Showing posts with label USPTO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USPTO. Show all posts

Saturday, February 20, 2021

Talking Trademarks

Time is short for those who might like to sign up for a free Trademark Basics Boot Camp webinar run by the USPTO. The deadline to register is February 22nd (Monday!).

The event is on Tuesday February 23rd from 2pm to 3pm Eastern Time.
Click the link for more information, please.
 
I believe it is expensive to apply for a trademark and be denied, so before you apply, for instance, to trademark a catchy phrase you should do some research, and perhaps even some soul searching. Does that phrase uniquely describe your book series, your brand as an author, your range of products and their source? 
 
Writing for the Baker & Hostetler  blog that focuses on IP Intelligence (as opposed to the other nine or ten blogs that this prestigious law firm owns),  Robert Horowitz details several tales of trademark application woe and offers some very wise advice to would-be trademark owners and to those advising them.
 
For those seeking advice or representation, the World Trademark Review conducted a series of interviews with leading TM attorneys.  Here are three links:
 
Note also the informative right-margin sidebar with topical, trademark-related Tweets!
 
Question: What do Sexual Performance, Wind Power, and Trademarks have in common? 
Answer: "Use it or lose it!"
 
All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Mark Your Calendars: World IP Week And Day

World IP Week is April 22nd - 26th.

World IP Day is April 26th.

Among the events is a workshop with the Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts (VLA) who do pro bono work for creators.  Don't miss the free workshop "COPYRIGHT MYTH BUSTERS" on April 22nd from 6.30 pm - 8.30 pm  CST.
https://vlaa.org/get-smart/workshops-clinics/ 

Free, but they ask you to register.

If you miss that, there may be another, shorter "Copyright Mythbusters" out of Nashville on April 25th, from 6 pm - 7 pm CST

The Copyright Alliance offers a variety of links to good stuff for IP week.
https://copyrightalliance.org/news-events/copyright-news-newsletters/world-ip-day-2019/

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) established April 26th as World Intellectual Property Day,  to raise awareness about the role of creators and creativity play in innovation and culture.

It's a good time to reflect upon your trademarks, copyrights, registrations, ISBNs, patents, licenses, permissions, waivers (for instance from your cover models), etc if you are a published author; and on your support of authors, musicians, and other entertainers if you are a consumer of creative or intellectual works.

Here's a thought starter, if you think that a great story writes itself:
https://medium.com/electric-literature/the-disastrous-decline-in-author-incomes-isnt-just-amazon-s-fault-c58468492b17?fbclid=IwAR36td3VDw6VQLHzhh4BdtCaCiaUzPg0F5yTQcc9jo8NOSvd-3b4R-eVJ-w 


Here's another on the pros and cons of piracy:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/06/i-can-get-any-novel-i-want-in-30-seconds-can-book-piracy-be-stopped

And another....
http://www.pajiba.com/miscellaneous/man-behind-ebook-piracy-site-ebookbike-asks-to-be-sued-is-being-sued.php

If you are an author and still seething about the infamous Book Settlement, Chris Castle has an interesting perspective buried right at the end of an exposition on Content ID.
https://musictechpolicy.com/2019/03/29/the-ennui-of-learned-helplessness-article-13-and-the-five-lies-in-youtubes-content-id/

The insight hinges on a slip of the tongue by Marissa Meyer. Would the Authors Guild have won their case if they had known that all the scanned text from tens of millions of books were used to improve translation algorithms?

The USPTO also has a couple of events.

On Monday April 22nd they are livestreaming a discussion with former football player Shawn Spring about head protection... and more.
https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/conversation-shawn-springs?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

Also, a bit late for IP week, on April 29th the USPTO is on Capitol Hill from 4pm - 6pm with a fun filled --cough-- agenda.
https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/world-intellectual-property-day-capitol-hill?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

How will you mark the Week?
All the best,

Rowena Cherry

Saturday, September 15, 2018

Very Fine Print - Just Because It Says It's A "Reminder" Doesn't Mean It's Not a Pitch

"IMPORTANT - OPEN IMMEDIATELY"

Unfortunately, the American 1st Amendment allows anyone to make the misleading claim that their written communication is "Important", and to demand (using the imperative mood) that the recipient of the missive is hasty in reviewing the material.




If you review this hastily, you might not notice that this "Reminder" comes from somewhere called "Bureau", rather than from the USPTO ... which is an Office. You might also not notice that this "reminder" gives your ten-year anniversary date as a whole year (or more) earlier than the renewal is actually due.

