Comments on: IP Wars

By: Kaimi

Kaimi — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:49:37 +0000

“Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient IP regime has not helped you conjure up profits from your archived intellectual property, or given you clairvoyance enough to find a business model to–”

(Gasp. Gasp. I can’t breathe.)

By: Kaimi

Kaimi — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:43:07 +0000

Perhaps the Denny lawsuit is really just the plaintiff’s way of saying to YouTube,

“Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet (or post a widely downloaded clip) is insignificant next to the power of the Intellectual Property Laws. . .”

By: Bruce Boyden

Bruce Boyden — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:24:31 +0000

Obviously the more a work touches on matters of public interest, the more it is going to be subject to criticism and commentary. And this particular video may have Zapruder-like aspects to it, which complicates the issue. But I think different newsgathering entities should be able to make claims against the appropriation of their work by other entities, even though it’s all news (assuming copyrightability, anyway, which is a whole other issue).

The interesting question in the latest suit is whether noncommercial YouTube users are the functional equivalent of Reuters Television. The cases I cite mention the commercial nature of the use as a fair use factor. I doubt we’ll get that far in the litigation, however.

By: Deven Desai

Deven Desai — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:58:49 +0000

So Bruce, you make a good point. But if one’s model is to seek newsworthy events and film or photograph them, shouldn’t there be an assumption that in choosing newsworthy items, one risks that absent complete copying (as may be the case here) some slice (perhaps large) might be needed and fair use might allow it depending on the facts.

By: Bruce Boyden

Bruce Boyden — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:34:54 +0000

I wouldn’t be so quick to make fun of L.A. News’s lawsuits. It’s not like he just happened to be flying around L.A. and caught the Denny beating — his “business model” is to go up in the air and film footage that he then sells to news organizations. Basically, he’s a free-lance photographer with a helicopter. Is that a viable business, or should we restrict such activity only to volunteers? Given the cost of helicopter fuel, etc., I’m not sure how many volunteers we would get. And if he has a right to be paid, then it seems like he has a right to sue to get paid.

Obviously it’s a difficult case because of the massive public interest in the news value captured in the recordings; and it’s made doubly difficult by the fact that that’s exactly the sort of thing he’s looking for.

By: Deven Desai

Deven Desai — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:00:05 +0000

Frank, thanks for the heads up on Simpson and the possible shift in business models. I wonder whether the Yahoo! idea of personaliztion etc. will mean more advertising. I would think so though the in this case the idea seems to be that the song costs more because one can add one’s name to the song. In addition, it will be interesting to see whether Yahoo! starts to use this idea for most of the music or whether it is more of a teaser or only possible with the “add your name” gimmick.

By: Frank Pasquale

Frank Pasquale — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:22:30 +0000

What a great business model! Put out some moderately interesting blip, then sue everyone that tries to share or publicize it. Rather like patent trolling extending to (C) law.

Well, let’s hope Jessica Simpson (or at least her label) can lead the way forward:

http://news.com.com/2102-1025_3-6096350.html?tag=st.util.print

By: Bruce Boyden

Bruce Boyden — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:05:03 +0000

Wow, the first 30 seconds or so are brilliant. It's just kind of OK after that. For the date scene, I don't know why they didn't use the line, "A sister -- you have a sister!" On L.A. News, I don't know how much revenue he makes, but he's sued over the same video before: L.A. News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int'l, 149 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1998) (not fair use); L.A. News Serv. v. CBS Broad., Inc., 313 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2002) (fair use).