Archive for the 'Intellectual Property' CategoryPage 2 of 11

Forever 21 Was Caught Pirating Software from Adobe

Everyone knows that stealing is wrong. If you walk out of a store without paying for merchandise, you shouldn’t be surprised when an alarm sounds.

forever 21 sued by adobeForever 21, a retail-clothing store, would agree with this premise in the context of someone stealing a blouse or a skirt. You would think that they would also agree with this premise when it comes to software programs?

In January of this year, Adobe filed a lawsuit against Forever 21 for copyright infringement. Autodesk and Corel joined Adobe in the lawsuit and alleged that Forever 21 pirated software such as:

  • Photoshop
  • Acrobat
  • Illustrator
  • WinZip
  • Autodesk
  • PaintShopPro

The companies alleged that the piracy happened on 63 different occasions. It’s still unclear how Adobe became aware of the infringing acts, but the company has been encouraging employees to turn in their employers for using unauthorized copies of its software programs.

The alarms have been set off. Now Forever 21 has to show proof of purchase or face an expensive legal battle.

EU Seeks to Extend “Right to Be Forgotten”

It’s rare for legal decisions in European Courts to affect Americans. However, the fight over the “right to be forgotten” could be the exception. Last year, EU courts created a “right to be forgotten,” mandating that Google remove links at an individual’s request.

google eu internet privacyFor example, suppose that your home was foreclosed and you were arrested for punching the sheriff who posted the notice to your door. A decade later, you’ve paid off the mortgage and the assault charges have been cleared. However, Google still has your mug shot and your foreclosure record.

If you live in Europe, you could request that Google remove links to information about your arrest and foreclosure from European servers like Google.de or Google.fr.

The main server, Google.com, however, will still retain these links, despite your request. In fact, European privacy groups believe that Europeans are turning to Google.com now that Google’s European servers have been compromised. And that’s exactly why European privacy groups are targeting Google.com next.

Here Today, Gone Tomorrow

The problem is that Europeans aren’t the only ones who use Google.com. The .com server is the server that most Americans use. If European countries require that Google censor web links on its .com server, then that information would also be censored in the United States as well. The consequences are too vast to be predictable, but I can think of a few.

For instance, Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown, could move to Europe and convincingly erase his name from Internet archives. Or what if an American opens a business with a European investor? It’s much harder to tell whether the investor has any shady dealings. Or what if you’re trying to sue a European citizen living in the United States? Although a competent attorney would not rely on the Internet during discovery, writing that claim might be harder if the defendant can magically hide his Internet presence.

What happens if the EU tries to force Google to restrict Google.com? First, it’s debatable whether EU courts have jurisdiction over a foreign company such that the EU could affect how Google manages its website overseas. Second, if the EU did have that power, I am currently unaware of an American law that would compel Google to keep information up. Or Google could ignore EU courts and accept whatever consequences that might entail.

If Google.com is such a problem, why can’t European countries just restrict citizens to European servers? Actually, that is a solution that some countries have taken up. The most prominent country that has limited its citizen’s Internet access is China.

If you’re in China, Google.com is inaccessible and you have to use Google.cn or Google.hk. In China, the purpose of blocking Google.com and restricting access to certain web pages is to keep the state, the Communist Party, and party leaders safe from political critique. Ironically, the EU will be enforcing a type of Internet censorship based on privacy rather than political oppression, but the outcome might still be the same.

Artists vs. Online Retailers: The reality of online copyright infringement

The term “sharing” has become a normal part of our 21st century lives, allowing us to engage with people around the world. By sharing, small time artists can promote their works on deviantART, Instagram, and Tumblr. Artists can even earn a living by selling their works on e-commerce sites like RedBubble, Etsy, Teefury, or Society6.

800px-UrbanOutfittersUnfortunately, being able to share your content with the world is a double-edged sword. As an artist you get to create, exhibit, and profit from your labor of love, but this also means your work can easily be stolen, reproduced, and sold without your knowledge.

Copyright protection laws give a copyright holder the right of reproduction and to create derivative works. A reproduction right means the copyright owner is the only one that can make copies of the original work. Derivative works are adaptations based on the original copyrighted work (e.g. a movie can be a derivative work of a book).

Independent online artists will often create an image, design, or comic and they usually reproduce their images on products like shirts, postcards, bags, phone cases, or other products. Derivative works, in this context, are usually merchandise created for other copyrightable works like web comic series.

The right of reproduction is the most infringed upon right for artists. Usually, an artist will upload an image and another person will take it and reprint that image on posters or tee shirts. This problem is common, even on sites like Etsy.

