Tag: case

Fair use in the digital house of mirrors
By Ryan Long

Fair use in the digital house of mirrors

In today’s highly digitized world, copyright infringement actions, among others, are often brought against alleged infringers using information culled from Internet service provider addresses. While fair use defenses may exist against such suits, particularly when one is doing a music mash up, a preliminary question is whether the initial source evidence is accurate.

There exist technologies wherein users can mask themselves behind other users’ Internet service provider addresses. In this way, one can be located in Timbuktu, for example, and use an Internet service provider address of a user in the North Pole. By doing such masking, some users seek to avoid infringement lawsuits by using the address of another user, in essence leaving them with the hot infringement potato.

In prosecuting civil actions for unlawful downloads of Microsoft software, for example, it becomes imperative to understand such masking methods, and their limits. Prima facie evidence of the source of the infringement, while good for the initial stages of litigation, will evaporate upon further investigation. In some cases, a case brought without sufficient evidence of the source can, upon written documentary notice that the user wasn’t responsible for the download, such as via browser history evidence, lead to a motion for sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel for bringing a frivolous case.

Even with such evidence as to source, due attention needs to be paid to the transformative nature of the use. In digital music mash ups, for example, a sample from Mr. Bob Dylan recording can be modified, and blended into a new piece, so that the old version becomes impossible to recognize. In this case, the defendant likely has a bona fide fair use defense even when the attribution of the source is correct. Thus, in prosecuting a copyright infringement action, proper steps need to be made at the outset so that a sustainable case can be made.

Devil’s in the details? Good news!
By Ryan Long

Devil’s in the details? Good news!

The Devil is in the details. Good news! This means picking a trade name for your new business venture will involve a great deal of planning and detail oriented thinking about your launch plan, and the market you serve. This will only serve you in good stead down the line.

Take, for example, a company called “Designbook.” According to a recent article, Established Firms Fight Startups on Names, they are a fledging upstart who is seeking entry into the now crowded social networking market. In attempt to gain a nationwide monopoly on their name, Designbook filed an application to register it’s name with the federal government’s Patent and Trademark office.

Guess who opposed the application? Facebook. According to the networking giant, Designbook’s use of “book” in it’s name is confusingly similar to the “book” used in “Facebook.” Of course, if Designbook was a pen manufacturer, Facebook’s claim wouldn’t likely have merit.

However, as applied to the social networking market, “book” has gained a worldwide reputation as being associated with “Facebook.” So the mammoth’s argument about confusingly similar use has merit — in this instance. Imagine if the market became saturated with “Desginbook,” “Loobook,” “Cokebook,” “Gangabook,” “Pornbook,” and so on? Such uses give the impression that the companies are affiliated with Facebook (as in the case of “Designbook” or “Lookbook”). Otherwise, the tradenames dilute the “Facebook” name (as in the case of “Cokebook,” “Gangabook,” and “Pornbook.”). Unlike confusion, dilution doesn’t require that folks think one brand is affiliated with the other, but merely that that the new brand — i.e. “Cokebook” — makes the famous brand — “Facebook” — less unique.

That being said, assume “Pornbook” launched a website, not in the social networking realm, but as a new humorous online publication by evolutionary biologists like E.O. Wilson for the study of sexual practices among Rhesus monkeys, in addition to other non-human mammals, throughout history. In that case, Facebook would be hard pressed to bring a claim. “Book” is a generic word. Facebook doesn’t own it. So the question becomes, how do you, as a new venture backed company, pick a good name to enter into an otherwise crowded market?

Be original. While “Designbook” describes, in some ways, what the company does, the trade name “Nike” does not. If you didn’t know that “Nike” referred to the shoe company, you’d otherwise think it may apply to a Greek God for victory — it does. All this means is that a company like “Designbook” needs to pick a more original — “fanciful” — name that doesn’t describe, in anyway, what they do. They then can make a splash in the market — like Nike did after Mr. Jordan helped revamp the brand. (Remember those Spike Lee/Michael Jordan commercials?) In the end, an original name can actually help “Designbook” gain more market share instead of merely being a “me too” Facebook.

Only by respecting the Devil and his details will you arrive at a sustainable, attention grabbing, name.

CrestCare — Constitutional?
By Ryan Long

CrestCare — Constitutional?

The Obama administration recently passed CrestCare. Never heard of it? It is a new federal law which requires every citizen to brush their teeth with Crest brand toothpaste. Certainly, the law must be unconstitutional, although it would be nice not to smell bad breath on the elevator ride up to the office, or on the construction site, in the morning. And yet maybe, just maybe, the law would be upheld by the Supreme Court if it was ever challenged.

Of course, there is no CrestCare. It is a wonder whether the federal government would be empowered to pass such a law if the United States Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of ObamaCare’s requirement that all citizens have health insurance. On Monday, the high Court began hearing oral arguments to determine whether that part of ObamaCare, in addition to others, are constitutional. In the case, titled Department of Health & Human Services, et. al. v. States of Florida, et. al., No. 11-398, the attorney generals of various states have brought suit to bar enforcement of ObamaCare, the details of which have been covered ad nausea elsewhere, and which I will leave for your musings.

The marrow of the government’s argument as to why ObamaCare should be upheld is the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the exclusive authority to “regulate commerce . . . among the several States.” That is my emphasis. Over the years, the Supreme Court has read “among” to include anything that could affect interstate commerce, even if the conduct in question is wholly intrastate in character. In Wickard v. Filburn, for example, the Court held in 1942 that the federal government could regulate a farmer’s growth of wheat in his own backyard even though it was for his own consumption. The reason: the farmer’s growth would affect the interstate flow of wheat. Then, in Gonzalez v. Reich, the high Court in 2005 held that the feds could regulate wholly intrastate consumption of marijuana under California’s Proposition 215.

While the Court’s decisions in both Wickard and Gonzalez stretch the limits of “among the several states” to their intellectual limits, neither decision dealt with a federal law compelling someone to do something. Instead, both decisions involved a federal law prohibiting someone from doing something. Whereas part of ObamaCare compels every living citizen to buy health insurance. This seems to stretch the Commerce Clause so far that it has no limits left. Even if you like the idea of nationalized healthcare, this is not a constitutionally permissible way to go about it.

If the Court upholds the part of ObamaCare mandating health insurance for all citizens on Commerce Clause grounds, there is nothing barring the feds — or Crest — from mandating CrestCare.

Dude, where’s my 1.2 billion?
By Ryan Long

Dude, where’s my 1.2 billion?

“Dude, where’s my car?” This was the famous question asked by the stoners in the 2000 movie called Dude, Where’s My Car?We ask the same question of Mr. Corzine: “Dude, where’s my $1.2 billion?” According to the USA Today, he recently testified that “I simply do not know where the money is” in front of Congress. Of course, this may be true. But the question is whether that will be enough to get him off the hook for civil and/or criminal claims that may arise from the downfall of MF Global.

Embezzlement is the first crime that comes to mind. In New York, there is no civil cause of action for embezzlement. But the state could bring a criminal case against Mr. Corzine if it could prove: (1) the $1.2 billion involved belonged to investors; (2) the money was converted or used for Mr. Corzine’s purposes; (3) Mr. Corzine was in a position of trust and possessed legal possession of (or access to) the money; and (4) the Mr. Corzine knowingly defrauded the owner of the property.

Of course, we don’t know the full factual picture of the situation with MF Global. But assume for the purpose of discussion that Mr. Corzine did not know where the money went, which roughly covers elements (2) and (4). Certainly some of his underlings knew. The issue in the case would then be whether their knowledge could, under the circumstances, be imputed to Mr. Corzine. After all, intent is generally a mental state that juries infer from the circumstances, since folks rarely state point blank: “now I know I am embezzling money and that what I am doing is illegal.” But it might be difficult to show that he knew or should have known what his underlings were doing, depending on how far down the totem pole they were and where the money ended up.

Regardless, it seems to run afoul of common sense that MF Global could not trace such a large amount of money as though they forgot in which parking spot they put the car at the shopping mall. Certainly, Mr. Corzine will face additional questioning from authorities. But what remains odd in the whole scenario is how they are approaching him with kid gloves. It seems if either dude in Dude, Where’s My Car? were overseeing an institution that misplaced such a large amount of money, they would likely be sitting in jail until the money was accounted for.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
By Ryan Long

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Banksy and other graffiti artists are gaining increased commercial acceptance in the traditional art world. The Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art recently had an exhibition called Art in the Streets featuring artists such as Banksy and others. But whether such artists’ works are protected by the Copyright Act, among other legal doctrines, is unclear. There is paltry case law on point.  We recently found this out when researching the issue for a somewhat famous — or some might say infamous — New York graffiti legend.

The Copyright Act generally protects creative works fixed in a tangible medium. Song lyrics are a good example. When Bob Dylan writes his song, All Along The Watch Tower, on a piece a paper, he can register the song with the Copyright Office. Only then can Mr. Dylan can than pursue others for using the song unlawfully. Many federal courts require a work to be so registered before suit can be brought by the artist for damages, attorney’s fees, and statutory damages.

But what about creative works that are fixed by graffiti artists all around New York City’s walls and subways? Assume Banksy paints the picture above on a Fifth Avenue wall. Could he then go and register the work with the Copyright Office, just as Mr. Dylan did with his song? Even if he can’t, does that mean Bansky has no legal protection? The questions are simple. But the answers are not so clear.

There are no cases directly on point. There is one case from the Northern District of Illinois, entitled Villa v. Pearson Education, Inc., in which the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the graffiti artist’s copyright infringement claim because there was an issue of fact whether his art was illegal. There is also another case pending overseas between graffiti artist CanTwo and the Spanish Olympic Committee, reports the Wall Street Journal in CanTwo Says “Can Not!” to Spanish Swimmers. But that case is not yet decided and it involved apparently legal graffiti.

While this uncertainty is troubling, a graffiti artist should nonetheless be able to argue that a gallery is unjustly enriched when they sell a photo of his work but don’t pay him even if he does not have a copyright claim. That’s because what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If a gallery is going to commodify the artist’s graffiti efforts in a secondary market, it will be hard pressed to argue that the artist has no rights in the primary market because the work was illegal.

To be an employer, or not to be an employer?
By Ryan Long

To be an employer, or not to be an employer?

To be an employer, or not to be an employer?   You would think that you could decide your company’s identity as an employer — or not — by entering into a proper independent contractor agreement with folks you bring on board.   Not true.   While there are certain measures you can take to protect your business form meritless unemployment filings, there is no bright line rule and the Department of Labor (“DOL”) has the final word.  This, in our view, is not good.

We should know. We recently had the pleasure of defending a start up ad agency against a meritless unemployment claim in front of New York DOL Insurance Appeal Board. In the case, the agency had: entered into an independent contractor arrangement with the claimant, paid the claimant as a 1099 contractor, and did not require the claimant to come into the office. The claimant even admitted on the record that he agreed to be an independent contractor, and that he understood what that meant. Slam dunk case, right? Wrong. The DOL initially found the agency to be an employer. We had to appeal the finding and are now awaiting the decision. There is no bright line rule here because neither the contract you sign with an independent contractor, or the contractor’s use of a 1099 to file taxes, are dispositive in the DOL’s eyes. As such, you need to ensure that you don’t control the “means used to achieve the results,” which means many things under the case law, including that you: don’t require the independent contractor to come into the office, allow the contractor to hold other jobs, don’t provide any benefits (including free use of the office printer and other machinery), and that you pay by fixed fee. Even then, the DOL can find that you are an employer. We think that this is precisely why many companies are concerned about bringing on independent contractors in this tight economy — they are afraid that the independent contractor will go to the DOL for unemployment. In so doing, these folks abuse the system, give a bad name to unemployment, and stifle the economic recovery by creating uncertainty.