It seems Coldplay was more than inspired when writing Grammy Song of the Year Viva La Vida, or at least that’s what three other songwriters would like you to think. Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) who apparently is merely contemplating a lawsuit against the band, is the latest in a string of musicians that have come forward claiming copyright infringement.

Brought to his attention by his son, Stevens finds uncanny similarity in the chord structures of his 1973 Foreigner Suite and Viva La Vida, noting, “It has such logical chords and the melody has to be what it is…” according to Reuters.

In December 2008, Joe Satriani sued the band (members individually and Capitol Records) for infringement of his 2004 track If I Could Fly. Satriani is reportedly seeking “all profits attributable to the alleged copyright infringement,” which could amount to a lofty amount considering the Grammy win and various other large licensing deals involving he song.

In their response (filed April 4, 2009), Coldplay specifically denies that If I could Fly is used in Viva La Vida,  lacks originality and is not copyrightable and further, that any expression in [the song] which may be protectable is not actionable under the doctrine of fair use.

In addition to Satriani and Stevens, Brooklyn, NY based band Creaky Boards claimed, but did not seek financial restitution for its own The Songs I Didn’t Write.

Below is a medley of all four songs strung together on YouTube:

So what does all this mean for Coldplay? Some insight might be gained from Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrison Music, LTD. In 1976, Bright Tunes Music sued ex-Beatle George Harrison for copyright infringement of its No. 1 (US) and No. 12 (UK) hit He’s So Fine.

According to the Bright Tunes court, the Harrison song My Sweet Lord comprised four repetitions of “sol-mi-re” (referred to as motif A) and four repetitions of “sol-la-do-la-do” (referred to as motif B) altered only “as necessary to fit the words [Hallelujah and Hare Krishna].” The court further noted that while neither motif  was novel, the repetitious pattern is highly unique expression and thus, protectable.

If an analogy can be made to the snippet of chord that Joe Striani claims was infringed, Coldplay’s “unprotectable” defense will fall apart. Also, the court in Bright Tunes went on to hold that because He’s So Fine was an international hit, Harrison conceivably had access to the song and “subconsciously” (not deliberately) copied portions of it.

Considering the recent tussle over Google’s Book Search settlement, one might be interested in just how Google is capable of scanning books en masse to its digital library. NPR recently posted this interesting review of Google’s scanning technology and a brief history of scanning techniques generally.

Google’s Director of Product Management for Book Search speaks out via the Public Policy Blog (Google) amid antitrust concerns over the proposed author settlement.

In 2005, the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers and numerous authors and publishers filed a class action lawsuit against Google Book Search claiming copyright infringment. Google initially expressed its intent to promote “authors whose backlist, out of print and lightly marketed new titles will be suggested to countless readers who wouldn’t have found them otherwise” and further claimed that digitizing books (or portions thereof) comes within the ambit of fair use:

Google respects copyright. The use we make of all the books we scan through the Library Project is fully consistent with both the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law and the principles underlying copyright law itself, which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews.

As of October 28, 2008, the parties reached an accord, which according to an Author’s Guild press release,

promises to benefit readers and researchers, and enhance the ability of and publishers to distribute their content in digital form, by significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort to make millions of books searchable via the Web. The agreement acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright owners, provides an efficient means for them to control how their intellectual property is accessed online and enables them to receive compensation for online access to their works.

Recently, however, Consumer Watchdog called on the Department of Justice (DOJ) for oversite in the settlement. The group claims the”Orphan Works” provision and “Most Favored Nation” clause raise antitrust concern.  According to Consumer Watchdog,

This settlement was negotiated by the parties in the suit and there has been no opportunity to represent and protect the broad interests of all consumers,” said John M. Simpson, a consumer advocate with Consumer Watchdog. “This deal simply furthers the relatively narrow agenda of Google, The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers.

The letter can be found here.

I came across an interesting article at Neatorama cataloging the evolution of tech company logos. It made me wonder about the official trademark registration and scope of protection of the Apple Inc. corporate logo.

The original Apple logo began as a complex drawing of Isaac Newton seated beneath a tree with a glowing apple overhead. Shortly thereafter, the remaining founders of Apple (Computers) Inc. commissioned the Regis McKenna Agency to design the first iteration of the Apple logo as we know it today; the silhouette of an apple with a bite (byte) removed with the apple divided into horizontal color segments (used 1976-1998).

According to the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS), the first use of the Apple mark (that I can find) dates back to 01/1977 with a filing date of March 20, 1978 (registration date of March 6, 1979). Since Apple does not claim color as part of the design (specifically disclaimed), the company has a fair amount of latitude to refresh and update its logo without exceeding the scope of the mark itself. A registered mark can be updated over time as long as its distinctive features (here the apple silhouette with the bite removed) designating the source of the goods or services to the public are not lost (or abandoned).

Erich Specht, a software developer and Internet Service Provider from the Village of Palatine, Illinois has filed a suit alleging Trademark Infringement against Google and 47 other international corporations. Filed on April 28 in an Illinois District Court, Specht contends that Google, “stole first and asked questions later.” More here.

A quick search of the Trademark Electronic Search System reveals that Specht’s “Android” mark was first used in commerce on Janurary 01, 1999 and Registered on October 22, 2002. What’s interesting is the scope of his Trademark claim versus the limited scope of the Trademark as granted.

Specht’s Trademark is limited to a single class of goods and services (G/S): IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038 (which includes computer software/hardware) and is further limited by its description, “Computer e-commerce software to allow users to perform electronic business transactions via a glob computer network.”

Unfortunately, Google’s Trademark application was denied buy the USPTO on the basis of likelihood of confusion. [Read more...]

While urine and vomit are popular, a knife remains the favorite means of defacing works. For further reading visit artcrimes.net.

Title: The History of Sex (Photos)
Artist: Andres Serrano
Year: 2007
Perpetrator: 4 masked vandals
Method: Smashed with crowbars and axes

Title: Fountain
Artist: Marcel Duchamp
Year: 2006
Perpetrator: Pierre Pinoncelli
Method: Chipped with Hammer

Title: Snow White and the Madness of Truth
Artist:Dror Feiler & Gunilla Sköld Feiler
Year: 2004
Perpetrator: Israeli Ambassadordor to Sweden, Zvi Mazel
Method: Dismembered [Read more...]

I came across the American Library Association’s (ALA) Digital Copyright Slider while reading up on Fair Use issues. Designed by the ALA’s Office for Information Technology Policy as a tool for library administrators, the slider offers a simple interface for anyone to quickly assess copyright terms.

Users drag a red marker according to the first date of publication in the US and the slider spits up relevant copyright status. Copyright law is, however, a murky world with plenty of nuance. To this end, the Digital Copyright Slider offers an asterisk with a short explanation of why a work may or may not be covered by copyright. Common exceptions to full copyright protection include Fair Use or alternative licensing schemes such as Creative Commons or General Public License.

In addition to the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) (17 USC 106A), there are 12 individual states with codified moral rights. See also “Know Your Moral Rights” for an overview of moral rights in the context of Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association (745 F.Supp.130 S.D.N.Y.,1990).

California, Cal. Civ. Code § 987 (West 1982) (Supp. 1996):
Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 42-116s, 116t (West 1992) (Supp. 1996);
Illinois, Ill. Rev. Stat. Ann. Ch. 815 § 320 (West 1993);
Louisiana, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:2151 (West 1987) (Supp. 1995);
Maine, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 27, § 303 (1988) (Supp. 1995);
Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 231, § 85S (West 1989) (Supp. 1996);
Nevada, Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. Ch. 597.720 (Michie 1994);
New Jersey, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:24A (West 1987) (Supp. 1996);
New Mexico, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 13-4B-2 (1988);
New York, N.Y. Arts & Cult. Aff. Law § 14.03 (McKinney 1984) (Supp. 1996);
Pennsylvania, Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 73 P.S. § 2101 (Purdon 1993);
Rhode Island, R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-62-2 (1995).