It did not.

It was merely your standard, cookie-cutter, off-the-shelf WordPress theme with no modifications or alterations, no unique HTML code and no embedded processes. The site did not even contain original photographs, since the web designer he had hired contented himself with stock photos purchased from Getty. While they were nice photographs, and the site itself was attractive, there was nothing about it that would cause a lawyer to make haste for the patent office.

After looking at his site, I told my friend I did not see a basis for a patent application, so he switched gears and asked if I could trademark the website, or copyright it. While both of these options are possible – and, in fact, trademarking a URL has historically been fairly common – of late the PTO has been turning away dot-com trademark applications like unwanted junk mail. And although copyrighting the content of a static website is technically feasible – all one has to do is send off a copy of the text with a check to the copyright office – as a practical matter it does not serve much purpose. Under prevailing U.S. law whatever you write and publish to the web is automatically protected by copyright, and formally registering that material with the government merely gives you the right to sue any subsequent infringer for statutory damages. While that may be enough to justify registration for some folks, usually it is just a waste of $35.

The one exception to this would be if you created a website using a new language (e.g.,YOU-NIX). However, unless there is something special about the code which you fear will give rise to copycats or make it attractive to the BitTorrent crowd, there is very little likelihood that your source code is going to wind up being sold at underground swap meets. If it does make its way into the public domain, then you can still register your copyright and sue for infringement. The after-filed registration merely limits your available remedies, and forces you to prove the factual issue of when the material was created. When I explained all of this to my friend, he shook his head and muttered something about the opacity of the law. Then he started telling me about a great investment called derivatives. Ten minutes into his convoluted explanation about subordinated notes, second tranches, and slicing-and-dicing sub-prime mortgages I gave up and mentally departed the scene. Even if it does have a few flaws and inconsistencies (e.g., the FACE trademark), intellectual property is still far more logical than investment banking.

The only derivative I want to concern myself with is “derivative use.” The analysis may be obscure, or obtuse — it may even be opaque — but unlike financial derivatives the theory behind it remains constant. And you can take that to the bank.

Related Posts:

• Grooveshark and the Copyright Pirates
• Factoids About the Google Books Settlement
• The RIAA Will Sue Your Grandma
• Live Nude Copyrights

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 Robert Scott Lawrence

A number of reports quote the complaint as alleging that Grooveshark’s executive officers not only directed the illegal uploading, but participated in the wrongdoing themselves, going so far as to claim that CEO Samuel Tarantino personally uploaded at least 1,791 copyrighted songs to the Grooveshark system, Senior Vice President Paul Geller uploaded 3,453 copyrighted songs to the system, and Vice President Benjamin Westermann-Clark uploaded more than 4,600 illegal tracks. Although, as a general rule, I tend be skeptical about allegations of pervasive wrongdoing in the upper echelons of a company when they are casually bruited about without any accompanying proof, the allegations – if true – do not bode well for Grooveshark’s future. The company has been plagued by similar litigation in the past, which resulted in settlements and licensing agreements with Capitol and Virgin Records (among others), but in recent days the attacks have come with a relentlessness that bodes ill for Grooveshark. Among other setbacks, earlier in the week the anti-piracy group RettighedsAlliancen (renowned for taking on Pirate Bay) exhorted the Danish courts to have the country’s Internet service providers block Grooveshark in Denmark. While Grooveshark has managed to weather such storms in the past, the efforts now being brought to bear against the company may presage its doom.

Stay tuned for further news and updates.

Update 11/23/2011:   Click here for a copy of the just-released Universal v. Grooveshark Complaint. Click  here to see the Exhibits to the Universal v. Grooveshark Complaint.

Related Posts:

• Copyrighted
• A Pirate’s Life For Me
• The RIAA Will Sue Your Grandma
• You Can’t Sing That on TV!

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 Robert Scott Lawrence

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve fallen down on the job. In strict counterpoint to Future Tom and his almost mythological daily posting, my production has withered as my workload has increased. The new move, the new job, the new commute, the new hairstyle — they all conspired to throw me off my game. Instead of posting jocular commentary about the insanity of the virtual world and the plebeian nearsightedness of the PTO, I have been applying myself at work, Hemingway-style, engaged in industry, high finance, and the tedium of document review. My lighthearted moments appear at increasingly longer ends of the sine wave, and tend to strike me unawares about 11:00 at night, when I climb into my IP-laden Tesla roadster and silently zip home on the toll roads to the Elysian hunting camp in which I now reside.

I post here in an almost-but-not-quite embarrassed fashion to explain to you that with respect to my blog — just as with my languishing marathon training — I have adopted a new resolve. I vow to post more frequently and regain the vigor of my misspent youth. If you thought I was amusing before, prepare yourself for an entirely new level of amusement, Rabelaisian in scope, Machiavellian in design, Neapolitan in choice of pastry.

And when, you ask, will this  new romance commence?

Soon. Very soon.  Perhaps as soon as the day after yesterday.

If you misplaced or forgot to bookmark my URL, please subscribe to my feed now. For those of you who hate to subscribe to things but still have sufficient neurological juice left in your big big brains to remember short phrases,  just open up your browser and type “Who Is Your Lawyer” in one of its myriad forms (e.g., Who Is Your Lawyer, whoisyourlawyer, whois your lawyer, whoisyour lawyer, or even “who’s your lawyer” or “whos your lawyer“). Eventually, you will find your way to my site, as all variations of Who Is Your Lawyer? lead to me.

Be forewarned that on occasion these latter variations of my name will attempt to waylay the distractible reader with intriguing articles about the now-defunct series Rex Is Not Your Lawyer. As much as I hate to say it, that is not my series nor my site, as I am not David Tennant  (however much I appreciate his work in Dr. Who).

Related Posts:

• Another Cinderella Story
• How to Copyright Your Face
• Captain America in Court
• Copyrighted

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 Robert Scott Lawrence

However, he neglected to vet one thing no one thought would be an issue:  the cover art.

After unsuccessfully attempting to create a tribute cover on his own, Baio had a friend do a pixel art recreation of the original album cover, a sort of hip rendition of the originally hip (and now iconoclastic) photograph by New York photographer Jay Maisel. If you are a fan of Miles Davis and are of an age to remember when there were such things as albums, undoubtedly the album cover will ring a bell.

Shortly after the tribute album was released, Baio was contacted by Maisel’s lawyers, who asserted that the pixelated cover  infringed on Maisel’s copyright. They sought statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each infringement, plus attorneys fees, or in the alternative actual damages and all profits attributed to the unlicensed use of the photograph. Rather than contest the issue, after several months of negotiation the parties reached a superficially amicable settlement whereby Baio agreed to pay Maisel $32,500 and voluntarily agreed to stop using the pixelated artwork.  As is typical, the settlement agreement contains the standard recitation that neither party admits fault, and thus the question of whether the pixelated tribute cover is “fair use” was never addressed nor decided.

Though one can understand why Baio would settle in the face of enormous potential damages and the certainty of significant legal fees, the settlement itself fails to bring any clarity to a debate that’s been played out in various iterations for years between artists and copyright holders, and leaves artists involved in digital reinterpretations of copyrighted works in a state of perpetual anxiety. Is Baio’s pixelated art “fair use” under the copyright laws, or infringement?

Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question. While there is an abundance of information (perhaps an overabundance) about the doctrine of “fair use” on the internet and in legal treatises, the concept itself has created significant disagreement amongst judges and scholars, who have been unable to agree on a clear definition of the term. The doctrine itself is intrinsically ambiguous and continually reinterpreted by new caselaw.

In determining whether an artist’s rendition of an existing work constitutes “fair use,” the court considers four main factors:

(a) The purpose and character of the use:   Was the original work transformed into something new or was it copied in its entirety?
(b) The nature of the copyrighted work;
(c) The amount and substantiality of the portion taken;
(d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for the original work.

