Wendy Seltzer: “My First DMCA Takedown“:
“On Feb. 8, I posted to YouTube a clip taken from the Super Bowl: not the football, but the copyright warning the NFL stuck into the middle of it, wherein they tell you it’s forbidden even to share “accounts of the game” without the NFL’s consent.
Their copyright bot didn’t seem to see the fair use in my educational excerpt, so YouTube just sent me their boilerplate takedown. Time to break out that DMCA counter-notification.”

IHT: “Brussels Court Rules Against Google In Copyright Case“:
“A court in Brussels ruled Tuesday that Google violated copyright laws by publishing links to stories from Belgian newspapers without permission, a case that legal experts said could have broad implications in Europe for the news services provided by search engines.”
. . .
Google condemned the court decision and defended the news site. “This is an isolated case, and it would be inaccurate to portray Google News as standing in conflict with the publishing industry,” said Jessica Powell, a spokeswoman in London for Google. “We currently have 10,000 sources in Google News and get contacted every day by others seeking to be included.”
Powell added that the main complaints raised by the publishers in Belgium — references to their stories without prior permission and the availability of stories that the newspapers subsequently place behind a firewall — are easily rectified without recourse to legal action.”

citi umbrella.jpg
Bloomberg: CitiGroup to sell umbrella logo St Paul Travelers.
The biggest U.S. bank plans to sell its red umbrella trademark to St. Paul Travelers Cos. and operate under the “Citi” name after failing to get most consumers to think of anything except insurance when they saw the 137-year-old symbol. The deal, announced in separate statements, reunites the Travelers name with a logo that consumers still associate with the insurer and the slogan, “You’re better off under the umbrella.”

first life.jpg
First Life bills itself as a 3D Analog World. It makes ambitious claims about the users’ ability to ‘work, reproduce and perish.’ There does not seem to be a terms of service agreement, suggesting that users would have to rely upon the court system for intellectual property protection, a distinct disadvantage compared to, for example, Second Life.
Among the advanced features of First Life is a link at the bottom of its page labled ‘Comments or Cease and Desist Letters.” One user has already availed itself:
“This notice is provided on behalf of Linden Research, Inc. (“Linden Lab”), the owner of trademark, copyright and other intellectual property rights in and to the “Second Life” product and service offering, including the “eye-in-hand” logo for Second Life and the website maintained at http://secondlife.com/. It has come to our attention that the website located at http://www.getafirstlife.com/ purports to appropriate certain trade dress and marks associated with Second Life and owned by Linden Lab. That website currently includes a link in the bottom right-hand corner for “Comments or cease and desist letters.”
As you must be aware, the Copyright Act (Title 17, U.S. Code) contains provisions regarding the doctrine of “fair use” of copyrighted materials (Section 107 of the Act). Although lesser known and lesser recognized by trademark owners, the Lanham Act (Title 15, Chapter 22, U.S. Code) protecting trademarks is also limited by a judicial doctrine of fair use of trademarks. Determining whether or not a particular use constitutes fair use typically involves a multi-factor analysis that is often highly complex and frustratingly indeterminate; however a use constituting parody can be a somewhat simpler analysis, even where such parody involves a fairly extensive use of the original work.
We do not believe that reasonable people would argue as to whether the website located at http://www.getafirstlife.com/ constitutes parody – it clearly is. Linden Lab is well known among its customers and in the general business community as a company with enlightened and well-informed views regarding intellectual property rights, including the fair use doctrine, open source licensing, and other principles that support creativity and self-expression. We know parody when we see it.
Moreover, Linden Lab objects to any implication that it would employ lawyers incapable of distinguishing such obvious parody. Indeed, any competent attorney is well aware that the outcome of sending a cease-and-desist letter regarding a parody is only to draw more attention to such parody, and to invite public scorn and ridicule of the humor-impaired legal counsel. Linden Lab is well-known for having strict hiring standards, including a requirement for having a sense of humor, from which our lawyers receive no exception.
In conclusion, your invitation to submit a cease-and-desist letter is hereby rejected.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is possible that your use of the modified eye-in-hand logo for Second Life, even as parody, requires license from Linden Lab, especially with respect to your sale of goods with the parody mark at http://www.cafepress.com/getafirstlife/. Linden Lab hereby grants you a nonexclusive, nontransferable, nonsublicenseable, revocable, limited license to use the modified eye-in-hand logo (as displayed on http://www.getafirstlife.com/ as of January 21, 2007) to identify only your goods and/or services that are sold at http://www.cafepress.com/getafirstlife/. This license may be modified, addended, or revoked at any time by Linden Lab in its sole discretion.
Best regards,
Linden Lab
HT Jessica.