I really didn’t want to do it.  I tried to stop myself.  But unfortunately I am going to have to get into this messy discussion.

Last Tuesday, Christina Mulligan, a visiting fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, posted a piece titled “Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club” and cross-posted at Balkinization. (more…)

Copyright, Intellectual Property, Internet, Media, User Generated Content

In a recent piece, Public Knowledge’s Anjali Bhat compared two proposed international solutions to the mounting public concern over the access of the visually impaired and/or disabled to copyrighted works. While it is easy to agree that the visually impaired should have access to copyrighted works in a format from which they can perceive and enjoy them, deciding the best method of accomplishing that goal is actually incredibly complicated. (more…)

Copyright, Intellectual Property, International

Last week, I was awarded the Carroll G. Harper Prize.  In an effort to thank those that established the award, I reached out to the University, but unfortunately contact information has been lost to the sands of time.  In the stead of a thank you note, I thought I would provide the Internets some background on the award and the man for whom it is named. (more…)

Columbia Law School, Intellectual Property

As Viva Moffat notes, there is an interesting debate going on in the blogosphere over the conceptions of intellectual property law generally, copyright specifically, and copyright with regard to the music industry even more specifically.  There are a number of interesting arguments being made, but I will focus on two: (1) that conflating the different IP doctrines indicates a lack of understanding of IP law, and (2) that the purpose of copyright law is either to protect the work of artists or to benefit consumers. (more…)

Copyright, Intellectual Property, Media

The legal tabloid blog Above the Law posed the question on Friday whether a video posted on YouTube of a group of young men playing on a beach and lipsyncing to Miley Cyrus’s song “Party in the USA” was a fair use.

As a reminder, fair use is a copyright doctrine by which someone who has infringed a copyright can avoid liability.  The doctrine began as common law, but was codified by Congress in 17 U.S.C. § 107.  As codified, the doctrine consists of four factors: (1) purpose and character of the use, (2) nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work.  If a court (or jury) finds that the factors balance in favor of the user of the copyrighted work, the use is not considered an infringement.

(more…)

Intellectual Property, Media

A few days ago, David Post wrote about how the controversy surrounding the Google Books settlement could be heating up soon. I agree with him that as we near the fairness hearing (although it was moved back to October), things will get interesting, but I think he misses a crucial point.

Post’s post was responding to complaints by copyright holders about the unfairness of the settlement. His response focused on how amazing Google Books would be and the fundamental reasoning for having copyright and how, if it is no longer making “society better off,” it shouldn’t be upheld in this situation.

Post ignores the fact that the settlement was an agreement. The copyright holders could have taken the case to trial instead of settling, but they didn’t do that because they knew that a determination that what Google had done was fair use would have been disastrous for the future of book publishing (and at least the economic incentives for authorship). True not all copyright holders were part of the discussion, but class counsel was, and they had copyright holders in mind in reaching the agreement. It seems odd under these circumstances for commenters (read: IP lawyers) to argue that their clients aren’t going to get a fair shake, and somehow we should punish Google beyond the payments Google is making in the settlement.

At the end of the day, I agree with much of what Post says, but I think far too often we miss the forest for the trees. Google isn’t getting away for free, and copyright holders might see avenues of economic return that were impossible before the settlement was reached.

Cross Posted from The Spontaneous Huddle

Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation

Previous live blogs from the event:  Part 1; Part 2; and Part 3.  Please remember that these are not transcriptions, and therefore should not be relied on or ascribed to those whose statements they are based on.

4:00 pm The Public Interest
Moderator: Mary Rasenberger, Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Panelists: Jeffrey Cunard, Managing Partner, Washington, D.C. office, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP;
Robert Darnton, Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and Director of the Harvard University Library;
James Grimmelmann, Professor, New York Law School;
Alexander Macgillivray, Associate General Counsel for Products and Intellectual Property, Google Inc.;
Carol A. Mandel, Dean, Division of Libraries, New York University

(more…)

Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation

More live blogging after lunch, with…

2:00 am Authors and Incentives
Moderator: Professor Jane C. Ginsberg, Columbia Law School
Panelists: Tracey Armstrong, President and CEO, Copyright Clearance Center;
Michael J. Boni, partner, Boni & Zack LLC, lead counsel for the Authors Guild and the Author Sub-Class in the Google Settlement;
Jan Constantine, General Counsel & Assistant Director of the Authors Guild;
Arthur Klebanoff, President of both Scott Meredith Literary Agency and RosettaBooks, an e-book publisher;
Eugene Linden, Author, Winds of Change, The Future and Plain Sight and other books;
Victor S. Perlman, General Counsel and Managing Director, American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)

(more…)

Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation

Live blogging continued…Please note this is not a transcript.

11:00 am The Future of “Books”
Moderator: June M. Besek, Executive Director, Kernochan Center, Columbia Law School
Panelists: Allan R. Adler, Vice President – Legal and Governmental Affairs, Association of American Publishers (AAP);
Richard Sarnoff, Co-Chairman, Bertelsmann, Inc. and President, Bertelsmann Digital Media Investments;
Jule Sigall, Senior Policy Counsel/Copyright and Trademark, Microsoft Corp.;
Herman Spruijt, President, International Publishers Association;
Lois F. Wasoff, Legal Consultant, former Vice President and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Company

(more…)

Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation

Today, Columbia Law School‘s Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts is holding a symposium on the Google Books settlement.  Keep checking in as I blog about the event.

An introduction; Marybeth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights; and Professor Randal C. Picker, Paul H. and Theo Leffmann Professor of Commercial Law, University of Chicago Law School; after the break.

(more…)

Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation