SOCIAL MEDIA


SIX SECONDS OF FAME


One of the newest social media, Vine allows users to upload a looping six-second video of their choice. TBO assesses the copyright and privacy concerns relating to the service.


What is the worst that can happen in six seconds? T at question has been posed by Vine, one of the latest social media phenomena to capture the public’s attention, to intellectual property (IP) owners.


T e idea behind the service is simple: upload a video and post it to your own personal page. Uploads are capped at just six seconds, meaning Vine’s 50 million users are encouraged to get their message across as effi ciently and concisely as possible.


A year-and-a-half old, Vine was acquired by micro- blogging website Twitter in October 2012, and offi cially launched as a smartphone app in January 2013.


In the past few months, millions of clips have sprouted on the site, from up-to-the-minute sports action to home-made videos of users dancing to music. Companies including Dunkin Donuts and Pizza Hut have taken to the platform to promote their products.


But could a rights holder face signifi cant damage from a six-second clip?


According to Charlie Winckworth, partner at Hogan Lovells International LLP in London, the key issue rights owners should decide is whether the negative public relations (PR) implications of an IP dispute would outweigh the gain of having the content removed.


“When taking action against anyone, no matter how justifi ed it would be, more oſt en than not it will attract attention,” says Winckworth.


www.worldipreview.com


“You hear stories of multimillion dollar brands taking action against minor infringement cases, for example a local takeaway shop that is marketing food using established brands or slogans and is then targeted by a multinational. It’s important to strike a balance between what the copyright owner is trying to achieve and the negative publicity of a ‘David v Goliath’ battle.”


In March 2013, the fi rst high-profi le case of a rights holder objecting to content on Vine came to public attention when singer Prince and his record label, NPG Records, ordered the removal of eight videos featuring clips and synchronisations of his songs.


T e notice, sent on March 22, was published on www.chillingeff ects.org, a website where Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown requests are published in a bid to protect lawful online activity from overzealous legal threats. T e clips were removed shortly aſt er.


Winckworth says: “If you are a record label or an artist and put your own clips up on Vine or another service as a way of gaining access to your market, and someone has sampled a song or taken a clip from a concert, then you may have a genuine commercial interest in trying to prevent someone from stepping on your toes.


“While I’m almost certain there have been cases of other artists besides Prince disputing content on Vine, at the same time there will be others thinking, ‘what’s the worst that can happen in six seconds?’”


Winckworth says part of the decision on whether to take action will boil down to whether someone has taken a ‘substantial’ part of a copyrighted work.


“If someone were to take six seconds from the middle of a song, you might not instantly know what it is. However, if the clip is taken from the chorus it’s more likely to meet the complex threshold for substantiality.


“T ere are all sorts of reasons why copyright may not subsist in such a short clip, but the chances are that if someone can recognise a song more or less instantly, it’s more likely that the clip could be considered substantial.”


Margaret Esquenet, partner at Finnegan Henderson Farrabow Garrett & Dunner LLP, says companies using Vine for advertising have a large following and, as a rights holder, you are more likely to worry that a company’s advertising, rather than a fan-created site, contains infringing content.


“T e fi rst port of call is always to take a look to see how many hits it has,” Esquenet says.


“If it’s limited then maybe don’t go forward with an objection or at least avoid making it public. T ere is a danger that you raise the profi le of something you intended to minimise.


“With the clips being so short, people may feel their rights are being violated but are taking a ‘wait and see’ approach before reacting with a lawsuit.”


Trademarks & Brands Online Volume 3, Issue 1 19


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44