jump to navigation

Howard Zaharoff Highlights 2016 Copyright Legislative and Regulatory Developments 02/16/2017

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Intellectual Property.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

HGZ Headshot Photo 2015 (M0846618xB1386)While many are reflecting on the key copyright cases of 2016, Howard Zaharoff states the necessity of noting the important copyright legislative and regulatory developments that also took place. In his most recent article, Copyright Law: Legislative and Regulatory Developments, Howard discusses developments by the House Judiciary Committee, the Small Copyright Claims Tribunal, and the new procedure for registering designated agents under the DMCA, among others.

For an overview on these and other copyright developments, read the full article.

Contours of Copyright #4: No Protection for Game Play 12/21/2016

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Games & Interactive Entertainment, Intellectual Property.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

The battle between an Ancient Chinese themed game, and a Wild-West game, reminds us that rules of game play are generally not protectable by copyright, but certain expressive game aspects may be.HGZ Headshot Photo 2015 (M0846618xB1386)

Discussion: The plaintiff in DaVinci Editrice v. ZiKo Games (S.D. Tex. 2016) published Bang!, a role-playing card game with Wild-West themes that became a world-wide success. Bang! players are assigned one of four roles – Sheriff, Deputy, Outlaw or Renegade – each with its own “winning condition” (e.g., the Sheriff wins by outliving the Outlaws and Renegades).  Each player also gets assigned a card evoking a familiar Wild-West character (e.g., Calamity Janet) with its own unique ability and 1-to-5 “life points.” Players also draw “weapon cards” (enabling them to reduce competitors’ life points) and “mount cards” (enabling them to gain distance from competitors, making them harder to attack).

One defendant, Yoka Games, based in China, produced the card game Legends of the Three Kingdoms, distributed in the U.S. by the other defendant, ZiKo Games, LLC. Despite the different setting (Ancient China) and accompanying different artwork, the four roles in LOTK – Monarch, Minister, Rebel and Turncoat – had the same abilities, functions, goals and winning conditions as the comparable roles in Bang!; players were subject to nearly identical rules of play; players drew Chinese hero cards with similar abilities and life points as the Bang! character cards; and similar action cards were used.

Notwithstanding procedural wrangling over the lay vs. expert status of a witness and arguments about the significance of various similarities, this was an easy summary judgment for the Court:  “Bang!’s characters, roles, and interactions are not substantially similar to those in LOTK. The aspects of the roles, characters, and interactions that are similar are not expressive, and aspects that are expressive are not substantially similar. ZiKo and Yoka are entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement.”

An Interlude for Copyright Aficionados:  The Court’s reasoning begins with the black letter principle that copyright protects expression, not ideas. Therefore, “Copyright does not protect game rules because they fall within the section 102(b) exceptions for an ‘idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation’.”

On the other hand, the Court acknowledges that “courts have found expressive elements copyrightable, including game labels, design of game boards, playing cards and graphical works.” The present dispute focuses on the roles and characters and their interactions, which are very similar in both games. Thus, the key issue is: Are the characters’ similar interactions “unprotectable game play,” as the defendants argue, or “protectable expressive content,” as the plaintiffs argue?

The Court begins by distinguishing two types of games: (1) those like books and movies, which have a progression of events (plot) and developed characters (who interact following a script) “that make the game expressive” (e.g., The Legend of Zelda), and (2) those like NBA games, which consist of “loosely prescribed progression” (“teams trade offensive possessions over four quarters”) between players with assigned roles (guard, forward, center) but without predetermined interactions, which are therefore neither expressive nor copyrightable.

Bang!, says the Court, “has no specific plot or detailed information about the characters that tells us what these characters will do or how they will interact with other characters.” Rather, like basketball, Bang! has created a number of roles, defined their alignment with and opposition to other roles, and created rules for their interaction, but has not created a scripted or detailed performance for each game.  Thus, Bang! is more basketball than novel, and its character interactions are not protected by copyright.

The Court also addresses character copyright and explains why LOTK wasn’t infringing, despite the near-identity of the 4 main roles (excluding their look and labels). The answer lies in the “distinctiveness” requirement: To earn copyright protection, characters cannot be stock, generic or indistinct, but must embody enough original expression to attain copyrightability. However, “Bang! has no specific plot or detailed information about the characters… LOTK’s alignment of roles tracks Bang!’s, which in turn was drawn from the general alignment of stock characters in ‘spaghetti Westerns.’”

