Google May Have A Strong Defense Against Hacked Celeb Photo Lawsuit Threat

Page 6 of the New York Post was the first media outlet to report that some of the celebrities whose photos were recently hacked may sue Google for not "expeditiously" removing links/images to/of their copyrighted nude photos.  The lawyer, Marty Singer wrote a scathing letter to Google demanding it act "expeditiously" to remove the infringing content or face a lawsuit that may create $100+ million dollars in damages.

According to The New York Times, Marty Singer is "Guard Dog To The Stars (Legally Speaking)".  In a profile from several years ago, Mr. Singer is quoted as saying, “We’re one of the few firms that sue; we don’t just send a letter.”  While I admire Mr. Singer's work in protecting some of the most famous celebrities in the world, I wish him the best of luck and a very sympathetic court room if he follows through and sues Google for not responding "expeditiously" to his take down requests that are governed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

In 2010, I wrote about the challenges copyright holders have under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act regarding protecting their content in a digital world.  At that time I stated,
"According to the Senate Report about the DMCA (S. Rep. 105-190 at 44), "[b]ecause the factual circumstances and technical parameters may vary from case to case, it is not possible to identify a uniform time limit for expeditious action." In my opinion, this indicates that a non-profit may be held to a different less onerous standard than a commercial entity. Since S. Rep 105-190 was created, technology has drastically changed and I do not believe it was the intent of the Senate to provide ISPs/OSPs wide latitude to remove infringing content at their leisure when even a minor delay in removal may cause serious financial repercussions to rights holders."

I further opined, "The DMCA's safe harbor provision is already tilted heavily in favor of ISPs/OSPs. Therefore, to level the playing field it is time for either Congress or the courts to declare that under the DMCA commercial entities have one business day to remove infringing content."   Whether one business day is still an "expeditious" enough standard is debatable; however, at that time I thought it was a good starting point to begin the discussion. 

Since 2010, neither Congress nor the courts have created a universal definition of the term "expeditiously".  Google has one of the most technologically advanced data mining machines in the world so it most likely can do a better job of removing copyrighted nude photos and/or links to them from appearing on its platforms.

Unfortunately, removing content from the Internet is a lot like "whack a mole".  When it has been removed from one website there is a chance it may appear on another platform.  Due to the recent Right To Be Forgotten Ruling in Europe, Mr. Singer may have better luck if any of his clients are European Union citizens; however, this right appears to only apply to Google's European products/services and it is unclear exactly how this new right will be implemented.

From a legal perspective, does Google have a strong legal defense under the DMCA's safe harbor?  In the 2013 Capital Records v. Vimeo case, a New York federal district court ruled that it was "expeditious" to take three and a half weeks to remove 170 infringing videos.  While this ruling only applies to the Southern District of New York, it may provide persuasive opinion for other jurisdictions.

Here, it appears a couple hundred copyrighted photos may have been part of the take down requests and the time frame appears to be a couple of weeks.  Since there is not a definitive legal standard regarding how "expeditiously" a digital platform must act to remove infringing content it appears Google may qualify for "Safe Harbor" protection.  If Google is eventually sued for allegedly violating the DMCA regarding this matter, it should be able to mount a vigorous and most likely successful defense.

Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.

Is trademark and copyright law worthless in the social media age?

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) was signed into law in 1998 to protect the intellectual property rights of content creators while also providing a safe harbor for internet service providers and websites who act in good faith to remove infringing content once they become aware of the matter. The Lanham Act was enacted in 1946 and has been amended several times. In 1999, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act amended the Lanham Act to address domain name trademark issues.

Does the DMCA or the Lanham Act still work in the Social Media Age? On June 16, 2010, I blogged that intellectual property protection is useless in the social media age. Since that post, very little has been done to better protect content creators from the illegal use of their intellectual property without their permission or compensation. Congress has not been able to draft compromise intellectual property legislation that better protects digital intellectual property rights while also creating a fair and equitable system to protect innocent internet service providers and websites from liability.

According to a recent San Francisco Chronicle article, Facebook appears to be a haven for the sale of counterfeit goods. Ironically, the article mentions that Facebook has been notified about this issue but it appears they will not do anything about it unless the trademark holder personally contacts them. Does this response demonstrate that Facebook has a huge problem with ads for counterfeit goods on its platform? Under Viacom v. YouTube's latest appellate court ruling, will Facebook soon have significant legal liability issues to address?

The bottom line is that that it takes time for the law to catch up with technology.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Copyright Office Has Extended Comment Dates For Sound Recordings Fixed Before 2/15/72

The Copyright Office has extended the comment and reply period for its Notice of Inquiry requesting public input for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972. Initial comments due in the Office of the General Counsel of the Copyright Office by January 31, 2011. Reply comments due by March 2, 2011. The Copyright Office prefers that comments be submitted electronically via www.copyright.gov. For more information check out the Federal Register notice regarding this update.

A change in the law will have significant consequences for social media usage of the content that falls under this category.

To learn how to protect and monetize your intellectual property you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Does Google agree with my 1 day DMCA safe harbor definition of expeditiously?

According to the Associated Press, Google has stated that it will respond to complaints about pirated material within 24 hours after receiving notification. This announcement also states that Google will better police the sites that utilize its ad network to try to limit copyright violations. This long overdue announcement is great news for content creators.

On June 30, 2010, I stated that even though Viacom lost the initial round of the Viacom v. YouTube case, the case may be a win for copyright holders in the long run. I made my prediction because if YouTube was able to remove more than 100,000 infringing copyrighted clips within 1 business day of being notified more than three years ago, there is no reason why commercial entities shouldn't be held to this standard today.

Google's new 24 hour policy is welcome news because content creators have lost billions of dollars to intentional copyright infringement over the past ten years. Google also needs to enact this policy for trademark infringement. I am waiting for Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc... to agree to the same policy for not just copyright infringement but also for trademark infringement. Only after these companies actively enforce a 24 hour turnaround for intellectual property infringement may they claim they are actively protecting content creators.

I challenge Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and every other social media company to follow Google's lead in protecting intellectual property.

To learn how to protect and monetize your intellectual property you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Intellectual Property Law is Useless in the Social Media Age

The major tools that companies have to protect their intellectual property rights in the Social Media Age were created before and during the Internet Age of the late 1990's. Under current law, copyright and trademark holders have several different remedies available to go after cyber-squatters and those who utilize copyrighted material and trademarks without permission. Some of the tools available include the Lanham Act and the Anti-Cyber Squatting Protection Act, The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and ICANN's Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy.

Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, (scroll down to the Copyright Policy), and YouTube all have policies in place for companies to report theft of their intellectual property. Even though some of these companies, (Ex: Facebook) appear to have a policy in place that addresses the problem when a company's trademarks are being used by a third party as a screen/user name, there appears to be no legal tools available that specifically applies to screen/user names. Therefore, it is at the sole discretion of an online service provider to determine if a screen/user name infringes on a trademark.

Screen/user name intellectual property infringement is a major problem. For example, on Facebook there is a popular page that at first glance appears to be Nike Shoes. Upon closer examination, even though this page has over 2.2 million "likes" it does not appear to be a valid Nike Shoes Facebook page. In addition, if you type in www.facebook.com/nikeshoes you are directed to an entirely different Facebook page that appears to be another user. Visiting MySpace's "Nike Shoes Page" demonstrates the same problem. If you type in www.myspace.com/nikeshoes you will notice that you are directed to the page of a Nike shoe collector/seller.

Through a quick check of the United States Patent Trademark TESS search system it appears that "Nike Shoes" is not trademarked. However, "Nike" was trademarked in 1972 for "ATHLETIC SHOES WITH SPIKES AND ATHLETIC UNIFORMS FOR USE WITH SUCH SHOES" and "ATHLETIC SHOES WITHOUT SPIKES AND ATHLETIC UNIFORMS FOR USE WITH SUCH SHOES". Therefore, Nike has a very strong claim that the term "Nike Shoes" infringes on its trademark.

The bottom line is that intellectual property law needs to catch up with the Social Media Age and/or social media companies need to be willing to provide the contact information of those who are charged with determining if a screen/user name infringes on a trademark or if posted material violates a copyright. Providing forms for intellectual property rights holders to complete when an alleged violation occurs is a start but does not adequately address the situation. More accountability is needed.

To learn how to combat the theft of your company's intellectual property via social media you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.