ASSUNTO DA AULA: SEGREDO DE EMPRESA
ALUNO: PABLO VITÓRIO
No formato pptx:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=969FLUFZ
No formato ppt(antigo):
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=97NU4UNF
domingo, 21 de novembro de 2010
sexta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2010
Assunto da Prova do 2° GQ
O assunto da prova do 2° GQ vai ser o seguinte:
- Patentes
- Marcas
- Indicação Geográfica
- Desenho Industrial
- Propriedade Intelectual de Programas de Computador
segunda-feira, 8 de novembro de 2010
IP-Watch: European Officials Eye Pan-European Passport For Collective Copyright Licencing
November 08, 2010. European Officials Eye Pan-European Passport For Collective Copyright Licencing
The European Commission is considering a proposal in the coming months to create a pan-European passport for collective music licensing intended to overcome stifling difficulties of 27 national collecting societies, a top official has told Intellectual Property Watch in the context of a meeting on copyright and competition.
Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=13288&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts
The European Commission is considering a proposal in the coming months to create a pan-European passport for collective music licensing intended to overcome stifling difficulties of 27 national collecting societies, a top official has told Intellectual Property Watch in the context of a meeting on copyright and competition.
Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=13288&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts
IP-Watch: Dawn Of WIPO Industrial Design Treaty Talks; Internet As Trademark Danger Zone
November 07, 2010. Dawn Of WIPO Industrial Design Treaty Talks; Internet As Trademark Danger Zone
World Intellectual Property Organization members this week took early steps toward the possibility of a treaty to facilitate the registration of industrial designs, and urged WIPO to continue addressing potential new challenges to trademarks from the impending expansion of domain names on the internet.
Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=13262&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts
World Intellectual Property Organization members this week took early steps toward the possibility of a treaty to facilitate the registration of industrial designs, and urged WIPO to continue addressing potential new challenges to trademarks from the impending expansion of domain names on the internet.
Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=13262&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts
Assunto da próxima aula do Prof. Ruy no CIn-UFPE (dia 10/11/2010)
Vejam abaixo a mensagem enviada pelo Professor Ruy do CIn-UFPE a respeito da sua próxima aula.
Na próxima 4a.feira, 10/11/10, 12-14hs, no Anfiteatro do Centro de Informática da UFPE, daremos continuidade à série de seminários sobre "Tecnologia, Lei e Sociedade".
O tema da próxima 4a.feira (10/11) será "Propriedade Intelectual Digital. Os Comuns Criativos".
Trata-se de evento aberto à participação de todos os interessados (inclusive de fora da UFPE).
A série serve também de provedora de conteúdo às disciplinas "Seminários em Inteligência Artificial" (graduação) e "Tópicos Avançados em Algoritmos e Complexidade 2" (pós-graduação), ambas com o subtítulo "Tecnologia, Lei e Sociedade". Já há uma rede social formada para servir de forum: "Tecnologia e Convivência".
Todos são bem-vindos!
Ruy
P.S. Serão exibidos os seguintes video clips:
1- Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity (TED, 2007, 19min) (legendado em português) Larry Lessig, the Net’s most celebrated lawyer, cites John Philip Sousa, celestial copyrights and the "ASCAP cartel" in his argument for reviving our creative culture.Harvard professor Larry Lessig is one of our foremost authorities on copyright issues, with a vision for reconciling creative freedom with marketplace competition. No expert has brought as much fresh thinking to the field of contemporary copyright law as has Lawrence Lessig. A Harvard professor and founder of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, this fiery believer foresaw the response a threatened content industry would have to digital technology -- and he came to the aid of the citizenry.As corporate interests have sought to rein in the forces of Napster and YouTube, Lessig has fought back with argument -- take his recent appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court, fighting the extension of copyright protection from 50 to 70 years -- and with solutions: He chairs Creative Commons, a nuanced, free licensing scheme for individual creators. Lessig possesses a rare combination of lawerly exactitude and impassioned love of the creative impulse. Applying both with equal dedication, he has become a true hero to artists, authors, scientists, coders and opiners everywhere.
2 - Good Copy Bad Copy, A documentary about the current state of copyright and culture (2007, 59min) (legendado em português), is a documentary about copyright and culturein the context of Internet, peer-to-peer file sharing and other technological advances, directed by Andreas Johnsen, Ralf Christensen, and Henrik Moltke. It features interviews with many people with various perspectives on copyright, including copyright lawyers, producers and artists. A central point of the documentary is the thesis that "creativity itself is on the line" and that a balance needs to be struck, or that there is a conflict, between protecting the right of those who own intellectual property and the rights of future generations to create. Do GoogleVideo: "O melhor documentário sobre direitos autorais e cultura já feito até hoje. Com entrevistas que vão desde o DJ Girl Talk, até o produtor nigeriano Charles Igwe e passando pelo presidente da International Federation of the Phonografic Industry, John Kennedy, os diretores conseguiram captar a tensão existente no debate atual entre detentores de conteúdo da indústria tradicional e artistas da nova indústria."
quinta-feira, 4 de novembro de 2010
Intellectual Property Watch - IP-Watch
30 October 2010
30 October 2010
A Primer On Spotting IP Issues Associated with Social Media Websites and Content
Disclaimer: the views expressed in this column are solely those of the authors and are not associated with Intellectual Property Watch. IP-Watch expressly disclaims and refuses any responsibility or liability for the content, style or form of any posts made to this forum, which remain solely the responsibility of their authors. By Charles R. Macedo, Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP
Most businesspeople and generalists understand that social media can be an important but risky part of doing business. This article seeks to identify how to spot potential intellectual property law issues associated with social media websites and content that can arise for a company.
I. Common Aspects of Social Media Websites
There are certain fundamental aspects that internet sites (whether they be social media websites or any other kind) have in common.
First, an internet site resides at a domain name or Uniform Resource Locator (URL). The domain name or URL is like the street address of a website. Social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter will also have specific URL pages for specific users.
Social media may be integrated into company websites directly by allowing for users of the websites to comment or share information in response to postings on the websites (like blogs) or products offered for sale (like product reviews or commentaries). Social media may also be integrated in less direct fashions, such as through sharing links which allow a user to tell his or her friends on a social media website like Facebook that the user “likes” the product, article or website, or by providing a link in a “tweet” on Twitter.
Websites are used for the sale of products, content or the display of other kinds of information.
In addition to merely displaying data or other information in response to an inquiry, websites can also obtain, process, reformat and/or display data obtained from other sources. For example, the US Patent and Trademark Office provides text and image versions of US patents at its website, http://www.uspto.gov. Other websites may use this same information and reformulate the data (sometimes along with other data) in different forms, such as at http://www.google.com/patents and http://www.pat2pdf.org.
All of these types of websites can create intellectual property rights and potentially infringe upon others’ intellectual property rights.
II. Relevant Intellectual Property Laws
Intellectual property is considered property of the mind. Expressions of ideas, identifying information, inventions and business relationships can all be protected (and potentially infringed) through different kinds of intellectual property laws and related legal theories.
A. Copyright Law
Copyright law provides legal protection for original expressions of ideas being reproduced without authorisation. Copyright protection covers a large variety of original works, including:
Similarly, copyright law can potentially be used to prevent others from data mining content from a company’s website and using its original content without permission.
In particular, manipulating, parsing, reorganising, and merging public data with other data can lead to potentially copyrightable data. Copyright law can be an effective way to protect a company’s data and other original content.
In addition, if careful analysis is not done upfront on how a website obtains, manipulates and presents data and other information, that website can be the subject of a copyright infringement action by others. Here again, this is an area where consulting counsel in the first instance can save a company a lot of expense and aggravation over the long haul.
In the context of social media websites, blog postings, answers to requests, “tweets”, pictures taken or created and posted on a user’s page, or other content driven expression are all potentially copyrightable. A company needs to be careful how it, its employees and others post the company’s content and content of others.
Some social media websites claim copyright ownership over all items posted on their websites. Other social media websites recognise that the copyright remains with the author (presumably the individual or company posting the content at issue). Before a company allows for its information to be posted on social media websites, it should make sure to carefully review the terms and conditions of such websites to make sure that the company is not unwittingly giving up its copyrights to the content.
Companies also need to be careful of posting the copyrighted content of others without permission. Clearing rights to post others’ copyrighted material is an important step for any company.
Ownership of copyrights is also a difficult area for many people to fully understand. In preparing copyright applications, companies are often lulled into thinking that because the form appears so simple, they do not need expert advice on how to fill it out. However, this is an instance where the apparent simplicity can lead to disastrous results. See, e.g., “Joint Authorship of Doo-Wop Song Found Based on Disputed 10 per cent Contribution to Lyrics” [pdf], JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW & PRACTICE, November 1, 2009.
Identifying authors of a particular work and source materials from which a work was derived can be complicated. Also, making sure that a particular work made either with the assistance of or by another is a “work for hire” and/or properly assigned is another area where errors often occur. Many purported copyright owners do not appreciate that not every kind of “work” qualifies as a “work for hire”.
Making sure appropriate contracts are entered into when a copyrightable work is being prepared is important, and it is worth consulting a trained copyright lawyer in the first instance.
B. Trademark Law
In general, trademarks are used to identify a single source of products and services sold on a website.
A trademark is a symbol, a word, or another readily recognisable item, such as a brief musical snippet, that uniquely identifies the source or origin of goods. In other words, a trademark identifies where a particular product comes from.
Trademark law protects against likelihood of confusion; that is, whether consumers are likely to think that the sources of two goods or services are the same.
Web pages commonly use word or logo forms of trademarks. In the multimedia world that the internet has become, it is not surprising to also visit websites where sound marks (e.g., “Hedwig’s Theme” from the Harry Potter movie playing on a Harry Potter website) are used to identify the source of the website.
Similarly, domain names for websites can also be based on a company’s trademark, e.g., http:/www.amazon.com, http://www.panasonic.com, http://www.jvc.com, etc.
In social media, not only is a company’s trademark used in the main URL address, such as the use by Facebook of its trademark in its URL address http://www.facebook.com, but users’ trademarks may be used to identify specific user pages on such social media websites. For example, Starbucks has a Facebook page to advertise a specific coffee product.
On the internet, trademark law can potentially be used to protect competitors from selling goods or services with confusingly similar marks. It may also be used to prevent the use by others of domain names and user pages that incorporate a company’s trademarks and search engines and other software that use a company’s trademarks to divert potential customers to competitors’ websites, products or services.
These are important business tools that cannot be ignored when operating a business on the internet. The role of social media in this potential attraction or diversion is increasing every day as more companies create “fan” pages, social media websites create and implement more widgets to interconnect with other web outlets, and more and more opportunities to use trademarks in URL addresses are created, with not only additional high level domain names (.com, .org, .biz, .net, .tv, etc.), but also with individual user pages on social media and other websites.
To start with, as with other businesses, the selection and use of appropriate trademarks for an internet-based business is quite important. Selection of certain kinds of marks with popular descriptive terms in them can direct the flow of internet traffic to a company’s website.
However, adoption of that same kind of trademark can also result in consumers, who are looking for that company’s products or services, being diverted to a competitor’s website in a fair and reasonable manner.
Consider, for example, one of the leading “pop-up” cases from the Second Circuit involving the mark “1-800-Contacts”. On one hand, whenever a consumer searches for “contacts,” a website containing this mark will be returned. Thus, many potential internet consumers may potentially be driven to the website.
On the other hand, when consumers search for the mark “1-800-Contacts,” consumers may be diverted to a competitor’s website since search engines can sell the key word “contacts” to competitors with minimal risk of being accused of trademark infringement.
Thus, while selecting a mark that includes the product being offered as part of that mark may direct traffic to the website, there may also be great difficulty in trying to stop others from redirecting traffic to their websites.
Another important consideration at the time of selecting a mark is whether others are already using the mark. Thus, it is prudent to do a “clearance search” prior to implementing a new mark.
Trademark law can also be useful in preventing others from adopting domain names which incorporate a company’s registered trademark. These third party domain names using a company’s marks can be harmful to its reputation (depending upon their content) or can divert potential business leads away from the company.
While procedures like lawsuits and ICANN proceedings exist to force third parties that misappropriate a company’s registered trademarks to return the domain names to the company, the easiest way to avoid such costly procedures is for the company to register the various, obvious derivatives of its marks to be directed to its website in the first instance.
Spending fifty dollars today can save a company thousands of dollars in the future. In order to ensure that a company’s trademarks remain enforceable, best practices dictate that a proper system of monitoring and enforcing those trademarks be set up and maintained. Such a system typically includes the use of watch services to review filings with the US Patent and Trademark Office, periodic internet searches, following up with cease and desist letters, and if necessary, enforcement proceedings. Using “alerts” from search engines can also help identify unauthorized use of a company’s trademark on the internet.
For social media websites and other internet venues, the role of whose duty it is to police and enforce against violations differs internationally, as evidenced by the seemingly contradictory results in the U.S. and France in actions brought against eBay for its alleged failings in protecting against the sale of counterfeit items. See, e.g., eBay: A Tale of Two Defenses [pdf], IP Law360, August 22, 2008.
Companies should set up appropriate policing mechanisms to see how their important trademarks are used on e-commerce and social media websites, and when appropriate follow such websites notice and take down procedures to protect against abuses.
While these procedures may at times seem like expensive diversions to a company, the cost of not instituting such procedures can be diverted sales, brand tarnishment, and potentially a loss of trademark rights.
C. Patent Law
Since at least the State Street decision in 1998, patent protection has been important with respect to the internet. Although over the past few years, critics have sought to limit so-called “business method” patents, the recent Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos has confirmed that such patents are here to stay, and thus cannot be ignored as a class.
Patents are issued for a limited time (20 years from earliest filing date) for new, useful and non-obvious ideas to the first and true inventor.
While patent offices around the world are struggling with this issue, at least in the United States, novel and non-obvious techniques for manipulating data can potentially be subject to patent protection. Similarly, in the United States, other novel and non-obvious business method techniques can also potentially be subject to patent protection. In the context of the internet in particular, at least in the United States, patents can be used to prevent others from copying novel and non-obvious aspects of a website such as:
With respect to social media websites, patents can potentially cover ways that social media websites operate, ways that a company’s website interacts with a social media website such as through advertisements or linkages, or other operability that may be developed in the future.
As new business models are developed and implemented, patent protection for new and non-obvious practical applications and particular implementations are being sought and obtained, and will be the subject of future litigations in years to come.
D. Business Torts Law
In addition to federal trademark law, there are a host of related state law causes of action (e.g., unfair competition, tortious interference, trespass to chattels, misappropriation, etc.) that can be used to address trademark-like injuries.
Unfair competition is a flexible cause of action directed to address unfair or fraudulent business practices. A cause for unfair competition can potentially address a wide range of conduct by competitors that affects a company’s business.
Examples of cases in which unfair competition claims have been invoked include false or deceptive advertisements, misstatements about a competitor’s products, and other false and misleading statements which injure a business or its reputation.
When actual or potential customers are diverted by improper means from a company’s website, a cause of action for tortious interference with contract and/or tortious interference with prospective business relations may be appropriate. However, since this is a state law claim, it important to make sure to consider the correct law and the scope of potential defences available under that law.
Tortious interference claims can address the circumstances where a company’s trademarks are misused by other websites and cause inappropriate diversion of customers or prospective customers from the company’s website.
Conversion and misappropriation claims apply when property is taken. An interesting legal theory exists whereby a misappropriation claim may be present when goodwill is taken by improper acts, such as adopting another’s business name in a jurisdiction where that entity does not do business, but nonetheless has fame and goodwill based on that entity’s operation in other venues.
Trespass to chattel claims apply when someone improperly intrudes upon another’s property. These types of causes of action have been used, for example, to stop third parties from robot mining data from a website.
E. Trade Secret Law
Trade secret law protects a secret formula, pattern or compilation of information. One of the most famous trade secrets is Coca Cola’s secret formula, or the Colonel’s secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken. Other examples of trade secrets can include a secret manufacturing process, a list of customers or trade routes who purchase or would likely be interested in purchasing a particular product or service, or the source code for a computer program.
Most companies protect some aspect of their businesses using trade secret protections. Some are better than others at doing so.
Social media and the internet can put at risk a company’s trade secrets. Since the sine qua non of a trade secret is that it is kept secret, the speed and ease in which information can be rapidly (and permanently) distributed with a click of a button in social media and internet poses a clear risk for any company seeking to maintain a trade secret. A simple posting of a company’s secret information can destroy the secret and leave that information to be available to anyone.
Consider, for a second, a company that considers its customer list to be a trade secret and seeks to protect such information. A salesperson who identifies those customers as “friends” on Facebook, or “connections” on LinkedIn, or some other similar status on another social media website, could destroy the secret nature of such a list. It also can lead to that salesperson, in essence, appropriating that information should he or she leave to go to work for a competitor.
F. Contract Law
Contract law can be used to fill gaps in intellectual property law, and obtain protection that might not otherwise be clearly available.
The best time to work out the scope of rights with a business partner is at the beginning of the relationship. At that time, parties are more willing to give and take with each other since the prospect of a successful and profitable business relationship is around the corner. Thus, at that time, provisions can be included in agreements that help ensure that intellectual property will be recognized and respected.
However, care must be taken on how the contract clauses are drafted in order to avoid the risk of such clauses becoming unenforceable.
Arm’s length agreements can be useful ways of establishing royalty rates for intellectual property. Care must be taken in specifying what is being paid for pursuant to the agreement, such as the services, goods, rights to use intellectual property, etc.
Non-compete clauses, so long as properly drafted considering appropriate state law, can provide protection that other areas of intellectual property law might not otherwise provide. For example, non-compete clauses can protect a company from key employees leaving and stealing business or trade secrets. Again, care must be taken to come within the parameters of the particular state law that governs the contract.
Agreements which license rights to use a company’s trademarks can include remedies that are broader than the law might otherwise provide. Consequently, the uses that a company tolerates by agreement can affect the uses that the company can object to in future disputes. The failure to include certain necessary clauses in trademark licenses can have adverse results on the enforceability of such marks in future contracts.
Shrink wrap/click through agreements can be used to prevent misuse of a company’s data by users. However, enforceability of such agreements may be an issue, depending upon the terms, conditions, choice of law and method and document by which the user acknowledges acceptance.
Contracts can also be used to fill other gaps that other forms of intellectual property law might otherwise leave open.
III. Conclusion
For internet business, like other business, the use of intellectual property law needs to be carefully considered.
A strategic plan should be developed on how to identify a company’s intellectual property, turn it into a tangible asset and properly enforce and protect it.
Charles Macedo is a Partner at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP and author of The Corporate Insider’s Guide to U.S. Patent Practice, published by Oxford University Press. Mr. Macedo’s practice specializes on intellectual property issues including litigating patent, trademark and other intellectual property disputes, prosecuting patents before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other patent offices throughout the world, registering trademarks and service marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other trademark offices throughout the world, and drafting and negotiating intellectual property agreements. He may be reached at cmacedo@arelaw.com. Mr. Macedo would like to thank Norajean McCaffrey, an associate at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, for her helpful comments.
Categories: English, Inside Views
Most businesspeople and generalists understand that social media can be an important but risky part of doing business. This article seeks to identify how to spot potential intellectual property law issues associated with social media websites and content that can arise for a company.
I. Common Aspects of Social Media Websites
There are certain fundamental aspects that internet sites (whether they be social media websites or any other kind) have in common.
First, an internet site resides at a domain name or Uniform Resource Locator (URL). The domain name or URL is like the street address of a website. Social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter will also have specific URL pages for specific users.
Social media may be integrated into company websites directly by allowing for users of the websites to comment or share information in response to postings on the websites (like blogs) or products offered for sale (like product reviews or commentaries). Social media may also be integrated in less direct fashions, such as through sharing links which allow a user to tell his or her friends on a social media website like Facebook that the user “likes” the product, article or website, or by providing a link in a “tweet” on Twitter.
Websites are used for the sale of products, content or the display of other kinds of information.
In addition to merely displaying data or other information in response to an inquiry, websites can also obtain, process, reformat and/or display data obtained from other sources. For example, the US Patent and Trademark Office provides text and image versions of US patents at its website, http://www.uspto.gov. Other websites may use this same information and reformulate the data (sometimes along with other data) in different forms, such as at http://www.google.com/patents and http://www.pat2pdf.org.
All of these types of websites can create intellectual property rights and potentially infringe upon others’ intellectual property rights.
II. Relevant Intellectual Property Laws
Intellectual property is considered property of the mind. Expressions of ideas, identifying information, inventions and business relationships can all be protected (and potentially infringed) through different kinds of intellectual property laws and related legal theories.
- Copyright law protects original expressions of ideas from being copied by others.
- Trademark law protects identifying information (e.g., a company’s brand) from being used in a confusingly similar manner by more than one company in a related line of business.
- Patent law protects new, useful and nonobvious ideas from being used by others.
- Business Torts law protects against wrongful conduct such as misappropriating another’s property, unfairly competing, or tortiously interfering with someone else’s business expectation or contract.
- Trade Secret law allows for the protection of secret formulae, patterns, or compilations of information.
- Contract law protects business partners as the parties to the contact agree.
A. Copyright Law
Copyright law provides legal protection for original expressions of ideas being reproduced without authorisation. Copyright protection covers a large variety of original works, including:
- “literary works,” like books and magazines, computer software and related works;
- “musical works,” like songs and the accompanying lyrics;
- “dramatic works,” like plays;
- “pantomimes and choreographic works,” like dance movements and ballets;
- “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” like paintings, pictures, jewelry, toys and statues;
- “motion pictures and other audiovisual works,” including movies, television broadcasts and DVDs;
- “sound recordings,” including MP3 files;
- “architectural works,” like designs for buildings; and
- original compilations of data.
Similarly, copyright law can potentially be used to prevent others from data mining content from a company’s website and using its original content without permission.
In particular, manipulating, parsing, reorganising, and merging public data with other data can lead to potentially copyrightable data. Copyright law can be an effective way to protect a company’s data and other original content.
In addition, if careful analysis is not done upfront on how a website obtains, manipulates and presents data and other information, that website can be the subject of a copyright infringement action by others. Here again, this is an area where consulting counsel in the first instance can save a company a lot of expense and aggravation over the long haul.
In the context of social media websites, blog postings, answers to requests, “tweets”, pictures taken or created and posted on a user’s page, or other content driven expression are all potentially copyrightable. A company needs to be careful how it, its employees and others post the company’s content and content of others.
Some social media websites claim copyright ownership over all items posted on their websites. Other social media websites recognise that the copyright remains with the author (presumably the individual or company posting the content at issue). Before a company allows for its information to be posted on social media websites, it should make sure to carefully review the terms and conditions of such websites to make sure that the company is not unwittingly giving up its copyrights to the content.
Companies also need to be careful of posting the copyrighted content of others without permission. Clearing rights to post others’ copyrighted material is an important step for any company.
Ownership of copyrights is also a difficult area for many people to fully understand. In preparing copyright applications, companies are often lulled into thinking that because the form appears so simple, they do not need expert advice on how to fill it out. However, this is an instance where the apparent simplicity can lead to disastrous results. See, e.g., “Joint Authorship of Doo-Wop Song Found Based on Disputed 10 per cent Contribution to Lyrics” [pdf], JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW & PRACTICE, November 1, 2009.
Identifying authors of a particular work and source materials from which a work was derived can be complicated. Also, making sure that a particular work made either with the assistance of or by another is a “work for hire” and/or properly assigned is another area where errors often occur. Many purported copyright owners do not appreciate that not every kind of “work” qualifies as a “work for hire”.
Making sure appropriate contracts are entered into when a copyrightable work is being prepared is important, and it is worth consulting a trained copyright lawyer in the first instance.
B. Trademark Law
In general, trademarks are used to identify a single source of products and services sold on a website.
A trademark is a symbol, a word, or another readily recognisable item, such as a brief musical snippet, that uniquely identifies the source or origin of goods. In other words, a trademark identifies where a particular product comes from.
Trademark law protects against likelihood of confusion; that is, whether consumers are likely to think that the sources of two goods or services are the same.
Web pages commonly use word or logo forms of trademarks. In the multimedia world that the internet has become, it is not surprising to also visit websites where sound marks (e.g., “Hedwig’s Theme” from the Harry Potter movie playing on a Harry Potter website) are used to identify the source of the website.
Similarly, domain names for websites can also be based on a company’s trademark, e.g., http:/www.amazon.com, http://www.panasonic.com, http://www.jvc.com, etc.
In social media, not only is a company’s trademark used in the main URL address, such as the use by Facebook of its trademark in its URL address http://www.facebook.com, but users’ trademarks may be used to identify specific user pages on such social media websites. For example, Starbucks has a Facebook page to advertise a specific coffee product.
On the internet, trademark law can potentially be used to protect competitors from selling goods or services with confusingly similar marks. It may also be used to prevent the use by others of domain names and user pages that incorporate a company’s trademarks and search engines and other software that use a company’s trademarks to divert potential customers to competitors’ websites, products or services.
These are important business tools that cannot be ignored when operating a business on the internet. The role of social media in this potential attraction or diversion is increasing every day as more companies create “fan” pages, social media websites create and implement more widgets to interconnect with other web outlets, and more and more opportunities to use trademarks in URL addresses are created, with not only additional high level domain names (.com, .org, .biz, .net, .tv, etc.), but also with individual user pages on social media and other websites.
To start with, as with other businesses, the selection and use of appropriate trademarks for an internet-based business is quite important. Selection of certain kinds of marks with popular descriptive terms in them can direct the flow of internet traffic to a company’s website.
However, adoption of that same kind of trademark can also result in consumers, who are looking for that company’s products or services, being diverted to a competitor’s website in a fair and reasonable manner.
Consider, for example, one of the leading “pop-up” cases from the Second Circuit involving the mark “1-800-Contacts”. On one hand, whenever a consumer searches for “contacts,” a website containing this mark will be returned. Thus, many potential internet consumers may potentially be driven to the website.
On the other hand, when consumers search for the mark “1-800-Contacts,” consumers may be diverted to a competitor’s website since search engines can sell the key word “contacts” to competitors with minimal risk of being accused of trademark infringement.
Thus, while selecting a mark that includes the product being offered as part of that mark may direct traffic to the website, there may also be great difficulty in trying to stop others from redirecting traffic to their websites.
Another important consideration at the time of selecting a mark is whether others are already using the mark. Thus, it is prudent to do a “clearance search” prior to implementing a new mark.
Trademark law can also be useful in preventing others from adopting domain names which incorporate a company’s registered trademark. These third party domain names using a company’s marks can be harmful to its reputation (depending upon their content) or can divert potential business leads away from the company.
While procedures like lawsuits and ICANN proceedings exist to force third parties that misappropriate a company’s registered trademarks to return the domain names to the company, the easiest way to avoid such costly procedures is for the company to register the various, obvious derivatives of its marks to be directed to its website in the first instance.
Spending fifty dollars today can save a company thousands of dollars in the future. In order to ensure that a company’s trademarks remain enforceable, best practices dictate that a proper system of monitoring and enforcing those trademarks be set up and maintained. Such a system typically includes the use of watch services to review filings with the US Patent and Trademark Office, periodic internet searches, following up with cease and desist letters, and if necessary, enforcement proceedings. Using “alerts” from search engines can also help identify unauthorized use of a company’s trademark on the internet.
For social media websites and other internet venues, the role of whose duty it is to police and enforce against violations differs internationally, as evidenced by the seemingly contradictory results in the U.S. and France in actions brought against eBay for its alleged failings in protecting against the sale of counterfeit items. See, e.g., eBay: A Tale of Two Defenses [pdf], IP Law360, August 22, 2008.
Companies should set up appropriate policing mechanisms to see how their important trademarks are used on e-commerce and social media websites, and when appropriate follow such websites notice and take down procedures to protect against abuses.
While these procedures may at times seem like expensive diversions to a company, the cost of not instituting such procedures can be diverted sales, brand tarnishment, and potentially a loss of trademark rights.
C. Patent Law
Since at least the State Street decision in 1998, patent protection has been important with respect to the internet. Although over the past few years, critics have sought to limit so-called “business method” patents, the recent Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos has confirmed that such patents are here to stay, and thus cannot be ignored as a class.
Patents are issued for a limited time (20 years from earliest filing date) for new, useful and non-obvious ideas to the first and true inventor.
While patent offices around the world are struggling with this issue, at least in the United States, novel and non-obvious techniques for manipulating data can potentially be subject to patent protection. Similarly, in the United States, other novel and non-obvious business method techniques can also potentially be subject to patent protection. In the context of the internet in particular, at least in the United States, patents can be used to prevent others from copying novel and non-obvious aspects of a website such as:
- How data is accessed and manipulated;
- Novel and nonobvious functions of one’s software;
- New business methods implemented by one’s website;
- New functionality of one’s software programs;
- New techniques used to block misappropriation of one’s data.
With respect to social media websites, patents can potentially cover ways that social media websites operate, ways that a company’s website interacts with a social media website such as through advertisements or linkages, or other operability that may be developed in the future.
As new business models are developed and implemented, patent protection for new and non-obvious practical applications and particular implementations are being sought and obtained, and will be the subject of future litigations in years to come.
D. Business Torts Law
In addition to federal trademark law, there are a host of related state law causes of action (e.g., unfair competition, tortious interference, trespass to chattels, misappropriation, etc.) that can be used to address trademark-like injuries.
Unfair competition is a flexible cause of action directed to address unfair or fraudulent business practices. A cause for unfair competition can potentially address a wide range of conduct by competitors that affects a company’s business.
Examples of cases in which unfair competition claims have been invoked include false or deceptive advertisements, misstatements about a competitor’s products, and other false and misleading statements which injure a business or its reputation.
When actual or potential customers are diverted by improper means from a company’s website, a cause of action for tortious interference with contract and/or tortious interference with prospective business relations may be appropriate. However, since this is a state law claim, it important to make sure to consider the correct law and the scope of potential defences available under that law.
Tortious interference claims can address the circumstances where a company’s trademarks are misused by other websites and cause inappropriate diversion of customers or prospective customers from the company’s website.
Conversion and misappropriation claims apply when property is taken. An interesting legal theory exists whereby a misappropriation claim may be present when goodwill is taken by improper acts, such as adopting another’s business name in a jurisdiction where that entity does not do business, but nonetheless has fame and goodwill based on that entity’s operation in other venues.
Trespass to chattel claims apply when someone improperly intrudes upon another’s property. These types of causes of action have been used, for example, to stop third parties from robot mining data from a website.
E. Trade Secret Law
Trade secret law protects a secret formula, pattern or compilation of information. One of the most famous trade secrets is Coca Cola’s secret formula, or the Colonel’s secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken. Other examples of trade secrets can include a secret manufacturing process, a list of customers or trade routes who purchase or would likely be interested in purchasing a particular product or service, or the source code for a computer program.
Most companies protect some aspect of their businesses using trade secret protections. Some are better than others at doing so.
Social media and the internet can put at risk a company’s trade secrets. Since the sine qua non of a trade secret is that it is kept secret, the speed and ease in which information can be rapidly (and permanently) distributed with a click of a button in social media and internet poses a clear risk for any company seeking to maintain a trade secret. A simple posting of a company’s secret information can destroy the secret and leave that information to be available to anyone.
Consider, for a second, a company that considers its customer list to be a trade secret and seeks to protect such information. A salesperson who identifies those customers as “friends” on Facebook, or “connections” on LinkedIn, or some other similar status on another social media website, could destroy the secret nature of such a list. It also can lead to that salesperson, in essence, appropriating that information should he or she leave to go to work for a competitor.
F. Contract Law
Contract law can be used to fill gaps in intellectual property law, and obtain protection that might not otherwise be clearly available.
The best time to work out the scope of rights with a business partner is at the beginning of the relationship. At that time, parties are more willing to give and take with each other since the prospect of a successful and profitable business relationship is around the corner. Thus, at that time, provisions can be included in agreements that help ensure that intellectual property will be recognized and respected.
However, care must be taken on how the contract clauses are drafted in order to avoid the risk of such clauses becoming unenforceable.
Arm’s length agreements can be useful ways of establishing royalty rates for intellectual property. Care must be taken in specifying what is being paid for pursuant to the agreement, such as the services, goods, rights to use intellectual property, etc.
Non-compete clauses, so long as properly drafted considering appropriate state law, can provide protection that other areas of intellectual property law might not otherwise provide. For example, non-compete clauses can protect a company from key employees leaving and stealing business or trade secrets. Again, care must be taken to come within the parameters of the particular state law that governs the contract.
Agreements which license rights to use a company’s trademarks can include remedies that are broader than the law might otherwise provide. Consequently, the uses that a company tolerates by agreement can affect the uses that the company can object to in future disputes. The failure to include certain necessary clauses in trademark licenses can have adverse results on the enforceability of such marks in future contracts.
Shrink wrap/click through agreements can be used to prevent misuse of a company’s data by users. However, enforceability of such agreements may be an issue, depending upon the terms, conditions, choice of law and method and document by which the user acknowledges acceptance.
Contracts can also be used to fill other gaps that other forms of intellectual property law might otherwise leave open.
III. Conclusion
For internet business, like other business, the use of intellectual property law needs to be carefully considered.
A strategic plan should be developed on how to identify a company’s intellectual property, turn it into a tangible asset and properly enforce and protect it.
Charles Macedo is a Partner at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP and author of The Corporate Insider’s Guide to U.S. Patent Practice, published by Oxford University Press. Mr. Macedo’s practice specializes on intellectual property issues including litigating patent, trademark and other intellectual property disputes, prosecuting patents before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other patent offices throughout the world, registering trademarks and service marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other trademark offices throughout the world, and drafting and negotiating intellectual property agreements. He may be reached at cmacedo@arelaw.com. Mr. Macedo would like to thank Norajean McCaffrey, an associate at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, for her helpful comments.quarta-feira, 20 de outubro de 2010
Os Comuns Culturais da Humanidade e o Ambientalismo Cultural
Por mais democratizante que tenha se revelado, a tecnologia parece trazer consigo novas ameaças aos bens comuns. Tal qual se observa nos males perpetrados ao meio ambiente em nome ou através da tecnologia, é cada vez mais grave a ameaça a bens comuns fundamentais à convivência humana: a cultura, e o amplo acesso ao universo das idéias. A tendência à digitalização de bens culturais (música, filme, texto, idéias) tem deixado a impressão de estar havendo mais espaço a um maior estímulo ao instinto humano de controle, de individualização da propriedade, mais particularmente, a propriedade intelectual, tudo isso em detrimento à natural disposição de compartilhar.
Assim como o tema da preservação ambiental e da sustentabilidade do planeta tem sido tratado com a merecida prioridade na sociedade contemporânea, é cada vez mais premente que se leve a sério a questão de como os “comuns culturais” da humanidade, isto é, a reserva compartilhada de arte e conhecimento, pode ser compatibilizada com as atuais leis um tanto severas de direitos autorais, as leis de propriedade intelectual, e os regimes restritivos de patentes.
Conforme a Wikipedia, tradicionalmente, os comuns foram definidos como os elementos do meio ambiente – florestas, atmosfera, rios, pastagens – que todos compartilhavam. Aí estariam incluídos os aspectos tangíveis assim como os intangíveis do meio ambiente que ninguém possui mas de que todos desfrutam. Historicamente, o termo “os comuns” descrevia as terras compartilhadas dos cidadãos medievais. Não se tratava de anarquia, pois restrições chamadas de “stints” os estabilizavam: cada cidadão só podia trazer para as pastagens as suas poucas vacas, e cortar juncos somente num certo mês. E tudo funcionava bem exatamente por causa das restrições: o seu uso era limitado.
Nos dias de hoje, “os comuns” é uma terminologia que se refere de forma mais ampla a recursos de propriedade coletiva ou compartilhados entre populações. Diz-se que esses recursos são “mantidos em comum” e podem incluir desde os recursos naturais e a terra, até o software. Em algumas áreas, o processo pelo qual os comuns foram transformados em propriedade privada foi denominado enclausuramento, que, aliás, teria iniciado na Inglaterra no séc. XV com a colocação de cerca em torno de terras comuns, transformando-as em terras privadas, e que teria durado até o séc. XIX. Hoje a ameaça de enclausuramento dos comuns intangíveis é uma realidade. Como já observava James Boyle, autor do já clássico “The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind” (Yale University Press, Jan/2010), em artigo intitulado “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain” (2003): “estamos em meio a um segundo movimento de enclausuramento. Parece grandiloquente chamá-lo de ‘o enclausuramento dos comuns intangíveis da mente’, mas num sentido muito real isso é exatamente o que ele é. É verdade, os novos direitos de propriedade criados pelo Estado podem ser ‘intelectuais’ ao invés de ‘reais’, porém uma vez mais as coisas que eram anteriormente concebidas como propriedade comum ou não-transformáveis em commodities estão sendo cobertas por novos ou recentemente estendidos direitos de propriedade”.
Como bem observa Robert Darnton, Professor e Diretor da Biblioteca da Harvard University, em artigo recente no New York Times (“A Republic of Letters”, 20/08/2010), propriedade intelectual tem se tornado um tópico tão quente que precisa ser amenizado com um pouco de história. A bem da verdade, as palavras de Darnton servem de abertura a sua resenha do livro mais recente de Lewis Hyde: em “Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership”, publicado pela Farrar, Straus and Giroux (17/Agosto/2010), Hyde estaria oferecendo um apelo erudito pela proteção do nosso patrimônio cultural contra a apropriação por interesses comerciais.
Nas palavras do próprio Hyde, “Common as Air” delineia “um modelo e uma defesa de nossos ‘comuns culturais’, aquela vasta reserva de idéias não-possuídas, invenções e obras de arte que herdamos do passado e que continuamos a criar”. Em atitude de resistência à concepção contemporânea de que todo trabalho criativo é “propriedade intelectual”, Hyde vai buscar nos pioneiros dos Estados Unidos da América – tais como John Adams, James Madison, e Thomas Jefferson – outras formas de valorizar os frutos do talento e da imaginação humana. E acaba se deparando com uma rica tradição na qual se supunha que o conhecimento era riqueza comum, e não uma reserva privada.
Através de uma retrospectiva histórica e recheada de estórias bem humoradas, Hyde se esforça para despertar a todos para a necessidade de se estabelecer os comuns culturais de artes e idéias, um domínio público vivo de trabalhos de criação que todos possam usar mas que sobre o qual ninguém detenha o controle proprietário. O que tem se revelado em decorrência de tantos litígios motivados por direitos autorais e por patentes, segundo Hyde, nos leva a crer que os pioneiros acabaram por não deixar uma forte herança no sentido de boas ferramentas para proteger esses comuns.
Além da falta de ferramentas de proteção, todo esse legado parece sofrer de uma certa invisibilidade pública, e de uma certa carência de sustentação política, econômica, e jurídica. A falta de visibilidade dificulta inclusive a formação de uma consciência pública sobre sua importância. Coube a James Boyle, já em 1996, com a publicação de seu livro “Shamans, Software, and Spleens Law and the Construction of the Information Society” (Harvard Univ Press), chamar a atenção para os paralelos com o ambientalismo: “a invenção do conceito de ‘meio-ambiente’ reúne uma série de questões desconexas, oferece um discernimento analítico na cegueira implícita em formas antigas de pensar, e leva à percepção de interesse comum onde não havia antes. Tal qual o meio-ambiente, o domínio público tem que ser ‘inventado’ antes de ser salvo.” Essa perspectiva acabou se consolidando sob a terminologia de “ambientalismo cultural”.
O fato é que, apesar dos esforços relativamente pontuais, o domínio público – universo de idéias, imagens, sons, descobertas, fatos, textos, que está não-protegido por direitos de propriedade intelectual e livre para todos usarem e construírem a partir dele – parece estar ainda altamente vulnerável à captura privada. Como bem sabemos, a economia, a cultura e até a tecnologia dependem de um equilíbrio delicado entre aquilo que é, e o que não é, protegido por direitos exclusivos de propriedade intelectual. Tanto os incentivos propiciados pelo conceito de propriedade intelectual quanto a liberdade de acesso fornecida pelo domínio público são cruciais ao equilíbrio. Porém, o que se observa é que a maior parte da atenção contemporânea tem ido para o universo do protegido.
Em palestra intitulada “Creating an Enduring Commons”, proferida em 29/06/10 no Berkman Center (Harvard), Hyde retoma algumas das questões cruciais levantadas em seu livro: Como se poderia reduzir essa vulnerabilidade? De que forma um domínio público não-protegido por regras próprias poderia ser convertido em comuns culturais apoiados em regras bem definidas, portanto mais duráveis?
Ruy José Guerra Barretto de Queiroz, Professor Associado, Centro de Informática da UFPE
segunda-feira, 18 de outubro de 2010
domingo, 17 de outubro de 2010
Link para o livro "The Software License Unveiled"
Vejam abaixo o link para um livro que revela o que está por trás das licenças de software:
The Software License Unveiled.pdf
The Software License Unveiled.pdf
sexta-feira, 15 de outubro de 2010
Aula do dia 15/10/2010
A seguir, os links para baixar a aula de hoje:
DPINovasTecnologias Unicap 15 10 10.ppt
Apresentação breve Cyberlaw e PI.ppt
DPINovasTecnologias Unicap 15 10 10.ppt
Apresentação breve Cyberlaw e PI.ppt
sexta-feira, 8 de outubro de 2010
quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2010
Artigo sobre sofware livre e endereços para pesquisa online
A seguir, o link para baixar um artigo sobre software livre:
A seguir, um documento com diversos links interessantes para pesquisas online:
ENDERECOS PARA PESQUISA ONLINE.doc
A seguir, um documento com diversos links interessantes para pesquisas online:
ENDERECOS PARA PESQUISA ONLINE.doc
segunda-feira, 4 de outubro de 2010
Link para Intellectual Property Watch
Abaixo, vejam o link para o serviço gratuito de notícias concernentes ao projeto e implementação de poíticas internacionais de propriedade intelectual (Intellectual Property Watch):
http://www.ip-watch.org/
Como um exemplo de notícia bem recente, publicada no site acima, vejam o link abaixo, que trata sobre as negociações que estavam em andamento a respeito de um acordo anti-pirataria:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/09/25/acta-negotiators-still-aiming-at-completion-by-year’s-end/
E o resultado dessa negociação, publicado pelo Yahoo! Notícias, pode ser visto abaixo, em português:
http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/s/reuters/101002/manchetes/manchetes_pirataria_pacto_1
http://www.ip-watch.org/
Como um exemplo de notícia bem recente, publicada no site acima, vejam o link abaixo, que trata sobre as negociações que estavam em andamento a respeito de um acordo anti-pirataria:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/09/25/acta-negotiators-still-aiming-at-completion-by-year’s-end/
E o resultado dessa negociação, publicado pelo Yahoo! Notícias, pode ser visto abaixo, em português:
http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/s/reuters/101002/manchetes/manchetes_pirataria_pacto_1
sábado, 2 de outubro de 2010
Aula do dia 04/10/2010
Sobre a próxima aula: tutela juridica do software.
A seguir, o link para baixar a apresentação:
quarta-feira, 22 de setembro de 2010
Apresentações do dia 27/09/2010
Atenção!!! Cada aluno deverá utilizar este post para incluir um comentário informando o tema do seu trabalho a ser apresentado no dia 27/09/2010.
segunda-feira, 20 de setembro de 2010
Aula do dia 20/09/10
Assunto da aula:
1 - Gestão Coletiva e o Controle do Aproveitamento dos Direitos Autorais;
2 - Obras Músicais; e
3 - Direitos Conexos.
Pablo Vitório
quinta-feira, 16 de setembro de 2010
Jurisprudência Direito Autoral
http://www2.uol.com.br/direitoautoral/index_juris.htm
No endereço acima temos várias jurisprudências sobre direitos autorais. Por favor naveguem no site! Abraços, clarice.
ATENÇÃO DIEGO - VEJA O POST ABAIXO DESSE - UM RECADO URGENTE PARA VOCÊ!!!
No endereço acima temos várias jurisprudências sobre direitos autorais. Por favor naveguem no site! Abraços, clarice.
ATENÇÃO DIEGO - VEJA O POST ABAIXO DESSE - UM RECADO URGENTE PARA VOCÊ!!!
quarta-feira, 15 de setembro de 2010
Diego - Urgente
A professora Clarice precisa falar contigo.
OBS. Se possível, alguém tendo contato com Diego, lhe pedir para entrar em contato com a professora.
clarice_castro@hotmail.com
Obrigado
terça-feira, 14 de setembro de 2010
Disputa pelos direitos autorais dos álbuns de Bob Marley
SÃO PAULO - Depois de mais de 20 anos da morte de Bob Marley, sua família e a gravadora Universal Music Group, a UMG, disputam o direito de seus discos. Na última sexta-feira (10), a família do músico perdeu uma ação judicial pelos direitos autorais dos álbuns de Marley.
A juíza distrital Denise Cote, dos Estados Unidos, determinou que a gravadora é a responsável pelos álbuns “Catche Fire”, “Burnin”, “Natty Dread”, “Rastaman Vibrations” e “Exodus”.
Para se ter uma ideia do que a família perdeu com o resultado desta ação, é que esses discos Bob Marley gravou com a banda The Wailers. Nos cinco álbuns estão músicas de grande sucesso mundial como “I Shot The Sheriff”, “One Love”, “No Woman, no Cry”, “Get Up, Stand Up”, entre outras.
A viúva do músico jamaicano, Rita, e seus nove filhos acusam a UMG de “explorar as gravações essenciais de Bob Marley”. Eles tinham esperança de recuperar milhões de dólares com a indenização pedida.
A família questiona ainda a gravadora de não consultá-la em relação ao licenciamento de uso de músicas do jamaicano para ringtones de celular.
Porém, a juíza afirmou que as gravações de Marley foram “trabalhos feitos para aluguel”, de acordo com a lei sobre direitos autorais dos Estados Unidos. E por isso, a UMG tem total direito sobre os discos do músico.
Cote também deu um prazo até 29 de outubro para a família de Marley e a gravadora se encontrarem novamente em juízo. Os dois podem fazer negociações supervisionadas pela Justiça do país.
Bob Marley morreu vítima de um câncer na unha do pé, uma espécie de tumor na pele, em 1981.
quarta-feira, 8 de setembro de 2010
Apresentação de hoje na aula do prof. Ruy
Quem puder confirmar que vai hoje para a aula do professor Ruy de Queiroz,
favor informar através de um comentário nesse post.
favor informar através de um comentário nesse post.
sexta-feira, 3 de setembro de 2010
domingo, 29 de agosto de 2010
Artigo do Prof. Ruy de Queiroz - CIn - UFPE
Os Comuns Culturais da Humanidade e o Ambientalismo Cultural
Por mais democratizante que tenha se revelado, a tecnologia parece trazer consigo novas ameaças aos bens comuns. Tal qual se observa nos males perpetrados ao meio ambiente em nome ou através da tecnologia, é cada vez mais grave a ameaça a bens comuns fundamentais à convivência humana: a cultura, e o amplo acesso ao universo das idéias. A tendência à digitalização de bens culturais (música, filme, texto, idéias) tem deixado a impressão de estar havendo mais espaço a um maior estímulo ao instinto humano de controle, de individualização da propriedade, mais particularmente, a propriedade intelectual, tudo isso em detrimento à natural disposição de compartilhar.
Assim como o tema da preservação ambiental e da sustentabilidade do planeta tem sido tratado com a merecida prioridade na sociedade contemporânea, é cada vez mais premente que se leve a sério a questão de como os “comuns culturais” da humanidade, isto é, a reserva compartilhada de arte e conhecimento, pode ser compatibilizada com as atuais leis um tanto severas de direitos autorais, as leis de propriedade intelectual, e os regimes restritivos de patentes.
Conforme a Wikipedia, tradicionalmente, os comuns foram definidos como os elementos do meio ambiente – florestas, atmosfera, rios, pastagens – que todos compartilhavam. Aí estariam incluídos os aspectos tangíveis assim como os intangíveis do meio ambiente que ninguém possui mas de que todos desfrutam. Historicamente, o termo “os comuns” descrevia as terras compartilhadas dos cidadãos medievais. Não se tratava de anarquia, pois restrições chamadas de “stints” os estabilizavam: cada cidadão só podia trazer para as pastagens as suas poucas vacas, e cortar juncos somente num certo mês. E tudo funcionava bem exatamente por causa das restrições: o seu uso era limitado.
Nos dias de hoje, “os comuns” é uma terminologia que se refere de forma mais ampla a recursos de propriedade coletiva ou compartilhados entre populações. Diz-se que esses recursos são “mantidos em comum” e podem incluir desde os recursos naturais e a terra, até o software. Em algumas áreas, o processo pelo qual os comuns foram transformados em propriedade privada foi denominado enclausuramento, que, aliás, teria iniciado na Inglaterra no séc. XV com a colocação de cerca em torno de terras comuns, transformando-as em terras privadas, e que teria durado até o séc. XIX. Hoje a ameaça de enclausuramento dos comuns intangíveis é uma realidade. Como já observava James Boyle, autor do já clássico “The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind” (Yale University Press, Jan/2010), em artigo intitulado “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain” (2003): “estamos em meio a um segundo movimento de enclausuramento. Parece grandiloquente chamá-lo de ‘o enclausuramento dos comuns intangíveis da mente’, mas num sentido muito real isso é exatamente o que ele é. É verdade, os novos direitos de propriedade criados pelo Estado podem ser ‘intelectuais’ ao invés de ‘reais’, porém uma vez mais as coisas que eram anteriormente concebidas como propriedade comum ou não-transformáveis em commodities estão sendo cobertas por novos ou recentemente estendidos direitos de propriedade”.
Como bem observa Robert Darnton, Professor e Diretor da Biblioteca da Harvard University, em artigo recente no New York Times (“A Republic of Letters”, 20/08/2010), propriedade intelectual tem se tornado um tópico tão quente que precisa ser amenizado com um pouco de história. A bem da verdade, as palavras de Darnton servem de abertura a sua resenha do livro mais recente de Lewis Hyde: em “Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership”, publicado pela Farrar, Straus and Giroux (17/Agosto/2010), Hyde estaria oferecendo um apelo erudito pela proteção do nosso patrimônio cultural contra a apropriação por interesses comerciais.
Como bem observa Robert Darnton, Professor e Diretor da Biblioteca da Harvard University, em artigo recente no New York Times (“A Republic of Letters”, 20/08/2010), propriedade intelectual tem se tornado um tópico tão quente que precisa ser amenizado com um pouco de história. A bem da verdade, as palavras de Darnton servem de abertura a sua resenha do livro mais recente de Lewis Hyde: em “Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership”, publicado pela Farrar, Straus and Giroux (17/Agosto/2010), Hyde estaria oferecendo um apelo erudito pela proteção do nosso patrimônio cultural contra a apropriação por interesses comerciais.
Nas palavras do próprio Hyde, “Common as Air” delineia “um modelo e uma defesa de nossos ‘comuns culturais’, aquela vasta reserva de idéias não-possuídas, invenções e obras de arte que herdamos do passado e que continuamos a criar”. Em atitude de resistência à concepção contemporânea de que todo trabalho criativo é “propriedade intelectual”, Hyde vai buscar nos pioneiros dos Estados Unidos da América – tais como John Adams, James Madison, e Thomas Jefferson – outras formas de valorizar os frutos do talento e da imaginação humana. E acaba se deparando com uma rica tradição na qual se supunha que o conhecimento era riqueza comum, e não uma reserva privada.
Através de uma retrospectiva histórica e recheada de estórias bem humoradas, Hyde se esforça para despertar a todos para a necessidade de se estabelecer os comuns culturais de artes e idéias, um domínio público vivo de trabalhos de criação que todos possam usar mas que sobre o qual ninguém detenha o controle proprietário. O que tem se revelado em decorrência de tantos litígios motivados por direitos autorais e por patentes, segundo Hyde, nos leva a crer que os pioneiros acabaram por não deixar uma forte herança no sentido de boas ferramentas para proteger esses comuns.
Além da falta de ferramentas de proteção, todo esse legado parece sofrer de uma certa invisibilidade pública, e de uma certa carência de sustentação política, econômica, e jurídica. A falta de visibilidade dificulta inclusive a formação de uma consciência pública sobre sua importância. Coube a James Boyle, já em 1996, com a publicação de seu livro “Shamans, Software, and Spleens Law and the Construction of the Information Society” (Harvard Univ Press), chamar a atenção para os paralelos com o ambientalismo: “a invenção do conceito de ‘meio-ambiente’ reúne uma série de questões desconexas, oferece um discernimento analítico na cegueira implícita em formas antigas de pensar, e leva à percepção de interesse comum onde não havia antes. Tal qual o meio-ambiente, o domínio público tem que ser ‘inventado’ antes de ser salvo.” Essa perspectiva acabou se consolidando sob a terminologia de “ambientalismo cultural”.
O fato é que, apesar dos esforços relativamente pontuais, o domínio público – universo de idéias, imagens, sons, descobertas, fatos, textos, que está não-protegido por direitos de propriedade intelectual e livre para todos usarem e construírem a partir dele – parece estar ainda altamente vulnerável à captura privada. Como bem sabemos, a economia, a cultura e até a tecnologia dependem de um equilíbrio delicado entre aquilo que é, e o que não é, protegido por direitos exclusivos de propriedade intelectual. Tanto os incentivos propiciados pelo conceito de propriedade intelectual quanto a liberdade de acesso fornecida pelo domínio público são cruciais ao equilíbrio. Porém, o que se observa é que a maior parte da atenção contemporânea tem ido para o universo do protegido.
Em palestra intitulada “Creating an Enduring Commons”, proferida em 29/06/10 no Berkman Center (Harvard), Hyde retoma algumas das questões cruciais levantadas em seu livro: Como se poderia reduzir essa vulnerabilidade? De que forma um domínio público não-protegido por regras próprias poderia ser convertido em comuns culturais apoiados em regras bem definidas, portanto mais duráveis?
Ruy José Guerra Barretto de Queiroz, Professor Associado, Centro de Informática da UFPE
Ruy José Guerra Barretto de Queiroz, Professor Associado, Centro de Informática da UFPE
sexta-feira, 27 de agosto de 2010
Aula do dia 27/08/2010
Levarei na aula de amanhã (27/08/2010) os livros a seguir referenciados para vermos alguns dos capítulos indicados abaixo.
. Costa Neto, José Carlos (2008), Direito Autoral no Brasil, São Paulo: Editora
FTD. Capítulos 3, 5 até 10, 12 e 13.
. Afonso, Otávio (2008), Direito Autoral: conceitos essenciais, São Paulo: Manole.
Capítulos 2 até 7, 9 e 10.
Material apresentado nas aulas de hoje e na de 30/08/2010:
http://sn126w.snt126.mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0
. Costa Neto, José Carlos (2008), Direito Autoral no Brasil, São Paulo: Editora
FTD. Capítulos 3, 5 até 10, 12 e 13.
. Afonso, Otávio (2008), Direito Autoral: conceitos essenciais, São Paulo: Manole.
Capítulos 2 até 7, 9 e 10.
Material apresentado nas aulas de hoje e na de 30/08/2010:
http://sn126w.snt126.mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0
segunda-feira, 23 de agosto de 2010
Aula do dia 23/08/2010
Na aula de hoje, discutimos sobre os textos que lemos e cada um dos que já haviam postado as suas 5 perguntas ficou de postar novamente as mesmas perguntas, sendo que agora elas deverão vir acompanhadas das respectivas respostas.
Quanto aos alunos que até a aula de hoje ainda não haviam postado as suas perguntas, foi estendido o prazo até a sexta-feira (27/08/2010) para que o façam, sendo que agora essas perguntas terão de ser postadas juntamente com as respectivas respostas. Para facilitar, as referências dos artigos estão repetidas abaixo, bastando, então, cada aluno postar suas perguntas (novamente ou pela primeira vez) acompanhadas das respectivas respostas, na forma de comentários a esta postagem.
1. Howard-Spink, Combinação Brasileira: Tropicália, OMPI e o Surgimento do Mix de Cultura e Política em Nível Global, in Rodrigues Jr.,
E. B e Polido, F (2007), Propriedade Intelectual: Novos Paradigmas Internacionais, Conflitos e Desafios, Rio de Janeiro: Campos Jurídico.
2. Pereira dos Santos, Manoel, Princípios Constitucionais e Propriedade Intelectual in Adolfo, L. G. e Wachowicz (coord.) (2008),
Direito da Propriedade Intelectual, Curitiba: Juruá Editora.
3. Rover, Aires, O Direito Intelectual e seus Paradoxos, in Adolfo, L. G. e Wachowicz (coord.) (2008), Direito da Propriedade Intelectual, Curitiba: Juruá Editora.
4. Borges Barbosa, Denis, Trips e a Experiência Brasileira, in Varela,
M. D., (2005), Propriedade Intelectual e Desenvolvimento, São Paulo: Lex Editora.
Quanto aos alunos que até a aula de hoje ainda não haviam postado as suas perguntas, foi estendido o prazo até a sexta-feira (27/08/2010) para que o façam, sendo que agora essas perguntas terão de ser postadas juntamente com as respectivas respostas. Para facilitar, as referências dos artigos estão repetidas abaixo, bastando, então, cada aluno postar suas perguntas (novamente ou pela primeira vez) acompanhadas das respectivas respostas, na forma de comentários a esta postagem.
1. Howard-Spink, Combinação Brasileira: Tropicália, OMPI e o Surgimento do Mix de Cultura e Política em Nível Global, in Rodrigues Jr.,
E. B e Polido, F (2007), Propriedade Intelectual: Novos Paradigmas Internacionais, Conflitos e Desafios, Rio de Janeiro: Campos Jurídico.
2. Pereira dos Santos, Manoel, Princípios Constitucionais e Propriedade Intelectual in Adolfo, L. G. e Wachowicz (coord.) (2008),
Direito da Propriedade Intelectual, Curitiba: Juruá Editora.
3. Rover, Aires, O Direito Intelectual e seus Paradoxos, in Adolfo, L. G. e Wachowicz (coord.) (2008), Direito da Propriedade Intelectual, Curitiba: Juruá Editora.
4. Borges Barbosa, Denis, Trips e a Experiência Brasileira, in Varela,
M. D., (2005), Propriedade Intelectual e Desenvolvimento, São Paulo: Lex Editora.
domingo, 22 de agosto de 2010
Link para a Lei de Direito Autoral
Seria muito bom se todos contribuissem com críticas e/ou sugestões.
A lei consolidada (já com as modificações):
A lei original para consulta, com as propostas dos cidadãos:
sexta-feira, 20 de agosto de 2010
Aula do dia 20/08/2010 para discutir no dia 23/08/2010
Abaixo, as referências para alguns artigos que foram passados na aula do dia 20/08/2010 e deverão ser discutidos na aula do dia 23/08/2010:
1. Howard-Spink, Combinação Brasileira: Tropicália, OMPI e o Surgimento do Mix de Cultura e Política em Nível Global, in Rodrigues Jr.,
E. B e Polido, F (2007), Propriedade Intelectual: Novos Paradigmas Internacionais, Conflitos e Desafios, Rio de Janeiro: Campos Jurídico.
2. Pereira dos Santos, Manoel, Princípios Constitucionais e Propriedade Intelectual in Adolfo, L. G. e Wachowicz (coord.) (2008),
Direito da Propriedade Intelectual, Curitiba: Juruá Editora.
3. Rover, Aires, O Direito Intelectual e seus Paradoxos, in Adolfo, L. G. e Wachowicz (coord.) (2008), Direito da Propriedade Intelectual, Curitiba: Juruá Editora.
4. Borges Barbosa, Denis, Trips e a Experiência Brasileira, in Varela,
M. D., (2005), Propriedade Intelectual e Desenvolvimento, São Paulo: Lex Editora.
Cliquem nos links abaixo para baixar aquilo que foi possível localizar na internet.
G4.pdf
art04_santos.pdf
Na aula de hoje (20/08/2010), cada um ficou de ler um dos 4 artigos cujas referências estão no início desta postagem.
Para facilitar, cada uma das referências recebeu um número. Assim, para o artigo que leu, cada aluno deverá inserir, na parte inferior desta postagem, um comentário contendo 5 perguntas cujas respostas possam ser obtidas através da leitura do artigo correspondente. Ex: o aluno que leu o artigo 3 poderá inserir o seguinte comentário:
Perguntas para o artigo 3:
1 - Como se deve ...
2 - Porque xxxx ..... ...
3 - Qual seria o motivo de ....
4 - Cite um exemplo de ...
5 - Em que situação ....
Atenção!!! As perguntas formuladas por cada aluno deverão ser inseridas logo, antes da aula do dia 23/08/2010, quando então cada um deverá apresentar o artigo que leu, bem como as respostas para as perguntas que formulou.
1. Howard-Spink, Combinação Brasileira: Tropicália, OMPI e o Surgimento do Mix de Cultura e Política em Nível Global, in Rodrigues Jr.,
E. B e Polido, F (2007), Propriedade Intelectual: Novos Paradigmas Internacionais, Conflitos e Desafios, Rio de Janeiro: Campos Jurídico.
2. Pereira dos Santos, Manoel, Princípios Constitucionais e Propriedade Intelectual in Adolfo, L. G. e Wachowicz (coord.) (2008),
Direito da Propriedade Intelectual, Curitiba: Juruá Editora.
3. Rover, Aires, O Direito Intelectual e seus Paradoxos, in Adolfo, L. G. e Wachowicz (coord.) (2008), Direito da Propriedade Intelectual, Curitiba: Juruá Editora.
4. Borges Barbosa, Denis, Trips e a Experiência Brasileira, in Varela,
M. D., (2005), Propriedade Intelectual e Desenvolvimento, São Paulo: Lex Editora.
Cliquem nos links abaixo para baixar aquilo que foi possível localizar na internet.
G4.pdf
art04_santos.pdf
Na aula de hoje (20/08/2010), cada um ficou de ler um dos 4 artigos cujas referências estão no início desta postagem.
Para facilitar, cada uma das referências recebeu um número. Assim, para o artigo que leu, cada aluno deverá inserir, na parte inferior desta postagem, um comentário contendo 5 perguntas cujas respostas possam ser obtidas através da leitura do artigo correspondente. Ex: o aluno que leu o artigo 3 poderá inserir o seguinte comentário:
Perguntas para o artigo 3:
1 - Como se deve ...
2 - Porque xxxx ..... ...
3 - Qual seria o motivo de ....
4 - Cite um exemplo de ...
5 - Em que situação ....
Atenção!!! As perguntas formuladas por cada aluno deverão ser inseridas logo, antes da aula do dia 23/08/2010, quando então cada um deverá apresentar o artigo que leu, bem como as respostas para as perguntas que formulou.
segunda-feira, 16 de agosto de 2010
Livros para baixar
Cliquem nos links abaixo para baixar alguns livros interessantes.
GedaiUFSC_LivroEstudosDirAutor_vfinal.pdf
Lessig-Codev2.pdf
Roberto Lemos.pdf
GedaiUFSC_LivroEstudosDirAutor_vfinal.pdf
Lessig-Codev2.pdf
Roberto Lemos.pdf
sexta-feira, 13 de agosto de 2010
segunda-feira, 9 de agosto de 2010
rip! A Remix Manifesto
Parte 1 de 9
Parte 2 de 9
Parte 3 de 9
Parte 4 de 9
Parte 5 de 9
Parte 6 de 9
Parte 7 de 9
Parte 8 de 9
Parte 9 de 9
sexta-feira, 6 de agosto de 2010
Lawrence Lessig
Lawrence Lessig
Origem: Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.
 | |||
| Nascimento | 3 de junho de 1961 (49 anos) Rapid City, Dakota do Sul, EUA | ||
| Principais trabalhos | Fundador do Creative Commons e do Stanford Center for Internet and Society | ||
| Cargo | Professor da Harvard Law School | ||
| Cônjuge | Bettina Neuefeind | ||
| Página oficial: | www.lessig.org | ||
Lawrence Lessig defende que a cultura seria mais rica se as leis que regulam os direitos autorais fossem mais flexíveis. Em seu livro Cultura Livre, mostra, por exemplo, como um lobby americano conseguiu junto ao Congresso daquele país aumentar o prazo pelo qual uma obra permanece "protegida", de modo a não permitir que inúmeros produtos imateriais (filmes, músicas, livros etc.) sejam usados para produzir novas obras. O autor menciona, entretanto, que a Disney, uma das participantes do lobby, teve a mesma conduta que tenta coibir aos demais, ao produzir histórias infantis como "Branca de Neve" e "Cinderela".
De acordo com sua proposta, Lessig disponibiliza alguns de seus livros para cópia e reprodução em seu site.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)