The Court also considers and rejects the plaintiff’s argument that, even if the characters themselves are not copyrighted, their special abilities may be: “The Bang! characters’ abilities are largely drawn from stock-character abilities. Like a punch or kick in a karate game, Bang! characters’ abilities are common in games in which the object is to kill the other players.” Moreover: “Even if the Bang! characters’ abilities were not stock, they are still not expressive because they are essentially rules of game play.”

A similar conclusion applies to the plaintiff’s key claim, namely, that the Bang! characters’ interactions via the game rules are themselves subject to copyright. But that argument fails here for the same reason it failed at the higher level of character copyright: “Bang! characters do not have delineated personalities, temperaments, back stories, or other features typical of characters in movies and books that contribute to making those characters’ interactions protected.”

Conclusion: The Court was mindful that game rules are generally not copyrightable, a principle that anchored its holding in favor of the defendants. However, the Court did recognize at least three game elements that could potentially give rise to copyrights:

  1. expressive graphics or other original visual elements;
  2. a relatively fixed progression of themes, dialog, mood, setting and character; or
  3. well-delineated characters themselves.

Still, if a character (whether in a novel, film or videogame) is not sufficiently distinct to be copyrightable – which may be because it is a “stock” character defined only by generic traits, or because it is a positional player guided only by rules of play – then its interactions with other characters will not be copyrightable, unless these interactions are at least partly fixed or scripted.

In short, despite displaying some of the artistry of its namesake, DaVinci’s characters (and their traits and interactions) were too stock and generic to be copyrightable … and thus its suit failed to produce more bucks for its Bang!.

For more information on this topic, please contact Howard Zaharoff.

MBBP’s Howard Zaharoff Will Be a Panelist in Boston Bar’s 17th Annual Intellectual Property Year in Review 12/19/2016

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Events, Intellectual Property, MBBP news.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

MBBP’s Howard Zaharoff will be a panelist at this year’s Boston Bar Association Intellectual Property Year in Review, one of Boston’s premier annual IP events. Howard will be discussing some of the most important copyright developments of the HGZ Headshot Photo 2015 (M0846618xB1386)past year, with his co-presenter, Attorney Lucy Lovrien.

This annual panel has been organized for intellectual property specialists to discuss the latest developments with practitioners in the field. Howard and his fellow panelists will discuss patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, and the event will close with a networking opportunity for all attendees.

The event is scheduled for Thursday, January 26th, 2017 from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM at the Boston Marriott Long Wharf. See the event details for more information.

Copyright Alert: New Copyright Office Electronic System to Register Designated Agents Under the DMCA 12/02/2016

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

ip-news-jpeg-m0118331xb1386Effective December 1, 2016, the US Copyright Office rolled out a new electronic system for the online registration of designated agents under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Consequently, all online service providers who want the benefit of the safe harbor against copyright infringement claims are required to register under the new electronic system or, if they’re already registered under the old paper system, to submit fresh designations under the electronic system by December 31, 2017. Thus, agents who previously filed hardcopies of their DMCA agent designations must now do so again online, within the next 13 months, in order to keep the benefits of the safe harbor.

To learn more about the DMCA and necessary compliance, read the full alert.

Howard Zaharoff and Erin Bryan Speaking at 2016 Intellectual Property Law Conference 05/19/2016

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Events, Intellectual Property, Litigation, MBBP news.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

EEB Headshot Photo 2015 (M0846503xB1386)IP and Technology Licensing Attorney Howard ZaharoffIntellectual Property Law 2016: The 19th Annual New England Conference will take place on June 23rd at the MCLE Conference Center in Boston, MA. This conference will focus on new developments, trends, and industry-specific guidance that IP, business, and litigation counsel must know. MBBP attorneys Howard Zaharoff and Erin Bryan are both on the Faculty, with Howard also serving as a Co-chair. Erin will be presenting at the conference on the topic of IP issues in 3D printing and bioprinting.

The conference will also be available by both live and recorded webcast.

Howard Zaharoff & Faith Kasparian Quoted in Lawyer’s Weekly 05/05/2016

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, MBBP news, Publishing & Media.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

HGZ Headshot Photo 2015 (M0846618xB1386)FDK Headshot Photo 2015 (M0846572xB1386)On April 28, 2016, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly newspaper published the article titled “Ex-‘View’ co-host Hasselbeck survives copyright suit by author”. This article explains how Susan Hasset, author of “Living with Celiac Disease”, took Elisabeth Hasselbeck, author of “The G Free Diet” and “Deliciously G Free”, to court accusing her of violating copyright infringement.  U.S. District court Judge George A. O’Toole Jr dismissed the case ruling that the similarities between both books were not pervasive enough.

MBBP Attorney’s Howard G. Zaharoff and Faith D. Kasparian are both quoted on the topic of copyright laws related to recipes. Howard explains that point that, “‘There are plenty of things you can borrow or steal that are perfectly lawful’ under copyright law.” Continuing on the topic of recipe infringement, Faith follows up by applauding the judge for drawing the line regarding creativity and additional functional directions for achieving a result.

Read the full article here.

The Contours of Copyright #3: Too Short for Copyright? 01/04/2016

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Intellectual Property, Licensing & Strategic Alliances, New Resources, Publishing & Media.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

M0846618It is axiomatic that copyrights do not protect words or short phrases. But how short is too short for copyright? 10 words? 5 words? 3 words? Consider Henny Youngman’s classic 4-word joke, “Take my wife … please.” Is that a copyrightable jocular expression, or an uncopyrightable short phrase (or, for you copyright pros, a merged idea)? The answer is important, not only to comedians, but also to epigrammatists, songwriters, poets … and anyone who wishes to include, in a work they are creating, word sequences they’ve seen used by another.

A recent case, William L. Roberts v. Stefan Kendal Gordy (U.S D.C., S.D. Florida 2015), provides helpful guidance, though not a definitive answer.

Discussion: The plaintiffs, Roberts et al., owned the musical composition Hustlin’, whose chorus consists of the repeated refrain “everyday I’m hustling.” The defendants, Gordy et al., had a hit song, Party Rock Anthem, which included the phrase “everyday I’m shuffling.” When the defendants began marketing their “shuffling” phrase on T-shirts and other merchandise, the plaintiffs sued, arguing that their copyright in the song included a copyright in the “hustlin’” refrain, and therefore they could prevent anyone from copying that refrain, whether in a similar song or standing alone on a garment.

The defendants disagreed, and the court sided with them. Yes, said the court, the plaintiff’s song was entitled to copyright protection. However, “copyright protection does not automatically extend to every component of a copyrighted work.” Rather, because “originality” is the sine qua non of copyright, and short phrases are common and unoriginal, the copyright in a work does not extend to individual short phrases (or, of course, single words) in the work. This doesn’t mean, the court explained, that the presence of “ordinary” phrases deprives a work of copyright protection; but it also doesn’t mean that the copyright umbrella shelters every word or phrase contained in a copyrighted work.

Or, as the court puts it: “The question presented … is not whether the lyrics of Hustlin’, as arranged in their entirety, are subject to copyright protection. The question is whether the use of a three-word phrase appearing in the musical composition, divorced from the accompanying music, modified, and subsequently printed on merchandise, constitutes an infringement of the musical composition Hustlin’. The answer, quite simply, is that it does not.”

To add insult to injury, the court also notes that the terms “hustling” and “hustlin’” were used in many earlier songs, and that the plaintiffs never asserted that the phrase “everyday I’m hustlin’” originated with them – which in itself could have killed their copyright claim (to be copyrightable, a work needn’t be novel, as in the patent sense of never before appearing anywhere, but does need to be original, in the copyright sense of having composed it oneself without copying from another). Finally, says the court, there is no substantial similarity between the original musical composition, containing the (uncopyrightable) phrase “everyday I’m hustlin’,” and the defendant’s T-shirts, containing the (uncopyrightable) phrase “everyday I’m shuffling.”  In short, none of the plaintiff’s original expression was infringed by the defendant’s apparel.

An Interlude for Copyright Aficionados: There was nothing earthshaking about this decision, though it is interesting to read the court’s sampling of many short phrases that failed to win copyright protection, including: “so high” (2 words), “get it poppin’” (3 words), “fire in the hole” (4 words – uh-oh, Henny), “most personal sort of deodorant” (5 words), and “You Got the Right One, Uh-Huh” (5 words, plus an “Uh-Huh”). So, one might conclude, a half dozen words or more are probably the minimum required for copyrightability.

Perhaps the reason this court – and no court I’m aware of – has stated a bottom line number below which copyright cannot apply is that no one can be absolutely certain that a creative author couldn’t be original in even a handful of words. Let’s cheat, make up a word, and stick it in a short phrase: “She’s my joyzilla mama.” Four words – really 3 plus a mashup – which have never appeared before (a Google search more or less confirmed this).  Can I use copyright law to prevent another person from using my original phrase in a song or on a T-shirt?

My answer is a definite “maybe.” The epigrammatist Ashley Brilliant has successfully registered – and once successfully asserted – copyrights in his epigrams, many of which are quite short (such as, “When all else fails … Eat” = 5 words). Poets and songwriters often feel that their short but creative phrasings are worthy of protection. So maybe we can’t state an absolute bottom line because we can’t guaranty that a brilliant writer or composer won’t dash our assumptions.

Conclusion. Still, it’s hard to imagine anyone successfully claiming copyright in any 2- or even 3-word (real words, not coined) phrase – if for no other reason than given the relatively small number of meaningful 2- and 3-word phrases, and the exhaustive output of English speakers, each of those short phrases would have already appeared so frequently that no one using such a phrase could convincingly assert it originated with them, or that they should have the right to keep anyone else from using it.

So, unlike Roger Bannister running a mile under 4 minutes, the possibility of someone writing a copyrightable phrase of under 4 words (probably 5, possibly 6) should stand the test of time.

For more information on this topic, please contact Howard Zaharoff.

The Contours of Copyright #2: Can You Copyright Yoga Poses? 11/06/2015

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property, Legal Developments, New Resources.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Attorney Howard ZaharoffBy Howard Zaharoff

Section 102 of the Copyright Act tells us that “choreographic works” – i.e., dances – are protected by copyright. So if you’re Alvin Ailey or Saroj Khan, the copyright police will protect you if someone copies or publicly performs your original choreography.

But what if you’re Beto Perez, who created Zumba; or Arnold Schwarzenegger (governor, actor, bodybuilder), who developed his own workout routines; or Bikram Choudhury (yoga guru and plaintiff), who in 1979 published a book describing his “Sequence,” 26 asanas and two breathing exercises performed for 90 minutes in a room heated to 105 °F? Does copyright protect original workouts or yoga sequences?

Probably not. At least according to the 9th Circuit in the recent case, Bikram’s Yoga College v. Evolation Yoga.

Discussion: Bikram Choudhury, self-proclaimed “Yogi to the stars,” was important in popularizing yoga in the U.S. He claimed he developed his Sequence after many years of research and verification, and he touted its many health and fitness benefits. But when two students who attended his 3-month teacher training started their own studio, offering a “hot yoga” class very similar to his Sequence, he sued for infringement.

The district court ruled that the Sequence was a “collection of facts and ideas” not entitled to copyright protection. Choudhury appealed and the Circuit Court upheld the lower court’s finding.

The Court first reasoned that the Sequence is “an idea, process or system designed to improve health” (Choudhury himself described his Sequence as a “system” or “method” designed to “systematically work every part of the body”). Since Section 102 of the Copyright Act is clear that copyright does not protect any idea, process or system, the Court easily concluded that the Sequence was an unprotectable idea or system. Put differently: “Choudhury thus attempts to secure copyright protection for a healing art,” an obvious no-no.

Nor does the grace and beauty embodied in the Sequence matter, since many processes can be beautiful –a surgeon’s movements, a baker’s kneading – without being copyrightable. In other words, “beauty is not a basis for copyright protection.”

The Court similarly dispensed with Choudhury’s argument that, even if individual yoga poses cannot be copyrighted, the original sequence of poses he developed is copyrightable as a “compilation,” that is, a work formed by “the collection and assembling of preexisting materials.” Not so, said the Court: because Choudhury himself claimed that “the medical and functional considerations at the heart of the Sequence compel the very selection and arrangement of poses and breathing exercises,” the entire Sequence, no less than the individual poses, is itself a process and “therefore ineligible for copyright protection.”

The final – and, as discussed below, least satisfying – part of the Court’s holding is that the Sequence cannot be protected as a “choreographic work.” The Court acknowledged that this term isn’t defined in the Copyright Act (though the legislative history makes clear that the term excludes “social dance steps and simple routines”). But that doesn’t matter, says the Court: “The Sequence is not copyrightable as a choreographic work for the same reason that it is not copyrightable as a compilation: it is an idea, process, or system to which copyright protection” may not extend.

