It’s playoff season in Canada, and some hockey fans cheer when the players brawl. The good folks at UFC have simplified things by doing away with the hockey and all the other distractions, and just giving the fans what they want: big guys hitting each other. 

A Kelowna, BC, man registered the domain name ULTIMATEFIGHTINGCHAMPIONSHIPS.CA and seven other variations using the .US, .INFO and .BIZ extensions.  Zuffa LLC, the company that owns the UFC trade-marks, approached the registrant with an offer to settle. When the man refused, Zuffa filed a complaint under the CDRP – the dot-ca dispute resolution procedure. In the recent decision in Zuffa LLC v David Bruce [PDF], the panelist had to decide if the domain name had been registered “in bad faith” which is typically one of the more difficult elements to prove. 

In this case, the registrant had admitted in email correspondence with Zuffa that he hoped to make a great deal of money from the registrations, that he was well aware of the UFC brand, and he had registered other offending domain names. The panelist had no trouble concluding that this qualified as “bad faith”.  The domain name was ordered transferred to the trade-mark owner.  That’s one down, seven to go. 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

As a follow-up to our earlier post (To hack or not to hack…), here’s a reason NOT to hack. Evony LLC, a maker of multi-player online games, has successfully sued Philip Holland, a “botter” who had developed a task automator for one of Evony’s games. By circumventing the copy protection measures in one of Evony’s titles, Mr. Holland developed a bot that automatically completed tasks and effectively played the game for players.

In Evony, LLC v. Holland, Dist. Court, WD Pennsylvania 2011  the company obtained a permanent injunction, an order for impoundment and destruction of copies of the game and bots, as well as damages of $300,000, plus lawyers’ fees, costs and interest.  The judgement came so swiftly (they only filed their claim in January 2011) because Mr. Holland failed to file a defence. The case was based, in part, on breach of Evony’s Terms of Use.

Related Reading: our post on a World of Warcraft botter: Apps, Bots and Workarounds – Part 1

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

 

For Canadians who are following the copyright reform story, here are are a few updates:

• Bill C-32 (the hotly debated proposal for amendments to the Copyright Act) has now died on the vine. When the government was defeated and Parliament was dissolved, all pending legislation fell off the order paper, including Bill C-32. The next Parliament is likely to take this issue up, but the timing and approach will depend on who forms government. 
• While legislative reform idles, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is carrying on.  The SCC has agreed to hear several major cases that will impact copyright law in Canada.
• First the appeal in Entertainment Software Association (ESAC) et al. v. Society of Composers and Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) will address the use of music in video games. SOCAN (the organization responsible for collecting copyright royalties) asserts that royalties should apply to video games that incorporate copyright-protected music
• Another SOCAN case is Rogers Communications Inc. v. SOCAN, and will also deal with royalties applicable to online music sales. 
• A third SOCAN case (SOCAN v. Bell Canada ) will also be heard, dealing with the interpretation of the word “research” and whether 30-second song previews qualify as “fair dealing” for the purpose of the research and private study exception under the Copyright Act.

Related Event: Copyright Reform is Dead…. Long Live Copyright Reform!! For details and registration, please see the invitation.

Photo Credit: Renjith Krishnan

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

That is the business question for many in the software industry, including Microsoft, Sony and Twitter.

Software companies have to consider whether to embrace the hacking (…or shall we say “custom development”) culture of their customers, or gird for battle against the hackers. Mashable’s interesting article (Xbox Kinect vs. Sony PS3: How 2 Companies Handle Hacking) reviews the different approach taken by Microsoft which is (uncharacteristically) opening up its popular Kinect gaming console, and Sony which is suing customers who hack into PlayStation 3 [Link to Sony’s Complaint against hacker George Hotz is here 1MB PDF ].  Big old multinationals like Microsoft and Sony aren’t the only ones who have to face this question. New technology upstarts like Twitter are also wrestling with the problem: Twitter recently told developers to back off, after complaints of privacy violations and fragmented user experience. Companies offering software of any kind are finding that customers – both individual consumers and corporate users – are accessing the code, unlocking, jaibreaking and building their own functionality, whether or not the vendor has approved this.  My recent article on Software Licensing in 2011 [PDF] reviews the issues for software vendors.

Related Reading: Apps, Bots and Workarounds

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

We’ve all agreed to releases and waivers. We do it on paper, before bungee jumping, skiing or attending a kids’ birthday party. Or we agree online, before booking an event, ordering a product or downloading software. This is the fine print that essentially says that the operator or vendor has no liability or limited liability for any injury, damages or loss. Do these hold up in court?

In a recent case (Loychuk v. Cougar Mountain Adventures Ltd., 2011 BCSC 193) the BC Supreme Court had to consider this question in connection with an injury from ziplining. Prior to booking the activity online, the participants were advised on the website that a waiver of liability was required in order to participate in the activity. It was a one-pager entitled “RELEASE OF LIABILITY, WAIVER OF CLAIMS AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK AGREEMENT”. The participants signed a paper copy of the release before ziplining, and an injury occurred. The court dismissed the personal injury lawsuit on the basis of the release, confirming a long line of cases upholding such clauses.

Vendors and operators who wish to make use of such clauses in their online agreements should take care in drafting and implementing the terms. 

 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

Answer: Forum Selection.  The concept of “forum selection” can be summed up as follows: where 2 parties are entering into a contract and they are located in different jurisdictions (different countries, provinces or states), then they can choose the “forum” or the location where their disputes will be settled. This choice usually covers both law and location – for example, the law of Alberta and the courts located in Calgary. Or the law of B.C. and arbitration in Vancouver. These clauses are also referred to as “mandatory jurisdiction” or “choice of law” clauses. There are subtle differences between them, but generally they all serve the same purpose.  As an online consumer, you may have agreed to be bound by the laws of Washington State (Microsoft), California (Apple) and Ontario (BlackBerry).

In the US, forum selection clauses are respected by the courts: a recent decision (Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2011) upheld the provisions of the Second Life online user agreement, confirming California as the proper venue pursuant to the forum selection clause.

In Canada, courts will generally hold the parties to their contract, which includes their choice of law and forum. So these clauses will be upheld, unless there is “strong cause” or convincing evidence to satisfy the court there is a really good reason not to uphold the forum selection clause. Sounds a bit circular – (courts will uphold the clause…unless they won’t) – but this gives Canadian courts the flexibility to weigh the surrounding circumstances. In the recent case of Hudye Farms Inc. V. Canadian Wheat Board, 2011 SKQB 29 (CanLII), an online sign-up process for a Canadian Wheat Board grain-handling contract incorporated certain standard terms. These standard terms specified that disputes would be governed by the courts of Manitoba and the application of Manitoba law.  Although no-one actually signed those terms, the court agreed that they were binding on the parties through a series of agreements and click-through screens.  The clause was upheld, and the lawsuit transferred to Manitoba.

Related Reading: E-Commerce & Internet Jurisdiction

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

What do you get when you photograph someone else’s photograph? German photographer Michael Wolf received honorable mention in this year’s World Press Photo Contest for a series of images from Google Street View. He scrolled / strolled through Street View in different cities, and photographed scenes that he came upon. Let’s leave aside the question of whether this qualifies as art or photojournalism (maybe it’s both), and look at the copyright issue. Can a photograph of another image be protected by copyright or is it an infringement of the copyright in the original work?

The Quebec Superior Court in Ateliers Tango Argentin Inc. v. Festival d’Espagne et d’Amerique Latine Inc., (1997), 84 C. P. R. (3d) 56, dealt with a staged reproduction of a photo, rather than a photo of a photo. In that case, the defendant reproduced a photograph – same location, same angle, same layout of the same subject matter. The court decided that this infringed the copyright in the original photograph. Applying this reasoning, a photo of a photo could easily be an infringement.

