My Little Pony gets 3D printed

3D printing is a bit of a buzzword at the moment and its not the first time that this blogger has written about protection of IP rights in the 3D printer world. Rightsholders need to be thinking about how best to exploit 3D printing rather than how to avoid it, and one company that has done just that is Hasbro. 

Rather than targeting creators of fan art to stop them customising the popular My Little Pony range (because, really trying to stop your fans from enjoying your product is not a great business proposition), Hasbro is going to partner with 3D printing company Shapeways to sell fan art.

Five artists will design My Little Pony figurines which can be printed to order. John Frascott, chief marketing officer at Hasbro, describes the process as "mass customisation" - the figurines don't make sense for mass manufacture but enough people will buy them that Hasbro can justify allowing the artists to create and sell them.

It's not clear whether the artists will be employed by Hasbro or whether they are merely granted permission to create fan art (likely the former, for Hasbro to retain control of any copyright created) but it is clear that this is a clear demonstration that we will see more and more customised goods in future, meaning more and more 3D printing.

What has this got to do with copyright?

Well ignoring any trade mark rights which Hasbro may have in My Little Pony, it is likely that the main IP rights subsisting in the figurines are copyright and/or design rights. This raises a few important questions, namely:

1. Are figurines artistic works for copyright purposes (the Storm Trooper helmets were not)?

2. If not, could they be works containing the author's own intellectual creation and so subject to copyright protection in the rest of Europe? (Or in the UK if the concept of a work is found to be harmonised…)

3. If copyright does subsist, will the proposed private copying exception allow people who have access to the design files to make copies for private use at home?

4. Will the files appear on P2P file-sharing sites, and if so how long before we see an application for a blocking injunction against counterfeit My Little Pony files?

Answers on the back of a postcard please!

Should copyright protect fashion?

Around a month before new US Congress starts, this blogger is wondering whether all the fuss over the Innovative Design Protection Act (IDPA) back in September was a bit of a storm in a teacup. Will the IDPA be approved this year? Although it has been approved by a Senate Committee it still needs approval of the full Senate and House of Representatives. Govtrackus' prognosis is: "Just 21% of all Senate bills reported favorably by committee in 2009–2010 were enacted." With a lame duck session before new Congress starts that approval is looking less and less likely.

The IDPA is "a bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to extend protection to fashion design, and for other purposes." The question under debate is: does fashion need and/or deserve protection?

A question which could be debated forever. On the one hand why should fashion designers be treated any differently to creators of other original artistic works? On the other, it is clear that the fashion industry benefits from knock-offs. The faster the churn of designs from luxury to high street, the faster designers need to produce new looks to fill the vacuum at the top.

Designers currently rely on a mix of trade mark and design rights to assert their rights: just this month a shoe designer, Charles Philip, filed a claim in the Central District of California in Los Angeles against The Gap. Philip argued that The Gap essentially copied his Fall/Winter 2012 loafer collection and stole his striped shoe lining, which he claims is his signature style. Unable to sue for copyright infringement, he claimed trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, dilution, right of publicity, and other claims. Should Philip have copyright over his shoes? Or does he not need copyright given the other raft of rights on which he can rely? 

For more on copyright in fabrics see here

As I have commented on this blog before, if English judges apply recent CJEU cases harmonising the concept of a work so that all works that are their "author's own intellectual creation" are protected, fashion designers will find it much easier to protect their works using copyright in the UK. Works that do not currently easily fall into one of the 8 works protected by the CDPA, such as shoes, perfume, make up, garments, hats etc, could be protected by copyright.

I would be interested in hearing readers' opinions: is the life-cycle of a design too short for the fashion industry to care? Or does that logic only apply to garments? Should the UK fashion industry be lobbying for application of the CJEU decisions in order to expand copyright protection? And how might this affect other industries?

Fashion and copyright

Unable to attend (meaning not invited to) Milan Fashion Week, this blogger spoke yesterday at the legal equivalent: the Intellectual Property in the Fashion Industry conference. 

The IP Kat was speed blogging at a rate of knots, so you may already have read his summary of the conference, however below is some more detail on the copyright issues that were discussed.

Copyright doesn't protect fashion

"Copyright doesn't protect fashion" is a statement frequently bandied around, however what is meant is that in the UK at least it is difficult to protect a garment using fashion. Our closed list common law system means that unless a garment can be said to fall into one of the eight protected categories, it cannot be protected. A garment could be said to be an original artistic work: a work of artistic craftsmanship. Case law is not in favour of this argument as a string of cases demonstrate how difficult it is to show that a garment is artistic (see for instance the baby's cape in Merlet v Mothercare, or the sweaters displayed in the V&A in Guild v Eskandar.) The requirement that a work be "artistic" is unusual in the copyright world as it requires a judge to consider the esthetic merit of the work. As Lord Reid said in Hensher v Restawhile, "it depends on whether a substantial section of the public admire the thing for its appearance". The result of this is that it is difficult to show that a garment is a work of artistic craftsmanship, and indeed no-one at the conference could remember a case where any work had been considered to be a work of artistic craftsmanship.

That said, it is possible to protect other works relevant to the fashion industry using copyright. There is far less controversy surroundin the protection of photographs, films, collages, sculptures etc.

