What a great Sunday! Big white flakes of snow are falling outside my window, the Christmas tree is lit and our baby is napping upstairs. I mention the baby napping for two reasons: first, it's amazing having a baby in my life; and second, it gives my wife and me a few minutes off.
In these few minutes before our baby wakes up, I'm excited to tell you that TheExpressive is re-launching. Instead of focusing on the law, this blog will highlight the incredible entrepreneurial and community spirit we have in Nashville.
People hear "Nashville" and they think Grand Old Opry, HCA, Vanderbilt/Fisk/Belmont or the Titans. (Well, they think of the Titans when they're playing well, which isn't lately.) But that talent is in so many other places, too. It's in restaurants like Burger Up, the coffee beans of Drew's Brews, the books by Alice Randall, and the businesses like Emma and Griffin Technology. That spirit is also in our non-profits like Conexion Americas and Community Food Advocates; in our art galleries like Zeitgeist; and our drop-in clinics like United Neighborhood Health Services.
A year and a half a go, I started something called WaterCooler with a friend, Renata Soto. We meet once a month to hear from young entrepreneurs. We've had a lot of fun, and met some inspiring people: Chris Ferrell of SouthComm spoke on the changing media landscape; Nashville Captial Network's Sid Chambless spoke on the availability of venture capital funds; Laura Creekmore spoke on social media; Linus Hall gave us a tour of Yazoo Brewery; and Becca Stevens introduced us to two women who graduated from her program at Magdalene House after surviving on the streets as prostitutes.
Tomorrow, we're headed to Olive & Sinclair to tour Nashville's own chocolate factory and hear the story of founder/chocolatier Scott Witherow. Olive & Sinclair is a great example of all of the above: people with a vision who take a risk, enjoy great success, and benefit their communities in many different ways. Their stories are inspiring to me and I hope you find them inspiring, too.
Stories like these are the ones I plan to highlight in this blog. I hope to feature a different entrepreneur or community leader each week. Hopefully, by finding what inspired and motivated them, we can learn something to apply to our own jobs, neighborhoods and community groups.
I hear the baby -- she's awake and I've had my break. Back to my most important job and favorite pastime... fatherhood.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Ninth Circuit Offers Best Guidance on Issues of Copyright Registration Requirement to Initiate Litigation
On March 2, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick. In that decision, the Court clarified that Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act "does not restrict a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction." Instead, Section 411(a) is merely a "precondition to filing a claim." Importantly, the plurality explicitly declined to address "whether Section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a mandatory precondition to suit that . . . district courts may or should enforce sua sponte by dismissing copyright infringement claims involving unregistered works." Instead, the Court left that issue unresolved.
Picking up where Reed Elsevier left off, the Ninth Circuit specifically addressed that issue in a decision on May 25, 2010, namely what it means to "register" a copyrighted work. See Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/InteractiveCorp, 606 F.3d 612 (9th Cir. 2010). The Cosmetic Court issued a thoughtful decision that concluded "registration" under 411(a) is accomplished upon mere "receipt by the Copyright Office of a complete application." In so holding, the Ninth Circuit adopted what many courts refer to as the "application" approach, rather than the "registration" approach.
The Cosmetic Ideas decision provides the best analysis on the issue to date. In amplifying the sound reasoning of La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195, 1202-04 (10th Cir. 2005), the Cosmetic Ideas opinion examined the plain language of Section 411(a), the Copyright Act as a whole, and even the purpose of the Act. It found the plain language unhelpful in defining "registration," and it found five sections of the broader Copyright Act to be instructive, but not clearly supporting either the application approach or the registration approach. In examining the purpose of the Copyright Act, the court concluded that "the application approach better fulfills Congress's purpose of providing broad copyright protection while maintaining a robust federal register."
Specifically, the Cosmetic Ideas Court noted that the application approach offers these benefits over the registration approach: (a) "avoids unnecessary delay in copyright infringement litigation . . . [g]iven that copyright owners will ultimately be allowed to proceed regardless of how the Copyright Office treats the application"; (b) "avoids delay without impairing the central goal of copyright registration"; and (c) avoids the "worst-case scenario" under the registration approach, which "could cause a party to lose its ability to sue."
One benefit of the application approach that Cosmetic Ideas missed is that it puts U.S. works on equal footing with non-U.S. works. Under the Berne Convention, foreign works may not be subject to registration formalities prior to initiating litigation. The registration approach actually treats non-U.S. works better than U.S. works, because it requires owners of U.S. works to wait for registration prior to filing an infringement action. By adopting the application approach, U.S. works are given equally favorable treatment.