In a 1999 US case, the court considered whether a copy of a photograph of a painting would infringe copyright.  Someone had taken photos that were exact replicas of paintings.  Copyright in the paintings had already expired at the time the photos were taken. The court decided that the photos are not themselves protected by copyright because they lack originality – an essential ingredient of copyright. So, copying those photos was not an infringement of copyright: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

The image above? It’s not one of Mr. Wolf’s works – this one is my own image, snapped from Google Street View, right outside Field’s Calgary office. (If you look closely, you can see Google’s copyright notation on Calgary’s summer sky.)

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

Is the use of a competitor’s name in keyword advertising considered trade-mark infringement? 

The short answer is that in Canada, we still don’t know. The closest decision we have is from a recent lawsuit which deals with competing career colleges in Vancouver. Vancouver Career College (VCC) had an aggressive policy of buying up the keywords of competitors. In Private Career Training Institutions Agency v. Vancouver Career College (Burnaby) Inc., 2011 BCCA 69, the BC Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision  that the keyword advertising program of VCC was not misleading advertising.  Unfortunately, this is not a trade-mark decision, so it provides little guidance on the topic for business, since the lawsuit involved interpretation of a subsection of the BC Private Career Training Institutions Act.  Here, in deciding that consumers were not likely to be deceived, the court noted that the nature of the “product” will be relevant. Consumers spending several thousand dollars on career training courses are not likely to make snap decisions based on sponsored links; they are more likely to weigh their options carefully after going through a lengthy review and admissions application procedure. 

We still have to wait for a decision based in Canadian trade-mark law to provide useful business guidance in this area.

Related Reading:

• Google Adwords Update (from the IP Group at Field Law) 
• Google AdWords: Can’t Beat ‘Em?

US Update:

• Google Suffers Surprising Preliminary Loss in Keyword Advertising Case–Jurin v. Google  

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

A reminder: The Annual TEC VenturePrize Business Plan Competition is still open. The submission deadline for registration for the VenturePrize Fast Growth Competition is February 24, 2011, 4:00 p.m.

Field Law is a proud sponsor. See this link for details.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

We have compiled a few recent open-source software (OSS) stories:

• GPL in the App Store: A recent article on ZDNet reviews the differences in treatment of apps subject to the General Public License (GPL) in Apple’s App Store compared with Google’s Android Market. It argues that Apple’s closed system is incompatible with the GPL and so apps built from open-source kernels can’t be sold through Apple’s store, whereas the Google marketplace is compatible with GPL-licensed apps. When Apple pulled the VLC player last year, OSS enthusiasts complained that iPhone users would be deprived of OSS apps like GNU Go and the VLC media player (See: App Law Update – Part 2: Breach of GPL).  However, it’s worth remembering that the apps were pulled because of complaints from the OSS community, who levelled copyright infringement allegations at Apple. It was in response to those complaints that the apps were pulled.  It should be noted that the GPL is merely one of many species of OSS licenses, and other forms of OSS license will not necessarily be incompatible with Apple’s App Store terms.
• OSS and M&A: Lexology has a review of the OSS issues to consider in the context of mergers and acquisitions. In particular, when buying IT assets, business owners should work closely with legal counsel to review the software issues and the risks, and arrive at a practical way of mitigating those risks. Depending on the scope of the transaction, this may involve everything from simple representations and disclosure schedules in the asset purchase agreement, to detailed code-reviews by technical advisors. A “fear” of OSS need not kill an otherwise sensible transaction, as this article points out.
• Enforceability of the GPL: This story from the UK articulates an interesting argument about the enforceability of the GPL. It’s worth a read.

 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

Here is the last case in our trio:

MLS Database – As a follow-up to our earlier post ( Data Mining Decision), you may recall the story of a real estate broker who tried to repackage the MLS listings controlled by the Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB).  The TREB controls the database for residential resale listings (the MLS database) for its approximately 25,000 member real estate agents and brokers.  Fraser Beach was one such broker who developed a workaround to pull the data from TREB’s database, and then redisplay it to the public through his own site.  The TREB cut off his access and Mr. Beach sued the TREB. The court agreed that the TREB was justified in terminating access since this “end-run” violated the authorized use terms that Mr. Beach had agreed to as a member of the TREB. In Fraser Beach v. Toronto Real Estate Board, 2010 ONCA 883, decided in December 2010, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld this decision. 

