Joe Merante's Blog

Like many, I use my real name in my Gmail email address.  I swear by the service and have had an account since they became publicly available.  Earlier today, someone re-sent me an email they mistakenly sent to firstname.lastname@gmail.com, whereas mine is the last.first@gmail.com.  So, I tried to register the former as a catchall but it's not available.  I wondered whether another Joe Merante had claimed it.  There are more than one of us out there, although we don't have a town named after us and no yearly gathering (yet?), unlike the Phil Campbells of the world.  (Sadly, while searching for links to Phil Campbell, AL and the Phil Campbell Convention, I noticed the town has recently been devastated by a tornado.  You can help here .)  I couldn't find another claim to a similar email address but remembered the feature in Gmail that will deliver a message even if there is a (misplaced) period anywhere in a recipient's address.  For example,...

The blogosphere has been abuzz with discussion of the antics of Righthaven, a company that contracted with a Las Vegas newspaper to sue bloggers and others over allegedly infringed copyrights and split the payments 50-50.  The most recent turn of events involves the unsealing of Righthaven’s contract with Stephens Media, the parent company of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, describing the above agreement.  Stephens has not actually assigned the copyrights, they have merely assigned accrued causes of action.  Under Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. , 402 F. 3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) , this is clearly impermissible.  Thus, much-anticipated fair use considerations in the case may never be reached since it will (likely) get booted first. After reading Silvers, a few things struck me.  Nancy Silvers wrote a script as a work-for-hire for Frank & Bob Films.  Later, when Sony allegedly infringed the copyright, the company executed an “Assignment of...

Update July 2012: Although the agency later reversed its decision, Flying Dog still pursued the case and has now lost in Michigan District Court. The brewery plans to appeal . I'll post the decision if I come across a copy. According to a complaint filed by the Flying Dog Brewery against the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, the Commission has prevented the brewery from selling their popular Raging Bitch Twentieth Anniversary Belgian-Style India Pale Ale in Michigan, now the company's top selling beer.  The complaint details the history of the brewery and how its founder's relationship with artist Ralph Steadman has contributed the creative naming and label designs in the "Gonzo" spirit.  Even if the beer weren't so delicious, I'd still feel the same way about the case. In late 2009 and affirmed in the summer of 2010, the Commission refused to approve the brewery's Raging Bitch label: The Commission finds that the proposed label which inclu...

PatentlyO, the leading patent law analysis site, offers a summary of a recent 8th Circuit case about the contours of the public domain.  Basically, a group of companies (AVELA) took images from public domain promotional movie posters of the Wizard of Oz and licensed them to various manufacturers of t-shirts and other novelty items.  Warner Brothers (WB) claimed that their (derivative work) copyright in the film's depiction of the characters is infringed by AVELA's use of the public domain posters depicting those same characters.  There are other works involved, and plenty of nitty gritty copyright geekery.  If you find cases like Stewart v. Abend (the Rear Window case) interesting, read on or check out the briefs .  As PatentlyO summarizes: "On summary judgment, the Missouri-based district court agreed that the defendant had not copied any images from the films, but still held that the defendant was liable for infringing the film copyrights."  ...

The Main Event Last night I attended a great event at Cardozo Law School titled Our Bizarre System For Proving Copyright Infringement , also the name of Professor Mark Lemley’s paper which the four distinguished panelists, including Lemley, discussed.  Thanks to the school and panelists for hosting a very interesting and informative event.  Each panelist provided commentary on the paper before a few audience questions, followed by a reception where I once again had the opportunity to engage in a spirited discussion of the merits of Creative Commons licensing ( round one here ).  In other words, arguing with old ladies. Professor Lemley began by providing an excellent summary of the existing standards and the slight variations by circuit in the test for proving copyright infringement.  Two formulations of essentially the same procedure are followed to determine whether there is substantial similarity between two works, resulting in infringement.  Arnstein v. ...

While working on a research proposal, I drafted: This experience also highlights a broader trend: the immeasurable wealth produced by “free” platforms that has finally forced a reexamination of our information laws and policies.  MS Word grammar check suggested: This experience also highlights a broader trend: the immeasurable wealth produced by “free”, a platform that has finally forced a reexamination of our information laws and policies.

Today, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in Sony v. Starr .  This class action against the major record labels challenged two joint ventures created to license the majors' music online: pressplay and MusicNet.  Although the two ventures long ago faded into Internet history, the denial of certiorari means that the case can proceed in the lower courts.  The petition came after the Second Circuit's decision in January 2010 that reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the labels on the grounds that the complaint did not satisfy the plausibility standard set forth in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly .  As reiterated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal , “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”  In reversing, the Second Circuit found that the allegations, taken as true, amply state a plausible claim of conspi...