Look for the Cosmetic Ideas opinion to be the new road map for courts across the country as they grapple with deciding whether to adopt the application or registration approach. More courts should follow the analysis in Cosmetic Ideas and reach the same conclusion.
Finally, many of the courts that adopted the registration approach did so while dismissing the complaint before them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That is, many of them held that since 411(a) required a copyright plaintiff to obtain registration prior to filing suit (i.e., the registration approach), the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Specific Software Solutions, LLC v. Institute of WorkComp Advisors, LLC, 615 F. Supp. 2d 708, 716 (M.D. Tenn. 2009). As Cosmetic Ideas notes in note 4, however, many of these cases have been abrogated, in part, by Reed Elsevier. Knowing that should help lawyers and litigants who are seeking to persuade courts to abandon the registration approach and adopt the application approach instead.
Picking up where Reed Elsevier left off, the Ninth Circuit specifically addressed that issue in a decision on May 25, 2010, namely what it means to "register" a copyrighted work. See Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/InteractiveCorp, 606 F.3d 612 (9th Cir. 2010). The Cosmetic Court issued a thoughtful decision that concluded "registration" under 411(a) is accomplished upon mere "receipt by the Copyright Office of a complete application." In so holding, the Ninth Circuit adopted what many courts refer to as the "application" approach, rather than the "registration" approach.
The Cosmetic Ideas decision provides the best analysis on the issue to date. In amplifying the sound reasoning of La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195, 1202-04 (10th Cir. 2005), the Cosmetic Ideas opinion examined the plain language of Section 411(a), the Copyright Act as a whole, and even the purpose of the Act. It found the plain language unhelpful in defining "registration," and it found five sections of the broader Copyright Act to be instructive, but not clearly supporting either the application approach or the registration approach. In examining the purpose of the Copyright Act, the court concluded that "the application approach better fulfills Congress's purpose of providing broad copyright protection while maintaining a robust federal register."
Specifically, the Cosmetic Ideas Court noted that the application approach offers these benefits over the registration approach: (a) "avoids unnecessary delay in copyright infringement litigation . . . [g]iven that copyright owners will ultimately be allowed to proceed regardless of how the Copyright Office treats the application"; (b) "avoids delay without impairing the central goal of copyright registration"; and (c) avoids the "worst-case scenario" under the registration approach, which "could cause a party to lose its ability to sue."
One benefit of the application approach that Cosmetic Ideas missed is that it puts U.S. works on equal footing with non-U.S. works. Under the Berne Convention, foreign works may not be subject to registration formalities prior to initiating litigation. The registration approach actually treats non-U.S. works better than U.S. works, because it requires owners of U.S. works to wait for registration prior to filing an infringement action. By adopting the application approach, U.S. works are given equally favorable treatment.
Look for the Cosmetic Ideas opinion to be the new road map for courts across the country as they grapple with deciding whether to adopt the application or registration approach. More courts should follow the analysis in Cosmetic Ideas and reach the same conclusion.
Finally, many of the courts that adopted the registration approach did so while dismissing the complaint before them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That is, many of them held that since 411(a) required a copyright plaintiff to obtain registration prior to filing suit (i.e., the registration approach), the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Specific Software Solutions, LLC v. Institute of WorkComp Advisors, LLC, 615 F. Supp. 2d 708, 716 (M.D. Tenn. 2009). As Cosmetic Ideas notes in note 4, however, many of these cases have been abrogated, in part, by Reed Elsevier. Knowing that should help lawyers and litigants who are seeking to persuade courts to abandon the registration approach and adopt the application approach instead.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Artists' Rights & the Law
I had a good conversation with sculptor John T. Unger on his Internet radio show, Art Heroes, on February 25, 2010. John is a client of mine who creates artisinal firebowls. He's also a big proponent of social media and uses it to market his art and create an online community of artists. In 2009, I had the privilege of representing John in a federal court lawsuit over his copyrights and trade dress in the firebowls when unauthorized replicas of his bowls began appearing on the market.
In our conversation on Art Heroes, we talked about "Artists' Rights and the Law." John began by asking me to discuss the difference between rights under copyright, trademark, trade dress and patent law. We talked about the benefits conferred on artists who register their works (such as the right to recover statutory damages in court, the right to attorneys fees under copyright law, and the presumption of validity that accompanies registrations). We also talked about how for most artists, copyright provides the longest amount of protection (life of the artist plus 70 years), compared with trademark (10 year periods open to renewal) and design patents (14 years). Applying for copyright registration is also more affordable ($35 filing fee) than applying for trademark registration ($335 filing fee per class), both of which are significantly more affordable than applying for a patent ($5,000-$10,000 including attorney fees).
We also talked about when an artist may use, rely on, critique or "sample" other artists' work. Copyright protection confers exclusive rights on authors, but an exception to this exclusivity is the doctrine known as "fair use." For most artists, the question comes down to whether their newer work that borrows from earlier work is "transformative." I'll blog more on Fair Use in the future.
We also talked about something known as "Recapture Rights" or "Termination of Transfer Rights," which highly impacts literary authors and singers/songwriters, among other artists. Often when young or budding artists are getting established, they transfer their copyright rights to publishers or others in exchange for securing a book or record deal. Realizing the inherent inequities of this draconian step, Congress gave artists the right to "recapture" their copyright rights for five year periods. For works created Jan. 1, 1978 to present, recapture rights kick in after first 35 years for a 5 year window from year 35 to year 40 (the earliest this would apply is 2013). For most works created prior to Jan. 1, 1978, the recapture period is between 56th and 60th years, and artists get a second bite at the apple between years 75 and 79. Artists get the remainder of the copyright term if they provide notice of termination of transfer during these five-year periods. Don't forget: recapture rights are "use it or lose it" rights -- if you miss the five-year window, you're out of luck. I'll blog more on Recapture Rights in the future, too.
John asked me what I thought about Myows.com, an online service that provides a central repository for artists' online works. Myows stands for "My Original Works," and, which it is still in its infancy, looks like a great supplement to copyright registration. Myows.com provides a time-stamp on all online works, down to the minute, which could be useful in establishing priority in copyright infringement suits. To the extent Myows.com offers legal advice, I found several statements that were inaccurate and hope, instead, that Myows will delete these pages. Major upside: Myops is FREE.
John hosts different people every week to talk about art and artists' rights. Check out his next show this coming Thursday at 9pm Central. Future guests are scheduled to talk about licensing rights and becoming famous as an artist without leaving your day job.
In our conversation on Art Heroes, we talked about "Artists' Rights and the Law." John began by asking me to discuss the difference between rights under copyright, trademark, trade dress and patent law. We talked about the benefits conferred on artists who register their works (such as the right to recover statutory damages in court, the right to attorneys fees under copyright law, and the presumption of validity that accompanies registrations). We also talked about how for most artists, copyright provides the longest amount of protection (life of the artist plus 70 years), compared with trademark (10 year periods open to renewal) and design patents (14 years). Applying for copyright registration is also more affordable ($35 filing fee) than applying for trademark registration ($335 filing fee per class), both of which are significantly more affordable than applying for a patent ($5,000-$10,000 including attorney fees).
We also talked about when an artist may use, rely on, critique or "sample" other artists' work. Copyright protection confers exclusive rights on authors, but an exception to this exclusivity is the doctrine known as "fair use." For most artists, the question comes down to whether their newer work that borrows from earlier work is "transformative." I'll blog more on Fair Use in the future.
We also talked about something known as "Recapture Rights" or "Termination of Transfer Rights," which highly impacts literary authors and singers/songwriters, among other artists. Often when young or budding artists are getting established, they transfer their copyright rights to publishers or others in exchange for securing a book or record deal. Realizing the inherent inequities of this draconian step, Congress gave artists the right to "recapture" their copyright rights for five year periods. For works created Jan. 1, 1978 to present, recapture rights kick in after first 35 years for a 5 year window from year 35 to year 40 (the earliest this would apply is 2013). For most works created prior to Jan. 1, 1978, the recapture period is between 56th and 60th years, and artists get a second bite at the apple between years 75 and 79. Artists get the remainder of the copyright term if they provide notice of termination of transfer during these five-year periods. Don't forget: recapture rights are "use it or lose it" rights -- if you miss the five-year window, you're out of luck. I'll blog more on Recapture Rights in the future, too.
John asked me what I thought about Myows.com, an online service that provides a central repository for artists' online works. Myows stands for "My Original Works," and, which it is still in its infancy, looks like a great supplement to copyright registration. Myows.com provides a time-stamp on all online works, down to the minute, which could be useful in establishing priority in copyright infringement suits. To the extent Myows.com offers legal advice, I found several statements that were inaccurate and hope, instead, that Myows will delete these pages. Major upside: Myops is FREE.
John hosts different people every week to talk about art and artists' rights. Check out his next show this coming Thursday at 9pm Central. Future guests are scheduled to talk about licensing rights and becoming famous as an artist without leaving your day job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
