MediaTech Law

By MIRSKY & COMPANY, PLLC

Fair Use Copying of Photographs and Artwork

Posted November 23, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

Question: Under what circumstances can “fair use” support the editorial republishing of copyrighted photographs or other artworks in a magazine, book or electronic publication?

Short answer: When the previously copyrighted works are the subject of the republishing.

Fuller answer: An “editorial” republishing, almost by definition but with important caveats, satisfies the “fair use” test under the Copyright Act in 17 U.S.C. § 107, in particular by meeting the Act’s four-factor (nonexclusive) criteria:

Read More

Copyright Preemption of “Hot News”: Perez Hilton, NFL Films Show Perils of Relying on Preemption

Posted August 24, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

(Thomas Yarnell contributed research and writing to this blog post.)

Copyright law preempts certain state law personal rights, including misappropriation of someone’s likeness or identity.  For example, the right of an individual to prevent a third party from exploiting that person’s image or voice is trumped when that third party purchased the rights to the sound recordings (i.e. the copyright) of that person’s voice.

Similarly, someone like celebrity blogger Perez Hilton might argue (and did argue in a recent lawsuit, somewhat successfully) that he had protection under copyright law (as “fair use”) to copy someone else’s copyrighted photographs.  And Hilton might further argue (and did argue in that same lawsuit, although not as successfully as his fair use argument) that his copyright claim preempts any attempt by that aggrieved copyright holder to pursue other legal arguments against Hilton.

And THAT, in beautiful incoherent summary, is how Perez Hilton might make some very good law and teaching on federal copyright law!  Like OMG!

Read More

Trademarks in Ads: Google’s AdWords [Does] [Does Not] Infringe?

Posted August 16, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

[Thomas Yarnell contributed to research and drafting on this post.]

Google’s popular and dominant advertising service, AdWords, allows companies to place auction-style bids on search keywords.  If a company bids the highest amount on a keyword, that company’s ad comes up first when someone searches the keyword.  The company then pays Google on a pay-per-click basis.  In many countries, including the United States, Google lets companies advertise next to search results from use of their competitors’ trademarks.

Let’s say you want to buy a Louis Vuitton bag.  You know it’s expensive, so you might not want to buy it directly from the company’s website.  Instead, you might search “Louis Vuitton bags” on Google and assess other options.  As you can see in a search of “Louis Vuitton bags”, you may find some “Sponsored links” to the right of your search.  Sponsored links such as the “Louis V. Bags Handbags” come from the AdWords service.

Read More

Fair Use and Trademarks: Domain Names

Posted August 5, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

An automobile brokerage operating online under the web domains “buy-a-lexus.com” and “buyorleaselexus.com” got sued by Toyota Motor Sales for trademark infringement, first losing in trial court on a trademark “fair use” argument, then winning on appeal.  The case opinion can be found here.

The domain name question in trademark is whether and how one can use established trademarks in domain names, in other words using the “LEXUS” trademark in your website URL when the use is anything but incidental but rather intentionally drawing on the value of the valuable brand.

Toyota, owner of the Lexus car brand, had sued to stop the auto brokerage from using the “LEXUS” trademark in the brokerage’s websites listed under “buy-a-lexus.com” and “buyorleaselexus.com”.  The brokerage defended its actions by arguing that the use of “LEXUS” was permitted (that is, non-infringing) as a fair use of the trademark.  Or as Judge Alex Kozinski explained in his appeals court opinion, the trademark was used to “refer to the trademarked good itself”.

This is the “nominative fair use” doctrine of trademark law.  In (hopefully) plain English, the defendant makes no argument to counter a trademark owner’s typical claims of trademark infringement such as likelihood of confusion or dilution of trademark and so forth.  Instead, the use of the trademark is permitted as a fair use since the use simply (and only) identifies the trademark.  Toyota did not dispute the legality of the brokerage’s business nor its authority to broker and sell Lexus vehicles.  The Lexus auto brokerage could therefore successfully argue that use of the “Lexus” was necessary to identify the product being sold.

Read More

Apple App Store Rejects Content – There’s More!

Posted May 7, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

I recently wrote about the dust-up following the awarding of a Pulitzer for political commentary to online cartoonist Mark Fiore, when it was revealed that Apple had rejected Fiore’s proposed iPhone App several months before Fiore’s Pulitzer fame.  As had been widely reported, Apple subsequently invited Fiore to re-apply, which Fiore promptly did and now, evidently, Fiore’s cartoon app is available for download through the store.

