Category: copyrights

Fourth Circuit Reverses $1 Billion Award for Vicarious Liability Claim for More than 10,000 Works

On January 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia awarded a group of music recording companies (the plaintiffs) a $1 billion verdict against Cox Communications (Cox). The Virginia court’s ruling found that Cox, an internet service provider (ISP), was contributorily and vicariously liable for copyright infringement committed by certain subscribers on its networks. The plaintiffs alleged that the ISP allowed the unauthorized downloading and distribution of more than 10,000 copyrighted works by Cox subscribers who had already received three or more notices of infringement. The district court in Virginia established that the “takedown” notices sent by the plaintiffs provided Cox with the requisite knowledge of its subscribers’ repeated infringement to substantiate their claim that Cox was contributorily liable, suggesting that Cox had sufficient specific knowledge of infringement to have done something about it.

The plaintiffs’ notice to Cox identified the IP address of the subscriber, as well as the time of infringement and the identification of the infringed work, which the plaintiffs argued was sufficiently specific knowledge for Cox to be able to identify the subscriber and to exercise its policy by suspending or terminating the infringing subscriber. This case proceeded to trial on two theories of secondary liability – vicarious and contributory copyright infringement. The plaintiffs argued that Cox failed to act on these known repeat infringers, and the jury found Cox liable for willful contributory infringement and vicarious infringement, ordering Cox to pay more than $99,000 for each of the infringed-upon works. Cox appealed the jury verdict.

On appeal, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Cox raised several questions of law concerning the secondary liability for copyright infringement, as well as what constitutes a derivative work in the Internet Age.

Vicarious Infringement
The Fourth Circuit’s analysis first considered whether the district court erred in denying plaintiffs’ vicarious infringement claim. “A defendant may be held vicariously liable for a third party’s copyright infringement [if the defendant] (1) profits directly from the infringement and (2) has a right and ability to supervise the direct infringer.” See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 n.9 (2005) (internal citations omitted). The Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the first element as a matter of law and thus found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Cox was vicariously liable.

In reaching this decision, the Fourth Circuit turned to the landmark decision in Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., 316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963), a case on vicarious liability for infringing copyrighted music recordings. In Shapiro, a department store was sued for the selling of “bootleg” records by a concessionaire operating in its stores. The store had the right to supervise the concessionaire and employees, demonstrating its control over the infringement. There, the store received a certain percentage of every record sale, “whether ‘bootleg’ or legitimate,” giving it “a more definite financial interest” in the infringing sales.” Thus, the Shapiro court found that the financial gains were clearly spelled out from the bootleg sales and acts of infringement in Shapiro.

Next, the Fourth Circuit recognized that courts have found that a defendant may possess a financial interest in a third party’s infringement of copyrighted music, even absent a strict correlation between each act of infringement and an added penny of profits. See Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996). In Fonovisa, the operator of a swap meet allowed vendors to sell infringing goods, and the operator collected “admission fees, concession stand sales, and parking fees” but no sales commission “from customers who want[ed] to buy the counterfeit recordings at bargain-basement prices.” The Fonovisa court found that the plaintiffs adequately showed a financial benefit from the swap meet owner and the sales of pirated recordings at the swap meet, which was a draw for customers. Thus, the infringing sales “enhance[d] the attractiveness of the venue of the potential customers, finding the swap meet operator had a financial interest in the infringement sufficient to state a claim for vicarious liability.”

The Fourth Circuit established that Shapiro and Fonovisa provided the steppingstones of the principles of copyright infringement to the internet and cyberspace and that Congress agreed that “receiving a one-time setup fee and flat periodic payment for service” from infringing and non-infringing users alike ordinarily “would not constitute a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.” Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F. 3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). The Court also reviewed other court precedents, including A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), to show that increased pirated music drew in users as a direct financial interest for vicarious liability., but also notes that courts have found no evidence of a direct financial benefit between subscribers of American Online (AOL) and the availability of infringing content.’’ Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1079.

Against this backdrop, the Fourth Circuit held that to prove Cox was vicariously liable, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that Cox profited from its subscribers’ infringing download and distribution of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted songs, which – given the evidence at trial – it did not. While the district court found it was enough that Cox repeatedly declined to cancel an ISP subscriber’s monthly subscription fee, the Fourth Circuit found this evidence to be insufficient. Instead, the Fourth Circuit found that the continued monthly payment fees for internet service, even by repeat infringers, was not a financial benefit flowing directly from the copyright infringement. Cox established that subscribers paid a flat fee even if all of its subscribers stopped infringing. Recognizing that an internet provider would necessarily lose money if it canceled subscriptions only demonstrates that service providers have a direct financial interest in providing subscribers with access to the internet only. Thus, the Fourth Circuit held that vicarious liability demands proof that the defendant profits directly from the acts of infringement for which it is being held accountable.

To rebut this, the plaintiffs claimed that the jury could infer that subscribers paid monthly membership fees based on the high volume of infringing content. The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument and found that the evidence was insufficient to prove that customers were drawn to Cox’s internet service or that they continued the service because they were specifically drawn to the opportunity to infringe the plaintiffs’ copyrights. The plaintiffs further asserted that subscribers were willing to pay more for the opportunity to infringe based on Cox’s tiered structure for internet access – but the plaintiffs fell short in proving this claim because no reasonable inference could be drawn that Cox subscribers paid more for faster internet to infringe on the copyrighted works. Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiffs could not establish a causal connection between subscribers’ copyright infringement and Cox’s revenue for monthly subscriptions. Thus, the Fourth Circuit held that Cox was not liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringement and reversed the district court’s ruling on this theory. The court vacated the $1 billion damages award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages, holding that the jury’s finding of vicarious liability could have influenced its assessment of statutory damages.

Contributory Infringement
The Fourth Circuit then examined the remaining issue of contributory infringement. Under this theory, “one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another is liable for the infringement, too.” Cox argued that the district court erred by taking away the factual determination from the jury that notices of past infringement established Cox’s knowledge that subscribers were substantially certain to infringe in the future. Cox had contracted with a third party to provide copyright violation notices to users and asserted that it used these notices as their safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to alert violators and to terminate access to users who were repeat infringers. Despite this, the Fourth Circuit ultimately agreed with the jury’s finding that Cox materially contributed to copyright infringement occurring on its network and that its conduct was culpable.

Therefore, a three-judge panel found that Cox was liable for willful copyright infringement but reversed the vicarious liability verdict and remanded a new trial on damages. The Fourth Circuit held that because Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement, a legal prerequisite for vicarious liability, Cox was not liable for damages under the vicarious liability theory.

The Impact
The Fourth Circuit’s decision recognizes a new dawn breaking in copyright law, one that requires a causal connection between profit and/or financial gain and a defendant’s acts of infringement to prove vicarious liability in a copyright infringement claim under the Copyright Act. The plaintiffs attempted to bridge the financial gap between acknowledging access to infringing content through a monthly internet subscription and high-volume infringing acts. However, the Fourth Circuit found that this leap in logic was a step too far and reversed the award for vicarious liability for lack of evidence to find this missing connection between Cox subscribers and infringing plaintiffs’ content.

While this may be one route the courts may consider to reduce music piracy damages, it remains to be seen whether other courts will take this approach to determining that profit is the key element supporting other vicarious liability claims in cyberspace.

© 2024 Wilson Elser
For more news on Copyright Litigation, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

Huawei U.S. Patent Grants Drop 24% in 2023; BOE Drops Out of the Top 10

Accordingly to analysis by Harrity Patent Analytics, Huawei ranked 10th for US patent grants in 2023, down 3 spots from 2022 with a 24% drop in patent grants. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. dropped even further to 19th down from 8th in 2022. BOE had a 38% drop in granted US patents. Tencent was 54th this year with an 11% drop in patent grants. Oppo was down 32%. Baidu was up only 1%. Xiaomi was down 7% and didn’t make the top 100 in 2023. Alibaba was down 49%. In contrast, US companies advanced with Qualcomm patent grants up 46%, Alphabet (Google) up 23% and Apple up 11%.

The drop in Chinese patent grants reverse the trend of growing US patent grants for Chinese companies. Huawei’s patents grants in 2022 were up 3%, BOE up 27%, Baidu up 43% and Xiaomi up 33%.

Possible reasons for the drop in grants to Chinese entities may include a poorly performing Chinese economy, the reduction and elimination of government subsidies for foreign patent grants, the impact of COVID-19 on patent application filings the past few years; and geopolitical tensions.

Top 10 Chinese Grantees of U.S. Patents in 2023

Rank Company 2023 Patents % Change from 2022
10 HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. 2290 -24%
19 BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD 1695 -38%
54 TENCENT HOLDINGS LTD 702 -11%
67 BAIDU, INC. 626 +1%
77 LENOVO GROUP LIMITED 530 -16%
84 OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION 516 -32%
101 XIAOMI INC. 461 -7%
115 TSINGHUA HOLDINGS 372 -3%
121 ZTE CORPORATION 351 -14%
122 BYTEDANCE LTD. 350 +119%

Source: https://harrityllp.com/patent300/

© 2024 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Granted US Patents, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

To AI or Not to AI: U.S. Copyright Office Clarifies Options

The U.S. Copyright Office has weighed in with formal guidance on the copyrightability of works whose generation included the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The good news for technology-oriented human creative types: using AI doesn’t automatically disqualify your work from copyright protection. The bad news for independent-minded AI’s: you still don’t qualify for copyright protection in the United States.

On March 16, 2023, the Copyright Office issued a statement of policy (“Policy”) to clarify its practices for examining and registering works that contain material generated by the use of AI and how copyright law’s human authorship requirements will be applied when AI was used. This Policy is not itself legally binding or a guarantee of a particular outcome, but many copyright applicants may breathe a sigh of relief that the Copyright Office has formally embraced AI-assisted human creativity.

The Policy is just the latest step in an ongoing debate over the copyrightability of machine-assisted products of human creativity. Nearly 150 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled at photographs are copyrightable. See Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884). The case involved a photographer’s claim against a lithographer for 85,000 unauthorized copies of a photograph of Oscar Wilde. The photo, Sarony’s “Oscar Wilde No. 18,” is shown below:

Sarony’s “Oscar Wilde No. 18"

The argument against copyright protection was that a photograph is “a reproduction, on paper, of the exact features of some natural object or of some person” and is therefore not a product of human creativity. Id. at 56. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that there was sufficient human creativity involved in making the photo, including posing the subject, evoking the desired expression, arranging the clothing and setting, and managing the lighting.

In the mid-1960’s, the Copyright Office rejected a musical composition, Push Button Bertha, that was created by a computer, reasoning that it lacked the “traditional elements of authorship” as they were not created by a human.

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Naruto, a crested macaque (represented by a group of friendly humans), lacked standing under the Copyright Act to hold a copyright in the “monkey selfie” case. See Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018). The “monkey selfie” is below:

Monkey Selfie

In February 2022, the Copyright Office rejected a registration (filed by interested humans) for a visual image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” generated by DABUS, the AI whose claimed fractal-based inventions are the subject of patent applications around the world. DABUS’ image is below:

“A Recent Entrance to Paradise”

Litigation over this rejected application remains pending.

And last month, the Copyright Office ruled that a graphic novel consisting of human-authored text and images generated using the AI tool Midjourney could, as a whole, be copyrighted, but that the images, standing alone, could not. See U.S. Copyright Office, Cancellation Decision re: Zarya of the Dawn (VAu001480196) at 2 (Feb. 21, 2023).

The Copyright Office’s issuing the Policy was necessitated by the rapid and remarkable improvements in generative AI tools over even the past several months. In December 2022, generative AI tool Dall-E generated the following images in response to nothing more than the prompt, “portrait of a musician with a hat in the style of Rembrandt”:

Four portraits generated by AI tool Dall-E from the prompt, "portrait of a musician with a hat in the style of Rembrandt."

If these were human-generated paintings, or even photographs, there is no doubt that they would be copyrightable. But given that all four images were generated in mere seconds, with a single, general prompt from a human user, do they meet the Copyright Office’s criteria for copyrightability? The answer, now, is a clear “no” under the Policy.

However, the Policy opens the door to registering AI-assisted human creativity. The toggle points will be:

“…whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” 

In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” 

The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. This will necessarily be a case-by-case inquiry.” 

See Policy (citations omitted).

Machine-produced authorship alone will continue not to be registerable in the United States, but human selection and arrangement of AI-produced content could lead to a different result according to the Policy. The Policy provides select examples to help guide registrants, who are encouraged to study them carefully. The Policy, combined with near future determinations by the Copyright Office, will be critical to watch in terms of increasing likelihood a registration application will be granted as the Copyright Office continues to assess the impacts of new technology on the creative process. AI tools should not all be viewed as the “same” or fungible. The type of AI and how it is used will be specifically considered by the Copyright Office.

In the short term, the Policy provides some practical guidance to applicants on how to describe the role of AI in a new copyright application, as well as how to amend a prior application in that regard if needed. While some may view the Policy as “new” ground for the Copyright Office, it is consistent with the Copyright Office’s long-standing efforts to protect the fruits of human creativity even if the backdrop (AI technologies) may be “new.”

As a closing note, it bears observing that copyright law in the United Kingdom does permit limited copyright protection for computer-generated works – and has done so since 1988. Even under the U.K. law, substantial questions remain; the author of a computer-generated work is considered to be “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.” See Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) §§ 9(3), 12(7) and 178. In the case of images generated by a consumer’s interaction with a generative AI tool, would that be the consumer or the generative AI provider?

Article By Nadia G. Aram and Dr. Christian E. Mammen of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2023 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.

Breaking News – Hermès Makes History With First NFT Trademark Trial Victory

A New York City jury just returned a verdict in favor of Hermès in a historic dispute between the luxury fashion house and digital artist Mason Rothschild over Hermès’ alleged trademark rights relating to Hermès’ famous Birkin handbag. The jury awarded Hermès $133,000 in total damages for trademark infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting.

The jury finding that the First Amendment did not shield Rothschild from liability in connection with his MetaBirkins NFTs project is significant, particularly as this matter involved the first trial by jury to consider the interplay of free speech and trademark protection in the context of NFTs. This decision, which may be appealed, provides guidance for artists, brands, and others seeking ingress into metaverse, including to what extent “real world” intellectual property rights apply to and may be enforced in virtual worlds.

Haute-ly Contested NFTs

Throughout the dispute over this past year, the parties have contested each other’s characterization of the MetaBirkins NFTs. To Hermès, the MetaBirkins NFTs are merely the instruments of a “digital speculator” looking to exploit one of its most exclusive assets via NFTs. In contrast, Rothschild argues that the MetaBirkins NFTs project, a series of 100 NFT images that depict a range of reimagined Hermès Birkin bags featuring a variety of colorful fur, is digital art and a commentary on the famed BIRKIN bag, consumerism, and animal cruelty within the fashion industry. As a result, he argues that the MetaBirkins NFTs are artistic works that should be shielded from liability under the free speech principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The nine-member jury disagreed, finding that the MetaBirkins NFTs were more like commodities that are subject to trademark and other laws, rather than artwork. A factor that may have influenced the jury’s decision was evidence suggesting that Rothschild may have seen the MetaBirkins NFTs as a “cash cow.” This may have cast doubt on the authenticity of his characterization of the MetaBirkins NFTs as an art project.

The Test is Yet to Come

Although the jury found the MetaBirkins NFTs to be infringing, the final disposition of this dispute remains pending with the possibility of appeal. Given the importance of the issues at stake, the outcome of this case is bound to be subject to debate regardless of any appeal.

Moreover, while no NFT-specific legal test appears to have emerged from this case and the legal landscape for IP in the Metaverse (and beyond) continues to lack clear guidance, this case has nonetheless provided insight on how courts (and juries) may view the interplay of IP and NFTs. The ultimate outcome of this landmark case is likely to form the basis of the emerging law involving IP rights and NFTs.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more Intellectual Property Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review

With the US Copyright Office (USCO) continuing their stance that protection only extends to human authorship, what will this mean for artificial intelligence (AI)-generated works — and artists — in the future?

Almost overnight, the limited field of Machine Learning and AI has become nearly as accessible to use as a search engine. Apps like Midjourney, Open AI, ChatGPT, and DALL-E 2, allow users to input a prompt into these systems and a bot will generate virtually whatever the user asks for. Microsoft recently announced its decision to make a multibillion-dollar investment in OpenAI, betting on the hottest technology in the industry to transform internet as we know it.[1]

However, with accessibility of this technology growing, questions of authorship and copyright ownership are rising as well. There remain multiple open questions, such as: who is the author of the work — the user, the bot, or the software that produces it? And where is this new generative technology pulling information from?

AI and Contested Copyrights

As groundbreaking as these products are, there has been ample backlash regarding copyright infringement and artistic expression. The stock image company, Getty Images, is suing Stability AI, an artificial intelligence art tool behind Stable Diffusion. Getty Images alleges that Stability AI did not seek out a license from Getty Images to train its system. Although the founder of Stability AI argues that art makes up 0.1% of the dataset and is only created when called by the user’s prompt. In contrast, Shutterstock, one of Getty Images largest competitors, has taken an alternative approach and instead partnered with Open AI with plans to compensate artists for their contributions.

Artists and image suppliers are not the only ones unhappy about the popularity of machine learning.  Creators of open-source code have targeted Microsoft and its subsidiary GitHub, along with OpenAI,  in a proposed class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the creation of AI-powered coding assistant GitHub Copilot is relying on software piracy on an enormous scale. Further, the complaint claims that GitHub relies on copyrighted code with no attribution and no licenses. This could be the first class-action lawsuit challenging the training and output of AI systems. Whether artists, image companies, and open-source coders choose to embrace or fight the wave of machine learning,  the question of authorship and ownership is still up for debate.

The USCO made clear last year that the copyright act only applies to human authorship; however they have recently signaled that in 2023 the office will focus on the legal grey areas surrounding the copyrightability of works generated in conjunction with AI. The USCO denied multiple applications to protect AI authored works previously, stating that the “human authorship” element was lacking. In pointing to previous decisions, such as the 2018 decision that a monkey taking a selfie could not sue for copyright infringement, the USCO reiterated that “non-human expression is ineligible for copyright protection.” While the agency is standing by its conclusion that works cannot be registered if it is exclusively created by an AI, the office is considering the issue of copyright registration for works co-created by humans and AI.

Patent Complexities  

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will have to rethink fundamental patent policies with the rise of sophisticated AI systems as well. As the USPTO has yet to speak on the issue, experts are speculating alternative routes that the office could choose to take: declaring AI inventions unpatentable, which could lead to disputes and hinder the incentive to promote innovation, or concluding that the use of AI should not render otherwise patentable inventions unpatentable, but would lead to complex questions of inventorship. The latter route would require the USPTO to rethink their existing framework of determining inventorship by who conceived the invention.

