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!

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!