Raenelle Manning is an IPilogue Writer and 2L J.D. Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Wait until Lady Whistledown gets her hands on this juicy gossip! The Netflix Original series,��“Bridgerton” attained notable popularity after its release last year. Based on the romance novel series by Julia Quinn, the show centers around the Bridgerton family members’ search for true love. Fans expressed their love for the show various ways on social media. However, one musical duo exceeded the fan-generated content standards. In September 2021, songwriters and (or ) went viral on TikTok for their self-composed Bridgerton songs. They later released a 15-song album based on the show’s characters and storylines, entitled “The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical.” This year, their album won a Grammy for “Best Musical Theatre Album，” making it the first album to win the award for music created on TikTok. Netflix’s official TikTok account even praised the album , “Absolutely blown away by the Bridgerton musical playing out on TikTok [.] Standing ovation for @abigailbarlow…”.

Unfortunately, Netflix’s applause ended after the Grammy-award premiered the live performance of the Unofficial Bridgerton Musical at the Kennedy Centre in Washington D.C. Netflix is now suing Bear and Barlow for stealing “” to build their global brand. The song writing duo seemed to have crossed the line when they began profiting off the Bridgerton brand. Netflix argued that this is a direct violation of , which provides that only copyright holders have the exclusive right to monetize and create derivative works of their IP. Netflix claimed that the defendants declined their before the live performance and proceeded without authorization.

Netflix also took issue with the use of the “Bridgerton” name, as it risks consumers believing that the live performance is associated with the official brand. The concert particularly threatened the success of Netflix’s own live event “The ,” a multi-city event that transports fans into a regency-era ball, as depicted in the show. Since one of the event locations is in Washington D.C (where the defendants’ concert occurred), Netflix believes fans may choose one over the other.

It was obvious that Bear and Barlow invested time and resources into perfecting their work. ��Of course, it is disheartening to see a small business be victim to a legal action by a global company like Netflix. However, the defendants acted without considering Netflix’s intellectual property rights. The show’s executive producer, denounced Bear and Barlow’s financial exploitation of the brand in a recent public statement. Rhimes acknowledged the efforts of the countless individuals who contributed to Bridgeton’s production, including author Julia Quinn. While this case may seem like a “David vs Goliath” situation, intellectual property rights function to protect original creators. With the increased prevalence of content creation on social media , it is important for creators to be aware of these IP laws. As catchy and creative as Bear and Barlow’s album is， they will likely not be able to continue to benefit from Netflix’s creative work.

The post A Lady Whistledown-Worthy Scandal! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a rising 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Typically, the name “Vogue” evokes the highly popular fashion and lifestyle magazine or the song “Vogue” by Madonna. But the original “Vogue” actually refers to the in Cornwall, and named after this village is a pub. However, for Condé Nast, the publisher of Vogue the magazine, having a pub called “Vogue” was an issue.

Vogue, the village pub, has existed for approximately 200 years and Vogue, the magazine, has only existed for about 130 years. Yet to ask Vogue, the pub, to change its name. In a letter sent to the pub at the beginning of May 2022, Conde Nast threated to sue the pub over its name, stating that Condé Nast is the proprietor of the Vogue mark. Condé Nast claimed that the pub’s name could “cause problems” because people may become confused and associate the pub with the magazine. The letter also stated that the pub manager had to reply within seven days, otherwise Condé Nast would take remedial action.

The pub manager, Mark Graham, was not terribly bothered by the letter, and in fact found it “hilariously funny.” In , Mr. Graham helpfully pointed out that the pub predates the magazine and the village is even older than the pub. Further, when the name “Vogue” was chosen for the magazine, Condé Nast did not seek permission from the village, the “real Vogue” as Mr. Graham states, to use the name. In the end, Condé Nast offered the pub an apology, admitting that Mr. Graham was correct and that they in this instance.

This case, a clear David versus Goliath situation, illustrates key access to justice issues in intellectual property law, and even more generally, in law as a whole. Although this case ended up in victory for the small pub, before Mr. Graham sent a reply to Condé Nast, he considered submitting a counterclaim. If he had countered the claim, it would have likely been a lengthy battle in which the pub may not have been victorious, despite both the village and pub existing long before the creation of “Vogue” the magazine. Condé Nast clearly has many more resources to help them fight such a battle. This case could have led to including, but not limited to, the pub running out of financial resources midway through litigation or the pub feeling pressured into a settlement. Sometimes a non-legal response can be the way to resolve these issues and avoid a costly legal problem for either party.

The post Who Wins in the Battle of Vogue, the magazine, (David) versus Vogue, the pub (Goliath)? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

In March, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) , citing information that “strongly indicat[ed] that examination content [had] been improperly accessed by some candidates” and evidence of “potential involvement of third parties in this activity.” With 3 days notice, students were left scrambling. Licensing examinations would also no longer be online but re-adapted to in-person sittings. In an with over 500 signatures, students and lawyers from across the country called for the exams to go ahead as scheduled, interruptions to articling terms, travel plans, or plans to write exams in other jurisdictions.

The circumstances prompting this decision have since come to light.�� On May 25^th, 2022, the LSO that it had commenced legal action against , an exam prep company lead by Aamer Chaudhry. In its , the LSO alleges that NCA Exam Guru disseminated documents containing answers to the November 2021 barrister examinations and the March 2022 online examinations. ��

The highlights the significant expenses, stress, and inconvenience caused by the disruption, and calls for NCA Exam Guru to be liable for breaches of confidence, conspiracy, breach of contract, and copyright infringement. The LSO also seeks an injunction prohibiting NCA Exam Guru from further possessing, using, communicating, or distributing examination content, and for NCA Exam Guru to disgorge all profits earned (directly or indirectly) as a result of the infringement of the LSO’s copyrights.

How are LSO examinations protected? Firstly, test takers must agree to a , which provides that candidates must not engage in any form of dishonesty, fraud, cheating, misrepresentation, or other conduct related to the examination. This encompasses a wide scope of actions, “memorization for subsequent transcription or dissemination.” Furthermore, the Candidate Agreement specifies that all examination content and materials are the exclusive property of the LSO, are protected by copyright, and are subject to the law of copyright in Canada.

It is unknown how exactly NCA Exam Guru obtained examination content. Nevertheless, and may have engaged in similar conduct to other previous LSO examinations. According to , candidates who wrote earlier exams are delayed in being called to the bar, pending the outcome of further ongoing investigations.

As of , the barrister and solicitor exams were moved again from June to July. , Treasurer of the LSO, noted in the LSO’s announcement that “regardless of our efforts, we know that this decision has affected many candidates … I am truly sorry for those that are experiencing these impacts.” This significant change to exam timelines emphasizes how copyright can be abstract, as one’s study guide can quickly become a breach of confidence with widespread ramifications to past and present bar exam takers.

The post Alleged Copyright Violations: LSO v NCA Exam Guru appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Meena Alnajar is an IPilogue Senior Editor, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

It may be no secret that trade secrets contribute to a business’ economic value and confer a ‘competitive edge.’ However, when that secret is lost by insiders who had a duty of confidence, how can the law step in to help? On , biomedical company �ʰ��dz�é��é Biomedical LLC (“�ʰ��dz�é��é”) received no recourse or remedy for a revealed trade secret. �ʰ��dz�é��é failed to persuade the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to revive a trade secrets against the consultant it had hired to find a buyer.

Trade secrets, unlike other intellectual property rights, are not registered nor publicly disclosed. Trade secrets require such as: value (economic/industrial), that it is kept secret, and that there are reasonable measures in place to keep it confidential. Once disclosed, the trade secret loses its necessary quality of confidence that makes it confidential and valuable to a business. Therefore, the most important element of a trade secret is that it is kept secret.

A of US trade secret litigation demonstrated that, in satisfying the court that ‘reasonable measures’ were taken, confidentiality agreements like non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) are most often a determining factor. NDAs are particularly useful where a company must disclose its trade secrets to fellow employees, which was the case for �ʰ��dz�é��é.

In 2017, �ʰ��dz�é��é, a biomedical company focused on blood-clotting products, entered into an agreement with the consulting firm to find a buyer. Duff & Phelps then contacted , a Managing Director at a private equity firm and a board member at Z-Medica, another medical company in the blood-clotting products space. Both Schillinger and Duff & Phelps (on behalf of �ʰ��dz�é��é) entered into an NDA. During a for the potential deal between Z-Medica and �ʰ��dz�é��é, �ʰ��dz�é��é some confidential information regarding its products to Schillinger, who then revealed the information to Z-Medica. Z-Medica then applied for a continuation of a that allegedly contained �ʰ��dz�é��é’s confidential information and pulled out of a potential deal.

