Tipp Sheet 1.2

“Sultry” Lady Liberty gets USPS in hot water

As it turns out, a 2011-issued U.S. Postal Service stamp featuring the face of the Statue of Liberty was based on a photograph of the scale model that looms over the Las Vegas Strip—not the original that once greeted newly arriving immigrants as they sailed into New York Harbor. Besides differing in its size and location, the Las Vegas Lady Liberty has a noticeably more “fresh-faced” and “sultry” look than its New York cousin, a difference upon which Robert Davidson, the sculptor of the Sin City replica, is basing a copyright infringement suit against the USPS. Davidson’s case may be strengthened by the fact that last September, a federal court awarded $685,000 in damages to the designer of the Korean War Memorial, who similarly complained that the USPS released a stamp depicting the monument without his permission.

Source: Huffington Post

“Revenge porn” victims use copyright laws to save their behinds

Federal agents recently arrested Hunter Moore and Charles “Gary” Jones, the duo responsible for numerous “revenge porn” websites, including IsAnyoneUp. Since current privacy laws cannot hold liable the photos’ submitters (or their internet providers), revenge porn victims have had to find creative ways of striking back against their exploiters. For instance, besides conspiracy and aggravated identity theft, the pair were charged with “unauthorized access of protected computer to obtain information” in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a law originally passed to prosecute the hackers of government computers. In addition, because most revenge porn photos are “selfies,” victims can claim authorship and have their photos removed by contacting the website, a “win-win” situation since websites that comply with such takedown requests are resultingly shielded from liability under the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Other strategies will be necessary to resolve issues like the “whack-a-mole” problem (as soon as one site deletes the photo it pops up somewhere else) and the “Streisand effect” (trying to remove the photo has the unintended consequence of publicizing it more widely).

Source: The Atlantic

Sochi 2014 hacking scare is mostly hot air

Olympic spectators in Sochi are relieved to hear that a news report showing NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Richard Engel’s laptop and smartphone getting hacked within 24 hours of his arrival in Moscow, Russia was all hoopla. In fact, Engel purposefully downloaded malicious software in order to infect his devices. Otherwise, there is a relatively small chance that everyday internet users will end up hacked. While the likelihood of getting hacked is 60% higher in Russia than the United States, Sochi spectators who have up-to-date antivirus software and avoid suspicious downloads will most likely be fine. Olympic athletes and officials, along with cleared volunteers and reporters, who have access to a private network set up by a California-based business communications company, are at an especially low risk of security breach.

Source: CBS News

Proposed reforms to NSA make privacy fears go away?

In light of the recent NSA scandal, President Obama proposed reforms that would reassure the privacy rights of U.S. and world citizens alike. While the president has defended the NSA as “neighbors” and “friends” who have not generally abused their power, he nonetheless supports greater transparency. Reforms would include requiring an annual review of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) opinions with “broad policy implications” for declassification; making intelligence analysts obtain approval before gaining access to telephone databases; loosening gag orders on companies forced to turn over customer information; and creating a non-governmental panel that would provide an independent voice during cases before the FISC. The overall goal is to strike a balance between preserving people’s privacy and maintaining program effectiveness.

Source: National Journal

Target testifies before Senate on latest security breach

On February 4th, the Senate Judiciary Committee called Target CFO John Mulligan to task for the massive breach of its customer credit card data stores that occurred last December, through which hackers had used malware to acquire the personal data of as many as 110 million people. Mulligan’s testimony was mostly limited to a recounting of the events that led up to the breach, how Target reacted to the breach, and how it would improve security to prevent future similar breaches. The bulk of the planned improvements centered on shifting its U.S. credit card system from magnetic- to chip-based card technology, which is generally considered safer. The comments of attending Senators indicated an intention to enact baseline federal legislation for consumer information security standards. But critics warn that any such laws reaching beyond previous “minimum” standards would likely defeat its purpose by bogging down security evolution.

Source: Wall St. Cheat Sheet

Candy Crush Trademarks “Candy”

King.com Limited, developer of the wildly popular Candy Crush Saga game, received approval on January 15th to trademark the word “candy” as it applies to video games and clothing. Because the trademark of “Candy” only applies to video games and clothing, literal candy makers like M&M Mars and Hershey have nothing to fear. Nevertheless, the grant seems to run quite broadly. One app put on notice by Apple, “All Candy Casino Slots – Jewel Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land,” seems to tread in murky waters. While its name seems to be a conglomeration of successful game keywords, it is in fact a simple slots game. King has stated “we don’t enforce against all uses of CANDY – some are legitimate and of course, we would not ask App developers who use the term legitimately to stop doing so.” Maybe Candy Land is safe, but the statement highlights a central issue: enforcement will be a function of King’s prerogative and, with Apple’s convict-first appeal-second approach, only King’s self-restraint will determine the limits of enforcement.

Source: Forbes

On “Pin”s and Needles:

Successful social media hub Pinterest has sued upstart internet travel service pintrips.com for infringing on its trademark through the use of the term “pin.” Pintrips, an airfare comparison and collaboration dashboard launched in April 2013, has run up against a frequent litigator: this is Pinterest’s sixth foray into the legal arena to defend against other internet businesses encroaching on their “pin” term. However, the validity of the travel service provided by pintrips.com and the fact that Pinterest does not provide a competing service will make this particular case a tougher nut to crack. Pintrips recently answered the suit with a motion to dismiss stating, in part, that this is “a textbook example of an industry giant using a spurious lawsuit to bully a small entity…” and that “the law does not permit a common generic term [“pin”] to be removed from common and pervasive use so that a single company may profit.” Pinterest is particularly sensitive to any abrogation of its trademark as it looks forward to an IPO, but if this was a strategic overreach, the consequences of a loss in court may be more harmful than whatever damage pintrips.com could have done if left alone. A court ruling will be determined by the extent to which the use of “pin” by pintrips.com is confusingly similar to Pinterest’s trademark.

Source: tnooz.com

Pirate Bay, Free to Play

Dutch courts made a precedent-setting decision in the Netherlands. The Hague Appeals Court overturned a court order that blocked customers from accessing Pirate Bay, a filesharing site that allows users to download free media content (music, movies, games, etc.). Ruling the ban ineffective, the court found that computer users could easily evade the ban through reaching cloned versions of the site at alternate addresses or using sites that offer similar services. The court’s decision is a setback for anti-piracy organizations across Europe, and the plaintiffs plan to appeal this case to the Dutch Supreme Court. There are still two more cases to be heard on Pirate Bay in March. What the Dutch court did not do, however, is mention the net neutrality laws, and it appears that the ISPs never raised the issue in their appeal, either. The laws essentially say that ISPs cannot impose charges or special conditions for Internet service or determine what sites customers may visit. However, the EU made clear that its sole intent in passing the law was to prevent the blocking or throttling of competing services, therefore leaving the fate of infringing, and thus illegal, websites to the judges. In the end, courts are able to do what ISPs cannot by forcing the ISPs to block their users from visiting certain sites.

Source: Epoch Times

IP Change for South Africa:

South Africa has proposed a new IP Policy that would allow local pharmaceutical manufacturers to copy brand name drugs and sell them at a lower cost. Pharmaceutical companies, angered over what they see as abridgment of their intellectual property rights, vowed to fight back against implementation of the new plan. The South African Trade Minister has framed this attempt as a genocide conspiracy. With the highest number of AIDS patients in the world, South Africa believes its citizens should not be deprived affordable treatment. Without this policy, poor citizens are unable to afford the drugs they need to get and stay healthy. The pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, argue that without IP protections, they cannot raise the funds they need to continue research and development for improvement and innovation of drugs. Thus, the protection would only support the Trade Minister's goals.

Source: The Institute for Policy Innovation