The core of the disagreement between Baio and Maisel turned on the first factor — whether the Kind of Bloop cover art was “transformative” or not.  Baio took the position that it was transformative, and Maisel took the position that it was derivative in such a way that infringed on his continuing rights in the photograph. Stanford’s Fair Use Center poses the question the artist must ask himself in this way:   “Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?” Arguably, Baio’s tribute to Kind of Blue satisfied the test of transformative use both from an objective and subjective point of view. As Baio himself has said:

Kind of Bloop was a creative experiment. I was drawn to the contradiction between the textured, subdued emotion in Kind of Blue and the cold, mechanical tones of retro videogame music. The challenge was to see whether chiptune artists could create something highly improvisational, warm, and beautiful from the limited palette of 1980s game consoles.

Similarly, the purpose of the album art was to engage both artist and viewer in the same exercise — can NES-style pixel art capture the artistic essence of the original album cover, with a fraction of the resolution and color depth of an analog photograph?

It reinforced the artistic themes of the project, to convey the feel of an entire album reimagined through an 8-bit lens. Far from being a copy, the cover art comments on it and uses the photo in new ways to send a new message.

Taking art from one medium and repurposing it in another is a seminal type of transformative “fair use.” Biao’s use of Maisel’s photograph arguably was transformative in the same way that Jeff Koons’ use of a photo of Gucci sandals in his painting Niagara was found to add “something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.” In Koons’ case, he digitally scanned the photo and incorporated it into his painting Niagara as one of four pairs of legs depicted. He used only the legs — discarding the background of the airplane cabin and the man’s lap on which the legs rested. He also inverted the orientation of the legs so that they dangled vertically downward rather than slanting upward at a 45-degree angle as they appear in the photograph. He added a heel to one of the feet, and modified the colors. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the alterations to the original fashion photograph were significant enough to constitute transformative — and thus “fair” — use. In Baio’s case, the argument put forward is that the rendition of the cover art in pixelated form is a distinct medium, and that the transformation from photograph to pixelation is inherently transformative.

The second fair use factor is the nature of the copyrighted work. Works that are factual tend to be deemed fair use (e.g., publishing a photograph in the context of criticism is fair use); works that are creative in a way that impinges on an author’s derivative rights (e.g., writing an unauthorized sequel to The Catcher in the Rye) tend to be deemed infringing. Maisel’s photograph is creative, but also documentary in nature. Baio’s argument was that the pixelated cover art was a sort of homage to the original that evoked it without treading on Maisel’s intellectual property rights.

With regard to the third factor, although the illustration does represent the cover of Kind of Blue, it does so at a dramatically reduced resolution that incorporates few of the photograph’s protectable elements. While courts routinely find fair use even where the entirety of an image is used if the transformation is significant, this is the most troubling aspect of Baio’s argument, as the pixelated version uses the same composition and colors, as well as other identifiable aspects of Maisel’s photograph. The reduction in resolution is not so dramatic as to render the subject unrecognizable, and thus is problematic. If it had been further reduced by several factors so that it resembled not so much pointillism as modern art (e.g. a colorful blob), Baio would have been on stronger footing.

The fourth factor analyzes the impact of the alleged copycat product on the value of the original work. In Baio’s case, it is fairly obvious that the cover art for the tribute album does not impinge on the market for the original work. It is merely a low-resolution artistic rendering in 8-bit computer graphics that, if anything, engenders interest in the original and reminds the public of its existence. To the extent there is an afermarket for the photograph, it is difficult to conceive of how the pixelated cover art could meaningfully affect sales. Maisel’s argument that his sales could be affected are simply spurious — akin to the argument that the Lego Star Wars animations somehow lessen interest in Star Wars and detrimentally affect DVD sales.

