We recently wrote about a case in the Southern District of New York against Mashable relating to the embedding of content from social media platforms like Instagram. In that case, the court held that Instagram’s terms of use (which were accepted by the plaintiff, a photographer, when he created an Instagram account) were insufficiently clear
Pfizer and BioNTech recently asked the Southern District of California to dismiss a patent infringement claim from Allele Biotechnology related to Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine.
Allele holds a patent for a fluorescent protein called mNeonGreen, which causes some cells to glow when exposed to certain kinds of light. Allele does not claim that mNeonGreen
A recent case in the Southern District of New York calls into serious question the ubiquitous practice of embedding photographs on a content creator’s website.
An embedded photo is one that is not hosted on the website’s own server, but instead is linked to a third-party server like a social media site. Instead of the photo being permanently available on the website, the website pulls the photo from the third-party site live when the website is accessed by a user. Platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok make it extremely easy for websites to embed user posts, and provide website designers with tools specifically meant to make embedding seamless for the user.
In a recent case (Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC, 1:18-cv-00790, S.D.N.Y.), a professional photographer posted a photo to Instagram that was later embedded by Mashable in an article on its website. In its original ruling, the court held that Instagram’s terms of service (which every user, including Sinclair, accepts when signing up) permitted the embedding on links on third party websites. The court ruled that Instagram had the right to relicense Sinclair’s image to Mashable, and granted Mashable a dismissal of Sinclair’s claims.
Continue Reading Recent Case Demonstrates the Need for Caution When Embedding Links to Social Media Posts
Nearly unnoticed in the wrangling over the amount of COVID relief payments, the stimulus bill signed into law on December 27, 2020 also included several interesting intellectual property provisions. Buried thousands of pages into the bill, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019 (the “CASE Act”) establishes a small claims court-type system under the U.S. Copyright Office for copyright holders to pursue low-value claims of copyright violations.
As it stands now, copyright infringement litigation is time-consuming and expensive, especially for small copyright holders. Copyright infringement is rife on social media, leaving content creators with few options short of hiring a lawyer, sending cease-and-desist letters, and filing lawsuits. The attorney’s fees for such litigation can easily exceed the recovery for copyright infringement, leaving the content creator at a serious disadvantage.
Continue Reading COVID-19 Stimulus Bill also Includes Little-known Provision Creating New Streamlined Tribunal for Copyright Infringement Claims
With live events cancelled during the pandemic, content creators are increasingly dependent on merchandise sales. Creators from podcasters to YouTubers to musicians are reliant on merch to bolster their revenue and their brands. Subscribers stuck at home are watching more video and listening to more podcasts and music. Apart from advertising and sponsorships, merch is the only way for creators to monetize their increased profile during the pandemic.
However, 2020 has seen an explosion of counterfeit products including branded merchandise by content creators. An analysis from the New York Times in February 2020 found that the sale of counterfeit items represents more than 3 percent of global trade, corresponding to $1.4 billion in value in the U.S. alone. Reviews on Amazon containing words like “fake” and “counterfeit” have doubled since 2015.
Continue Reading Trademark Protection for Your Brand Merchandise in the Age of Copycats, Counterfeits, and Fakes