�ʰ��dz�é��é sued Z-Medica, alleging that it stole trade secrets and violated NDAs. The parties there settled, but �ʰ��dz�é��é subsequently sued their consulting firm, Duff & Phelps, for breaching their contract in failing to prevent �ʰ��dz�é��é from disclosing its trade secrets. This suit was first dismissed by a court. On appeal, the Court held that their contract only required Duff & Phelps to be responsible for its . , on behalf of his private equity firm, signed the NDA, making him not liable for Z-Medica’s conduct and use of the trade secret. The Court found that disclosed its own secrets to Schillinger, so �ʰ��dz�é��é is responsible for revealing its own secrets. It is a classic case of claim construction and ambiguity in contractual agreements. This case serves as a reminder that when you ask someone to keep a secret, be very specific about whom you are asking, what the secrets are, and from whom they should be kept.��

While trade secrets are valuable and protected by law, if the company itself is disclosing that information and is not careful to track who is not obligated to keep it a secret, then the company has not taken reasonable measures to keep it confidential. If a business does not act to protect trade secrets, courts may not help either.

The post The Secret’s Out: US Court dismisses �ʰ��dz�é��é Biomedical’s Trade Secret Lawsuit Again appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Thomas Kelley ()

Emily Chow is an��IPilogue��Writer and a 1L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

What does it mean to be a rockstar? A metalhead? A good-for-nothing punk? A rebel without a cause? One can easily conjure up the image of a “rockstar” identity or lifestyle that appears inseparable from the genre itself. Just as coalesce around particular musicians, artists, or genres of music, so too do instruments, music labels, and brands. Add a little mystique or appeal, a , superstition, and a dedicated following, and you have a growing eager to participate in its own traditions and identity-formation.

Historical Context

Accompanying the advent of was a Familiar companies like Gibson, Fender, and Martin quickly grew to widespread acclaim. Models such as and Fender’s and emerged and remain to this day an essential part of most guitar players’ or collectors’ dream lineup.

Gibson and Fender’s signature craftsmanship and quality due to changing economic circumstances, decisions to cut material costs (while keeping a high price point), and new ownership. American-made guitars had largely dominated the market in the 50s and 60s. However, the mid-70s brought in a host of new, Japanese-made guitars that () surpassed the quality of their US competition. These instruments had the significant benefit of looking to the models that made Fender and Gibson household names—without the steep prices. Copycats collectively became known as “.”

In 1977, . in Philadelphia for , seeking to protect their signature headstock design. The case was never heard, as the two companies reached a . Ibanez ceased production of their lawsuit guitars outright, and instead focused on the 80s saw the rise of and increasing trends for features that would augment over the traditional Gibson/Fender designs. In catering to these niche preferences, Ibanez established itself as an original guitar manufacturer in its own right.

The Allure of a Lawsuit Guitar

What appears to be a literal manifestation of legal issues to some is precisely what makes lawsuit guitars by Ibanez—and other Japanese manufacturers like Bunny, Greco, Tokai, and Takamine—so special. Examples include a that looks suspiciously like the Gibson logo, the styling of , and even the . Most importantly, the economic benefit of purchasing a , high-quality guitar speaks for itself.

A fascinating circumstance where the copycat takes on a new life of its own, indeed.

The post The Allure of Lawsuit Guitars appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by ()

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Intellectual property law truly is incorporated in every aspect of society and the issue of lacking creativity in designing sports bras and leggings only reassures that statement. On November 24, 2021, , known for its interactive exercise bike, sued . Peloton seeks a that its new clothing design does not infringe on ���ܱ��ܱ��𳾴Dz�’s design patent.

This lawsuit comes after Lululemon, known for its athletic apparel and technical clothing, wrote a letter dated November 11, 2021, to Peloton threatening to sue if they do not stop selling specific items from its new clothing line. It only took five days for Lululemon to follow through with its threat and Peloton for infringing on its design patents.

Peloton and Lululemon have a long history with each other. The two companies had a co-branding relationship for , where Peloton agreed to make and put their branding on wholesale purchases of ���ܱ��ܱ��𳾴Dz�’s apparel. This agreement ended earlier this year “” as Peloton commented that the process was not efficient for the high demands it experienced. The end of this partnership led to Peloton releasing its own clothing in September 2021, from which Lululemon alleges multiple copies of its clothing designs.

