Thanks for the coverage and encouragement (I am the hacker-lawyer mentioned in the article).
A quick clarification: I have not yet filed my formal opposition to the TM, although othershave. I, along with at least one other interested party, merely filed a motion to extend my time to oppose by 30 days to allow for the legal hackers community to engage in a discussion of the topic.
I should also note that Legal Hackers, LLC has responded by announcing that they have licensed their "trademark" in the term "Legal Hackers" to the general public via a relatively novel approach, an Open Trademark License. They also received an endorsement of this approach from the DC Legal Hackers group.
While I support the creative thinking that led to the adoption of the Open Trademark License approach, for reasons I'll expand upon on my own blog I continue to think that the trademark itself is invalid due to its descriptiveness. I also still have trouble with the disconnect between the accommodating language on the Legal Hackers website and the one-sided contract they attempt to impose upon anyone who wants to organize an "official" legal hackers chapter.
In any event, I do hope to keep the discussion friendly, cordial, and in the best interest of the legal hackers community.
While there is no requirement to issue a DMCA takedown notice, there is the possibility of a defendant in a copyright suit collecting attorney's fees and court costs in a successful defense.
A website owner who (1) has properly obtained the DMCA liability shield* and (2) can show that the infringing material was placed on the site at the direction of a user** has a complete defense to a copyright infringement claim. While courts are sometimes hesitant to grant attorney's fees to prevailing copyright defendants, they are available under the statute. I'd think that anyone with a valid DMCA defense (particularly if it is coupled with another defense like fair use) would have a decent chance of convincing a judge to award fees and costs to the defense due to the frivolous nature of such a suit.
Of course that means you still have to pony up to pay for your defense in the first place...
* Not as easy as many people think: be sure to closely follow the instructions in the statute and on the Copyright Office website.
** This takes most bloggers and other website owners out of the DMCA's umbrella if they post the material themselves
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by John Grant.
Closing the loop
Closing the loop on this thread:
Legal Hackers LLC has abandoned its trademark application for the term "Legal Hackers."
I blogged (briefly) about it here.
Further Thoughts
As promised, here is my new blog post on Why I (Still) Oppose the Legal Hackers Trademark.
A minor clarification
Thanks for the coverage and encouragement (I am the hacker-lawyer mentioned in the article).
A quick clarification: I have not yet filed my formal opposition to the TM, although others have. I, along with at least one other interested party, merely filed a motion to extend my time to oppose by 30 days to allow for the legal hackers community to engage in a discussion of the topic.
I should also note that Legal Hackers, LLC has responded by announcing that they have licensed their "trademark" in the term "Legal Hackers" to the general public via a relatively novel approach, an Open Trademark License. They also received an endorsement of this approach from the DC Legal Hackers group.
While I support the creative thinking that led to the adoption of the Open Trademark License approach, for reasons I'll expand upon on my own blog I continue to think that the trademark itself is invalid due to its descriptiveness. I also still have trouble with the disconnect between the accommodating language on the Legal Hackers website and the one-sided contract they attempt to impose upon anyone who wants to organize an "official" legal hackers chapter.
In any event, I do hope to keep the discussion friendly, cordial, and in the best interest of the legal hackers community.
Re: Re: Well, thats clear cut
While there is no requirement to issue a DMCA takedown notice, there is the possibility of a defendant in a copyright suit collecting attorney's fees and court costs in a successful defense.
A website owner who (1) has properly obtained the DMCA liability shield* and (2) can show that the infringing material was placed on the site at the direction of a user** has a complete defense to a copyright infringement claim. While courts are sometimes hesitant to grant attorney's fees to prevailing copyright defendants, they are available under the statute. I'd think that anyone with a valid DMCA defense (particularly if it is coupled with another defense like fair use) would have a decent chance of convincing a judge to award fees and costs to the defense due to the frivolous nature of such a suit.
Of course that means you still have to pony up to pay for your defense in the first place...
* Not as easy as many people think: be sure to closely follow the instructions in the statute and on the Copyright Office website.
** This takes most bloggers and other website owners out of the DMCA's umbrella if they post the material themselves