Category Archives: Legal

General Data Protection Regulation Explained

There is some confusion over the GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation,  that goes into effect on May 25, 2018. This regulation strengthens the privacy rights of individuals living in the European Union (not only E.U. citizens) and applies to anyone who does business with those persons, even if that simply means collecting data for marketing purposes.

Nancy Wolff, DMLA Counsel, has written a comprehensive explanation of the regulation that you can read here.

GDPR Explained

by Nancy Wolff, DMLA Counsel

You may have noticed an increase in urgent messages from companies updating their privacy policies in anticipation of the upcoming deadline to become GDPR compliant. “GDPR” refers to a new European Union law – the General Data Protection Regulation that goes into effect on May 25, 2018. This regulation strengthens the privacy rights of individuals living in the European Union (not only E.U. citizens) and applies to anyone who does business with those persons, even if that simply means collecting data for marketing purposes.

Privacy is becoming more and more of a global issue, and the E.U. is leading the way in attempting to protect personal data. The policies behind the GDPR aim to increase transparency, in terms of both what personal data is collected and how it may be used, and the accountability of those who maintain and use that personal data. The regulation is complex and extensive and includes steep penalties for those who are not compliant – up to €20,000,000 or 4% of global revenue from the previous year, whichever is greater.

But before you think the solution is to simply exclude all European residents from your client base, or have a panic attack, it is important to recognize that the E.U. “privacy police” are unlikely to expect immediate full compliance or have the operational capacity to scrutinize every business transacting with E.U. residents. Your goal should be to reevaluate your privacy practices to be as compliant as possible given your type of business and your use of personal data.

The stock industry is not a business that primarily engages in personal data collection. The purpose of the industry is to aggregate and license content on behalf of contributors to those who legitimately incorporate it in their publishing, marketing, or other media works. Stock companies should continue to use best practices regarding the security of personal data, obtaining proper consent from those who they send marketing communications, and updating privacy policies to accurately reflect how information is used and how an individual can contact someone in your company about what personal data is collected. (A new sample privacy policy that can be modified to comply with your company’s practices will be provided shortly). There is a common understanding in recent literature published about the GDPR that many industries will be provided a soft launch period, despite the fact that the regulation has been published since 2016.

At its highest level, the GDPRrequires any company who collect personal data to maintain it securely, and to provide transparency in what ways it may use the personal data. The definition of “personal data” is quite broad and includes anyinformationthat relates to an identifiable person. See GDPR, Art. 4, Sec. 1. The individuals whose data is collected are called “data subjects.” See GDPR, Art. 4, Sec. 1. Those who collect data are called “controllers.” See GDPR, Art. 4, Sec. 7. Those who process data for controllers are referred to as “processers.” See GDPR, Art. 4, Sec. 8.  Any content library with contributors, distributors, customers and model releases, is a controller and needs to keep its records that contain personal data secure.

The first step toward GDPR compliance is to audit your data practices. Make a list of what personal data you collect and how you use that data. Then, when you update your privacy policy, you can use that list to make sure that you have provided adequate disclosure of how you use the personal data.The regulations require that the notice is not written in legalese but inclear and plain language.In general, you should not collect or retain information that you have no legitimate business purpose to collect.

The privacy notice should address the following to sufficiently inform the data subject:

  • Who is collecting the data?
  • What data is being collected?
  • What is the legal basis for processing the data?
  • Will the data be shared with any third parties?
  • How will the information be used?
  • How long will the data be stored for?
  • What rights does the data subject have?
  • How can the data subject raise a complaint?

Further, if someone from the E.U. requests information about the personal data you collect, you have an obligation to respond to requests within 1 month and may not charge the data subject for responding. You also need to give the E.U. resident the ability to update that information and the ability to remove the information if there is no legitimate reason to maintain that personal data.Additionally,any data breach of personal information must be reported within 72 hours.

Individuals subject to the GDPR can enforce these new rules, as it provides for a private right of action, but there must be some material damage.

In terms of marketing to customers or potential customers in the E.U., the consent rule under the GDPR is an “opt-in” instead of “opt-out” rule. Consent must be very clear and cannot be buried in terms and conditions. There should be a separate check box for marketing and promotions and for accepting terms and conditions.

It is too soon to know how these new regulations will impact the image licensing industry. To some extent all photographs of recognizable people contain personal data. Some have asked whether the new “right to be forgotten” will affect the industry and whether models or subjects could request that images be erased or consent withdrawn. While these regulations have not been officially interpreted yet, this kind of overly broad interpretation would be contrary to the purpose of the regulations – which is to address privacy issues with data collection.

The regulations do acknowledge that there are legitimate business reasons to retain certain personal information. The licensing of editorial as well as commercial images by image libraries serves an important business and newsgathering function and model releases are required to be retained for many business and legal purposes, and are necessary to produce in the event of a claim. Further, the “right to be forgotten” is not absolute and the regulations acknowledge that other rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression must be reconciled with this right. These exceptions should insulate the licensing of images and restrict persons from demanding that images be removed.

This article is intended to be a broad overview of this new regulation and not a complete description of the GDPR or any company’s obligations. You are encouraged to seek further advice and there are many websites offering insights. Importantly, the regulations have not been interpreted and we will continue to monitor this topic. The GDPR will be included in the DMLA legal panel at the DMLA Annual meeting in October.

Keep Fighting for Artists’ Rights!

The letters that are being sent are starting to make a difference so don’t stop!

More members of the House Judiciary Committee need to be paying attention to H.R. 3945 – CASE Act!

Keep up the fight by sending a letter each week! The more we send, the closer we’ll be to getting the copyright protection YOU deserve!

You can find your a sample letter and your representative here.  It’s easy.  Just do it!

SUPPORT NEEDED FOR CASE ACT!!

I’m sure that you’re aware we been working for the last few years with a group of other associations on what is now the CASE Act (HR#3945) the SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BILL, a bill by Representatives Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Tom Marino (R-PA), Doug Collins (R-GA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Judy Chu (D-CA), and Ted Lieu (D-CA). The bill is ready for write-up and we are now awaiting a date for that to happen based on a couple of issues still being worked out, but it looks like it could be as early as next week.

It has come to our attention that so far only about 2200 letters have been received by the Copyright Alliance platform which is less than 5 letters per member of Congress–barely even noticeable. We have been told by the players on the Hill that the passage of this bill will come down to grassroots support and this is a very poor showing. They need to see that we are behind this important bill for creators!

We need every member and their photographers and their adult children, friends and neighbors to send letters to their representatives!

I am asking you to send out a plea to your staff and photographers to help us get this bill passed by contacting their representatives. It is really easy. There are letters ready for them to use here. If we fail and small claims doesn’t make it through this year, it will be very difficult to get it passed in subsequent years. THIS IS OUR CHANCE! Please help all creators protect their copyrights!

Thanks so much for your help!

DMLA’s Amicus Brief Supports Argument as Oracle defeats Google Fair Use Argument over Java Code Packets

Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s ruling of fair use in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC, and held that a verbatim and non-transformative taking in the presence of an actual or potential licensing market fatally undermined the defense.

Even in industries unrelated to computers, mobile devices, software, and source code, the court’s broad pronouncement that “[t]here is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform” is both powerful and beneficial to creators and licensors of copyrighted content. DMLA’s amicus brief with the support of the coalition of Visual Artists– and one of many amicus briefs in this hotly contested case– helped explain to the court of appeals the importance of licensing markets in fair use cases in general. Ultimately DMLA supported the winning argument and contributed to the creation of appellate-level precedent that will help image licensors everywhere in responding to many infringement claims, as it turns on harm to the licensing market.

Read the entire article here

Oracle defeats Google Fair Use Argument over Java Code Packets

(ORACLE AM., INC. V. GOOGLE LLC
No. 2017-1118, 2017-1202, 2018 WL 1473875 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2018)

by Nancy Wolff, DMLA Counsel

Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s ruling of fair use in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC, and held that a verbatim and non-transformative taking in the presence of an actual or potential licensing market fatally undermined the defense. Oracle had sued Google for copyright infringement, alleging that Google had unlawfully used 37 packages of Oracle’s Java application programming interface – “pre-written Java source code programs” that serve as shortcuts for various computer functions to save programming time – in its Android-powered devices. Google copied verbatim 11,500 lines of Oracle’s copyrighted computer code as well as the structure, sequence, and organizing of the packages. After a second jury trial on fair use, Google prevailed on its fair use defense, and Oracle appealed after the district court rejected its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court’s assessment, and analyzed each of the four fair use factors in 17 U.S.C. 107. In particular, under the first factor (nature and purpose of the use), the court held that Google’s use of Oracle’s code was both commercial and not “transformative” because the purpose of the software packages in Google’s Android operating system was the same as the purpose of the package in Oracle’s Java platform; Google did not change the expressive content or message of the code; and use of the code in smartphones as opposed to other computer hardware did not constitute “new context.” As many courts do, the Federal Circuit did not pay much heed to the second factor (nature of the copyrighted work), but emphasized under the third factor (amount of the work used), that the taking at issue here was more than was defensible. For instance, there was no dispute that only 170 lines of code were needed to write in Java programming language, but Google copied 11,500 lines.

The court spent considerable time discussing the fourth factor (effect on the potential market), focusing on harm to actual markets for the copyrighted work, as well as the market for potential and derivative uses. The court noted that the record clearly showed actual market harm in that Oracle’s copyrighted works had already been used in mobile devices, that Google directly competed with Oracle using Oracle’s own code, and that the existence of the free Android operating system caused significant damage to Oracle’s negotiating position with third parties like Amazon. The district court also had failed to consider potential market harm, including licensing Java “for smartphones with increased processing capabilities”; importantly, the court observed that just because Oracle had never built its own smartphone device was irrelevant “because potential markets include licensing others to develop derivative works.” Because factors one and four weighed heavily against fair use (factor two weighed in favor, and factor three was likely against), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for a trial on damages.

Even in industries unrelated to computers, mobile devices, software, and source code, the court’s broad pronouncement that “[t]here is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform” is both powerful and beneficial to creators and licensors of copyrighted content. DMLA’s amicus brief with the support of the coalition of Visual Artists– and one of many amicus briefs in this hotly contested case– helped explain to the court of appeals the importance of licensing markets in fair use cases in general. Ultimately DMLA supported the winning argument and contributed to the creation of appellate-level precedent that will help image licensors everywhere in responding to many infringement claims, as it turns on harm to the licensing market.

TIME TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT BILL

Ask Your Congressional Representative to Vote in Favor of H.R. 3945 – A Bill to Create a Small Claims Court!

Dear Creators and Friends of the Creative Community,

The time is now to support creators and the creator community! In early to mid-April, the House Judiciary Committee will likely consider and vote on H.R. 3945, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE ACT) of 2017, a bill that will create a copyright small claims court for professional creators and small businesses. Your representative in Congress needs to know that you support the bill. If you haven’t contacted your representative, now is the time to do so. And if you have contacted them, now is the time to remind them that the creative community needs their support.

For many photographers, illustrators, authors, songwriters, and other creators and small businesses that own copyrighted works, enforcing their rights is simply not feasible. Litigation is expensive and most of these creators can’t afford to enforce their rights in federal court. In effect, the U.S. copyright system provides creators with rights but no effective remedies. To address this problem, the U.S. Copyright Office released a study recommending the creation of a simplified process for resolving lower value copyright claims.

On October 4, 2017, Representatives Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Tom Marino (R-PA), as well as Representatives Doug Collins (R-GA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Judy Chu (D-CA), and Ted Lieu (D-CA), introduced H.R. 3945 to effectuate the Copyright Office’s recommendations. This bipartisan bill would create a voluntary small claims court within the U.S. Copyright Office to provide copyright owners with an alternative to the expensive process of bringing infringement claims in federal court. This new court, called the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) would provide an easy and streamlined process for creators – including the ability to conduct proceedings remotely. Most significantly, participation in the court is 100% voluntary and inexpensive.

Organizations representing individual creators and small businesses have already voiced their support. Now it’s vital that legislators hear directly from creators about the importance of this issue.

Please contact your representative to ask them to support H.R. 3945. We’ve provided a sample letter here that you can send, or feel free to modify it (or use your own letter).
You can also call your representative using the list of phone numbers here.
And you can tag or direct message him/her on Twitter. Please click here, and then click on the twitter icon for your representative.

The important thing is to let your voice be heard on this important issue!

For more information, please see the following:
A copy of the bill can be found here.
A summary of the bill can be found here.
Statements of support and other information about the bill can be found here.

Please join the Copyright Alliance, DMLA and all creative community to support this important bill. Information courtesy of the Copyright Alliance.

Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc.: Second Circuit Rejects Fair Use Defense for Mass Archiving and Re-Distribution of Copyrighted TV Content

By: Scott J. Sholder

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued its much-anticipated opinion in the TVEyes appeal, reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and holding that TVEyes’ copying, storage, and re-distribution for viewing, downloading, and sharing, of massive amounts of copyrighted TV content was not fair use.

Read the entire story here.

Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc.: Second Circuit Rejects Fair Use Defense

By: Scott J. Sholder

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued its much-anticipated opinion in the TVEyes appeal, reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and holding that TVEyes’ copying, storage, and re-distribution for viewing, downloading, and sharing, of massive amounts of copyrighted TV content was not fair use.

TVEyes is a for-profit media company offering a service that allows its clients to “sort through vast quantities of television content in order to find clips that discuss items of interest to them.” TVEyes records 1,400 channels’ worth of TV broadcasts, 24 hours a day, and makes the copied content searchable by also copying the closed-captioned text that accompanies the videos. Clients can search for videos based on keywords and play unlimited video clips, each up to ten minutes in duration, and may archive, download, and share clips by e-mail. Clients pay $500 per month for these services.

The District Court held that the searching, archiving, and watching functions offered by TVEyes constituted fair use, but that the downloading and e-mailing functions did not. Fox only challenged the “watch” function (and its ancillary functions like downloading, archiving, and sharing), but not the search function.

At the outset of its opinion, the Court of Appeals noted the similarities between this case and Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., in which the court held that mass copying of books for purposes of limited text searching was fair use, but it explained that Authors Guild “test[ed] the boundaries of fair use,” and that TVEyes “has exceeded those bounds.” In sum, the court held that TVEyes’ re-distribution of copyrighted content was only modestly transformative under the first fair use factor, but that other fair use factors outweighed any transformative purpose. Despite myriad recent case law holding that transformative use is the most important fair use factor, the TVEyes court seemed to hearken back to a slightly earlier era of fair use and reiterated that the fourth factor – market harm – is “the single most important element.”

The court held that TVEyes’ copying could be considered transformative in that “it enables TVEyes’s clients to isolate from the vast corpus of Fox’s content the material that is responsive to their interests, and to access that material in a convenient manner.” Similar to the Sony “Betamax” case, the court noted that TVEyes’ watch function was also akin to time- and place-shifting, and “certainly qualifies as technology that achieves the transformative purpose of enhancing efficiency,” and so was “at least somewhat transformative.” However, the transformative character of the use was not enough to outweigh the commercial nature of the services offered because TVEyes “essentially republishes that content unaltered from its original form, with no ‘new expression, meaning or message.’”

The court found the second factor – the nature of the copyrighted works – inconsequential, but placed significant weight on the third factor, which analyses the amount of the copyrighted works made available to the public. This factor weighed in favor of Fox because, unlike in Authors Guild where Google Books made available only snippets, “TVEyes makes available virtually the entirety of the Fox programming that TVEyes users want to see and hear,” and given the brevity of most news reports, at very least copied and distributed “the entirety of the message conveyed by Fox to authorized viewers of the original” content.

Turning to the fourth factor, the Second Circuit agreed with Fox that “TVEyes undercuts Fox’s ability to profit from licensing searchable access to its copyrighted content to third parties.” Consumers were clearly willing to pay for such a service, and TVEyes therefore “deprives Fox of revenue that properly belongs to the copyright holder,” effectively usurping the market for Fox to offer similar aggregation, searching, and licensing services for its own content. This usurpation, combined with the amount of content offered and the modest transformativeness overshadowed by TVEyes’ commercial use of Fox’s content, defeated TVEyes’ fair use defense. The court remanded with instruction to the District Court to amend its permanent injunction accordingly.

Judge Kaplan of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation, filed a separate concurring opinion to express his disagreement with the majority’s finding that TVEyes’ uses were at all transformative. He opined that the “somewhat transformative” designation was irrelevant given that the other fair use factors outweighed the transformative use, and that issuing such dicta would serve only to confuse the already complicated question of what constitutes transformative purpose. Nonetheless, Judge Kaplan expressed his own views on why TVEyes’ use of Fox’s content was not transformative, including that the mere “enhancing the efficiency with which copies of copyrighted material are delivered to secondary issuers” was not transformative because TVEyes simply repackaged and delivered the original content with no news aesthetics, insights, or understandings.

The Second Circuit’s decision is significant in that it further defines the outer boundaries of fair use by providing a concrete example of what falls outside the doctrine, which is helpful given the arguably expansive implications of the Authors Guild decision, and by distinguishing a facially similar service from the Google Books project it deemed fair use in that case. It also signals a potential shift in focus back to the “market harm” factor of fair use, and away from a strict focus on transformative purpose, but at the same time adds to the growing sense of confusion about what may be considered transformative, or in this case, “somewhat transformative.”

Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP drafted an amicus brief in this case on behalf of American Photographic Artists, American Society of Media Photographers, Digital Media Licensing Association, National Press Photographers Association, and Professional Photographers of America, in support of Fox News Network.

BlockChain Registration: Proof of Existence Is Not Proof of Ownership

By Joe Naylor, President and CEO of ImageRights

There is a dangerous movement afoot; the idea that registration of your images on the blockchain is a cheap and simple alternative to registration with the United States Copyright Office. It is not.

Those providing copyright registration services based solely on the blockchain will argue that inscribing a hash of your image along with its accompanying metadata creates an immutable record of your copyright ownership. False.

Read the entire article here.