Signing and returning this document will not actually renew your trademark, it will empower the helpful Bureau to renew your trademark on your behalf. The large block of fine print most professionally and politely discloses to the target reader that the "Bureau" is a private business, and also that they are not endorsed by the US government.

Government websites are usually .gov

Like this one:  https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/caution-misleading-notices

The USPTO warns about a great many purveyors of perhaps premature and unnecessary reminder services
and their list should be a go-to for authors and trademark owners.

Fascinatingly, the sample envelope that the USPTO displays purports to come from New York, but was postmarked from Santa Clara. It is also always interesting when a business sends mail from a seemingly prestigious (Park Avenue?) address, but encourages respondents to mail to a PO Box in a different zip code.

Rent at 230 Park Avenue appears to be as low as $33.80 per day.  That is, per individual, and for a multi-month lease.




That reminds this author of the interesting details of the work experience of an author-client-funded publisher's London-office-based representative, by Henry Coburn

http://www.theindependentpublishingmagazine.com/2018/07/the-radiance-of-banality-predatory-publishers-in-the-uk-part-one-henry-coburn-guest-post.html

http://www.theindependentpublishingmagazine.com/2018/07/the-radiance-of-banality-predatory-publishers-in-the-uk-part-two-henry-coburn-guest-post.html
 

Other helpful sites for aspiring authors:

https://www.sfwa.org/other-resources/for-authors/writer-beware/

https://writersweekly.com/whispers-and-warnings/09-13-2018
 
https://blog.reedsy.com/scams-and-publishing-companies-to-avoid/

https://justpublishingadvice.com/new-authors-beware-of-scam-agents-and-publishing-sharks/


The above are also jolly reading for those who enjoy the occasional, regrettable bout of schadenfreude.

Please respect the copyrights of helpful (and of unhelpful) sites. That may go doubly so for our European readers, given the passage of  Article 11 and Article 13, despite the efforts of the highly alarmed folks at EFF and others.... much to the glee of musicians in particular, who may now look forward to being paid when their work is monetized by others without their permission or fairly negotiated compensation.

https://thetrichordist.com/2018/09/13/totally-pissed-off-by-big-tech-spam-eu-gives-artists-a-copyright-victory/

Article 11 is described as a "link tax", which may mean that content creators' publishers may demand payment when major platforms quote and link to copyrighted works such as stories. There are exceptions for small and micro platforms. With luck, individual bloggers are considered small, and perhaps "fair use" rules will continue to apply, although what is "fair" may in time be more narrowly interpreted (as reportage, parody, review, scholarship.)

Article 13 holds platforms responsible if the platforms permit or turn a blind eye when users upload and share unlicensed, copyrighted work, which might mean music, music videos, photographs.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Happy Easter... and Save The Date... and Safe Harbor

A very interesting situation may be developing around "Safe Harbor", the provision in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that was intended to shield internet service providers who act in good faith from liability for the misbehavior of their users.

Courts are now paying attention to the concept (in the DMCA) of "red flag knowledge", and whether an ISP can claim Safe Harbor protections on the grounds of "ignorance" (or lack of knowledge) when their employees or assignees "moderate" or "curate" or "select" the user-uploaded content that they will display, (as opposed to allowing the users to post everything and anything without interference or assistance or supervision.)

Perhaps (this author speculates) this may be an unintended consequence of certain sites trying to keep so-called "fake news" off their sites. Or porn. Or actual crimes being live streamed.

Armen N. Nercessian and Guinevere Jobson of the law firm of Fenwick & West LLP penned a fascinating blog about a case where the 9th Circuit reversed a district court.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=845462af-ee94-46de-86ba-8342c6a303a3&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-04-14&utm_term=

Perhaps, if there are moderators, they ought to be able to recognize a watermark that indicates that a particular photograph is copyrighted.  This could be interesting. Apparently different Circuits have different views... this may go all the way to SCOTUS.

For those interested, (and I am sure that few of you are!) April 18th from 1:00 pm Eastern Time until around 5:00 pm, the Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force will be hosting a public meeting on Consumer Messaging In Connection with Online Transactions Involving Copyrighted Works.

https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/consumer-messaging-connection-online-transactions?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

The problem is that consumers who download copyrighted works appear to have a poor understanding of what they can legally do with those downloaded copies. Indeeed!

