| ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Copyright > Notices > Scientology Complaint (NoticeID 548, http://chillingeffects.org/N/548) | Location: https://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=548 |
February 01, 2003
|
Sender Information: |
Recipient Information:
Kevin A. Burton
[Private]
San Francisco, CA, 94122
Sent via: email
Re: Notice of Copyright Infringement
Subject: RE: Notice of Copyright Infringement Dear Mr. [private]: Our office represents Church of Scientology International ("CSI") and Religious You are hereby on notice that one of your customers has placed literally Because of the sheer volume of the infringements that are on your customer's web I. Identification And Location of Infringing Works (Photographs) Nos. 1 - 24 Description 1. Untitled photograph of group by a helm http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/12.jpg 2. Untitled photograph of a large group by a helm http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/7a-1200.jpg 3. Photograph entitled "Captain David Miscavige" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/steering.jpg 4. Untitled photograph of a man in uniform http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/6a.jpg 5. Untitled photograph of a woman in uniform http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/6b.jpg 6. Untitled photograph of a man in uniform http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/6c.jpg 7. Untitled photograph of a ring http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/6d.jpg 8. Untitled photograph of a group of people by a table with one person leaning http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/3.jpg 9. Untitled photograph of a man http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/2b.jpg 10. Untitled photograph of a man with a medal http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/2a.jpg 11. Person in uniform on a podium lecturing with his hand out http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/4.jpg 12. Untitled photograph displaying "International Headquarters" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/2.jpg 13. Photograph of a crew with cameras http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/a2.gif 14. Photograph of a group of uniformed people http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/b4.jpg 15. Photograph of a man's face entitled Alain Kartuzinsky http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/b4-b.jpg 16. Photograph of a man in uniform 17. Photograph of a man's face entitled Richard Reiss 18. Photograph of a group ofuniformed people with three females in the front row http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/b2.jpg 19. Small photograph of a group of uniformed people http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/events/lisa_mcpherson/clan1.jpg 20. Photograph of a group of uniformed people http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/b1.jpg 21. Photograph of a person at a podium under a seal http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/6.jpg 22. Photograph of a person in uniform http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/8.jpg 23. Photograph of three unformed people at a table http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/10.jpg 24. Untitled photograph of woman handing over an award to another woman http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/5b.jpg 25. Photograph of a man in white with dark glasses, displaying "Hubbard & http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/h_c.gif II. Identification of Copyrights of The Photographs In 1 - 25 Above The infringements set forth in Nos. 1 through 25 above are taken from various Publication 1. Association 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. III. Identification of Infringing Works Description 26. "Non-SO Members in SO Orgs" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/greece/seaorg3.gif 27. "Commordore's Messengers" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/greece/cmo.gif 28. "The Sea Organization" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/greece/seaorg1.gif & 29. "Routine 3 Heaven" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-630511.html 30. "Security Check Children" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-610921.html 31. "HCO WW Security Forms" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-610928.html 32. "Dead Agenting" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/dead_agenting.html 33. "Targets, Defense" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/targets.html 34. "Sec Check Whole Track" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-610619.html 35. "The Scientology Emotional Tone Scale" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/tonelevel.html 36. "Routine 3N - Line Plots" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-630714.html 37. "Computer Series 6 - INCOMM" 38. Materials Grade Chart 39. "Enemy Names" IV. Identification of Copyrights of The Text Documents Description 26. Flag Order 2772 "Non-SO Members in 27. Flag Order 3729 "Commodore's 28. Flag Order 137 "The Sea Organization" 29. HCO Bulletin of May 11, 1963 30. HCO Bulletin of 21 September 1961 31. HCO Bulletin of 28 September 1961 32. HCO Policy Letter of 28 October 1968 33. HCO Policy Letter of 16 February 1969 34. HCO Bulletin of 19 June 1961 "Sec 35. HCO Bulletin of 25 September 36. HCO Bulletin of 14 July 1963 37. HCO Policy Letter of 23 November 38. CSI is the owner of the copyright to the publication: "The 39. BPI is the owner of the copyright to the work HCO Policy V. Identification of Infringing Works (Documents) Description 40. "21 May 78 Telex to CO FSO" http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/11.gif 41. "9 September 76" 42. "29 September 78 Telex to CO FSO" 43. "CO CMO, INFO, Confidential" 44. "R Advices for Division 2" 44. "1 January 76" 45. "3 January 76" 46. "10 January 76" 47. "30 January 76" 48. "6 September 76" 49. "5 January 77 Despatch to Treas Sec" 50. "14 March 77 Telex to A/CO FSO" 51. "15 March 77 Telex to FCCI PO" 52. "16 March 77 Telex to ASRs and 53. "21 March 77 Telex to ASRs and 54. "23 May 77 Telex to CO FSO" 55. "26 February 78 Telex to CO FSO" 56. "17 March 78 Telex to CO FSO" VI. Identification of Copyrights of The Text Documents Nos. 40 through 56 are unpublished copyrighted works telexes that were sent by VII. Identification of Unpublished Confidential Works RTC is also the owner of the confidential Advanced Technology of the Scientology One of the OT III works has been placed on the web site http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/OTIII-sc http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/ Our clients have obtained numerous permanent injunctions concerning VIII. Unauthorized Use Of Federally Registered Trademarks RTC is also the owner of the trademarks and service marks of the Scientology religion. RTC's federally registered trademarks have also been placed on the "www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net" web site, without RTC's authorization as follows: 1. L. Ron Hubbard Signature which is registered with the United States Patent http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/ot/ot.gif 2. Scientology Cross which is registered with the United States Patent and http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/techniques/cross.jpg 3. Sea Org symbol which is registered with the United States Patent and http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/greece/Contract.gif Your subscriber's unauthorized use of RTC's trademarks creates a likelihood of These federally registered trademarks, are unique, distinctive and famous. Your Additionally, these same infringements have been removed immediately upon notice IX. Conclusion Based upon the foregoing we request that these infringements be removed We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. I have a good faith belief, and in fact know for certain, that the posting of I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is accurate and that I Sincerely,
Technology Center ("RTC"), non-profit religious corporations located in Los
Angeles, California, with respect to intellectual property matters. Our office
also represents the L. Ron Hubbard Library, the owner of the copyrights to
certain photographs and works of Mr. L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the
Scientology religion, and we represent Bridge Publications, Inc. ("BPI"),
exclusive licensee of the copyrights to the published works of the Scientology
religion, which includes numerous books and tapes and tape transcripts. In
addition, we represent Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization ("FSO"),
which owns the rights in various magazines and photographs.
hundreds of pages of copyrighted works and trademarks that belong to our
clients, on your web site without our clients' authorization. Thus, this
subscriber's actions in this regard not only violate United States copyright
law, but SBC Internet Services' own Terms of Service expressly prohibit such
conduct. Accordingly, we request that these infringements be removed
immediately.
page, we have broken them down into categories and numbered them as follows:
URL
forward
receiving a medal
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/b3.jpg
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/b3-b.jpg
Clearwater - the early years"
publications, the copyrights of which belong to our clients. Below is a detailed
description of the publication in which each of the photographs is contained in
the same order as listed above.
Description Issue Date
Page
Highwinds:
Magazine of the Sea Organization 19 199611
2.
Highwinds:
Magazine of the Sea Organization 19 199611
3.
Highwinds:
Magazine of the Sea Organization 19 199611
4.
Highwinds:
Magazine of the Sea Organization 19 199652
5.
Highwinds:
Magazine of the Sea Organization 19 199652
6.
Highwinds:
Magazine of the Sea Organization 19 199652
7.
Highwinds:
Magazine of the Sea Organization 19 199652
8.
Highwinds:
Magazine of the Sea Organization 19 199636
9. Impact: Magazine of the International
Association
of
Scientologists 39 1991 24
10. Impact: Magazine of the International
Association
of
Scientologists 39 1991 24
11. Impact: Magazine of the International
of Scientologists 19 1988 42
12. KSW News
24 1988 2
13. L. Ron
Hubbard -
A Profile 1995 116
Source: Magazine of the Flag Land Base 94 1994 18
Source: Magazine of the Flag Land Base 94 1994 18
Source: Magazine of the Flag Land Base 95 1995 16
Source: Magazine of the Flag Land Base 95 1995 16
Source: Magazine of the Flag Land Base 95 1995 2
19.
Source:
Magazine of the Flag Land Base 100 199641
20.
Source:
Magazine of the Flag Land Base 100 199641
21. Impact: Magazine of the International
Association
of
Scientologists 50 1993 33
22. KSW News
48 1996 2
23. KSW News
24 1988 3
24. Impact: Magazine of the International
Association
of
Scientologists 9 1986 32
25. L. Ron
Hubbard -
A Profile 1995 116
(Documents)
Nos. 26 - 39
URL
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/greece/seaorg2.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/greece/incomm1.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/greece/incomm2.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/greece/incomm3.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/grade_chart.html
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/disk/enemy/index.htm
Nos. 26 - 39
Registration Nbr
SO Orgs"
TXu 374-312
Messengers"
TXu 374-312
TXu 840-811
"Routine 3 - Heaven"
A 640105
RE 561-335
"Security Check Children"
TX 1-143-720
RE 438-055
"HCO WW Security Forms"
A 785007
TX 2-478-862
"Press Releases"
HCO Policy Letter of 21 Nov. 1972
"How to Handle Black Propaganda"
HCO Policy Letter of 25 February 1966
"Attacks on Scientology"
TX 2-251-232; TX 2-478-866, A
592-037; TX 2-646-306
"Targets, Defense"
TXu 598-760
Check Whole Track"
TX 1-159-379
1971RB "Tone Scale in Full"
TX 2-617-669
"Routine 3N - Line Plots"
TX 1-276-429
RE 561-211
1985 "INCOMM"
TX 2-325-017
Bridge
of
Knowledge," published in 1993, which contains the work "The
Dianetics
and
Scientology Materials Grade Chart."
Letter of
16
February 1969 "Enemy Names."
Nos. 40 - 56
URL
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/6b.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/11b.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/12.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/2.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/3.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/3b.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/4.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/5.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/6.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/7.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/7b.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/8.gif
Letter Reges"
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/8a.gif
Letter Reges"
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/8b.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/8c.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/10.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/10b.gif
Nos. 40 - 56
L. Ron Hubbard from 1976 through 1979 the copyrights of which belong to the
L. Ron Hubbard Library.
religion and the holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights applicable to
the Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced Technology materials are
confidential, unpublished, copyrighted works. RTC's works include, among others,
the individual works comprising a level known as "OT III" and another such level
known as "NOTs". These works are registered with the United States Copyright
Office under registration numbers: TXu 290-496 and TXu 257 326 and 257 527.
"www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net" in different formats and
languages on many separate locations, along with a substantial portion of one of
the NOTs works. These have been placed on SBC's web site without the
authorization of our client under the following URLs:
hola
r/ot3-
data-1.gif
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/bork.htm
l
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
leaf.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
-Letter.pdf
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
-A4.pdf
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
sw.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
sw.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
nl.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
nl.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
fr.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
fr.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
fi.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
fi.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
no.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
no.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
sp.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
sp.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
it.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
it.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
ge.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
ge.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
af.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
af.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
po.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
ru-w.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
ru-k.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
heb.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
heb.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
esp.htm
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
gr.doc
http://www.peerfear.org/wayback/2002/12/17/www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/
xenu
ro.htm
Internet infringements of this and similar works. For instance, in RTC v.
Lerma, Case No. Civil Action No. 95-1107-A, the court ruled in favor of RTC, permanently enjoining the defendant infringer from posting, on the Internet, the same OT III work that is the subject of this notice here. In May 1998, a jury in the United States District Court in San Jose, California assessed damages in the amount of $75,000 against a Mr. Henson for copyright infringement, for posting one of RTC's Advanced Technology works on the Internet. Mr. Henson was also permanently enjoined by the court against further infringements.
and Trademark Office under registration number 1,821,751
Trademark Office under registration numbers 1,012,452; 1,302,525 and 1,325,117.
Trademark Office under registration numbers 1,334,758; 1,326,867; 0,877,948;
1,317,343; as well as the Sea Horse symbol which is a trademark owned by RTC.
confusion as to source or sponsorship of this web page in violation of United
States state and federal law, including the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1015
et seq., in addition to violating international intellectual property laws.
subscriber's use of these marks dilutes and tarnishes the distinctiveness of the
marks by improper negative associations inconsistent with the positive and
spiritual accomplishments and humanitarian efforts of the Scientology religion
in violation of the federal trademark antidilution statute, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)
and California's antidilution statute. See, Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet
Entertainment Group, Inc., 34 F. Supp.2d 1145 (E.D. Mo. 1999); Mattel,
Inc. v. Internet Dimensions, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1620 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Deere &
Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2nd Cir. 1994).
by a number of internet service providers, including UUNet, Alta Vista and Sage
Networks.
immediately.
these works by your subscriber on his web page was not authorized by my clients,
any agent of my clients, or the law.
am authorized to act on behalf of RTC, BPI, the L. Ron Hubbard Library, FSO and
CSI in this matter.
[private]
Moxon & Kobrin
[private]
Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90010
Tel: (213)[private]
|
Question: What implication does alleged confusion have on claims of trademark infringement? Answer: A mark that is confusingly similar so closely resembles a registered trademark that it is likely to confuse consumers as to the source of the product or service. Consumers could be likely to believe that the product with the confusingly similar mark is produced by the organization that holds the registered mark. Someone who holds a confusingly similar mark benefits from the good will associated with the registered mark and can lure customers to his/her product or service instead. Infringement is determined by whether your mark is confusingly similar to a registered mark. The factors that determine infringement include:
Question: What are the limits of trademark rights? Answer: There are many limits, including:
Question: What is this laundry list of things the C&D says will happen if I don't obey?
Answer: Your opponent may describe a parade of horribles to demonstrate with exquisite detail what it will do to you unless you capitulate. This list generally includes, but is not limited to: Though these things sound awful, they are not medieval tortures (although that may be a function of the fact that Torquemada never thought of them). Ceasing use of the mark is self-explanatory: your opponent wants you to stop using the mark. Your opponent might also ask you to surrender your domain name if they believe the domain name causes (or is likely to cause) confusion with their trademark. For example, under ICANN rules (the UDRP), you may have to surrender your domain name if the following three conditions are satisfied: An accounting basically means that you disclose the following information to your opponent: Corrective advertising means you give notice to the public that you were using a mark confusingly similar to your opponent?s, and that you are not affiliated with your opponent. An injunction is a judicial order to do something. An injunction can prevent you from using the allegedly infringing trademark. Some provisions of the Lanham Act permit a trademark holder to recover attorney?s fees and court costs from an infringer. That your opponent has listed these various remedies does not mean that it is entitled to them; do not confuse the smorgasbord of legal options with your opponent?s right to inflict any of them on you. Question: What are the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions?
Answer: In 1998, Congress passed the On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) in an effort to protect service providers on the Internet from liability for the activities of its users. Codified as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), this new law exempts on-line service providers that meet the criteria set forth in the safe harbor provisions from claims of copyright infringement made against them that result from the conduct of their customers. These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. If a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer are liable for monetary damages; the service provider's network through which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable. Question: What are the possible penalties for copyright infringement?
Answer: Under the Copyright Act, penalties for copyright infringement can include:
A copyright owner can only sue for infringement on a work whose copyright was registered with the Copyright Office, and can get statutory damages and attorney's fees only if the copyright registration was filed before infringement or within three months of first publication. (17 U.S.C. 411 and 412) Question: How can I find out whether a work has a registered copyright? Answer: Works are copyrighted as soon as they are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," but some legal rights and remedies are available only if the work's copyright is registered. To find a copyright registration, you may search copyright records at the Copyright Office website, but be aware that not finding a match does not mean the work is uncopyrighted. Question: What defines a service provider under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?
Answer: A service provider is defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof." [512(k)(1)(A-B)] This broad definition includes network services companies such as Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, bulletin board system operators, and even auction web sites. In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc., the court refused to extend the safe harbor provisions to the Napster software program and service, leaving open the question of whether peer-to-peer networks also qualify for safe harbor protection under Section 512. There are four major categories of network systems offered by service providers that qualify for protection under the safe harbor provisions:
Question: Is all copying piracy?
Answer: No. Copyright gives the owner exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, publicly distribute, perform and display their work. Nonetheless, the law allows "fair use" of copyrighted material. Fair use permits, in certain circumstances, the use or copying of all or a portion of a copyrighted work without the permission of the owner. Copyrighted works may be used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider, in part: Courts balance these factors, placing an emphasis on the fourth, however rulings have been unpredictable. Parody may be protected by fair use where the user is actually making a comment on or criticism of the copyrighted material, even if a profit is made from the use. Still, distributing copyrighted software will rarely be fair use because people will use those copies instead of buying the software from the legitimate vendor. Question: Does a copyright owner have to specify the exact materials it alleges are infringing?
Answer: Proper notice under the safe harbor provisions requires the copyright owners to specifically identify the alleged infringing materials, or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, to specifically identify the links to the alleged infringing materials. [512(c)(3)(iii)], [512(d)(3)]. The provisions also require the copyright owners to identify the copyrighted work, or a representative list of the copyrighted works, that is claimed to be infringed. [512(c)(3)(A)(ii)]. Rather than simply sending a letter to the service provider that claims that infringing material exists on their system, these qualifications ensure that service providers are given a reasonable amount of information to locate the infringing materials and to effectively police their networks. [512(c)(3)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(3)]. However, in the recent case of ALS Scan, Inc. v. Remarq Communities, Inc., the court found that the copyright owner did not have to point out all of the infringing material, but only substantially all of the material. The relaxation of this specificity requirement shifts the burden of identifying the material to the service provider, raising the question of the extent to which a service provider must search through its system. OSP customers should note that this situation might encourage OSP's to err on the side of removing allegedly infringing material. Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?
Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:
Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed. Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?
Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)] A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:
If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the person harmed for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)] See also How do I file a DMCA counter-notice?, and the counter-notification generator. Question: What rights are protected by copyright law? Answer: The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative work by granting a temporary monopoly in an author's original creations. This monopoly takes the form of six rights in areas where the author retains exclusive control. These rights are: (1) the right of reproduction (i.e., copying), The law of copyright protects the first two rights in both private and public contexts, whereas an author can only restrict the last four rights in the public sphere. Claims of infringement must show that the defendant exercised one of these rights. For example, if I create unauthorized videotape copies of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and distribute them to strangers on the street, then I have infringed both the copyright holder's rights of reproduction and distribution. If I merely re-enact The Wrath of Khan for my family in my home, then I have not infringed on the copyright. Names, ideas and facts are not protected by copyright. Trademark law, in contrast, is designed to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of goods (as well as to protect the trademark owner's market). To this end, the law gives the owner of a registered trademark the right to use the mark in commerce without confusion. If someone introduces a trademark into the market that is likely to cause confusion, then the newer mark infringes on the older one. The laws of trademark infringement and dilution protect against this likelihood of confusion. Trademark protects names, images and short phrases. Infringement protects against confusion about the origin of goods. The plaintiff in an infringement suit must show that defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause such a confusion. For instance, if I were an unscrupulous manufacturer, I might attempt to capitalize on the fame of Star Trek by creating a line of 'Spock Activewear.' If consumers could reasonably believe that my activewear was produced or endorsed by the owners of the Spock trademark, then I would be liable for infringement. The law of trademark dilution protects against confusion concerning the character of a registered trademark. Suppose I created a semi-automatic assault rifle and marketed it as 'The Lt. Uhura 5000.' Even if consumers could not reasonably believe that the Star Trek trademark holders produced this firearm, the trademark holders could claim that my use of their mark harmed the family-oriented character of their mark. I would be liable for dilution. Question: What exactly are the rights a trademark owner has? Answer: In the US, trademark rights come from actual use of the mark to label one's services or products or they come from filing an application with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that states an intention to use the mark in future commerce. In most foreign countries, trademarks are valid only upon registration. There are two trademark rights: the right to use (or authorize use) and the right to register. The person who establishes priority rights in a mark gains the exclusive right to use it to label or identify their goods or services, and to authorize others to do so. According to the Lanham Act, determining who has priority rights in a mark involves establishing who was the first to use it to identify his/her goods. The PTO determines who has the right to register the mark. Someone who registers a trademark with the intent to use it gains "constructive use" when he/she begins using it, which entitles him/her to nationwide priority in the mark. However, if two users claim ownership of the same mark (or similar marks) at the same time, and neither has registered it, a court must decide who has the right to the mark. The court can issue an injunction (a ruling that requires other people to stop using the mark) or award damages if people other than the owner use the trademark (infringement). Trademark owners do not acquire the exclusive ownership of words. They only obtain the right to use the mark in commerce and to prevent competitors in the same line of goods or services from using a confusingly similar mark. The same word can therefore be trademarked by different producers to label different kinds of goods. Examples are Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets. Owners of famous marks have broader rights to use their marks than do owners of less-well-known marks. They can prevent uses of their marks by others on goods that do not even compete with the famous product. Question: What is a trade secret? Answer: A trade secret is business information that is the subject of reasonable efforts to preserve confidentiality and has value because it is not generally known in the trade. Such confidential information will be protected against those who obtain access through improper methods or by breach of confidence. Infringement on a trade secret is a tort and a type of unfair competition. Every alleged infringement of a trade secret involves two main issues: (1) whether there is valuable and secret business information; and (2) whether this defendant used improper means to obtain that information. Question: What is the difference between a trademark and a service mark? Answer: Trademarks refer to goods and products, that is, physical commodities which may be natural or manufactured or produced, and which are sold or otherwise transported or distributed. Service marks refer to intangible activities which are performed by one person for the benefit of a person or persons other than himself, either for pay or otherwise. Because the legal rights are essentially the same, the term "trademark" is frequently used to refer to both types of marks. To learn about other types of marks, see Chapter 100 of the USPTO's Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure. To tell whether something is a good or a service, see 37 C.F.R. ?6.1. Question: Where can I find federal trademark registrations? Answer: The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) keeps the US federal registry of trademarks. It has an online search capability, TESS, which contains more than 3 million pending, registered and dead federal trademarks. This database may not be complete. One should check the News page to see how current the information actually is. Be aware: not all trademarks are contained in the US federal register. There are state trademarks, unregistered (common law marks) and foreign marks as well. A mark does not have to be registered to be valid. Question: Where can I find state trademark law? Answer: Each state has its own laws governing use of trademarks within its borders. To locate the trademark laws of the 50 states, use the Legal Information Institute links. Both legislation and court opinions create trademark rights and remedies. If marks are used in interstate commerce, then federal law will also apply. Question: Where can I find federal trademark law? Answer: To be protected by federal trademark law, the marked goods and services must be used in interstate commerce. Federal trademark law is known as the Lanham Act. It protects marks that are registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office as well as those that are in use but never registered. Court opinions and United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) regulations also interpret trademark rights and remedies. See the links to court sites provided by the Legal Information Insitute. Question: What does "distinctive" mean? Answer: "Distinctive" is a term of art in trademark law and is determined by analyzing several factors. Essentially, a mark is distinctive when the consumers have come to recognize it as the source or origin of certain goods or services. Take the word "bronco": consumers recognize it as a brand of automobile; therefore it is distinctive as to automobiles. But it is not distinctive as to horses, where it would be generic, nor as to baby diapers since there is no one offering such goods under that label. Some words can never become distinctive as marks if they generically describe the very good or service for which they are used (i.e., one cannot trademark the word "basketball" to describe a brand of basketballs.) In general, if a word has been in substantially exclusive and continuous use as a mark in commerce for five years, it will be deemed distinctive as to those goods/services 15 USC 1052(f). Question: How do I know which marks are famous and what difference does it make? Answer: Owners of "famous" marks have special privileges. They can block new uses of any similar name even if consumers wouldn't be confused by it. They are protected against "dilution" and "tarnishment" as well. If you walk up to someone on the street and ask someone if they recognize the word or symbol, and they recognize it right away, it is probably famous. If you have to remind them ("The Berkman Center is this crazy thing at Harvard |
|
|