Litman on the Prospect of Copyright Reform

Jessica Litman, the John F. Nickoll Professor of Law and Professor of Information at the
University of Michigan, delivered the Twelfth Annual Honorable Helen Wilson Nies Memorial Lecture yesterday at the Law School. (Audio available here; a print version will be forthcoming in the Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review.) The subject of Litman’s fascinating lecture was “Real Copyright Reform” — the word “real” referring not to what is likely to actually occur, but rather what sort of changes would truly reform the Copyright Act.

Litman believes that yet another wholesale revision of the Copyright Act, akin to those in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976, is in the offing. The warning signs are all there — practitioners are arguing that different meanings should be given to the same terms in different contexts, industry players are opting out of the Act’s provisions in private agreements, and the current Act no longer serves any of its constituencies very well. Those constituencies include not only creators and distributors, the primary movers behind previous reform efforts, but now also device makers and, increasingly, ordinary users of copyrighted works, who in the past were treated by copyright law with benign neglect. Now, as evidenced by the RIAA lawsuits and YouTube notice and takedowns, consumers are no longer below the fray; they are getting drawn into the battles between distributors and device makers.

What can legal scholars offer the copyright revision process? Litman was not optimistic that the legislative process would produce a worthy reform, or that scholars would get to play much of a role in it, but she offered three goals the ideal “Copyright Act of 2026” should meet.

Continue ReadingLitman on the Prospect of Copyright Reform

The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — A Copyright Catch-22?

(This is the third in a series of posts on Fairey v. Associated Press. See below for other posts in the series.)

Shepard Fairey has sued the Associated Press preemptively. Before the AP could sue him for infringement, he sued for a declaratory judgement under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that his poster does not infringe on any copyrights held by the AP, and in the alternative that his poster is a fair use. The advantage of bringing a declaratory judgement action, of course, is that the defendant, not the plaintiff, gets to pick the time and place of the suit.

But if the AP hasn’t yet registered the copyright in the photo, Fairey might be caught in what I’ve described previously as a “Copyright Catch-22“: unable to sue until the AP gets its registration, at which point they’ll promptly sue him rather than waiting around for his declaratory judgement action. In other words, the Declaratory Judgement Act may simply be unavailable, as a practical matter, for some copyright defendants. Assuming the AP hasn’t gotten a registration yet, is Fairey caught in this bind? Maybe, unless the Second Circuit decides to chart a new path on this issue.

Continue ReadingThe Obama “Hope” Poster Case — A Copyright Catch-22?

ABA Journal Story on YouTube and Copyright Infringement

I’m quoted in a story in this month’s ABA Journal on the interaction between copyright law and websites that host user-generated content, such as YouTube. YouTube is defending itself right now in a lawsuit pending in the Southern District of New York brought by the media company Viacom. I analyzed the Viacom complaint in a post over on Prawfsblawg shortly after it was filed—all the way back in March 2007. (I recently checked the docket, and the case appears to still be in discovery. The gears of litigation turn slowly.)

The quote in the article is from a later post looking at the implications of a recent Northern District of California decision—Io v. Veoh—for the YouTube case. While most observers saw the defense win in Io to be good news for YouTube, I saw elements of the reasoning that I thought could pose problems for YouTube. That’s because I’ve long argued that the key good fact for Viacom, and possibly the main reason it sued, was not simply the wide availability of Viacom content on YouTube, but this allegation, from Paragraph 7 of the complaint:

Continue ReadingABA Journal Story on YouTube and Copyright Infringement