Intellectual Property - Legal Technology - Technologist
Technologist - The FindLaw Legal Technology Blog

Recently in Intellectual Property Category

We've talked a lot about the Sony hack. And unless you've been living under a rock for the past month, you know that Sony (along with a number of theaters) decided to cancel the release of "The Interview" (the film that may have inspired the hack, which some have speculated was carried out by the North Korean government). Sony then decided to release the film on Christmas Day and online simultaneously.

In all of the hubbub over hacking, however, they forgot one small thing: to clear music samples for the film. According to Ars Technica, the studio is now negotating with Yoon Mi-rae over "Pay Day," a song that is used for approximately three minutes in "The Interview." The K-Pop star and the studio were negotiating before the film was released, but no deal was reached. And instead of waiting for a deal, Sony pushed forward, and released the film anyway.

But, despite the allegedly unauthorized use of the song, will the maneuver pay off for both parties?

Yesterday, a federal jury found that Apple's iTunes 7 updates, made between 2006 and 2009, weren't anticompetitive . The verdict caps 10 years of litigation alleging Apple locked other music providers out of its iPods.

There's been quite a bit of misreporting what's actually going on in this case, so we decided to clarify some of the facts and issues at play.

For a few weeks now, 11,000 gigabytes of information stolen from Sony by as-yet unknown hackers have been floating around the Internet. The eclectic data range from private, racially tinged jokes emailed between producer Scott Rudin and Sony exec Amy Pascal about President Obama's favorite movies, to ideas for ludicrous sequels (like a "21 Jump Street"/"Men in Black" crossover), to whole copies of finished, but unreleased, films.

Well, Sony's pretty sick of hearing about it. To that end, they've decided to hire attorney David Boies to make some legal threats via demand letters.

Remember the "monkey selfie"? Well it's back in the news, this time sans monkey.

In August, we blogged about the case of a black macaque (which, unlike a chimp, is properly called a "monkey") that pushed the shutter of photographer David Slater's camera while it was set up on a tripod.

Slater claimed that he owned the photograph, but we (along with others) concluded that the photo had no owner. Slater didn't create the photo, but a monkey isn't a "natural person," so it can't own anything. Now, Slater is taking his monkey selfie fight to copyright experts.

Rightscorp is a company that valiantly pursues copyright infringers in an attempt to get them to pay their fair share for the harm they've caused to copyright owners.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another is that Rightscorp "asks ISPs to disconnect you from the Internet unless you pay it money for alleged, unproven copyright infringements." A class action suit being filed in the Central District of California seeks to figure out the truth.

Is Android a byproduct of copyright infringement? It's a heck of a question, one that has no easy answer.

Google used bits of Oracle's Java APIs when it built Android. APIs (application programming interfaces) are the tools used to carry out functions on a computer. No one disputes this. But Oracle claims that it had a copyright on its APIs, while Google argues that APIs aren't copyrightable at all.

So far, the lower courts have split. A district court agreed with Google that a "utilitarian and functional set of symbols" is the only "way to declare a given method functionality" and therefore cannot be copyrighted. The Federal Circuit, on the other hand, held that the APIs were copyrightable, but that a fair use defense might apply.

Google doesn't want to rely upon a possible fair use defense, so it has asked the Supreme Court to take the case, Reuters reports.

Grooveshark is an online music service that allows users to upload their own music and stream it. But it also allows users to add to their streaming library any song that someone else has already uploaded.

As you might expect, the music companies weren't too keen on this, and though Grooveshark obtained licenses for some of the music in its collection, it didn't obtain licenses for all of the music.

Enter this lawsuit against Grooveshark's owner, Escape Media Group Inc., where the music companies moved for summary judgment on direct and secondary infringement.

Apparently looking to make a quick buck (which is the best kind of buck), David Elliot and Chris Gillespie registered domain names using formulations of "Google" along with another well-known words or brand names, like and So, you know, legitimate business and not SEO tricks.

Google filed a complaint with the domain registrar. Then Elliot and Gillespie sued Google in federal court to have the company's trademarks to "Google" canceled on the ground that it's become a generic term.

There's an old, apocryphal story about a guy who was bitten by bedbugs in a train sleeper car. He wrote a letter to the railroad president. The railroad president wrote back, saying it was the first time he had ever heard of such a thing happening, he had ordered all the rail cars fumigated, and promised it would never happen again. The president also accidentally included a copy of the sender's original letter, on which was written, in the railroad president's hand, "Send this SOB the bedbug letter."

Earlier this week, Google launched the "bedbug letter" into the 21st century when it returned documents containing trade secrets to the original owner -- along with several incriminating Post-It notes revealing its plans for the newly acquired secrets.

The world got a crash course in copyright law earlier this week when David Slater, a British photographer, requested that the Wikimedia foundation take down a photograph snapped by a macaque.

The "monkey selfie" was born when Slater set up his camera in an Indonesian forest and came back later to find that monkeys had snatched it and were snapping pictures, The Washington Post reports.

While Slater claims that he owns the rights to the photograph, Wikimedia insists that the work isn't owned by anyone -- because it was taken by a monkey.