for future types of artistic expression.
3. If you create a work, then you, your children, your grandchildren, and maybe even your great-grandchildren can benefit financially from it.  Most copyrights last for the life of the author plus 70 years.
4. If someone steals your work, you can sue for quite a bit of money.  Damages range from $750.00, to $150,000 for each infringed work!
5. And yes, even if you’re not a U.S. citizen, you can still benefit from U.S. Copyright Law protections.  According to the U.S. Copyright Office, “Any work that is protected by U.S. copyright law can be registered. This includes many works of foreign origin. All works that are unpublished, regardless of the nationality of the author, are protected in the United States.”

But even with all these protections, U.S. Copyright Law can’t prevent someone from stealing your hard work.  And if you end up in a situation where someone is claiming your writing as their own, you need to show that your work predates theirs.  For that, you need documented proof.  So although your artistic expression is copyrighted from the moment it’s created, registering it with the Copyright Office or the Writers Guild of America (WGA) is the best way to create that proof and take advantage of all those great benefits I just outlined.

True story: in 2003, I went to pitch several TV shows to development execs at a Hollywood production company that I had freelanced for.  The ideas were fairly detailed, but I had not written them down.  The execs politely informed me that the ideas weren't right for them and sent me on my way.  A few months later, I went back to interview for another low paid freelance position at that company, only to discover that I was interviewing for a job on a new show that bore a suspicious resemblance to one I had pitched them months before.  I put up a fight and, as you might expect, wasn’t hired by them again.  I felt angry and helpless, mostly because I didn’t have any proof that I had come up with the ideas myself.

If I had typed up my ideas into “treatments” and registered those treatments with the Copyright Office and the WGA, I could have sued for theft of my copyright because the registrations would have created a public record showing that my idea had existed before their show.

There are three main ways to register, they're all relatively painless, and you can do as many or as few as you want:

1. Register your work with the U.S. Copyright Office.  You can register online at the Copyright Office website. There’s a $35 filing fee (per work) and the processing time is roughly between 2-3 months.
2. Register your work with the Writers Guild of America.  You can register online at the WGA East or WGA West.  The filing fees for non-members are $25 per work for WGA East and $20 per work for WGA West.  You can also register with either by mail if you prefer.  I’ve registered works with both the Copyright Office and the WGA and the protections are comparable.  The whole point is to make sure that there’s an official record of your work somewhere in case you need to prove it.
3. The last option is known as the “poor man’s copyright.”  If you wish to have evidence that your work came first, but cannot pay the filing fees (remember, at the Copyright Office or the WGA, you must pay the fee FOR EACH WORK registered), you can mail yourself a copy of the work.  The envelope will be stamped with a date and that date will be the proof of origin.  Of course, the envelope must remain sealed once you receive it.  To open it would be to eradicate the purpose of sending it yourself (if the envelope remains sealed, no one can tamper with the contents). In my experience, the “poor man’s copyright” isn’t nearly as effective as the first two, mostly because people forget that they’re not supposed to open the envelope.  One time, I mailed myself my own screenplay (it cost $10 to mail).  A week later, I received it in the mail.  I was so excited to get a package that I neglected to look at the sender's address (MINE!) and tore open the envelope to find my own script.  Whoops!  Suffice to say, that was not $10 well spent.

Speaking from personal experience, registering my writing gave me the peace of mind I needed to feel comfortable showing it to others without fear of it being stolen.  My feeling is, if I can’t prove that I own the copyright, I can’t prove theft and thus, can’t win in a lawsuit.

As an aside: the Copyright Office is a great resource for artists and writers looking for information on how the law works.  It also contains the complete copyright law for you to peruse.

Hugo No Go: Why Copyright Net Bots Just Don't Work [Updated!]

Three days ago, fans of science fiction television, film, and literature were watching the online broadcast of the Hugo Awards on video streaming service Ustream. Midway through the broadcast – just as novelist Neil Gaiman was accepting an award for an episode of Dr. Who he had scripted – the broadcast went dark and viewers were confronted with the notice “banned due to copyright infringement.” The program never returned and a torrent of anger and frustration filled the twittersphere. You can read about the whole situation at io9 (thanks to Adam Doyle for the link). So why did this happen?