This author will be listening in. It's been 22 days since I last logged in to BLASTY.co to check the current status of copyright infringement of my four works (Mating Net, Forced Mate, Insufficient Mating Material, and Knight's Fork). It appears that Amazon-owned Goodreads is being implicated for decoration of the pages.  The KROGER grocery chain is giving paid advertising support to a site called something like "colourpalette" that appears to be encouraging folks to infringe copyrights,
while deciding on perfect shades of colors for their artwork or websites.

If you do a Google search for ebooks (perhaps looking for a title and also for ".pdf" and "download" and "free"), there are multiple sites with gd.fs inside the url that appear to go to a page selling hardware. Huge waste of time!  There are also some "Very Dangerous" sites that either Google or Norton will block, if you have their help.

On the subject of warnings about internet nasties, authors who own Trademarks are often sent official looking notices through the mail that appear to demand that the Trademark owner pays a surprisingly large fee for overseas Trademark Licensing, or else for "SEO". Read the fine print. Usually, legitimate demands for Trademark renewal are sent to the Trademark owner's lawyer, and renewals are due every fifth year.

Mary Bleahene of the lawfirm FRKelly blogged recently about Trade Mark scams. If you own one, or are considering owning one, you might enjoy her expertise in "Trade Mark Scams - Beware of Unofficial Notices."

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=64a088e2-1649-4cec-8faf-d96f83c3fe29&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2017-04-14&utm_term=


All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Sunday, March 26, 2017

2016 White Paper Concludes That Online Consumers Don't Understand Copyright

You don't say!

In January of 2016, a government task force concluded in a White Paper on Remix, First Sale, and Statutory Damages that, when consumers download ebooks, music, movies etc, they do not understand what they can legally do with these copies (or what they cannot do).

https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/white-paper-remixes-first-sale-and-statutory-damages

Now, on April 18th, 2017, this government task force is going to talk about it.

How long has online piracy been a problem for authors, musicians, movie-makers, artists, photographers? Since 2003? Should we say "better late than never"? Anyway, on April 18th, 2017, the government is prepared to "facilitate a dialogue" with the public about whether or not the government can help.

If you happen to be in Alexandria, Virginia, you may attend in person, space permitting. Registration is free. The event will also be webcast, so you may watch. Webcast information is on the USPTO's event page.

https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/consumer-messaging-connection-online-transactions

Forgive my snark, but it appears that the copyright notices that every ebook publisher prints in the front matter of every ebook is no protection whatsoever, and copyright infringers who "share" entire ebooks including the copyright page, may be "innocent infringers", and ought not to be fined as much as the law currently allows if they are caught.

It seems that "all rights reserved" and "no portion of this work may be reproduced" and "this book... shall not be lent... resold... hired out... or otherwise circulated..." is not clear and understandable. 

So, this meeting will focus on "identifying what copyright-related terms and conditions are important to communicate to consumers...".  Unfortunately, instead of communicating to copyright infringers what the law says, the liberal USPTO intends to discuss how many "lends", "resales", "shares" and "transfers of ownership" are reasonable and ought to be allowed.

The Task Force will also facilitate discussion on whether a "Buy" button ought to be called something else, if the author does not intend to transfer all rights including copyright and resale rights.

Here is some excellent advice for self-publishing authors about their front and back matter.
http://selfpublishingadvice.org/writing-front-and-back-matter-for-your-self-published-book/

All the best,
Rowena Cherry




Sunday, December 04, 2016

There Are Limits (to Safe Harbor), Pallante Protest, And More....

The legal blog of  Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP  (not a blog I've seen before) provides a detailed and fascinating --at least for copyright wonks-- article about "red flag" knowledge, and when an ISP or OSP may be said to have knowledge of copyright infringement, even when a takedown notice has not been submitted.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ddf71645-cedf-442b-a4a8-6345fb365fd2&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2016-12-02&utm_term=

Also former Registers of Copyrights Ralph Oman and MaryBeth Peters have written a joint letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees concerning the recent treatment of former Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante.

https://artistrightswatch.com/2016/11/30/must-read-two-former-u-s-copyright-heads-defend-maria-pallante-from-sacking-by-rogue-librarian-of-congress/

It has been alleged that Maria Pallante was removed from her prestigous work, and assigned to policy planning for the Copyright Office gift shop. Some have allegedly speculated that the reason for Register Pallante's forced career move was that a certain search giant company's lobbyists and former search giant company's employees who now work for the current administration object to Register Pallante's alleged opposition to new regulations that benefit primarily Google, and that are disruptive and costly to copyright owners.

More articles on this scandal can be found on the copyrightalliance.org website.

Also on copyrightalliance.org are a series of short videos by copyright owners about what copyright and copyright protection means to them.

http://copyrightalliance.org/education/videos/copyright-support-career/

Submissions are welcome and being sought by the copyright alliance.

For European visitors to this blog, please be aware that Google puts cookies on your computers and other devices for the purpose of identifying your susceptibility to specific advertising. The authors of this blog have no control over this, but we have a duty to remind you of the cookies from time to time.

Other reminders: as of December 1st 2016, website owners who accept user generated content from others must register their copyright agent with the Copyright Office electronically.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7ab96530-bb57-4072-b753-bd226dbb0f87&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2016-12-02&utm_term=

December 9th is the USPTO open meeting  on the digital marketplace. The Authors Guild will be attending.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Creepy IP for Halloween, Maria P. Goes ...Bumped Into The Night

Look out for the #CreepyIP  hashtag. Anticipating Halloween, the USPTO publishes an entertaining and edifying blog about all the Intellectual Property and copyrights on display during Halloween (in the candies, costumes, decorations, tools and gadgets.

https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2016/10/when-patents-and-trademarks-go-bump-night

Perhaps you might like to join the conversation?

Something else, prematurely went "bump into the night" and gave some imaginative and creative people a case of the horrors.  On Friday October 21st, Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights who has been a courageous and outspoken advocate for creators, authors, artists and musicians, was "bumped upstairs" and allegedly deprived of internet access to the Library of Congress computer system, according to two sources who spoke with Library employees.

https://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2016/16-189.html

And
https://artistrightswatch.com/2016/10/22/google-fires-head-of-u-s-copyright-office/

Why, though? The Trichordist has some thoughts
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/10/21/google-and-public-knowledge-coup-register-of-copyrights-fired-dark-days-ahead/

According to Billboard
http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7549978/maria-pallante-removed-us-register-of-copyrights

"US Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante was removed from her job Friday morning (Oct 21) by the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who has authority over the Copyright Office...."

It is interesting to reflect on who supports Carla Hayden. Alleged P2P Pirates!
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/02/28/former-director-of-p2p-piracy-alliance-endorses-nominee-to-oversee-copyright-office/

To this author, it seems strange that businesses that consider music, movies, books, photographs, and games "content" and that publish and distribute and monetize other peoples' intellectual property ... often without the copyright owners' affirmative consent should have any influence on the  Copyright Office and the Register of Copyrights.  But, that's the current Administration for you. It's not likely to change in the next 4 years.

Buy stock in Google and Amazon.... and get some cool and creepy disguises for Halloween and the dark days ahead.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry






Sunday, February 14, 2016

Trademark Scams

Have you trademarked any title, or expression, or unique term? Some science fiction romance or paranormal authors have done so.  For instance, some in the publishing world are watching with interest a lawsuit concerning the similarity or otherwise of the terms "Dark Hunter" and "Shadow Hunter."

This isn't about that. It's about numerous scams that try to trick authors who own trademarks into paying entitites other than the USPTO for services that some would say are worthless, and that are not renewals of those trademark registrations.

Here's a sample that was mailed to me for a trademark of mine. I apologize for the wrinkles. I did not treat the scam with great respect.


Trademarks only last for five years, and have to be renewed. Usually, the renewal notice will be sent to the trademark owner's lawyer.

The entity you should be paying is the USPTO, and no other acronym.  If the USPTO sends you an email, it will come from uspto.gov (but, of course, you should make sure that this addy wasn't just written in.)  If you receive a letter, it will come from Alexandria, VA.

However, there seem to be several scams that also call Alexandria, VA their home.

The $750 fee is in the ball park, but a bit more than a legitimate renewal fee.  I've received solicitations trying to trick me into paying double that.

If you have been tricked, the USPTO will not help you get your money back, but if you report them, you might help the Feds to prosecute them.


For more information, check out the USPTO site:
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/non-uspto-solicitations

Happy Valentines Day.

Rowena Cherry

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Some useful links from this week

The USPTO has been discussing "orphan" works, or “Facilitating the Development of the Online Licensing Environment for Copyrighted Works.” 

There are already ways for would-be exploiters of copyrighted works to locate and seek permission from rights holders, but Google and others would rather enjoy an "opt-out" system where authors' and songwriters' must proactively search out every would-be exploiter and actively opt out of being exploited.

http://accrispin.blogspot.com/2015/04/finding-authors-importance-of.html

I resorted to Wikipedia for this (below), having seen a news item about a new interactive gaming app that appears to exploit the likeness and final hours of a young man who died in a manner that made national headlines.