Commentary on the episode leaned heavily to the view of “what gall!” of Apple to presume rights to regulate content.  So, for example, Rob Pegoraro wrote in the Washington Post last week:

If this conduct seems arbitrary, that’s because Apple gives itself that liberty.  The Cupertino, Calif., company’s iPhone developer agreement, as published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says Apple can reject an application “at any time” if it thinks rejection would be “prudent or necessary.”

Read More

Online Libel – Reviews, Comments – Libel: It’s Real and It’s Spectacular!

Posted April 30, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

Eric Felten brilliantly skewers the supposed credibility of the online “marketplace of ideas” when he recently wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal:

Spend any time on the Internet and – like the naif in the ‘Casablanca’ gambling room dumbfounded when the wheel comes up 22-black twice in a row – one’s bound to ask, ‘Say, are you sure this place is honest?’

This sort of thing seems oddly hilarious and at the same time naïve in the same way as the fool in Casablanca, in whose defense one could at least say it was a different time.  Last I checked, there was no giant sign over the entrance to the internet saying “tread warily here”, although Felten’s point about the sensitivity of individuals to words being written about them is hardly a new concept.  Just one small point of reference: I handle a fair amount of pre-publication review of publications for libel (i.e. in advance of actual publication), and one thing I usually drill into my publishing clients is being somewhat sensitive to the litigatory likelihood of the person about whom words are being published.

I’m not saying shy away from controversial journalism, and it’s advice that probably did not compel the muckracking vision of Woodward and Bernstein or the “American Century” mantra of Henry Luce.  Nonetheless, don’t ask a libel lawyer for advice unless you’re willing at least to consider whom you’re writing about if one of your goals is simply to avoid getting sued.

Read More

Andy Speaking at Politics Online 2010!

Posted April 17, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

I will be moderating 2 separate panels on Monday and Tuesday at the 2010 Politics Online conference spectacular here in Washington.

The first will be Monday April 19th at 2pm, and called “Is this Barack Obama’s Real Facebook Page? Domains, Twitter Handles, Online Presence – real or fake? Intellectual Property, Cyber Identity, and More!”.  I will be joined on the panel by Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman-Vogel, Matt Sanderson of Caplin & Drysdale and Neal Seth of Baker Hostetler.

The second will be Tuesday April 20th at 10:30am, and called “Laws Affecting Digital Communications – Copyright, Privacy, Elections/FEC, Advertising, Libel, Contract Law, etc.  Rules, Regs, Fines and Community “Standards” Applicable to Communicating in Digital Media.”  On this panel, I will be joined by Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman-Vogel and John Stewart of Crowell & Moring.

Details at polc2010.com/.

Read More

Trademarks and Twitter – It’s a Gas Gas Gas!

Posted September 25, 2009 by Andrew Mirsky 0

Oneok, a natural gas distributor based in Oklahoma, sued Twitter last week for trademark infringement.  Then dropped the case one day later.

Oneok claimed that an unidentified third party had operated an account under Oneok’s name and logo (both registered trademarks, evidently) and, more particularly, issued tweets which “had the appearance of being official statements” of the company.  And therefore, gave the impression that these were authorized statements made by authorized users of Oneok’s trademarks.  See Oneok’s complaint here.

The last part would have been particularly critical to Oneok’s claims of infringement because it would have argued against a defense of parody or commentary or other protected “fair use” of the trademarks.

Read More

Fair Use and the Collapse of Web Advertising

Posted August 17, 2009 by Andrew Mirsky 0

If the thinking behind a liberal approach to web content sharing is driving traffic back to your original content source, what happens when the benefits of doing exactly that – i.e. bumping up traffic for potential advertisers – fails to generate the hoped-for commercial return?

Like all advertising, web advertising has always been somewhat more art than science (yet), for better or worse, with accompanying difficulties in translating eyeballs into advertising revenue metrics.  Comes now the collapse of the web advertising market.  What then becomes of the willingness to go along with liberal content “scraping”, excerpting and other copying under “fair use” arguments?

Brian Stelter probed this very question in the NY Times recently.  Stelter interviews, among others, Henry Blodget of Alley Insider and Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post, whose publications are among the most aggressive and overt in the practice of integrating others’ content into their writings.  Ms. Huffington states, honestly, that “we excerpt to add value”, which is probably a fair statement, except that Stelter also notes that these sites “highlight [] what they deem to be the most meaningful parts of newspaper articles and TV segments.”

Read More

Copyright 2022 Mirsky & Company, PLLC