Because a net bot employed by Ustream determined that the Hugo Awards broadcast violated several copyrights and did what it was programmed to do: shut it down. See, like all awards ceremonies, the Hugos used brief clips of the nominated shows and films. The net bot (just a fancy word for “software”) determined that these clips infringed on the clip owners’ copyrights and cut off the feed. As it later turned out, no infringements had actually been made. The clips had been provided by the rights holders for use in the ceremony and, according to Ustream’s CEO, the net bot hadn’t been calibrated properly to filter out works that were permitted.

Maybe this was a simple case of bad programming, or maybe the bot was doing exactly what it was supposed to do. Either way, this little technical hiccup illustrates a growing problem in the online world: major copyright holders (often they are corporations), in attempting to prevent the unlawful use of their copyrighted material, are turning to net bots to automatically find and disrupt websites that display those materials. Unfortunately, the net bots are taking down lawful works because they can’t tell the difference between works that are in the public domain and those that are copyrighted.

In 2007, Cory Doctorow of The Guardian warned of this impending problem. His main thesis in opposition to these net bots is the difficulty in programming them to take down actually pirated works, while differentiating them from lawful uses. Because these programs cannot tell the difference, they have the potential to disrupt how we communicate. According to Doctorow, the bots “would [] have to be nearly perfect in regards to false positives - every time it misidentified a home movie of your kids' first steps or your gran's 85th birthday as Police Academy 29 or Star Wars: Episode 0, Jedi Teen Academy, your own right to use the Internet to communicate with your friends and family would be compromised.”

Five years later, Doctorow has been proven right. Last month, Youtube briefly removed video of the Curiosity Mars rover landing because it was flagged as an infringing use of copyrighted work by Youtube’s Content ID system, even though the video was uploaded by NASA and was in the public domain. A similar occurrence happened this past February when a man received a bogus takedown notice from Youtube because his nature video contained singing birds in the background, content that Rumblefish had deemed to be copyrighted.

These articles at Ars Technica and Motherboard explain how Youtube’s Content ID system works, and have nice breakdowns as to why the system is so flawed. Part of the reason appears to be a simple technical inability to program the bots to tell the difference between lawful and unlawful uses of copyrighted works. But there's also an element of corruption: automated systems like Youtube’s Content ID heavily favor large copyright holders because they pressured Youtube into having an automated system that went beyond the notice-and-takedown regime established under the current law (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

Because of this, Motherboard claims that the system encourages copyright holders to cast a wide net over a vast array of works, some of which are only tangentially related or completely unrelated to their copyrights. “YouTube’s system is [] heavily biased in favor of claimants, and [] is increasingly controlling of content that has serious educational or scientific value... many of Martin Luther King, Jr.‘s speeches are no longer available on YouTube thanks to automatic and manual copyright claims by the owner of King’s speeches, the British music giant EMI Publishing."  

Obviously the benefits to an automated system are cost effectiveness and speedy removal of copyrighted works from a website. But because there is no human being at the other end making determinations as to whether or not a work is being infringed, the little guy often suffers. Forget fair use of someone else's copyright, some people have had their own copyrighted work taken down because it was claimed to be owned by someone else – just two months ago, comedian Brian Kamerer had his video taken down from Youtube because NBC claimed it owned the copyright, despite the fact that Kamerer had made the video and it had been used (without his permission) on The Tonight Show.

I think that copyright law one of the things that make America truly great. Seriously. It sends a message that we as a society prize originality and expression. It says that we understand the value of independence and innovation. It shows that we are willing to allow the fruits of your work to be protected from theft. Certainly, we can all quibble over the specifics of the law, such as duration of the life of the copyright, how much in damages an infringer should pay, or the types of works protected; there are legitimate policy discussions to be had about these things. Even with all that room to argue, I think copyright protections are good for artists, good for innovators, and good for our country as a whole. But when a system isn’t monitored properly or at all, it can start to lay waste to everything it should be protecting. Copyright law is no exception.

[Update: 9:30am, September 5, 2012] Youtube has taken down Michelle Obama's DNC speech from last night because it triggered Youtube's copyright infringement filters.  Ugh.

Why Apple May Not Be A Billion Dollars Richer

(Author’s note: on top of being an Apple fanboy, I should disclose that I worked for Apple from October 2008 until August 2009 in their Westchester, NY retail store).

