I have again been given the honor of guest posting for The IPKat on a follow-up story about the Canadian Olympic Committee’s trademark dispute (now a lawsuit in British Columbia) with the U.S. outdoor clothing company The North Face. Check it out at: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2014/02/will-north-face-put-on-brave-face-coc.html.
Enjoy the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games!
Today I had the privilege to provide a guest contribution to one of my favorite intellectual property blogs, The IPKat, on a story about the Canadian Olympic Committee’s unfair competition dispute with the The North Face over the U.S. clothing company’s International Collection. Check it out at http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2014/01/friday-fantasies_24.html.
Earlier this month, a number of international news outlets reported about Canadian clothing manufacturer Canada Goose who filed a trademark and trade dress lawsuit in Canadian Federal Court against Sears’ Canadian subsidiary (Sears Canada). The suit alleges that Sears Canada was selling knock-off versions of Canada Goose’s well-known parkas. In a statement of defense to Canada Goose’s lawsuit, Sears Canada claimed that Canada Goose’s lawsuit claims were not only unfounded, but that they were intended to bully retailers and control pricing. As reported in The Globe and Mail, the statement stated “the real purpose of Canada Goose’s campaign of intimidation is to attempt to prevent or lessen sales in the marketplace of less expensive winter jackets” and “to preserve its temporary ability to sell its garments at a huge markup to the public.”
Although Sears Canada’s comments are by no means unique for a defendant in such a trademark lawsuit, the reporting of the comments in several news outlets has significant public relations (PR) implications. By claiming that Canada Goose is using trademark laws to bully retailers and control prices, Sears’ comments inevitably impact the ways retailers and the general public perceive Canada Goose and its parka jackets. Negative public perceptions about a business’ IP enforcement actions can tarnish a business’ brand and hinder its domestic and foreign market opportunities—just like the counterfeit goods that it tries to protect itself against.
As I read multiple stories about Sears’ comments, I could not help but to think that Canada Goose did not effectively counter Sears’ accusations in the public forum. Many major international clothing manufacturers such as Gucci and Burberry pursue similarly proactive cross-border trademark enforcement strategies as Canada Goose. Yet, few of the reporting news outlets carried the comments of Canada Goose’s spokespersons who gave justifications for the lawsuit against Sears Canada. In fairness, claims of bullying are likely more sensational than justifications for brand protection. However, emerging global companies like Canada Goose must ensure that they effectively communicate to the public the justifications behind their IP enforcement actions. As growing businesses set their sights on international expansion, PR becomes nearly as valuable as trademark protection to ensure that they can take advantage of domestic and foreign market opportunities.
What’s The Takeaway? Businesses who seek legal protections for their brands need to consider the PR implications of their enforcement actions. This is even more important in an international context. As many countries and cultures have negative perceptions towards litigation, businesses need their legal counsel and public relations professionals to collaborate to ensure that the public is educated about their global IP enforcement activities. Doing so can help to prevent the unintended PR consequences that global IP enforcement can bring.
What PR issues does your business face in international IP enforcement?
In November, Wikileaks leaked positions papers from the 18th round of Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations concerning the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the TPP agreement. The papers including positions held by TTP member states (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States and Vietnam) on all forms of IP protections they will provide to IP rights owners and rights holders from their countries, and in many cases, from abroad under a final TPP agreement. Several IP news outlets have provided good analyses of the position papers including The IPKat and InfoJustice, among others.
These position papers also provide updated positions TPP member states have on online copyright enforcement, and particular, the positions each country has on adopting notice and takedown online copyright enforcement systems. In order to provide an update on my October article on the TPP’s implications on online copyright enforcement, the following are positions TPP member states have adopted in the position papers on crucial issues concerning online copyright enforcement under the TPP.
Article QQ.G.1 of the position papers propose that authors of works and producers of phonographic works will have exclusive rights concerning the reproduction of their works in any manner, including any temporary or permanent electronic reproductions and storage. Canada, New Zealand and Vietnam object to such proposed protections. Additionally, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Japan, New Zealand and Malaysia suggest in a footnote to the Article (“Article QQ.G.1 Footnote”) that exceptions and limitations to such exclusive rights should be established for:
Temporary acts of reproduction which are transient or incidental and an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable (a) a lawful transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of a work; and which have no independent economic significance.
Alternatively, Vietnam proposes that “it shall be a matter for national legislation [of a TPP member state] to determine exceptions and limitations under which the right may be exercised.”
What’s Does This Mean? Providing authors of works and producers of phonographic works exclusive rights to all reproductions of their works, including electronic reproductions for any duration, gives such persons or entities greater direct ability to enforce rights in their works online because Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would ultimately have less discretion to reject notice complaints. As several commentators have mentioned, the text of Article QQ.G.1 effective eliminates fair use copyright exceptions provided under U.S. copyright law and the copyright laws of other TPP member states such as Japan. By doing so, TPP member state ISPs will have greater incentive to act on any copyright infringement on their networks, including alleged infringement notified through rights owner/holder notices, due to the likely elimination of the ISPs’ own fair use defense to contributory copyright infringement for hosting unauthorized reproductions of protected work. Although notice and takedown and notice and notice systems were adopted in TPP member states to provide ISPs safe harbor from such liability upon complying with submitted notices, many ISPs in practice do not act on such notices, by determining that their users’ unauthorized reproduction of copyright-protected works on their networks is fair use, and therefore permissible. Adoption of Article QQ.G.1 would effectively force ISPs to remove allegedly infringing content or face contributory liability for the copyright infringement of their users.
However, if TPP member states ultimately adopt the Article QQ.G.1 Footnote or Vietnam’s proposal, it is likely that they will be given the option to retain any fair use exceptions provided under their own national laws, potentially impacting the degree to which TPP member state ISPs will feel compelled to act on rights owners/holders notifications of alleged infringement.
The TPP member states have divergent positions on the liability ISPs should be subject to for hosting content that infringes copyright-protected works. Article QQ.I.1 provides that the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Peru and Singapore propose (while Malaysia and Vietnam oppose) that each TPP member state provide “legal incentives for [ISPs] to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials.” Similarly, Canada proposes that each TPP member state “provide legal incentives for [ISPs] to comply, or remedies against [ISPs] who fail to comply, with any procedures established in each party’s law for: (a) effective notifications of claimed infringement; or (b) removing or disabling access to infringing material residing on its networks.”
What Does This Mean? The U.S. and Canada’s Article QQ.I.1 proposals likely leave mandating the adoption of notice and takedown systems in all TPP member states in doubt. The U.S. Article QQ.I.1 proposal provides the same ambiguous text as the February 2011 U.S. Draft IP Chapter, and the Canadian proposal goes so far as leaving the type of ISP legal incentive system each TPP member state should adopt up to its own discretion. As a result, both proposals would likely make the adoption of notice and takedown systems in TPP member states optional. For example, less forceful online enforcement systems, such as Canada’s notice and notice system provides legal incentives for ISPs to coordinate with copyright owners despite lacking the forceful effectiveness of notice and takedown systems currently available in other TPP member states such as U.S., Australia and Japan.
Despite the limitations of such proposals, mandating that TPP member states adopt some form of legal incentives for ISPs to enforce online copyright protections may likely compel TPP member states without any rights owner/holder notification systems, including Brunei Darussalam, Mexico and Vietnam, to adopt some form of rights owner/holder ISP notification system.
Notice and Takedown Procedures
The U.S., Australia, and Singapore propose in Annex to Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix) (while Canada, Malaysia and Mexico reject) adopting notice and takedown procedures as the “legal incentives” identified in Article QQ.I.1. These procedures closely resembles notice and takedown procedures provided under U.S., Australian, and Singaporean law. As a part of these procedures, copyright owners and/or rights holders whose works qualify for copyright protection in a TPP member state would have to submit a notice to an ISP that provides the following information in order to have the ISP examine and remove the infringing content in question:
- The identity, address, telephone number, and electronic mail address of the complaining party (or its authorized agent);
- Information reasonably sufficient to permit the ISP to identify and locate the material residing on a system or network controlled or operated by it or for it that is claimed to be infringing, or to be the subject of infringing activity, and that is to be removed or disabled;
- Information reasonably sufficient to enable the ISP to identify the copyrighted work(s) claimed to have been infringed;
- A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
- A statement that the information in the notice is accurate;
- A statement with sufficient indicia of reliability that the complaining party is the (U.S. propose “holder”) (Australia and Singapore propose “owner”) of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed, or is authorized to act on the owner’s behalf; and
- The signature of the person giving notice.
What Does This Mean? If a final TTP Agreement mandates that TPP member states adopt a notice and takedown system, implementing Annex to Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix) would effectively require TPP member states to adopt similar notice and takedown procedures provided under U.S., Australian, Japanese and Singaporean law. Yet, opposition from Canada, Malaysia and Mexico may make the adoption of such requirements more unlikely.
Additionally, as Australia and Singapore propose that the “owner” of the alleged infringed copyright work be the “complaining party” listed in a notice, it is unknown whether an adopted TPP notice and takedown system would allow licensees of copyright-protected works (the “holders”) to utilize notice and takedown procedures in TPP member states. Limiting such a system’s accessibility to copyright owners only may be overly burdensome for such owners, as it would force them to enforce protections in their works on behalf of their licensees.
What’s The Takeaway?
If the U.S.-backed proposals listed above are enacted in a final TPP Agreement, copyright owners and rights holders from TPP member states, and other countries, will qualify for greater online copyright enforcement protections in TPP member states. However, such proposals have multiple obstacles before being effectively implemented. Such proposals must be included in a final TPP agreement, fully implemented as legislation in each TPP member state, and effectively upheld in each TPP member state’s legal system. Time will tell whether such enhanced online copyright enforcement protections will be adopted in the final TPP Agreement and enacted in all TPP member states.
 See Sean Flynn, Margot Kaminski, Brook Baker, & Jimmy Koo, Public Interest Analysis of the US TPP Proposal for an IP Chapter, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of Law, Dec. 6, 2011, 13, available at http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TPP-Analysis-12062011.pdf (Analysis of the TPP’s fair use exception elimination was based on the U.S.’ leaked IP chapter proposal from Feb. 2011).
 Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, 140 (2d Cir. 2008). See Saiful Bakri Abdul Aziz, An Assessment of Fair Dealing in Malaysian Copyright Law in Comparison with the Limitation Provisions of Japanese Copyright Law – Within the Current Technology Background, 41 Hosei Riron J. of L. & Pol. 298, 300, 305 (2009), available at http://dspace.lib.niigata-u.ac.jp:8080/dspace/bitstream/10191/12583/1/41(3.4)_298-327.pdf.
The Canadian Parliament reintroduced proposed legislation late last month that will dramatically impact how foreign copyright and trademark owners can protect their rights in Canada, and ultimately around the world. Reported to be enacted by the end of this year, the Combatting Counterfeit Products Act (Bill C-56; CCPA) proposes specific amendments to Canada’s Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act that will allow foreign rights owners to better control the cross-border flow of counterfeit goods in Canada. The CCPA provides several notable reforms, including the expansion of registerable trademarks and new claims of recovery for trademark counterfeit goods. However, I believe its most important proposed reform is the establishment of a system allowing rights owners to register their copyrighted works and trademarks with Canadian authorities—while gaining help in detaining counterfeit shipments entering and leaving Canada.
The CCPA’s proposed request and detention system is an expansion of legal protections against counterfeit goods under current Canadian law because it introduces non-judicial measures rights owners can use to prevent the import and export of counterfeit goods in Canada. Currently, rights owners must obtain a Canadian court order to halt infringing imports and exports of counterfeit goods in and out of Canada. The CCPA addresses these limitations by allowing copyright and trademark owners to file a request for assistance with the Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Ministry). This allows Canada’s border authority, the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA), to monitor inbound and outbound shipments of counterfeit products for a two-year period, and temporarily detain counterfeit good shipments to allow further investigation.
Although rights owners will be required to provide a security deposit and fees for a detention, the request and detention system will provide a more expedient, inexpensive and overall more effective means for foreign rights owners to prevent the dissemination of counterfeit products, both in Canada and beyond. Filing a request for assistance with the Ministry is a faster and relatively less expensive procedure that seeking a court order. It also allows the CBSA to assist in policing shipments, complementing any monitoring activities conducted by foreign rights owners, and ultimately improving a foreign right owner’s overall global IP enforcement efforts.
Despite these benefits, the proposed request and detention system also has limitations:
Goods for Personal Use: The CCPA’s system does not cover counterfeit goods for personal use, such as those in personal baggage.
Parallel Importation: The system excludes copyright grey goods, namely copies of copyright-protected works made in a country outside of Canada where the copies were authorized to be made.
Transshipment: The CCPA’s system does not apply to transshipments. This means that foreign rights owners’ requests to the Ministry will not assist in detaining shipments of counterfeit goods that are only intermediately transiting Canada.
National Treatment: A foreign rights owner’s access to the request and detention system may also be limited depending on the type of IP they wish to enforce. A foreign copyright rights owner can likely access the system regardless if they are Canadian or if their work was created in Canada due to the legal protections provided in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention). The Berne Convention allows a work from a Berne Convention country (Berne Convention countries) to qualify for protection in another Berne Convention country when it becomes attached. Attachment requires that the author of the work be a national of a Berne Convention country, the author is a habitual resident of a Berne Convention country, that the work is first published in a Berne Convention country, or that the work is published in a Berne Convention country within 30 days after an initial publishing in a non-Berne Convention country.
If a work is attached through any of these means, it is treated as if the work originated in each Berne Convention country, and is then subject to each Berne Convention country’s copyright protection requirements in order to qualify for copyright protection in that specific country. This means that if a foreign work becomes attached, and qualifies for protection under Canada’s Copyright Act, a copyright rights owner will have copyright protection for their work in Canada and may utilize the CCPA’s request and detention procedures once the CCPA is enacted.
Trademark rights owners will not be as easily able to utilize the CCPA’s system. Unlike copyrights, trademarks are generally territorial, meaning that a trademark or service mark registration only grants its owner rights in the mark in the territory of the registering country. This means that a trademark owner must generally have registered their mark in Canada in order for them to utilize the CCPA’s trademark request and detention system. Further, as Canada is not a member to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (aka the Madrid Protocol), foreign trademark owners need to obtain a Canadian trademark attorney to register their marks in Canada.
What’s The Takeaway?: The CCPA will give foreign copyright and trademark owners more effective and less expensive tools to protect their copyrighted works and trademarks in Canada and beyond. Its request and detention system does this by not only restricting imports of counterfeit goods, but also limiting their dissemination from Canada to other countries. Yet, the CCPA underscores the vigilance that foreign rights owners must have to ensure that they register and re-register requests for assistance for their works and marks. Only copyright and trademark owners (not authorized parties, e.g. licensees) can file requests with the Ministry to utilize the system’s full protections.
Further, the CCPA shows that foreign trademark owners who are serious about protecting their brands in Canada, and ultimately throughout the world, need to consider registering their marks in Canada in order to effectively utilize the CCPA’s request and detention system once it is enacted. Upon doing so, such owners can better insure protection for their marks in Canada and beyond.
In recent months, representatives from the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP; Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States and Vietnam) member states have been pushing to finalize a final TPP agreement. A particularly contentious issue in these negotiations has been the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the TPP Agreement. A predominant proposed version, the U.S. Draft IP Chapter, has been controversial as it requires TPP member states to adopt IP standards that are in many cases is on par with those under U.S. law, and in some cases, beyond U.S. law and generally-accepted global IP protection standards in the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). As a result, several TPP member states have objected to U.S. Draft IP Chapter, thereby stalling progress towards a final TPP agreement.
Of particular importance in these debates is the online copyright enforcement protections procedures the TPP agreement will mandate for its member states. If enacted, the U.S. IP chapter would likely require TPP member states to adopt copyright enforcement measures that would allow copyright owners, rights holders, or agents thereof (collectively, “Authorized Party”) to directly petition Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to remove hosted infringing content. Article 16.3(a) of the U.S. Draft IP Chapter requires that TPP member states provide “legal incentives for [Internet] service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials.” Although ambiguous, adopting such provisions would likely require TPP member states to maintain or enact a form of copyright protection protocols that would allow Authorized Parties to petition ISPs hosting or transmitting infringing content to remove such content.
The main question arising from these potential reforms is whether they would result in TPP member states adopting U.S.-like notice and takedown protocols, or less forceful ISP copyright enforcement measures. Notice and takedown systems generally provide ISPs a safe harbor from liability for hosting or transmitting infringing content if they remove infringing content they host or transmit upon receipt notice from an Authorized Party. In contrast, other TPP member states do not provide copyright owners such a level of protections. Some of these states do not require that a ISP take down allegedly infringing content upon receipt of notice from an Authorized Party to qualify for safe harbors. Others require that Authorized Parties seek judicial copyright enforcement to combat online infringement, which is a more delayed and costly process.
Although not stated in the U.S. Draft IP Chapter, the U.S. may, as it has in previous U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs), negotiate that TPP member states adopt notice and takedown protocols in TPP side letters. In previous U.S. FTAs, the U.S. has executed additional annexed agreements, known as “side letters,” where other countries agreed to adopt U.S.-like notice and takedown protocols. This has had varying degrees of success. Australia, Peru and Singapore, among others, have adopted notice and takedown protocols similar to those under the U.S.’ Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)) in FTA side letters with the U.S., while Chile rejected adopting such a system.
Similar mixed outcomes could result from the TPP as well. Brunei Darussalam, Mexico and Vietnam do not maintain any ISP copyright enforcement protocols short of judicial action. Further, a number of TPP member states including Canada, Chile and New Zealand maintain online copyright enforcement systems that arguably do not provide the same level of direct and expedient enforcement power or protections to Authorized Parties as notice and takedown systems. Lastly, some TPP member states such as Malaysia that do maintain notice and takedown protocols have called for establishing TPP agreement implementation exceptions for existing domestic legislation. This would likely give TPP member states with weaker online copyright enforcement systems such as Canada, Chile and New Zealand the ability to maintain their less forceful online copyright enforcement systems, while still remaining parties to the TPP Agreement.
