pinterest

Alex Jones

I lead teams at the intersection of strategy and design. Autodidact. Polymath. Barbecue acolyte. I start fires (the good kind).

Archives for June 2004

Mattel's Frivolous Suit Against Art

Score one for freedom of speech!

From Copyfight comes word that Mattel has lost its trademark case against Thomas Forsythe, an artist who used Barbie dolls in a series of photos. The Ninth circuit court called one claim “completely without merit” and noted it “would lead to absurd results”. The court found it “objectively unreasonable that [Mattel] argued otherwise”. Best of all, the court recognized that Mattel’s suit was frivolous, awarding the artist $241,797.09 plus $1,584,089 to cover legal fees. The decision is available on-line thanks to Copyfight.

Overstatement and IICA

Susan Crawford presents a compelling case to bring the INDUCE Act to a hearing on the Senate floor in her article Overstatement and IICA. She addresses both sides of the issue on three fundamental questions:

  1. Will the bill cripple the development of new technology?
  2. Will the bill broaden secondary liability for copyright infringement in ways we cannot predict?
  3. Will the bill render Sony irrelevant?

More on the INDUCE Act

This is just a quick post with some informative perspectives on the INDUCE Act. Sadly, I do not have the time to comment on all of them at present, though I do hope to post about select articles when my schedule allows. Anyway, here are the links:

The INDUCE Act and the Right to Prepare Derivative Works

Ernest, provides additional insight into the ramifications of the INDUCE Act on his site( The Importance of…) in a new article titled The INDUCE Act and the Right to Prepare Derivative Works. His perspectives on this issue and many others in the realm of copyrights are extremely informative for those of us who are just now learning of the issues. Yet again, Ernest points out the details and effects that may not be obvious on first blush. Well, at the very least, they were not obvious to me:

Most of the commentary on the Act and what technologies, creativity and innovation it threatens have focused on two types of infringement, those of the right of reproduction (the right to make copies) and the right of public distribution. We should remember, however, that there are other exclusive rights that can be infringed. The intersection of the INDUCE Act with these other exclusive rights will create an even broader swath of technology and acts that Hollywood will have an effective veto over. Let’s consider one of these other rights and the technologies that might be affected.

According to 17 USC 106, the second exclusive right is the right “to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.”

That is a very scary proposition on a number of fronts as it could lead to so many more lawsuits, and legal bullying by large companies, driving innovators and fans into hiding, if not apathy. Ultimately, the INDUCE Act could prove harmful to the U.S. economy as we will lose ground to other nations who do not place such strict controls on innovation and product evolution.