Creative Commons

• Creative Commons Licensing

         

• Copyright holders have traditionally shared their work with others in very restrictive ways, either by assignment or proprietary licensing. However, with the digital revolution and the explosion of social media, content users want more freedom to adapt and share content with each other.
• 
  
• If you want others to freely share your work online, there are a number of more “open” licensing models you can use to distribute your work. The best known and most widely used is the Creative Commons licenses.
• Many people think that work published under a Creative Commons license is essentially a waiver of copyright. This is incorrect as the licensor still asserts copyright over the licensed work, but grants further freedoms to others to share, adapt and redistribute the work under the license.
• 
  
• Creative Commons (CC) has six main license types, each type with its own level of restrictiveness. The restrictions are based on 4 concepts:
• 
  
• Attribution (crediting the original creator) 
• Share-alike (sharing derivative works under identical licence terms)
• Non-commercial purposes (allow rights but not to make money)
• No-derivative works (redistribute and use actual work but don’t make changes).
• 
  
• 
  
• The 6 main license types are:
• 
  
• Attribution:
• This license lets others basically do what they want with your work (including make money from it): provided they credit you for the original work in a way that suits you.
• 
  
• Attribution Share-Alike:
• This license again grants all the same rights (including commercial use): provided the user credits you and licences any new works under the identical terms.
• 
  
• Attribution No Derivatives:
• This license allows your work to be redistributed (including commercially), but it cannot be changed and it must be credited to you.
• 
  
• Attribution Non-Commercial:
• This license lets others do what they want with your work provided it is not for commercial purposes and you are properly credited.
• 
  
• Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike:
• This license grants all rights to others, provided they enjoy them for non-commercial purposes only, they licence any derivative works under identical terms, and you are properly credited for the original work.
• 
  
• Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives:
• This license only allows others to download your works and share them, provided proper credit is given to you. The original work cannot be changed or used commercially.

(Quick Guide to the Licences and their Notation)

Modern Day Pirates

Internet Piracy

The illegal download of music has become rife in the UK, with statistically more than 50 per cent of the population of Britain engaging in some form of copyright infringement, through involvement in illegal downloads and piracy via online sites such as LimeWire and Pirate Bay.

"Illegal downloading in the UK has become a massive threat to the music and film industries. In 1997, 78 million singles were sold in the UK; last year, it was just 8.6m. It is estimated that half the population has engaged in some sort of nefarious downloading in the last five years."

It is clear that sites such as these allow its users to download music at a discounted rate, and often more than not, for free. This is having a definite detrimental effect on the music industry and sales of records the world over.  This has become such an issue that the charges faced are becoming more and more extreme.

"The penalties for copyright offences depend on seriousness, but at the higher end of the scale it can lead to an appearance before a magistrate where the sanction for distributing unauthorised files is a fine of up to £5,000 or six months' imprisonment. The worst cases may be sent to the Crown Court, which has the power to impose an unlimited fine and up to 10 years' imprisonment."

The majority of sites carry no disclaimers or warnings for their users and thus do not warn of the consequences of their actions. They are in fact breaching copyright by accessing or downloading audio files online.

However the seems to be exceptions in some cases, if the user is able to prove that the files where being downloaded for ‘personal use’ rather than commercial use, meaning that no criminal offence had been committed. The problem then arises as to how you ‘prove’ the files were for personal use  or not. Cyber criminals as they are labelled, can range from your first time users to your nefarious multiple downloaders who turn this into a so-called business selling pirate material for profit.

The question is not only How to stop it?, but also Who is to blame?

The best course of action is always to cut it off at the head, and in this case it is the sites and uploaders themselves who should holster the blame.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has scored a court victory against the LimeWire file-sharing network. A US court ruled that LimeWire is liable for copyright infringement on its networks. A final cash penalty has not yet been determined. The court found that LimeWire had allowed users to traffic in copyrighted content, and had not taken appropriate measures to prevent users downloading the files.The RIAA, which had brought the case forward, applauded the ruling as a victory for copyright holders.

"The court's decision is an important milestone in the creative community's fight to reclaim the internet as a platform for legitimate commerce," said RIAA chief executive Mitch Bainwol.

"By finding LimeWire's chief executive personally liable, in addition to his company, the court has sent a clear signal to those who think they can devise and profit from a piracy scheme that will escape accountability." The decision is the latest in a legal battle between file-sharing networks and the RIAA that has dragged on for more than a decade.

Anti-diluted Coffee

Starbucks v.Charbucks

Stating that the anti-dilution law should be used as “a scalpel, not a battle axe,” Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York once again found that Starbucks failed to prove that the famous STARBUCKS trademark was likely to be diluted by the use of the marks CHARBUCKS BLEND, MR. CHARBUCKS, and MISTER CHARBUCKS on dark roasted coffee. In her opinion, she ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant, Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., and that the long-running case be closed.

This is the third ruling that Judge Swain has made against Starbucks. It may not be the final word, however, as Starbucks may appeal yet again.

The dispute began in 1997, when Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, which does business as Black Bear Micro Roastery, started selling coffee under the names CHARBUCKS BLEND, MR. CHARBUCKS, and MISTER CHARBUCKS from a retail outlet called “The Den” in New Hampshire. Starbucks sent Wolfe’s a demand letter, but Wolfe’s refused to accede because “basically this was a large corporation coming at me and telling us what to do.” Starbucks then brought suit in the Southern District of New York.

After a two-day trial in 2005, Judge Swain ruled against Starbucks on all of its claims. In her opinion, Judge Swain held that the two marks must be “very or substantially similar” in order for dilution to occur, and that the use of MR. before CHARBUCKS alone defeats Starbuck’s dilution claim.

Consumer Whore

Starbucks parody sued for Trademark (not Copyright) Infringement

In 1999, Kieron Dwyer created a modified Starbucks logo that got him a lot of attention. It was dubbed, "Consumer Whore." In 2000, a year after Dwyer made comic books, t-shirts, and stickers with his version of the Starbucks logo, the company sued him, obtaining an injunction that prevented Dwyer from using the parody until the case was scheduled to go to court over a year later. When the case was finally settled, Dwyer was allowed to continue displaying his logo but only in extremely limited circumstances. No more comic books, t-shirts, or stickers: he may post the image on the web but not on his own website - nor may he link from his website to any other sites that show the parody. In short, Dwyer is permitted to use the logo as long as Starbucks can be confident that no one will see it.

There have been a couple of cases along similar lines that have gone to the Supreme Court since then that have been won. But during the settlement, even the judge said, "They can outspend you and that’s what it comes down to". And that was probably the most illuminating and disheartening part of the process, and that’s the lesson for the artist its all about money."

From: http://www.stretcher.org/reviews/images/2004/illegal_art/dwyer.htm (21/03/2012)

The Apple that was rotten to the Corps

Apple Corps v. Apple Computer

  

The Beatles founded a holding company for their record label Apple Records, which they names Apple Corps. In 1978 this company filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. This case lasted 3 years before finally being settled in the favour of Apple Corps to the sum of US $80,000. The conditions of the settlement stipulated that  Apple Computer would not enter the music business, and Apple Corps would not, in turn, enter the computer business.

However in 1986, Apple Computer added audio-recording capabilities to its computers, so , in 1989, this led Apple Corps to sue again, claiming that Apple Computer had violated their agreed settlement. A second settlement was reached, again in favour of Apple Corps.

Along with the monetary value, the settlement outlined each company’s respective rights to the term “Apple”. In short this stated that Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials.

Once again in 2003, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer. This time for breach of contract for their use of the Apple logo for its iTunes Music Store, contending it a violation of the previous agreement. The trial opened in the High Court in 2006.

Apple Corps opening argument was that they had rejected a US $1 million offer from Apple Computer to use the Apple name on the iTunes store. However the court ruled in favour of Apple Computer, stating that “no breach of the trademark agreement [had] been demonstrated”

In 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute. Apple Inc. would own all the trademarks related to “Apple” and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. This brought the ongoing trademark lawsuit to an end.

Commenting on the settlement, Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO said, “We love the Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks. It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future.”

Despite this, it would take a further 3 years until the official Beatles albums would be made available for sale on Apple’s iTunes Store.

Alex, Salkever (30/09/2004) "John, Paul, George, Ringo...and Steve?". BusinessWeek. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2004/tc20040930_9317_tc056.html

Hormby, Thomas (01/10/2007). "What's In a Name? Apple Corp vs. Apple Computer". Low End Mac. http://lowendmac.com/orchard/07/0110.html

Starbucks v. The World

Example of Trademark Infringement

In 2006 a two year legal battle ended after Starbucks sued A Chinese coffee store chain for violating its copyright. A court in Shanghai concluded that the Xingbake coffee chain had infringed the coffee giant’s trademark by using a similar design and colour palette. This victory for Starbucks was something of a landmark in China where foreign firms have complained of piracy for years.

Although it appears Starbucks may be fighting a bigger battle as they will have to contend with a growing trend in infringement of their trademark from all over the world.

Dyson cleans up in court

Example of Patent Infringement

 

As stated by the Intellectual Property Office, infringing on a patent means manufacturing, using, selling or importing a patented product or process without the patent owner’s permission. Here is an example of a high profile case:

Dyson v. Hoover

In 2002 Dyson sued Hoover over a dispute in patent infringement. Dyson claimed that Hoover’s Triple Vortex Cleaner, infringed on their patent for its Dual Cyclone Cleaner. The dispute was settled in the High Court and Dyson received  £4 million damages and secured the patent on their bagless vacuum.

“I spent 20 years developing the technology and I am very pleased to see Hoover, who made a lot of false claims about their product, now found guilty of patent infringement," Mr Dyson said, after the court ruled in his favour.

The amount gained in the settlement  was much larger than any previous court award in British Patent history.

"Patent infringement." Intellectual Property Office. Web http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-other/p-infringe.html (17/03/2012).