Around the IP Blogs

Last week (and this week too) the standout topic of the IP blogosphere was the longstanding mishap between photographers and copyright. However, as always, there were a number of other interesting articles out there – you can find the highlights in this week’s edition of ‘Around the IP Blogs’!

Copyright

The 1709 Blog looked at a number of copyright cases, from Queen’s copyright complaint against President Donald Trump for the unauthorised use of ‘We Will Rock You’ in a campaign video, to reports that France is pushing for the creation of a Europe-wide regulator of digital platforms to curb possible abuses of power by such large entities.

IPWatchdog provided an insight into the use of photographers’ works in art, looking at the instance  of Shepard Fairey, who faced significant problems following his use of Associated Press’ image of Barack Obama in the well-known Hope poster (which became an unofficial campaign image for the 2008 Obama campaign). In that case, fair use was limited to works that transformed the original through use of parody or satire – this is juxtaposes the current environment, which noticeably reduces the rights of photographers in their works through the expansion of fair use, as evident in Cariou v Prince in 2013, and Rentmeester v Nike, Inc. in 2018.

This is further explored through an examination of the Andy Warhol case, which further illustrates the expansion of the fair use exception to the detriment of photographers. Here, it was found that Lynn Goldsmith’s images had been transformed enough to fall under fair use.

Patently-O steps outside of patents to examine an ongoing copyright case brought in the US, where it is questioned how far the Government Edicts Doctrine (which ensures the government cannot use copyright to keep law out of the hands of the general public) extends. This arises as the state of Georgia argues (unusually) that its official annotations to their statutes are protected by copyright.

Patents

Are there other ways for parties to collect evidence in patent cases in China without having to turn to notarisation? This was the question tackled by the Kluwer Patent Blog, which takes a look at emerging forensics methods in the PRC, which aim to make the process of collecting evidence in China slightly easier and more cost efficient.

Right to be forgotten

IPWatchdog looks at the global implications of Google v CNIL, which addressed requests for de-referencing (or ‘the right to be forgotten’), with the case ultimately ruling that de-referencing only need be carried out on versions of the search engine available in EU Member States. However, IPWatchdog notes the lack of validation by the CJEU over the applicability of geo-blocking, the absence of geographical boundaries on the internet, as well as the problems that balancing the right of privacy against public interest may pose (since no formal answer was provided as to how to address this).