Social network, media company, host provider, neutral intermediary… what’s in a name for YouTube?

Social network, media company, host provider, neutral intermediary… what’s in a name for YouTube?

Media companies who call themselves social networks will have to recognize that they, too, have to take on responsibility for the content with which they earn their millions.

-— Markus Breitenecker, CEO of Puls4

Who is to blame, if someone records TV programmes and illegally uploads them to YouTube: YouTube, or the individual? According to the Commercial Court of Vienna, YouTube is jointly responsible for copyright breaches from user-uploaded content. Is this einer Entscheidung, die das Internet revolutionieren könnte – a decision that could revolutionize the Internet?

To date, the unanimous opinion of European case law supports the position that YouTube is only a platform, an intermediary, a service provider, a neutral host, and so on – and therefore could not bear the responsibility for stolen content. That’s no longer true, says the Handelsgericht Wien (Vienna’s Commercial Court).

In its judgement of 6 June, the Court handed Austrian TV broadcaster Puls4 a key victory in its four-year legal battle with Google-owned YouTube. In 2014, Puls4 had sued YouTube for allowing Puls4’s stolen content to appear on the YouTube platform. YouTube responded by asserting the Host Provider Privilege set out in Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC, which in certain situations shields host providers from being held responsible for the actions of its users.

The Americans have a similar provision in the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), which forms part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The OCILLA creates a conditional “safe harbor” for online service providers by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement, as well as from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. In exempting internet actors from copyright infringement liability in certain scenarios,  both Article 14 and the Safe Harbor rule aim to balance the competing interests of the copyright holders, and those who use the content online.

Where YouTube is simply a host provider, it is the individual who uploaded the video in the first instance who is to blame for the theft of copyrighted material. This time, the Court disagreed with YouTube’s argument, and has found finding the media giant to be jointly responsible for the copyright infringement.

So, why should we care about the Puls4 case? Although Austrian case law is not binding for other European Union member states, the Commercial Court’s judgment sets a precedent for denying Host Provider Privilege to YouTube. This may encourage similar decisions in the future which are based on the same line of argument.

Speaking to German newspaper Der Standard, Puls4’s CEO Markus Breitenecker explained that YouTube had effectively abandoned its neutral intermediary position and assumed an active role, which provided it with a knowledge of or control over certain data. In European legislative parlance, this is known as being a false hosting provider or false intermediary.

For years, many of us have assumed that YouTube is just a inanimate platform to which users upload videos. This case underscores that YouTube can no longer “play the role of a neutral intermediary” because of its “links, mechanisms for sorting and filtering, in particular the generation of lists of particular categories, its analysis of users’ browsing habits and its tailor-made suggestions of content.”

Puls4 and YouTube have until early July to petition the court, before it issues its binding ruling. In a statement to The Local Austria, YouTube said it was studying the ruling and “holding all our options open, including appealing” the decision.  In the meanwhile however, YouTube noted that it takes protecting copyrighted work very seriously.

If the preliminary decision is upheld, YouTube must perform a content check upon upload, instead of simply removing copyright infringing content upon notification. In respect of this, the Viennese court stated that “YouTube must in future — through advance controls — ensure that no content that infringes copyright is uploaded.” It is therefore rather timely that YouTube began beta testing a feature called Copyright Match last month, a tool which allows users to scan the platform to locate full re-uploads of their original videos on other users’ YouTube channels.

Screenshot 2018-06-28 at 10.29.54 PM
some Puls4 content is still available on YouTube (at least, here in the UK).

The European Parliament seems to think the arguments about false hosting providers is best left to the courts to decide. Despite the E-Commerce Directive being more than 15 years old, there is no pressing need for a reform. In a recent report on the matter,  the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection stated that while false hosting providers may not have been envisaged at the time of the adoption of the E-Commerce Directive in 2000, “the delineation between passive service providers caught by Article 14 and active role providers remains an issue for the court.”

 

 

Fair Play to use FIFA trade marks on social media?

Fair Play to use FIFA trade marks on social media?

This weekend, together with millions of others around the world, I watched Iceland make its World Cup debut against Argentina. Iceland, the smallest nation to ever qualify for the World Cup, is a special country for me, not least because my husband and were married there! Especially as my home country failed to qualify for this year’s tournament (sigh) it comes as no surprise that I’m supporting the Iceland’s national football team, or Íslenska karlalandsliðið í knattspyrnu.

I recently came across an article which said fans should beware of using World Cup logos in social media profile pictures. The article explained that although “many fans will be using social media to show their support by uploading images of their country’s flags and the World Cup logo as their profile pictures, by uploading the World Cup logo in your pictures you could be infringing intellectual property rights owned by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).”

Screenshot 2018-06-16 at 7.21.59 PM

So, what’s the deal? Does my newly updated Facebook photo, which features FIFA’s official emblem, unlawfully infringe upon FIFA’s trade mark? The answer is below…

Intellectual Property is football’s star player.
The World Cup is the largest single sporting event on Earth, with nearly half the world’s population tuning in. The tournament, which runs from June 14 to July 15 is being hosted in Russia for the first time, at an official cost of 683 billion rubles or £8.4 billion (Reuters).

As reported on its finances page, around 95% of FIFA’s revenues come from the sale of television broadcasting, marketing, and licensing rights related to the FIFA World Cup. In exchange for funding, FIFA grants exclusive rights to use its official marks to certain companies, which this year include addidas, Coca Cola, Gazprom, Budweiser, and Visa (rights holders).

In its 30-plus pages of official guidance on brand protection, FIFA claims that if anyone could use the official marks for free, the power of the marks would dilute and there would be no reason for companies to pay for sponsorship. Without lucrative corporate partnerships FIFA would lack the revenue required to organise the World Cup.

From the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, FIFA hauled in $4.8 billion in revenue, which turned a $2.6 billion profit for the association (which is then re-invested into development projects). Broadcast revenue topped $2.43 billion, while sponsorship fees brought in $1.6 billion and ticket sales earned $527 million. In other words, it’s not ticket sales that pay the bills: it’s intellectual property.

To date, FIFA’s intellectual property portfolio contains 14,000 trade mark registrations, about 300 registered designs, and 150 copyright registrations covering 157 jurisdictions overall (Official marks). Official marks include the flag, logo, hymn, and motto of FIFA, mascots, emblems, posters, and identification symbols.

Screenshot 2018-06-17 at 11.40.15 AM
the official emblem and the official mascot, which is a Eurasian wolf named Zabivaka. According to the FIFA website, Zabivaka – which means “goal scorer” in Russian – “radiates fun, charm and confidence.”

The words “FIFA”, “2018 FIFA World Cup”, “World Cup Russia”, “FIFA World Cup”, “Football World Cup”, and “Soccer World Cup” are also protected, as are “Russia 2018” and “Moscow 2018.” Simply writing “Russia 2018” on a t-shirt could land you in trouble, as doing so may lead consumers to establish an unlawful association with FIFA’s tournament.

Trade marks as broad as these are generally not enforceable. One wonders if these trade marks would have been approved in the first place, were it not for the massive size and power of FIFA. However, it’s also important to note that, without the co-operation of local officials, FIFA lacks both adequate legitimacy and capability to effectively police and protect their official marks.

Russian law.
Domestic law provides FIFA with the additional teeth needed to enforce its intellectual property rights. In March of 2013, Russia passed the Federal Law No 108-FZ On preparation for and the staging of the 2018 FIFA World Cup (“World Cup Law”). There are provisions aimed at protecting FIFA’s commercial rights, including a specific procedure for the registration of FIFA’s trademarks. Under Article 19, pre-existing Russian trademarks that are identical or similar to FIFA’s are prohibited for use until 2019.

Compliance is supervised by the Russian Federal Service for Surveillance of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor) and the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor).

Screenshot 2018-06-17 at 12.25.51 PM.png
FIFA poster in front of the Kremlin, Moscow

On November 2017, Rospotrebnadzor adopted an agenda to prepare for the World Cup, including the key priority of supervising the use of FIFA’s official marks. In March, the Roskomnadzor announced that it had placed 858 websites selling counterfeit products on the so-called “Russian Internet Blacklist“, the Unified Register of Prohibited Information.

Additionally, the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) can also hold parties accountable for illegal use of official marks. By way of example, Bavaria Brewing House Group Ltd and Agrofirma FAT Ltd raffled tickets for the World Cup final on their website and on social media. They also used FIFA trade marks in their promotional campaign and to mark their “Bavaria” beer. As neither Bavaria Brewing House nor Agrofirma FAT were licensed rights holders, the FAS issued an injunction against the companies to stop the violations.

What this means for fans.
FIFA engages in active surveillance and brand protection, which includes court proceedings to halt an infringing situation and seek financial compensation for any damages suffered.

It’s important to note that sports bars, restaurants, clothing brands and other companies are welcome to use generic football or country related images, provided they do not include any of FIFA’s official marks. The key here is avoiding reference to the World Cup that could suggest your company has an official relationship with FIFA.

But should individuals be worried about changing their profile pics on Facebook, if those photos include official marks? Not really. This is because sharing official content belonging to FIFA by fans without any commercial benefit is expressly permitted. This includes sharing on Facebook, Twitter, or even here on KelseyFarish.com, as blogs without commercial content are likewise exempted. Provided that you don’t attempt to make money by unlawfully using FIFA’s official marks, go on and enjoy the beautiful game!

Ricciardo’s ritual returns at Monaco Grand Prix

Ricciardo’s ritual returns at Monaco Grand Prix

Australian Formula One driver Daniel Ricciardo has an interesting celebratory ritual: he drinks champagne from his sweaty racing shoe. Keen to capitalise on the popularity of the stunt, Formula One has recently trademarked the name of this quirky act, known as a “shoey.”

Drinking champagne from a lady’s slipper was once a symbol of decadence in the early 1900s. According to drinks and culture website VinePair, sipping booze from shoes is said to be of Russian origin, dating back to the late 19th century. At the Bolshoi Ballet in Moscow, fans may have drunk vodka from their favourite ballerinas’ satin slippers!

Image result for drinking champagne from a shoe

The shoey celebration has found itself popular once again, at least in Australia. Dean and Shaun Harrington of the The Mad Hueys surfing brand are said to have reintroduced this strange practice – and the name “shoey” – back in 2002. As The Mad Hueys gained in popularity, more celebs in the shoey.

However, the shoey only really hit the global stage after Red Bull racing champ Daniel Ricciardo adopted the tradition to celebrate his racing victories. During a press conference in 2016, Ricciardo admitted that it “basically comes from a few Aussies called the Mad Hueys. I just thought I’d keep the Australian tradition going!” Cognizant as ever of the branding and merchandising potential behind their biggest stars, Formula One Licensing B.V. has now trademarked shoey.

When asked at the Spanish Grand Prix about F1 trademarking his so-called trademark, Ricciardo said, “I don’t know what that means. Can I still do it or are they going to fine me every time?”

Image result for ricciardo monaco
Daniel Ricciardo (Australia, racing for Red Bull) does a “shoey” on the podium, while Lewis Hamilton (UK, racing for Mercedes) who came in third, looks on.

Hopefully by now, his team will have explained that the trademark protection only extends to the use of the word on certain products. F1 won’t be able to stop Daniel, or anyone else for that matter, from celebrating in this way.

Now registered in 25 countries, the shoey trademark is protected in the United States, Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom (you can see the UK’s Intellectual Property Office record here).

It’s important to note that trademarks are categorised according to the products or services to which they relate. When making an application for trademark protection, the applicant must choose from one of the classifications under the Nice Agreement (1957). Registering a trademark in one particular class cannot prevent someone from registering the same trademark in a different class.

F1’s shoey registration is for use on items in Class 21, which covers household goods such as glasses, bottles, mugs, sculptures and figurines. Accordingly, we might see shoe-shaped beer steins with shoey written on them for sale at the F1 shop. In addition – or perhaps alternatively – trademarking shoey could be a defensive move by F1, to keep someone else out of the market.

F1 previously attempted to register shoey in Class 25, which would have protected the use of shoey on clothing, hats, and some types of shoes. However, this was cancelled due to an earlier registration by the Harringtons. This is why the Mad Hueys are able to use shoey on their line of clothing, but wouldn’t be able to use it on glasses or mugs without stepping on F1’s toes (or tyres, I suppose).

Screenshot 2018-05-28 at 10.35.25 AM.png
Trademark battle: The Mad Hueys website explains: “Passed down from our ancestors, the Shoey ritual runs deep within The Hueys family. The Shoey is ours and its here to stay! This limited edition collection asserts our position as the true kings of the Shoey!”

American Copyright law to get 21st century remix

American Copyright law to get 21st century remix

In my previous post, I wrote about the European Union’s sweeping new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which is currently in draft stages. But copyright legislation is getting an update on the other side of the pond, too.

Since 1909 — before recordings of music even existed — Section 115 of the Copyright Act has regulated the licencing of musical works. Many songwriters and music publishers have trouble collecting royalties for the use of their songs played via digital streaming services. Amongst other things, the proposed Music Modernisation Act will modernise how compensation for mechanical licenses, which include digital streaming, is determined.

Last week, The United States House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously (32-0) to approve House Bill 4706, “to provide clarity and modernize the licensing system for musical works under section 115 and to ensure fairness in the establishment of certain rates and fees.” More commonly known as the Music Modernization Act (“MMA”), the bill now heads for consideration by the full House of Representatives. The MMA has received wide bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans alike, and appears to be “on the fast track” for approval.

Importantly, the MMA will create an American agency or “mechanical licensing collective” that would house all music publishers under one roof. It is expected that the agency will have a database of ownership information, which will increase transparency and help identify music creators who are owed royalties.

Once established, the digital streaming services will pay the mechanical licensing collective, which in turn tracks and collects royalties on behalf of the artists. As explained by Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (a Republican from Virginia), the MMA “boosts payments for copyright owners and artists by shifting the reasonable costs of a new mechanical licensing collective onto digital music services, who themselves benefit from reduced litigation costs as a result of other provisions in the bill.”

Speaking to ABC news, John Simson noted that Americans “…have a 1909 statue trying to govern 2018 technology, and it doesn’t work.” Mr Simson is a professor at the American University and founding member of Sound Exchange, a non-profit organisation set up to collect and distribute performance royalties.

Intellectual Property Subcommittee Vice Chairman Doug Collins (a Republican from Georgia) noted that “the current music licensing landscape undervalues music creators and under-serves music consumers. Outdated copyright laws have produced unnecessary liabilities and inefficiencies within the music licensing system, and stakeholders across the music industry have called for reform. This bill moves the music industry towards a freer and a fairer market, enabling it to leverage the present and future benefits of the digital age.”

  • The first section of the bill concerns how modern digital music services operate, and will create a “blanket licensing system” to quickly license and pay for musical work copyrights. A key aim includes discouraging lawsuits in favour of simply ensuring that artists and copyright owners are paid in the first place without such litigation (see “No lawsuits over unpaid royalties after 1 January 2018?” below).
  • The second section, “Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act” will focus on public performance rights for pre-1972 recordings. In particular, musicians with pre-1972 recordings will receive royalty payments when their tracks are played on the radio, online, or on television.
  • The third section, “Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act,” will ensure that record producers, sound engineers, and other creative professionals also receive compensation for their work.

