Contents
Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) protect creative work in
the arts, in design and in industry. They form a complex mix of laws
and rights
that give protection to those who have created from their own ingenuity.
By
defying plagiarists, and protecting those who have
produced work from mental or artistic effort, an environment of
creativity is
produced and encouraged. It inspires others to follow suit, creating
innovation, artistic contribution and benefiting commerce. Ultimately,
it
enriches the fabric of society.
This report will outline IPR and the mix that should be utilized in online design, for my design practice to successfully protect its property.
Further, it will clarify how the Internet has forced the law to adapt as technology creates new issues around intellectual property and infringement.
Finally, I will look at what measures are being
taken to
deter infringement.
Although
all elements of IPR do not relate directly to web design it is
important to
know their meanings in relation to each other. The terms below are
stated in
order of relevance to online design practice.
Copyright
exists as soon as something has been recorded and
regardless of the material the idea is recorded upon; hence content on
the
Internet falls under copyright. Any website’s
copyright when designed at RBI is not held by the designers, but by the
company
or the ‘commissioner’. Where it is ‘…created
by an entity other than an
individual’ the term lasts ’95 years from first publication’.1
It
is also
important to note that ‘…copyright
protects the form in which a work is expressed but not the underlying
ideas or
information in the work.’2 This ensures ideas are
freely
available to the public and that copyright law will only protect the
expression
of these ideas.
The
typical term for protection in UK law is the life term of the author
plus fifty
years from the publication or making of the creation. Unlike other
elements of
IPR no registration needs to take place, copyright is an unregistered
right.
Protection
is automatic though displaying of the work with the international
copyright symbol ‘©’, the name of the owner and a date of publication
(or
creation). This is accepted as good legal practice as this gives notice
in
countries (other than the UK) of the owner’s claim on copyright.
‘… a trade mark is a
badge of origin, used so that customers
can recognise the product of a particular trader.’ 3
A
trademark has to be ‘distinctive’ in its design and not
similar to other goods and services of a similar nature. Logos are an
obvious
use of trademarks on websites.
Patents are ‘…concerned with
how things work, what they do, how they do it, what they are made of or
how
they are made.’ 4
They are specific to the country
of registration and are concerned with inventions that can be produced
in an
industrial context. To fulfil the
twenty year lifespan the patent must be renewed every year. Patents have been granted to software and
e-commerce models
as was seen with Amazon’s one-click system in 1999.5
Registered design ‘…is a monopoly right for
the appearance of the product resulting from the features of the lines,
contours, colours, shape, texture and materials’.6
Registration
can last for a maximum of twenty five years and is similar to
patents in that the ownership can be sold on to a third party.
Design
rights only apply to designs that ‘…must be the shape or
configuration of a product.’ 67
They can not be two dimensional or commonplace, and so not relevant
to web
practice. Protection lasts from fifteen years upon creation and ten
years after
the design is first marketed.
Fair
dealing is the use of copyright material without the need for a
license,
for study, research or news reporting. It is also considered excempt
from
copyright law if it is seen to be in the public interest.8
‘Passing
off’ is where an unregistered mark is used by persons who are
using the mark by passing them off as the goods or services of their
own. If
the mark is registered prosecution can occur.9
A
claim will arise where ‘…there has
been an unauthorised use of the
information to the detriment of the owner’ 10 i.e.
intellectual property has been made available in
confidence and has been published against the wish of the owner
Pages on the internet are published works that fall under
the literary part
of copyright law. However, the early part of this decade has seen a
rise in the
copying of material, music and video as well as images and text, which
in turn
has resulted in more laws controlling how intellectual property is
protected
online.
As the internet is global, it needs a global controlling
body. The World
Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is a UN financed office that
deals
with issues of IPR online, whilst the Berne Convention11 still forms the basis for international copyright law, a treaty which is contracted to by 159
countries who enforce it. These
countries are signatories to the same
union recognized by the International Court of Justice, so an infringer
will be
liable to prosecution in the same way, regardless of where the
infringement
takes place.
A
new website or online design benefits from the same protection in other
WIPO states as it does in the UK. Furthermore, the WIPO Arbitration and
Mediation centre works with the Internet
Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to prevent ‘cyber squatting’.
That is
the purchasing of domain names for profitable gain but not for actual
use. For
a new web project a site can claim against those who have taken a web
domain
name, that is a trademark or their own name. 12
To combat online piracy the WIPO initiated the Copyright
Treaty and the
Performances and Phonographs in 1996. This formed the basis for the US
to
impliment the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998. 13 This act helped
mark the end
of peer to peer file sharing programs e.g. Napster and Grokster14 that made profits from
allowing users
to swap copyright material over the internet. The US Supreme Court
ruled that
these services are secondary infringers and can be prosecuted. This has
seen a
capitulation by software companies to either provide licensed use (with
monies
going to copyright owners) or close their operations.
In
the same way, the European Community Copyright Directive has adopted
the
WIPO treaty allowing exclusive rights such as ownership, reproduction
of works
and to permitting temporary caching of files for normal internet use.
This is a
case of fair dealing as this is a necessity to any browser of web pages.15
Where
a site infringes copyright, Notice and Take Down (NTD) can be
enforced although more immediate action is taken where offensive views
or
images are hosted. The Internet Sevice Providers (ISP) share this
responsibility which is another initiative enforced by the WIPO. Whilst
NTD is
another case of secondary infringement, the law is designed to protect
the ISPs
if they envoke NTD on the WIPO’s behalfs.16
The factors above all relate to my design practice and are
important in
that they impact on the success of our websites, by protecting our data
and
designs. The company I work for, Reed
Business Information (RBI), owned by Reed Elsevier (RE), was involved
in
litigation and this case highlights other areas that internet IPR
touches upon
– trademark infringement and passing off.
In 1999 RBI launched a website called totaljobs.com, an
online jobs board
allowing subscribers to see posted jobs and be notified of relevent
positions
by email, Reed Executive, who own the high street employment agency
Reed
Employment (now branded Reed) took exception to the site using the
names and
logos of RBI and RE and the word ‘Reed’
in the copyright notice. They claimed ‘passing off’ trademark
infringement on
their name under the Trade Marks Act 1994. Further, they were opposed
to a
contractual agreement between the search engine Yahoo! and RE about
displaying
totaljobs.com banners when users searched under the terms “recruitment”
and
“jobs”. However Yahoo! also gave RBI a free listing under the term
“Reed”. This
act led to the judge ruling that he had found ‘passing off’ and
infringement in
the first instance.
In 2002 the case went to appeal where Lord Justice Jacob
reversed the
ruling:
“Reed Elsevier’s signs were not identical to REED, but
merely similar”17. Figures 1- 3 illustrate this
point below.
Fig 2. Reed Elsevier logo, 1999


Fig 1. Reed Employment
logo
![]()
Fig 3. Reed Business Information logo, 1999
Article 5.1(a) of the Trade Marks Directive18
states that there needs to be both an aural and visual identity for
infringement to qualify. It was also found that “own name defence” was
available to RE and no significant deception was caused to the customer.
In passing off it was found that the two companies’ services
were not
identical. Reed was an employment agency where as totaljobs.com was a
jobs
board that merely presented information to the customer.
On banner use in search engines LJ Jacob said;
“I cannot see that causing the un-arguably
inoffensive-in-itself banner to
appear on a search under the name “Reed” or “Reed Jobs” can amount to
infringement”19 (See figure 4
below).
Fig.4 Typical banner as appearing 2000-2002


Using trademarks in meta tags (which search engines read to
rank pages) was
not an infringement as these pages were read by computers and not
people. In
this case RBI appeared higher in the rankings even when Reed was
searched on, a
fact that in the judge’s opinion was only
fair competition. Hence, listing competitors in your metatags is
not an
infringement on their trademark.
This case illustrates the different aspects of IPR in one
specific online
product. It shows the importance of knowing the mix of IPR when
launching a
product, who your competition is and if you are controvening their
rights on
trademark or copyright. If the RE legal team had looked at the
trademark’s
register before the totaljobs project commenced it would have been much
more
aware of the risk of infringement and litigation.
Even the large
respected company Google is being sued for copyright infringement.
Their
ambitious plan of ;"…organising
the world's information and making it more
universally accessible and useful" by scanning numerous books from
University libraries, has upset the Authors Guild who see it as a “
…plain and
brazen violation of copyright law.”20
IPR, particularly copyright and trademark law, is likely to
become even
more important as more people from more nations use the internet. It
will be no
surprise if severe criminal punishments will begin as the levels of
infringement rise.
In the digital age copying of material is easier and faster
than ever
before. Policing this is difficult and requires a global effort from
numerous
nations to ensure effective laws can be enforced as quickly as
possible. It
requires international partnerships, such as the WIPO, and groups
within
industries, to stop piracy. Logically, the global legal framework is
applied to
the global medium of the Internet. An
escalation from a civil misdemeanour to a criminal act is viewed as a
deterrant
to pirates and infringers. The threat of punishment for information
theft must
be backed up by prosecution in order for this to be effective (as was
seen in
the Totaljobs court case).
The courts use experience and case findings to establish an
environment of
legal stability and consistency when confronted with new types of
illegal
activity. As long as the law has the power to enforce and adapt
quickly, on a
global and local level, the copyright, trademark or patent owner will
enjoy
protection. It
is prosecution
that will force pirates and infringers to cease activities.
The laws protecting online designs are the same as for other
media.
However, because the design is instantly global, knowing your IPR is
fundamental
for survival and protection.
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/ch5_main.htm
An
Overview of Internet Law
www.legal-databse.com
- laws in detail (US based)
http://www.legal-database.com/internetlaw.htm
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1998_2/athanasekou/
Arts
and Humanities Data Services - compendium of main types
of infringement that can occur
http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm
Copyright
Registration and Information Resource.
Brad
Templeton Blog
Covers
issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet
publication.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Index
page of links relating to sites commenting on
copyright and the net
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/copyright/
Web
plagiarism search engine
Copyright
Amendments 2003 – UK Government
Trademarks
Act 1994 – UK Government
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940026_en_1.htm
Reed
vs Reed – Jenkins law firm
http://www.jenkins-ip.com/mym/autumn2004/item_11.htm
-
Reed
vs Reed – Bird & Bird law firm
http://www.twobirds.com/english/publications/casereports/TM_Cases_March_2004.cfm
Reed
vs Reed – Semple Fraser law firm
http://www.semplefraser.co.uk/index.php?s=50&c=180&p=918
World
Intellectual Property Organisation website
http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en
The
Register
Peer
to peer software and their decline
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/22/p2p_crisis/
Parliamentary
Office of Science and Technology
White
paper on copyright and the Internet
http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn185.pdf
Reed
vs Reed – SJ Berwin Intellectual Property bulletin.
http://www.sjberwin.com/media/pdf/publications/ipbulletin/0304.pdf
Links and Law: Myths
Tim
Berhners Lee, 2002/07
1 WikiPedia,
Details of Copyright terms, URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
[20th October]
2 Gerald Dworkin & Richard D. Taylor, Blackstone’s Guide to the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, Blackstone Press, p.g 4
3 UK Patents
Office, Definition of a Trademark, URL: http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/whatis/definition.htm
[9th October]
4 UK Patents
Office, Definition of a Patent, URL: http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/whatis/definition.htm [9th October]
5 Stanford
University's Computer Science Education (CSE) home
http://www-cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/projects-99-00/software-patents/amazon.html
[18th October]
6 UK
Patents Office, Definition of Design URL:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/design/definition.htm
[9th October]
7 UK Patents
Office, Definition of Design Right URL:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/design/indetail/designright.htm
[9th October]
8 Gerald
Dworkin & Richard D. Taylor, Blackstone’s Guide to the Copyright,
Designs
& Patents Act 1988, Blackstone Press, p.g 71
9
Intellectual Property, UK Government site
http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/resources/other_ip_rights/passing_off.htm
[12th October]
10 Your Rights, Breach of Confidence law, URL: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-right-of-free-expression/copyright-and-allied-property-rights/the_law_of_breach_of_confidenc.shtml [19th October]
11 World
Intellectual Property Organisation, Berne Treaty, URL : http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html
[22nd October]
12 The
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), ICANN URL: http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm
[19th October]
13 US
Copyright Office, DMCA Legislation, URL:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
[12th October]
14 US Copyright Office, Protecting Copyright and Innovation in a Post-Grokster world, URL: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092805.html [15th October]
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1998_2/athanasekou/
[14th October]
16 WIPO
E-commerce and Copyright, Point 76.
URL:
http://www.wipo.int/copyright/ecommerce/en/ip_survey/chap3.html [24th October]
17 Herbert
Smith, Trademarks and the Internet,
URL: http://www.herbertsmith.com/NR/rdonlyres/4D973249-705E-4812-A0B7-BA0A0B5C9DDB/177/TrademarksandtheinternetInvisibleinfringementsbann.htm
[5th October]
18 UK
Government, Trademarks Act 1994 URL: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940026_en_1.htm
[18th October]
19 British and Irish Legal
Information Institute, England and Wales Court of Appeal, URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/159.html
[4th October]
20 The
Register, URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/20/publishers_sue_google/
[20th October]