Tag: CASE Act

Copyright in Motion As Midterms Approach

While most attention will be understandably focused this week on the Senate Judiciary and the confirmation (or not) of Brett Kavanaugh, there is actually quite a bit of copyright law activity of note as the midterms approach.

Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act Hearings Scheduled

Originally introduced in the House in March 2017 as H.R. 1695, this bill proposes a reorganization, favored by many copyright experts, to make the Copyright Office independent of the Library of Congress and to make the Register of Copyrights an executive appointee rather than a hired member of the Librarian’s staff. The bill passed the House in May of 2017 with a vote of 378-48 but then stalled in the Senate Rules Committee (as S. 1010). On Wednesday of this week, that committee will hold hearings on this legislation.

As described in a few posts, the formation of the USCO within the LOC dates back to 1897, when Congress could hardly have envisioned the copyright industries as we know them today; and both scholars and legal professionals have long viewed the current organizational structure as antiquated. Despite complaints by the usual assortment of critics—and they are likely to resurface after this week’s hearing—the Librarian and Register have always performed different functions predicated on very different areas of expertise; and the intervening 120 years has only increased the divergent roles of the two departments. This is a change long in development and long overdue.

CASE Act Hearings Scheduled

Following that hearing, on Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the proposed CASE Act, which would create a small claim copyright tribunal within the Copyright Office. The purpose of CASE is to provide a remedy for copyright disputes that do not easily justify the cost of federal litigation. For instance, the proposal is backed very strongly by professional photographers, whose works are infringed with a high rate of frequency online, even by business entities exploiting images for commercial purposes.

True to form, the copyright critics have predicted a litany of negative consequences that are simply not possible within the scope of the proposed statute. For instance, as a purely voluntary option, the new tribunal cannot become the “clearing house for copyright trolls” critics like EFF have alleged. Moreover, the USCO board will be experts in copyright law only, which is not true of federal judges, and there is no reason to believe this remedy would not prove to be as beneficial to defendants as to claimants. Still, the committee will be reviewing the latest version of the bill, which represents ongoing discussion among proponents and good-faith critics of the legislation.

The VidAngel Bill?

In August of 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals shot down all the legal defenses, previously shot down by a California District Court, as presented by the movie filtering service called VidAngel. For a detailed background, see posts here and here; but briefly, VidAngel was sued by major motion picture studios for copyright infringement based on the manner in which the company was providing streamed access to movies while filtering out segments containing language, sexual content, or other material that VidAngel’s subscribers find objectionable, primarily on religious grounds.

Among its failed defenses, VidAngel asserted an unsound interpretation of the Family Movie Act (2005), which permits private use of consumer devices to make brief segments of motion pictures imperceptible during home viewing. Having lost its court fight with that statute (along with key statutes in the copyright law), VidAngel has apparently been lobbying Members of Congress, mainly its CEO’s hometown Utah Representatives, to propose an amendment (H.R. 6816) to the Family Movie Act that would theoretically enable VidAngel to perform, as a VOD service, the same task consumers are allowed to perform by means of devices at home.

Setting aside my own opinion of any consumer’s desire to edit out segments of movies on moral grounds, the legislators in this case may believe they’re simply updating the FMA for the digital-streaming market, but if so, they have failed to consider the staggeringly disruptive implications their bill would have on copyright law, contracts, and licensing agreements.  As a simple example, amending the FMA in this manner does not obligate the studios to license their films to VidAngel, which had been making public performances of these works without licenses.  And it gets more complicated from there — all for the sake of one company to profit from an activity that other companies have enabled consumers to conduct legally for 13 years.  I think this bill is likely a dead-issue, and with it VidAngel; but it will be something to watch if that’s not the case.

Doctorow & EFF Declare Perpetual War On DRM

On a slightly related note (because VidAngel violated Section 1201 of the DMCA), Cory Doctorow, in his role as EFFer, urged the organization’s followers to keep Sisyphean-like faith in “Our Apollo 1201 Project [which] aims to kill all the DRM in the world inside of a decade ….” Digital Rights Management tools, designed to protect copyrighted software from unlicensed access, copying, or tampering, has been portrayed by critics like Doctorow as a means to entrench corporate control of various markets more than as a means to protect authors of creative works.

It’s not that DRM is without such challenges or does not require constant reassessment, but Doctorow and company generally lack all deference to nuance, or integrity, when discussing the issues. For instance, they make no mention of the fact that, without DRM, many of the convenient ways in which we access works in the digital age (e.g. eReaders) would not exist. Moreover, as elaborated upon in this post, the EFF’s assault on the constitutionality of Section 1201 of the DMCA—the section prohibiting circumvention of DRM—conveys more ideological hatred than an honest portrayal of, for instance, the USCO’s position on exceptions to 1201’s prohibitions.

As noted in that post, rather than engage in the USCO’s call for reasonable changes to permanent exceptions etc., the EFF is instead hell-bent on the (dare I say perpetual-funding opportunity?) more dubious mission to eradicate the law. In this regard, it is notable that Doctorow employs the metaphor of ants steadily, if blindly, making slow progress up a hill. The presumptive “ants” (see Donors) Doctorow is addressing might want to look up the word Myrmidon.

A Case for CASE in Brammer v. Violent Hues?

Following up on yesterday’s post about Brammer v. Violent Hues, it occurs to me that this narrative—at least as much as is publicly available—lends itself to a rationale for the proposed CASE Act, which would create a small-claim copyright tribunal at the U.S. Copyright Office. I won’t repeat all the particulars of the bill itself (see post here), but one of the challenges to the efficacy of CASE is that it is a voluntary alternative to federal court.

When copyright critics like EFF malign the CASE Act, they employ standard hyperbole, claiming it will create a cash-cow for every copyright troll in America. This claim obfuscates the actual mechanisms in the proposal, not the least of which is that a defendant has to voluntarily agree to the tribunal as a dispute resolution. This response is then countered by the prediction that if the small claim option is voluntary, it will never be used, thus making it a boondoggle of a proposal. Admittedly, the voluntary aspect does raise this very question, but after learning about the Brammer case, it seemed like a pretty good example as to why both parties might have opted for a small claim alternative had it existed.

A Relatively Simple Matter Complicated by Litigation

Based on the available evidence, Russell Brammer does not appear to be rabidly litigious; and Fernando Mico of Violent Hues does not appear to be ideologically determined to infringe. Mico made a mistake, perhaps an unwise mistake; but the fact that he removed Brammer’s image from his website upon receipt of a C&D letter indicates that he did not firmly believe he had a right to use the photograph. (This should have weighed against his fair use claim, but that’s another matter.)

At the same time, although Brammer is obviously willing and able to litigate, he cannot be expecting a very high damage award in this particular case. I have no idea whether he requested a settlement fee before proceeding to litigation, which would be normal in this kind of circumstance; but whether he took that step or skipped it, both he and Mico could, theoretically, avoid the up-front cost of litigation by mutually agreeing to move the venue to the proposed USCO tribunal. (Note that I make no judgment about Brammer’s motives or whether I think he should have sued. I’m only looking at the legal process based on his right to make a claim and Mico’s right to a defense.)

The Small Claim Tribunal Would Make Short Work of This Case

The fact that the Virginia Court mucked up the ruling so badly—straining against legal doctrine—emphasizes the value of the small claim option for plaintiffs and defendants in this kind of dispute. Not only is Brammer now forced either to drop his claim or appeal at greater legal cost, but Mico is likewise required to defend himself as the case moves up to the appellate court. And this appeal is only necessary because the district court made egregious errors of law—mistakes the USCO would be unlikely to make—on a relatively straightforward case.

One advantage of the small claim tribunal is that the proposed panel is only expert in copyright law, which is not at all true of federal judges. This can be beneficial to defendants as well as claimants, as there will naturally be cases that favor defendants just as plainly as Brammer favors the plaintiff.  So, yes, I would expect that the USCO tribunal to readily find that Violent Hues had infringed, but I also predict the appeals court will come to the same conclusion, only much later and for legal costs that will exceed the amount of an award the USCO tribunal would likely allow in this instance.

So, looking at the available facts, if Brammer had offered Mico the option of resolution via the small claim tribunal, while making clear that he was able to pursue federal litigation, it seems not unreasonable that Mico might voluntarily choose the small claim venue. Since the alternative would be to opt out and wind up exactly where this case is now, why not take a shot at a simpler and cheaper resolution?

I do not presume to truly know the motives or mindsets of other people. And I also admit to interpolating a bit from the data. But at the same time, this kind of infringement—one creator improperly using the work of another creator—is exemplary of “garden variety” copyright cases. And the whole purpose of the CASE Act is to provide one option—in addition to out-of-court settlements, and other resolutions—to more affordably and efficiently address these low-level conflicts.

For sure, the EFF is wrong to claim that the CASE Act will conjure all manner of copyright mischief, which is simply not possible within the provisions of the bill. At worst, the small claim tribunal won’t work; not enough people will use it, and it will be scrapped as a good intention. But even the known particulars of this Brammer case are so familiar to thousands of rights holders and defendants, that it suggests to me the CASE proposal is likely to be more widely applicable than many critics might assume.

The CASE Act: The Big Value of Small Returns

by Lisa Shaftel & John Schmelzer
Shaftel & Schmelzer, Advocates & Consultants for Visual Artists

Representative Hakeem Jeffries introduced the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2017 (the “CASE Act”) H.R. 3945 in October 2017. The CASE Act was created in response to the Copyright Office Study Report on Remedies for Copyright Small Claims released September 2013. The CASE Act establishes a “small-value copyright court” within the Copyright Office so that copyright owners can pursue infringement cases where damages are too low for cost-effective litigation in federal court. Visual creators’ organizations have been asking for this recourse for creators’ lost income for well over ten years.

There are many businesses large and small that have been built on the model of not paying for the images they use. Licensing images—certainly for commercial reproduction and display—is a standard and customary business practice for creators and users of images. It is the cost of doing business, as well as a legal obligation for the user.

Using images without permission and without paying a licensing fee to copyright owners is simply stealing. It’s no different than stealing paper or lumber or a truck. These businesses have been able to get away with not paying for the images they use because they know that copyright owners cannot afford to file an infringement lawsuit in federal court for lower-value licensing fees and actual damages.

Authors and creators trying to earn a living from their work suffer death by a thousand cuts with no practical legal recourse to stop the bleeding. Image theft has devalued our creative product to the extreme. The thought process has become; Why pay for something that can be stolen without recourse? The internet is populated with stolen images that drive traffic to commercial sites, but image creators reap no financial benefit from those who drive the traffic or those who sell the goods or services. More traditional businesses observe this trend and take advantage of the infringing activities believing they too can steal without recourse. Some websites and businesses, such as the online “corkboard,” have based their entire business model on unauthorized use of copyrighted works.

The CASE Act creates a simplified and less costly alternate dispute resolution process for creators and copyright owners to recover the licensing fees owed them by businesses that have already made unauthorized use of their photos, illustrations and graphics. The ADR process will provide the means for authors and creators to get injunctive relief from an offensive unauthorized use of their work as well. It also serves notice to the business community that there will be a low cost legal opportunity for authors and creators to enforce their ownership and copyrights, and underscores the value of creative works. Unless the value of assigned original images is reestablished, an entire industry that has already been crippled by image theft will disappear completely in the United States.

In 2012, England and Wales established a Small Claims Track for low-value copyright infringement cases. It’s working. It motivates settlements between the parties, and most claims don’t proceed to the hearing. The CASE Act would do the same in the U.S.

Businesses and their trade associations that object to the establishment of a small-value copyright tribunal fear that their business model of ripping off visual creators won’t be viable anymore. These organizations oppose the bill because they want to protect the member businesses and people who steal copyrighted works. The CASE Act doesn’t change copyright law, nor does it change our court system. The CASE Act would level the playing field by enabling authors and creators to enforce their copyrights without being required to hire an attorney and file a lawsuit in federal court that would cost more than the damages they’ve suffered. The only reason to oppose the CASE Act would be because the users do not want to pay the author/creator for the unauthorized use of their creative work.

If you’re worried about what Facebook did with your data, you should see what they do with your pictures.

Lisa Shaftel is a scenic artist, graphic artist and illustrator who has been working on creating a small-value copyright claims court system with the US Copyright Office for over 12 years. John P. Schmelzer is an illustrator and cartoonist.

Shaftel & Schmelzer is a consulting firm established in 2016 with a mission to promote and protect the economic and professional interests of visual artists through advocacy and education.

Hi resolution and low resolution versions of John P. Schmelzer’s cartoon are available for both print and online use.