I thoroughly agree Mike, this feels like a waste of money, I see very little here other than the preposterous public domain argument.
I think defendants will pretty much argue the same (monkey has no standing), but I'm thinking that they should also try to kill the case on jurisdiction grounds. I have argued elsewhere that the case should not be heard in California.
I was aware that he had registered in the US in 2012, but I'm curious about the claim about 2014 in the UK, as we don't have a copyright registry here (we operate on the no-registration system under Berne). Would you happen to have a reference for that?
We can't forget that Slater won the case, and it was won on a very narrow point, namely that the monkey cannot sue for copyright. I still think that we haven't heard the last of this.
Do you have any legal argument for that assertion? My claim is that in Europe whoever presses the button is irrelevant for copyright purposes.
The CJEU has ruled in several cases that the arrangement and selection is what matter when it comes to originality (Infopaq, Football Association v Murphy), and in pictures in particular what matters is that the photo encapsulates a 'personal touch' reflecting the personality of the photographer (Painer v Standard Verlags).
If pressing the button was what matters, then we could not have copyright over automated triggers and delayed photography.
He did setup the camera so that the monkey could take pictures, but most importantly, he selected the pictures afterwards, the monkey took 300 or so.
This is important because in European copyright law selection is enough to warrant originality as per Infopaq case in the CJEU. Slater is a UK national.
I've said this several times, American copyright law doesn't apply to the subsistence of copyright in this instance. The picture was taken in Indonesia, and the photographer is a UK national, so this case should fall mostly because of the jurisdiction issue. The Copyright Office's statement is not valid whatsoever.
There's a good legal argument to be made that the photographer owns the copyright of the selfie, as in European copyright law the person who pressed the button is irrelevant, what matters is that an author expresses his/her personality through selection and arrangement of the photograph.
Completely agree, these people have the foresight of a deaf bat.
One minor comment, while the July decision quashed private copying regulations, the new batch of articles has two origins. First, the OutLaw blog managed to get a spokesperson from the IP Office on record to admit that they were going to let the law die (they could have appealed, or re-drafted a new regulation). Secondly, the 1709 blog accurately contrasts this with the Reprobel case.
It's important to point out that correlation does not mean causation. It is possible that well-informed people watch the satirical shows, and not that these help to keep people informed.
Having said that, John Oliver has been making some very good pieces of journalism.
"They are. Specifically, they're monitoring anything specifically flagged for their attention be people using the @easyjet, just as every twitter user has their mentions highlighted. That's the entire point of them having a Twitter account in the first place - so that customers can contact them via an alternative means. Not a conspiracy."
Agreed, I've had them contact me a couple of times when I mentioned that my flight was delayed, their social media team was courteous and helpful.
The key in this case, at least for me, is the sequence of events. What upset some people seems to be the implication that Mark sent a tweet, and this was somehow picked up by some social media person, who then contacted the Glasgow easyJet staff.
What appears to have happened is that he complained about the delay, then sent the soldier tweet, then went to the staff and complained again, this time showing them the tweet. At this point the manager intervenes, and the actual events become blurred.
Mleiser has gone awfully quiet on Twitter though, is there a CCTV of the event I wonder?
Just to add to the above, titles can be denied trademark protection if they're inherently generic, but there are tons of comic book titles protected under trade mark. Check out The Avenger's TM information:
Actually, titles are commonly protected by trademark. This doesn't mean that nobody else in the world can use the word, it simply means that the word cannot be used by another title describing a similar thing.
However, very generic names might not be protected if they are "inherently generic".
This is standard practice with titles, and it doesn't mean that the author owns all uses of the word Hacktivist, just the particular use as a comic book title (and possibly to be used in other media, such as TV or film).
Think of any movie with a generic title, such as Unforgiven, The Dictator, The Patriot, The Shining... the authors don't own all uses of those words, just their use in a specific medium.
(untitled comment)
Just a quick correction to the title, there's no fair use in European copyright law, it's either called fair dealing, or just parody exception.
(untitled comment)
That joke is not funny any more
I think defendants will pretty much argue the same (monkey has no standing), but I'm thinking that they should also try to kill the case on jurisdiction grounds. I have argued elsewhere that the case should not be heard in California.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Still not a closed case
Re: Re: Other animals...
Re: Re: European copyright law applies
The CJEU has ruled in several cases that the arrangement and selection is what matter when it comes to originality (Infopaq, Football Association v Murphy), and in pictures in particular what matters is that the photo encapsulates a 'personal touch' reflecting the personality of the photographer (Painer v Standard Verlags).
If pressing the button was what matters, then we could not have copyright over automated triggers and delayed photography.
Re: Re:
This is important because in European copyright law selection is enough to warrant originality as per Infopaq case in the CJEU. Slater is a UK national.
European copyright law applies
There's a good legal argument to be made that the photographer owns the copyright of the selfie, as in European copyright law the person who pressed the button is irrelevant, what matters is that an author expresses his/her personality through selection and arrangement of the photograph.
OutLaw
One minor comment, while the July decision quashed private copying regulations, the new batch of articles has two origins. First, the OutLaw blog managed to get a spokesperson from the IP Office on record to admit that they were going to let the law die (they could have appealed, or re-drafted a new regulation). Secondly, the 1709 blog accurately contrasts this with the Reprobel case.
Correlation
Having said that, John Oliver has been making some very good pieces of journalism.
Re: Re: Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
Agreed, I've had them contact me a couple of times when I mentioned that my flight was delayed, their social media team was courteous and helpful.
The key in this case, at least for me, is the sequence of events. What upset some people seems to be the implication that Mark sent a tweet, and this was somehow picked up by some social media person, who then contacted the Glasgow easyJet staff.
What appears to have happened is that he complained about the delay, then sent the soldier tweet, then went to the staff and complained again, this time showing them the tweet. At this point the manager intervenes, and the actual events become blurred.
Mleiser has gone awfully quiet on Twitter though, is there a CCTV of the event I wonder?
Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
https://twitter.com/mleiser/status/382919214933106688
"@timanderson @easyJet Relatively simple. I told girl I was speaking 2 I was going 2 tweet 2 see if we could help get the guy to Portsmouth."
This makes it clear that he borught the tweet to their attention, easyjet are not monitoring any feeds.
Re: Re: Re: Easyjet T&Cs allow them to ban him for tweeting
Re: Trademark is correct
Re: Limited trademark
http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks/uspto/the+avengers/72278015
Re: @A/C and @David
However, very generic names might not be protected if they are "inherently generic".
BTW, Apple and Windows are trademarked:
http://bit.ly/170m2Tz
http://bit.ly/170m7qg
Limited trademark
Think of any movie with a generic title, such as Unforgiven, The Dictator, The Patriot, The Shining... the authors don't own all uses of those words, just their use in a specific medium.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=815116
More comments from Andres >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Andres.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt