Using Pinterest without Committing Copyright Infringement

            Pinterest is a platform that is gaining popularity like Facebook and Twitter did a few years ago.  Its users report an addiction stronger than Starbucks coffee.  Pinterest invites users to find images that other people have posted on the web and add them to the Pinterest user’s virtual pin board.  It has the potential to drive tremendous traffic to business websites and to help them sell products and services, but most of the images selected by each Pinterest user are “owned” by someone else under U.S. Copyright Law, presenting many pitfalls to be sued for copyright infringement.

            Copyright law in the United States protects all original content from the moment of creation for the life of the author plus 70 years, whether or not it is registered with the Copyright Office and whether or not it bears the copyright symbol of ©.  The copyright laws give exclusive rights to the author to publish, distribute, and make derivative works of the original work of authorship.

            Many people think that giving attribution to the original source is good enough, but attribution and permission are two different things.  How do you use Pinterest without committing copyright infringement?  Here are eight practical tips to minimize your exposure to claims of copyright infringement:

1.      Use your own content.  By using your own content, such as photographs that you personally take, you minimize the risk of copyright infringement.  (There is still a risk of copyright infringement if, for example, you photograph then pin an entire poem that belongs to someone else.)  The trade-off of using your own material on Pinterest is that you are giving Pinterest a “non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use, display, reproduce, re-pin, modify . . . , rearrange and distribute” your content, according to its updated Terms of Service.  By pinning it on Pinterest, you give up your exclusive rights to that work whenever you pin it on Pinterest.

2.      Get permission.  The surest way to avoid claims of copyright infringement is to get permission from the owner of the work that you wish to pin.  Get it in writing.

3.      Use the “pin it” button.  If a content owner encourages users to share their material with the Pinterest “pin it” button, arguably the content owner is giving you an implied license to pin it.

4.      Give attribution.  Whenever you pin something that belongs to someone else, be sure to attribute the original source.  This will not protect you from a claim of copyright infringement if you’re lacking actual permission, but it may minimize your exposure.  A further tip:  don’t just upload directly from Google Images.  When you do that, Pinterest gives the attribution to you by stating “uploaded by user,” rather than giving it to the original source.

5.      Pin products rather than art.  This is based more on common sense than the law, but businesses selling products presumably want to get the word out about their products and appreciate the free word of mouth publicity you’re generating on their behalf.  Some artists appreciate you pinning their work, too, but many artists make money selling or licensing original works, and would argue that you’re driving down the value of their work.  (Caveat: some brand owners may assert claims of trademark infringement if you use their marks without permission.)

6.      Limit your pinning to repining.  When you re-pin material that has already been pinned on someone else’s board, you arguably have the protection of Pinterest’s Terms of Service, which explain that no one should pin anything on Pinterest unless they have the right to do so.  Thus, if ever sued for copyright infringement, you could argue that you had a good faith belief, based on Pinterest’s Terms of Service, that any material you re-pinned was originally posted on Pinterest by someone who had rights to put it there.

7.      Be careful when pinning for profit.  A defense many people point to when sued for copyright infringement is the Fair Use Doctrine, which looks at four factors, one of which is the nature of the copying, and whether it is commercial (meaning, for money) or not.  It is harder to successfully argue fair use when the copying is done for profit than for a hobby or educational purposes.

8.      Pin less than an entire image.  Back to the Fair Use Doctrine: it’s harder to succeed with this defense when you’ve copied the entire image of a work belonging to someone else.  Consider copying only a small portion of the image instead.

            Using Pinterest is a lot like riding in a car.  In a car, you can use a seat belt, turn on your lights, and pay attention to the road to avoid accidents, but you can still be hit.  These are some tips to help you minimize the risk of being sued for copyright infringement when using Pinterest.  The smarter you are, the lower your risk; the more aggressive you are, the higher your risk. 

            Businesses have a lot to gain by using Pinterest, mainly driving traffic to their websites and building brand identity, loyalty, and interaction with customers.  To help protect your business from exposure to lawsuits when using Pinterest, consult a qualified intellectual property lawyer who can tailor advice to your unique situation.  The above tips are not intended as legal advice.

Three Days in January that Made Copyright History

Three days in January 2012 witnessed some of the most important events in recent history in the world of copyright.

On January 18, the Supreme Court issued Golan v. Holder, which held that Congress is empowered remove works like the symphony classic Peter and the Wolf from the public domain in the United States, preventing orchestras, musicians and others from using these works unless they get permission and pay a license fee to the copyright holders.

On the same day, the technology community mobilized millions of people to voice their disagreement with SOPA and PIPA, two bills supported by the entertainment industry that were designed to fight online piracy. After blackouts by Wikipedia and protests encouraged by tech giants like Google, by January 19 most members of Congress had withdrawn their support for both bills.

On January 20, the United States arrested Kim Dotcom. He was arrested in Auckland, New Zealand for a file-sharing site called Megaupload.com that was based in Hong Kong. The site allegedly generated over $175 million by illegally copying and distributing music, movies and other copyrighted material without authorization.

What does all of this tell us? Three important things.

First, protection of our country’s intellectual property relies on international cooperation. For us to arrest Mr. Dotcom, who is alleged to have stolen millions from American content creators, we needed the help of authorities in Hong Kong and New Zealand. Which is where Golan v. Holder comes in: no one likes hearing that Peter and the Wolf and other classics have fallen out of the public domain and back into exclusive ownership, but for our country to benefit from international copyright treaties, we also must abide by them. International treaties are what prompted Congress to pull certain works out of the public domain, and what prompted the Supreme Court to reach the conclusion it reached in that lawsuit.

Second, if we didn’t recognize it before the rise and fall of SOPA and PIPA, there’s no denying the tension between content creators and content providers; between the entertainment industry and the technology industry. Our technology is intertwined with our entertainment and our content, so we need these camps to work together. Unfortunately for now, the tension is insurmountable: technology camps want free flow of information while content creators want protection for their original works. Ultimately, these two teams will have to reach a compromise, and Congress cannot ignore the need to protect American intellectual property from online international piracy, like the theft allegedly coordinated by Mr. Dotcom.

Finally, the online protests of SOPA and PIPA mobilized a new segment of concerned citizens. Google claims it gathered over seven million signatures in 24 hours in opposition to the bills. The implications of that statistic are at the same time impressive, intimidating and infinite.

Recent Interview on TV about Recapturing Copyrights

Recently my law partner, Stephanie Taylor, and I were interviewed by Jesse Goldberg, on his show, “Mind Your Own Music Business.”  Following up on an article that I wrote for The Tennessean, we discussed copyright recapture rights. 

This is a very important issue right now for any authors and heirs of original works who transferred rights in their copyrights in the past under the 1976 Copyright Act, which affects works first published on or after January 1, 1978.  Thirty-five years after the initial transfer, a five year window opens up during which the authors/heirs may provide notice of their desire to recapture the copyrights that they previously transferred.  To make it more complicated, authors and heirs must provide notice of their intent to recapture no earlier than ten, and no later than two, years prior to the notice being effective.   Thus, for those authors wishing to recapture copyrights that they transferred in 1978 (for which the five year window opens up in 2013 and runs through 2018), the minimum two-year notice prior to the five year window is right now in 2011. 

We discussed a variety of issues, many of which have not made their way to the courts yet, but surely which will require litigation.  These included whether sound recordings are considered works for hire, and thus not eligible for recapturing; whether session musicians, producers, sound engineers, and others might qualify as authors; and the gap grant problem for those authors who entered into contracts transferring their copyrights pre-1978, but who didn’t create or publish their works until after January 1, 1978.  We also discussed how Nashville courts likely will be called on to decide some of these significant legal issues in the coming years, given Nashville’s importance in the entertainment, publishing, and technology industries. 

As soon as the show airs on TV and is up on the web, I'll update this post and provide links.

Regaining Ownership over Copyrights

The Tennessean recently published my article on recapturing copyrights.  You can see a copy of it here or read what I wrote here:

         

             If they’re not scrambling yet, Nashville songwriters, recording artists, publishing houses and labels soon will be as they jockey to control copyrights.  Starting this year, authors can begin to give notice to terminate the transfer of any copyright that was published on or after January 1, 1978. 

            Generally, whoever owns the copyright owns the right to distribute, sell and reproduce the work in question, whether it be lyrics or music to a song, sound recordings, motion pictures, manuscripts, software, architectural designs, or photographs.  When an author transfers ownership, he or she loses those rights.  But by terminating the transfer, authors redirect royalty streams away from the current owners (labels, publishers, and so forth) and back to the original authors.

            A five year window opens up 35 years after publication, allowing authors to terminate transfers they made in the past.  For those works published in 1978, the first opportunity to terminate the transfer will be in 2013.  (For works published or registered prior to 1978, different rules apply, but authors can still recapture their copyrights.)  The Act requires authors to provide at least two years notice, so those who want to terminate their 1978 transfers in 2013 must send notice in 2011.

            Historically, when working to get established, authors (be they poets, songwriters, filmmakers or sculptors) have had little leverage with their publisher or label.  In exchange for receiving financial advances and getting published, young authors often must transfer ownership of the copyright in the work to the publisher/label.  For example, Garth Brooks currently has a lot more negotiating power than newer artists because he has a track record of producing huge hits. 

            Recognizing the uneven bargaining power that authors possess when first trying to make it big, Congress leveled the playing field by giving them the ability to recapture the copyrights they transferred to the publisher/labels 35 years ago.  Whether an artist’s record contract says he has created a work made for hire, or whether she has signed a contract promising never to terminate the transfer, it doesn’t matter because the right to terminate transfer is irrevocable.

            Congress left open many unanswered questions that courts across the country will have to answer.  With Nashville’s stature in the music and publishing industries, as well as our growing technology community, this has the potential to wreak as much havoc on business as the switch from vinyl to digital.  Given the impact of this law on our own community, I feel certain that Nashville’s federal courts will be in the center of this storm.

