Copyright Corner

Here are some intellectual property issues and news items that have caught my eye recently and that may be of interest to the university community:

TIGAR—Accessible Print Formats Internationally

Coincidentally, just before the Digital Media Collective program on Rights for the Disabled and Copyright (Thompson Library 150 A&B, Nov. 9, 11:00 a.m.) comes news from the World Intellectual Property Organization of an initiative that the organization correctly calls “unprecedented.” TIGAR, the trusted intermediary global accessible resources project, will help publishers make book titles available to the visually impaired and print disabled.  The intermediaries will convert the books to accessible formats and distribute them to each other and to specialized libraries.  TIGAR will also provide tools for searching for books in these formats.

Since only a small percentage of the books published in the world are available in accessible formats, this is a great step forward internationally.

Dancing Baby Continues

In 20007, Stephanie Lenz put up a video on YouTube and received a takedown notice.  University Music Group claimed that the 30-second video, which showed her baby son dancing with Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” playing in the background, violated copyright law.  Claiming fair use, Lenz filed suit with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).  She is asking for a declaratory judgment that she has not violated copyright, and also for an injunction and damages.  Most recently, both sides have filed motions for summary judgment.

The EFF has a web page charting the progress of the suit.  Lenz v. Universal is of interest to anyone who is dealing with fair use and social media.

Unexpected Brief from the DOJ in Human Gene Patents Appeal

This spring, in a surprising decision, a federal court ruled that patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were illegal.  Mutations of these two genes are responsible for most hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, and the company that holds these patents has had a monopoly on the diagnostic tests on those genes.

Now the case is being heard on appeal, and the Department of Justice has weighed in with an amicus brief, arguing that it takes more to patent a gene than identifying it—“A product of nature is not transformed into a human-made invention merely by isolating it.”  Although the Department of Justice does not govern the actions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the brief does not argue against all gene patents, many wonder if it  signals a change in governmental attitudes on the subject.

Pre-1972 Sound Recordings

In the U.S. sound recordings made before 1972 are not governed by federal copyright law, but instead are subject to a variety of state laws that the U.S. Copyright Office calls “a patchwork.”  Under the current law, this situation is not due to be rectified until 2067.  Digitization of these recordings is difficult, because clearing rights is extremely complicated.  Now the U.S. Copyright Office is asking for comments on “the desirability and means of bringing sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, under federal jurisdiction.”