As a practical matter, of course, the analysis of whether the “transformative” use of someone else’s work is “fair” is in many cases besides the point. If you take your inspiration from any copyrighted material, even if it seems clear to you that your use is transformational, you run the risk of having a copyright infringement suit filed against you. If your proposed use is commercial (and thus potentially objectionable), you would be well-advised to seek permission from the original owner of the work or stand ready to defend yourself in court. You would also be well-advised to have your lawyers vet your proposed project before it sees the light of day.  In light of the vague standards governing the fair use doctrine and conflicting opinions as to its application, anyone attempting to reference copyrighted works as part of their own art would be well-advised to consider the possible consequences of their actions before publication.

After publication, your arguments are likely to fall on deaf ears.

Related Posts:

• Copyrighted
• Grooveshark and the Copyright Pirates
• Live Nude Copyrights
• Weird Al Goes Gaga

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 Robert Scott Lawrence

By now you have probably heard the news. Weird Al Yankovic came out with a splendiferous parody of Lady Gaga — a pastiche of all the sexually enhanced, meat-spattered, dorkified lyrics that lie at the heart of a Lady Gaga song. From mandatory face painting to the occasional wardrobe mishap, Weird Al uses his uncanny powers to mock-glorify the celebrity of the moment. As he croons “Roberto, allegro, ventana, tobacco . . . .” so inartfully, one almost overlooks the fact that the seminal honor of being publicly mocked by Weird Al means that Lady Gaga is not just a passing fad, but an enduring cultural icon. If she had any fear of being a passing fancy or a figment of someone’s imagination, she can now rest easy. Her place on the wall of shame is carved in stone.

When I heard the news on CBS, I was overjoyed to see that Weird Al was not in fact dead — as someone told me last week — but was alive and kicking and up to his old tricks. I will admit, of course, that it is somewhat shocking to see Weird Al touch down from Mars for another brief visit (as is his wont), and for a moment the idea that he had passed away like Fat Albert or Alias Smith & Jones or some other icon of the past made perfect sense to me. When faced with the irrefutable evidence of his existence, however, I quickly came to my senses and embraced his strange sensibility once again. To me, Weird Al embodies all that is right with the idea of parody. You may not like what he does, you may think him a trifle mean-spirited, but to that I say “Fooey!” Or, as my kids used to say: “Boo! Your face!” I’m not really sure what that means, but it sounds cool.

To me, Weird Al is the Sly and the Family Stone of parody. He’s old school, iconoclastic, incomparably funky — like Ben n’ Jerry’s Chunky Monkey — and basically sui generis. The new kids would want to be him if they knew who he was, but he only pops up on the radar screen according to his own rhythm and rhyme, and where he goes nobody knows. The new kids — even the brilliant crew over at Jacksfilms — can’t copy him, because no can predict what will come out of his head next. One day he shows up in tights mocking Lady Gaga, and the next minute he suits up for a Tiffany’s advertisement slyly touting a ring engraved “Eternity is forever.”

Lady Gaga’s crew — which I suppose at this point consists of several law firms, publicists, marketing gurus, and sundry hangers on — couldn’t make heads or tails of Weird Al’s parody. First they told Weird Al he couldn’t release it because it infringed on Lady Gaga’s copyright in some way, then they acceded to the inevitable when it became clear that there was no plausible argument that any intellectual property laws could stop Weird Al’s parody from airing. I’m sure Gaga’s lawyer went through a good five minutes of internal dialogue which ran the gamut from “Oh, cr*p! can we stop this?!?” to “Maybe we can threaten him?” to “Can we buy him off?” and then eventually (with a bit of input from someone intelligent) landed on “Hey, this actually might be really good publicity for Lady G. Free publicity.”

Deciding not to duke it out with Weird Al was ultimately a smart move. Anyone with half a brain would have immediately concluded that it was unstoppable, and it is fair to presume that Lady Gaga’s posturing about her rights was merely an act to buy time while the marketing machine considered the best way to spin this to the media. Considering how prescient he usually is, I’m surprised Weird Al didn’t call the video “Can’t Touch This!”

Though I suppose “Free Publicity” would have worked just as well.