            The rules in this area are complicated, even to many lawyers.  They are highly technical and require jumping through many hoops.  Once the window to recapture closes, it generally closes for good.  Authors who are interested in recapturing their copyrights should start working on this right away, take this into account when writing their wills, and enlist professional help from a lawyer in this field. 

Entertainment Industry's New Copyright Alert System May Create New Form of Evidence in Copyright Infringement Lawsuits & Lead to Higher Damages

It was big news earlier this month when many of the big entertainment companies entered into an agreement with Internet service providers (ISPs) regarding efforts they will take to self-regulate and self-police copyright infringement. The name of this plan is the "Copyright Alert System."

According to the Wall St. Journal and the Center for Copyright Information, the plan has six steps, from the mildest (in issuing warnings), to the intermediate (in requiring users to acknowledge that they received notice), to the most severe (in slowing down the speed at which alleged infringers may access the Internet).

As a copyright lawyer who goes to court to resolve disputes, I am most interested in the intermediate step. It strikes me that if users are forced to acknowledge that they have received a warning that their conduct may constitute infringement and yet they proceed forward anyway, the fact that they acknowledged such warning may be used against them in a copyright infringement action. The ISPs will not be releasing the identity of these users voluntarily. But a court can always grant permission to subpoena material showing that they took this intermediate step. This new policy may be opening up a whole new world of evidence of willfulness that can be used against people who knowingly infringe on others' copyrights. And willful infringement entitles copyright plaintiffs to increased money damages.

"Always On," Consumers Expect Businesses to Embrace Technology Even More

In this new iPhone world, where consumers can download an app at the press of a button, businesses must embrace technology or risk being left behind.  When I say embrace technology, I'm not talking about just having an Internet presence or just using social media for marketing.  I mean using technology to create new apps, tools or games that let you instantly connect and engage with your customers.


Brian X. Chen, a writer for Wired Magazine, was recently interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air from WHYY.  Here's a link to the story and the interview.  In the interview, he discussed his new book, Always On: How the iPhone Unlocked the Anything-Anytime-Anywhere Future -- and Locked Us In. 

From a business perspective, the most fascinating part of the book is Chen's comment on how consumers' expectations have changed in light of the way the iPhone lets them unlock worlds of knowledge in the swipe of their phone screen.  In an excerpt from his book, he writes: "The iPhone changed our standards for what we expect from technology, and as a result, businesses are being forced to give us more for our money. We don't want seven pieces of hardware to perform seven different tasks; we want a single gadget capable of doing anything-anytime-anywhere. Soon, manufacturers will no longer be able to sell single-function gadgets lacking an internet connection because those gadgets will soon be obsolete. Consequently, a large number of companies and industries find themselves threatened because a downloadable app can easily replace nearly any dedicated, single-use product."

How is your business using technology to satisfy consumer expectations?  What app could you develop to keep your customers engaged?  Are you thinking from the mindset of a customer who owns an iPhone, and who expects information immediately? No matter your industry -- entertainment, publishing, banking, technology, professional services, arts, health care, environmental -- customers want more from you, and they expect it in the form of instantly accessed technology.

Video: Protecting Your Family & Your Reputation when Using Social Media

I was recently invited to speak on "Digital Citizenship and the First Amendment" at The Leadership and Civility in a Digital Age speaker series, presented by Lipscomb University’s Nelson & Sue Andrews Institute for Civic Leadership and Department of Communication and Journalism and by Centerstone.  My friend Debi Tate, a former commissioner on the FCC, invited me to join First Amendment scholar Gene Policinsky on the panel. 

Typically when I speak on legal issues in social media, it is to an audience of business leaders or marketing professionals.  Last night was an opportunity to look at these issues from the perspective of the individual consumer and citizen.  With that in mind, I titled my talk "Protecting Your Family & Your Reputation when Using Social Media."  We had a great crowd and a good conversation.  For a link to the video, go here. 

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.

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 56^th and 60^th 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 Long-Awaited Move, President Obama Appoints IP Czar

In a long-awaited move, President Obama has nominated the US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, otherwise known as the "IP Czar."  This position was created with the enactment of the PRO-IP Act, which former President Bush signed into law on October 3, 2008.  He deferred nominating anyone for the IP Czar position until the Act received partial funding, which did not occur until 2009, and until the next president took office.

On September 25, 2009, President Obama nominated Victoria Espinel , who currently serves as a visiting assistant professor at the George Mason University School of Law.  Her nomination awaits confirmation by the Senate.

Some are calling Ms. Espinel the Copyright Czar, but that title is too narrow, since her role stretches beyond mere copyright issues.  She will chair the newly created IP Enforcement Coordinator advisory committee, comprised of representatives from multiple federal departments, and her primary responsibility will be to coordinate efforts across the entire federal government to protect American intellectual property in all its forms.

You can read more about the expected role of the IP Czar in the context of IP reform, in an article entitled "The PRO-IP Act: Another Weapon Against a Failing Economy," which Dylan Ruga and I wrote, and which the American Bar Association published in the January/February 2009 issue of Landslide.