No lawsuits over unpaid royalties after 1 January 2018?
Of course, the MMA is not without its detractors who are quick to point out several key issues. Firstly, the bill sets out a broad limitation of liability clause which essentially shuts down any potential lawsuits filed after January 1st 2018. That’s not a typo – Section 2(10)(A), the MMA really does apply a retrospective restriction on legal action.

Without the possibility of litigation, songwriters (and other copyright holders) who have unpaid royalties have one sole and exclusive remedy: they must go through the process set out in the legislation, governed by the dispute resolution committee of the mechanical licensing collective.

And while the mechanical licensing collective created by the MMA will have a board of directors, that board will be comprised of ten music publishers (record labels) together with only four songwriters! Furthermore, as currently written, the MMA provides no grievance process for excluded writers and those who receive unjust treatment. Is this likely to hit the right note with independent artists and smaller record labels?

 

Featured image – Francis Barraud, His Master’s Voice.

No more Safe Harbours for EU-ser Uploaded Content?

No more Safe Harbours for EU-ser Uploaded Content?

The European Union is considering a sweeping new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, currently in draft stages. Industry groups are keen to ensure their opinions are taken into consideration, especially in instances where consumers share content which belongs to artists, authors, record labels, and television channels.

Digital platforms and internet service providers which host User Uploaded Content (UUC) argue that they are not responsible for any copyright infringing material uploaded by their users. However, trade bodies representing various industries believe the incoming Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive doesn’t go far enough to reform this safe harbour principle.

The E-commerce Directive states that EU Member States shall ensure that internet service providers are not liable for copyright infringements carried out by its customers, on condition that: (a) the ISP does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information;  and (b) the provider “acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access” to the illegal content, once they become aware of it (see Article 14).

This article provides ISPs with a “safe harbour” from copyright liability (also known as the “mere conduit” provision). Generally speaking, a safe harbour* is simply a protection available within a regulation that specifies that certain actions do not to violate a given rule, in particular circumstances.

1709 - EU Safe Harbour
In the United States, this principle operates under the “notice-and-take-down system”

About 18 months ago, the European Commission announced its plans to introduce a new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. As the explanatory memorandum sets out, “the evolution of digital technologies has changed the way works and other protected subjectmatter are created, produced, distributed and exploited. In the digital environment, cross-border uses have also intensified and new opportunities for consumers to access copyright-protected content have materialised. Even though the objectives and principles laid down by the EU copyright framework remain sound, there is a need to adapt it to these new realities.”

Amongst other things, the propsed Directive seeks to rebalance the position of the copyright owner against that of the internet service provider. Last week, various trade groups representing Europe’s creators and creative content producers published an open Letter to the European Council.

The authors suggest that, far from ensuring legal certainty, the Directive as currently drafted “could be detrimental to our sectors,” which include journalism, film and TV, music, and sport. While the authors support the objectives of the proposed legislation, the Letter critiques the latest draft of the directive, and expresses significant concerns about the safe harbour reforms.

In particular, the problems seem to arise with sections addressing the “use of protected content” by ISPs and other platforms which “store and give access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users”. Put simply, the copyright industries want the safe harbour reformed, so that it no longer applies to user-upload sites (Complete Music Update).

This draws into question how online platforms hosting UUC should monitor user behaviour and filter their contributions. Currently, the platforms review material after it has been published and reported or “flagged” as copyright infringement. This may, as has been discussed with Facebook’s proposed use of artificial intelligence in copyright and hate speech monitoring, “inevitably require an automated system of monitoring that could not distinguish copyright infringement from legal uses such as parody” (The Guardian).

The authors of the Letter voice complaints in respect of the draft forms of Article 2, Article 13(1) and Article 13(4):

  • Article 2 defines which services fall under liability, mentioned further at Article 13. The latest draft could leave most UUC platforms outside the scope, despite the fact they continue to provide access to copyright protected works and other subject-matter. For example, music playing in the background of a makeup tutorial on YouTube.
  • The problem with Article 13(1) as currently written is that it risks narrowing the scope of the right and contravening CJEU jurisprudence. The Letter’s authors argue that “any new EU law should secure that this right is broad,” and “contain no additional criteria which could change via future CJEU rulings.”
  • As for Article 13(4) and its relevant recitals, the authors suggest the language is tantamount to a new safe harbour, which would both “seriously undermine fundamental principles of European copyright,” and pose “unwarranted liability privilege risks breaching the EU’s obligations under international copyright treaties.”

The Letter closes with the authors’ promise to “remain at the Council’s disposal to find solutions to these points.” For more on the proposed Directive, be sure to check out the IPKat’s numerous posts on the subject.

*This “Safe Harbour” in copyright law is not to be confused with the Safe Harbor Data Privacy exemptions between the US and the EU, which have since been declared invalid. On that subject, I might write on the new Privacy Sheild… at some point…

Project Gutenberg: the German edition?

Project Gutenberg: the German edition?

Project Gutenberg is an American website which digitises and archives cultural works to encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks. It currently offers 56,000 free books for download, including classics such as Pride and Prejudice, Heart of Darkness, Frankenstein, A Tale of Two Cities, Moby Dick, and Jane Eyre. Many of these titles are available because their copyright protections have expired in the United  States, and are therefore in the public domain. The website is a volunteer effort which relies mostly on donations from the public.

What does it mean if a book is in “the public domain”? This term means that something (a novel, artwork, photograph or other creation) is not protected by intellectual property law, including copyright, trade mark, or patent. Accordingly, the general public owns the work, and not the individual creator. Permission is therefore not required to use the creation.

Despite the noble cause of making literature available at no or low cost to the masses, a recent ruling against Project Gutenberg has resulted in the website being geo-blocked for all visitors attempting to access the site from Germany. The claimants in the case are the copyright owners of 18 German language books, written by three authors, each of whom died in the 1950s.

In Germany, the term of copyright protection for literary works is “life plus 70 years,” as it is in the United States. However, the United States applies different rules for works published before 1978. For works published before 1978, the maximum copyright duration is 95 years from the date of publication. In the United States, the 18 books in question are all in the public domain. For the avoidance of doubt, Project Gutenberg runs on servers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and is classified as a non-profit charity organisation under American law.

Sharing and accessing the written word has changed since the 16th century! Engraving showing a publisher’s printing process, from the Met Museum.

The copyright holders of these works notified Project Gutenberg of their alleged infringement back in 2015. In early February 2018, the District Court of Frankfurt am Main approved the claimant’s “cease and desist” request to remove and block access to the 18 works in question. The claimants also requested administrative fines, damages, and information in respect of how many times each work was accessed from the website.

 

Our eBooks may be freely used in the United States because most are not protected by U.S. copyright law, usually because their copyrights have expired. They may not be free of copyright in other countries. Readers outside of the United States must check the copyright terms of their countries before downloading or redistributing our eBooks.

The Court reasoned that it was worth taking into account the fact that the works in dispute are in the public domain in the United States. This however “does not justify the public access provided in Germany, without regard for the fact that the works are still protected by copyright in Germany.” The simple message on the front page (cited above) may not be sufficient to draw users’ attention to the fact that what they are downloading may be in contravention of national copyright laws.

The judgement also cited Project Gutenberg’s own T&Cs in its decision, noting that the website considers its mission to be “making copies of literary works available to everyone, everywhere.” While this broad statement may seem innocuous and idealistic, the court used this to support its findings that Project Gutenberg could not reasonably limit itself as an America-only website.

A key point in this matter is the question of jurisdiction. While Project Gutenberg is based in the USA, the claimants successfully argued that as the works were in German and parts of the website itself had been translated into German, the website was indeed “targeted at Germans.” Furthermore, even if the website had not been intended for German audiences, that the infringement occured in Germany is sufficient grounds to bring the claim in German court.