Despite these limitations, the TPP’s potential adoption of notice and takedown protocols will ultimately impact the ability to which Authorized Parties can more quickly, cheaply and effectively enforce online copyright protections in the TPP member states. Adoption of notice and takedown protocols will enable Authorized Parties to more easily enforce online copyrights in TPP member states, while making such protocols optional would likely make such enforcement more difficult. Only time will tell whether the U.S. and other notice and takedown proponents will persuade other TPP member states to adopt notice and takedown protocols.
To understand how the TPP would impact individual TPP member state online copyright enforcement systems, the following are brief summaries of the TPP member states’ current online copyright enforcement systems. However, there are a few things to note:
- Jurisdiction and National Treatment: In order for an Authorized Party to utilize a notice and takedown in a TPP member state, their content must generally qualify for national copyright protection in that TPP member state, and the particular ISP must be subject to the jurisdiction of that country. Further information about these preliminary issues can be found in my March 25, 2013 posting.
- Enforcement System Legend: As mentioned, online copyright enforcement procedures vary amongst the TPP member states. Countries that maintain a notice and takedown protocols are identified below as a “Notice and Takedown,” while countries that maintain systems that simply require ISPs to notify infringers of their infringing acts without infringing content removal are listed as “Notice and Notice.” Countries that do not have means for Authorized Parties to directly enforce their copyright protections through ISP notices, and are instead forced to seek judicial action are referred to as “Judicial System.”
TPP Member State Online Copyright Enforcement Systems
|Enforcement System||Notice and Takedown|
|Overview and Notes||The U.S. notice and takedown protocols have been implemented in FTAs with Bahrain, Dominican Republic, Morocco, Oman, Peru, Singapore and South Korea.|
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A))
|Enforcement System||Notice and Takedown|
|Overview and Notes||Australia adopted notice and takedown protocols based on a side letter annexed in the U.S-Australia FTA.|
Regulation 20(I-J), 1969 Copyright Regulations, Schedule 10 (Part 1), 1969 Copyright Regulations
|Enforcement System||Judicial System|
|Overview and Notes||Brunei does not currently maintain any legal means for Authorized Parties to directly petition ISPs to takedown infringing content. However, recent reports have indicated that Bruneian authorities are evaluating copyright reforms, which may include ISP notice and takedown protocols.|
|Enforcement System||Notice and Notice|
|Overview and Notes||Although Canada considered adopting a notice and takedown protocols in 2006, they opted for a notice and notice system in 2012 in order to balance the interests of copyright owners and Internet users.|
Section 41.25-41.27, The Copyright Act
|Enforcement System||Judicial System (*notice and takedown variation)|
|Overview and Notes||Chile rejected adopting notice and takedown protocols in both the U.S.-Chile FTA and proposed copyright reforms in 2010. Instead, Chile requires that Authorized Parties submit an expedited judicial petition to evaluate alleged infringement and be granted a takedown.|
Article 85R, Law No. 20.435 (amending Law No. 17.336 on Intellectual Property
|Enforcement System||Notice and Takedown|
|Overview and Notes||Japan’s notice and takedown protocols establishes that allegedly infringing content will be taken down seven days after notice is provided from the ISP to the alleged infringer.|
Article 3(2)(ii), Act No. 137 0f 2001 (Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Identification Information of the Senders)
|Enforcement System||Notice and Takedown|
|Overview and Notes||Malaysia enacted copyright reforms in 2010 that permit Authorized Parties to submit infringement notices to ISPs that will remove infringing content within 48 hours of notice to the alleged infringer from the ISP. However, The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) has criticized Malaysia’s notice and takedown protocols for not providing enough details about notice requirements and enforcement procedures.|
Article 43H, Copyright (Amendment) Act 2010
|Notice Requirements||As mentioned, Malaysia does not provide specific content requirements for ISP takedown notices.|
|Enforcement System||Judicial System|
|Overview and Notes||Mexico has no legal procedures for Authorized Parties to remove infringing online content short of seeking judicial action. It is also important to note that Mexican telecommunications laws prohibit ISPs from disclosing their customers’ personal information.|
|Enforcement System||Notice and Takedown-Judicial System Mix (aka Three Strikes)|
|Overview||After enacting notice and takedown protocols in 2008, New Zealand repealed them in February 2010. They were replaced with a Three Strikes System, requiring Authorized Parties to submit multiple notices to an ISP, and a takedown application to the New Zealand Copyright Tribunal in order to obtain the removal of infringing content. The Three Strike System subjects the Authorized Party to fees of NW$25.00 (US$20.00) per notice, and NZ$200.00 (US$208.00) per application.|
Section 92C and 92D, Copyright Act 1994;
Section 4, Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Regulations 2011
|Enforcement System||Notice and Takedown|
|Overview and Notes||Peru adopted notice and takedown protocols based on a side letter annexed in the U.S-Peru Free Trade Agreement.|
|Governing Legislation||Copyright Law (Legislative Decree No. 822)|
|Enforcement System||Notice and Takedown|
|Overview and Notes||Singapore adopted its notice and takedown protocols in 2006 based on a side letter agreement annexed in the U.S-Singapore FTA.|
Section 193C(2)(b) Copyright Act (Chapter 63), Copyright (Network Service Provider) Regulations 2005
|Enforcement System||Judicial System|
|Overview and Notes||Although Vietnam recently adopted Internet liability reforms under the Internet Laws (Decree No. 72/2013), such reforms were silent on online copyright enforcement. The IIPA has criticized Vietnam for failing to adopt effective procedures to address online piracy administrative complaints.|
**Important Note**: Even if a country maintains notice and takedown protocols, an ISP is generally not obligated to take down infringing content despite legal incentives to do so. Those with further questions about a TPP member state’s online copyright enforcement procedures should seek qualified counsel in that particular country.
 Joint Press Statement TPP Ministerial Meeting Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Aug. 2013, available at http://www.ustr.gov/Joint-Press-Statement-TPP-Ministerial-Brunei.