Related Posts:

• Relax, You Already Have a Copyright
• Copyrighted
• Grooveshark and the Copyright Pirates
• Live Nude Copyrights

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 Robert Scott Lawrence

Superstar:    Is this thing on? So, yeah, like I was saying, I listen to this song on YouTube somebody sent me, like it, and hit the “share” button, and then the tune goes out to my 20 million Facebook followers and my 29 million Twitter followers, and then the artist gets a record deal with Sony or Geffen’s new company or somebody big, and they send me an email thanking me for the shout out and FedEx me a couple tickets to their show at the Hollywood Bowl.

Me:   Pretty cool.

SS:     I felt like Oprah doing the whole ‘Book Club’ rhumba or something.

Me:   Yeah, but you’re skinnier.

SS:    That’s true. But then I had this idea, see? I was dating this hot young singer, and she cut this smokin’ new single and I thought, you know, if the Beaver could be an overnight sensation with a gazillion preteens running barefoot after his limo breaking through barricades just to be next to a kid whose voice hasn’t even broken yet then what would happen if I got a few friends to tweet out her new song along with me?

Me:   I thought you were too famous to have friends.

SS:    That’s funny. So I rounded up all the Kardashians, Kobe, Charlie Sheen, that Claudio Whatshisname from Barcelona, and together we had at least 50 million fans, and we pre-tweeted . . .

Me:   Is that a word?

SS:    Yeah, yeah, definitely. So we pre-tweeted that we were going to tweet this song the night after, and then Gaga said she’d tweet it too if we told her who it was, and then Sting said he’d tweet it to Elvis Costello who tweeted it to Amy Mann and somehow Sean Penn got involved and then Clooney and Pitt got sucked in along with Angelina Jolie and Gwen Paltrow said she wanted to sing it – and we said “No” – and then we had like 111 million people waiting for this thing so we decided we’d just do it live. I had this little handheld digital recorder and I went over to my girl’s house and said “Hey, baby, could you sing me that new single?” and she said “Sure.”

Me:    So she sang it right there barefoot in the living room and didn’t know it was going out to 100 million people?

SS:     Absolutely.

Me:    She had no idea?

SS:     Right. Isn’t that totally epic?

Me:    Totally. Isn’t she suing you for 100 million dollars now? For copyright infringement and invasion of privacy?

SS:     Yeah.

Me:   Ouch. That’s gotta hurt. That’s definitely the most expensive tweet in history.

Related Posts:

• Copyrighted
• Grooveshark and the Copyright Pirates
• Live Nude Copyrights
• Copyright Blues

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 Robert Scott Lawrence

Last week all of us got letters from some big city lawyer telling us to “cease and desist” our “flagrant infringement of trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property rights of named plaintiffs herein, etcetera etcetera etcetera.”

Turns out Disneyland claims I can’t use the name Cinderella if I own a store that sells slippers (even if I don’t stock any glass ones). McDonald’s says Clyde has to change the name of his cafe or they’ll make sure his kids can’t afford to go to college. Ford Motor Company doesn’t like that Dick Ford is “trading off their name” — even though it’s his name too, and he’s selling their cars for them. And some hippy rocker is threatening to sue my postman for “trade libel” because, according to him, there “can only be one” Nugent who plays a guitar and has long hair.

Like that’s some accomplishment no one else ever dreamed up, having long hair and playing the guitar.

Is it just me, or has the world gone crazy?

What does Disney care if there’s another Cinderella dancing off in the forest somewhere?

What does McDonald’s care about some small town cafe that was here 30 years before Ray Kroc even started his franchise?

What is Ford getting all high and mighty about after their stock was down so low they went begging after government money?

And what does some old crazy rocker care about, at all? If he needs money he can just go on television with Gary Busey. They can dance around naked for charity while some heavyset fella screams at Michael Jackson in the background.

Is this what the world has come to?

What do you think?

Related Posts:

• Live Nude Copyrights
• How to Copyright Your Face
• Captain America in Court
• Who Owns Captain America?

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 Robert Scott Lawrence