Takeaway

The degree of human involvement will likely determine whether an AI work can be protected by copyright, and potentially patents. Before incorporating this type of machine learning into your business practices, companies should carefully consider the extent of human input in the AI creation and whether the final work product will be protectable. For example:

  • An apparel company that uses generative AI to create a design for new fabric may not have a protectable copyright in the resulting fabric design.

  • An advertising agency that uses generative AI to develop advertising slogans and a pitch deck for a client may not be able to protect the client from freely utilizing the AI-created work product.

  • A game studio that uses generative AI to create scenes in a video game may not be able to prevent its unlicensed distribution.

  • A logo created for a business endeavor may not be protected unless there are substantial human alterations and input.

  • Code that is edited or created by AI may be able to be freely copied and replicated.

Although the philosophical debate is only beginning regarding what “makes” an artist, 2023 may be a uniquely litigious year defining the extent in which AI artwork is protectable under existing intellectual property laws.

FOOTNOTES

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/tech/microsoft-invests-chatgpt-openai/index.html; https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/technology/microsoft-openai-chatgpt.html

Article By Anthony V. Lupo and Dan Jasnow of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP

IP Rights in Virtual Fashion: Lessons Learned in 2022 and Unanswered Questions

There was a lot of talk and much hype about the “metaverse” in 2022. While some were skeptical and stayed on the sidelines to watch, many companies began offering virtual counterparts to their real-world products for use by avatars in the metaverse, including virtual clothing and accessories. For example, Tommy Hilfiger live-streamed a virtual fashion show on Roblox as part of the New York Fashion Week, and Decentraland hosted a Metaverse Fashion Week. Many companies also introduced NFTs into fashion product lines, such as Alo’s NFT offering.

The emergence of virtual goods has generated novel questions about how to protect and enforce IP rights in virtual fashion, and how those strategies might differ from IRL (meaning “in real life”) fashion. Although many questions remain unanswered, this article sets out important considerations for how companies might use various IP laws to protect virtual fashion goods in the United States.

I. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN VIRTUAL FASHION AND IRL FASHION

Before diving into the IP discussion, it’s worth highlighting some distinctions between virtual fashion and IRL fashion outside the legal context, beyond the obvious fact that virtual fashion is worn by avatars. IRL clothing and accessories are worn primarily for protection against the elements, to conform to societal standards, to conform with a specific event’s dress requirements, to communicate via express messages on clothing or accessories, or to express oneself through the style or design of the clothing.

Virtual fashion can also serve each of those purposes for an avatar, and in some cases the person behind the avatar. But, because it is comprised of software code, the possibilities for virtual fashion utility are endless. For example, a particular piece of virtual clothing can also grant access to certain virtual spaces or events or give the avatar special powers within virtual worlds. If tied to an NFT (non-fungible token), virtual clothing can also provide benefits on and off virtual platforms, including exclusive access to sales promotions and IRL events.

Unlike IRL clothing, however, virtual fashion items currently face compatibility limitations, as the ability to use any virtual fashion item across all virtual platforms is unlikely.

To muddy the waters, as virtual and augmented reality technologies are becoming more popular, they can blur the lines between IRL and virtual fashion. For example, an IRL sweatshirt, when viewed through an appropriate lens, could feature virtual components.

II. IP PROTECTION FOR VIRTUAL FASHION

Because there are no IP laws specific to virtual fashion items, we must seek protection from laws that have traditionally applied to real-life clothing, namely, trademark, trade dress, copyright, and design patent. But the application of these laws can sometimes differ in the virtual context. Each is addressed below.

A. TRADEMARK

Trademark law protects source identifiers such as words, names, logos, and slogans. Obtaining trademark rights specifically in virtual goods, whether acquired through use in commerce or federal registration, is generally straightforward and similar to marks covering IRL fashion. This is evidenced by many marks that were registered in 2022 and specifically cover virtual goods.

That said, even if a company does not have trademark coverage specifically for its virtual goods, the owner of a trademark covering IRL fashion items should have strong arguments that such trademark rights extend to their virtual counterparts. To that point, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has refused registration of marks covering virtual goods and services based on prior registrations for the identical marks covering the corresponding IRL goods and services. See, e.g., the refusals of Application No. 97112038 for the mark GUCCI and Application No. 97112054 for the mark PRADA, each of which were filed by parties unrelated to the famous brands.

However, for purposes of enforcement outside of the USPTO context, if a defendant’s goods are virtual, it would have a stronger argument that such goods are not commercial products, but rather expressive works protected by the First Amendment. If a court accepts such an argument, it must then weigh the plaintiff’s trademark rights against the defendant’s First Amendment right of free expression, meaning it would be more challenging for a brand owner to enforce its trademark rights.

In this regard, please see our earlier alert regarding the Hermès v. Rothschild case, in which the court deemed NFTs tied to images of bags called “MetaBirkins” subject to First Amendment protection. [1] In denying Rothschild’s motion to dismiss, the court acknowledged in a footnote that virtually wearable bags (i.e., as opposed to virtual fashion that is displayable but not wearable) might not be afforded First Amendment protection. But we suspect defendants will argue even virtually wearable items should be afforded First Amendment protection, especially given that video games have received such protection. [2]

On balance, companies should consider seeking federal trademark registration specifically for virtual goods and services, for a few reasons:

More direct coverage could help a company in an enforcement action against infringing virtual goods, even if the defendant successfully argues it should be entitled to First Amendment protection. For instance, if the plaintiff has direct coverage for virtual goods, it may be easier to prove the defendant’s use of the mark was “explicitly misleading” under the Rogers test. [3]

Certain platforms featuring virtual fashion items may only honor a takedown request if the complainant company has a federal registration covering goods that are the same or nearly identical to the allegedly infringing virtual goods.

The registration will provide a presumption of valid trademark rights nationwide, and it may serve as a deterrent to third parties wishing to use confusingly similar marks in virtual worlds.

B. TRADE DRESS

U.S. trademark law also protects certain source-identifying elements of a product’s aesthetic design, configuration/shape, and packaging, often referred to as “trade dress.” To obtain trade dress protection, such elements must be (1) non-functional and (2) distinctive (either inherently or acquired through use). There are a couple of interesting nuances with respect to acquiring trade dress protection in the virtual context.

First, although we have not yet seen any case law specifically addressing this, companies will likely have stronger arguments that virtual shape or design elements (as opposed to IRL elements) are non-functional. Specifically, the non-functionality requirement means the relevant elements must not be essential to the use or purpose or affect the cost or quality of the article. For real-life fashion items, this can be difficult to meet due to the inherently functional nature of many aspects of clothing or accessories. However, because virtual fashion items are essentially software code with endless possibilities, in many instances the fashion item will not require any particular design or shape to function.

Second, some virtual fashion items could receive more favorable treatment from a distinctiveness perspective. The distinctiveness requirement has historically been a difficult barrier for protecting IRL fashion. Specifically, case law prior to 2022 established that, while packaging can sometimes be inherently distinctive, product design and configuration/shape can never be, meaning companies must prove such elements have acquired distinctiveness. Proving acquired distinctiveness is burdensome because the company must have used the elements extensively, substantially exclusively, and continuously for a period of time. Often, by the time a company can acquire distinctiveness in the design, the design is no longer in style. Or, if a design is popular and copied by third parties, it can be difficult for the company to claim it used the design substantially exclusively.

If, however, a virtual fashion item provides the user with benefits that go beyond merely outfitting the avatar, such as by providing access to other products or services, one might argue that those items should be construed as packaging, or some new category of trade dress, for such other products or services, in which case the elements could possibly be deemed inherently distinctive with respect to those other products or services.

That said, if a company already has trade dress protection for IRL fashion goods, it should have good arguments that the protection extends to any virtual counterpart. On the flipside, given the difficulties companies typically face in seeking trade dress protection in IRL fashion, to the extent they can obtain trade dress protection in a virtual counterpart more easily, perhaps it can argue the rights in any virtual goods should also extend to the physical counterpart. Or, if a company introduces a physical design and virtual design simultaneously, it could possibly acquire distinctiveness in both sooner, as the simultaneous use would presumably create greater exposure to more customers and reinforce the source-identifying significance of the alleged elements.

With respect to enforcement, like traditional marks, defendants are more likely to raise a successful First Amendment defense for any virtual products allegedly infringing trade dress. The Hermès case is again an example of this, as Hermès alleged infringement of both its BIRKIN word mark and the trade dress rights in the design of its handbags, and the court held that the defendant’s MetaBirkin NFTs were entitled to the First Amendment protection.

Finally, although obtaining trade dress protection is typically more difficult than obtaining trademark protection for traditional marks such as words and logos, companies should also consider seeking registration for trade dress in virtual goods, particularly for important designs that are likely to carry over from season to season, for the same reasons discussed in the trademark section above.

C. COPYRIGHT

Copyright protects original works of authorship that contain at least a modicum of creativity, which is a relatively low bar. However, copyright does not protect useful articles. In effect, for IRL fashion items, copyright generally extends only to those designs that would be entitled to copyright protection if they were extracted or removed from the clothing or viewed on a different medium, and not to the shape of the fashion item itself.

Like trade dress protection, copyright protection should provide companies with greater protection for virtual fashion items than would be available for IRL items, particularly because the software behind the virtual fashion can theoretically create an infinite number of clothing shapes that are creative and not necessarily “useful.” Nonetheless, if a virtual clothing item is merely shaped like its IRL counterpart that lacks originality (e.g., a virtual t-shirt shaped like a basic real-life t-shirt), it may also fail to qualify for copyright protection based on a lack of creativity.

Unlike trade dress protection, however, copyright protection arises immediately upon creation of the work and its fixation in a tangible medium of expression, so it can be a useful tool for protecting virtual fashion without having to spend the time and resources required to seek registration as trade dress and establish acquired distinctiveness.

In addition, unlike IRL fashion, a separate copyright protects the underlying source code for virtual clothing items, which could provide owners with an additional, though likely limited, claim against unauthorized source code copycats.

A copyright registration will provide owners with the ability to sue for copyright infringement, but companies should balance:

  • the benefits of seeking potentially broader copyright protection in virtual fashion items (apart from the code) than it would for IRL items with the risks of conceding that virtual fashion items are works of art entitled to First Amendment protection, which would make trademark and trade dress enforcement more difficult; and
  • the benefits of obtaining any copyright registration for source code with the benefits of keeping the source code secret (although the Copyright Office permits some redactions, significant portions are required to be deposited into the public record).

We are unaware of any 2022 case law specifically addressing copyright in virtual fashion. However, the following cases are worth watching:

  • Andy Warhol Found. for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith[4]: In October 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding whether Andy Warhol’s “Prince Series” silk screen prints and pencil drawings based on a photograph infringed the photographer’s copyright, or whether they were sufficiently “transformative” to constitute fair use. The outcome of this case could affect a copyright owner’s ability to enforce copyrights against unauthorized digital reproductions of its work, especially if the original work is fixed in a physical medium (e.g., enforcing copyright in a physical clothing item against a third party’s digital reproduction).
  • Thaler v. Perlmutter[5]: Filed in June 2022, the plaintiff is suing the U.S. Copyright Office for refusing registration of an AI-created image because there was no human author. The outcome of this case will necessarily implicate virtual fashion incorporating any AI-generated work.

D. DESIGN PATENT

Design patents protect the ornamental appearance or look of a unique product. Specifically, they protect any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Traditionally, this law was interpreted to require that the article of manufacture is a physical or tangible product. Thus, in the fashion industry for example, one can file a design patent application directed to a unique shoe, handbag, or jewelry design. Historically, an image or picture would not qualify for design patent protection.

However, the USPTO is currently assessing design patents with respect to new technologies such as projections, holograms, and virtual and augmented reality. In December 2020, the USPTO issued a request for public comment regarding a potential rule change to the “article of manufacture” requirement and whether U.S. law should be revised to protect digital designs. Public opinion was mixed, and in April 2022, the USPTO issued a summary of this requested information.

Although the USPTO has not yet formally revised the rules, it has issued guidelines over the years that provide examples of non-physical products that could be protected by a design patent, suggesting changes may ultimately be coming to U.S. design patent law. For example, in 1995, the USPTO released guidelines for design patent applications claiming computer-generated icons. In general, to be eligible for protection, the computer-generated icon must be embodied in a computer screen monitor, or other display monitor. The USPTO has also issued guidance allowing type font to be protectable by design patents. However, it is still unclear whether the USPTO will set forth design patent guidance specific to digital designs or virtual fashion.

Notwithstanding the possibility of obtaining a design patent specifically on such virtual goods, courts have been reluctant to find that a virtual product infringes the design patent for an IRL product. For example, in 2014, in P.S. Products, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.,[6] P.S. Products accused Activision of infringing its design patent directed to a stun gun by depicting a virtual weapon in its video game that P.S. Products claimed resembled its patent-protected IRL product.

The court found there was no infringement because “no ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing a video game believing it to be plaintiffs’ patented stun gun.” This case may have come out differently if the virtual gun was sold separately from the video game and could be used across various platforms rather than being one component of a particular video game. Although there are still software compatibility restrictions for virtual goods, portability of virtual goods is likely to grow as technology evolves and companies respond to consumer demands.

While we wait for further USPTO guidance that ultimately may have application to virtual fashion, parties seeking design patent protection may consider simultaneously filing one application to protect the work as a digital design on a display screen, like a patentable computer-generated icon, and a second, traditional design patent application to protect the design as a tangible product. That said, companies should consider other options for protecting any designs created by AI, as the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2022 that AI cannot qualify as an inventor for purposes of obtaining a patent.[7]

III. Virtual Fashion in Practice

Contracts relating to virtual fashion are analogous to contracts for IRL fashion and should be structured accordingly. For instance, companies should ensure that contracts with IP contributors include an assignment of all IP rights, or at least a sufficiently broad license. In the virtual context, this includes rights to the software code itself. Likewise, downstream licensing should generally address ownership, licensee rights, and if applicable, confidentiality for any trade secrets in the source code. In addition, for both IP contributors and licensees, if AI software is used in any part of the creative process, companies should give thought to allocation of ownership.

In addition, some designers or marketing teams may prefer to encourage a brand’s customer base to copy its designs or create derivative works. Although this seems counterintuitive (especially to an IP lawyer), many players in the Web3 space encourage others to build off their own designs. For example, the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), known for issuing NFTs tied to images of apes, grants owners of its NFTs the rights to use the images of apes, including for commercial purposes.[8] For example, one purchaser of a Bored Apt NFT created a Bored Ape-themed restaurant.

In the virtual fashion context, if a marketing team wants customers to build off the brand’s virtual designs but wants to retain ownership of its own designs (and perhaps derivatives), it should implement standard licensing terms relating to ownership, customer licensee rights, and other provisions. However, it’s important to consider how the terms are presented and how customers indicate assent to maximize the prospects of enforceability.

From a business perspective, companies can also now use NFTs and smart contracts to receive automatic royalties in any downstream sales or licenses. And because NFTs use blockchain technology, which provides an immutable chain of title, third parties will be able to trace such designs to the original source. This means companies can encourage the sharing of designs and receive royalties in connection with the downstream licensing of designs tied to NFTs, and third parties can confirm that the designs are legitimate by reviewing the relevant blockchain ledger. Accordingly, although encouraging customers to use the brand’s designs may not be a model for every brand, there are some steps brands can take to protect the IP rights associated with them and reap financial benefits.

As virtual fashion items become more popular, companies are faced with uncertainties and novel questions regarding how to protect and enforce their IP rights. In 2022, some questions were answered, but many more remain open. Therefore, it is important to discuss strategies for protecting innovative virtual fashion with IP counsel.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Notably, on December 30, 2022, the Hermès court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, with an opinion to follow by January 20. A jury trial is scheduled to begin on January 30, 2023. Hermès International, et al. v. Mason Rothschild, 1:22-cv-00384-JSR (S.D.N.Y.).

[2] See, e.g., AM Gen. LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 3d 467, 485 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

[3] If a defendant’s unauthorized use of a mark is protected by the First Amendment, many courts use the Rogers test to balance the plaintiff’s trademark rights with the defendant’s First Amendment right of expression. This test looks at whether the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s mark was artistically relevant and, if so, whether it was explicitly misleading. Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989).

[4] 11 F.4th 26 (2d Cir. 2021), cert. granted, 142 S. Ct. 1412 (2022).

[5] Case No. 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C.).

[6] 140 F. Supp. 3d 795, 802 (E.D. Ark. 2014).

[7] Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

[8] We will save for another day a discussion of the recent lawsuit against BAYC and many celebrities for failing to disclose financial incentives when promoting the BAYC NFT collection, and instead focus here on IP protection. Adonis Real, et al., v. Yuga Labs, Inc., et al., 2:22-cv-08909 (C.D. Cal.). But companies should also ensure that influencers properly disclose any incentives and other material connections.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2023 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

Not So Fast—NCAA Issues NIL Guidance Targeting Booster Activity

Recently, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors issued guidance to schools concerning the intersection between recruiting activities and the rapidly evolving name, image, and likeness legal environment (see Bracewell’s earlier reporting here). The immediately effective guidance was in response to “NIL collectives” created by boosters to solicit potential student-athletes with lucrative name, image, and likeness deals.

In the short time since the NCAA adopted its interim NIL policy, collectives have purportedly attempted to walk the murky line between permissible NIL activity and violating the NCAA’s longstanding policy forbidding boosters from recruiting and/or providing benefits to prospective student-athletes. Already, numerous deals have been reported that implicate a number of wealthy boosters that support heavyweight Division I programs.

One booster, through two of his affiliated companies, reportedly spent $550,000 this year on deals with Miami football players.1 Another report claims that a charity started in Texas—Horns with Heart—provided at least $50,000 to every scholarship offensive lineman on the roster.2 As the competition for talent grows, the scrutiny on these blockbuster deals is intensifying.

Under the previous interim rules, the NCAA allowed athletes to pursue NIL opportunities while explicitly disallowing boosters from providing direct inducements to recruits and transfer candidates. Recently, coaches of powerhouse programs have publicly expressed their concern that the interim NIL rules have allowed boosters to offer direct inducements to athletes under the pretense of NIL collectives.3

The new NCAA guidance defines a booster as “any third-party entity that promotes an athletics program, assists with recruiting or assists with providing benefits to recruits, enrolled student-athletes or their family members.”4 This definition could now include NIL collectives created by boosters to funnel name, image and likeness deals to prospective student-athletes or enrolled student-athletes who are eligible to transfer. However, it may be difficult for the NCAA to enforce its new policy given the rapid proliferation of NIL collectives and the sometimes contradictory policies intended to govern quid pro quo NIL deals between athletes and businesses.

Carefully interpreting current NCAA guidance will be central to navigating the new legal landscape. Businesses and students alike should seek legal advice in negotiating and drafting agreements that protect the interests of both parties while carefully considering the frequently conflicting state laws and NCAA policies that govern the student’s right to publicity.

ENDNOTES

1. Jeyarajah, Shehan, NCAA Board of Directors Issues NIL Guidance to Schools Aimed at Removing Boosters from Recruiting Process, CBS Sports (May 9, 2022, 6:00 PM).

2. Dodd, Denis, Boosters, Collectives in NCAA’s Crosshairs, But Will New NIL Policy Be Able To Navigate Choppy Waters?, CBS Sports (May 10, 2022, 12:00 PM).

3. Wilson, Dave, Texas A&M Football Coach Jimbo Fisher Rips Alabama Coach Nick Saban’s NIL Accusations: ‘Some People Think They’re God,’ ESPN (May 19, 2022).

4. DI Board of Directors Issues Name, Image and Likeness Guidance to Schools, NCAA (May 9, 2022, 5:21 PM).

Article By Jonathon K. Hance, Joshua H. Gold-Quirós, and Drew Taggart of Bracewell LLP

For more entertainment, art, and sports news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Bracewell LLP

Shijiazhuang Market Supervision Bureau Fines Trademark Agency 50,000 RMB for Attempting to Trademark Olympic Gold Medalist’s Social Media Account

On May 18, 2022, the Shijiazhuang Yuhua District Market Supervision Administration issued an Administrative Penalty Decision against a Shijiazhuang trademark agency for attempting to trademark the name of Eileen Gu’s Douyin account (TikTok’s sister app in China). Eileen Gu won three gold medals in the Beijing Winter Olympics earlier this year and has become extremely popular in China.

On February 11, 2022, Wang XX, the legal representative of the trademark applicant Hebei Yi Biotechnology Co., Ltd., contacted Wang YY, a staff member of a trademark agency in Shijiazhuang, China, to apply for trademarks for Frog Princess Eileen in English and Chinese.  Frog Princess Eileen is the name of the 2022 Winter Olympics champion and model Eileen Gu’s (Gu Ailing) Douyin registered account. This account has released videos since August 29, 2018.  Ms. Gu won gold medals in big air and halfpipe and a silver medal in slopestyle at the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. She then received a lot of media coverage and became famous, with a great reputation and influence. Therefore, Ms. Gu has the prior rights to the names of her Douyin registered account “Frog Princess Eileen” and due to their high popularity and influence, the scope of protection for “Frog Princess Eileen” is more powerful than the general right of trade names.

 

A promotional image from Gu’s recent campaign with Louis Vuitton. Credit: Louis Vuitton

 

At the same time, Ms. Gu made outstanding contributions to my China’s gold medal list in this Winter Olympics. Applicants other than Ms. Gu herself that register and apply for the trademarks “Frog Princess Eileen”  not only damages the prior rights of the Winter Olympic champion Gu but also damages the public interests of the society, which is easy to cause social damage and adverse effects. In this case, the trademark agency in Shijiazhuang, as a trademark agency agency for many years, nonetheless applied for a trademark even though it should have known or knew that the trademark would damage the existing prior rights of others.

Accordingly, the trademark agency was fined 50,000 RMB and Wang YY and Li (business personnel) were each fined 5,000 RMB.

The full text of the punishment is available here (Chinese only) courtesy of 知识产权界: 行政处罚决定书.

Article By Aaron Wininger of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

For more intellectual property news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

SCOTUS Cert Recap: Copyright Act’s Fair Use Defense, ‘Dormant’ Commerce Clause, And Independent And Adequate State Ground Doctrine

On March 28, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the following three questions:

Is a work of art that copies from a prior work but that conveys a different meaning than the prior work necessarily “transformative” for the purpose of the Copyright Act’s fair use defense?

Does California’s Proposition 12 – which requires all pork sold in California to come from pigs housed in compliance with the state’s animal-confinement rules, even pigs raised entirely in other states – violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause?

Is Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g), which requires a state prisoner seeking post-conviction relief to identify a “significant change in the law” that would probably have produced a different result in the prisoner’s case, an adequate and independent state-law ground to support a state-court judgment denying post-conviction relief?

 

On March 28, the U.S. Supreme Court added three cases to its docket for next term: one about when a work of art “transforms” a prior work for the purpose of the Copyright Act’s fair use defense, another involving a “dormant” Commerce Clause challenge to a California law that prohibits selling any pork in the state unless the pork comes from pigs housed in compliance with California’s animal-confinement rules, and a third concerning whether the independent and adequate state ground doctrine bars the Court from reviewing an Arizona state-court decision denying a request for post-conviction relief.

The copyright and Commerce Clause cases – which drew four and five cert-stage amicus briefs, respectively – will capture significant attention from businesses and civil litigators and could each produce landmark decisions in their respective areas of law. The case concerning the independent and adequate state ground doctrine will be of greater interest to those who practice in the post-conviction area – where such issues arise with some frequency – but all lawyers who practice before the Supreme Court should watch that case carefully as well, as the doctrine applies to all state-court decisions whatever the subject matter.

When Works Are ‘Transformative’ Under the Copyright Act’s Fair Use Defense

In Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, the Court will return to a question it confronted last year in Google v. Oracle: When does copying a portion of a copyrighted work constitute protected “fair use” under the Copyright Act?

The notion of “fair use” in the copyright context initially developed as a common-law doctrine to allow borrowing in some situations in order to further the Copyright Act’s general purpose of fostering creativity and innovation. Congress codified that doctrine in 1976, and the Copyright Act now expressly recognizes fair use as a defense and lists four non-exclusive factors courts should consider in determining whether a use is “fair”: 1) the purpose and character of the use, 2) the nature of the copyrighted work, 3) the amount used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work.

As the Court explained in Google, the first of these factors – the purpose and character of the use – asks “whether the copier’s use adds something new … altering the copyrighted work with new expression, meaning or message,” and the Court has “used the word ‘transformative’ to describe a copying use that adds something new and important.” This case offers the Court an opportunity to provide further detail on what it means for a work of art to be “transformative” in this sense. It concerns a series of silkscreen prints and pencil illustrations created by Andy Warhol – whose foundation is the petitioner here – based on a 1981 portrait photograph of Prince taken by the respondent, Lynn Goldsmith. The foundation argues that the works are necessarily transformative because they convey a new meaning: namely, that they portray Prince as an “iconic” figure rather than the “vulnerable human being” depicted in Goldsmith’s photograph.

In its decision below, however, the Second Circuit rejected the notion that imbuing a work with a new meaning is necessarily “transformative.” It observed that such a rule would seem to expand fair use to make copyright licensing unnecessary in the “paradigmatically derivative” context of film adaptations – since many movies transform the message of the underlying literary work – and it noted that ascertaining the meaning of artistic works is a subjective endeavor to which judges are typically unsuited. Instead, it held that Warhol’s work is not transformative on the ground that it is “both recognizably deriving from, and retaining the essential elements of, its source material.”

The Supreme Court is now set to review this decision and thereby give litigants and lower courts further guidance on what makes a work that borrows from another sufficiently “transformative.” Copyright practitioners around the country will be closely following what the Court says.

Commerce Clause Limits on States’ Authority to Regulate Commerce

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Court will consider a challenge to California’s Proposition 12, a law that sets minimum size requirements for pig pens – and that extends those requirements to farmers across the country by making compliance with them a condition of selling pork in California.

The challengers contend that the out-of-state application of these pen-size rules violates the Commerce Clause. They note that, while the Commerce Clause is expressly framed as a grant of authority to Congress, the Supreme Court has long read the Commerce Clause to also implicitly limit states’ regulatory authority. This doctrine, often called the “dormant” Commerce Clause, has a handful of different components, and two are at issue in this case.

The first, known as the extraterritoriality doctrine, has been invoked in a number of Supreme Court decisions but is most prominently associated with the 1980s decisions Brown-Foreman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority and Healy v. Beer Institute. The challengers here argue that under these decisions, a state law per se violates the Commerce Clause if its practical effect is to control conduct beyond the state’s boundaries, and they contend Proposition 12 does so by effectively requiring out-of-state farmers to follow California’s pen-size rules on pain of exclusion from the California market. And California responds that Proposition 12 merely regulates in-state sales, and that any indirect, upstream effects it has on farmers is insufficient to run afoul of the extraterritoriality doctrine.

The second issue concerns the balancing test the Supreme Court articulated in Pike v. Bruce Church, which bars state laws that impose a burden on interstate commerce that “is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Here the parties dispute the significance of Proposition 12’s economic effects and the strength of the interests underlying the law – issues that could become complicated by the motion-to-dismiss posture of the case.

The Court has now agreed to address both of these issues, and whatever the Court decides, its decision will carry implications for the validity of state commercial regulations in a wide variety of industries across the country.

The Scope of the Independent and Adequate State Ground Doctrine

In Cruz v. Arizona, the Court will take up a criminal-law case that presents a recurring issue that arises in both criminal and civil cases alike: When does a state-court decision rest on an independent and adequate state ground such that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision?

The case arises from the Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in Simmons v. South Carolina, which held that where a capital defendant’s “future dangerousness is at issue, and state law prohibits the defendant’s release on parole, due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible.” The Arizona Supreme Court later concluded that Simmons was inapplicable in Arizona – on the theory that Arizona law did not universally prohibit capital defendants’ release on parole – but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that conclusion in Lynch v. Arizona.

Shortly thereafter, Cruz – a capital defendant whose trial and sentencing occurred after Simmons but before Lynch – filed a petition for post-conviction relief in Arizona state court. Because this was not Cruz’s first petition, he sought relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g), which at the time provided that relief would be available even for successive petitions where there “has been a significant change in the law that if determined to apply to defendant’s case would probably overturn the defendant’s conviction or sentence.”

Cruz argued that Lynch constituted a significant change in the law and that it applied retroactively to render his sentence unlawful. And after the Arizona Supreme Court rejected his claim, he filed a cert. petition arguing that federal law requires applying Lynch retroactively in state post-conviction proceedings. Arizona, meanwhile, countered that the Court would lack jurisdiction under the independent and adequate state ground doctrine: The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision, the state argued, simply concluded that Cruz failed to meet the state-law requirements of Rule 32.1(g).

While the U.S. Supreme Court granted Cruz’s cert. petition, it has limited its consideration to only the question concerning the independent and adequate state ground doctrine. And because its answer to that question could affect jurisdictional rulings in all manner of cases, the case will be of interest to anyone who practices before the Court.

Article By Kian Hudson of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Copyright Dispute Over Andy Warhol’s Portraits of Prince Heading to U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will review the standard for a “transformative” work as “fair use” under the Copyright Act.   Specifically, whether a second work of art is “transformative” when it conveys a different meaning or message from its source material, or not where it recognizably derives from and retains the essential elements of its source material.

The Court agreed to review the Second Circuit’s decision that Andy Warhol’s Prince Series portraits of the musician Prince did not make fair use of celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph of Prince.  Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869 (petition granted Mar. 28, 2022).

The Warhol Foundation’s (AWF) petition argues that the Second Circuit’s decision contradicts Supreme Court precedent that a new work is “transformative” if it has a new “meaning or message” citing Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183, 1202-03 (2021) (quoting Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994).  AWF also argued that the Second Circuit’s decision creates a circuit split where the Ninth Circuit has held that even with few physical changes a work can be transformative if new expressive content or a new message is apparent.  As a result, this decision “threatens massive restrictions on First Amendment expression” that would create a “sea-change in the law of copyright.”

Goldsmith’s opposition brief asserts that the AWF mischaracterizes Supreme Court precedent.  And that the Second Circuit “faithfully applied” the proper test for transformativeness in determining Warhol’s series of silkscreen prints were not fair use.  Goldsmith also argues petitioner has manufactured a circuit split that does not exist.

This dispute stems from a a declaratory judgment action filed in 2017 by the Andy Warhol Foundation in the Southern District of New York seeking that Warhol’s portraits of Prince did not infringe photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph.  In 2019, the district court granted summary judgment to the Warhol Foundation, holding that the Prince Series was “transformative” because it incorporated a new meaning and message different from Goldsmith’s photograph.

In 2021, the Second Circuit reversed, holding that Warhol’s portraits were not fair use as a matter of law.  The Second Circuit held that Warhol’s use was not “transformative,” even though Warhol’s use included some visual differences from Goldsmith’s photograph, because Warhol’s use “retains the essential elements of the Goldsmith Photograph without significantly adding to or altering those elements.”

Multiple amicus briefs supporting the Warhol Foundation were filed including by a group of 12 copyright law professors; a group of 13 art law professors; artists and art professors Barbara Kruger and Robert Storr; and the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, and Brooklyn Museum.  The visual arts community and content creators in every industry will heavily watch this case.

The Supreme Court will hear the Warhol case in its new term, which begins in October.

Article By Susan M. Kayser and Eric W. Lee of K&L Gates

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates