Archive

Archive for the ‘Copyright’ Category

Prof. Evans to moderate NBA IP Law Review CLE webinar Wed 6/8

June 6, 2016 Leave a comment

I invite you to register for Wednesday’s webinar, hosted by the NBA IP Law Section. Registration is free for all IP Section members, and $30 for non-members.

IP Law Review – A Survey of Recent Developments in Patent, Trademark, and Trade Secret Law.

Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Time: 1:00pm to 2:30pm EDT

Follow live tweet at #NBAIPLaw

Presenters:

  • Tonya Evans (Widener University Commonwealth Law School) – Moderator
  • Darrell Mottley (Banner Witcoff)
  • Shontavia Johnson (Drake University Law School)
  • Kevin Jordan (JP Morgan Chase)

Summary – Our panelists will discuss a variety of hot topics and recent developments in patent, trademark, and trade secret law, including:

  • The internet of things as an emerging technology/industry, and related IP and regulatory issues
  • Intersection between the First Amendment and Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act regarding registration of immoral, scandalous, or disparaging trademarks, including the impact of trademark cases
  • Overview of trade secret law and its viability as an alternative means of IP protection

CLE Info: The NBA IP Law Section is looking into obtaining CLE accreditation in the following jurisdictions: CA, GA, IL, NY, TX, and VA. For questions regarding CLE accreditation, please contact Bill Barrow (wbarrow[at]mayerbrown.com).

Cost: This webinar is free for NBA IP Law Section members and costs $30 (plus processing fees) for non-members.

Register at:  https://www.eventbrite.com/e/nba-ip-law-section-intellectual-property-law-review-registration-25483682380

Advertisements

Evans places article that explores copyright termination & estate planning with W. Va. Law Review

May 4, 2016 Leave a comment

Statutory Heirs Apparent?: Reclaiming Copyright in the Age of Author-Controlled, Author-Benefiting Transfers, 119 W. Va. Law Rev. __ (2016).

will-3This Article explores the intersection and disconnect between copyright law and estates law when a copyright owner dies before having the opportunity to exercise her termination right of an inter vivos copyright transfer. Specifically, I explore the impact of a statutory heir’s copyright transfer termination right on the original author’s testamentary freedom to the extent the decedent’s nonprobate disposition of assets is contrary to the “statutory will” disposition found in the Copyright Act.

contracts_penAlthough copyright transfers made by will are not subject to a termination right, no such exception is made for an author’s lifetime transfers into vehicles controlled by the author. Examples of such transfers include those made into a performing artist’s loan-out company or a songwriter’s lifetime transfer of musical composition and sound recording copyrights into a self-settled irrevocable trust or charitable foundation.

170px-Copyright_svgThe practical effect is that an heir (defined by the Act as a spouse, child or grandchild) who inherits the right to terminate any lifetime copyright transfer (including those just described), may exercise that right and successfully reclaim copyright ownership against the decedent’s intent to transfer copyright ownership at death to someone or some entity other than that statutorily prescribed heir.

I argue the termination right was intended to protect authors from being saddled for the full copyright term with bad deals made early in their careers when they had little, if any, bargaining power. The right was not intended to prevent authors from advantageous lifetime transfers into vehicles controlled by the author for prudent business, tax and estate planning reasons.

Many scholars, practitioners, and copyright transferees in the entertainment business surmised the likely impact of the first reclamation trigger date of January 1, 2013 under §203 of the 1976 Copyright Act on post-1977 transfer terminations. Some also expressed concern with the apparent distinction between, and treatment of, transfers by will and nonprobate transfers. This article focuses on what has actually transpired since that trigger date.

In addition, the article focuses on what might be done going forward to reconcile the probate and nonprobate disposition of copyrights in a way that best honors an author’s testamentary intent given what we now know from cases starting to make their way through the court system.

How to listen to Prince’s music LEGALLY online? @CNET tells us how

April 21, 2016 Leave a comment

Source:  @zeeohmara

The shocking news of Prince’s death has fans, new and old, turning to their Spotify, Pandora and Apple Music apps, only to find them barren of his hits. If you don’t feel like driving to your local record store or spending money on iTunes, unfortunately, your options for listening to His Royal Badness are limited.

But you have options. And they’re LEGAL.

prince-purple-rainI am currently listening via SiriusXM Radio app channel 50: The Prince Tribute Channel.

Xiomara from CNET gives us some other ways to listen, including Tidal, which is the exclusive streaming music service with Prince content.

Honor Prince’s legacy, his legend, his mastery. Access the content LEGALLY. He’d want that for ALL artists, BTW. Just a thought. Here’s another thought. Buy a physical copy.

For more on the copyright issues and Prince’s zealous control over his songs, read Why it’s tough to find Prince’s songs online – and other musicians are thankful by Professor Shontavia Johnson.

#RestinPurple #dovescry #supportartists

Peace,

TME

Professor Evans’ scholarship in line with DOC’s latest reccs re: copyright statutory damages, remixes

February 12, 2016 Leave a comment

iptf_logosThe Department of Commerce‘s Internet Policy Task Force recently released its much-anticipated report on statutory damages, remixes, and the first sale doctrine. The report, titled White Paper on Remixes, First Sale, and Statutory DamagesCopyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy (The IPTF Report), recommended numerous important and long overdue changes to the Copyright Act. Those recommendations focus on three key areas:

  1. the legal framework for the creation of remixes;
  2. the relevance and scope of the first sale doctrine in the digital environment; and
  3. the application of statutory damages in the context of individual file-sharers and secondary liability for large-scale online infringement. (p. iii, The IPTF Report).

The Task Force Report made three recommendations overall:

  1. To enact a new section 504 of the Copyright Act that lists factors for courts and juries to consider when determining the amount of a statutory damages award.
  2. To remove the “notice bar” to the Innocent Infringer “defense” and instead treat notice as merely a factor. This change is especially important to protect a good faith, mistaken user (who I refer to as a “mea culpa infringer” in Safe Harbor for the Innocent Infringer in the Digital Age).
  3. To give courts the discretion to assess statutory damages in ways other than a strict per-work basis in cases involving non-willful secondary liability for online services offering a large number of works.

I write primarily about the impact of new technologies and new forms of artistic expression on copyright law. Therefore, I am excited and encouraged to see that my assertions and recommendations in Safe Harbor for the Innocent Infringer in the Digital Age (50 Willamette L. Rev. 1 (2013)), Reverse Engineering IP  (17 Marquette Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 61 (2013)), and Sampling, Looping & Mashing … Oh MY! (21 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 843 (2011)), are consistent with the Task Force’s approach to these critical areas in need of substantive reform.

For example, in Safe Harbor for the Innocent Infringer in the Digital Age I explored the role of the innocent infringer archetype historically and in the digital age. I also highlighted the tension between a “20th century” copyright regime and “21st century” user expectations regarding generally accepted online uses of copyrighted materials. Those customary uses reflect the efficient use of digital technologies and the Internet. Finally, I offered a legislative fix in the form of “safe harbor” from liability for certain innocent infringers akin to the type of protection afforded online service providers.

In that article, I argued that such an exemption seems not only more efficient but also more just in the online environment where unwitting infringement for the average copyright consumer is far easier than ever to commit, extremely difficult to police, and often causes little, if any, real market harm.

copyrightsymbol_lock

In a current work-in-progress titled “Safer Harbor” from Statutory Damages for Mea Culpa Infringers: Remixing the DOC White Paper, I approach the topic from the damages-instead of the liability-phase.

I offer a legislative fix to the statutory damages section that would inject greater balance, fairness and uniformity into the damages assessment. I began writing this article in 2014 but in light the IPTF Report, I intend to analyze and incorporate the Report’s findings and recommendations against the backdrop of my own recommended fixes to copyright law.