Maybe I spoke too soon.  There's a write-up over at Gizmodo (by way of the good people at Groklaw) explaining how the jury verdict in the Apple v. Samsung trial was flawed and may spend the next few years winding its way through the appeals process.  The crux of the problem seems to be the inconsistent findings of the jury and the relatively quick deliberation (3 days) for what was a fairly convoluted case.  There may be other problems as well, such as how the Galaxy Tab escaped patent infringement.

So it looks like this issue is far from resolved and Apple isn't going to collect its billions anytime soon.  Groklaw's analysis is a real eye-opener and if you're at all interested in this case, you should check them out.  I feel like I should have a deeper analysis here beyond "whoops," but in truth I didn't see all the evidence, I wasn't in the courtroom, and I don't know how deliberations went down in the jury room.  Having been a juror and a judicial clerk, I have a unique insight into the process and I can say that juries tend to take their responsibilities seriously.  Indeed, there's evidence here that the jurors in Apple v. Samsung made their choice deliberately and carefully.

Regardless of whichever way this case swings, I stand by what I said in my original post: Samsung should take the opportunity to invest in brilliant designers/ engineers and innovate new ways to differentiate itself from Apple's design language.  Take a look at the Windows-enabled Nokia Lumia 900.

This phone is sleek, attractive, and the Windows Metro operating system accomplishes the same tasks as iOS, but in a radically different (yet appealing) way.  It's just gorgeous!  Furthermore, Apple's design aesthetic is nowhere to be found.   I'm an iPhone man through and through, but I've seriously considered making the switch.  I'm not competent to speak about Microsoft's business strategy, but its design strategy is a winner.  Samsung may ultimately come out of this process in better shape than we expected, but nobody becomes an industry leader by following what others are doing.  To lead from the front, you need to innovate.  That's what Apple has done, that's what Microsoft is (finally) doing, and if Samsung doesn't want to be an also-ran, that's where it should be putting whatever money it doesn't eventually have to pay Apple.

Apple To Be A Billion Dollars Richer!

(Author’s note: on top of being an Apple fanboy, I should disclose that I worked for Apple from October 2008 until August 2009 in their Westchester, NY retail store).

I have a second Apple-related post coming next week, but as a gadget freak and a design junkie, I would be remiss if I didn't say something about Apple's courtroom victory over Samsung this Friday.  A jury of nine has smacked Samsung with a $1.05 billion fine as punishment for violating Apple's various mobile phone patents.  In a nutshell, Apple claimed that Samsung blatantly ripped off the iPhone's software and hardware designs following the release of the first iPhone in 2007.  The jury agreed.  Now I'm completely in the bag for Apple, but that doesn't mean the verdict was wrong.  After all, it's difficult to look at this...

...and not see that Samsung totally ripped off the iPhone.  This is an important victory because design is a big part of how we see and interact with the world. Permitting someone to co-opt the design language of an innovator without due deference sends the wrong message about what kind of society we are.  Patent infringement is a kind of theft, and our legal system was constructed as a way of protecting the rights of those who innovate.  One of the consequences of the verdict is that gadget designers will no longer be able to draw from the Apple well - within the year, we're likely to see smartphones and tablets take on radically different design elements, both in hardware and in software.  This is a good thing both for business and for the design world and I think that Steve Jobs would have been a fervent supporter of this outcome.

I'm currently reading his biography by Walter Isaacson and it's fascinating to see how Jobs approached each and every product as if it were art.  To him, a product shouldn't be defined solely by its function; it must be aesthetically pleasing as well.  Jobs once said to Fortune Magazine, “in most people’s vocabularies, design means veneer. It’s interior decorating. It’s the fabric of the curtains of the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.”  When Jobs led the Macintosh development team back in 1982, he made his engineers redesign the Mac's circuit boards because they weren't pretty enough.  Even though the circuit board wouldn't be seen by the average user, to Jobs the entire computer had to be perfect - inside and out.  Otherwise, it failed as art.

Jobs was so protective of his design aesthetic that in 1985, when Steve Wozniak (Jobs' best friend and business partner) left Apple to design a universal remote, Jobs refused to let Wozniak hire the same company that designed the Macintosh.  He didn't want any other product to look or feel anything like the Mac.

Of course, Jobs famously appropriated Picasso's mantra "good artists copy, great artists steal," so maybe there's a little irony in Apple's triumph over Samsung.