Can you be original if you do nothing but appropriate the work of others?

From Wikipedia: Ophir Kutiel (born 1982), professionally known as Kutiman, is a musician, composer, producer and animator from Israel. He is best known for creating the online music video project ThruYOU, an online music video project mixed entirely from samples of YouTube videos which has received more than 10 million views. Time Magazine named it one of the 50 Best Inventions of 2009.

Here is This is What it Became, one cut from ThruYOU:

Mike Masnick of techdirt, writes yesterday, in terms that a lawyer for Gregg Gillis would love:

[T]o hear some people talk about these things, none of this is “creative.” It’s all just “copying.” In some cases it’s outright “piracy.” After all, Kutiman is using the works of others, and doing so entirely without permission. And yet, I have trouble seeing how anyone can legitimately claim that these songs are “piracy” in any real sense of the word. Kutiman is clearly a musician. That he uses a note played by someone else on a YouTube video, and then “plays” it himself, strikes me as no different than playing a keyboard that plays a recorded sounded, or even strumming a guitar. A musician is putting different sounds together to create music. Does it really make a huge difference if that music involves someone making a note from an instrument directly themselves… or by taking the note originally played by someone else and doing something creative and amazing with it?

I think Masnick is right on in stating that the use of technology widely available only in the last several years to compose a work from pieces of other recorded work is “no different than playing a keyboard that plays a recorded sounded, or even strumming a guitar.” What many fail to recognize is that the music the likes of Kutiman, Gillis, DJ Earworm and a myriad of others are producing today is the result of new technology, not a new mindset. There are plenty of people out there who would tell you that rampant sampling is the consequence of a generation without respect for property rights. But I think people who say such things are missing the real point: ten years ago, it would have been very difficult for people like Gillis and Kutiman to compose the work they compose today. Twenty years ago it would have been impossible without efforts few but the most dedicated would resort to.

In short, we have new instruments today. That those instruments produce their sounds by means of reproducing pre-recorded sounds does not make them any less instruments than instruments that can produce only a limited number of notes.

What does overclaiming look like? Just watch Facebook.

We have a remarkable legal system, but its greatest defect by far is the influence sheer economic weight can have on the outcomes it produces.

Back in October, I praised the lawyer for the site formerly known as Placebook for not easily being bullied, for stating straight out that Facebook’s cease-and-desist letter insisting that Placebook’s name would cause customer confusion with Facebook’s trademark very was “very predatory and not reasonable.’’ Of course, she also said that every company Facebook had asserted such a trademark infringement claim against “has rolled over and died, because no one has $6.9 billion to fight them.”

Sure enough, the client decided that the expense of fighting Facebook, even on a meritorious claim, wasn’t worth it. As Melissa Bell of the Washington Post reports, Placebook cried uncle and is now calling itself TripTrace. And now Facebook has taken “Teachbook, a teacher’s network, to court, for ‘rid[ing] on the coattails of the fame and enormous goodwill of the Facebook trademark.’”

The parody site Lamebook, however, has taken the fight straight to Facebook:

the parody site, Lamebook, however, a more direct course of action seemed the right tack. “The Austin-based Web site filed a complaint in Texas against Facebook, asserting its right to the name ‘Lamebook.’”

Fighting Facebook’s overreaching.

I’ve written plenty about copyright overclaiming and its pernicious tendency to stifle clearly legitimate appropriation of copyrighted works. As Richard Posner has written, the fear of litigating against rich copyright holders who place a premium on their fear of losing something of value leads to behavior based on law that isn’t at all what the law is supposed to be.

Of course, the over zealous assertion of purported legal rights by wealthy litigants to cow the less wealthy is not the type of behavior limited to copyright. It comes arises in all legal fields. And, unsurprisingly, Facebook apparently is prone to the practice. As Boston.com reports:

Boston-based Where Inc. has developed an application that helps users find places they might like to visit. You can save it in something called a Placebook.

Just one small problem. The owners of Facebook have apparently decided that Placebook is in violation of its intellectual property rights. Facebook argues that companies like Placebook create confusion among consumers, thereby diluting the value of their unique brand. (Hyperlink added.)

It seems to me a bit of a stretch to worry that someone would consider Placebook to be a product of Facebook. And while Facebook is a pretty brilliant name, it’s hardly original — filched as it was, after all, from the colloquial term that Harvard and many other colleges give to the photo directories they distribute to students. (At my undergraduate institution it was known as the “Pigbook.”)

But Facebook doesn’t have to worry too much about the legitimacy of its claim as long as it’s just legitimate enough to pass the giggle test and thereby scare potential defendants into giving up without a fight:

In a cease-and-desist letter to Placebook’s lawyer a couple of weeks ago, Facebook’s lawyer wrote that, in the US alone, it has successfully intervened to prevent the registration of the trademarks Officebook, Flickbook, Geezerbook, Doctorbook, Lawyerbook, and my personal favorite, Redneckbook, which would have been a website for the hunting-and fishing crowd.

Placebook, however, is not so easily bullied. Just as importantly, Placebook has a lawyer who recognizes bullying when she sees it:

“I think Facebook is having an identity crisis and they are acting like predators,’’ said Kimberly B. Herman, an attorney at Sullivan and Worcester who is representing Placebook. “It’s very predatory and not reasonable.’’

In previous cases, Facebook has gotten its way simply by firing off a threatening letter, according to Herman. That’s what happens when a company valued at nearly $7 billion unleashes its legal might against start-ups. “Every entity has rolled over and died, because no one has $6.9 billion to fight them,’’ Herman said. (Hyperlink added.)

The writer of the Boston.com piece agrees with me in thinking that “consumers are smarter than Facebook gives them credit for and are not likely to get Placebook and Facebook confused.” Unfortunately, “a court may have to decide that — if, of course, Placebook doesn’t back down, as others have.” Here’s hoping Placebook has the resources to send Ms. Herman out to fight for them.

You can’t own facts — Tremé belongs to all of us.

Tremé is a neighborhood in New Orleans. Treme is an HBO series about New Orleans residents rebuilding their lives after Hurricane Katrina. The Chicory opines correctly that the t-shirt pictured to the left does not infringe any rights anyone holds in the television series. There cannot be a copyright in a fact, so there can be no copyright in the name “Treme.” And while trademark is a distinctive sign or symbol (a “mark”), the t-shirt bears no font or insignia distinctive to the television show. So get your Treme t-shirts and show your support for my friends in New Orleans.

Hat tip to Ray Ward.

The South Butt Answer to the North Face

For a brilliant combination of technical perfection, persuasion, and humor of a sort I’ve never before seen in an answer to a complaint, you’ve got to see the answer filed by South Butt to the complaint filed by North Face alleging that South Butt’s name and its slogan, “Never Stop Relaxing,” infringe North Face’s trademarks in its name and its own slogan, “Never Stop Exploring.” I will be forever grateful to techdirt for bringing this document to my attention.
The South Butt Answer to the North Face

Trademark madness

From Legal Pad: “Sand Hill Advisors, the Palo Alto wealth management company, is suing Sand Hill Advisors, the commercial real estate company in Los Altos, for trademark infringement.” I am, apparently, one of the 3 people Legal Pad asserts did not know that “Sand Hill Road is the iconic stretch of pavement near which the sainted feet of venture capitalists tread daily to their places of work.” There was a time I would’ve known the signifiers that mattered to venture capitalists. I suspect I’m better off no longer knowing.

Apparently the wealth management company claims it’s been using the name since 1995 and that the real estate company is profiting off the value that the wealth management company has created in the name. There would be some merit in the claim if people really are using the real estate company because they think it’s somehow associated with the wealth management company, but that would seem to be a difficult set of facts to establish. Typically, a trademark cannot be enforced against someone using it in a different market because in doing so the alleged infringer typically is not capitalizing on value in the trademark created by the claimant.

In addition, the real estate company claims (it its motion to dismiss (pdf)), that the trademark claim is deficient because the wealth management company “doesn’t even have an enforceable service mark, since the government rejected a trademark application because the name was descriptive of a place.”

Legal Pad, though, is dead on in its prediction: “Sand Hill Advisors has it in the bag.”

But who will win the lawsuit filed by Mickey Mouse against Donald Duck?

Money or racism? Could the Dolans just do the right thing already? The courts won’t.

The Lanham Act, the federal law governing trademarks prohibits trademarks “which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt. . . .” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has declined to review a lower court decision (pdf download) in Pro Football, Inc. v. Harjo ruling that, even assuming the name of the Washington, D.C. football team, Redskins, is disparaging to Native Americans or brings them into contempt, the Redskins cannot be forced to give up their trademark rights. Why? Because, given the length of time that the Redskins have had the name without challenge and the delay in the plaintiffs bringing their claim, it would be unfair to deprive the football team of the profits to be made from selling goods bearing the Redskins name.

There are serious questions to be raised about the legal merits of the NFL’s position — among other points, the Lanham Act states that challenges to a trademark can come “at any time.” But my more serious question, to Daniel Snyder and to Larry Dolan, is this: why in the world would you want to make money off of a symbol so many people consider racist? Well, Larry Dolan’s answer is that he doesn’t see evidence that Chief Wahoo is racist.

It’s amazing how money can blind someone.

Wikipedia should know better/Addendum: it does, and the problem is solved, though Wikipedia really didn’t have to be quite so heavy-handed.

Determining whether the use of someone else’s trademark is a non-infringing fair use does not involve an analysis identical to determining whether the use of someone’s copyrighted work is a fair use, but there are significant similarities.  One is that the absence of any exploitation of the commercial value of the intellectual property is a significant reason to find that use of the trademark is not infringing.  Another is that the property interest one has in the intellectual property has to be balanced against the constitutional right to free speech. Thus, owning a trademark no more gives you total control over use of the trademark than owning a copyright gives you total control over the copyrighted work.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation therefore is disturbed that Wikipedia, whom the EFF has represented, is trying to stop a group of artists from using the name “wikipediaart.org” as the domain for a site that documents  a Wikepedia article they had established last year.  The article “was intended to comment on the nature of art and Wikipedia. But Wikipedia editors did not take kindly to the project, and it was shut down within fifteen hours for being insufficiently ‘encyclopaedic.’”

But since the site is non-commercial and is a critical commentary on Wikipedia, Wikipedia has no right to shut it down.  The artists are not attracting paying customers who stumble upon the site because they are looking for Wikipedia.  And you can’t shut someone down just because they are criticizing you.  As the EFF cogently sums up the issues:

Wikipedia should know better. There is no trademark or cybersquatting issue here. First, the site is entirely noncommercial, which puts it beyond the reach of U.S. trademark law. . . . Moreover, even if U.S. trademark laws somehow reached this noncommercial activity, the artists’ use of the mark is an obvious fair use. Wikipedia Art uses the “Wikipedia” mark to refer to the project: a critical comment on Wikipedia and creativity. The disputed site describes the project, provides links to media coverage of the project, and so on. It does not use any more of the Wikipedia mark than need be; for example, it doesn’t even use the Wikipedia logo. Simply put, the site does not purport to be, nor does it look anything like, Wikipedia and the artists have done nothing to suggest Wikipedia endorses their work. Finally, the creators are engaging in precisely the kind of critical speech sheltered by the First Amendment.

ADDENDUM: asdfghjk in the comments states that the “EFF’s description of events is somewhat incomplete at best,” and points to a post by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of Wikimedia Foundation, that explains that Wikipedia’s only concern was that wikipediaart.org would be mistaken by visitors as a site affiliated with Wikipedia and that, once the creators of wikipediaart.org have posted the prominent disclaimer now visible on the site, Wikipedia considered the matter resolved, and amicably so. I’m glad to hear it.  It’s dispute resolution, folks, and when people get upset and have disputes all you need to do is resolve them.  It’s just not so easy all the time.  Here’s to wikipediaart.org for responding with the disclaimer and to Wikipedia for backing off once its legitimate concern had been addressed. And thank you, asdfghjk, whoever you are and wherever you may be. But I’ll take exception to one point you made — I do not believe the EFF was “played” by a bunch of performance artists.  Even without the disclaimer, their non-affiliation with Wikipedia seemed clear.  And it does not seem far-fetched for EFF (or me) to have mistaken the meaning of communications, in which, Mr. Godwin now claims,  “no litigation [against wikepediaart.org] was threatened or commenced.”  On April 9, Doug Isenberg, a lawyer for Wikimedia, wrote Wikipedia Art a letter that sure sounds like it threatened litigation:

Wikimedia appreciates your offer to “explore an amicable resolution to this matter.” Accordingly, I think it would be helpful to draw your attention to a recent domain name dispute between Wikimedia and the registrant of the domain name <visualwikipedia.com>. The registrant of that domain name was using it in connection with a website that described itself as “a visual, intuitive, and interactive web interface to encyclopedic knowledge/information.” The registrant of that domain name refused to cooperate with Wikimedia, after which Wikimedia filed a complaint pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), resulting in a published decision ordering the domain name transferred to Wikimedia. See WIPO Case No. D2009-0139, available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0139.html. . .

In light of the above, Wikimedia suggests that Mr. Kildall select a domain name that does not include any of Wikimedia’s trademarks and that Mr. Kildall transfer the <wikipediaart.org> domain name to Wikimedia. Doing so would allow Mr. Kildall to continue to freely express himself without raising the same concerns that Wikimedia has asked me to investigate. If Mr. Kildall is willing to do so, please let me know by April 16, 2009.

But all is well that ends well.  The disclaimer removes any possible claim of visitors to wikipediaart.org would believe the site is affiliated with Wikipedia, and Wikipedia Art, despite Mr. Isenberg’s “suggestion,” keeps its domain name. Perhaps next time Mr. Godwin should not delegate to outside lawyers the writing of letters he does not intend to contain threats of litigation.