 

Prof. Evans to present paper at #WIPIP2016 Colloquium on impact of copyright transfer terminations on loan-outs & other gratuitous transfers

January 22, 2016 Leave a comment

On February 18-19, 2016 the University of Washington Law School and Center for Advanced Study & Research on Innovation Policy (CASRIP) will host the annual Works-in-Progress Intellectual Property (WIPIP) Colloquium.

intellectual_property_transferThe organizers selected Professor Evans to present her work-in-progress, Reclaiming Copyright in the Age of Celebrity Loan-Outs & Gratuitous Transfers, at this esteemed IP law conference.

Many scholars, practitioners, and copyright transferees in the entertainment business surmised the likely impact of the first reclamation trigger date of January 1, 2013 under §203 of the 1976 Copyright Act on post-1977 transfer terminations. Some also expressed concern with the apparent distinction between, and treatment of, transfers by will and nonprobate transfers.

In this Article, Professor Evans focuses on what has actually transpired since that trigger date. In addition, she considers how to reconcile the probate and nonprobate dispositions of copyright termination interests in a way that best honors an author’s testamentary intent given what we can now glean in fact from the post-1977 termination cases just starting to make their way through the court system.

WIPIP is one of the largest academic conferences for U.S. IP academics fostering robust and productive discussion of intellectual property law and policy scholarship. The Colloquium provides intellectual property scholars with a forum to present their academic works-in-progress and receive early feedback from their colleagues.

That same weekend, CASRIP will also host The Forum will be held on February 18, 2016 at the Hotel Deca. The IV Asia Pacific IP Forum hosted by CASRIP will bring together founding members from UW, UC Berkeley, Waseda University, Hokkaido University, Seoul National University, Renmin University and National Taiwan University, as well as leading Pacific Rim scholars, practitioners, judges and policymakers, to discuss comparative transnational IP law in practice.

More information about Professor Tonya M. Evans

More details about WIPIP 2016

 

YouTube will defend ‘fair use’ filmmakers against copyright claims

November 24, 2015 Leave a comment

Source: TheGuardian.com

youtube-rentals

Video site will defend strong examples of fair use against copyright claims, saying creators can be ‘intimidated’ by the effort required to defend their rights YouTube will go to court to defend filmmakers wrongly accused of copyright infringement, the site has announced.

It will now offer legal support to “a handful of videos” which Google (YouTube’s parent company) believes represent “clear fair uses”. It will also feature them in a special section of the site dedicated to showcasing strong examples of fair use.

Read the full article at Guardian.com

Prof. Evans explores copyright transfer terminations & probate law at TAMU Law IP Scholars Roundtable 10/9-10/10

October 9, 2015 Leave a comment
Headshot of Professor Tonya Evans

Credit: Leaping Lion Photography

Associate Professor Tonya M. Evans presents her work-in-progress, Reclaiming Copyright in the Ages of Celebrity Loan-Outs and Other Gratuitous Transfers at the Intellectual Property Scholars Roundtable October 9-10th at Texas A&M University School of Law.

In her article, Professor Evans argues that Congress should resolve an apparently unintended conflict between copyright law and probate law, related to a copyright creator’s testamentary freedom, found in the copyright transfer termination provisions.

Termination & Notice Timeline-FutureofMusic.org

Termination & Notice Timeline-FutureofMusic.org

The article explores a recent Ninth Circuit case, Ray Charles Foundation v. Robinson, 795 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2015). That case presents facts analogous to the problem Professor Evans believes that Congress should remedy; that is, the threat to an artist’s testamentary freedom when statutory heirs assert their copyright termination interests in ways clearly contrary to the decedent author’s wishes.

This inaugural roundtable brings together intellectual property and technology law scholars, providing them with an annual forum for sharing research and peer networking. In addition to the usual work-in-progress presentations, this interdisciplinary roundtable will feature substantial commentary offered by veteran commentators and extended Q&A sessions.

More information about the TAMU Law IP Scholars Roundtable

%d bloggers like this: