She selected several papers which are worth to be read by everyone interested in property rights issues. We report them here for our readers:

• Should Copyright Owners Have to Give Notice About Their Use of Technical Protection Measures?, 6 J. Telecom. & High Tech. L. 41 (2007)
  (with Jason Schultz),republication forthcoming in Digital Rights Management Technologies (ICFAI 2008)
• A Reverse Notice and Takedown Regime to Enable Fair Uses of Technically Protected Copyrighted Works, 22 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 981 (2007)(with Jerome H. Reichman & Graeme Dinwoodie), republication forthcoming in P2P AND SECONDARY LIABILITY IN
  COPYRIGHT LAW (Alain Strowel, ed. 2007)
• Preliminary Thoughts on Copyright Reform Project, 3 Utah L. Rev. 551 (2007)), republication forthcoming in J. Scholarly Pub’g (April 2008)
• Why Copyright Excludes Systems and Processes From the Scope of Its Protection, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1921 (2007)
• Principles for Resolving Conflicts Between Trade Secrets and the First Amendment, 58 Hastings L. J. 777 (2007)
  republication forthcoming in FIRST AMENDMENT LAW HANDBOOK 2007-08 (Rodney Smolla, ed. 2008)
• Regulating Digital Rights Management Technologies: Should Copyright Owners Have to Give Notice About DRM Restrictions? forthcoming in the Journal of Telecom & Tech. L. (2007)
• Legally Speaking: Software Patents and the Metaphysics of 271(f), 50 Communications of the ACM 15(June 2007)
• Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes From the Scope of Its Protection , forthcoming in 85 Texas Law Review(2007)
• Patent Reform Through the Courts, 50 Comm ACM 19 (February 2007)
• Questioning Copyrights in Standards, 48 B.C. L. Rev 193 (January 2007)
• Enriching Discourse on Public Domain, 55 Duke L. J. 783 (2006)
• IBM’s Pragmatic Embrace of Open Source, (49 Comm ACM, 49 Comm ACM 21 (October 2006)
• Questioning Copyright in Standards, forthcoming in BC Law Rev
• The Generativity of Sony v. Universal: The Intellectual Property Legacy of Justice Stevens, 74 Fordham L Rev 1831 (2006)
• Brief Amici Curiae of 60 Intellectual Property and Technology Law Professors and the United States Public Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery in Support of Respondents in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster
  also published in 20 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 535 (2005)
• SENSOR NETWORKS & PRIVACY, presentation given at the Securing Privacy Conference, Stanford Univeristy, March 13, 2004.
• Intellectual Property Arbitrage: How Foreign Rules Can Affect Domestic Protections, 71 Chi. L. Rev. 223 (Winter 2004)
• Preserving the Positive Functions of the Public Domain for Science, 2 Data Science J. 192 (Nov. 2003)
• Brief Amici Curiae of 40 Intellectual Property and Technology Law Professor Supporting Affirmance
  in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, filed before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, September 26, 2003
• The Constitutional Law of Intellectual Property After Eldred v. Ashcroft, 50 J. Cop. Off. Soc’y 547 (2003)
• Digital Rights Management {and, or, vs.} the Law, vol. 46, no. 4, April 2003
• Toward a “New Deal” for Copyright for an Information Age, Forthcoming in 100 Michigan L. Rev. (2002)
• Toward a New Politics of Intellectual Property, Presented at World Wide Web 2002.
• The Law & Economics of Reverse Engineering (with Suzanne Scotchmer) ,111 Yale L. J. 1575 (2002)
• Anti-Circumvention Rules Threaten Science
  293 Science 2028 (Sep 14, 2001)
• The “New Economy” and Information Technology Policy (with Hal Varian) [PDF] [FIGURES]
  A review of information policy in the 1990s. Prepared “Economic Policy During the Clinton Administration”, held at JFK School of Government, Harvard University, June 27-30, 2001.
• Brief Amicus Curiae of ACLU, ALA, et al in the Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes
• The Digital Dilemma: A Perspective on Intellectual Property in the Information Age
  Presented at the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference ’00 (with Randall Davis).
• Five Challenges for Regulating the Global Information Society In REGULATING THE GLOBAL INFORMATION SOCIETY (Chris Marsden ed., Routledge, 2000).
• Economic and Constitutional Influences on Copyright Law in the United States In UNITED STATES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (Hugh Hansen ed., Sweet & Maxwell, forthcoming 2000).
• Towards More Sensible Anti-Circumvention Regulations Proceedings of Financial Cryptography 2000 Conference (forthcoming 2000).
• Privacy as Intellectual Property? 52 Stan. L. Rev. 1125 (2000) (this link leads to a draft paper; the final version can be accessed in the SLR).
• Licensing Information in the Global Information Market: Freedom of Contract Meets Public Policy,
  21 Eur. Intell. Prop. Rev. 386 (Aug. 1999) (co-authored with Kurt Opsahl)
• Intellectual Property And The Digital Economy: Why The Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need To Be Revised 14 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 519 (1999); HTML format
  A related slide presentation is also available.
• Copyright, Commodification, and Censorshop: Past as Prologue-But to What Future? Presented at The Commodification of Information Conference, May 30-31, 1999. Haifa, Israel
• Intellectual Property and Contract Law for the Information Age 87 Calif. L. Rev. 1 (Jan. 1999).
• Intellectual Property and Economic Development: Opportunities for China in the Information Age This paper was prepared for the ’98 International Symposium on the Protection of Intellectual Property for the 21st Century, October 28-30, 1998, in Beijing, PRC.
• Technology in and Beyond the Classroom Berkeley Multimedia Research Center. This material was prepared for the AALS Experienced Teachers Conference, June 10-14, 1997, in Minneapolis MN.
• On Author’s Rights in Cyberspace: Are New International Rules Needed? First Monday (Oct. 1996)
• Intellectual Property Rights for Digital Library and Hypertext Publishing Systems 6 Harv. J. Law & Tech. 237 (1993) (co-authored with Robert J. Glushko)
• Good Legal Writing: of Orwell and Window Panes 46 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 149 (Fall 1984)
• Does Information Really Want To Be Licensed? Unedited copy, scheduled to be published in September 1998 issue of Communications of the ACM, copyright ACM, posted on the Internet with permission.
• Brief Amicus Curiae of Copyright Law Professors in Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., Journal of Intellectual Property Law (vol. 3, issue 103, Fall 1995)
• Copyright, Digital Data, and Fair Use in Digital Networked Environments THE ELECTRONIC SUPERHIGHWAY: THE SHAPE OF TECHNOLOGY AND LAW TO COME (Daniel Poulin, ed., 1995) (1995)

This success is probably partially due to the process against the Swedish Pirate Bay, but there is more. It is a sign that young people want that the rooted habit to exchange music, films and games with their friends is recognized as a right and governments have to deal with that, without moving roughly against peer to peer and other forms of free distribution of knowledge.

“If an issue related to intellectual property rights occurs, we’d like to consider solving specific problems using this working group,” Chinese Commerce Minister Chen Deming said after meeting Japanese cabinet ministers at the countries’ High-Level Economic Dialogue.

Sachiko Sakamaki and Takshi Hirokawa report in an article published on Bloomberg.com on June 7, 2009, that China is Japan’s largest trading partner, and Japanese companies have complained about the mainland’s lack of copyright and patent protection.

Japan is China’s third-largest trading partner after the European Union and the U.S.

Wolf Greenfield Seminar, June 11, Boston

IP Communication Strategies and Protection Tools

BOSTON, MA — (Marketwire) — 05/08/09 — A free seminar on how to share intellectual property while preserving rights will be held by Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., an IP law firm, on June 11 in Boston.

To generate ideas and investment, organizations need to share proprietary information internally and externally. But this can lead to loss of intellectual property exclusivity or even effectively relinquish ownership rights to others.

How does an organization disclose and leverage its intellectual property while preserving rights and keeping competitors and infringers at bay?

This seminar will detail IP communication strategies needed during the life of an invention from inception through commercialization. The panelists will cover

– Identifying and minimizing disclosure risks that can destroy IP rights
down the road
– Communicating safely with investors, universities, partners, and
consultants
– Using protection tools like attorney/client privilege, confidentiality
agreements, employee contracts, and trade secrets effectively
– Balancing the legal risks and business benefits of disclosure

An all-star cast of panelists includes executives from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Cabot Corporation, and senior attorneys with Wolf Greenfield.

The session will be held 8 to 10:30 a.m. at the Boston Harbor Hotel. Free registration at:

http://image.exct.net/lib/fefb1175776503/m/1/disclosure_06_09_et.htm.

Wolf Greenfield, the largest law firm in New England devoted exclusively to intellectual property law, serves companies that make everything from pharmaceuticals to software to electronics to snowboards, as well as representing academic research centers. The firm counsels clients in the areas of patents, trademarks, copyrights, designs, trade secrets, and related licensing and litigation. Web: www.wolfgreenfield.com

Contact:
Henry Stimpson
Stimpson Communications
508-647-0705
HStimpson@StimpsonCommunications.com

Sara Crocker
Wolf Greenfield
617-646-8231
scrocker@wolfgreenfield.com

“A superb offering showing how to avoid lawsuits by getting one’s hands on thousands of public domain songs, movies and manuscripts that can be used on websites or anywhere else free of charge.” — James Coates, Chicago Tribune

“How do you tell the difference between what’s copyrighted and what isn’t? A good starting point is Stephen Fishman’s The Public Domain.” — Associated Press

“The constitutional guarantee of a public domain was one of the Framers’ most important gifts to our cultural tradition. This extraordinary book makes real the value of that gift in the 21st Century.” — Laurence Lessig, author,Code & Other Laws of Cyberspace

Product Description
Need content? It’s free for the taking!

Even though you’ve always been told otherwise, writers and artists can copy other people’s work and get away with it. How? By dipping into the public domain, where everything is free for the taking.

The Public Domain is the only book that helps you find and identify what creative works are protected by copyright- and what’s not. The book provides specific information about:

# writings
# music
# art
# photography
# architecture
# maps
# choreography
# movies and video
# software
# databases
# collections

The 4th edition is crisper, fresher and completely updated with new case law, and includes information on the emergence of the “copyright commons.” The book also provides hundreds of resources to help you find public-domain works.

What do all of these famous inventions have in common: air conditioning, airbags, bandages, barbed wire, blow dryers, can openers, cement, chewing gum, computers, credit cards, doughnuts, jeans, microwave ovens, paper towels, Play-Doh, Post-it Notes, potato chips, roller coasters, safety pins, Scotch tape, skateboards, staplers, straws, sunscreen, typewriters, Viagra, zippers?


They were all invented in the US by American inventors, and they all went on to make fortunes for the inventors and those companies licensing the ideas. Don’t be left out, and don’t spend thousands in unnecessary legal fees, you can file your own patent with the step-by-step guidance in this new book. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the number of patents filed in the US increased from 186,507 in 1992 to 406,302 in 2005. Approximately one out of five patents are filed by the prospective owner/inventor. You’ll find that only minimal assistance if any is needed from an attorney or agent in securing your patent. This book offers a simple, straightforward introduction to patent law written in layman s terms. This book is written for inventors not attorneys, and for those that want to save thousands on legal fees protecting their ideas and inventions. A patent protects an invention and gives an exclusive right to the benefits of an invention. A patent is in essence a contract between the United States government and holder of an invention. This new book will explain how to secure a patent on your own without expensive attorney fees. If you think you have a great invention then you need this extremely detailed and comprehensive guide to the process of getting a patent. The book covers everything needed and easily explained from the initial patent search to filing a successful and hopefully financially lucrative application. Even if you ultimately decide to use the services of a patent attorney which in some cases is recommended, this book will get the process started and still.

What can I Copyright?
Copyrightable works include intellectual property such as web sites, computer code, software, databases, literary works, music, lyrics, dramatic works, writings, poetry, graphic and sculptural works, motion pictures, audiovisual works, sound recordings, and architecture.

What are the rights of the Copyright Owner?
Generally, the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies, to perform the work publicly, or to display the work publicly. It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of the copyright. The copyright owner may also authorize others to exercise these rights.

What does Copyright not protect?
Generally, works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression are not eligible for federal copyright protection. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, titles, names, short phrases, slogans, procedures, methods, concepts, principles, and discoveries, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

Why should I register a Copyright?
In order to take legal action against someone who has copied your original work, your copyright must be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. If infringement has occurred, you could be awarded up to $150,000 in statutory damages, even without having to prove that you suffered any loss. Registration establishes a public record of your copyright. A copyrighted work may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or publicly displayed without the consent of the author or copyright owner. To prove ownership, protect your original work and prevent theft and plagiarism, it is important to register a copyright. Its fast, inexpensive and the protection of the U.S. federal government provides powerful ammunition against potential infringement.

What’s the proper Copyright Notice?
Since 1989, there is no longer a legal requirement for a copyright notice. However, placing a copyright notice on your work puts the world on notice that you are claiming ownership. This prevents anyone from copying your work and claiming they are an “innocent infringer”; that they didn’t know the work was protected. The following notice should be placed on copyrighted works: Copyright © 2009 COPYRIGHT OWNERS NAME. All rights reserved. Although not legally required, it is recommended that both the term “Copyright” and the “©” symbol be used for works displayed online. This is because some web browsers may not be able to display the “c-in-a-circle” symbol that is required for international protection in some countries. The date should be the year of publication.

Can’t I simply use the © symbol and claim Copyright?
Copyright exists immediately when an original work is created and fixed into a writing, tape, or electronic medium. However, while legally correct, the right immediately created through original creation does not entitle you to bring legal action for infringement. A delay in registration may limit the amount of damages that can be awarded should a finding of infringement occur. What if someone copied your work but your copyright was not registered?

What if someone copies my work?
If proven that a copyright infringement has occurred, the owner of a registered copyright may be entitled to relief such as injunction, impounding and disposition of infringing articles, attorneys fees, actual damages and profits of the infringing party, or statutory damages up to $150,000 if the infringement was committed willfully. The copied work need not be identical to the original to infringe a copyright. The legal test of infringement is “substantial similarity” – whether an ordinary observer would recognize the work as having been copied in whole or in part from the earlier one. If you don’t register your copyright and someone else claims the work as their own, you will have to prove that it is actually yours. Registration avoids this burden of proof.

Who can obtain a Copyright?
The author of an original work or someone who has obtained rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. If created during the scope of employment, the employer and not the employee is considered the author. The creators of joint works are co-owners of the copyright unless they have agreed to the contrary. Minors may claim copyright, however state laws may regulate their business dealings.

Is my registered Copyright valid in other countries?
Yes. The United States has copyright treaties with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, each country respects the copyrights of the others. Currently, a U.S. copyright is honoured in 190 countries around the world.

What is the difference between Copyright, Trademark and Patent?
Although there may be some similarities among these kinds of intellectual property protection, they are different and serve different purposes: A copyright is a form of protection provided for original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device that is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.

What is “fair use” of Copyrighted material?
Under U.S. Copyright law, “fair use” of a copyrighted work is allowed for the limited purposes of non-commercial comment, criticism, news reporting, scholarship, classroom use, or research and is not an infringement of copyright. Any other use is a violation of U.S. Copyright laws.

Isn’t information on the web “public domain”?
No. Most of what you see online is protected by copyright law. Only works in the “public domain” are not protected and can be used without permission. These include items that are not eligible for copyright protection such as ideas, facts, names, concepts and principles. The public domain also includes works for which the copyright protection has expired; federal government documents and publications; and works that a copyright owner grants to the public domain.

What is a “Work Made for Hire”?
Generally, the author of a work is its creator. However, the Copyright Act makes an exception for what are called “works made for hire.” In this situation, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author and owner of the copyright, unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. Works created by an employee acting within the scope of employment, or those ordered or specially commissioned and fit within the terms of the Act are considered works made for hire.

What will be my effective registration date?
A copyright registration is effective on the date the Copyright Office receives the application, regardless of how long it then takes to process the application and mail the certificate of registration. Currently, the Copyright Office takes about 3-6 months to mail out registration certificates. That is why we send your completed application via FedEx and provide you with the tracking number as confirmation of the Copyright Office having received and signed for your application. This establishes your effective registration date.

How long does Copyright protection last?
For works originally created on or after January 1, 1978, the duration of copyright protection is for a term for the author’s life plus 70 years after the author’s death. For works made for hire, the duration of copyright protection is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation; whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on a variety of factors.

Does my work need to be “published” in order to register a Copyright?
No, you can register a copyright for both published and unpublished works. A work is published when copies are distributed to the public through sale, lease, or lending. A work is not published because you merely printed or made copies of it. For a website, if it has already been posted to the Internet, it is considered “published.”

What is a “Poor Man’s Copyright”?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself as proof of original authorship is sometimes called the “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding this type of protection, and is not a substitute for registration.

What if my work contains some material that is not my own?
A “derivative work” is a work based on one or more preexisting works, where the changed version incorporates a substantial amount of preexisting material that has been published or registered for copyright, or has fallen into the public domain.

If a work merely incorporates preexisting ideas (which cannot be protected by copyright), but not the expression of those ideas, it is not considered a changed or derivative work.

Examples of derivative works include translations, a screenplay adapted from a book, a condensed version of an already published work, a dramatization based on real life events, and a painting based on a photograph. A copyright protects only the author’s original material.

Can I submit an extremely large website?
Yes. There is no limit, however, websites over one gigabyte of data may require special arrangements and additional fees.

What if I update or change my website?
Your Copyright Registration covers only the material submitted at the time of registration. If you update or change your site you would need to register the new material in order to protect the new content.

[Source: http://www.gocopyright.com/guide.htm]

If you’ve taken the necessary steps to register your copyrighted works, you inevitably will have an opportunity to royalties off of them. To take advantage of the opportunity, you will need to be familiar with copyright license agreements.

Copyright License Agreement

A copyright license agreement sets for the terms under which a third party can use your content. In legal language, you will the “licensor” with the other party being the “licensee.” The purpose of the agreement is to set forth the terms under which you, the licensor, will grant the third party, licensee, the right to use, publish or reuse your copyrighted work in exchange for a royalty. Let’s take a closer look at key components of the licensing agreement.

Specific Rights Granted

This may sound obvious, but the agreement needs to detail exactly what copyrighted material can be used. If you have copyrighted articles, are you granting a right to use all of the articles or only certain ones? It is highly recommended that the agreement contain a detailed description of the exact materials being covered.

Once you agree upon the exact materials, you need to determine any restrictions on how the material can be used. Can the material be used on the Internet or will it be restricted to a certain niche’ such as manuals or collections of materials?

An extremely important issue is whether the agreement grants exclusive or non-exclusive rights. In English, this simply defines whether the licensor can grant similar rights to other parties. The grant of exclusive licenses should require a much larger royalty rate since you are essentially betting the third party will be successful.

Licensing Royalties

In exchange for your copyrighted work, the third party is going to make royalty payments to you. The particular amount of the royalty is dependent upon the nature of your work. Issues to consider include:

1) Will you be paid a flat amount or percentage of sales?
2) If a percentage, will it be figured from gross revenues or something less?
3) How often will you be paid?
4) What rights will you have to audit the books of the third party to determine you are getting the full royalty?

In some situations, you may decide to forgo a royalty payment. This usually occurs when the third party will use the materials in manner that produces massive publicity for you. For example, many professionals seek to right columns for publications as a marketing tool. Often, they will not charge the publication for the material because the resulting publicity carries enough of a benefit.

In Closing

If you are considering licensing copyrighted content, keep the above in mind. Since such agreements are difficult to break, hiring an attorney is worth the expense.

About the author:
Richard Chapo is with SanDiegoBusinessLawFirm.com – providing San Diego businesses with legal services. This article is for general education purposes. Nothing in this article creates an attorney-client relationship.

There is a growing number of scholars questioning how to align the First Amendment’s rule that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech….” with intellectual property law that often does, in fact, abridge freedoms of speech. I’m in the middle of reading an entire book on the subject — which I’ll be reviewing here shortly. And, just recently, we saw a court (for the first time) note that parts of copyright law were unconstitutional due to the First Amendment. Law professor Peter Friedman points us to the latest of many recent treatises on the subject, by Christina Bohannan, entitled Copyright Harm and the First Amendment, which questions why copyright law does not require any showing of “harm” to get around the First Amendment issue.

Other laws — such as defamation — require that in order to adbridge the freedom of speech, harm needs to be shown. And that seems like a reasonable condition. Bohanan agrees and suggests, not just that copyright law should be changed to include a burden on those declaring infringement to show that actual harm has been done, but that the First Amendment requires this. In fact, she finds it troubling that rather than putting the burden on the accuser to show harm, it’s often flipped around, and the burden is placed on the defendant to prove a lack of harm — which creates the chilling effects so many people warn about. It is these “chilling effects” that seem to go entirely against the First Amendment.

This article argues that copyright law, at least as it is applied in many cases, is unconstitutional. When there is no harm to the copyright holder’s incentives, copyright law burdens speech without serving any countervailing governmental interest. Thus, the First Amendment requires proof of harm in copyright infringement cases. Consistent with the government interest in encouraging innovation, the harm requirement would allow a finding of infringement only where the copyright holder can show that the defendant’s use is likely to cause real harm to the copyright holder’s incentives to create or distribute copyrighted works. As such, the harm requirement would allow restrictions on speech only when necessary to keep the “engine of free expression” running. Although the harm requirement is no panacea for all speech issues in copyright law, it would help courts to identify and eliminate cases involving false conflicts between the First Amendment and copyright — that is, cases in which there is arguably a speech interest in allowing the defendant’s use and no speech interest in prohibiting it.

It’s definitely a worthwhile read. Combined with some other recent scholarship, it seems likely that these issues are likely to get tested in court in the relatively near future. It would be great to see the courts recognize that copyright law has expanded so far as to violate the First Amendment in more and more situations.

Former state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk, executive director of Citizens Voice for Property Owners, is to be the featured speaker Thursday, April 16, at the Midland County Republican Party’s 5:30 p.m. meeting at Pizza Sam’s party room, 102 W. Main St.

Known as CIVPRO, the organization — launched in Midland County — named Hookendyk, of Kalamazoo, as its first executive director this year.

He was the Republican candidate defeated in 2008 by U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit.

Also on the agenda are updates of the county party’s annual breakfast May 4 and on 2009 fundraising, plus comments from elected officials.

Pizza will be served at 5:15 p.m.