Who controls intellectual property that is the product of grant-funded faculty research and work in a university environment? Are the “inventions” of professors essentially the result of their positions and participation in a research environment and, as such, like those of an employee produced in the course of employment with a private company? Should written works of authorship – articles, scholarship, books, and textbooks – be treated differently from medical, biotech, or software advances that professors create or contribute to? What about the input from students, especially specialized graduate students, in the process? Should the contributions of third-party industry funds to research and development in the university setting be acknowledged with intellectual property interests? Are the creative products of professors ever “works for hire” for their universities? The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) doesn’t think so.
technology
Viacom v. YouTube Brings About a Sea of Change in the Safe Harbor
Over the past decade, websites and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have learned to rely on the takedown procedures of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in order to generally avoid copyright infringement liability imposed by content owners.
ISPs have been able to shield themselves from all liability form their users posting infringing material by having a proper takedown system in place. But, a recent Second Circuit case undermines that level of confidence in takedown procedures.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is the first U.S. court to decide that ISPs may still be liable for copyright infringement even after complying with the takedown provisions of the DMCA.
As a result, the underlying questions remain: should intermediaries be held liable for their users infringing actions?
If so, then to what extent? Where does the law now draw the line? How can a website owner or ISP best protect itself when posting content provided by others?
The DMCA is known for allowing ISPs, under certain circumstances, to avoid copyright infringement liability for activities that would otherwise lead to secondary liability for copyright infringement.