The Red Bus Case

Temple Island v New English Teas (the red bus case) was discussed in relation to Kate Spade's alleged copying of Vera Neumann's poppy design. The case demonstrates how difficult it is to draw a line between copying an idea or concept such as a poppy, and copying the expression of that idea, i.e. Vera Neumann's design. Further, the PCC's finding that a person who recreates the subject matter of another person's photograph can infringe copyright in that photo is relevant to the fashion industry as magazines and catalogues often recreate runway or haute couture photographs to showcase high street clothes.

Harmonisation of protected subject matter

A string of recent cases from the CJEU indicate that in the EU a work is protected if it is its "author's own intellectual creation" (see Infopaq, Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace, FAPL and SAS v World Programming Ltd). This does not sit comfortably with the English law notion that a work is only protected if it falls within one of the eight categories set out at s.1 CDPA and it is not clear whether English courts will follow the CJEU's approach in protecting works in which the author's own intellectual creation vests. The notion of what is a protected work is not generally controversial however the EU test could enable protection of items currently not protected under English law, such as garments or perfume.

An allied concept is that of originality, for which the EU test has been applied in the UK by the High Court in NLA v Meltwater. Mrs Justice Proudman found that, when considering originality in relation to whether a substantial part of a work was taken, it was necessary to take European law into account. Answering her own question as to whether the test of originality had been changed by Infopaq she considered that the test had been 'restated but for present purposes not significantly altered by Infopaq'.

All this is indicative that fundamental copyright principles are changing and that we could see a shift towards increased protection for the fashion industry.

 Whether the fashion industry needs or wants increased protection is another question entirely. See here for an analysis of "why knock-offs are good for the fashion industry" and contrast with the fact that the US "Fashion Copyright Bill" has made it throught he Senate Judiciary Committee and is headed for the full Senate.

EU copyright at Fordham: a report (part II)

Having highlighted the position of the Commission as to EU copyright harmonisation (here), an assessment of the last twenty years of harmonisation was provided - inter alia - by Prof Bernt Hugenholtz of the University of Amsterdam.

First, he divided the harmonisation process into three phases, these being (1) 1991-2000, when core copyright directives were issued; (2) 2002-2008, when Member States transposed such directives into national laws; (3) 2009-, in which the CJEU has been playing a pivotal role in interpreting such directives. 

Bernt Hugenholtz

Overall, copyright harmonisation has had positive effects, in that approximating the laws of EU Member States has enhanced legal certainty, favoured the emergence of common principles, as well as the establishment of EU external competence in this field. The negative effects of copyright harmonisation can be held to be the following: (1) slow response to technological development; (2) harmonisation has always moved upwards (see databases); and (3) the overall process has been fairly intransparent, thus favoring lobbying (see the case of term extension(s)).

As to the future of EU copyright, Prof Hugenholtz indicated that lawmaking at the EU level has the potential to become increasingly difficult, due to the following aspects: (1) ever growing number of Member States; (2) increasingly central role of the European Parliament; (3) ongoing discussions as to social legitimacy of copyright; (4) lack of normative constitutional mandate in primary EU law to legislate in the area of copyright. 

This said, the alternatives on the table are substantially two: do nothing or unify copyright at the EU level.

Trevor Cook

Speaking of copyright reforms, Trevor Cook of Bird&Bird LLP offered an enlightening insight into copyright's exceptions and limitations and dealt with the heated topic concerning whether something like US fair use should be pursued in Europe too. This, claimed Trevor, would be inconsistent with the InfoSoc Directive and it is not sure that it would be desirable to introduce in the first place. This is beacuse of the unpredictable outcome of fair use defences in the US. In any case, exceptions and limitations may be extended and updated at the EU level, even lacking an initiative of EU legislative. Reliance on fundamental rights has increased, both before national courts and the CJEU. The latter is because of the new status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights following the Lisbon Reform Treaty (as very recent examples, see the decisions in Scarlet and Netlog). This view was upheld also by Mr Justice Peter Charleton of the High Court of Ireland, Dublin.

Graham Smith

An analysis of recent CJEU decisions was offered in the presentations by Graham Smith of Bird&Bird LLP and Professor Lionel Bently of the University of Cambridge.

Graham has offered a thoughtful overview of aggregating and related cases in the EU.

Lionel Bently

Prof Bently, who has called the harmonising effects of CJEU case law 'harmonisation by stealth' (see earlier 1709 Blog post here), has highlighted how CJEU activism is likely to cast ambiguities on the scope and meaning of EU copyright. This may result in Member States asking the Commission to be more active in the future, so to prevent contradictory and ambigous outcomes. Despite this, harmonisation via CJEU case law has had positive effects too, as it has touched upon aspects which could have not been harmonised with legislation alone. Above all, the outcomes of CJEU decisions are legitimate, though it is doubtful in the first place whether the Court was legitimated to act in lieu of EU legislative. In addition to this, doubts persist as to whether the harmonising effects of CJEU judgments are consistent with national legislation. Finally, the effects of these decisions have contributed to transitional uncertainty in the laws of some Member Stares, notably the UK.

In conclusion, from the presentations offered at Fordham, EU copyright is in need of amelioration. At the moment, there are no ambitious EU legislative initiatives. In any case, these are regarded cautiously and are deemed to require careful consideration before being undertaken. So, at the end of the day, it is not clear whether CJEU activism is the result of unavoidable gaps in legislative instruments or whether, instead, harmonisation via CJEU case law has been made necessary to supply lack of legislative initiative tout court. The best guideline for future action at the EU level? Directly from the LEGO store at the Rockfeller Center: