Law Commons^™

Copyright And Underwater Cultural Heritage, Tyler T. Ochoa

Faculty Publications

This article will focus on three aspects of copyright law as it applies to the photography of underwater cultural heritage. First, to what extent can a salvor claim exclusive rights to photograph a particular site? Second, who is the author (or who are the authors) of such underwater photography, which increasingly involves the use of remote-controlled robotic drones? Third, to what extent can a State control the use of underwater photography that falls within its territorial waters?8 All three of these aspects have been the subject of lawsuits and judicial opinions in the United States; and those opinions shed light …

Emojis And The Law, Eric Goldman

Faculty Publications

Emojis are an increasingly important way we express ourselves. Though emojis may be cute and fun, their usage can lead to misunderstandings with significant legal stakes—such as whether someone should be obligated by contract, liable for sexual harassment, or sent to jail.

Our legal system has substantial experience interpreting new forms of content, so it should be equipped to handle emojis. Nevertheless, some special attributes of emojis create extra interpretative challenges. This Article identifies those attributes and proposes how courts should handle them.

One particularly troublesome interpretative challenge arises from the different ways platforms depict emojis that are nominally standardized …

Brief Of Amici Curiae - Copyright And Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Defendant-Petitioner Pandora Media, Inc., Tyler T. Ochoa, Joseph C. Gratz

Faculty Publications

Brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the State of California.

Case No. S240649 FLO & EDDIE, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PANDORA MEDIA, INC., Defendant-Petitioner.

Plaintiff Flo & Eddie, Inc., contends that the phrase “exclusive ownership” in California Civil Code section 980 includes all possible uses to which a copyrightable work may be put, including an exclusive right of public performance. At the time California Civil Code section 980 was first enacted in 1872, however, the phrase “exclusive ownership” in relation to a copyrightable work meant something different and much narrower: namely, the right of first publication (reproduction and sale) only. …

Creativity Revisited, Ralph D. Clifford

Faculty Publications

The University of New Hampshire's Scholarship Redux Conference invited a reexamination of an earlier work of IP scholarship to address what has happened in the area since the time of its original publication. As my contribution to the Conference, I revisited my 1997 article that discussed the consequences of the increasing sophistication of artificial intelligence ("AI") on the production of new copyrightable or patentable works as well as the follow-up article I published in 2004 that focused expressly on copyright law. The primary call of the conference was to discuss the "legal predictions [that were] right -- or wrong!" In …

The Limits Of Copyright Office Expertise, Aaron K. Perzanowski

Faculty Publications

The mismatch between the expanding administrative and regulatory obligations of the United States Copyright Office and its limited institutional expertise is an emerging problem for the copyright system. The Office’s chief responsibility—registration and recordation of copyright claims—has taken a back seat in recent years to a more ambitious set of substantive rulemakings and policy recommendations. As the triennial rulemaking under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act highlights, the Office is frequently called upon to answer technological questions far beyond its plausible claims of subject matter expertise. This Article traces the Office’s history, identifies its substantial but discrete areas of expertise, and …

Dr. Seuss, The Juice And Fair Use Revisited: Two Decades Of Parody And Satire In Copyright Law, Tyler T. Ochoa

Faculty Publications

This essay will summarize some of the salient features and arguments made in the original article. It will also analyze copyright infringement cases in the last 20 years applying the fair use doctrine to parody and satire.

Licensing & Law Who Owns An Avatar?, Tyler T. Ochoa, Jaime Banks

Faculty Publications

Both players and game developers have great influence over how avatars—via their assembled components— manifest in digital game play. Developers craft their foundational platforms and draw on those infrastructures to craft dynamic code that enables movements, appearances, and abilities. But those potentials call into question whether avatars are avatars until they are played—players click avatars into being, customize their bodies and attire, drive their actions and interactions, and sometimes bring them outside the game world through physical representations. So, given avatars’ joint reliance on developers and players, and given legal frameworks such as copyright law, who really “owns” a video …

The First Amendment Implications Of Copyright's Double Standard, Raymond Shih Ray Ku

Faculty Publications

Beginning with a simple question, “What’s the big deal? It’s just entertainment,” this Article argues that copyright law restricts more than just entertainment - it restricts freedom of artistic expression. Despite copyright’s facial neutrality, courts have interpreted otherwise neutral rules to subject authors to a double standard for expression. Through a series of doctrinal contradictions and hypocrisies, copyright singles out “just entertainment,” imposing greater restrictions upon the freedom of those authors relative to all other authors. By discriminating against “entertainment,” the current doctrine violates its own fundamental tenet of non-discrimination. Moreover, by selectively restricting how authors may choose to engage …