Copyright Infringements

Great Au Pair Complains to Google

December 19, 2002

 

Sender Information:
InteliMark Enterprises
Sent by: [Private]
[Private]
San Ramon, CA, 94583, USA

Recipient Information:
[Private]
Google, Inc.
2400 Bayshore Parkway
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA

 

Sent via: fax
Re: Copyright Infringements by au pair web sites

DMCA Infringement Notification


Date: December 19, 2002

Attn: [private], Google

From: InteliMark Enterprises, owner of Great Aupair, www.GreatAupair.com

RE: DMCA - Copyright Infringements by the following web sites:
www.aupair-world.net
www.aupairconnect.com
www.eaupairsource.com

GreatAupair is a premium advertiser with Google, the largest in the “au pair” category. It has come to our attention that several competing web sites have violated our copyrights and trademarks by lifting design elements, text and code from www.GreatAupair.com and by using the Great Aupair name without permission in their descriptions and key word ad listings on Google.

Section 1 - Issues of Copyright and Trademark Infringement

1. The first issue is the trademarked name “Great Aupair” that shows up in competitive ads on Google. Primary infringers are:
a. www.eaupairsource.com
b. www.aupair-world.net

2. The second copyright work at issue is the direct theft of Great Aupair’s copyrighted home page text located at: www.greataupair.com that says, “It’s fast, easy and FREE!” which is listed under “aupair registration”. That same text now appears on the home page of www.aupair-world.net after a recent redesign: Just Register as Family or Aupair. Fast, Free & Easy.

3. The third copyright work at issue is the direct theft of Great Aupair’s copyrighted web site, text, layout, design, colors, look and feel by www.eaupairsource.com to which Google maintains several links through key word advertising and general search engine rankings.

4. The fourth copyright work at issue is the direct theft of Great Aupair’s copyrighted web site, by the recently released www.aupairconnect.com web site which uses Great Aupair’s copyrighted business process; the same general layout with the same search names and the same forms; the same registration process; the same fields; the same supporting text for the stolen fields as well as the same layout and text for search results. Essentially their entire web site was stolen from Great Aupair and reformatted under their name with some unique images.

Section 2 - Material Claimed to Infringe Copyrights of InteliMark Enterprises

1. Relative to the first infringement issue as stated above, primary infringers are
www.eaupairsource.com and www.aupair-world.net

a. Search query is: great aupair

b. Search result is: Google Adwords ad from www.eaupairsource.com
Find A Great Aupair-Free
Free Search & Registration. Over
1300 U.S. aupairs & nannies online.
www.eaupairsource.com
Interest:

c. Search result is: Aupair World Au Pair Jobs Au Pair Aupair Great Aupair, Mexico… Aupair World »Au Pair and Family Details », Au Pair Great Aupair Mexican, 22, Female from Mexiko (sic). … Great Aupair, why do you want to work as an au pair? … www.aupair-world.net/aupair32668.html - 63k - Cached - Similar pages

d. Search result is: Aupair World Au Pair Great Aupair, Mexiko (sic) on - [Translate this page]… Aupair World »Aupair und Familien Details », Aupair Great Aupair Mexican, 22, Weiblich aus Mexiko (sic). … Great Aupair, warum m?chtest Du als Aupair arbeiten? … www.aupair.aupair-world.net/aupair32668.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

e. Search result is:
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:MxC_qeZkQhoC:www.aupair.aupair-world.net/aupair32668.html+great+aupair&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

f. Search result is: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:aPRHk3UPPjlC:www.aupair-europe.ondia.org/aupair_girl.html+aupair+lucky+aupair&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

g. Search result is: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:qSM9zBv550YC:my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_free.html+aupair+lucky+aupair&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

h. Since www.aupair-world.net is cloaking and using redirect pages for the Google search engine, they are not allowing the search result page to be cached, therefore the results themselves only show up in Google’s search listings, not on the actual page to which the link refers. To see what they are doing you will need to turn off Javasript (sic) and view Google’s cache for the search results that come up with the search queries above.

i. Infringing cross-linked referral web pages listed on Google are:

i. www.aupair-world.net
ii. www.au-pair.aupair-world.net/
iii. www.aupair-sites.ondia.net
iv. www.aupair-resources.ondia.de
v. www.my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_usa.html
vi. www.my-aupair.123easy.de/au_pair_girl.html
vii. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_free.html
viii. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_european.html
ix. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_girl.html
x. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/au_pair_job.html
xi. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_partner.html
xii. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/au_pair_partner.html
xiii. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/au_pair_host.html
xiv. www.geocities.com/au_pair_sites
xv. www.aupair-resources.ondia.de
xvi. www.aupair-sites.ondia.net
xvii. http://profiles.yahoo.com/mariaaupairworld
xviii. www.aupair-page.123easy.net
xix. www.aupair-europe.ondia.org
xx. http://www.aupair-forum.com


2. Relative to the second infringement issue as stated above, the primary infringer is www.aupair-world.net

a. Search query is: Family or Aupair Fast, Free & Easy

b. Search result is: Aupair World - Au Pair Job Database - Find Your Au Pair
… Aupair World auf Deutsch Aupair World in English Friends. Home. Aupair World - Your Au Pair Job Database. Just Register as Family or Au Pair. Fast, Free & Easy. …
Description: Free database for au pairs and families.
Category: Home > Family > Childcare > Au Pairs
www.aupair-world.net/ - 21k - Dec. 15, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

c. Infringing cross-linked referral web pages listed on Google are:

i. www.aupair-world.net
ii. www.au-pair.aupair-world.net/
iii. www.aupair-sites.ondia.net
iv. www.aupair-resources.ondia.de
v. www.my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_usa.html
vi. www.my-aupair.123easy.de/au_pair_girl.html
vii. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_free.html
viii. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_european.html
ix. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_girl.html
x. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/au_pair_job.html
xi. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/aupair_partner.html
xii. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/au_pair_partner.html
xiii. http://my-aupair.123easy.de/au_pair_host.html
xiv. www.geocities.com/au_pair_sites
xv. www.aupair-resources.ondia.de
xvi. www.aupair-sites.ondia.net
xvii. http://profiles.yahoo.com/mariaaupairworld
xviii. www.aupair-page.123easy.net
xix. www.aupair-europe.ondia.org
xx. http://www.aupair-forum.com

3. Relative to the third infringement issue as stated above, www.eaupairsource.com has directly stolen from Great Aupair the look, colors, and layout, which not only violates the copyrights of Great Aupair, but it also causes confusion for customers regarding brand recognition.

a. Search queries are:
i. aupair
ii. au pair
iii. aupairs
iv. au pairs
v. great aupair

b. Search result is:

Free AUPAIR Search & Registration. Click Here to Find an Aupair Now! Sponsored
www.aupairsource.com Over 2800 U.S. members Reasonable & easy to use Link

c. URL for each infringing result is the same and appears in the sponsored ad banner at the top of each result page, which is www.eaupairsource.com


4. Relative to the fourth infringement issue as stated above the entire existence of www.aupairconnect.com is an infringement of Great Aupair’s copyrights as the entire structure, text, forms, searches and results pages were directly stolen from Great Aupair.

a. Search query is: aupairconnect

b. Search result is: 483 links on Google pointing to guestbook pages that link to the infringing URLs:

i. http://www.aupairconnect.com
ii. http://www.aupairconnect.com/findaupair.asp
iii. http://www.aupairconnect.com/findfamily.asp
iv. http://www.aupairconnect.com/family_searchbycountry.asp
v. http://www.aupairconnect.com/family_searchbylanguage.asp
vi. http://www.aupairconnect.com/family_searchbynationality.asp
vii. http://www.aupairconnect.com/familyadvancedfind.asp
viii. http://www.aupairconnect.com/aupair_searchbycountry.asp
ix. http://www.aupairconnect.com/aupair_searchbylanguage.asp
x. http://www.aupairconnect.com/aupairadvancedfind.asp
xi. http://www.aupairconnect.com/aupairstep1.asp
xii. http://www.aupairconnect.com/aupairstep2.asp
xiii. http://www.aupairconnect.com/aupairstep3.asp
xiv. http://www.aupairconnect.com/aupairstep4.asp
xv. http://www.aupairconnect.com/familystep1.asp
xvi. http://www.aupairconnect.com/familystep2.asp
xvii. http://www.aupairconnect.com/familystep3.asp
xviii. http://www.aupairconnect.com/familystep4.asp
xix. http://www.aupairconnect.com/visa.asp

Section 3 - Contact Information for InteliMark Enterprises and Great Aupair

Point of Contact: [private]

Email: [private]

Direct line: [private]

Direct fax: [private]

Address: [private]
[private]
San Ramon, CA 94583


Section 4 - Contact Information for Infringing Web Sites

1. www.aupair-world.net by [private]

a. Email: [private]

b. Phone: [private]

c. Fax: [private]

d. Address: [private]
Gudensberg, D-34281
DE

2. www.eaupairsource.com by eNannySource

a. Email: [private]

b. Address: [private]
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

c. Phone: [private]

d. Fax: [private]

3. www.aupairconnect.com by Max Global, Inc.

a. Email: [private]

b. Address: [private]
Las Vegas NV 89129
United States


Section 5 - Statement of Good Faith

I have good faith belief that the use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.


Section 6 - Statement of Sworn Testimony

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.


[private]

December 19, 2002 InteliMark Enterprises, LLC - Great Aupair Page 1 of 3

FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]


Question: What is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

Answer: The DMCA, as it is known, has a number of different parts. One part is the anticircumvention provisions, which make it illegal to “circumvent” a technological measure protecting access to or copying of a copyrighted work (see Anticircumvention (DMCA)). Another part gives web hosts and Internet service providers a “safe harbor” from copyright infringement claims if they implement certain notice and takedown procedures (see DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions).


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?

Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider’s network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:

  • The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
  • The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an “information location tool” such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
  • Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
  • A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
  • A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].

Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.


[back to notice text]


Question: What constitutes copyright infringement?

Answer: Subject to certain defenses, it is copyright infringement for someone other than the author to do the following without the author’s permission:

1. reproduce (copy) the work;

2. create a new work derived from the original work (for example, by translating the work into a new language, by copying and distorting the image, or by transferring the work into a new medium of expression);

3. sell or give away the work, or a copy of the work, for the first time (but once the author has done so, the right to sell or give away the item is transferred to the new owner. This is known as the “first sale” doctrine: once a copyright owner has sold or given away the work or a copy of it, the recipient or purchaser may do as she pleases with what she posesses.) 17 U.S.C. §109(a);

4. perform or display the work in public without permission from the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. §106. It is also copyright infringement to violate the “moral rights” of an author as defined by 17 U.S.C. 106A. Moral rights are discussed here.


[back to notice text]


Question: What defines a service provider under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?

Answer: A service provider is defined as “an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received” or “a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof.” [512(k)(1)(A-B)] This broad definition includes network services companies such as Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, bulletin board system operators, and even auction web sites. In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc., the court refused to extend the safe harbor provisions to the Napster software program and service, leaving open the question of whether peer-to-peer networks also qualify for safe harbor protection under Section 512.

There are four major categories of network systems offered by service providers that qualify for protection under the safe harbor provisions:

  • Conduit Communications include the transmission and routing of information, such as an email or Internet service provider, which store the material only temporarily on their networks. [Sec. 512(a)]
  • System Caching refers to the temporary copies of data that are made by service providers in providing the various services that require such copying in order to transfer data. [Sec. 512(b)]
  • Storage Systems refers to services which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service or a chat room. [Sec. 512(c)]
  • Information Location Tools refer to services such as search engines, directories, or pages of recommended web sites which provide links to the allegedly infringing material. [Sec. 512(d)]


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions?

Answer: In 1998, Congress passed the On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) in an effort to protect service providers on the Internet from liability for the activities of its users. Codified as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), this new law exempts on-line service providers that meet the criteria set forth in the safe harbor provisions from claims of copyright infringement made against them that result from the conduct of their customers. These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. If a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer are liable for monetary damages; the service provider’s network through which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable.


[back to notice text]


Question: What rights are protected by copyright law?

Answer: The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative work by granting a temporary monopoly in an author’s original creations. This monopoly takes the form of six rights in areas where the author retains exclusive control. These rights are:

(1) the right of reproduction (i.e., copying),
(2) the right to create derivative works,
(3) the right to distribution,
(4) the right to performance,
(5) the right to display, and
(6) the digital transmission performance right.

The law of copyright protects the first two rights in both private and public contexts, whereas an author can only restrict the last four rights in the public sphere. Claims of infringement must show that the defendant exercised one of these rights. For example, if I create unauthorized videotape copies of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and distribute them to strangers on the street, then I have infringed both the copyright holder’s rights of reproduction and distribution. If I merely re-enact The Wrath of Khan for my family in my home, then I have not infringed on the copyright. Names, ideas and facts are not protected by copyright.

Trademark law, in contrast, is designed to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of goods (as well as to protect the trademark owner’s market). To this end, the law gives the owner of a registered trademark the right to use the mark in commerce without confusion. If someone introduces a trademark into the market that is likely to cause confusion, then the newer mark infringes on the older one. The laws of trademark infringement and dilution protect against this likelihood of confusion. Trademark protects names, images and short phrases.

Infringement protects against confusion about the origin of goods. The plaintiff in an infringement suit must show that defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause such a confusion. For instance, if I were an unscrupulous manufacturer, I might attempt to capitalize on the fame of Star Trek by creating a line of ‘Spock Activewear.’ If consumers could reasonably believe that my activewear was produced or endorsed by the owners of the Spock trademark, then I would be liable for infringement.

The law of trademark dilution protects against confusion concerning the character of a registered trademark. Suppose I created a semi-automatic assault rifle and marketed it as ‘The Lt. Uhura 5000.’ Even if consumers could not reasonably believe that the Star Trek trademark holders produced this firearm, the trademark holders could claim that my use of their mark harmed the family-oriented character of their mark. I would be liable for dilution.


[back to notice text]


Question: What can be protected as a trademark?

Answer: You can protect

  • names (such as company names, product names)
  • domain names if they label a product or service
  • images
  • symbols
  • logos
  • slogans or phrases
  • colors
  • product design
  • product packaging (known as trade dress)


[back to notice text]


Question: What may be copyrighted?

Answer: In order to be copyrightable, a work must be

1. fixed in a tangible medium of expression ; and
2. original.

Copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries: they only protect physical representations. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). Anything unrecorded is not copyrightable, in as much as it is not “fixed;” for example, dances and improvisations themselves are not copyrightable: only visual recordings or written descriptions of them are. Say I go to a jazz concert and listen to a soloist’s improvisation. If I have the musical equivalent of a photgraphic memory, I may be able to reproduce that improvised solo in my own concert on the following night. If that solo exists nowhere but my memory (i.e. the original concert was not recorded) I may play it with impunity, because it is not “fixed” and therefore not copyrightable. But, if the original concert was recorded (e.g. taped, videoed, transcribed on paper), even by an amateur, I am barred from playing my version of the solo. Even a bootleg recording (for which the recorder can be punished under section 1101 of the copyright act) qualifies for copyright protection: a work need not be formally published in order to be “fixed;” it need only be saved in a tangible form. 17 U.S.C. § 104.

The originality requirement of 17 U.S.C. §102 demands that a work, in order to be copyrigted, be independently created by the author. In order to be original, a work need not necessarily have novelty, artistic merit, truth, or lawful content. For example, a replica of a painting in the public domain may not be novel, but it is copyrightable. An item of sculpture designed to be used as a pipe for smoking marijuana may not be designed for legal ends, but it is copyrightable. A false biography is copyrightable, although it may well also be cause for defamation litigation.


[back to notice text]


Question: What exactly are the rights a trademark owner has?

Answer: In the US, trademark rights come from actual use of the mark to label one’s services or products or they come from filing an application with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that states an intention to use the mark in future commerce. In most foreign countries, trademarks are valid only upon registration.

There are two trademark rights: the right to use (or authorize use) and the right to register.

The person who establishes priority rights in a mark gains the exclusive right to use it to label or identify their goods or services, and to authorize others to do so. According to the Lanham Act, determining who has priority rights in a mark involves establishing who was the first to use it to identify his/her goods.

The PTO determines who has the right to register the mark. Someone who registers a trademark with the intent to use it gains “constructive use” when he/she begins using it, which entitles him/her to nationwide priority in the mark. However, if two users claim ownership of the same mark (or similar marks) at the same time, and neither has registered it, a court must decide who has the right to the mark. The court can issue an injunction (a ruling that requires other people to stop using the mark) or award damages if people other than the owner use the trademark (infringement).

Trademark owners do not acquire the exclusive ownership of words. They only obtain the right to use the mark in commerce and to prevent competitors in the same line of goods or services from using a confusingly similar mark. The same word can therefore be trademarked by different producers to label different kinds of goods. Examples are Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets.

Owners of famous marks have broader rights to use their marks than do owners of less-well-known marks. They can prevent uses of their marks by others on goods that do not even compete with the famous product.


[back to notice text]


Question: What may be copyrighted?

Answer: In order to be copyrightable, a work must be

1. fixed in a tangible medium of expression ; and
2. original.

Copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries: they only protect physical representations. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). Anything unrecorded is not copyrightable, in as much as it is not “fixed;” for example, dances and improvisations themselves are not copyrightable: only visual recordings or written descriptions of them are. Say I go to a jazz concert and listen to a soloist’s improvisation. If I have the musical equivalent of a photgraphic memory, I may be able to reproduce that improvised solo in my own concert on the following night. If that solo exists nowhere but my memory (i.e. the original concert was not recorded) I may play it with impunity, because it is not “fixed” and therefore not copyrightable. But, if the original concert was recorded (e.g. taped, videoed, transcribed on paper), even by an amateur, I am barred from playing my version of the solo. Even a bootleg recording (for which the recorder can be punished under section 1101 of the copyright act) qualifies for copyright protection: a work need not be formally published in order to be “fixed;” it need only be saved in a tangible form. 17 U.S.C. § 104.

The originality requirement of 17 U.S.C. §102 demands that a work, in order to be copyrigted, be independently created by the author. In order to be original, a work need not necessarily have novelty, artistic merit, truth, or lawful content. For example, a replica of a painting in the public domain may not be novel, but it is copyrightable. An item of sculpture designed to be used as a pipe for smoking marijuana may not be designed for legal ends, but it is copyrightable. A false biography is copyrightable, although it may well also be cause for defamation litigation.


[back to notice text]


Question: What may be copyrighted?

Answer: In order to be copyrightable, a work must be

1. fixed in a tangible medium of expression ; and
2. original.

Copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries: they only protect physical representations. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). Anything unrecorded is not copyrightable, in as much as it is not “fixed;” for example, dances and improvisations themselves are not copyrightable: only visual recordings or written descriptions of them are. Say I go to a jazz concert and listen to a soloist’s improvisation. If I have the musical equivalent of a photgraphic memory, I may be able to reproduce that improvised solo in my own concert on the following night. If that solo exists nowhere but my memory (i.e. the original concert was not recorded) I may play it with impunity, because it is not “fixed” and therefore not copyrightable. But, if the original concert was recorded (e.g. taped, videoed, transcribed on paper), even by an amateur, I am barred from playing my version of the solo. Even a bootleg recording (for which the recorder can be punished under section 1101 of the copyright act) qualifies for copyright protection: a work need not be formally published in order to be “fixed;” it need only be saved in a tangible form. 17 U.S.C. § 104.

The originality requirement of 17 U.S.C. §102 demands that a work, in order to be copyrigted, be independently created by the author. In order to be original, a work need not necessarily have novelty, artistic merit, truth, or lawful content. For example, a replica of a painting in the public domain may not be novel, but it is copyrightable. An item of sculpture designed to be used as a pipe for smoking marijuana may not be designed for legal ends, but it is copyrightable. A false biography is copyrightable, although it may well also be cause for defamation litigation.


[back to notice text]


Question: Can search engines be liable for copyright infringement by providing hyperlinks to search results?

Answer: Some Internet search engines have been getting “takedown” requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512 (see DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions for more information). The DMCA provides a safe harbor to information location tools that comply with takedown notices, but it is not settled whether they would be liable for copyright infringement if they did not use the safe harbor. Arguably, computer-generated pages of links do not materially facilitate infringing activity or put their hosts on notice of copyright infringements.


[back to notice text]


Question: What may be copyrighted?

Answer: In order to be copyrightable, a work must be

1. fixed in a tangible medium of expression ; and
2. original.

Copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries: they only protect physical representations. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). Anything unrecorded is not copyrightable, in as much as it is not “fixed;” for example, dances and improvisations themselves are not copyrightable: only visual recordings or written descriptions of them are. Say I go to a jazz concert and listen to a soloist’s improvisation. If I have the musical equivalent of a photgraphic memory, I may be able to reproduce that improvised solo in my own concert on the following night. If that solo exists nowhere but my memory (i.e. the original concert was not recorded) I may play it with impunity, because it is not “fixed” and therefore not copyrightable. But, if the original concert was recorded (e.g. taped, videoed, transcribed on paper), even by an amateur, I am barred from playing my version of the solo. Even a bootleg recording (for which the recorder can be punished under section 1101 of the copyright act) qualifies for copyright protection: a work need not be formally published in order to be “fixed;” it need only be saved in a tangible form. 17 U.S.C. § 104.

The originality requirement of 17 U.S.C. §102 demands that a work, in order to be copyrigted, be independently created by the author. In order to be original, a work need not necessarily have novelty, artistic merit, truth, or lawful content. For example, a replica of a painting in the public domain may not be novel, but it is copyrightable. An item of sculpture designed to be used as a pipe for smoking marijuana may not be designed for legal ends, but it is copyrightable. A false biography is copyrightable, although it may well also be cause for defamation litigation.


[back to notice text]


Question: What implication does alleged confusion have on claims of trademark infringement?

Answer: A mark that is confusingly similar so closely resembles a registered trademark that it is likely to confuse consumers as to the source of the product or service. Consumers could be likely to believe that the product with the confusingly similar mark is produced by the organization that holds the registered mark. Someone who holds a confusingly similar mark benefits from the good will associated with the registered mark and can lure customers to his/her product or service instead. Infringement is determined by whether your mark is confusingly similar to a registered mark. The factors that determine infringement include:

  • proof of actual confusion
  • strength of the established mark
  • proximity of the goods in the marketplace
  • similarity of the marks’ sound
  • appearance and meaning
  • how the goods are marketed
  • type of product and how discerning the customer is
  • intent behind selecting the mark
  • likelihood of expansion in the market of the goods


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?

Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper “counter-notice” claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual’s objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:

  • The subscriber’s name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
  • Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
  • A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
  • Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]

If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)]


[back to notice text]


Question: Who may hold a copyright?

Answer: A copyright ordinarily vests in the creator or creators of a work (known as the author(s)), and is inherited as ordinary property. Copyrights are freely transferrable as property, at the discretion of the owner. 17 U.S.C. §201(a), (d). In some cases, however, the actual creator is not considered the author of the work for copyright purposes: if a work is created by an employee in the regular course of her employment, it is considered a “work for hire” and the employer, not the employee, is considered the “author” of the work for copyright purposes. For example, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a staff writer for a newspaper does not hold the copyrights in her product, the newspaper does. This only applies to works created in the ordinary course of employment: if the same reporter writes a novel in her spare time, she herself owns that copyright.

Certain commissioned works may also be considered works for hire. 17 U.S.C. §201(b); Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989). The term “work for hire” is defined in 17 U.S.C. §101.


Topic maintained by Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic

 

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.