Remember when we covered Torres-Negron v. J & N Records, Nos. 06-2058, 06-2059 (10/2/07)? That was cool, wasn’t it? We busted out with commentary within minutes of its release.
There, the First Circuit held (with unnecessary dicta that further confuses the discussion of jurisdiction) that a “reconstruction” of a work is not sufficient for registration.
Personally, I don’t think it is right to use the internet to make money, and I think that the practice of “promoting oneself” via the internet is a little creepy. I know it is "all the rage" to have a Myspace page, but just because teenagers are doing it doesn't mean that mature individuals like you and I should do it, too.
Remember the good old days when lawyers would exchange ideas over the internet and via blogs and have fun doing it? Sure, we didn't have RSS feeds. Sure, we couldn't cite them in motions. But we had spirit. Also, people on "Friendster" were considered a little strange.
Remember when it didn’t take two weeks or so for partners to approve blog postings to make sure that the clients wouldn’t freak out and puke all over the place? Of course, in those days, if you had a blog, you would be too “hip” for a certain set of clients. These days, everyone has a blog. Hurumph!
Anyway, without further ado, here is some other coverage of this case. Apparently, in the world of “IP” (which I know nothing about) it is very important. In law school I deliberately avoided taking IP courses, because everyone claimed to be very interested in the subject and so I knew that they were lying. Well, actually, that was a bit more ado than I planned.
Oh my god. I have used up so much ado, that you have to look under the fold. Sorry about that.
- Scott and Scott LLP (“Businesses should be aware that in the wake of this decision, federal courts will strictly enforce the deposit copy requirement.”). Thanks for the tip.
- IP Updates
- Filewrapper (“The court held the district court should have determined if a valid deposit copy was submitted under an analysis similar to a summary judgment motion. Even though the district court did not do this, it was not erroneous to allow the case to go to trial before concluding that the evidence showed a reconstruction rather than a valid deposit copy.”)
- Blawgletter
And...
Along similar lines, Cobalt Law (Sophie Cohen) covers a case
involving derivative works called Dalton-Ross Homes, Inc. v. Williams,
No. CV-06-1301-PCT-FJM, 2007 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 64135 (D. Ar. August 29,
2007) (“The court noted that copying an unregistered derivative work
might give rise to liability based on infringement of the registered
underlying work, if plaintiff can establish that defendant copied
protectable elements of the original work.”) This looks important and
insightful. Too bad I didn’t take any IP courses. If anyone else wants to promote their law firm’s blog, I can add it to this post if you leave a comment. Please make your posts insightful. And edgy.
PS: This article on Wikipedia describes the "Mermaid Problem."
Comments