While Project Gutenberg was only required to remove the 18 works listed in the lawsuit, the organisation has blocked its entire website in Germany to protect itself from any further potential lawsuits on similar grounds (see the Q&A here). Project Gutenberg is planning to appeal the decision.

This first published on the 1709 Copyright Blog. You can also read more at the IPKat here.

 

Lawyerpalooza: when music festivals get intellectual property licensing wrong

Lawyerpalooza: when music festivals get intellectual property licensing wrong

Commercialisation is the process of bringing Intellectual Property (IP) to the market in order to be exploited: put simply, it’s how artists make money from their creations. To maintain control and balance risk against rewards, creators often use license agreements to ensure their work is used only in accordance with their wishes. So what happens when things go wrong?

Juan Marco is an artist from Los Angeles, California who has created illustrations and branding projects for the last decade. Marco’s work includes characters “inspired by musical energy — how it flows through your body when you create and listen to music.”

For the last several years, Marco has been the official designer for the popular Lollapalooza music festival. As part of this business relationship, he entered into an intlelectual licence agreement with C3 Presents, the concert promotion and artist management company responsible for Lollapalooza.

Licensing is a common way of commercialising intellectual property. A licensing agreement is simply a partnership between an intellectual property rights (IPR) owner and another user who is granted permission to use the IPRs in exchange for an agreed fee or royalty payment. This allows Marco (the licensor) to retain ownership of his work, while at the same time receiving income from C3 (the licensee).

One of the most important provisions of the agreement concern the scope of the licensee’s rights, covering (1) which IPRs are being licensed, (2) exclusivity, and (3) the extent of the licence. “Extent” in this context simply details if the IP can only be used for certain activities, events, or within certain territiories.

The original licence was for the non-exclusive use of various illustrations for Lallopalooza events in Chicago, USA and Santiago, Chile for three years. However, in a recent lawsuit filed in California District Court, Marco argues that his illustrations have been used outside of the original scope as agreed in the licence.

The alleged infringement includes using and modifying the artwork in unauthorised ways, as well as using it in locations beyond Chicago and Santiago. For example, Marco’s artwork is used in connection with the Lollapalooza event in Paris, as seen on the Lollaparis website. Additionally, Marco accuses C3 of sub-licensing his artwork to other users without his permission, in order to manufacture and create products which are similar or substantially similar to Marco’s original artwork.
Screenshot 2018-02-25 at 10.42.08 AM
Marco is therefore claiming for copyright infringement, together with vicarious and contributory copyright infringement. In the first claim, he alleges that he has suffered substantial damages – both general and special – to his business. He notes that the Defendants have profited as a direct result of their “wilful, intentional and malicious” copyright infringement, and is asking for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement.

In his second claim, Marco alleges that the C3 and the other Defendants are vicariously liable for the infringement carried out by other parties. The lawsuit states that the Defendants “knowingly induced, participated in, aided and abetted in and profited from the illegal reproduction and subsequent sales” of his artwork.

By alleging contributory copyright infringement, Marco is asking the Court to consider the Defendant’s secondary liability. To be found guilty of this offence, the Defendants must have reasonably known, or had reason to know, of the infringement. Marco asserts that under the original licence agreement, the Defendants had both the right and ability to supervise the copying of Marco’s artwork, but nevertheless failed to prevent infringement. The Defendants also benefited financially as a direct result of the infringement by other parties, and therefore must have known of the illegal copying in the first instance.

It is interesting to note that Marco is not seeking any damages in respect of harm done to his reputation. By his own admission, Marco has previously collaborated with big names in the music industry, as well as freelance work for record labels and bands. Rather, Marco is suing C3 because of the ways in which his artworks were used in contravention to the original licence agreement. No matter the payments or promotion involved, it is important to remember that permission to use artwork usually comes with very specific strings attached.