Edouard Lambelet Founder of Paper.li discusses Copyright Infringement and Fair Use with IPLAW101

Happy New Year!

I hope your New Year started off awesome and wonderful things happen for you in 2011.

Have you heard of the service Paper.li? Well it is the new rage on Twitter and it is beginning to take off. Paper.li allows users to organize links shared on Twitter and now Facebook into a newsletter style format. For example, a Twitter user can create a free paper.li account and designate specific Twitter users' links, usually based on subject or topic, into their own online newspaper. Sounds like a pretty amazing service. However, I observed that the newspaper does not only post the links to the content but a portion of the content published in those links. Sometimes the amount of content is a sentence or two. However, other times the service may publish a portion of content that equals a small paragraph.

I had an opportunity to interview one of the founder's of Paper.Li, Edouard Lambelet, regarding how the service works; benefits of paper.li; and possible copyright challenges. Below is what he had to say:


IPLAW101: Mr. Lambelet thank you so much for taking time out of your busy day to talk to IPLAW101 about paper.li.

Edouard: No problem. We enjoy talking to content producers. Content producers are the leaders in social curation and this is what our service is about.

IPLAW101: How did you come up with the concept of Paper.Li?

Edouard: We just wrote a blog post on this very question. On the blog we gave an in depth analysis of the need for paper.li. Paper.Li was created to fill the void in content curation. Basically, there is so much information being shared on Social Media platforms and it can be overwhelming. Paper.Li acts as a filter and organizes content by semantics and ranking. Through this system we are able to arrange content via topics and relevancy to the user.

IPLAW101: I have used the service and had my content re-published in other newsletters. I was a bit concerned about the amount of content that was published in the newsletter. The service re-publishes links but also a portion of content from those links. What is your reasoning behind re-publishing content and not just links to content? Are you concerned about Copyright challenges?

Edouard: Well the re-publishing of a small portion of the content contained in the links makes it easier for users to read and discern what content to read and in what order relevant to them. Also the re-posting of a snippet of the content provided by links is pretty much the standard now in social networking platforms. Twitter and Facebook are currently providing the same type of service to their users.

In addition, we do not re-publish links from private accounts on either Twitter or Facebook. We only re-publish links from public accounts.

IPLAW101: I think the difference in paper.li's service is that the user is able to create their own newspaper and acts as a publisher of the content whereas on Twitter and Facebook the user is freely sharing their content and links. So initially it seems as if the user may be publishing content without the owner's permission. I had a Twitter debate regarding paper.li and a fellow Twitter user suggested maybe your service can require users to send a link to content creators asking their permission to re-publish portions of their content. Have you ever considered making this an option with your service?

Edouard: Actually no. We have never received any complaints about the re-publishing of a portion of content via links. As a matter of fact, users have raved about the service because it boosts blog traffic. Users generally experience a tremendous boost in blog traffic.

IPLAW101: Yes, I have heard this from other Paper.Li users and they all are amazed about the jump in blog traffic.

Edouard: In addition, if a content producer does not want their content included in a paper.li newspaper, we do give them the option to opt-out of the service. Our goal is to be the leader in social curation and help users of share and consume content in an highly organized fashion.

IPLAW101: Thank you for your time.

Edouard: Thank you.

I really did appreciate Edouard giving me this interview at 10pm Paris time. He was very open to discussing the platform. Essentially his view is that the benefits of paper.li outweighs any possible copyright issues.

My take:

As I have previously discussed on this blog, copyright infringement occurs when:

Copyright Infringement occurs when another unlawfully copies, sells, displays or performs a copyright owner's work without their express permission. However, in some instances, copying a copyright owner's work without their permission is allowed. This is called the Fair Use exception. Specifically, an infringer of a copyright can argue Fair Use if they meet one of the following criteria:

1. the purpose and character of the use is for non-profit or non-commercial purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work is artistic and benefits the public;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copy is minimal in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the copying upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work is minimal.

Paper.li's publishing of a portion of the copyright owner's work without their permission arguably falls under number 3 of the Fair Use exception, the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copy is minimal in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. To be fair to paper.li, re-publishing only a couple of sentences may very well qualify as Fair Use. Plus the U.S. Courts have not been very definitive about what portion of a copyright work is Fair Use or Copyright Infringement. These cases are usually decided on a case by case basis. For example, a few sentences of an article may be copyright infringement if it contains the heart of the work. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, 471 U.S. 539 (1985). In the alternative, a substantial portion of a work may be Fair Use if the use is a parody or criticism. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, INc., 510 US 569 (1994).

So far the service has not received any challenges and user's find it beneficial to their blogs. Paper.li has over 2 million users and has just raised another $2.1 million in financing to expand the service globally. So paper.li is having a great deal of success. I will be watching to see how the service grows and deals with issues as they arise.

What is Fair Use and Intellectual Property 101

Hello:

I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday. This time of year is always busy for me because clients want to wrap up legal issues before the end of the year and I have a family that demands my attention with all the Holiday hoopla!

Currently, I am working on a very interesting story about what does copyright case law say about proper linking and quoting in regards to copyright infringement. What is Fair Use and what is not? As copyright owners, we do not want individuals quoting our work without our permission. However, service providers and news organization want to be able to provide 'snippets' or a portion of copyright protected material and links without always having to go to the copyright owner for permission. So I will explore in my article what does the law say about this delicate balance between copyright infringement and Fair use? Stay tuned, it will be a very informative and interesting piece.

Also, next week I am speaking to a momprenuer networking group about Intellectual Property 101! Yes, these ladies have some pretty genius products and business ideas and they want to know how to protect them. So I will explain the difference between patents, trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights; how to properly protect these types of intellectual property and the benefits of licensing and royalty income. I love educating individuals on Intellectual Property and am I am looking forward to it.

Thanks for reading!

Facebook vs. Faceporn: Trademark Infringement or Copyright Infringement

Hello!

Recently, Facebook filed a lawsuit against the pornographic social networking site, Faceporn, alleging trademark infringement of its trademark, Facebook. Specifically, Facebook alleges the use of the mark, Faceporn, is "confusingly similar" to the mark Facebook and the use of the mark, Faceporn, is causing dilution of the Facebook brand.

Dilution

Dilution is a trademark infringement legal claim that can be asserted by famous brands. I have previously discussed Dilution here. Dilution occurs when a lesser known brand uses the mark of a famous trademark owner, and the use of the more famous mark by the lesser known brand, dilutes the distinctiveness of the famous trademark. Dilution can be asserted by famous trademarks even if the products or services are totally unrelated.

Although, Facebook is claiming the use of the Faceporn mark is diluting its brand via tarnishing its reputation, with the revision of the Dilution statute, the only thing Facebook has to prove is the use of the Faceporn mark will cause a likelihood of confusion between the two trademark among the relevant consuming public.

Likelihood of Confusion

The courts determine whether likelihood of confusion exists by balancing 8 factors. Those factors are: if the marks are similar in sight, sound, and meaning; the similarity of the goods and services sold; the similarity of the distribution channels and customers for the goods or services at issue; the sophistication of purchasers and the expense of the product or service at issue; the similarity of means and methods of advertising and promoting the goods or services at issue; whether there is evidence of actual confusion of consumers or other relevant groups; the strength of the mark; and was the potentially infringing trademark adopted with good faith or with intent to imitate the established trademark?

I think Facebook would have a hard time proving the trademarks were similar in sight, sound, and meaning. Facebook and Faceporn clearly do not have the same meaning. Furthermore, they really do not sound the same...book and porn. The only thing Facebook could possible claim is similar is the word "face" in both trademarks. But I do not believe that is similar enough. Next, Faceporn could certainly refute that Facebook and Faceporn have the same customers and/or distribution channels. Individuals looking for porn are not going to go to Facebook to find it. At least I don't think so. In addition, Facebook users seems to be very sophisticated consumers and would have enough intellect not to go to Facebook looking for or expecting to see the contents of Faceporn. Also, I am sure Facebook and Faceporn are not promoting their services through the same advertising and/or marketing channels. Lastly, I do not believe Facebook can prove actual confusion between both sites among their and Faceporn's consumers. Like I said earlier, people looking for porn are not going to visit Facebook attempting to find it and vice-versa.

However, I do believe the strength of Facebook's lawsuit against Faceporn lies in the last two factors. Clearly, Facebook, has a strong trademark. It is a unique term created by Facebook and was created to brand the number one social networking site. Also, Facebook could easily prove Faceporn created the trademark and site with the intent to copy the famous Facebook trademark. Specifically, Faceporn's site did have the same look and feel as Facebook. The logo was in the same type and font, the color scheme was the same and the layout was identical to Facebook's. I believe Facebook would have a stronger copyright infringement claim than a trademark claim. Clearly, Faceporn copied the layout and style of Facebook's site.

You can view a screen shot of the Faceporn site here. It has since been changed. But what do you think?

Playboy Sues Artist Drake, Cash Money and Universal Music for Copyright Infringement

Drake, Cash Money, and Universal Music Group are currently being sued by Playboy Enterprises for copyright infringement. Playboy Enterprises claims Drake used a sample of their copyright protected song "Fallin' in Love" by Hamilton, Joe Frank, and Dennis/Reynoldstown in the beginning of the hit "The Best I Ever Had," without their express permission. I actually listened to "Fallin' in Love" and "The Best I Ever Had" and the tracks are very similar. You can listen to both songs here.

If Playboy's claims prove to be true, someone on Drake's team failed to properly receive clearance from Playboy to use the song. As I previously discussed on this blog, the process of clearing a song can be difficult. Usually, the producer or production team will use a sample of a song before it is actually cleared. Producers are not actually thinking about clearing songs while caught up in the creative process. The producer's legal team, agent or manager will contact the publisher or copyright owner to get permission to use the sample. However, getting clearance to use a song can take a while. Sometimes it takes months before there is a return call from the publisher or copyright owner. Also, there can be a break in negotiations regarding royalty payments. The publisher or copyright owner may demand royalty payments that the producer is not willing to pay. Or the copyright owner can simply refuse to allow the producer or artist to use the song. This happens often and can be very frustrating for artists.

As I previously discussed here on Black Web 2.0, a copyright owner can receive between $750 and $30,0000 per instance of copying against a defendant for copyright infringement. If the copyright owner can prove that the infringement was willful, i.e., the infringer had knowledge that the activity (copying) constituted infringement or recklessly disregarded the possibility of infringement, then the copyright owner can receive $150,000 per instance of copying. Playboy is claiming Drake and company willfully committed copyright infringement and are asking the court for an accounting of all of the profits Drake, Cash Money and Universal Music Group have made from the song. They are also requesting an injunction to stop the defendants from further playing or selling the song.

It is much easier to just ask permission.

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due! Copying Without Permission

Hello:

I wrote this article due to the rampant unauthorized copying of copyright protected work on the Internet. This article is also posted here on Black Web 2.0. Share your thought.



When Copying A Work If You Give Credit, Do You Still Need Permission to Copy? Before you have to even consider playing your ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card the short answer is absolutely yes!

There is a huge misconception among Internet users and Bloggers that as long as credit is given to the Copyright owner, it is permissible to copy, reproduce, use snippets or paraphrase the copyright protected work. However, the Copyright Act clearly states: any person who exercises the exclusive rights of a copyright owner, without the copyright owner’s express permission, is an infringer of copyright. 17 USC sec. 501(a).

This means that anyone who wants to use the copyright of a copyright owner must directly contact the copyright owner and receive written (express) permission to copy or reproduce the work. Simply giving credit will not do.

This law also pertains to photos. When writing blog posts, most bloggers simply search the Internet for an image to complement their blog post. This is a dangerous practice and can result in a Cease and Desist letter from the Copyright Owner or a Copyright Infringement action. To avoid legal action, simply contact the owner and ask if it is permissible to use their image. The majority of Copyright owners will agree as long as you give them credit. A simple email will only take 5 minutes to write. This is a small time investment to ensure you are not breaking the law. If you can not locate the Copyright owner, use your own image and/or writing. Copying without permission is simply not worth the legal headache.

However, there are certain instances where copying a work without the Copyright Owner’s permission is permissible. A copyright owner can use a creative commons license to allow users to use their work without permission in certain circumstances. Below is an example of a Creative Common License:

1. You are free to copy the work as long as you attribute the work to the copyright owner. However you can not use the work for commercial (monetary) purposes.

Lastly, a statement such as the one below, does not protect an individual from Copyright Infringement Actions:

If you hold the copyright(s) to any music or other content that can be found here and would like for it to be removed, please contact me and it will be removed immediately.

This clause is not a “safe haven” for Copyright Infringers. I will say it again, you must get the Copyright Owner’s express permission to use the Copyright protected work. The above clause will only expose an Infringer to liability.

File Sharing & Fair Use: What does it mean for Consumers

Hello!

I hope your week has been productive.

I came across this article on the Daily Online Examiner, which gives an update on the Napster File Sharing Litigation. As many of you know, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) waged a legal battle against Napster and users of file-sharing services for the past 10 years. However, one of those cases can effectively end the RIAA argument that file-sharing is copyright infringement and therefore punishable by a fine and or jail time.

In the case of RIAA vs. Joel Tenenbaum, the court is currently accepting an argument that peer to peer file sharing is a Fair Use exception to Copyright Infringement Laws. Essentially, the argument is that file sharing is not commercial use and therefore not copyright infringement. In lay terms, this means that as long as individual consumers are sharing files with friends for personal enjoyment and not a monetary fee, then copyright infringement does not exist and file-sharing is not a crime. I will explain Fair Use in more detail below:

Copyright Infringement occurs when another unlawfully copies, sells, displays or performs a copyright owner's work without their express permission. However, in some instances, copying a copyright owner's work without their permission is allowed. This is called the Fair Use exception. Specifically, an infringer of a copyright can argue Fair Use if they meet one of the following criteria:

1. the purpose and character of the use is for non-profit or non-commercial purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work is artistic and benefits the public;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copy is minimal in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the copying upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work is minimal.

If Tennebaum's argument is successful, peer to peer file sharing may be considered legal and enjoy the same treatment as copying of television or cable shows for personal enjoyment. Currently, consumers can copy or record television or cable shows in their home as long as the recording is done for personal enjoyment and the recording is not re-broadcast or viewed by consumers for a fee.

It will be interesting to see how the judge rules this case. I will keep you posted.

I welcome your thoughts!