YouTube Launches Copyright Match Tool

In response to continued criticism for failing to adequately prevent copyright infringement on its platform, YouTube has launched a tool designed to fight the issue. Known as the “Copyright Match” tool, the initiative is designed to identify re-uploads of a user’s content to other accounts. The uploaded video is first scanned and checked for similarities to other videos. Any such matches appear appropriately in the “matches” tab. Once a match has been identified, the user may choose to take no action, request YouTube remove the video, or take matters into their own hands by contacting the creator directly. When a removal request is submitted to YouTube, a 7-day delay is required to permit the alleged infringer to resolve the issue themselves. In announcing this launch, the video sharing platform emphasized the importance of ensuring exclusive ownership in the content prior to taking action. For instance, if the content is safely within the public domain or subject to fair use, the user should not file a takedown request nor contact the uploader directly. If successful, this initiative may prove to be a large step toward the longtime headache experienced by creators in policing stolen online content. #omnilegalgroup #copyright #youtube

USPS Ordered To Pay New York-New York Statue Of Liberty Sculptor $3.5M For Copyright Infringement

In 2010, the United States Postal Service released its collection of Liberty Forever stamps. After approximately three billion stamps had been printed, USPS realized the image it had obtained from Getty Images, a stock photography company, was not of New York’s beloved Statue of Liberty but instead, bore the face of the Statue of Liberty replica positioned outside the New York-New York hotel and casino in Las Vegas. Robert Davidson, the replica’s sculptor, was hired in 1996 to create the statue after completing his work on the 110-foot replica of the Sphinx down the street. Davidson claims he was given no models to work off of and he particularly set out to make his version of Lady Liberty “more appropriate for Las Vegas.” Indeed, the sculptor says he tried to distinguish his work by rendering Lady Liberty more “fresh-faced,” “sultry,” and even “sexier.” In response to Davidson’s claims for copyright infringement, attorneys for USPS argued the two statues were too similar to notice any differences and that therefore Davidson does not possess a valid copyright in his statue. Copyright protection subsists only in original works of authorship and infringement can only be found through “substantial similarity.” The district court judge disagreed with USPS in finding that a mere comparison of the two faces “unmistakably shows that they are different” and that Davidson’s work was entitled to protection. The court proceeded to award Davidson $3.5 million in damages as a result. #omnilegalgroup #copyright #statueofliberty #usps #lasvegas

Omni Legal Group would like to welcome Pamela Fond to its practice!

After decades of experience in the law, Mrs. Fond will join the firm as a legal assistant. Mrs. Fond studied at Armstrong College, where she dual-majored in English and Business. Through years of experience as both a legal assistant as well as an office manager, Mrs. Fond brings strong communication and administrative skills to the practice. Moreover, her gregarious personality and receptivity renders Mrs. Fond exceptionally capable of dealing with clients, the courts, and opposing counsel.

Did you know?

In 1859, Ms. B Franklin Coston was issued the first patent related to a fireworks display. While fireworks originated and were well-known in China, Ms. Franklin invented a “Method of Signalizing Any Numeral or Combination of Numerals by the Display of Different Pyrotechnic Fires.” The patent details the successive exhibitions of fires of three different colors, those colors unsurprisingly being red, white, and blue. Decades later, The Walt Disney Company patented a “Precision fireworks display system having a decreased environmental impact.” Disney’s invention involves a launching device and an electronic control system capable of causing the projectile to explode mid-air into a firework display after a predetermined time period. This invention explains how Disney can set off explosions to approximate Mickey Mouse’s famous silhouette.

SCOTUS To Clarify Prerequisite for Copyright Infringement Claims

The Copyright Act permits registration of original works of authorship with the United States Copyright Office. Copyright registration is not required, however, because a protectable copyright arises once the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. That being said, registration is a prerequisite to bringing a lawsuit for infringement. There has long existed a split among federal courts as to whether an application for registration pending satisfies this rule. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case deciding this long-disputed issue.

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, an appeal from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, involves an online news producer that licensed some of its articles to a news website, Wall-Street.com, requiring Wall-Street.com to remove any of Fourth Estate’s articles once the license expired. When Wall-Street.com refused, Fourth Estate brought a copyright infringement claim. In response, Wall-Street.com countered that the Copyright Act only permits infringement suits after the Copyright Office has approved registration of the application.

Some states follow the “registration” approach wherein a copyright owner must have an issued copyright certificate or a rejection by the Copyright Office of its application. Other circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, follow the “application” approach which merely requires completion and filing of an application with the Copyright Office. Actual registration of a copyright can take months after the initial filing unless the applicant pays a hefty expedited fee in cases of “compelling need,” under which prospective litigation qualifies. Overall, the Court’s decision should provide much-needed clarity and uniformity in copyright litigation in that copyright owners will more clearly understand what is required before bringing a claim.

This Is Copyright Infringement

Allegations have surfaced suggesting Donald Glover, whose stage name is Childish Gambino, plagiarized his single “This Is America” based on rapper Jase Harley’s 2016 song, “American Pharaoh.” The controversy began after Jamie Foxx brought Glover on stage at the BET Awards for high praise and an impromptu performance of the hit single. Reddit users took to the internet in noting the similarities shared with the prior song. To prove copyright infringement, Jase Harley would need to demonstrate that the two songs are in fact “substantially similar” and that Glover reasonably had access to the song. Substantial similarity is not analyzed as to singular musical elements in isolation but rather, it must apply to the melody, rhythm, and lyrical content of the pieces. Common elements between the two songs include voice modulation by both rappers, similar flow and intonation, and alternating between soulful melodies and a bass-boosted chorus. Moreover, the general message of both addresses the plight of the black American.  If Harley chooses to pursue this claim, he must also prove valid copyright ownership in the allegedly copied elements, that is, that the elements were original to Harley and not found in other pre-dating works. In turn, Childish Gambino would need to show “This Is America” was created without influence by or access to Harley’s song. In a recent social media post, Harley intimated his lack of intent to pursue legal action against Glover. Instead, he posted that he is “extremely humbled” to have inspired the song. For now, the case remains in the court of public opinion. #omnilegalgroup #copyright #childishgambino

U.S. Patent No. 10,000,000

Two hundred twenty-eight years after the first patent was issued for a process of making potash (an ingredient used in fertilizer), the ten millionth patent has officially issued. Yesterday, U.S. Patent No. 10,000,000 issued for “Coherent Ladar Using Intra-Pixel Quadrature Detection.” The disclosure describes a method of bouncing lasers off of targets to figure out their range and velocity, which could be used in the development of self-driving vehicles. The method was invented by Joseph Marron but the patent is owned by his employer, Raytheon Company. Since being awarded its first patent in 1991, Raytheon has been awarded more than twenty patents. President Donald Trump will sign the ten millionth patent in a ceremony at the White House. This is especially commemorative because, in 1976, in honor of the U.S. bicentennial, President Gerald Ford was the last president to sign a patent as this practice stopped after John Quincy Adams. Additionally, Patent No. 10,000,000 will be the first to receive a new patent cover design, constituting the second patent cover change in the last century. #omnilegalgroup #patents #10millionpatents #raytheon

Louboutin Claims European Victory Over Red-Sole Trademark

Christian Louboutin recently claimed victory in a years long lawsuit against a Dutch retailer for selling high-heeled women’s shoes bearing red soles. In 2012, Louboutin sued Van Haren, the Dutch company, which operates affordable footwear outlets, in a court in The Netherlands. A few years prior, in 2010, Louboutin obtained registrations for its iconic red soles in the region. Nonetheless, Van Haren argued the luxury brand’s trademark invalidly combined color and shape, that is, the particular red shade as applied to the sole of a pump. Under EU trademark law, common shapes, such as shoes, are not protected. Judges at the Court of Justice of the European Union found that the mark does not relate to a specific shape of sole for high-heeled shoes. Moreover, the court agreed with Louboutin’s position that a specific shade of red on the soles of its shoes qualifies as a distinct and recognizable characteristic of the brand. This decision falls in the midst of mixed rulings the French design house has experienced internationally. Since its inception in 1991, Louboutin has been successful in the US, China, Australia, Russia and other regions in asserting and protecting its trademark rights. Indeed, as recently as December, the fashion house was awarded damages and a permanent injunction against two shoe dealers in India who were infringing its mark. Conversely, last year, a Swiss court found against the luxury label on a final appeal, holding that the red soles are merely an aesthetic element. However, the current ruling confirms Louboutin’s registration of the trademark for all of Europe. #omnilegalgroup #trademark #louboutin

Did you know?

For 90 years, ranging from 1790 to 1880, the government required every patent application to be accompanied by a working scale model of the invention, which could be no larger than 12 inches on each side. This practice terminated after the Patent Office ran out of space to store all of the models. The Rothschild Petersen Patent Model museum in New York maintains the largest private collection of patent models, housing over 4,000. Currently, applicants are neither required nor generally permitted to submit any type of working model unless the Patent Office deems it necessary for proper examination. Once returned to the applicant, the model or exhibit must be retained for the enforceable life of any patent resulting from the application.

District Court Denies TRO Against Allegedly Infringing Use of Tagline

The creators behind a raunchy comedy featuring Melissa McCarthy and cast of puppets are being sued by the educational nonprofit organization behind “Sesame Street.” McCarthy portrays a police officer who teams up with a new puppet partner to solve “the brutal murders of the former cast of a beloved classic puppet television show.” Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit, claimed the new film, titled “The Happytime Murders” through its creators, STX Productions, wrongfully misappropriates the “Sesame Street” trademark, trusted brand, and goodwill for promotional purposes. The complaint further alleges that defendants do not own or have any right to the “Sesame Street” mark and that the trailer deliberately confuses consumers into mistakenly believing that Sesame Workshop is in some way associated with or has endorsed the R-rated film. In particular, the nonprofit organization took issue with the film’s tagline “No Sesame. All Street.”

For these reasons, Sesame Workshop sought a temporary restraining order barring STX Productions from continuing to use the tagline but such order was denied. The movie, to be released on August 17^th, is directed by Brian Henson, son of now-deceased Jim Henson, who helped develop the iconic “Sesame Street” characters prior to creating “The Muppet Show.” After the court’s ruling, a representative from STX publicly stated the company’s satisfaction with the ruling, claiming it reinforced STX’s intention in honoring the heritage of The Jim Henson Company’s creations while clearly distinguishing those characters and the new world Brian Henson and STX has envisioned.