 See Sean Flynn, Margot Kiminski, Brook Baker and Jimmy Koo, Public Interest Analysis of the US TPP Proposal for an IP Chapter, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property: American University Washington College of Law, 3, Dec. 6, 2011, available at http://infojustice.org/tpp-analysis-december2011.
 Id. at 50.
 Copyright Issues in the TPP: Malaysia, Public Citizen, 2012, available at http://www.citizen.org/TPP-Copyright-Issues-MY#_ftnref.
 See id.
 See Calls For Brunei To Carry Tougher Copyright Laws, The Brunei Times, Aug. 10, 2013, available at http://www.bt.com.bn/news-national/2013/08/10/calls-brunei-carry-tougher-copyright-laws.
 Paul Chwelos, Assessing the Economic Impacts of Copyright Reform on Internet Service Providers, Industry Canada, Jan. 2006, available at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01090.html; Bob Taratino, Online Infringement: Canadian “Notice and Notice” vs US “Notice and Takedown”, Heenan Blaikie LLP, Jun. 27, 2012, available at http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e0e3ffdb-a96f-4176-add3-92fd2812d4bc.
 Chile’s Notice-and-Takedown System for Copyright Protection: An Alternative Approach, Center for Democracy & Technology, Aug. 28, 2012, available at https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/Chile-notice-takedown.pdf.
 IIPA 2012 Report: Malaysia, IIPA, 207-08, 2012, available at http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2012/2012SPEC301MALAYSIA.PDF.
 IIPA 2013 Report: Mexico, IIPA, 210, 2013, available at http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2013/2013SPEC301MEXICO.PDF.
 Section 92A Bill Introduced in Parliament Today, Behive.Gov.Nz, Feb. 23, 2010, available at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/section-92a-bill-introduced-parliament-today.
 IIPA 2013 Report: Vietnam, IIPA, 289, 2013, available at http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2013/2013SPEC301VIETNAM.PDF.
Last month, India officially acceded to The Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (Madrid Protocol). This will allow trademark owners from Madrid Protocol countries the ability after July 8, 2013 to register their trademarks in India based on their registrations in their home Madrid Protocol country. From an initial observation, registering a mark in India under the Madrid Protocol offers several advantages over a direct registration at India’s trademark office, The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM). Reduced filing fees and a uniform registration process are among these advantages. However, there are several issues trademark owners should evaluate when considering whether to a file a mark in India under the Madrid Protocol. First, it is important to understand how the Madrid Protocol works.
How Does the Madrid Protocol Work? The Madrid Protocol allows trademark owners to file an international trademark application based on a national trademark registration in a Madrid Protocol country (known as the “basic application” or “basic registration”) to obtain trademark protection in other Madrid Protocol countries. Once filed, an international application is submitted to the International Bureau at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and evaluated based on international requirements. If approved, the trademark is registered for protection in countries designated in the international application (subject to such countries’ potential opposition). Once successfully registered, the trademark is treated as if it were filed in each of the foreign countries identified in the international application, subject to specific restrictions.
Central Attack. Determining whether an international registration is subject to central attack is the most crucial issue in determining whether to consider filing a trademark in India under the Madrid Protocol or directly with the CGPDTM. Central attack occurs when a basic application or its resulting registration of a mark is withdrawn, lapsed or renounced within five years of the international registration of the mark under the Madrid Protocol. When this occurs, all Madrid Protocol international trademark registrations filed under the basic application are invalidated. However, after this five year period, a trademark owner’s Madrid Protocol international registration becomes independent of its basic application. This allows a trademark to qualify for national registration in the foreign countries identified in the international registration regardless of its invalidation in its native Madrid Protocol country.
Based on these circumstances, a trademark owner who can ensure that their mark’s basic application or resulting registration will not be invalidated within five years after international registration under the Madrid Protocol may find registering their mark in India under the Madrid Protocol more advantageous. However, if a trademark owner knows that their basic application or resulting registration will likely face potential invalidation within five years of filing a Madrid Protocol international registration in India, a direct filing with the CGPDTM would likely be a more prudent choice.
**Important Note**: A trademark owner whose basic application or resulting registration is subject to potential central attack in their home country may seek national registration in another Madrid Protocol country as their basic application, and then file a international registration in India through the Madrid Protocol. This can be done if the owner has enough presence in that Madrid Protocol country to qualify as a “real and effective industrial or commercial establishment.”
As it is difficult to determine the threat of central attack or if a trademark owner can register their mark in a foreign Madrid Protocol member state, obtaining qualified counsel to assess such issues is always suggested.
Registration Costs. If costs are a trademark owner’s main concerns, the Madrid Protocol provides upfront cost savings. Yet, additional expenses may arise if an international registration is opposed. Although varying based on currency rates, legal fees and the number of registration classes, registering a trademark in India through the CGPDTM costs roughly between US$300.00-$500.00. In comparison, filing an international application under the Madrid Protocol can be substantially less. For example, a Madrid Protocol filing fee in the U.S. is US$100.00-$150.00 per class (excluding fees for the basic application and associated legal costs).
However, as Madrid Protocol registrations are subject to opposition from national trademark offices, a trademark owner’s Madrid Protocol registration that becomes subject to opposition by the CGPDTM may have to spend additional funds to overcome such an opposition. Under Article 5(1) of the Madrid Protocol, any Madrid Protocol member state trademark office may object to a Madrid Protocol international registration based on international criteria provided in Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Defending against such an opposition may negate any cost savings obtained from a Madrid Protocol registration as a trademark owner would likely have to hire counsel to assist with such a defense. Although registering the same mark under a direct CGPDTM filing may also subject its owner to a CGPDTM action, working with qualified Indian counsel in registering a trademark directly with the CGPDTM may help to mitigate the risk of such an action, or at least provide immediate and knowledgeable assistance in the defense of a potential CGPDTM action.
Assignments and Amendments. Determining whether the Madrid Protocol should be utilized to register a mark in India also depends if the trademark owner intends to amend or assign the mark’s international registration. Article 9 of the Madrid Protocol only permits a Madrid Protocol international registration to be assigned to a person or entity who is a national, domiciled, or has a substantial business presence in a Madrid Protocol member state. This potentially limits the economic desirability of a Madrid Protocol international registration as it prohibits its assignability. For example, Canada and Brazil, two major world economies, are currently not Madrid Protocol members, meaning that their citizens or businesses may not likely become assignees to an Indian Madrid Protocol registration. If a trademark owner knows that they are likely to quickly assign their Madrid Protocol registration in India after registration, as a part of a sale of a business or otherwise, such foreign assignment restrictions should be considered when choosing how to register their mark.
Additionally, the Madrid Protocol restricts amendments to international registrations. An international trademark application filed under the Madrid Protocol cannot be amended once it is submitted for examination to the International Bureau at WIPO. These restrictions appear to run contrary to rights provided under Indian trademark law. Under Article 22 of India’s Trade Marks Act, the CGPDTM Registrar may allow a trademark application, either before or after registration, to be amended under “just” circumstances. If a trademark owner knows or believes that they will likely need to amend their Indian trademark application or registration, they should consider a direct registration with the CGPDTM over a Madrid Protocol registration because a direct registration will allow greater registration flexibility.
Parting Issues to Consider Regardless of Registration. Regardless of which Indian trademark registration process a trademark owners chooses, enforcing trademark protections in India remains challenging. In the 2013 Special 301 Report by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, India was identified as having judicial inefficiencies and insufficient criminal enforcement against IP infringers. These problems can make any type of trademark enforcement efforts in India difficult. Based on these concerns, trademark owners should work with qualified local counsel to ensure effective enforcement of their marks in India.
What does India’s Madrid Protocol accession mean for your business?
Understanding the complexities of international copyright law can be confusing. There are several factors for determining whether a work qualifies for copyright protection abroad, what countries a work qualifies for foreign protection in, and what foreign protections are afforded to qualifying works. To understand these complexities (and to show my readers, family, friends and co-workers that I am not an IP robot), I’ve decided to explain how international copyright protections can be understood in practice through the music of my favorite band, The Grateful Dead. The Dead were not only meticulous about recording their live concerts, they also allowed their fans to make concert recordings (FYI, a great examination of the Dead’s recording culture is available in Nick Paumgarten’s recent New Yorker article). Unparalleled in the music world, the Dead permitted their fans to non-commercially record and exchange recordings of their concerts despite such practices generally considered to be copyright infringement.
Beyond providing a lifetime of amazing improvisational music, the thousands of live concert recordings available highlight important issues to consider in determining a work’s copyright protection abroad. To examine these issues, I intend to share some of my favorite Dead recordings that are available from the Internet Archive and highlight several main issues to keep in mind when determining what copyright and related-legal protections a work qualifies for abroad. So here it goes…
Qualifying Works (Playing in the Band – May 17, 1974, P.N.E. Coliseum, Vancouver, B.C.): The two year period of 1973 and 1974 was a creative high-water mark for the Dead when some of their most inspirational and exploratory music was created. This 1974 version of Playing in the Band exemplifies this period with solid interplay between the band members that delves into space and jazz-themed improvisation before reprising after nearly 20 solid minutes of exploration.
This recording also highlights the complexity of determining whether a work qualifies for international copyright protection. In international copyright law, recordings such as this 1974 recording potentially provide international copyright protection to the song’s authors (aka songwriters) and/or composers under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention), and its performers (aka musicians) under the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome Convention) and World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).
So not to confuse you too much, in this section I will focus on examining whether this 1974 recording of Playing in the Band qualifies its author and composer, The Grateful Dead’s longtime lyricist Robert Hunter and rhythm guitarist Bob Weir respectively, for international copyright protection under the Berne Convention. For this recording to qualify for potential international copyright protection under the Berne Convention, it must have what is known as “attached.” Attachment requires that either:
- The author of the work is a national of a Berne Convention member state
- The author of the work is a habitual resident of a Berne Convention member state
- The work is first published in a Berne Convention member state or is published in a Berne Convention member state within 30 days after an initial publishing in a non-Berne Convention member state
A list of Berne Convention member states is available here.
Upon attachment and if a qualifying work qualifies for copyright protection under national copyright requirements, it is entitled to protections under that nation’s copyright laws.
Based on these Berne Convention attachment requirements, both Weir and Hunter would likely qualify for international copyright protections in this recording in two ways (*For the sake of analysis, we will assume this 1974 recording was the first publishing of Playing in the Band, although it had been played since 1971). Although this 1974 concert occurred prior to the U.S. becoming a signatory to the Berne Convention and was written/composed by two U.S. nationals, the fact the recording was made in Canada (a Berne Convention member state since 1928) likely means it was first published in a Berne Convention country, qualifying it for attachment under the Berne Convention immediately on May 17, 1974 and potential protections in Berne Convention member states subject to such states’ national copyright protection requirements.
Additionally, the Berne Convention applies retroactively to qualifying works from authors and composers from new member states upon such countries accession to the Convention, subject to national qualifications. This means that once the U.S. became a contracting member of the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989, this recording likely became attached as a qualifying work for protection under the Berne Convention on that date as protections under the Convention began to apply retroactivity to prior published works by U.S. nationals that remain protectable under U.S. copyright terms of protection (see Term of Protections section below for further details). Upon such qualification, Hunter and Weir’s work would then qualify for protection in Berne Convention member states, subject to such countries’ copyright qualifications.
Performers Rights (Fire on the Mountain – October 2, 1977, Paramount Theater, Portland, Oregon): I could have chosen any song to illustrate performers rights, but I chose this recording simply because Fire on The Mountain is one of my favorite Dead songs and this 1977 version from my home state is arguably one of the best ever. Beyond being a first-rate soundboard recording that highlights Keith Godchaux’s rare playing of electric keyboards, it possesses almost psychic interplay between the band members.
This song and its 1977 performance also represent the disparity of copyright protections between authors/composers and performers in a recording. The Berne Convention only extends copyright protections in a work to authors and composers, not performers. Fire on The Mountain was written by Robert Hunter and composed by Dead percussionist Mickey Hart. Despite the entire band’s inspirational playing in this 1977 recording, every band member with the exception of Hart would have little to no international copyright protections in this recording under the Berne Convention based on their non-author/composer status.
However, the Dead members may potentially qualify for international protections in this recording under the Rome Convention or the WPPT. The Rome Convention recognizes performers rights in qualifying performance recordings by providing rights to compensation for broadcasting and reproduction of such recordings, and exclusive rights to prevent unauthorized broadcasting, fixation and reproduction. However, similar to the Berne Convention, recordings must qualify for attachment under the Rome Convention. Such attachment only qualifies for protection for its performers if either:
- The performance takes place in a Rome Convention member state
- It is a qualifying recording (first published or recorded in a Rome Convention member state or the producer is a national of a Rome Convention member state)
- It is a qualifying broadcast (the broadcaster or the transmission was from a Rome Convention member state).
A list of Rome Convention member states is available here.
Unfortunately, the Rome Convention would likely not provide international copyright protections for the band members in this 1977 recording. The U.S. is not a signatory to the Rome Convention (FYI, it is mainly because the U.S. does not recognize a performer’s copyright in a recording). As this 1977 performance was performed in the U.S., by U.S. performers and not broadcasted, it does not qualify as an attached work under the Rome Convention, thereby not requiring any Rome Convention member state to recognize its copyright protection.
It is important to note that even if this recording had qualified for Rome Convention protection, it would have provided less international protections than the Berne Convention. The Rome Convention’s exclusive rights for performers in a work are optional, not required. Additionally, the Rome Convention has fewer signatories than the Berne Convention (91 Rome signatories to 166 Berne signatories). These limitations mean that fewer countries will acknowledge a performer’s rights in a qualifying recording under the Rome Convention than an author’s rights in a qualifying recording under the Berne Convention, and even if countries are Rome Convention member states, they have the ability to limit their recognition of performers’ rights in foreign recordings.
The WPPT (A list of WPPT member states is available here) may provide the band members performance rights in the 1977 recording, yet these international protections are also less comprehensive than those provided under the Berne Convention. The WPPT requires its signatories to extend rights in a recording to performers of other WPPT member states. Provided rights to performers under the WPPT include the right to compensation and exclusive rights including reproduction, distribution and performance, among others. However, like the Rome Convention, the WPPT has a smaller number of signatories (currently 91 countries) than the Berne Convention and member states can withhold implementing the WPPT’s performer rights and protections. The U.S. in particular has elected such limitations. This means all Dead band members do likely qualify for WPPT rights in this 1977 recording as performers, but they only qualify for such protections in the 91 countries, and even in those countries, their rights may be subject to limitations or exclusion, as seen in the U.S.’ non-recognition of the WPPT’s performer rights.
As a result of analyzing protection qualifications in these three treaties, only Hunter and Hart, as an author and composer respectively, qualify for potentially effective international copyright protections in this recording based on their Berne Convention protections. Unfortunately, the other members may only potentially qualify for certain rights in a limited amount of countries under the WPPT.
Term of Protections (Not Fade Away – November 2, 1979, Nassau Coliseum, Uniondale, N.Y.): A staple at Dead concerts, Buddy Holly and Norman Petty’s Not Fade Away was a testament to the strength and size of love (“bigger than a Cadillac” for example) and an excellent springboard into some intense jams. Late 70’s versions of Not Fade Away, such as this 1979 recording, are particularly exceptional due to their extended improvisations.
Works such as Not Fade Away also highlight an important issue in international copyright law, namely the duration to which a work is granted copyright protection. Under the Berne Convention, member states must afford copyright protection to qualifying works for the life of the author and for 50 years after their death. Contrastingly, the WPPT grants protection for performers in recordings for 50 years from when the recording was made, while the Rome Convention only affords 20 years of protection for performers from when a recording is made.
As with rights in the Fire on the Mountain recording above, the protection terms given to the authors/composers and performers in this 1979 recording are disproportionate. As widely known, Buddy Holly died in a horrific plane crash in 1959 (which also killed Richie Vallens and J. P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson). Petty died in 1984. Based on the date of their deaths, Holly’s copyright protections as an author of Not Fade Away under the Berne Convention expired in 2009, while Petty’s rights will continue to remain active until 2034. For all of the Dead band members, their protections under the Rome Convention as performers expired in 1999 (FYI, they would not have had any rights under the Rome Convention anyway – see Performers Rights section above) and their rights in this recording under the WPPT are set to expire in 2029.
However, it is important to note that some Berne Convention member states may provide extended copyright protection terms for authors. For example, the U.S. and Australia extend copyright protection rights for the life of the author plus 70 years after their death. If qualifying as protectable works under the Berne Convention and both U.S. and Australian copyright law, Holly and Petty’s copyright protections in Not Fade Away will remain active in the U.S. and Australia until 2029 and 2054 respectively.
Conclusion: Besides providing some spectacular recordings, I hope this short analysis helps to understand some main issues in international copyright law that can assist in determining the extent of foreign protections in a particular work.
What are your favorite Dead shows? What international copyright issues are you facing?
**Important Note**: The legal issues highlighted herein are hypothetical. Additionally, this article is neither approved nor endorsed by The Grateful Dead, Nick Paumgarten, the New Yorker magazine, the Internet Achieve or any related parties.
Establishing methods for enforcing copyright protections online has become increasingly important to protecting a content owner’s rights in their works—as demonstrated by the recent launch of the Copyright Alert System (CAS) in the U.S. Most content owners do not have the same resources for online copyright enforcement as the Media and Internet service provider industries (two central sponsors of CAS). However, nearly all owners of protected works can take advantage of relatively inexpensive online copyright enforcement methods to protect their works in many of the world’s major markets. The most commonly used means of enforcement are takedown notices—demands sent from content owners to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or website hosts to remove infringing content hosted on websites under their control. Depending on the circumstances, an ISP may be compelled upon receiving a takedown notice to remove infringing content from a hosted website, or in some cases, an entire website, for a temporary or extended amount of time.
Takedown notices can have substantial implications on an infringer’s online presence. A takedown can interrupt access to a infringer’s site, potential disrupt or halt their business, and can possibly result in the deletion of their site’s user comments and feedback. With these potentially serious consequences in mind, a rights holder should consider exhausting all alternatives before submitting a takedown notice against an infringing website.
Determining whether to and how to utilize takedown notices as a international copyright enforcement tool requires understanding a few things:
- What international legal protections does a rights owner have in their works
- Where are works being infringed online
- Where is an ISP subject to jurisdiction
- What countries have national takedown procedures and what are such countries’ requirements
- Further issues after a takedown notice is submitted
Let’s break these down a little further:
What International Legal Protections Does a Rights Owner Have in Their Works? A rights owner cannot consider utilizing takedown procedures abroad without first establishing that their works qualify for international copyright protection. A work qualifies for international copyright protection under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) when it becomes attached. Attachment requires that the author of the work be a national of a Berne Convention country (A list of Berne Convention countries is available here), the author is a habitual resident of a Berne Convention country, that the work is first published in a Berne Convention country, or that the work is published in a Berne Convention country within 30 days after an initial publishing in a non-Berne Convention country. If a work is attached through any of these means, it is treated as if the work originated in each Berne Convention country, and is then subject to each Berne Convention country’s copyright protection requirements in order to qualify for copyright protection in that specific country.
If a content owner has questions about whether their content qualifies for international copyright protection, they should consider consulting with their national copyright office or a qualified attorney.
Where are Works Being Infringed Online? To determine if any enforcement measure can be utilized, it is essential to know where in the world a work is being infringed online. If a work is being used without authorization and is available on the Internet in a particular country, it is likely being infringed in that particular country. For example, if a song by a Spanish artist, that qualifies as a protected work under the Berne Convention, is uploaded without authorization by a Malaysian file sharer to their website and is accessible throughout the entire world, it is being infringed in both Malaysia and Spain, as well as potentially in the other 164 Berne Convention countries.
Where is an ISP Subject to Jurisdiction? In order to effectively submit a takedown notice in a country where a protected work is infringed online, the ISP of the infringing website must be subject to that country’s laws in order for the ISP to be potentially compelled to comply with a takedown request. Generally, an ISP is only subject to the laws of a country where it is physically located or countries where it is engaged in enough commercial activity to establish personal jurisdiction. Determining an infringing site’s ISP can be completed through conducting a WHOIS database search. Such a search may also help identify the ISP’s host country by providing details about the ISP. However, this is not always a certainty.
If an ISP is located in the country where a work is infringed online, a rights owner only needs to establish whether that country has takedown procedures (see next section) to determine whether they can utilize takedown notices. However, determining whether an ISP is subject to the copyright laws of a country where it is not physically located is more difficult. In the U.S., a foreign ISP must at least have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the U.S. for the foreign-based ISP to be subject to U.S. law, and potential liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Generally, such contacts have required purposeful interactions with U.S. citizens and commerce, such as marketing its services in the U.S. that would foreseeably bring the ISP under U.S. jurisdiction. Asahi Metal Indus. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987). It must also be “reasonable” to bring the ISP under U.S. jurisdiction, based on multiple factors. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980).
To illustrate these requirements using the previous example of the Spanish musician: Let’s assume that an Australian ISP hosts the Malaysian file-sharer website whose infringing content is available in the U.S., but the ISP does not market or make its services available in the U.S. In this case, the ISP would likely not be subject to U.S. law. Therefore, it is likely that the ISP is only subject to Australian law due to its location in Australia—and possibly Malaysian law if qualifying under Malaysian personal jurisdiction requirements. Alternatively, if the Australian ISP actively markets its services to U.S. citizens and businesses, the ISP may be subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thereby potential liability under the DMCA. This would give the Spanish artist the ability to submit a U.S. takedown notice against the Australian ISP that would subject the ISP to potential liability under the DMCA if is fails to take action on the takedown notice.
Two important things to note:
- Failing to qualify for jurisdiction does not mean a rights holder is barred from demanding an ISP to takedown content that infringes a protected work. It simply means that an ISP may not be compelled or have incentive to remove infringing content because they are unlikely to face liability.
- Many content submission sites like YouTube and Facebook, as well as search engines such as Google and Bing, maintain their own takedown submissions procedures that are generally available to users regardless of their geographical location or where a protected work is infringed online.
What Countries Have National Takedown Procedures and What are Such Countries’ Requirements? To effectively utilize takedown procedure against an ISP, the ISP’s host country or country to which it is brought under personal jurisdiction must possess takedown procedures for rights holders, and such rights holders must comply with such procedural requirements. This requires understanding:
- Whether the country to which the ISP is subject to jurisdiction has takedown notice legislation
- If so, what are the country’s takedown notice requirements and procedures.
National Takedown Notice Legislation. Surprisingly, not all countries maintain takedown notice legislation for rights holders. Major markets including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, Israel, Mexico and Russia are among those that don’t currently have takedown notice procedures. Despite such gaps, a large number of Berne Convention countries have enacted takedown notice legislation including the U.S., Australia, China, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, to name a few.
National Takedown Notice Requirements: Below are the requirements for takedown notices in a number of major markets that have notice and takedown legislation.
Takedown Notice Requirements
|United States||DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A))||
|Australia||Regulation 20I, Schedule 10, 1969 Copyright Regulations||
|China||Article 14, Regulations on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information Networks||
|Japan||Article 3(2)(ii), Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to DemandDisclosure of Identification Information of the Senders||
|South Africa||Section 77(1), The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act||
|United Kingdom||Section 124(a)(3), Communications Act 2003||
Note: Some of these national take down requirements are derived from translations. Rights holders should consult with National Copyright Offices or qualified attorneys in the jurisdictions they wish to enforce their rights in order to confirm these and other take down notice requirements.
Further Issues After a Takedown Notice is Submitted. Finally, it is important to note that there are issues to consider after a takedown notice has been submitted. First, an infringer may respond to a takedown notice by submitting a counter notice attesting to their rights in a protected work, even after their online content or website has been blocked or removed. Also, an ISP may refuse to act after a takedown notice has been submitted. If these circumstances arise, one should consider contacting a qualified attorney to discuss further actions.
Special thanks to co-author Kenneth Louis Strocsher, J.D. Candidate, 2014, Seattle University School of Law.