The Court also noted that daily life consists of “many routinized physical movements, from brushing one’s teeth to pushing a lawnmower,” which could be characterized as forms of dance (by whom, the Court does not say). Only the idea/expression dichotomy prevents people from obtaining “monopoly rights over these functional physical sequences.” So at least in the 9thCircuit, arrangements of physical movements with a functional purpose, such as improving one’s health or fitness, no matter how aesthetic or beautiful, are merely unprotectable ideas or processes and therefore cannot be claimed as anyone’s copyright.

An Interlude for Copyright Aficionados: The Court’s final argument – that compilations of physical movements that “serve basic functional purposes” are unprotectable ideas/processes and not protectable choreography – begs the question. It’s cheating for a court to simply declare that a sequence of physical movements that functions as a means to health and fitness is thereby an uncopyrightable process without explaining why other sequenced movements that have similar fitness benefits are copyrightable choreography (which is surely true of the athletic choreographic routines of Alvin Ailey and Pilobulus).

Is it the functional purpose (or effect) of Choudhury’s sequence of poses – i.e., that despite their grace and beauty, they are particularly conducive to fitness – which makes the Sequence an uncopyrightable process? Why? Rarely does the functionality of a work completely deprive it of copyright. Even the designers of “useful articles” can claim copyright in any “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects.” If functionality were a copyright killer, architecture and software would have no protection.

Indeed, why not treat physical movements like architecture and software? Just as copyright law provides no protection for “individual standard features” of architectural works, or for standard routines and features of software applications, can’t we conclude that, although individual poses (or short sequences of poses) that are included in the Sequence and that are unoriginal, standard, or highly effective for fitness cannot be monopolized by copyright, the original overall selection and order of the poses can be deemed sufficiently original and aesthetic to qualify as copyrightable choreography?

In short, nothing in the Court’s opinion explains why the entire 28-step Sequence was ruled an unprotectable idea and no aspect or feature of these graceful movements could be deemed choreographic and copyrightable. This is not to say the Court is wrong. Rather, right or wrong, the Court failed to articulate any principles that distinguish movements constituting “a healing art” from movements constituting athletic dance.

Conclusion: Despite its unfortunate failure to provide a principled distinction between copyrightable choreography and uncopyrightable workouts, it remains undeniable that, in the 9th Circuit at least, there is no copyright protection for sequences of yoga poses intended to improve health and fitness, no matter how graceful or beautiful they may be.

Still, given the gaping hole left by this decision, and the popularity of fitness and yoga, it’s hard to imagine that the issue of copyrightable choreography won’t reappear soon. Or, as Arnold Schwarzenegger (as actor, not bodybuilder) might say: “I’ll be back.”

For more information on this topic, please contact Howard Zaharoff.

The Contours of Copyright #1: Can You Copyright Fast Foods? 10/19/2015

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property, Legal Developments, New Resources.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Attorney Howard ZaharoffBy Howard Zaharoff

As broad and creator-centric as copyright is, it doesn’t protect every creative output. For example, as a recent case confirmed – to no one’s surprise (probably not even the plaintiff’s) – copyright does not protect chicken sandwiches, nor even chicken sandwich recipes, nor even chicken sandwich names, no matter how original.

The conflict began after Noberto Colón Lorenzana, while employed by a Puerto Rican fried chicken chain, invented the “Pechu” chicken sandwich. Ultimately his employer greatly benefited from sales of the sandwich and various derivative items, but never compensated Mr. Colon for these remunerative products. Feeling he’d been cheated, Mr. Colón filed an amorphous set of trademark, fraud and (the district court generously found) copyright claims.

After ruling against Mr. Colón’s trademark claim – having never used the mark, he had no trademark rights to infringe – the court considered his assertion of copyrights in his sandwich. After quoting Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act, to the effect that copyright does not protect ideas or inventions, but only works of authorship, and remarking that the Register of Copyright specifically denies copyright to “mere listings of ingredients,” the court stated: “Neither plaintiff’s idea for the chicken sandwich recipe or the name ‘Pechu Sandwich’ is subject to copyright protection.”

To drive home its message, the court proceeded to note that neither the idea for the sandwich, nor its recipe, nor the concept of serving a chicken sandwich at a fast food restaurant, nor even the term “Pechu Sandwich,” were subject to protection by copyright (regarding the last, the court quotes several cases to the effect that copyright does not protect fragmentary words or short phrases).  In short, to the extent the plaintiff was raising a copyright claim – not clear from the proceedings – it was “dismissed with prejudice.”

