Legal Blog

Five Qualities of Next Generation Entertainment Platforms

By Simon Pulman, Partner

If your only exposure to TikTok is seeing the occasional funny video pop up on Facebook or watching your nieces studiously rehearse one of Charli D’Amelio’s signature dances, then you could be forgiven for wondering what all of the fuss about a potential ban is about. Likewise, if you’ve heard of Fortnite but you have no idea how Twitch works, you might not be aware of the degree to which Twitch is disrupting the audience for traditional television and even live sports.

Irrespective of whether TikTok survives (at least, in its present form), the impact that it has had on the future of entertainment consumption is immeasurable. And likewise, having fended off competition from the likes of Mixer, Twitch is poised for further extreme growth. Both platforms have lessons that those in traditional media would do well to heed when seeking to identify (or perhaps create) the next major media platform.

1. They Are A Culture And A Language: TikTok is not merely a video sharing platform. It is its own discrete culture and language that is impenetrable to those who are not on the platform. In essence, TikTok is an extreme evolution of “meme culture,” and without familiarity with the various “trends” that move rapidly through TikTok and the key creators and personalities who often create them, it is impossible for a viewer to understand many TikTok videos in isolation. Like all languages, TikTok builds upon itself, as users create videos that mimic, parody or comment upon an existing popular video. None of this is explained to the user upon joining the app. It has to be absorbed and understood by interacting with videos. This means that for Gen Y and college students, it is simply essential for them to be on TikTok in order to communicate with and relate to each other. It’s the concept of tuning into an old broadcast “watercooler show,” just amplified exponentially.  Likewise, Twitch has its own “language” in the form of “emotes” that viewers can post in chats while watching videos. Like memes, emotes require an understanding of context and meaning – and a shared understanding of emotes can create a common bond between the user base.

It is not an exaggeration to state that TikTok in particular is the single biggest communication and culture platform for Gen Y, and accordingly, is also the easiest way to mobilize young people. If TikTok still exists, it could have a significant impact on the upcoming US election – which is perhaps why President Trump is so keen to shut it down. We have already seen the influence of TikTok in action when TikTok users apparently reserved tickets to Trump’s June rally in Tulsa Oklahoma, falsely giving the impression that the event was a sellout. TikTok content is also highly shareable, meaning that content can live and spread off of the platform. This helps to bring new users into the platform. Compare with Quibi, which launched with zero sharing or social capability whatsoever, and a rigidly old-world walled garden approach.

2. They Have Their Own Stars: To millions of teenagers, the biggest celebrities on the planet are not actors or pop stars, but rather two sisters from Connecticut – Charli D’Amelio and Dixie D’Amelio. The D’Amelio sisters built a presence on TikTok at an astoundingly fast rate (at the time of writing, Charli alone has almost 86 million followers and over 6.6 billion “likes”). The D’Amelios have parlayed that platform into myriad commercial endorsements (Charli has her own drink at Dunkin Donuts) and, in Dixie’s case, a singing career. Likewise, within the world of Twitch, the likes of Ninja and Pokimane are bona fide stars, often attracting millions of fans for their “streams.” Like the D’Amelios, big Twitch influencers monetize their profiles in multiple ways, ranging from traditional product endorsements, to sponsored content, to Twitch “donations” whereby fans can simply donate cash to the influencers to thank them for their content (and for a moment of fleeting recognition).

These new influencers operate differently to celebrities of old. While they still have managers and publicists, and seek to curate a brand, they are generally more open about their personal lives because “authenticity” is highly valued by their audiences. With that said, several influencers have publicly articulated their struggle at maintaining a distance between their public persona and private life, most recently Twitch streamer Pokimane, who has been unfairly accused of concealing that she has a boyfriend in order to maintain her fanbase. Maintaining a level of distance can be difficult for influencers whose livelihoods depend on interacting regularly and directly with fans. Indeed, there are many “gossip accounts” that focus on the rumors surrounding influencers and their personal lives.

The challenge for traditional entertainment executives is that the new era of talent does not necessarily need to crossover into traditional media. While it was recently announced that Addison Rae Easterling has accepted a role in “He’s All That” (a reimagining of the Rachael Leigh Cook/Freddie Prinze Junior romcom), most TikTok influencers, and certainly most leading Twitch influencers can make more money, more quickly simply sticking to their core platforms (or other media that they can exert more control over, such as podcast).

Moreover, as an attorney who has negotiated many deals to hire Twitch influencers for “traditional media,” it is important to note that new media influencers, and their reps, value different things to traditional talent and are not always prepared to agree to otherwise accepted “industry norms.” For example, we typically see a lot of pushback against “options” in TV or anything that could lock the talent in for an extended period of time. Additionally, the concept of providing free promotional services (including by social media) as part of the engagement is totally foreign to influencers used to being paid on a “per post” basis.

3. They Are Broadcast Platforms: While platforms such as Instagram and particularly Snapchat have leant into the concept of users sharing content with people that they already know, TikTok and Twitch are broadcast platforms on a massive scale. They operate on a “one to many” model, whereby an individual user can theoretically reach millions of total strangers all across the world from their own home. TikTok in particular is probably the biggest and most effective broadcast ever built, with its “your page” discovery algorithm allowing hit videos to potentially reach billions of users. Many Gen Y users want to experience stardom above all else, and while TikTok’s incumbent “stars” (such as the D’Amelios, Addison Rae, the inhabitants of Hype House, and now Bella Poarch) certainly have a leg up, TikTok remains the only platform in the world where a user can potentially acquire half a million followers in a day. Twitch is a harder platform to crack, and many streamers labor away streaming for few viewers. However, there are still opportunities to rapidly grow a userbase on Twitch – especially around the launch of a new game. For example, multiple Twitch users gained over one hundred thousand followers in the month following the release of the hit battle royale game “Fall Guys,” with the user “MrKeroro10” gaining almost 400,000 users.

4. They Are Highly Personalized. At first glance, there may be little that seems to differentiate TikTok from predecessors such as Vine, or its many clones. It’s a platform for short videos, right? Well, yes and no. The strength of TikTok is actually in its algorithm, which by tracking user behaviors and habits in many ways (some no doubt concerning to privacy advocates), is simply the most accurate recommendation engine ever created in a media app. As a result, within a few hours of using TikTok, the algorithm will learn an individual’s preferences – whether that’s music, cooking, dancing or humor. Thus, while it is likely that most TikTok users will see videos from the megastars (Charli, Addison Rae, etc.) at some point, it is not unusual for the “for you page” of two users to be completely different.

It’s quite fascinating to see the differing approaches of two media companies through 2020 so far. Quibi bet on extremely expensive, traditional television or film content chopped up into smaller chunks and, presumably, aimed at a broad audience. TikTok focused on serving up an endless stream of short, user generated, highly personalized content. It’s not a secret that one company’s approach was more successful than the other. Media companies need to accept that the future of media is personalization – which is perhaps why Netflix has invested so heavily in a diverse range of scripted and unscripted content, often internationally focused.

5. They Can Create New Hits – And Revive Old Ones: The power of TikTok to create hits and stars (it is now the essential driver for creating new music hits) is well documented, as is the influence of Twitch in popularizing new video games. However, both platforms have the capability to revive catalogue titles as well. On TikTok, a popular influencer posting a lipsync to a scene from an old movie, or a dance to an old song (which will inevitably lead to thousands of copycat videos) may lead to millions of users discovering that piece of content for the first time -essentially introducing it to an entirely new audience and increasing its value significantly. For that value, media companies may wish to advise their legal departments to be judicious in policing content that could arguably be infringing (whether TikTok videos are sufficiently “transformative” to be fair use is a discussion for another day), because the halo effect of trending on TikTok could be significant.

Disclaimer: While our firm does not represent either Twitch or TikTok, we do represent multiple clients active on both. We also represent Triller, a TikTok competitor.

The Copyright Discovery Rule: Living on Borrowed Time?

By Alex Gigante

A statute of limitations is often called a statute of repose, “repose” meaning the “elimination of stale claims, and certainty about a plaintiff’s opportunity for recovery and a defendant’s potential liabilities.”1 By mandating “repose,” a statute of limitations expresses the judicial system’s understanding that, despite its “instinct to provide a remedy  for  every  wrong[,] . . . the passage of time must leave some wrongs without a remedy.”2

Before 1957, the Copyright Act did not have its own statute of limitations. Instead, each federal court applied what it deemed to be the applicable state-law statute of limitations of the State in which that court sat. This practice resulted in wide local variations in the implementation of the Copyright Act.3 In 1957, determining that “it is highly desirable to provide a uniform period throughout the United States,” Congress sought to remedy the inconsistency by enacting the three-year statute of limitations that is found today in Section 507(b) of the current Act. In settling on three years as the appropriate period, Congress observed that “due to the nature of publication of works of art . . . generally the person injured receives reasonably prompt notice or can easily ascertain any infringement of his rights.”4

Unfortunately, Congress’s desire for uniformity has not come to pass because of the widespread application in copyright cases of the discovery rule, a judge-made rule that suspends the running of a statute of limitations until the plaintiff learned or reasonably could have learned of the defendant’s violation of the plaintiff’s rights.5 Originally conceived for the limited instance where the defendant’s conduct concealed the violation from the plaintiff, federal courts now apply the discovery rule to virtually every kind of fact pattern absent express statutory language to the contrary.6 In the copyright context, because the Copyright Act does not expressly prohibit use of a discovery rule, courts have permitted plaintiffs to sue beyond the three-year statute-of-limitations period even for seemingly open and notorious acts: buildings in plain public view;7 public advertising and sale of sports memorabilia photographs;8 photographs displayed for years online by a major stock-photo agency.9

In TRW Inc. v. Andrews, the Supreme Court put into question the widespread application of the discovery rule in the lower federal courts, holding that the rule is not “applicable across all contexts.”10 However, because the statute of limitations before the Court in TRW could be interpreted without requiring a general decision on the discovery rule, the Court passed on the broader question as “a matter this case does not oblige us to decide . . . .”11 Also, while rejecting the presumption that a discovery rule applies absent express statutory language to the contrary, the Court left the issue ambiguous with its comment that the applicability of the discovery rule could be deduced “by implication from the structure or text of the particular statute.”12

Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion,13 joined by Justice Thomas, characterized the discovery rule as “bad wine of recent vintage,”14 and chastised the majority for not deciding once and for all that there is no presumption of a discovery rule generally applicable to federal statutes of limitation. According to Justice Scalia, “‘That a person entitled to an action has no knowledge of his right to sue, or of the facts out of which his right arises, does not postpone the period of limitation.’”15

In Auscape International v. National Geographic Society,16 an opinion that Prof. Patry describes as “an extremely thorough and well-reasoned review of the issues,”17 District Judge Kaplan of the Southern District of New York made a detailed analysis of the Copyright Act’s text and legislative history to conclude that in light of TRW, the discovery rule could no longer be applied to extend the limitations period under Section 507(b):

In a copyright infringement case, . . . in most cases, the infringement occurs in public. Thus, copyright infringement is not often an extreme situation crying out for a discovery rule.18

Several other judges in the Southern District, persuaded by Judge Kaplan’s reasoning, similarly ruled that TRW foreclosed application of the discovery rule under the Copyright Act.19 In contrast, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, after making its own analysis of the Copyright Act’s “structure or text,” reached the opposite conclusion in Graham v. Haughey.20 However, in Graham the defendant had systematically concealed its infringement for years, a fact setting that TRW acknowledged always would be appropriate for the discovery rule.21 Nonetheless, although Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., involved an open and notorious infringement – publication of photographs in a textbook – the Second Circuit Court of Appeals still applied the discovery rule with the brief, cursory statement that “the text and structure of the Copyright Act, unlike the [statute in TRW], evince Congress’s intent to employ the discovery rule, not the injury rule.”22

Meanwhile, in two decisions after TRW the Supreme Court continued to tiptoe around the discovery-rule question. In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., the Court eliminated the defense of laches against copyright-infringement claims and held those claims restricted only by the statute of limitations, but as to the applicable limitations period, the Court pointedly observed that it had “not passed on the question” of the “use [of] discovery accrual in copyright cases ”23 In a subsequent patent case that again did not require the Court to address the discovery rule head on, Chief Justice Roberts nonetheless commented that it “is not ordinarily true” that a statute of limitations is triggered only when the plaintiff knows of the cause of action and that a discovery rule “is not a universal feature of statutes of limitations.”24

In Rotkiske v. Klemm, decided in December 2019, the Supreme Court finally confronted the discovery rule directly in an opinion by Justice Thomas, who nearly 20 years before had joined Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in TRW.25 Reprising Justice Scalia’s pithy characterization of the discovery rule as “bad wine of recent vintage,” Justice Thomas – joined by six other Justices plus Justice Sotomayor concurring – held that a federal statute of limitations is to be interpreted as written. “Atextual judicial supplementation [with a discovery rule] is particularly inappropriate” because

It is not [the Supreme Court’s] role to second-guess Congress’ decision to include a “violation occurs” provision, rather than a discovery provision The length of a limitations period “reflects a value judgment concerning the point at which the interests in favor of protecting valid claims are outweighed by the interests in prohibiting the prosecution of stale ones.”26

To emphasize that a court should not read a discovery rule into a statute of limitations, Justice Thomas cited several federal statutes that expressly provide for the limitations period to run on discovery. Because “Congress has shown that it knows how to adopt [such] language or provision,” it is improper for a court to supply discovery language when Congress has, by its silence, manifested a different intent.27

It now appears likely that the copyright discovery rule will not survive the strict interpretation of statutes of limitation mandated by Rotkiske. Section 507(b) of the Copyright Act states that an action must be “commenced within three years after the claim accrued.” A cause of action “accrues” when it comes into existence, not when the plaintiff learns of its existence.28 Conceptually, “accrues” is no different from “the date on which the violation occurs” that Rotkiske held to mean when the “violation actually happened.”29 Either the courts of appeal will revisit their prior adoptions of the discovery rule in light of Rotkiske or the right case will present the issue squarely to the Supreme Court.30

The demise of the rule will be salutary. The discovery rule elevates the “instinct to provide a remedy for every wrong” over the  principle of  repose embodied in a  statute  of limitations. To require a defendant to defend against a “stale” claim is not merely a matter of semantics.  A “stale” claim often arises after the documents and files needed for the defense have been misplaced or destroyed, individual memories lapsed, witnesses become unavailable, and corporate memory lost because of employee turnover. Moreover, invocation of the rule immediately puts into issue the plaintiff’s knowledge and diligence in discovering the cause of action, which means another layer of litigation with costly and time-consuming discovery requests and depositions. Faced with these additional litigation expenses, and without the assurance of the successful outcome that would result if the statute of limitations were applied strictly, many defendants make the understandable decision to settle a claim that should have been in repose years before. Elimination of the discovery rule will redress this unfairness and restore the balance between plaintiff and defendant that Congress intends when it enacts a statute of limitations.

1 Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 588 U.S. 442, 448 (2013) (quoting from Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S.549, 555 (2000)).

2 Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76, 77 (2nd Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 922 (2003).

3 Sen. Rep. 85-1014 (1957)

4 Id.

5 TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 27 (2001). The nine federal circuit courts of appeal that have addressed the issue have held that the discovery rule applies to claims under the Copyright Act. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 670 n. 4 (2014).

6 Id.

7 Design Basics, LLC v. Roersma & Wurn Builders, Inc., 2012 WL 1830129, report & recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 1830103 (W.D. Mich. 2012).

8 Boehm v. Heyrman Printing, LLC, 2017 WL 53296 (W.D. Wisc. 2017).

9 Cooley v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 31 F.Supp.3d 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); Mackie v. Hipple, 2010 WL 3211952 (W.D. Wash. 2010). One treatise argues that the discovery rule is appropriate for the on-line world because “[t]he owner of a copyright simply cannot know of every infringement when it occurs, particularly in today’s world of a global internet which can hide either the infringement or the infringer or both.” 2 H.B. Abrams & T.T. Ochoa, The Law of Copyright § 16:16 (2019). To the contrary, the digitization of information has made detection easier through services  and  applications  that  are  able  to  search  the  internet  for  infringing  uses.  See, e.g., https://www. imagerights.com/; https://tineye. com/; https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en.

10 534 U.S. at 27.

11 Id.

12 Id. at 28.

13 Id. at 35-6.

14 Id. at 36.

15 Id. (quoting 2 H. Wood, Limitation of Actions, § 276c(1), at 1411 (4th ed. 1916)).

16 409 F.2d 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

17 6 Patry on Copyright § 20:20 (March 2020).

18 409 F.2d at 247.

19 See Muench Photography, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co., 2013 WL 4464002, *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), and cases there cited.

20 568 F.3d 425 (3rd Cir. 2009).

21 534 U.S. at 27.

22 748 F.3d. 120, 124 (2nd Cir. 2014).

23 572 U.S. 663, 670 n. 4 (2014).

24 SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, 137 S.Ct. 954, 962 (2017).

25 140 S.Ct. 355 (2019).

26 Id. at 361 (quoting Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 463–464 (1975)).

27 Id.

28 Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 588 U.S. 442, 448 (2013).

29 140 S.Ct. at 360.

30 In Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39, 50 (2nd Cir. 2020), a copyright-infringement case argued before the decision in Rotkiske, but decided after, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals “decline[d] to alter this Circuit’s precedent mandating use of the discovery rule . . . .” In just a footnote, the Court stated that Rotkiske “does not persuade us to depart from this holding.” Id. at 50 n. 2. However, Sohm can be explained as falling within the narrow discovery- rule exception still recognized by the Supreme Court, as the defendant in Sohm concealed the evidence of its infringement from the plaintiff. Hopefully, the Second Circuit, which decides many important copyright cases, will address the issue with greater analysis when presented with application of the discovery rule in a suit involving an open and notorious infringement.

Copyright Office Procedures During COVID-19

By Elizabeth Altman

As COVID-19-related disruptions and social distancing measures continue across the country and throughout the summer, many public institutions are seeing continued curtailment to their operations. It can be overwhelming to parse through ever-changing, institution-specific pandemic protocols, which is why we have put together an overview of the Copyright Office’s current practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This guide explores the safety and efficiency measures adopted by the Copyright Office to mitigate effects from the national emergency, and explains what that means for your registrations, recordations, research, and other copyright-related concerns.

General Background

First and foremost, the Copyright Office’s physical offices remain closed, as they—along with all Library of Congress buildings—have been since March 13 of this year. The Office is actively teleworking, however, with staff and registration specialists operating remotely to continue core Copyright Office activities, such as reviewing and processing of registrations. The Copyright Office’s emergency modifications, implemented on March 31, 2020, and discussed further below, have currently been extended through September 8, 2020.

Registrations

A central function of the Copyright Office is registering copyrighted works. During the pandemic, the Office has continued to provide this service via its online registration portal, eCO. Examiners continue to review online registrations remotely, processing electronic applications in the order in which they are received (except with respect to special handling, discussed further below). The Copyright Office strongly encourages online registration, especially considering that, given today’s copyright technology and the Copyright Office’s current procedures, most works are fully registerable online.

The main COVID-19-related disruption to registration involves physical deposits and applications, which some people prefer to use, and which are required for certain categories of works and applications as discussed below. Although the Copyright Office is still accepting physical submissions, it is currently storing them in an offsite facility, regardless of whether they were submitted by USPS, courier, or delivery service. The Copyright Office will only process these submissions when the Library of Congress reopens, for which there is presently no timeline. To date, the Library of Congress has stated that all events at its buildings are cancelled until September 1 and that all facilities remain closed “until further notice.” When the Copyright Office does resume reviewing physical materials, it will do so in the order in which they were received, as submissions have been date-stamped.

The Copyright Office therefore strongly encourages applicants to take advantage of electronic filing options. To this end, the Office has expanded its electronic submissions programs, to accommodate applications that would normally require a physical deposit copy. Below is a summary of the available submission options, depending upon the deposit requirements for the type of work:

a) Registration Where No Physical Deposit is Required:

For applicants not required to submit a physical deposit copy of the work, the Office strongly encourages uploading one electronic copy of the work after completing the electronic application and paying the required fee. No other declaration form or special procedure is required.

b) Registration Where Physical Deposit is Required:

Physical deposit copies are required for certain kinds of work, including vessel designs and mask works. They are also required when:

  • A work was first published in the U.S. before the applicant submitted an application claim to the Copyright Office, and the work was published in physical form, like a CD, DVD, or paperback book;
  • A work was first published in the U.S. before the applicant submitted an application claim, and the work was published both in a physical and an electronic form (like a song released on CD and as a download); or
  • A work was first published abroad before the applicant submitted an application claim to the Copyright Office, and the work was first published in a physical format like CD, DVD, or paperback book.

Applicants that must submit a physical deposit copy should mail it to the Copyright Office, including the shipping slip, which provides the mailing address. Although the physical deposit will not be processed until the Office returns to normal operations, applicants who also follow the Office’s special pandemic procedures—as outlined below—will receive remote examination of the electronic application: 

  1. Complete an electronic application and submit the filing fee through the online registration system.
  2. Upload an electronic copy of the work that is identical to the physical copy.
  3. Print the shipping slip generated by the eCO system and attach it to the physical deposit copy of the work that is mailed to the Copyright Office.
  4. Complete and upload a Deposit Ticket Declaration Form certifying that the physical deposit and electronic copy contain identical content.
  • Include the title of the work, which the registration specialist will use to confirm that the information in the declaration matches that in the application.
  • Sign the declaration; typed signatures suffice.
  • You need not notarize the form or have a witness.

The Copyright Office advises that where an applicant has filed an application electronically but has only submitted a physical deposit, the examiner assigned to the claim may send an email with the option of uploading an electronic copy of the work and the Deposit Form, where the option is available. Emails send from cop-ad@loc.gov. However, applicants taking note of the Copyright Office’s building closures and hold on inspections of physical material are advised to proceed with this process from the start.

Where applicants follow this procedure, the effective date of registration will be the date the Copyright Office receives the completed application, fee, and deposit in its proper form, regardless of whether the physical or electronic version first reaches the Office. Claims submitted in this manner should be examined within 30 days after the Office receives the electronic copy, although the Copyright Office generally advises that the average time to process a registration is presently 3.2 months.

The Copyright Office directs that applicants that have only submitted a paper application should not resubmit an online application; in such cases, the Copyright Office will examine the application when the building reopens and staff returns.

c) Where Applicants are Unable to Submit an Application, Fee, and/or Deposit During COVID-19

Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, passed on March 27, 2020, the Register of Copyrights has the temporary authority to extend certain filing deadlines and procedural requirements if she determines that a national emergency is disrupting Copyright Office practices. The Register quickly used this authority to establish a procedure to extend the window for registrations under Section 710 of the Copyright Act, which authorizes her, on a temporary basis and subject to certain exceptions, to “toll, waive, adjust, or modify any timing provision . . . or procedural provision” in the Copyright Act if she determines that a national emergency declared by the President “generally disrupts or suspends the ordinary functioning of the copyright system . . . or any component thereof.” Considering the difficulties of prompt registration, which is generally required in order to ensure the availability of statutory damages and attorney’s fees should an infringement dispute proceed to litigation (these legal remedies are only available for works registered before infringement or, if after infringement, within three months after first publication), the Office is now allowing applicants to toll the registration window based on fulfillment of certain conditions:

  • Applicants who are unable to submit an application, fee, and/or required physical deposit copy should fill in and upload a Section 710 Declaration online (the form applies to applicants who declare that due to the pandemic they either could not submit an application fee, and/or deposit copy or could not submit a required physical deposit copy though they did submit an online application and fee; it also contains a section for the applicant’s statement supporting the declaration, and an acknowledgement of the penalties associated with making a false representation in an application for copyright registration). When possible, applicants should proceed to complete an electronic application, submit a filing fee, print a shipping slip, and mail the required deposit with the shipping slip to the address on the slip. Applicants must mail these materials within 30 days after the date that the COVID-19 disruption has ended, as announced by the Register of Copyrights.
  • Applicants that are prevented from submitting a paper or electronic application, fee, and/or required deposit may do so after the end of the national emergency, provided that they include a Section 710 Declaration with their application materials.

Section 710 Declarations must be signed—either handwritten or typed signatures suffice—and include satisfactory evidence to support the claim that the pandemic prevented the applicant from submitting required materials. The following would be suitable justifications:

  • A statement that you are/were subject to a governmental stay-at-home order.
  • A statement that you are/were unable to access required physical materials due to a business closure at the site of the materials’ storage.
  • A statement that you were unable to access the internet.

Certificates of Registration

The Copyright Office has ceased printing certificates of registrations at present. If, however, your claim has been registered, it will appear in the Office’s online catalog. You may retrieve the registration number by searching using the title, author, or claimant name. For registrations processed through Special Handling, the Office will email an unofficial copy of the registration certification that includes the registration number. If the Copyright Office refuses your claim, it will email you a copy of the refusal letter.

Special Handling

The Copyright Office’s “special handling” procedure allows applicants to expedite the registration process for an additional fee. Presently, the Copyright Office will only receive and process requests for special handling that are submitted online.

The following steps ensure special handling:

  1. Submit an electronic application completing the special handling screen.
  2. Pay the filing fee and additional special handling fee.
  3. Upload an electronic copy of your work.

If the application would ordinarily require a physical deposit, you may use the Deposit Ticket Declaration Form option to qualify for special handling.

After you complete these steps, the Office will typically examine your claim, or contact you with questions within five business days. If, however, you submit physical copies or a paper application, the Copyright Office will neither examine your materials nor implement special handling until the Library of Congress reopens. As of May 2020, the Office now also permits applicants to submit requests for special handling of document recordation submissions, including notices of termination, by email.

Requests for Reconsideration of Registration Refusal

Requests for reconsideration are typically filed by mail, but as an alternative during the pandemic, the Copyright Office will allow you to submit your request to copreviewboard@copyright.gov. After receiving your request, the Copyright Office will contact you with instructions to pay the required filing fee electronically. The request and fee must be received by the Office within three months from your refusal date.

Requesting Cancellation of Registration

To seek a voluntary cancellation of a registration, as the author or claimant of record, you may submit your request to copreviewboard@copyright.gov. A staff member will contact you about submitting the required fee.

Research & Updates

a) Library of Congress

As noted, all Library of Congress buildings and facilities have been closed to the public, including researchers and those with reader identification cards, which are required to access the Library’s research areas, including Computer Catalog centers and Copyright Office public service areas. Access to the Library of Congress is currently limited to a small number of necessary persons, although the Library notes that, as of June 22, 2020 it will implement “Phase One, Part One” of its plan to gradually restore on-site operations. This plan involves recalling around 200 staff members—approximately 5% of all staff—to onsite operations. Neither the Library of Congress nor the Copyright Office have provided a timeline for how long Phase One will last, when “Phase One, Part Two” is likely to commence, nor a prospective implementation date for Phase Two. The duration of each phase will be determined based on local conditions and the Library’s operations at each stage. All public events at the Library of Congress have been cancelled through September 1, 2020.

The public may still access Library of Congress resources at:

Copyright Office

Copyright.gov remains, of course, the main starting point for keeping up to date on copyright matters. To stay current with Copyright Office COVID-19 news, in particular, visit https://www.copyright.gov/coronavirus/. The Office’s Coronavirus FAQ, which outlines specific questions regarding registration and deposit copies, may also be of use. Subscribe to updates regarding COVID-19, as well as other copyright matters, at the Office’s NewsNet service: https://www.copyright.gov/subscribe/. Finally, the Copyright Office’s up-to-date filing options are available in chart form at https://www.copyright.gov/coronavirus/filing-options/.

We will update this post from time to time with further developments.

When Social Media Finally Holds Feet to the Fire, Trump Fires Back: Undermining the Communications Decency Act’s Safe Harbor by Executive Order

By Joshua M. Greenberg

Like most other providers of interactive computer services, such as websites or mobile applications that allow their users to post or contribute their own content, Twitter through its Terms of Service and community guidelines has long prohibited its users from posting or communicating, among other things, defamatory, profane, infringing, obscene, unlawful, exploitive, harmful, racist, bigoted, hateful, or threatening content through its service. Yet for many years, Twitter has declined to deactivate or take any further action against President Trump’s account, despite tacitly acknowledging that his tirades might very well violate these prohibitions, on the basis that the blusterous Tweets were nevertheless newsworthy. Facebook’s Marc Zuckerberg has similarly stood by his company’s decision not to fact check politicians on the platform, expressing concerns over free speech and democratic values and being an “arbiter of truth.”

That was until last week. On Wednesday, citing its civic integrity policy, Twitter added a label advising viewers to “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” from a page of curated news articles hyperlinked below two of President Trump’s Tweets that had falsely claimed California was “sending ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state no matter who they are or how they got there” to seemingly undermine voter confidence in mail-in voting when, in fact, ballots were only being sent to registered California voters. Then on Friday, Twitter limited the viewability of President Trump’s Tweet about protestors in Minneapolis that contained the racially inflammatory trope “when the shooting starts, the looting starts” by placing the Tweet behind a notice stating the Tweet violated Twitter’s rules against glorifying violence before allowing viewers to click through to see it. In neither case did Twitter remove or delete the Tweets.

On Thursday, President Trump channeled his ire towards Twitter and other social networking platforms (namely, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube) who he believes are censoring speech, particularly conservative speech, into a highly controversial executive order. The purpose of the order was to undermine the immunity from civil liability found in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), which protects interactive computer service providers and their users from liability for certain types of content posted or transmitted by users through those services, websites, apps, etc. and any actions or harm resulting from that content so long as the service provider or user, as the case may be, does not exercise control over the content akin to that of the publisher or speaker. Specifically, the law says, a provider or user of an interactive computer service will not be “treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” or be liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected, or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to [information provided by another information content provider].” Without this liability shield, operators of websites or mobile apps that contain user-generated content or facilitate communication between users will be open to civil liability for such causes of action as defamation, invasion of privacy, products liability and negligent design of the service, failing to screen users’ communications and protect them from one another, among others, for the content that they allow their millions of users to post, contribute, or transmit through their services, despite perhaps not having the resources—monetary, technological, personnel, legal, or otherwise—to police all user-generated content and communications flowing through their service.

The Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship clarified the federal government’s interpretation of CDA Section 230 to say that “the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.”  The executive order goes on to state that the safe harbor should not extend so far as to “provide liability protection for online platforms that—far from acting in ‘good faith’ to remove objectionable content—instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.” The executive order directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to propose new administrative regulations to narrow the scope of immunity provided under the CDA’s safe harbor in a manner that would, among other things, draw greater scrutiny to the alleged misalignment between these companies’ stated policies and “good faith” enforcement and their algorithms for the content and users they promote or do not promote.  The administration framed this alleged discrepancy as a deceptive trade practice, again, harkening back to the notion that social media platforms disfavor conservative voices and viewpoints (despite a lack of evidence of such bias).

The executive order will surely be challenged in court and the long line of caselaw reinforcing the safe harbor in the interest of protecting freedom of expression on the Internet and service providers and their users from liability therefrom, as well as recent lawsuits alleging political bias by social media platforms, will likely render the executive order unenforceable. However, until then, the executive order has the force of law and the FCC and FTC will commence their rulemaking processes so, this policy shift is something every website or mobile app provider whose service contains user-generated content or communications—and the lawyers who represent them—should pay close attention to.

Proposed Guidelines for Resumption of Motion Picture, Television and Streaming Productions

By Amy Stein

Earlier this week, the Industry-Wide Labor-Management Safety Committee Task Force released proposed policies and guidelines for the recommencement of productions, known as the White Paper. As of June 1, the White Paper was submitted to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and California Governor Gavin Newsom for review.

The Task Force, comprised of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, major studios (e.g., Amazon Studios, Apple Studios, HBO, Netflix, Sony, Walt Disney, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Fox), and many guilds and unions (i.e., Director’s Guild of America, I.A.T.S.E. and its West-Coast Studio Local Unions and New York Local Unions, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Basic Crafts Unions, and SAG-AFTRA), sought expert advice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, health care professionals, and industry professionals who know the ins and outs of production working conditions.

The White Paper is meant to be fluid and will evolve over time in conjunction with governmental suggestions and requirements. As of now, the White Paper is intended to create the initial road map to a safe return to production, which provides guidelines with respect to, for example, “regular, periodic testing of cast and crew for Covid-19,” “universal symptom monitoring, including temperature screening,” providing disposable masks which will be replaced each day, social distancing, as well as suggestions for access to mental and physical health resources.

While the White Paper will directly affect the productions produced under the studio and network system, it also provides a framework for independent films to follow (which frame work will have to comply with governmental requirements and protocols in the jurisdiction of production, and will have to be approved by the applicable guild(s)/union(s) of the production).

It should be noted that the White Paper is a set of recommendations for government authorization to commence production and has yet to be commented on by any governmental authority or department. The White Paper can be found here.

Character Exclusivity in Rights Deals

By Simon N. Pulman

In this increasingly competitive media landscape, companies are seeking to create entertainment brands that can endure, serve as the basis for dozens of hours of content on the new generation of owned-and-operated premium platforms, and extend across various forms of media. However, transmedia deals are seldom straightforward, and may create issues that one is less likely to encounter when negotiating a relatively simple deal for a book-to-film adaptation.

One such issue is character exclusivity – the idea that when an entertainment property has multiple rightsholders, certain characters (or, in hyper-complex instances, certain characteristics of certain characters) are owned exclusively by only one rightsholder. The phenomenon of character exclusivity (and the schism in a property that it tends to create) tends to arise from one of three main deal-making circumstances, as follows:

Creator Sequels

Traditionally, a purchaser in a rights deal acquired only one “installment” of a property, such as a novel. In the event that the author of that novel decided to write a sequel, the film and television rights in that sequel would typically be “held back” for a period of time (usually between three and seven years), and the purchaser of the first book would have a first negotiation right and some kind of matching right to acquire the rights in the sequel.

That structure is fine when one is acquiring a discrete novel for which a sequel is a hypothetical future possibility, and which would be (if written) a direct continuation of the original story. It works less well when a property is conceived from the ground up as a series, an anthology, or a shared universe (more on that below). However, even this relatively simple traditional structure begs the question: what happens if the original purchaser does not acquire a sequel?

Most studios include some form of the below language in their option agreements with respect to the creator’s reserved sequel rights:

“If Purchaser does not acquire any Author-Written Sequel, then Owner’s right to dispose of any rights in such Author-Written Sequel shall not include the right to produce or cause the production of any audiovisual production which contains any of the characters or incidents contained in the original Property.”

In essence, this language provides that a creator can sell sequel rights to a third party (subject to the holdback and first negotiation/matching right), but not rights to any characters that appear in the original work. So, to illustrate, the author of Bridget Jones could sell the screen rights to the second Bridget Jones book, but would not be permitted to grant rights to the character Bridget Jones (feel free to replace “Bridget Jones” with “Harry Potter,” “Harry Bosch,” “Frodo” or any other character of your choosing).

Suffice to say, this creates instant character exclusivity and in many instances makes the development of a sequel by a new buyer unworkable.

On the subject of “creator sequels,” it is also worth mentioning that contractual standards that were very simple when formulated to address the acquisition of discrete works such as novels or plays may be much less elegant in the modern world. For example, it may be difficult to discern the line between the “original property” and a “sequel” when you have an ongoing comic book series with multiple spinoffs. How about a true crime podcast anthology that presents multiple “seasons” focused on different crimes, under one united brand? Or what about a video game where updates are presented via a series of continuous downloadable updates, as opposed to individual and clearly separate releases at brick-and-mortar retailers?

These are issues that we are thinking about and addressing on a daily basis and should evidence why it is important that rightsholders and purchasers alike engage experienced rights counsel!

“Studio Created” Elements

Another provision commonly found in rights purchase agreements reads substantially as follows:

“The Reserved Rights do not include, and Owner will have no right to exploit or use, any new or changed element created by or for Purchaser and/or any new characters, new characterizations and other new elements from any production produced by Purchaser.”

Think of this as the “Daryl Dixon” clause. When AMC optioned and developed “The Walking Dead” comic books for television, they created Daryl as a new character. Daryl promptly went on to become one of the most popular characters in the series.

Because of the clause above, the comic book writer and publisher were not permitted to use Daryl in the source material – or in connection with any other reserved rights (such as video games and merchandising based on the comic book, as opposed to the TV series).

Historically, there were good reasons for this clause. It does not make sense for the author to be unjustly enriched by the studio’s creativity and investment, and the inclusion of a new character back in the original source material could trigger additional guild or contractual obligations (in essence, putting the purchaser on the hook for exploitation that it doesn’t control).

However, we are finally moving towards a paradigm where characters move fluidly across media and different forms of exploitation – where new movies are promoted in Fortnite, and where Freddy Krueger, the Demogorgon, and Michael Myers can all appear as killers in Dead by Daylight. In gaming in particular, there may be a compelling reason for a game publisher to be able to use a character in their games who initially appeared in a television series. Moreover, the expectation of audiences is increasingly that there will be some level of coordination and consistency across media, and so it may be necessary to reexamine the necessity of this clause in very specific circumstances.

Shared Universes

The concept of character exclusivity becomes particularly complicated in the instance of a “shared universe” – a vast sprawling story world that may encompass dozens of separate narratives that could be tied together by relatively obscure or minimal narrative threads. Think Brandon Sanderson’s Cosmere or, of course, the Marvel Universe.

For a shared story universe, it is possible, or even likely, that different characters or story elements will be controlled by different rightsholders. This concept has become familiar to audiences due to the X-Men and Avengers living (up to now) in completely separate story universes – or via the high profile and very public negotiations that were necessary to bring Spider-Man to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Absent special arrangement, characters are “stuck” in one universe and cannot “cross over” – even if they did so routinely in the source material. This may lead to audience confusion and frustration.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule and in addition to the aforementioned Spider-Man example, two characters were “shared” by Fox and Disney pre-merger – Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (who appeared in the X-Men franchise starting with Days of Future Past, and in the MCU starting with Avengers: The Age of Ultron (after a brief post-credits appearance in Winter Soldier). However, the two iterations of the characters were played by different actors and, there were purportedly very specific contractual stipulations on how they could be characterized in each universe.

While the concept of a “shared universe” applies mostly to superhero and fantasy worlds, there are still potential repercussions for creators in other genres. For example, an author who writes crossovers between two book series (as Michael Connolly has done with the Bosch and Lincoln Lawyer books), or includes an Easter egg type cameo in their romance novel with a character from another book may be inadvertently creating rights and contractual issues that must be carefully addressed (and may be potentially headache inducing). Of course, the most successful US author of all – Stephen King – does this routinely. But creators must be careful because it is unlikely that they have the leverage that King does over his intellectual property!

Second Circuit Limits Copyright Damages to Three-Year Period Before Suit

By Sara Gates

How do you square Psihoyos with Petrella, two of the most significant copyright statute of limitations cases in recent years?  Courts and attorneys alike have struggled with that question since the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court, respectively, handed down these two copyright decisions within the span of a month in 2014.  For the most part, courts have read the decisions separately, acknowledging the Petrella court’s three-year look-back period for a plaintiff’s recovery of monetary damages in a copyright action, while continuing to apply the Psihoyos court’s “discovery” rule, which extends the time when the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations period starts to run based on when the copyright owner “discovers” the infringement.

It was not until earlier this month that the Second Circuit took up the damages question in Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., No. 18-2110, 2020 WL 2375056 (2d Cir. May 12, 2020), and decided that, though the discovery rule is binding precedent in the circuit, the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrella counsels that there is a only a three-year lookback period from when suit is filed to determine the extent of monetary damages available.  Reversing the lower court’s decision on this point, the Second Circuit determined that a copyright plaintiff’s recovery is limited to damages incurred during the three years prior to filing suit.  The decision lends an advantage to copyright defendants where plaintiffs delay in bringing suit, yet still seek to recover expansive damages dating back as far as they can count. 

In the case, a photographer, Joseph Sohm, brought a copyright infringement action against Scholastic Inc., which had used 89 of Sohm’s photographs in various publications, outside the limited license granted by Sohm’s third-party licensing agent.  On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the district court dealt with a host of copyright issues, ultimately finding that Scholastic only infringed the copyrights in six photographs.  Notably, the district court considered Scholastic’s arguments that the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations barred Sohm’s claims as to certain uses of the photographs, and that Sohm’s damages should be limited to those incurred during the three years prior to filing suit.  The court rejected both of Scholastic’s arguments, finding the discovery rule adopted by the Second Circuit in Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2014), was still good law and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), should not be read to establish a time limit on the recovery of damages distinct from the discovery-based statute of limitations.

On cross-appeal to the Second Circuit, Scholastic urged the court to forego the discovery rule, and to instead adopt an “injury rule” (i.e., so the three-year statute of limitations period starts to run from the time of the copyright owner’s injury), to determine when Sohm’s claims accrued for statute of limitations purposes.  Citing Psihoyos as binding precedent in the Second Circuit that had not been overturned, the court disagreed with Scholastic’s position and affirmed the discovery rule, sticking with the majority of the circuit courts that have adopted the rule.  Scholastic’s second argument, however, fared better.

Asserting that, even if the discovery rule applies, Scholastic argued that Sohm still should not be able to recover damages for more than three years prior to commencement of the action, relying on language from Petrella.  Specifically, Scholastic noted that the Petrella court stated: “[u]nder the [Copyright] Act’s three-year provision, an infringement is actionable within three years, and only three years, of its occurrence” and that “the infringer is insulated from liability for earlier infringements of the same work.”  Though Sohm opposed Scholastic’s interpretation, calling it dicta, the Second Circuit disagreed, finding that this portion of the opinion was necessary to the result, so it acts as binding precedent.  Accordingly, the Second Circuit concluded that, notwithstanding the discovery rule, the Supreme Court “explicitly dissociated the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations from its time limit on damages” and “delimited damages to the three years prior to the commencement of a copyright infringement action.”  

While the Second Circuit did not adopt Scholastic’s proposed injury rule, its holding severely limits the copyright owner’s recovery when the discovery rule is applied.  For example, if an infringement occurred ten years ago, but was only recently discovered, prompting the copyright owner to file suit, the copyright owner would only be able to recover damages for the three years prior to filing, and would not be able to “look back” through the ten years since the infringement. 

In deciding that Sohm could not recover damages more than three years prior to filing suit, the Second Circuit became the first circuit to adopt this interpretation of Petrella.  Though other district courts outside the Second Circuit have addressed the issue—including a district court in the Ninth Circuit, Johnson v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-02364-ODW, 2019 WL 5420278 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019), which took the opposite position and permitted damages outside the three-year period—until other circuits weigh in, it is unclear whether the Second Circuit’s interpretation will become majority rule or whether a circuit split again destined for the Supreme Court is on the horizon. 

COVID-19 Relief

By Tyler Horowitz

While certain states have started to ease lockdowns and shelter-in-place limitations, the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects have taken a toll on many lives, communities, and small businesses. One of the many challenges this unprecedented situation has spawned is how small business will weather the economic downturn it has caused. This situation has been particularly dire for the entertainment industry and businesses that are in early start-up stages as well as early stages of financing.

On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) to provide emergency financial and health care assistance for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic. On the financial side, the Small Business Administration (SBA) received funding and authority through the CARES Act to modify existing loan programs and establish a new loan program to assist small businesses nationwide that have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 emergency.

For those small and medium-sized businesses who are unfamiliar with, or haven’t applied to, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) or other similar state and federal relief programs, this post will provide a high-level overview of what such businesses need to know to pursue monetary relief.

Paycheck Protection Program

What is the PPP?

The CARES Act, in Section 1102, authorizes the SBA to temporarily guarantee loans in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act. This relief program provides loans designed to incentivize small businesses to keep their workers on the payroll. Small businesses receive funds to pay for up to eight weeks of payroll costs including benefits, and the SBA will forgive the loan if all employees are kept on the payroll for that time and the money is only used for payroll, rent, mortgage interest, or utilities. Applicants are required to submit a good faith certification stating the following:

  • The loan is needed to support ongoing operations;
  • The loan will be used to retain workers, maintain payroll, and pay for mortgage, lease, and utility payments;
  • The borrower does not have a pending application for a similar loan; and
  • The borrower did not get a similar loan between February 15, 2020 and December 31, 2020.

 Who can apply?

A business is eligible for a PPP loan if the business has not more than 500 employees and if its principal place of residence is in the United States. A business’ principal place of residence is determined in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Code of Federal Regulations (“C.F.R.”) §1.121-1(b)(2). Similarly, PPP loans are also available to 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations with fewer than 500 employees and the self-employed, sole proprietors, and freelance and gig economy workers.

In order to qualify under the PPP, a business must have been in operation during the “Covered Period” of February 15, 2020 – June 30, 2020. The loan may be used to ensure that a business meets its payroll obligations as well as any costs related to family leave, sick or medical leave, insurance premiums, commissions, or rent that is incurred during the Covered Period.

How is the loan size determined?

The loan size is calculated on a case-by-case basis as follows and in accordance with the terms of 13 C.F.R. § 120:

  1. Add all payroll costs for all employees whose principal place of residence is in the United States.
  1. Subtract any compensation paid to an employee in excess of a salary of $100,000.00 annually and/or any amounts paid to an independent contractor or sole proprietor in excess of $100,000.00 annually.
  1. Calculate the average monthly payroll costs (divide the number from Step 2 by 12).
  1. Multiply the average monthly payroll costs, calculated in Step 3 above, by 2.5.
  1. Add the resulting number to any outstanding amount of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”; discussed below) made between January 1, 2020 – April 3, 2020 and subtract the amount of any EIDL advance.

On April 24, 2020, the SBA issued further guidance on how to calculate maximum loan amounts for each type of applicant (available here).  

How to apply?

You can apply through any existing SBA 7(a) lender or through any federally insured depository institution, federally insured credit union, and Farm Credit System institution that is participating. Other regulated lenders will be available to make these loans once they are approved and enrolled in the program. A list of participating lenders as well as additional information and full terms can be found here. These loans are first-come, first-served and the Government will continue to make disbursements so long as Congress provides funding.

Economic Injury Disaster Program

The EIDL Program is another option for small businesses administered by the SBA under Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act.  EIDLs are lower interest loans of up to $2 million, with principal and interest deferment available for up to 4 years, that are available to pay for expenses had the pandemic not occurred (e.g., payroll and operating expenses).

To qualify for an EIDL, your business must have suffered “substantial economic injury” from COVID-19. EIDLs are based on a company’s actual economic injury determined by the SBA (less any recoveries such as insurance proceeds) but the amount of the loan may not exceed $2,000,000.00.

Loan parameters

  • The eligibility period commences January 31, 2020 and ends December 31, 2020;
  • Any small business (including sole proprietorships, with or without employees) with 500 or fewer employees;
  • The interest rate on EIDLs is 3.75% fixed for small businesses and 2.75% for nonprofits. The EIDLs have up to a 30-year term and amortization (determined on a case-by-case basis);
  • The money can be used for payroll, rents or mortgages, or other operational costs;
  • Up to $200,000 can be approved without a personal guarantee; and
  • No collateral is required for loans of $25,000 or less. For loans of more than $25,000, a general security interest in business assets will be used for collateral instead of real estate.

Emergency advance

The EIDL Program provides an emergency advance of up to $10,000 to small businesses harmed by COVID-19 within three days of applying for an EIDL. To access the advance, you must first apply for an EIDL and then subsequently request the advance. The advance does not need to be repaid under any circumstance, and may be used to keep employees on the payroll or pay business obligations, including debts, rent and mortgage payments.

Applications and more detailed information can be found here.

Snapshot differences between PPP and EIDL

TermsEIDLPPP
Maximum Loan Amount$2,000,000$10,000,000
Interest Rates3.75%, up to 30 years (2.75% for non-profits)   Any portion of the loan not forgiven will be treated as a two-year loan with a 1% fixed interest rate  
Forgivable AmountOnly $10,000 of the emergency advance is forgiven100% forgivable provided employees are kept on the payroll for eight weeks and the money is only used for payroll, rent, mortgage interest, or utilities
Approved UsesRent, payroll, accounts payable, and any other expenses that could have been met had the pandemic not occurredPayroll expenses, rent, mortgage interest and utilities  
Collateral and Credit Check RequirementsYesNo

Can I Apply to Both?

Yes! However, it is important to note that you cannot use funds from both loans for the same purpose.

For example, you can’t use both EIDL and PPP funds towards payroll.

Additional Resources and News

In addition to PPP and EIDL, private companies have lent support for members of the entertainment industry. For example, Sony Music announced a $100 million Global Relief Fund to support not only medical workers, but also creators, artists, and other partners in the entertainment community who have been impacted by COVID-19.  Similarly, Live Nation Entertainment’s Crew Nation Fund is currently providing financial support to music crews who have been directly impacted by suspended or cancelled shows.

Further, U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar, Chris Coons, Tim Kaine, and Angus King introduced the New Business Preservation Act . This legislation would create a new $2 billion program at the Treasury Department that would partner with states to invest in promising start-up businesses in areas of the country that do not currently attract significant equity investment and who are particularly vulnerable to the current economic crisis as a result of COVID-19.

Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP will continue to provide updates on legal developments related to the present crisis and we are available should you need further guidance.

Ninth Circuit Holds First Amendment Tolerates Whiskey-Inspired Parody Dog Toys in Trade Dress Spat

By Scott J. Sholder

A legal decision that simultaneously upholds the foundational tenets of free speech while quoting a dog toy’s claim to be “43% Poo by Vol” and “100% Smelly” is a welcome spot of levity in these trying and stressful times. The Ninth Circuit offered both in VIP Products v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., a recent decision holding that the First Amendment shields parodic uses of trademarks and trade dress in consumer products.

Background

Between 2007 and 2017, VIP Products LLC (“VIP”) sold dog toys called “Silly Squeakers,” which were designed to look like bottles of well-known beverages “but with dog-related twists” – in this case, “Bad Spaniels” as a play on Jack Daniel’s. The Bad Spaniels toy, introduced in 2013, resembles a Jack Daniel’s bottle, features a picture of a dog, and sports the phrase “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet” and the above-mentioned “alcohol” content description. (A bottle of Jack Daniel’s bears the phrases “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey.”) VIP claimed that the purpose of its toys’ design was to comment on “the humanization of the dog in our lives” and “corporations [that] take themselves very seriously.”

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. (“JDP”) was apparently one of those companies and did not take kindly to VIP’s canine-inspired take on its iconic brand of spirits. In 2014 JDP wrote to VIP demanding that it “cease all further sales of the Bad Spaniels toy.” In response, VIP filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or dilution of JDP’s trademark rights, a ruling that the “Jack Daniel’s trade dress and bottle design are not entitled to trademark protection,” and cancellation of JDP’s registered bottle design. JDP counterclaimed for trademark and trade dress infringement as well as trademark dilution by tarnishment.

After dueling summary judgment motions, the district court, among other rulings, denied VIP’s First Amendment defenses and confirmed the protectability of JDP’s trade dress. A four-day bench trial on JDP’s dilution claim and likelihood of confusion resulted in a ruling in favor of JDP and a permanent injunction against sales of the Bad Spaniels toy. VIP appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a mixed ruling, affirming the protectability of JDP’s trade dress but reversing the lower court’s ruling on the First Amendment.

Ninth Circuit Decision

The appeals court, in addressing VIP’s First Amendment defense, explained that the Lanham Act’s “likelihood of confusion” standard generally “seeks to strike the appropriate balance between the First Amendment and trademark rights,” but in the context of artistic expression, a more stringent test in favor of free speech applies because likelihood of confusion “fails to account for the full weight of the public’s interest in free expression.” The Ninth Circuit explained that it had adopted, in Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, a test originally promulgated by the Second Circuit in the seminal case Rogers v. Grimaldi, which dealt with protectable names used in the titles of expressive works. That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that a defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s name/mark in an expressive work is either (1) “not artistically relevant to the underlying work” or (2) “explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or content of the work.” The court’s analysis focused on the threshold issue of why a dog toy is considered an expressive work, the key question being whether the work “communicat[es] ideas or express[es] points of view.”

The panel explained that expressive works are “not rendered non-expressive simply because” they are sold commercially, yet do not need to be the “expressive equivalent of Anna Karenina or Citizen Kane.” The Bad Spaniels toys were expressive works because they communicated a “humorous message” through “word play to alter the serious phrase that appears on a Jack Daniel’s bottle – ‘Old No. 7 Brand’ – with a silly message – ‘The Old No. 2.'” The juxtaposition of an “irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark’s owner” rendered the Bad Spaniels toy a First Amendment-protected work conveying the message that “business and product images need not always be taken too seriously.” This message was key; the vessel of the dog toy was effectively deemed irrelevant (and, the court noted, its conclusion was consistent with a 2007 Fourth Circuit decision protecting parodic dog toys based on Louis Vuitton hand bags).

As a procedural matter, the court did not address the substance of the two-prong Rogers test because the district court had not even found that Bad Spaniels was an expressive work. The court therefore vacated the lower court’s finding of infringement and remanded for an analysis of the Rogers test.

The Ninth Circuit panel went on to reverse the trial court’s ruling that VIP had diluted JDP’s trademark because noncommercial use of a mark is not dilutive, and VIP had not engaged in purely commercial speech. Specifically, VIP had done more than simply propose a commercial transaction by creating “protected expression” even though it was selling a product. Because VIP’s humorous message was protected by the First Amendment, its use of the JDP trade dress could not have diluted JDP’s brand.

The VIP case is the most recent example of the continued expansion of the Rogers test into a more encompassing First Amendment safeguard, at least in the Ninth Circuit. In 2008, the Ninth Circuit held in E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., that, in the context of video games, the Rogers test applied not only to trademark use in titles of artistic works, but also to material in the body of the works. And just two years ago, in Twentieth Century Fox Television v. Empire Distribution, Inc., the court held that Fox’s use of the name “Empire” for its hit TV show was protected by the First Amendment against claims of trademark infringement by record label Empire Distribution, opening the Rogers umbrella to cover Fox’s promotional uses of the “Empire” mark for live musical performances, cast appearances, and on consumer goods like T-shirts and champagne glasses. The VIP decision represents a predictable next step of expansion of the Rogers doctrine out of the realm of creative media properties like television and video games (for which merchandising is ancillary) to consumer goods as a distinct category of creative expression.

VIP is a clear victory for creators of expressive works, reinforcing the importance of balancing trademark rights with artistic expression and the ability of creators of even garden-variety consumer products to make a living from the fruits of that expression. Brand owners, on the other hand, will likely see the decision as a weakening of trademark protections and a blank check for content creators to profit from uses of marks outside traditional artistic content. Of course, VIP is only binding in the Ninth Circuit, but it stands to reason that other like-minded courts such as the Second Circuit (originator of the Rogers test) and the Fourth Circuit (which addressed the Louis Vuitton dog toy case mentioned above) may follow suit. While creators of expressive products may take some more comfort in their First Amendment rights, trademark proprietors should carefully assess the facts of brewing disputes, especially in these circuits, before asserting claims. And, particularly with parody products, brand owners should consider whether litigation is the best solution or if there are other compromises like disclaimers or outside-the-box business solutions.

This article was published by the Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) on May 6, 2020

Supreme Court Rejects Willfulness Requirement for Profit Awards in Trademark Infringement Actions

By Sara Gates

In a recent decision of considerable importance for trademark practitioners, the U.S. Supreme Court finally resolved a longstanding split among the circuits when the Court held that willfulness is not required to award the plaintiff profits in a trademark infringement action. Romag Fasteners, Inc v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233, 2020 WL 1942012 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020). Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion in the unanimous decision, expressly rejecting the willfulness prerequisite to profit awards adopted by the Second and Ninth Circuits, which both handle a high volume of the nation’s trademark cases.

Background

The case before the Court involved a dispute over handbag fasteners between Romag Fasteners, Inc., a company that manufacturers the fasteners, and Fossil, Inc., a company that uses the fasteners on its handbags. For years, Romag and Fossil worked together under an agreement that permitted Fossil to use Romag’s fasteners on its handbags. As Romag later discovered, however, factories in China making Fossil products were using counterfeit fasteners, instead of Romag’s products. Believing that Fossil was not policing these factories, Romag sued Fossil for trademark infringement and false representation (along with other claims, including patent infringement).

The issues of fact went to the jury, which agreed with Romag’s view and found that, while Fossil had acted with callous disregard, its actions were not willful. Though the jury made its advisory awards, the Judge Janet Bon Arterton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut determined that Romag could not recover Fossil’s profits on the trademark infringement claim without a finding of willfulness. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the Court upheld the district court’s decision, finding that it was consistent with Second Circuit precedent (the District of Connecticut sits within the Second Circuit). Romag’s writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court followed, and the Court granted the writ, presumably to resolve the outstanding circuit split that has persisted for more than 20 years.

Decision

The Court did just that in its recent decision, which fully and finally rejected the view that a showing of willfulness is a prerequisite to a profit award in trademark infringement actions. As the Court explained, while the infringer’s state of mind is certainly an important and valuable consideration, it is by no means a requirement for a court to award a trademark owner the infringer’s profits.

In reaching the decision, the Court relied heavily on the text of the Lanham Act, the statute governing recovery of federal trademark violations, and, specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, the Lanham Act’s damages provision. The Court pointed out that states of mind, or mens rea, are carefully addressed in that section of the statute, as they are throughout the entirety of the Lanham Act. For example, the plain text of § 1117(a) provides for recovery of an award of the infringer’s profits for any violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (i.e., trademark infringement), but for violations of § 1125(c) (trademark dilution) the statute clearly requires a willful violation for such an award:

When a violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, a violation under section 1125(a) or (d) of this title, or a willful violation under section 1125(c) of this title, shall have been established in any civil action arising under this chapter, the plaintiff shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of sections 1111 and 1114 of this title, and subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant’s profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action. . . .

17 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (emphasis added).

The Court determined that the use of the term “willful” in one instance in § 1117(a), but not in another, indicated Congress’ intent with regard to how mental states should be treated vis á vis profit awards for particular violations. Likewise, in other sub-sections of § 1117, mental states are included judiciously in certain instances, but not others. As the Court, in its interpretation of the law, is careful not to read words into statutes that are not present, it declined to adopt the Second and Ninth Circuit’s interpretations and read in a “willful” requirement for violations of § 1125(a).

The Court similarly rejected other arguments lodged by Fossil, again turning to the text of the statute. For instance, Fossil argued a profit award was appropriate pursuant to “principles of equity” in § 1117(a). The Court discussed the definition and meaning of “principles of equity,” finding it unlikely that Congress intended for this language to denote such a narrow rule regarding profit awards. Even considering pre-Lanham Act case law, the Court again noted that there was no clear rule regarding a willfulness prerequisite, leading the Justices to the conclusion that, at most, mens rea was an historically important consideration in awarding profits but never a requirement. As the Court pointed out, the importance of mens rea has continued under the Lanham Act, as reflected in the provision of greater statutory damages for willful violations in § 1117(c). Finally, the Court briefly rejected Fossil’s policy argument, stating that the Court would instead leave the policy decisions to the policymakers in Congress.

With this decision, trademark plaintiffs will face one less obstacle when establishing their entitlement to an award of a defendant’s profits. In practical terms, courts will likely see fewer motions for summary judgment on willfulness, as defendants may no longer use this tool to foreclose a plaintiff’s ability to obtain the defendant’s profits. Though the Court’s decision that courts may award profits absent a finding of willfulness may, in theory, open the doors to more profit awards, it is unlikely to result in windfalls to plaintiffs. As courts have long recognized, the infringer’s state of mind bears on the relief the trademark owner should receive.

The Supreme Court echoed the well-established notion that an infringer’s state of mind bears on the relief the plaintiff should receive when it clearly articulated that a defendant’s mental state “is a highly important consideration in determining whether an award of profits is appropriate” in trademark infringement actions. Romag, 2020 WL 1942012, at *4. There is just no particular mental state required for profit awards, so it remains in the discretion of the courts, and juries, to determine what is appropriate under the circumstances.

This article was published by the Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) on May 6, 2020

1 2 3 28