LawFont.com

According to the Copyright Tribunal – 22.5c per subscriber per month is what it is worth. That is how much Pay TV channels will soon be ordered to pay copyright owners (through their collection vehicle, Screenrights) for the privilege of retransmitting free to air channels to their subscribers. The decision, handed down 3 May, has already been reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and in the Australian.

The flavour of the story in the media has been interesting – the Australian pitches it as ‘nothing comes free’ for Pay TV; the SMH is even more blunt. Under the headline ‘Pay TV hit with copyright fee’ it comments that:

”PAY TV operators, including Foxtel, Optus Vision and Austar, will now have to fork out $3.5 million a year for retransmitting the five free-to-air channels on their platforms’

But there’s a little more to it than that. As the SMH notes, Screenrights had initially asked for $10 per subscriber, per month. Screenrights in their final submissions argued that an amount of $2.50 per subscriber per month was ‘conservative’. And as the Australian also notes that ‘The pay-TV networks, including Foxtel, Optus and the regional network Austar, argued they should pay no more than 20c per subscriber per month.’

Hmmm: so Screenrights thought $2.50 was conservative; the upper bound of the Pay TV people was 20c. The result was 22.5c – a smidgeon above what the Pay TV people had argued (admittedly, the Pay TV people were arguing that the ‘lower bound was zero’, based on past arrangements). While Screenrights has ‘welcomed‘ the decision, my guess would be that they would view this as a pretty low fee. (more…)

Those of us who have a tendency to place high importance on free speech, and fair dealing, and transformation of existing creative material sometimes discount the very real interests of authors to control the outputs of their own creative impulses. In some respects, the submission of the National Association for the Visual Arts in the Attorney-General’s Fair Use Review is a useful reminder of the other side.

If you need another useful reminder – or maybe just some food for thought – head on over to Mike Madison’s post on what sounds like an extremely interesting panel presenting the conflict in terms of real people. He describes a panel at a conference where an appropriative artist and a photographer, got up on the same stage to defend their views and approaches.

Well, well, well – haven’t we all been painting the town purple this last couple of weeks! We’ve had the decisions of Justice Heerey on evidence in passing off/s 52 a little while ago, then last week his Honour’s final decision holding that Darrell Lea had not passed off its goods as Cadburys, nor confused nor misled consumers through use of the colour purple.

Now, IP Australia have put online their decision (watch it – 59 page pdf) in Darrell Lea’s opposition to Cadbury’s application to register a trade mark for the colour purple for chocolate. And while Darrell Lea have succeeded in opposing the registration, IP Australia have ruled that Cadbury can get a narrower registration for their colour purple for block chocolate and boxed chocolates. (more…)

Perhaps a glass less than half full? Perhaps empty?

The decision in the passing off/s 52 case brought by Cadbury against Darrell Lea, for DL’s use of the colour purple, has ended with (as a friend put it) Cadburys’ in something of a screaming heap. Cadbury was claiming that DL’s use of purple was misleading to consumers, or involved DL ‘passing off’ their goods as having some connection with Cadbury. It’s part of Cadbury’s general campaign to claim rights in the use of purple in selling chocolate: they also have trade mark applications on foot.

This battle in the general war has been lost. Nope, says Heerey J. No passing off. And some rather interesting comments about Cadbury’s use of the colour with potential salience in Cadbury’s trade mark application.

UPDATE: according to one of my commentators on Weatherall’s Law, the decision in the Trade Mark Office, where Cadbury’s application for a colour mark has been opposed, was handed down last Friday (hmmm, the day after the Judge’s decision was handed down…). I don’t, however, know the result and the decision isn’t yet online… If anyone does know, you can comment anonymously….
(more…)

Next Friday will be the one year anniversary since the release of the Fair Use Issues Paper by the Attorney-General’s Department. Since that time, there have been a number of live question shanging over Australian copyright law: will many everyday acts continue to be copyright infringement? Will we end up with more of the same (narrow, specific exceptions) or will some flexibility be built into the Copyright Act? A story in the Age yesterday updates current developments. (more…)

Been wondering about the ‘Access to Knowledge’ (or A2K) movement? What it might be about? Well, Yale have been having a conference on the issue – and there’s quite a few papers linked from the site. But for a bit of an overview, check out Jack Balkin’s speaking notes, which he has posted on his blog.

Rothnie and Starkoff have both already noted that the Full Court has finally – 11 months after hearing the issue – granted leave to appeal in the Woolworths v BP case. Don’t get too excited – the appeal on the merits hasn’t been heard yet. Rothnie says it will likely be heard in August. As a decision on whether leave should have been granted, this case is an examplar of why you should get your procedure right and not just assume courts will fix any errors you make. But as a judgment which foreshadows what some of the issues in the appeal might be, this decision shows that some of the more fundamental issues currently in debate in trade mark law – in particular, just what rights you get as the owner of a ‘colour’ trade mark – could end up being canvassed. (more…)

Further evidence of the music industry adage “where there’s a hit, there’s a writ”: the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States has rejected an appeal by author Lewis Perdue in respect of his claims that Brown copied from two of Perdue’s works in writing The Da Vinci Code.

The case was not a simple copyright suit brought by Perdue; it was actually brought by Brown and his publisher, Random House, seeking a declaration of non-infringement. Perdue then counter-claimed for infringement. Brown succeeded at first instance, and the court of appeals just upheld that decision. The appeal decision is not available online, but most of the trial documents are, at a website maintained by the plaintiff Perdue. (more…)

Time for some Friday morning links, if you are in a reading mood today:

1. Michael Geist has a column this week on The Legal Limits of Government Tinkering with Technology. It discusses the French legislative proposals to mandate the interoperability of digital products: law which would require Apple to reveal technological specifications to its competitors so that they can design compatible devices, so that iTunes songs would play on anything. Australia makes a particular appearance in the column, with Geist commenting about the TPM Inquiry’s recommendation that the government establish the legal right to break region coding as part of Australia’s new anti-circumvention laws.
2. James Boyle has a column this week too, on documentary films and the clearance culture. A taste:

   This should be the Golden Age of documentary film, and in some senses it is. A profusion of television channels allows programs that cater to smaller and smaller markets. As viewers, we show an insatiable appetite for biographies of the famous – celebrity infomercials disguised as documentaries – but we also show a taste for quirkier material: … There are documentaries about mental illness and spelling bees and Star Trek fandom – though not all in the same film. And the drop in the price of cameras and editing software, together with the availability of internet distribution, potentially puts a million documentarians on the streets.

   But as Larry Lessig and others have pointed out, documentary film is rapidly becoming the latest victim of the explosion of intellectual property rights I have discussed in these pages. Ironically, the problem here is not a broadening of the rights themselves, but a “clearance culture” that demands licenses for the tiniest fragment of copyrighted material caught in the viewfinder or on the soundtrack of the documentary film.

   Boyle is writing from a US/international perspective. But similar issues were noted in Australia in a recent report for SADC, the Council for Documentary Makers (click here for the BIG pdf). The report, released in November 2005, noted that investors such as the FFC and AFC require a legal opinion that all material used in the documentary has been examined for violation of third party copyright and all necessary clearances obtained. Insurance premiums have also increased. It’s a shame that that same report didn’t look at doing what has been done in the US though – producing a ‘Best Practices’ Model for the Industry that reflects a consensus on what uses are and aren’t acceptable without a clearance. For the most part, the Best Practice Model produced by the Centre for Social Media is a very reasonable set of guidelines on when clearance should be obtained. Something similar could be created for Australia.

3. The other story doing the rounds of the blogosphere and media at the moment is the Philips Electronics patent application on technology that could let broadcasters freeze a channel during a commercial, so viewers wouldn’t be able to avoid it. See eg Techdirt. 4 brief comments on this:
   (a) oops bad publicity,
   (b) this is proof of one fundamental truth about intellectual property: that having a right doesn’t mean you have a marketable product. What, people are going to buy this? What, if people don’t want to buy it, governments are going to back the right of content owners to impose this technology on people? Even as they try (as our government is at the moment) to ensure that legitimate uses of legitimately accessed materials are preserved?
   (c) There is a move to parse out all the ‘consumer value’ in content and make it something that can be charged for. You can imagine paying ‘extra’ for the ‘right’ to channel surf. There are rights owners who think that is a legitimate method of doing business. Although see point (b) above.
   (d) Philips have apparently commented that they had no intention of using the technology in their products, but ‘Philips wanted to provide the technology and seek the patent only as part of the broader developments within the industry’. How many ways are there to say ‘patent arsenal’?
4. Remember that story about the chef from Interlude from a couple of weeks ago (you know – chef copies other chefs’ dishes). One of the issues I mentioned there was whether a dish at a top class restaurant could be a ‘work of artistic craftsmanship’. Well, have a look at this opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald today on the cake decorators of the Royal Easter Show. Does it change your mind on whether food creations can be works of artistic craftsmanship?

Oh yes, little flurry in the blogosphere over a story about Telstra buying Ads on Google so that Telstra’s ads would appear when someone searched for their broadband rival AAPT. As usual, the story attracted attention (see the IPKat, the Trademark Blog, Warwick Rothnie, Search Engine Watch Blog, Young PR, and Joshua Gans).

Only Gans points out that this is common practice (with examples! Go have a look). But is it legal? (more…)

I just caught a replay of Glenn Reynolds being interviewed on C-Span. For those who don’t know, Reynolds blogs as Instapundit, and was one of the pioneers of blogging. The interview ranged widely, and although primarily focussed on politics (unsurprising, given the nature of his blog), did cover some IP territory. (more…)

The great thing about being an IP professor is that you get to comment on the pressing information technology and information freedom issues of the day.

Like, oh, chefs copying other chefs’ creations. (blogpost here)

And, oh, the BIG issue: will elvis impersonators still have a livelihood in the future? Last night, if you watched closely, you might have seen me spouting forth on ABC news on the issue of whether transactions recently occurring over the Elvis Estate in the US would lead to Elvis impersonators losing their jobs (short version of the story here). Apparently, a new majority holder in Elvis Enterprises is threatening to crack down on ‘unauthorised’ Elvis impersonators. ABC News called me to comment (on my day off!!! Nothing like taking time out from a heavy shopping expedition to do a quick media interview. And nothing like taking a quick stop by the Myer make-up counters to get ready…).

Frankly, I can’t see that there will be a legal issue for the impersonators here. Far more important issues were being ventilated by Cory Doctorow last night in Melbourne (and tonight in Sydney – go if you can!) (more…)

I’ve blogged here, and more extensively here, about a case before the Copyright Tribunal, in which CAL and the Schools are seeking a determination on how much schools should pay for ‘electronic uses’ of copyright material. I’ve been concerned (amazed, appalled) by one of the arguments being made in the case: that where a teacher tells a student to view a website (yes, a freely available, open access website) there should be a payment to copyright owners. I’ve pointed out at length why I think this is a simply unsustainable argument. Now we have a Tribunal decision on what should be done pending determination of that argument. (more…)

….drug company pressure on developing country officials and governments. Grrrr.

Just came across this story (on SecondView) via Jamie Love on the Huffington Post: Big Pharma company Pfizer (and there aren’t many bigger) are suing a Philippine government-owned company (PITC, Philippine International Trading Corporation), the Philippines equivalent of the TGA (BFAD, Bureau of Food and Drugs) and two Philippine government regulators personally (the BFAD director and one other staff person). What Pfizer object to is the importation, from India of samples of a drug that Pfizer sells in both the Philippines and India, and for submitting the samples to the government drug regulatory agency. It’s a fine example of inappropriate pressure being applied to government (particularly through the personal law suits), which indicates two things:

1. Developing countries should be supported, and encouraged to use the flexibility available in international treaties – the Phillippines needs springboarding provisions and may need support to enact them; and
2. Drug companies can be utterly unscrupulous in their use of the law. Not sure what we can do about that, but examples like this should be highlighted and publicised.

More detail over the fold. (more…)

As reported elsewhere, the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) have issued the latest update of their ‘Unintended Consequences’ paper. This one is version 4, and entitled ‘Unintended Consequences: Seven Years under the DMCA‘. (Version 3, issued September 2003, reflected the stories from 5 years). The paper is the output of an ongoing project of the EFF, which:

collects a number of reported cases where the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are been invoked not against pirates, but against consumers, scientists, and legitimate competitors.

The paper was cited in a number of submissions in Australia’s own inquiry into TPM laws and exceptions, and in the final report of the House of Reps Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that did the inquiry.

The report of course details all the well-known stories of use and abuse of the DMCA: the Ed Felten ‘squishing research’ story, the Sklyarov arrest, Lexmark printer cartridges. But more important and more interesting is what’s new, in the last approx 2.5 years? (more…)