We could fix airport security that way, too.

There are two separate issues: did the appropriationist infringe, and what sort of copyright does he get, if any? There is a difference between merely not infringing and getting a copyright of your own.

The defense of fair use, which worked for the artist, meant he was not guilty of infringement. That doesn't tell us much about the nature of the copyright that may subsist in his (derivative) work.

The original photographs are solidly protectable (well, not protectable from this guy, but I digress). The artist's derivative work, on the other hand, would enjoy thin copyright at best.

The original creative elements he added were.... banal comments, enlargement, and printing on canvas? Those are actually more like ideas and techniques; he really added so little that a court might find no additional copyrightable material. Andy Warhol actually did a whole lot more, compositionally, than the artist here.

To the extent a court recognized independently copyrightable material, a work would probably have to be identical (not just nearly so) to assert it against the original photographer. Note that the photographer's re-appropriation changed the comments, which are the only real "creativity" hook the artist has.

tl;dr The Suicide Girls are safe. Not windmill slam, 100% guaranteed win safe, but they're on solid legal footing.

Well the expansion of various forms of post-grant practice is coming closer to your wish. IPR in particular is booming right now.

Again, I think changing the legal standard would have much more drastic consequences than people understand. But strong post-grant processes can go a long way toward killing the ridiculous patents that we all rail against.

Removing the presumption of validity would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Patents would be much less valuable if the prior prosecution and grant didn't mean anything. And as a sibling post said, it would raise the question of why anyone would pay fees to the USPTO for a meaningless piece of paper, and why even have the PTO?

As it is, we already try the validity of a patent (along with noninfringement, inequitable conduct, anti-trust, etc) in pretty much every patent case. And it only takes one district court in one case finding invalidity to unravel the patent everywhere (in contrast, a finding of validity is not binding on other district courts).

The answer if we want better quality patents is to ensure that happens at the patent examining phase, not turn every district court into a branch office of the PTO.

Sounds like they pretty much did this. So there are two lessons for any cops are reading:

1) If you want to blow up someone's stuff, just go ahead and do it and find some BS you can arrest them for later.

2) If you want to really publicize someone getting arrested for some BS, you should blow up their stuff, too.

I'd wager youthful inexperience, poor lighting, and overeagerness. Strong motivation to use whatever was handy.

True story. Had a friend in college who would tell you any chance he got to stay away from microbeads, they were the worst thing ever invented, Satan's gift to mankind, etc.

Seems he'd gotten a handjob from a girl who used microbead-laced lotion and it burned the hell out of his junk.

Not if he's talking about all fish everywhere. That's probably like... thousands of beads total.

I'm thinking of starting a hotline, staffed by IP attorneys, where misguided belligerents and would-be Streisanders can call in.

"Hello, if you were thinking about making an absurd intellectual property claim that might get you fired, sued, or laughed at by the entire internet, press 1 now." (normal advice line)

"If you were thinking about making a perfectly reasonable threat, and you're positive it won't get you fired, sued, or laughed at by the entire internet, press 2 now." (emergency intervention line)

K, shit's going down in England, the First Amendment is irrelevant, fine. Damned US-centric worldview + hasty article skim, bit me in the ass.

Anything to add about UK trademark law? Or... you know I could go for some more posts about why American law won't apply.

I thought about that. With a quick scan of TFA, I didn't see whether they were filing in the US or UK. Since the BBC has a solid presence in the US, it's conceivable TT could file here, especially if there were plans to broadcast the movie here.

If the suit is in the UK, I can't comment on the jurisprudence. IIRC, they have analogous (weaker) fair use provisions for copyright, not sure about trademark. Any input from a UK IP attorney would be welcome.

A more detailed treatment of the Warner Bros case, if you care I read. There were allegations of a counterfeit bag used as a prop, so the case isn't 100% identical. But it's on point for the proposition that First Amendment concerns in expressive works often trump Lanham Act claims.

Between the First Amendment protection for comment/criticism, nominative fair use (how do you do a movie about Take Two without saying "Take Two"?), and zero likelihood of confusion, I don't see how this case has any legs.

See also Louis Vuitton v. Warner Bros (LV's suit over bag scene in Hangover 2 dismissed). This is a good resource generally, though it deals mainly with advertising.

Slap a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie and call it a day. If they want to be extra safe, give it the subtitle "The Unauthorized Take Two Story" or something like that.

Ah but it's so clear! Dice fabricated this story in an intricate plot to get people to come to their news aggregation site Slashdot to post lots and lots of comments arguing politics.

They were counting on an extra boost from the people who come in to say "Hey that's not news for nerds!"

But the final thing that put them over the edge, earning them a coveted 6.2 Internets/$^2, was this very post unmasking their evil plot. By exposing the depth of their depravity, I have made them more powerful than I could ever imagine.

Sure, but then a peanut is also kudzu, and we're also orangutans.