As of now, Lululemon claims that Peloton has infringed on six of their patent designs with these articles of clothing: the Cadent Laser Dot Bra, the Strappy Bra, the Cadent Peak Bra, the High Neck Bra, and the Cadent Laser Dot Leggings. Peloton has responded to these claims saying that Lululemon “.” Peloton says that their clothing designs are easy to distinguish from ���ܱ��ܱ��𳾴Dz�’s designs and that Lululemon does not deserve patent protection for their “” designs.

Following up with its claim, Lululemon says that “.” Lululemon is also claiming that instead of responding to its November 11 letter, .

Screenshot from

���ܱ��ܱ��𳾴Dz�’s against Peloton make the designs seem somewhat similar; however, the designs are simple enough that patent protection may be an extreme case. With that said, it will be interesting to see the outcome of these cases as the comments from both parties don’t seem relatively “” at this point.

The post Breaking a Sweat Over Patents: Lululemon and Peloton’s Competing Lawsuits appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Eric Krull ()

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

is an online free-to-play gaming platform where users can develop games and play online together. Its increasing popularity among teenagers and children, especially during the pandemic, has sparked multiple . Music has become a large component of Roblox, with artists like Lil Nas X hosting . Roblox even lets users upload songs for game-building, a feature that resulted in a copyright lawsuit.

Back in June 2021, The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) Roblox for allowing users to upload copyrighted music without paying a licensing fee. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of various music publishers, including major players like Kobalt Music Publishing America and Universal Music Corporation. The in copyright damages, among other court orders to enhance control over in-game piracy on Roblox.

The Association “Roblox actively preys on its impressionable user base and their desire for popular music, teaching children that pirating music is perfectly acceptable.” Roblox actively encourages music uploads, charges users, and even sells virtual items to allow for in-game listening. The lawsuit further alleged that Roblox has established control and a moderation team to address content that is against policy but does not monitor music licensing in uploads.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Roblox signed music partnerships with both and to license many popular songs. Along with these deals, Roblox expressed a commitment to monitoring DMCA complaints. On September 27, Roblox announced that they have their lawsuit with the NMPA, and further that the settlement “sets the foundation for future partnerships with global publishers that will unlock new creative and commercial opportunities on its platform.” The agreement encompasses an expansive licensing agreement between Roblox and the music publishing industry that allows individual publishers to opt-in or enter into individual negotiations.

The settlement is great news for the gaming company and its outlook after on the New 91��ɫ Stock Exchange earlier this year. While the deal does not explicitly cover licensing for all songs, it shows that Roblox has a lot more in store on the music front. Hopefully, this means more virtual concerts!

The post Playing with Piracy: Roblox Settles $200M Music Copyright Lawsuit appeared first on IPOsgoode.

TCA v McCollum [1] examines the copyright protection for Abbott and Costello's beloved ��routine. There is no clear picture of who first wrote , but most agree that Abbott and Costello evolved it through public performances and radio appearances. The decision hinged on the tangled ownership history of the routine.

The plaintiffs, who claim to own the copyright in Who’s On First, filed against the producers of , a play in which a possessed hand puppet and puppeteer trade lines from the routine. In the initial , the trial court found that repurposing the routine in a darkly comedic play was transformative fair use. The Second Circuit spent about two dozen pages of the judgment rejecting that finding, and only then determined that there was no copyright interest to be infringed.

Under the , works were initially protected for 28 years from publication, renewable for a second term. Since was the first publication of the routine, its protection ran alongside that of the film. However, Abbott and Costello—not the film producers—were considered the authors of the basic routine because it pre-dated their contracts with the producers. Because they licensed rather than assigned their copyright, they were personally responsible for renewing it in 1968. They did not, so the basic routine was in the public domain when written into Hand of God.

The jokes in Kaseberg v CONACO [2]��. They are also much shorter—one-liners that Alex Kaseberg published on or on .��He filed a complaint in US District Court alleging Conan O’Brien and his staff stole five jokes for . Team Coco’s answer is brief but claims that Kaseberg’s jokes are not protectable subject matter, that they did not copy him, that the jokes were not original, and that any copying was fair use. Arguments are likely to focus on whether Kaseberg’s jokes are protected by copyright.

Under the merger doctrine, if there are only a small number of ways to express an idea, the idea and the expression merge, and the expression cannot be protected. If the idea behind Joke #1 is “even on an otherwise empty airliner, the only two passengers will compete for resources” there might be a number of punchlines: fighting over the arm rest, putting the seat back, waiting in line for the bathroom. However, if the idea is “even on an otherwise empty airplane, the only two passengers will fight over the armrest”, options are much more limited.

As well, since the jokes fit a common comedy rhythm and employ common comedy tropes related to current events, they may be scènes à faire, not original enough for protection.

Although since superseded, the US Copyright Office’s , clarified that “short quips and slang expressions consisting of not more than short phrases are not registrable.” The jokes in question are each two sentences long and follow a familiar comedy rhythm: one set-up line, one punch-line. They may not include enough expression to warrant protection.

Joke theft is a in the comedy world. Copyright protection might seem like an obvious solution . Together, these two cases illustrate why comedy writing does not generally mesh well with copyright: comedy routines evolve over time and are developed amidst standard tropes and structures.

A , from vaudeville when jokes were widely copied to modern stand-up when jokes are viewed as personal property. The paper details a self-policing, norms-based system of joke protection among comedians, and suggests that lawsuits are not necessary since informal sanctions are cheaper and more effective.

The Conan lawsuit likely results from one of the particular problems the paper identifies with norms-based enforcement. Where the alleged joke thief is substantially more famous than the writer, informal mechanisms for enforcement break down. Even if the legal arguments are on shaky ground, a lawsuit--especially one that brings bad publicity to the defendant--may help balance the scales.

Jacquilynne Schlesier is an IPilogue Editor and a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.�� Jacquilynne is currently enrolled in Osgoode's Intellectual Property Law Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.

[1] TCA Television v. Kevin McCollum, No 16-134-cv (11 October 2016, 2d Cir).

[2] Kaseberg v. CONACO, No 15-CV-016370-JLS-DHB (Filed: 22 July 2015, SD Cal).

The post No Laughing Matter: Copyright Protection for Jokes appeared first on IPOsgoode.

British Telecommunications (BT) alleges that��on-line services offered by Valve infringe on four U.S. patents held by BT. The patents at trial are broadly worded and could implicate many popular video game, social networking, and video streaming services. If [BT v Valve]��were to succeed,��they would be granted legal authority allowing them police many of the services relied upon by the video game industry, as well as many other popular websites.

David versus Goliath

Valve, founded in 1996, owns and operates ��Steam, an industry-leading software distribution and social networking application for computer gaming.��Steam, released in 2003, commands a near-monopoly over the digital rights management (DRM) and computer game distribution. Despite massive support among developers and gamers alike, ���ٱ𲹳�—a�Ի� �ղ�������—h������ .

British Telecommunications (BT) group is the oldest telecommunications company on the planet, tracing its roots to the invention of the first telephone by Alexander Graham Bell. BT is a leading communications provider in the United Kingdom. According to court documents, BT “,”��in network telecommunications.

What the suit claims

BT argued that Valve continued to operate services at great cost to the patent holder, despite multiple communications asking Valve to stop. The following patents are alleged to have been infringed:

• Communications node for providing network based information service:��

• Method for automatic and periodic requests for messages to an e-mail server from the client:��

• Communications network and method having accessible directory of user profile data:��

• Multi-user display system:��

One can��see��how Valve's services are implicated in these patents. Steam��is a digital marketplace that distributes “”; provides chat services “”; stores “”��for its users; and allows these users to “.”

Valve is far from the only company implicated by the broad language of these patents (and certainly not the most financially successful). Messaging, video streaming, and web marketplaces are endemic to the internet and the tech world. As the patent holder, BT has a choice to enforce the patent against whomever they wish. Why go after Valve?

Possible reasons:

1. This is intended as the first of many similar suits

If the court were to rule in favour of BT in this case—however likely that may be—it would open the door for further enforcement of the strict language contained by the patents-in-suit. If the court accepted the language that “BT has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Valve’s infringement,” and applied retributive, pecuniary damages, this would set a precedent allowing BT to challenge industry leaders’ social media and networking IPs.

2. BT is looking to become involved in gaming, DRM, or streaming

Video games are a multibillion dollar industry. Leading publishers and distributors, like Valve, command the industry’s continually expanding value. Social and competitive gaming services, like Valve's��Steam are at the heart of a parallel, expanding market for “e-Sports”. Video game “sport” tournaments have exploded in popularity and now host regular tournaments each year. Cash prizes range in the tens of thousands of dollars. It is not improbable that major telecommunications companies would keep an eye on this growing market. If BT had any interest in permeating the market, the ability to enforce this patent against Valve could pay serious dividends.

3. A suit against Valve will allow BT to test public opinion

Most computer gamers must interact with Steam.��As a result,����news related to Steam and Valve receives a great deal of attention. The video game consumer base is very large. An accusation against Valve is sure to gain the attention of a large audience, including many people who would not otherwise follow tech news. This is a known tactic within the video game industry to��lobby public opinion.��Kotaku.com has gone so far as to develop a separate ��news page to cover all of the grievances--material and superficial--raised against Valve/Steam.��Targeting Valve is a��sure way to determine if public opinion will allow BT to go ofter other, higher-profile internet services with patent suits (e.g., Facebook, Amazon).

What does this mean?��

Perhaps this can be dismissed as a "patent troll" case. But, granting patent rights to BT in this case might lead to controversial effects. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) (albeit, with rapidly diminishing support). The TPP would permit greater US-based regulation of the public internet. If this were ratified, a decision like that in BT v Valve would support and legitimize BT and the US government's policing of many of the most popular applications and resources on the internet.

Further news related to the suit will follow in the coming months.

Christopher McGoey is an IPilogue Editor and a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

The post Big Telecom versus Video Games: Big Implications appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Joseph Goebbels acted as the minister of propaganda to Adolf Hitler during the German Nazi regime. The biography outlines that his propaganda prowess��supported Hitler’s power, prolonged the Second World War, and fuelled hate and mistrust towards Jewish individuals. From , Goebbels��meticulously recorded his strategic plans for the Nazi regime in his diaries.��Random House initially agreed to pay a royalty fee for their use but later recanted, arguing it had to paying a war criminal’s estate.

Random House presents two arguments for its position, namely that (1) the claim is immoral because the estate wants to benefit financially from Goebbels's work, and that (2) the government ought to own the copyright to historically controversial works. The author of the��, Peter Longerich, extensively quotes from Goebbels’s diaries and infers about Goebbels's��personality traits from the their contents. Longerich states in the book that the diaries are “the basis of [the]��biography and one of the chief sources for histories of the Third Reich”. However, they are copyright protected until the end of 2015, and claim to be owned by��, daughter of Hitler’s former minister of economics.

Random House��explains��that the diaries should be exempt from copyright protection due to their lack of morality.��In most countries copyright is content neutral. This means that copyright protection persists irrespective of the work's quality or morality. For example, section 5 of the Canadian Copyright Act states that copyright subsists in [Emphasis added]. While��this supports freedom of expression, it also protects material that some may��regard as immoral. Certain��countries indeed��consider morality and public decency when determining whether a work is copyright protected. For example, until last year pornography was unprotected in Taiwan due to its indecent nature. Recently, their IP court����that some types of��offshore��pornographic videos may be copyright protected. Therefore, morality may��influence��whether a work is copyright protected in some countries.

Furthermore, Longerich expressed��that vital historical documents . The diaries are important because they describe the beginning, success and eventual demise of the Nazi regime. Goebbels recorded and drafted many of his propaganda ideas within these documents, which present an invaluable insider perspective. Counsel for Random House��also argues that Goebbels intended for the government to own the copyright, and challenges Schacht’s claim to the documents. Similarly, the copyright to Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ . Dresen’s argument that the copyright should belong to the government has��merit because it is unclear if and how Goebbels transferred his rights to Schacht’s family before his death. No contracts or known records that could indicate this transfer survived the war. And, it may be more appropriate for governments to own copyrights to historically controversial��works, so that financial benefits can proceed to charitable causes.

Copyright law necessarily balances user rights with author rights. This bargain allows an author to share their ideas in exchange for economic rights. Subsequently, the author attains the right of ownership, and the right to exploit the work as an article of commerce. Therefore, although Random House maintains that it is immoral to financially benefit from this literature and that the government should own the copyright,��it is unclear whether its two arguments will succeed.

Last month, the Munich Higher Regional Court ruled in favour of Schacht, stating the estate was owed royalties for the use of the diaries. However, Random House��is appealing��this decision because it strongly believes that nobody should benefit financially from the works of war criminals. It will be up to the German Supreme Court��to��decide whether morality has any influence on German copyright laws.

Gosia Piasecka is an IPilogue editor and a JD Candidate at Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Law.

The post Do War Criminals Have Copyrights? The Role of Morality in Controversial Works appeared first on IPOsgoode.