I was aware that he had registered in the US in 2012, but I'm curious about the claim about 2014 in the UK, as we don't have a copyright registry here (we operate on the no-registration system under Berne). Would you happen to have a reference for that?
Do you have any legal argument for that assertion? My claim is that in Europe whoever presses the button is irrelevant for copyright purposes.
The CJEU has ruled in several cases that the arrangement and selection is what matter when it comes to originality (Infopaq, Football Association v Murphy), and in pictures in particular what matters is that the photo encapsulates a 'personal touch' reflecting the personality of the photographer (Painer v Standard Verlags).
If pressing the button was what matters, then we could not have copyright over automated triggers and delayed photography.
I've said this several times, American copyright law doesn't apply to the subsistence of copyright in this instance. The picture was taken in Indonesia, and the photographer is a UK national, so this case should fall mostly because of the jurisdiction issue. The Copyright Office's statement is not valid whatsoever.
There's a good legal argument to be made that the photographer owns the copyright of the selfie, as in European copyright law the person who pressed the button is irrelevant, what matters is that an author expresses his/her personality through selection and arrangement of the photograph.
Completely agree, these people have the foresight of a deaf bat.
One minor comment, while the July decision quashed private copying regulations, the new batch of articles has two origins. First, the OutLaw blog managed to get a spokesperson from the IP Office on record to admit that they were going to let the law die (they could have appealed, or re-drafted a new regulation). Secondly, the 1709 blog accurately contrasts this with the Reprobel case.
"They are. Specifically, they're monitoring anything specifically flagged for their attention be people using the @easyjet, just as every twitter user has their mentions highlighted. That's the entire point of them having a Twitter account in the first place - so that customers can contact them via an alternative means. Not a conspiracy."
Agreed, I've had them contact me a couple of times when I mentioned that my flight was delayed, their social media team was courteous and helpful.
The key in this case, at least for me, is the sequence of events. What upset some people seems to be the implication that Mark sent a tweet, and this was somehow picked up by some social media person, who then contacted the Glasgow easyJet staff.
What appears to have happened is that he complained about the delay, then sent the soldier tweet, then went to the staff and complained again, this time showing them the tweet. At this point the manager intervenes, and the actual events become blurred.
Mleiser has gone awfully quiet on Twitter though, is there a CCTV of the event I wonder?
Just to add to the above, titles can be denied trademark protection if they're inherently generic, but there are tons of comic book titles protected under trade mark. Check out The Avenger's TM information:
Actually, titles are commonly protected by trademark. This doesn't mean that nobody else in the world can use the word, it simply means that the word cannot be used by another title describing a similar thing.
However, very generic names might not be protected if they are "inherently generic".
This is standard practice with titles, and it doesn't mean that the author owns all uses of the word Hacktivist, just the particular use as a comic book title (and possibly to be used in other media, such as TV or film).
Think of any movie with a generic title, such as Unforgiven, The Dictator, The Patriot, The Shining... the authors don't own all uses of those words, just their use in a specific medium.