The discussion by Cyberguy did not clarify whether the bereaved family sold the rights, or whether they are being ripped off. 

Wikipedia:
The right of publicity, often called personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the right of publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction).
Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right of publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing offUnited States jurisprudence has substantially extended this right.
A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).

IMHO, Science Fiction, Horror, Romance, and other genre authors should beware of assuming that just because a game app developer does something, it is safe and above board to emulate. It may not be. Rights may be involved. Permissions and contracts may be necessary.
On the other hand, there was an interesting article in an Authors Guild newsletter last year about the difficulties in copyrighting aspects of historical fiction where different authors relied on the documented life of a real historical person, that is, when one accuses the other of plagiarism for using identical historical details and events.

As a bit of a copyright enthusiast (you noticed?) I am silently cheering The Turtles for their sterling work in going after exploiters of their copyrighted musical works. 
What I do not understand is why there isn't a class action suit involving all my favorite musicians and bands (living and deceased) from the 1950's, 1960's, and early 1970's who have not been paid any royalties at all by various subscription services. 

Big tech has taught us all to call copyrighted works "content"....  as www.TheTrichordist.com puts it, it is not so much "the internet of things" as "the internet of other people's things."
Excellent quote from The Trichordist on copyright (where the British Green Party allegedly proposes to cut copyright protection to just 14 years, and redistribute authors', musicians', movie makers', photographers' and others' rights to Google:
Ask yourself this: Exactly how does technology make it any less expensive to write a novel?   Writing a novel is purely a work of intellectual labor.  I suppose it’s easier to spell check…,  the backspace key is more convenient than White-out and a brush…  But I’m not seeing any evidence it’s less expensive.   In fact I would argue that since the modern English author lives in a much richer society than Dickens, that the relative cost of his labor is much much higher. 

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Sunday, June 08, 2014

Hanging Out; Has Copyright Gone Too Far...? And other musings

Before I begin.... for copyright owners and would-be copyright owners who are interested in the future of ICANN, you have an opportunity to let your thoughts be known on Intellectual Property issues
ICANN (the folks who hand out the IP numbers to registrars and internet providers) are asking for comments on various topics, including Intellectual Property issues, in planning their goals for governing the internet over the next 5 years. 

On Thursday, I participated in a Google Hangout as a Tweeting, question-asking, wannabe thorn in the side of those who would return copyright protections to perhaps 14 years.... or at least a term much closer to the time envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

You may view the video here. (I'm not on it.)
https://plus.google.com/events/ctoc50muptilfnii2oe22hervso

The speakers opined that copyright harms most authors, also that any copyright owners who speak up for their rights can be inferred to be paid employees of major corporations. There was some discussion of the harsh statutory penalties available to copyright owners who take copyright infringers to court.

Now, I have covered the gist of the hour-long schmooze between academics, I will proceed to rant.

What the Founding Fathers thought --or may have thought-- is not really relevant to the digital age.
Back then, intellectual property was disseminated through a laborious, time-consuming, and expensive process. Books were written by hand with quill, nib, and inkwell. Binding was expensive. Books were often accessed by subscription, one book at a time, from a for-fee travelling lending library.

There were copyright infringers and plagiarists, but those unimaginative and enterprising souls had to copy that which they wanted to infringe and monetize by hand, exerting considerable time and effort as well. Apparently, Charles Dickens had a problem with such persons.

I assume that in those days, it was highly unlikely that a copyright infringer could create thousands if not millions of perfect illegal duplications of a copyright owner's works and sell it in competition with the expensive legal copies on the very first day that the legal version went on sale.

Of course, that is piracy and plagiarism. These days, a work can and will be pirated and plagiarised while it is under theoretical copyright protection. It can also be lawfully accessed at no cost from a public lending library. On the other hand, books that are out of copyright protection are not necessarily freely available in every possible format.

What really motivates those who want to strip authors of all ages --and their heirs of all ages-- of their intellectual property in as short a time as possible? Really? It's not likely to be "culture", is it? It must be something else, such as the legal ability to exploit the work in "other ways" for their own gain, such as using access to it in order to sell advertising.  Perhaps the professors want to save their students the cost of textbooks.... or maybe they want to mash up and mix other authors' content and create their own compilation works which they will make available to their students, perhaps for a fee.

One of the learned speakers suggested that copyright protection hurts authors. This strikes me as a version of the argument that all authors and musicians and artists should be forcibly stripped of their intellectual property rights because obscure content creators wish to be famous and popular, and see free access to their works as a way out of obscurity.

As for the statutory penalties, whenever those are discussed, it is seldom mentioned that most authors cannot afford to get to court because of the cost of litigation and the great risk that the defendant --if found guilty-- will not have the funds to pay the fines.

The next USPTO forum on copyright issues is June 25th, and the next one is July 29th and 30th.
http://new.livestream.com/uspto

I'm afraid that I've mentioned the June 25th forum too late for anyone to sign up to attend in person and to speak, but there is time to participate on July 29th.

A Press Release about the series of consultations with the public can be found here:
http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2014/14_13.jsp

Excerpt:
"The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force will host roundtable discussions in cities around the country on several copyright Internet policy topics, as part of the work envisioned in the Green Paper. The purpose of the roundtables is to engage further with members of the public on the following issues: (1) the legal framework for the creation of remixes; (2) the relevance and scope of the first sale doctrine in the digital environment; and (3) the appropriate calibration of statutory damages in the contexts of individual file sharers and of secondary liability for large-scale infringement. The roundtables, which will be led by USPTO and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), will be held in Nashville, TN on May 21, 2014, Cambridge, MA on June 25, 2014, Los Angeles, CA on July 29, 2014, and Berkeley, CA on July 30, 2014."

And, about participating and/or listening in

"Requests to participate and observe are due three weeks in advance of each of the respective roundtables. While the Task Force may not be able to grant all requests, it will seek to maximize participation to the extent possible. The agendas and webcast instructions will be available approximately one week prior to each meeting on the Task Force website atwww.ntia.doc.gov/internetpolicytaskforce and the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/ip/global/copyrights/index.jsp. "

Finally, for those who want grist for the mill, here is a handy link to a directory of mostly pirate sites.
http://myip.ms/browse/sites/1/ownerID/7593/ownerIDii/7593

All the best,
Rowena Cherry
SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

PS. I am still reading fanFICtion by Anne Jamieson

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Should First Sale Doctrine Apply To Intellectual Property?


Marilynn Byerly has graciously consented to allow me to repost an article she posted on her own "Adventures In Writing" blog in November 2013.

Marilynn's comments are important as the USPTO is about to host a Roundtable on the topic of copyright reform with regard to whether First Sale Doctrine should apply to digital works, and as a group of Berkeley lawyers attempts to start a "grassroots" movement to change (weaken) copyright protections under the law--which I infer is for the benefit of Amazon, Google, libraries, and freetards-- but not for professional authors.


Should eBooks Be Resold Like Used Paper Books?


The Department of Commerce is asking for comments about 
Digital First Sale and the possible changes to copyright law
 that would allow an ebook to be resold.  

Here’s my letter.

The biggest problem with the resale of “used” e-books 
is e-book piracy.  Some think that cheaper books mean less reason to 
pirate books and that’s true to a certain extent, but used e-books also
mean that authors and publishers will no longer be able to prove 
that an online copy has been stolen.

Right now, publishers and authors license their books to specific 
resellers/distributors like Amazon Kindle, BN’s Nook, and Smashwords. 
If a book is available at any other site, the publisher and author know 
instantly that that book is pirated, and they help the authorities take 
these sites down.  

These sites are fairly common, and some look like legitimate 
book-selling sites so the consumer is no wiser that they are buying
 stolen books.  Some of these sites actually sell the books, others 
are scams which steal credit card information and install viruses 
on the victim’s computer.  

If e-books are sold used, the scam sites will be able to fly under 
the legal radar.

Pirate sites will claim that their books are being given away for free 
by legal owners so they can continue their dispersal of illegal copies.  

If e-books are sold used and a site or individual can sell thousands 
of copies  of the same ebook by saying that they are selling one used,
there will be no way  for the author/publisher to prove this.  
This will essentially make book theft a crime that can’t be punished.

Even readers who want to do the right things by buying legally won’t 
be able to tell who is a legitimate reseller and who isn’t.  

Readers looking for bargains will buy illegal books instead of legal 
ones, the profit margin for authors and publishers which is small now 
will plummet to the point that publishing will no longer be profitable
for anyone, and those who make the money will have done nothing
to create books.  

Allowing the sale of used e-books will destroy all value to copyright.


Thank you, Marilynn Byerly.

My best wishes,
Rowena Cherry