The case was appealed to the First Circuit, which upheld the district court’s holdings. Regarding the copyright claim, the appeals court noted that neither the recipe nor the name fits any of the categories of eligible works and endorsed the district court’s finding that “a chicken sandwich is not eligible for copyright protection.”

So eat your hearts out, designers of designer-sandwiches and other food products … and be happy that, if you do, you’re not infringing anyone’s copyrights.

Stay tuned for more examples of what copyright does not – and does – protect.

For more information on this topic, please contact Howard Zaharoff.

MBBP Attorney to Host Office Hours at TechSandBox on October 20, 2015 10/08/2015

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Events, Intellectual Property.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

IP and Technology Licensing Attorney Howard ZaharoffOn Tuesday, October 20th MBBP Attorney Howard Zharoff will host Office Hours at TechSandBox, providing legal guidance on topics that include licensing, partnering, and copyright, as well as on general business matters. These pro bono sessions give you access to experts in topics such as intellectual property, business formation, benefits, taxes, marketing, sales funding, IT and technology commercialization. Access is offered to Members and Non-members as space allows.

Sign up today to reserve your time slot by visiting TechSandBox!

Supreme Court Rules Aereo’s T.V. Streaming Services Violate Copyright Law 06/30/2014

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

Intellectual Property Attorney Sheri MasonBy: Sheri Mason

On June 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Aereo, Inc.’s T.V. streaming services violate U.S. copyright law, reversing the Second Circuit’s decision that held that Aereo’s system (which consists of tiny antennas housed in a centralized location) “amounted to nothing more than a cloud-computing version of old fashion rabbit ears – a private transmission within the home.”

In a decision written by Justice Breyer, the Court reasoned that Aereo’s system does not provide a “private performance” similar to an off-site digital video recorder, but rather provides a “public performance” within the meaning of the Copyright Act’s “Transmit Clause” in violation of the major television networks’ copyrighted works.  To reach this decision the Court determined, first, that Aereo “performs” broadcast works because it allows its paid subscribers to watch T.V. programs at virtually the same time they are being broadcast, like CATV companies.  Second, the Court determined that Aereo transmits these works to “the public” because it communicates its transmissions “to a large number of people who are unrelated and unknown to each other.”

While there is concern that this ruling may impose copyright liability on other cloud-based technologies, the Supreme Court made clear that its ruling only applies to Aereo’s system and that Congress “did not intend to discourage or control the emergence or use of different kinds of technologies.”  Whether or not providers of other technologies violate the Transmit Clause – or other provisions of the Copyright Act – will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The full opinion can be found here.

For more information on copyright law, please feel free to contact Sheri.

Howard Zaharoff Featured as Speaker in Copyright and Trademark Law Event 12/13/2010

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

IP and Technology Licensing Attorney Howard ZaharoffOn December 8th, The Arts & Business Council of Greater Boston, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts and Boston Bar Association Arts, Entertainment and Sports Law Committee hosted an event titled “TWO LAWYERS WALK INTO A BAR…Protecting Jokes Through Copyright and Trademark Law.” MBBP Attorney Howard Zaharoff, along with Attorney and VLA Director Jim Grace, discussed how jokes can be protected under copyright and trademark laws, while local comedian Steve Sweeney provided an insider’s look at the issue.

For more information on copyright or trademark laws, please contact Howard Zaharoff.

Faith Kasparian Featured in Voices of the Bar in BBA E-Newsletter 08/23/2010

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

IP Licensing and Trademark Attorney Faith KasparianIn a recent Boston Bar Association E-Newsletter, the Voices of the Bar segment asked BBA members; If you could own the copyright to any written work, piece of music, photo or computer software, what would it be? MBBP Attorney Faith Kasparian‘s response was featured in the newsletter:

I have never liked stories whose endings are not unambiguously positive – and the ending of Gone with the Wind has always been a pet peeve. So, I would choose to own the copyright in that Margaret Mitchell classic, not to join The Wind Done Gone mêlée, but to add a final chapter in which Rhett realizes his error and returns to Scarlet. After everything that Scarlet has been through, the woman deserves a happy ending!

To read more responses, please visit the Boston Bar Association.

%d bloggers like this: