Copyright Infringment Lawyer, Internet Defamation, and Internet Privacy

ISP Loses DMCA Immunity Based Upon the Rampant Copyright Infringement

    The United States district court for the southern district of Florida has issued a decision involving internet service provider’s immunity under the DMCA, or digital millennium copyright act. The law suit is based upon five major motion picture studios suing the website known as "hot file". Hot file provides on-line file storage, in the plaints’ claim that hot file restoring and sharing works that infringe the copyright of the plaints’. Plaints’ theory is that hot file should be liable for copyright infringement because it contributes to, encourages, or benefits from the copyright infringement by making available storage for and links to the allegedly infringing works for its users.

Intellectual Property Theft: Prevention and Recovery

Matt: Hi, and welcome back to Copyright Law Radio! I'm Matt Plessner. The laws of copyrighting and theft on the internet can be very undefined sometimes. The internet is a medium that's still very young, and thus can be subject to, I guess, kaleidoscope of different legal issues. We've referred to the internet as the "wild, wild west" in many of the interviews past, and that is very true. One such issue is intellectual property theft. Today, we're going to be discussing what this means, as well as some preventive and recovery methods. And of course, at Traverse Legal, we work with COPYSHIELD.COM which is a site that helps with matters such as these. And to help us with these we are welcoming Copyshields's very own Justin Mikula. Justin, we appreciate you taking some time to talk with us today.

Justin: Thanks for having me.

Matt: Now Justin....Well, for those people who haven't heard, I guess, our other interviews, can you just give us a little brief overview of Copyshield and what you do exactly?

Copyright Infringement Liability for Online Retailers

Weather you run a store on eBay or Amazon, operate your own ecommerce website, or otherwise sell goods online, you may face liability for the sale of goods that infringe the copyright of another. Well the digital millennium copyright act common namely section five twelve, provides protections to those internet service providers who are notified of infringement materials in comply with the statue, retailers may still face copyright infringement liability. If in fact they are selling their own products that are alleged to infringe another’s copyright, they may face directive copyright infringement liability. Moreover, if you are merely reselling third party products that are alleged to infringe the copyright of another, you may still face direct or secondary copyright liability.

Section 230 Immunity Not Available For Website Commentor

Section 230 in the Communications Decency Act has typically been asserted as a defense by any website owner subject to a defamation claim based upon comments by a third party poster. However, a recent case from Kentucky highlights the fact that where the website owner actually participates in the comment creation, that website owner may not be able to avail itself of Section 230 immunity. In particular, a Federal Judge on Monday found that thedirty.com's owner was not able to use the Section 230 defense after having been sued for defamation by a former Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader based upon a post involving her sexual activities. The judge found that thedirty.com was not entitled to immunity because Section 230 does not apply when the owner added his own comments ratifying or adopting the posts posted by a third party contributor. In particular, the Federal Court opinion stated; "that is, a website owner who intentionally encourages illegal or actionable third party postings to which he adds his own comments ratifying or adopting the post becomes a "creator" or "developer" of that content and is not entitled to immunity".

Privacy and Notice Considerations for Mobile Tracking in Applications

The Digital Advertising Alliance recently released guidance to provide further direction to companies operating mobile applications. The guidance applies to companies that engage in behavioral targeting, with use of cross app tracking to serve advertisements, app base tracking of geo location data, collection of address book information from social networking accounts, and behavioral tracking on mobile websites. Fundamentally speaking, the guidance remains the same; give notice and choice on mobile devices. 

Unauthorized Use of the Name or Likeness of an Individual

There are various causes of action under what is commonly referred to as invasion of privacy. The first, false light invasion of privacy, occurs when information is published about a person that is false. Although similar to defamation, it is different because particular statement need not be defamatory but instead embellished, distort, or otherwise alter information in such a way that it amounts to a false light invasion of privacy.

Can I trademark my slogan?

Whether or not an entity can trademark a slogan really depends on how that slogan is to be used. The general principles of trademark law apply in analyzing whether or not the intended or actual use of the slogan constitutes trademark use under the law. At the outset, it is important to understand that a copyright cannot protect a slogan. Therefore, a trademark may be able to do so IF a slogan is used as a source identifier in connection to a particular set of goods or services. Put another way, the slogan must be distinctive, used in interstate commerce, and used as a brand identifier.

To determine whether or not the slogan is distinctive, a trademark attorney can analyze the slogan to ensure that it is not generic or merely descriptive when used in connection with the underlying goods or services. Instead, the slogan must be distinctive, which means that it has either acquired distinctiveness, is arbitrary, or fanciful. Understanding how the slogan will be used will help determine whether or not the slogan is distinctive enough to qualify as a trademark.

The slogan must also be used in interstate commerce as a trademark. Therefore, merely putting it on the front of a t-shirt or some other merely ornamental use does not qualify as a trademark use. It must serve as a source identifier. For example, if used in connection with services, it should be used on a website or other advertising material that confirms that it is a mark. If used in connection with certain goods, such as t-shirts, it must be used on a hang tag, label, or otherwise in such a way that it is clear that it is more than a slogan or phrase without any underlying identification of source for such goods. One looking to protect a slogan would be well served to speak with a trademark attorney who can further advise the proper way to make trademark use of a slogan.

Ultimately, the trademark availability assessment or clearance should be performed on a slogan prior to beginning use or pursuing registration. This will allow a trademark attorney to determine whether or not use of the slogan is likely to subject the entity to claims of trademark infringement, whether or not the slogan is in fact distinctive enough to qualify as a trademark, and provide recommendations as to the likelihood of it being a protectable mark and/or successful trademark registration with the (USPTO) United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Motion To Quash Subpoena For IP Address

When an anonymous poster takes action online, an IP address must be used and is associated with that individual poster. In the event that the anonymous poster is engaged in online defamation or copyright infringement, the harmed party must first identify the anonymous poster in order to proceed with a lawsuit. The harmed party, or Plaintiff, will file a lawsuit against a John Doe. We will then seek expedited discovery so as to subpoena information associated with that IP address from the internet service provider, such as a cable company. The internet service provider will then provide notice to the owner of that IP address. That notice will confirm that it will be disclosing the information associated with the Ip address, such as name and address, if a motion to quash is not filed with and granted by the court handling the underlying lawsuit filed by the plaintiff.

Malibu Media, who has been identified in various online sources as a copyright troll, is one such party that regularly deals with anonymous actors online. In particular, Malibu Media is the owner of various adult related copyright works. When such works are allegedly infringed, Malibu Media files a lawsuit against a John Doe, seeks expedited discovery, subpoenas the internet service provider, and then hopefully proceeds with action against an identified person. Some individuals choose to file a motion that quashes a subpoena. One such recent case in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, as decided on July 14, 2013, the court entertained three reasons why the motion to quash should be granted.

First, it fails to allow a reasonable time to comply. Second, it requires excessive travel by a non-party. Third, it requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies. Fourth, subjects a person to undue burden. Those are the only grounds listed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 as it relates to reasons to quash a subpoena. The John  Doe defendant in the above identified matter sought the courts quashing of the subpoena on three separate basis, including plaintiff's litigation tactics, defendants inability to challenge the courts order permitting early discovery, and defendants First Amendment right to anonymous file sharing. The court considered each of these arguments. It first noted that a plaintiff has a constitutional right to file a lawsuit to engage in discovery to determine if a defendant or someone using a defendants IP address infringed on a protected work so long as the plaintiff had a good faith basis in doing so under Rule 11, which refers to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and contains sanctions for frivolous or unfounded filings. Despite acknowledging that Malibu Media has been argued to be and identified as a copyright troll, the court recognized that it has the same right as all the other litigants to settle or dismiss its claims before engaging and discovering prior to filing any dispositive motions. Therefore, court declined to quash the subpoena based upon litigation tactics alleged in the motion to quash.

The court also quickly disposed of the defendants argument that the subpoena should be quashed due to defendants inability to challenge the courts order permitting early discovery. The court recognized that the defendants anonymity was the exact reason why the plaintiff sought early discovery and one of the few reasons that early discovery is permitted. Put simply, deemed the argument unreasonable that defendants failure to participate in the process intended to discover his identity could be used as a basis for restricting the subpoena or other discovery.

Finally, the court considered whether the defendants interest in anonymous file sharing justifies quashing the subpoena. While anonymous internet speech, including file sharing, enjoys some protection under the First Amendment, such protection is not absolute, said the court. As a category, copyright infringement is not protected by the First Amendment. That said, courts have recognized that defendants right to remain anonymous must give way to plaintiffs right to use the judicial process to pursue what appear to be meritorious copyright infringement claims. In analyzing the issue, the court considered what are known as The Sony Music Factors, including whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie case for infringement, the specificity of information sought from the internet service provider, a lack of alternative means of obtaining that information, a central need for the information in order to bring the claim, and the expectation of privacy held by the objecting party.

The court first recognized that a prima facie claim of copyright infringement exists because the plaintiff alleged ownership of valid copyright, including a copyright registration with the US Copyright office, as well as original works of authorship in each of the seven films at issue. Second, the information sought from the ISP was specific enough, including defendants name, address, and telephone number. Third, the court recognized that a subpoena is the first step and that no other means are available to identify the defendant. In doing so, the court noted that this information is not guaranteed to produce the identity of the infringer, the court could not identify any other reasonable way of discovering the infringer other by permitting the discovery into the identity of the defendant, who has not disputed that he owns the IP address through the alleged infringement occurred. Fourth, there is a central need for the subpoenaed information. The court recognized that plaintiffs providing an exculpatory evidence request with its complaint demonstrates steps that it may take to get information from the internet subscriber to the alleged infringer, which further weighs in favor of discovery under the fourth factor. Fifth, and finally, the court chose to recognize that a file sharers First Amendment right to anonymity is exceedingly small. It went on to state that, "It is hard to understand just what privacy expectation a file sharing defendant has after essentially opening up his or her computer to the world". Thus, the court found the information sought in the subpoena is both relevant and necessary to the plaintiffs interest in vindicating its valid copyrights through this litigation and the discovery sought did not violate defendants First Amendment right to anonymous file sharing, which is too slight to overcome any such discovery interest.

More and more decisions are being issued throughout the country as it relates to the quashing of subpoenas related to identifying the owner of an IP address in cases involving alleged copyright infringement. A copyright attorney with experience in this area can help advise as to the likelihood of a successful motion to quash, as well as other efforts in the event that you receive notice from an ISP that your identity is to be revealed pursuant to a subpoena.

Software Copyright Infringement

The unauthorized copying and use of someone else's software amounts to copyright infringement. Companies are ramping up their enforcement efforts as it relates to entities that use their software without the necessary software licenses. Microsoft is one example of that; recently took action against copyright infringers, consistent with their publicized policy of copyright infringement enforcement. In particular, it was reported that Microsoft settled more than 3 thousand copyright infringement matters throughout the world last year alone. While some were in the United States, many of them were overseas. Microsoft views software piracy, counterfeiting, and copyright infringement as a major problem that has long reaching affects upon on not only Microsoft's revenue but also economic growth, innovation, and consumer protection. Microsoft is not the only one that enforces its software rights via copyright infringement lawsuits and settlements.

If you are interested in learning more about software copyright enforcement efforts you should contact a copyright attorney today. Similarily, if you have been alleged to infringe the software copyright license of another , you should immediately speak with a copyright attorney who can identify the loegal and financial liability and advise you of means to defend or settle your matter.

Copyright Registration for Computer Programs and Applications

Oftentimes people discover that someone else has copied their website, computer program, or computer application online. They want to take action. However, unless they have registered for copyright protection with the US Copyright Office, they cannot file a lawsuit in federal court. Therefore, pursing copyright registration for computer programs and applications is critically important. In order to do so, however, there are many practical and legal decisions that need to be made in order to provide the broadest protection for a website, computer program, or computer application.

As always, copyright protection extends only to the copyrightable expression embodied in the website, computer program, or computer application. No one person can claim copyright protection for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts. While other kinds of intellectual property protection may be available for those, copyright protection is not.

Since the registration of a copyright is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit in federal court for copyright infringement, insuring that the copyright registration is correct typically requires the assistance of a copyright attorney. The copyright attorney can assist you with determining whether or not your computer program contains trade secrets and how the deposit that must accompany any copyright registration can be adjusted accordingly. In addition, a copyright attorney can help you understand whether or not your registration pertains only to your computer program or also to its screen displays. The same holds true for your website if it is providing software online or for your computer application, or app. Finally, a copyright attorney can assist you insuring that all authors and owners of the particular registration have accurately been reflected, and if necessary, agreements have been secured in order to insure that you have the necessary copyright rights in your computer program or other copyrightable item.

Ultimately, copyright registration for computer programs is extremely important. Completing the online application for computer program is one step, but a copyright attorney can insure that you have done what is necessary prior to and after successful registration in order to secure, maintain, and enforce your copyright rights.