Although most online retail websites, including Etsy, have copyright infringement policies, enforcement and getting results can be difficult for artists. Common problems are:

  • The infringing party is in another country.
  • The websites themselves fail to take down the infringing products or images.

Besides having another person steal your work, some artists even fall victim to large retail stores like Urban Outfitters. Urban Outfitters has been accused, on multiple occasions, for copyright infringement and some artists accept this as part of the norm.

So what is an artist to do when engaging with online retail stores? Refuse to use these sites? Ignore the problem altogether?

Artists and designers take copyright infringement seriously and end up policing their own communities. Often, they will notify each other about the infringing party or will take an active role and reverse search their own images.

Reverse searching an image allows artists to see where their copyrighted works are being used on the web. Popular search engines are:

This may not be the ideal for independent online artists, but it’s the most proactive approach when dealing with infringers. The best thing to do is to know the copyright policies on whatever website you use to promote your work, and actively reverse search your images to stop copyright infringers from profiting off your work.

Monkey Selfie Costs Photographer a Small Fortune

Monkey selfies are all fun and games until a photographer loses his paycheck for the year. In 2011, David Slater spent over 7,000 pounds (or $11,763) to travel to Indonesia to take pictures of crested black macaques. While on the scene, the monkeys stole his camera and took hundreds of pictures of themselves.

monkey selfie copyright issueOne of those pictures turned out very well, but ended up in the hands of Wikimedia Foundation, the free information websites. Slater demanded Wikimedia take down the monkey selfie, but Wikimedia argued that the photo was in the public domain, not copyrighted.

Wikimedia’s argument is simple. The monkeys created the picture, but the animals have no property rights, so the picture belongs in the public domain. Normally, if a human owns an animal, then the human owns any property created by the animal. However, macaques are wild animals not owned by anyone.

Slater’s claim to the picture is that he invested a significant amount of money, time, and labor into getting the pictures, so he should be the photo’s rightful owner. Unfortunately for him, copyright law regarding photographs is that the person taking the picture is the “author” of the photo. Slater didn’t do anything to make the photo. Aside from having his camera stolen, Slater wasn’t involved in making the picture.

Slater could substantially modify the picture and claim the changes to the photograph make the picture his own work, but the picture’s value is the unimpeded view of the macaque (and the fact that the monkey took the picture herself). Also, even if he did modify the picture, Slater would only own the modified photo and not the original work.

Copyright law is supposed to promote the creation of new inventions or ideas though, so it makes little sense that labor and expenditure shouldn’t at least be a factor in determining who holds the copyright. The danger is that the distinction between investor and artist would be eroded if Slater held the copyright in this case.

Tesla Motors Will Release Its Patents – Should Other Companies Do the Same?

Elon Musk, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Product Officer of electric car producer Tesla Motors, recently announced that Tesla will release its patented technology to the public. Accompanying the announcement, Musk had harsh words for the patent system:

“When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors.”

tesla motors elon muskMusk further commented,

“After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.”

The patent system was created to encourage innovation by granting inventors the exclusive right to sell or practice a product, design, or process. But Tesla recognizes that certain companies can benefit from non-exclusivity. Musk said,

“We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.”

Tesla already enjoys a competitive advantage in the electric car space because of its pool of engineers and manufacturing facilities. Tesla needs a mainstream marketplace for its cars more than it needs exclusivity. Enter Ford, BMW, and Toyota. If the major car companies start mass-producing electric cars, Tesla will have more potential customers, and it will encourage companies to build charging stations and other infrastructure necessary for electric cars to flourish. If Tesla’s technology platform becomes the industry standard, Tesla can also sell its batteries and other components to other electric car manufacturers.

But while an open-source model may work for Tesla, inventors and start-ups trying to break into a market should continue to pursue patents for their innovations. Exclusivity can give a fledging company the competitive advantage its needs to grow, where it would otherwise be crushed by the entrenched heavyweights.

Patents have other benefits beyond exclusivity. A patent may be necessary if you intend to license your invention. If you are seeking investment, a patent may make your company more attractive to investors or venture capital firms. Patents can also be sold or used as collateral for loans or other financing. Musk admits that Tesla used its patents to obtain financing in the early days of Tesla.

Other innovative companies, like Apple, have aggressively defended their intellectual property, most notably through its recent high-profile lawsuits against Samsung over mobile phone technology. It remains to be seen whether other tech giants will follow Tesla’s lead. But for the majority of inventors and start-ups, a patent continues to be the tried and true way to bring new ideas to the market.



<