Lessons for business? The TREB’s well-drafted Authorized User Agreement specified that use of the database was permitted “for the purposes expressly specified in this Agreement and for the exclusive and internal use by Authorized User“. This was critical to the court’s conclusion that Mr. Beach’s use was a violation of these terms. Companies in the business of licensing database access should take care to have their licenses and authorized use terms reviewed to keep up with technological advances and new methods of obtaining unauthorized access to the data.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

Here is the next case in our trio:

BlackBerry – Consider the problems faced by Canada’s world-leader in mobile devices. You open an app store to compete with Apple, so the little guys can develop interesting apps. The problem is, little guys keep developing interesting apps. In Research in Motion Ltd. v Kik Interactive Inc. [Statement of Claim available here], filed in November, RIM sued Kik, an upstart messaging service that had grown wildly popular in the previous several weeks (over 2 million Kik users reportedly signed up within the space of a month). In its suit, RIM alleges patent and trade-mark infringement as well as misuse of confidential information – (the principal of Kik is a former employee of RIM) – and privacy violations.  This shows the difficulty of controlling ex-employees and independent developers, and RIM is not alone. Apple has booted apps that mimic its own core services or threaten the bottom-line (most famously, Google’s VOIP apps). 

Moving to India, RIM faces another challenge in the form of Bharatberry, an app created by an independent Indian developer that provides an “India-compliant solution to the existing users of the BlackBerry® service in India”, and appears to piggy-back on BlackBerry hardware to run a parallel email and messaging service through its own servers, rather than through RIM servers.  This service was developed in the wake of concerns that the BlackBerry service would be disrupted in India if RIM did not solve the Indian government’s demands to have access to RIM’s encrypted e-mail traffic.

 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

We’ll review a trio of cases that illustrate the line drawn by the law when software users try to do an end-run around a software owner:

World of Warcraft (WoW) – Blizzard is the publisher of the popular WoW multiplayer game. MDY sold an autopilot bot marketed as “Glider“ that automatically played the lower levels of WoW, to enable a player to graduate to higher levels and earn points.  In a fascinating case (MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment), Blizzard sued MDY for sales of this “Glider” bot. In the course of the cat-and-mouse tactics between Blizzard and MDY, Blizzard prohibited the use of bots in its Terms of Use, and then deployed bot-detection software to block Glider-users. The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that the antibot provisions were covenants rather than conditions. “A Glider user violates the covenants with Blizzard, but does not thereby commit copyright infringement because Glider does not infringe any of Blizzard’s exclusive rights. For instance, the use does not alter or copy WoW software.” Thus, Blizzard failed in its copyright claims. 

However, the court decided that MDY was liable for a DMCA violation with respect to WoW’s “dynamic non-literal elements”. The term “dynamic non-literal elements” refers to the copyright-protected elements of the game other than the written code that are created in the course of dynamic play by user. The court upheld the permanent injunction against MDY.

Lessons for business? In Canada, we don’t have an equivalent of the DMCA, though the proposed changes to the Canadian Copyright Act contain anti-circumvention rules of the type that caught MDY in the WoW case. Software publishers and vendors should ensure that their end-user terms or acceptable use policies are well-drafted and up-to-date to guard against this type of indirect access. This may not allow a software vendor to access copyright infringement remedies, but will provide a contractual remedy.

Cases 2 and 3 up next. 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

.

Thanks 2010, intellectual property and internet law had an interesting ride. Here are a few issues to watch in 2011:

Canadian Copyright Reform and Anti-Spam Law:  Around this time last year, we predicted that copyright reform wouldn’t come to Canada until 2011 at the earliest. So far that appears to be holding true. However, Canada did make headway in the anti-spam department, with the passing of the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act (hardly a poetic name, but we’ll take what we can get from Ottawa).  Canada’s anti-spam legislation received royal assent on December 15, 2010.  Meanwhile, the Canadian copyright reform bill was introduced in 2010 and the debate will continue when Parliament resumes at the end of January.

And the courts continue to tackle copyright issues piece by piece. News came in late December that a copyright “fair dealing” case will be going to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2011 (SOCAN v Bell).

Clean Tech Law: 2011 may prove to be a break-out year for Canadian Clean Tech companies, as private investment and government incentives provide a boost to companies in this technology-intense sector.  The law surrounding the uses, protection and licensing of clean technologies in Canada will gain traction in 2011.

App Law: This fascinating area of law shows no signs of slowing, as app developers continue to push the boundaries in their use of copyright materials, trade-marks and personal information of consumers, as the technology gallops forward. In December another iPhone-related class action suit was announced, naming Apple and a number of app developers as defendants (Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al, case 5:10-cv-05878).

Business Method Patents: We predicted that some clarity would come out of the Bilski review (in the US) and the Amazon 1-click patent (in Canada). In the US, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Bilski review, generally upholding the lower court decision, but cautioning that the machine-or-transformation test is not the only patentability test to be applied.  In Canada, the decision in October in the Amazon case upheld the patentability of business method patents, but the waters were immediately muddied again, when it was announced in November that the decision was being appealed (See: Amazon Business Method Case to be Appealed).

Calgary – 07:00 MST

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is currently considering its verdict in the long-running case of Crookes v Newton The BC Court of Appeal’s 2009 decision (in Crookes v. Newton 2009 BCCA 392) held that Mr. Newton was not liable for hyperlinks to defamatory content. In short, if a person merely hyperlinks to a defamatory site, that act alone does not make that person a “publisher” of the defamatory material found at the hyperlinked site.  Mr. Crookes appealed that decision to the SCC. Oral arguments in the case were heard this week, and a decision is expected soon. With luck, the ruling will clarify the law on liability for hyperlinks – something that has far-reaching consequences for use of the internet in Canada.

Related Reading:

Can you be anonymous online in Canada?

Is a Website Operator Liable for User Comments?

Defamation Update: Hyperlink Is Not Publication

Online Defamation Update: Doctrine of “presumed publication”

Calgary – 10:00 MST

Maybe you’ve heard of patent trolls – companies who own a patent or two, but don’t actually manufacture or sell any products. When they see that another company has become independently successful, they pounce, alleging patent infringement and millions of dollars in damages. The famous case of NTP v Research in Motion is the classic example.

Well, now we’re looking down the barrel of copyright trolls: advances in technology and litigation have combined to create ideal conditions for the modern copyright troll. In the US, copyright holding company Righthaven LLC, acquired copyrights to newspaper content originally published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, a Nevada newspaper.  Sophisticated software can search the internet for instances that might qualify as copyright infringement. Righthaven has since filed over 100 copyright infringement lawsuits in the US.

The approach seems to be gaining traction: a Las Vegas federal judge recently ruled that Righthaven had standing to sue for copyright infringement even though the company didn’t own the copyright at the time the alleged infringement occurred.

In Canadian news, proposed Copyright Reform legislation (Bill C-32) is headed back to committee, as Parliament resumes for the fall.  If the progress of legislation is not halted (again) by an election, then the committee deliberations promise to be contentious as each party jockeys for position on the politics of copyright.

Calgary -10 MT

 

A television production company noticed that audio-clips from its popular TV show were being used in a new iPhone app called “Chopper Soundboard”. (Follow-up story here) While this was an Australian company, the issue is also a common one in both Canada and the US, as owners of copyright content notice that iPhone and iPad developers will “borrow” content – images, video, audio – for use in their apps.

For the copyright owner, the practical question is usually resolved when the app is removed from the iTunes store. A relatively easy remedy, but one that does not address the copyright issues.

The main legal question – which has not yet been settled in court – is who has responsibility for the infringement?  Copyright owners have launched litigation against Apple (for example, the Australian production company Jigsaw Entertainment has made noises about a lawsuit against Apple; photographer Louie Psihoyos has sued Apple in the US for copyright infringement arising out of an iPhone app), and largely left the developers out of their cross-hairs.  However, the Agreement that developers sign with Apple is clear that developers take on the liability in the event their app infringes someone else’s copyright.

Developers: Be aware of the scope of your liability with Apple, and review the agreements with your own customers. Take care when collecting content for your app. Original or properly-licensed content will reduce risks of future copyright issues.

Copyright owners: If content is being used without authorization, get advice on the options you have for remedies under the Copyright Act.

Calgary – 11:30 MT

 

ipblog.ca will be taking a break over the summer. We’ll be back in the Fall to pick up developments such as:

• Canadian Copyright Reform (with Parliament breaking for the summer, there will be no further Parliamentary debate on Bill C-32 until September);
• The US Supreme Court’s decision in the Bilski case (relating to patentability of business methods and software);
• Changes to the Canadian rules in assessing patentability for “computer-implemented inventions”;
• The Canadian Intellectual Property Office’s plans to expedite the examination of so-called “green technology” patent applications;
• Developments in licensing, trade-marks, internet law and trade-secret law.

Have a good summer. 

Calgary – 09:00 MT

 

The Canadian government has introduced the next version of its long-awaited and much-debated copyright reform bill (Bill C-32, the Copyright Modernization Act). Here are a few interesting highlights:

• Format & Time Shifting: (Sections 29.22 and 29.23) The new law would allow consumers to “format shift” music from commercial CDs to hard-drives, iPods or other devices. It would also permit “time shifting” of TV programs. However, this right does not override the anti-circumvention restrictions. Put another way, if you have to crack a digital lock in order to make the shift, then you can’t legally shift. 
• Back-Ups:  (Section 29.24) The proposed law allows users to make backup copies, but again, this right is subject to the anti-circumvention restrictions. It’s hard to find a commercial DVD now that doesn’t have digital locks, which means that in practical terms, any back-ups of personal DVDs would have to break a lock, would violate the anti-circumvention restrictions, and would thus be prohibited under the new law.
• Software Interoperability: (Sections 30.61 and 41.12) Interestingly, the anti-circumvention rules do not apply if you want to circumvent a digital lock on software, “for the sole purpose of obtaining information that would allow the person to make the program and any other computer program interoperable”.  This need not be for personal use… so does this mean that competitors can legally hack each other’s code for the sake of interoperability?
• The YouTube Exception: (Section 29.21) There is an interesting exception for “Non-commercial User-generated Content”. Basically, if you construct a mash-up using bits of copyright-protected material, then this kind of creation will not infringe copyright, as long as it is for personal use and doesn’t have a “substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work”.   
• ISP Liability? (Section 27(2.3)) This new section might be called the Anti-Napster provision since it makes clear that copyright will be infringed by anyone who provides an Internet service that is designed “primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement”.  This raises the question of the liability of Internet Service Providers, though some language has been sprinkled in to provide comfort to ISPs. 

Before it becomes law, it must pass through Parliament and withstand any lobbying efforts by industry and consumers.

Calgary – 14:30 MT

When can an internet user remain anonymous?  It depends….

As an update to our recent post about Mosher v. Coast Publishing Ltd., 2010 NSSC 153 (where the identity of anonymous comment-writers was ordered to be disclosed), the recent decision in Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier, [2010] ONSC 2126 (S.C.J.), took an opposite view. 

The recent Wilkins-Fournier decision was an appeal of an earlier decision (See: Online Defamation Update) in which the court ordered the disclosure of all personal information, including name, email and IP address, of eight anonymous posters in a defamation case.  In this new decision, the court reviewed privacy rights and freedom of expression issues, and overturned the disclosure order.  The court indicated that disclosure should not be automatic, and the plaintiff must first demonstrate a prima facie case of defamation before the disclosure of personal identities is ordered.  Interestingly, the court compared this situation to the one in BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe, where the recording industry sought the disclosure of anonymous alleged copyright infringers. 

Calgary – 09:00 MT