I am shamelessly copying Eleonora’s idea of using one’s
mother tongue for the title of the Whimsies and Fantasies posts, as I find it
to be a wonderful way to hint that the Kats are an international bunch. So, while
Jeremy is Down Under, here are my fantaisies.
Garcia v. Google, to
be continued
On November 12, the 9
th Circuit
accepted to rehear
en banc the
Garcia v. Google case. A Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals panel
reversed last March a district court which had
denied an actress, who had briefly appears in the
Innocence of Muslims movie, a preliminary injunction to take down
the movie from YouTube.
The three-judge panel found that Plaintiff had established a
likelihood of success on the merit as it was likely that she had a separate
copyright in her performance. This decision wasmade in order to provide actress
Cindy Garcia a way to ask Google to take down the “Innocence of Muslims” movie from YouTube, as her appearance in the
movie had led to death threats.
[For more information about the case, see
here]
While one certainly sympathizes with Plaintiff’s ordeal, the
decision was nevertheless surprising from an IP point of view. In the EU, article
2(b) of the 2001/29/EC Directive directs Member States to provide performers “for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit
direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any
form, in whole or in part of fixations of their performance,” but US law does
not recognize such a right.
It will be interesting to see how the Ninth Circuit will now
rule, and whether it will find another way to provide relief to the Plaintiff, without
having to recognize an independent right for performers, as this would certainly
be the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress.
Copyright and
Marriage Equality Act is Introduced
U.S. Senator and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy
(D-Vt.) introduced a bill this week, the
Copyrightand Marriage Equality Act, which would amend the Copyright Act’s definition
of a widow or a widower in order to allow survivors of a same-sex marriage to inherit
the copyright owned of their deceased husband or wife.
The new §107 definition would read:
“An individual is the ‘widow’ or ‘widower’ of an author if the courts of
the State in which the individual and the author were married (or, if the individual
and the author were not married in any State but were validly married in
another jurisdiction, the courts of any State) would find that the individual and
the author were validly married at the time of the author’s death, whether or
not the spouse has later remarried.”
“It is wrong for the federal government to deny benefits or privileges
to couples who have lawfully wed. Statutes like the Copyright Act, or laws
governing the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs
which also contain remnants of discrimination, are no place for inequality in
our country. It is time to fix these outdated laws once and for all.”
Senate Leahy wrote an
op-ed published by Hollywood Reporter, explaining further that
the bill would amend the Copyright Act “
to
look simply at whether a couple is married, not where a same-sex married couple
happens to live when the copyright owner dies. It will ensure that the rights
attached to the works of our nation's gay and lesbian authors, musicians,
painters, sculptors and other creators pass to their spouses the way they now
do for heterosexual creators. Artists are the creative lifeblood of our nation,
and our laws should protect their families equally.”
As the US Congress is currently in a lame-duck session, it
remains to be seen if this bill will be enacted, but it certainly should be.
Counterfeited Beauty
Products
Let’s go to France, the country of cheese, Airbus, and
cosmetics.
The
Fédération des
Entreprises de la Beauté, FEBEA, is a trade association which represents
manufacturers of cosmetics and perfumes operating in France, and has some 300 members.
According to its website, these manufacturers employ 42,000 people in France and
contribute more than eight billion Euros to the French trade balance. That
figure represents a lot of lipstick,
crèmes
de beauté, and perfume.
It recently filed a complaint against a new chain of stores,
Equivalenza, which was selling perfumes using the "concordance tables"
method which FEBEA claimed is illegal. Using this method, perfumes on the shelves
bear a random name, or a single number, while being presented as the equivalent
of well known perfume.
On November 4, the National Gendarmerie, the French army police, intervened in twenty-eight different
Equivalenza shops and corners and seized merchandise deemed counterfeit.
Patrick O 'Quin, President of the FEBEA, is quoted in the
press release as follows:
"It is necessary to fight against all types of infringement to preserve
our heritage and expertise, and thus to stop such practices which destroy jobs
in France and damage the reputation of our companies."
However, I believe that this practice is likely to develop
in the next few years, as discount stores are a
growing segment of the economy.
Jeremy recently wrote a post about how shopping at Aldi can turn into a
guessing game: this generic brand is supposed to be Pringles!
This story resonated with me, as one of my favorite perfumes
ever, the
Bonne Bell Skin Musk oil, is no longer sold [why, oh why?] but many
copies can still be found in US drugstores. Seeing the familiar Bonne Bell package
in the shelves overjoyed me several times so much that I bought several bottles
over the years, only to realize, alas, too late, that there were not the real
McCoy, as I found them to be cloying and sweet instead of just… perfect.
An Electronic Way to Spot
Counterfeit Bags
As reported by TheWall Street Journal, a Japanese electronics
company is developing a method which would allow retailers to make sure that
the designer bags they are buying are not fake ones. This is how it would go:
first, manufacturers would take a picture of their bags using a lens attached
to their smart phone. These pictures would be so detailed that they would
reveal the hidden characteristics of a real bag. The WSJ article mentions that “
brand-name luxury goods like handbags and
wallets have their own unique surface patterns–just like fingerprints–“and
also have special zippers or bolts.
These images would then be uploaded to a server, and retailers
would then take pictures of bags they wish to purchase using the same lens.
Both pictures taken by the manufacturers and the retailers could be then compared
to deem if a particular bag is authentic. It remains to be seen if the
technology will eventually be used by consumers as well.
Will the Public
Domain Monkey Selfie Become a Trademark?
Eriq Gardner, Senior Editor at The Hollywood Reporter posted
this intriguing
tweet on Wednesday, which revealed an attempt to trademark a
mark which “
consists of a smiling monkey
design.” That smiling monkey is not just any smiling monkey, but is a reproduction
of the only selfie [so far] taken by a
monkey.
As we know, the picture is in the public domain.
The case number is 86448807 and can be found searching on
the
USPTO trademark search page. The mark would be registered in class 25 for :
“
Baby layettes for clothing; Caps;
Children's and infant's apparel, namely, jumpers, overall sleepwear, pajamas,
rompers and one-piece garments; Down suits; Dressing gowns; Girdles; Gloves as clothing; Hosiery;
Jackets; Sashes for wear; Shawls; Shoes; Sports jerseys; Sports shoes; Tee
shirts; Trousers; Underclothes; Underclothing; Waterproof jackets and pants; Wedding gowns.“
There’s is an idea:
getting married in a wedding gown featuring a design of the monkey’s selfie. I
can really see the design printed all over the dress, and maybe even on the
veil. At the end of the ceremony, the groom would lift it to reveal a smiling
bride, who, of course, would wear a matching girdle under the dress. So
romantic, and the ultimate IP wedding
fantaisie,
methinks.
Image of the 9th Circuit is courtesy of Flickr user
Steve Rhodes under a
CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license.
Image of the perfumes is courtesy of Flickr user
André Mouraux under a
CC BY 2.0 license.
Bravo Marie-Andrée -- et encore!
ReplyDeleteOther than the fact that the picture isnt in the public domain.. well done.
ReplyDelete