Has Academic Journal Stolen My Copyright?

Dear Rich: I am a university professor. Two French colleagues organized a conference in 2017 and invited me to speak at it. After the conference, they said they wanted to publish our talks (expanded into articles) in a book, and they told us we should start to revise our talks. Several months later, they wrote to say that a Swiss-based academic journal had agreed to publish the essays as a special issue. I responded to say "sounds good," and I submitted my essay to the two French colleagues, who copyedited it, and I did not hear another word for months until a PDF of the final version of my article arrived in my inbox. I was surprised to see that the article was Copyright 2019 by the Swiss publisher and that I was authorized to distribute no more than 25 copies of this PDF, and that it was not permissible to put the PDF on the Internet. I wrote to the Swiss publisher and asked on what basis they claimed the copyright, given that I never signed an agreement with them. The head of the press cheerfully admitted that there is no signed agreement of any kind and that they claim the copyright by fiat, simply as a consequence of publishing the text ("We pay the printer"). It seems to me that they have illegally usurped (or tried to usurp) my copyright. Am I correct about this?

Yes, you're correct. The concept of claiming copyright because "we pay the printer" went out with quill pens and hoop skirts. To claim the copyright to your article (which many journals do), the Swiss would need to have acquired documentation: a written assignment agreement or a work-made-for-hire agreement.

Implied license. Under U.S. copyright law, you retain copyright ownership, and the Swiss publisher probably has an implied license to publish your article in the journal. Licenses can be implied from the parties' conduct and reasonable expectations. For example, if a written license expired, but the parties continued as if it hadn't, the license for the extended use would be implied. Your consent to publication was implied by your "sounds good" and by furnishing, revising, and copyediting your article. However, the implied license doesn't permit the Swiss journal to dictate the terms of your use and doesn't allow them to distribute the article in any way other than in the journal.

P.S. Dept. The Swiss publisher would be permitted to claim a compilation copyright in the journal. The compilation copyright does not protect the individual articles, but instead, it protects the particular selection and arrangement of those articles together in one journal.

Does Publisher of Letter Hold Copyright?

Dear Rich: I am trying to get permission to reprint a letter in a forthcoming book that will be a collection of letters. One letter has previously been published in a "Selected letters of ..." book. The copyright page lists the editor as the copyright holder. I learned that he has recently died so I approached the publisher who took a while to reply. I contacted the estate of the letter writer and they quickly granted permission. Now the publisher has replied and claimed they hold the copyright and have requested a much higher fee. Any advice on how I should proceed with this? 
We see you have a UK email address. US and UK copyright laws are similar in many (but not all) ways. Under US law, the letter writer holds the copyright (and the rule is the same in the UK). So, unless the letter writer (or estate) assigned the copyright to the editor or publisher, they (editor/publisher) don't control copyright. Our guess is that the editor/publisher acquired a compilation copyright that gives them the right to prevent someone from compiling a similar collection. If that's the case, you don't need their authorization to use the letter. One way to force the issue is to write to the publisher and ask to see proof of ownership -- a document transferring rights from the letter writer to the publisher. If they balk, it's likely they are mistaken about the rights.

Someone Stole My Scrambled Paragraphs!

Dear Rich: I spent several weeks preparing a free, non-commercial educational blog for middle school students in NY City with many "scrambled paragraphs." What I did was to take an original paragraph from a web page and I then scrambled it to turn it into an educational tool (often altering the text to make the paragraphs work). I also cited the source for each paragraph. The blog helps students practice 'scrambled paragraphs' for the SHSAT test. There was no free resource of such materials online so I created one. I estimate it took tens and tens of hours, altogether. Inexplicably, and out of the blue, last week a guy wrote to me and said, basically, to paraphrase: "My daughter has benefitted from your paragraphs, so I decided to take all of them from your site and create my own website using them. My site is better." Most of the paragraphs that are on his site are mine. He later seems to have thrown other paragraphs (of dubious quality) on his site. So basically, this site will hurt kids more than help them. His argument is that *I* have stolen the paragraphs and he now has the right to steal them. I felt my use constituted fair usage because 1) I am not making a penny from this, 2) The authors are not losing a penny (I am actively promoting their sites), and 3) I 'transformed' the original material into something socially useful. Can you please give me feedback? This is an unfortunate situation and one for which we don't see any reasonable resolution. In the dream world in which we sometimes live (and envision world peace and an end to global warming), we wish that the two of you could have collaborated using his programming skills and your talent for scrambling and both shared the rewards. But that's not going to happen so here is the scorecard.
Thin copyright. We knows it's aggravating to see your work pilfered but unfortunately, a court is likely to determine that you have a compilation copyright (a thin copyright) in the order of the sentences, not the content. And even though it took a lot of work, copyright doesn't protect what's called "sweat of the brow." So your copyright claim is not strong, and your adversary's attorney would make the most of it. Attributing the paragraphs doesn't help your claim to copyright ownership and neither does the fact that you're not profiting and it's for educational purposes (though that might help you in a fair use defense in the unlikely event any of your sources chase you). The end result of your hypothetical court case is that lawyers would do well while their clients went broke. We sense that your adversary knows you won't sue and is brazenly ripping you off because ... well, because that's what people do these days (maybe he should watch this).
What can you do? If you're looking for a stronger basis to bring someone into court, you could consider making people join your site before using it. As part of "joining," they must click to agree to your user agreement which should state that no portion of the site may be copied. A breach of this agreement would prove easier to enforce, (should you choose to go to court) than the wishy-washy law of copyright.

Can We Republish Sports Statistics?

Dear Rich: We are frequently publishing sports books about notable persons or events in sports history. As a matter of fact, sports has - almost always - to do with statistics and results. I was very astonished to read on some websites that it is not quite clear if sports statistics are really public domain and that especially the pros like MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL are very keen on protecting what they think of could be THEIR stats and records. I would be thinking that stats are facts and can not be copyrighted at all? Yes, individual sports statistics are facts and as the Supreme Court has indicated, "No one may claim originality as to facts." (The Copyright Office seconds that emotion.) In a 1997 case, the NBA went after a paging service that borrowed a live feed from a basketball game. A court of appeals ruled that sports stats couldn't be protected -- for example, no one can claim rights to the name of the teams playing, changes in score, team in possession of the ball, whether the team was in free-throw bonus, the quarter of the game, and the remaining time in the quarter. Despite that ruling, other leagues such as the NFL, PGA, and MLB have unsuccessfully gone after fantasy sports leagues or other users who have ported their stats.
You're unlikely to run into problems because ...  Keep in mind that many of these legal battles deal with more than stats -- for example, some of these cases also dealt with a company's right to use a sports star's name or likeness. And, also, these sports franchises tend to flex their muscles in cases where they have big targets such as Motorola or Yahoo! Aside from the exceptions cited below, we think you can freely use sports statistics in your books.
When could it be an issue? You could run into problems if you seek to lift a complete database of information -- for example, you copy a 10,000 entry database entitled "A statistical analysis of home runs scored when a right handed pitcher faces a left-handed batter." That's because a collection of facts can sometimes be protected under copyright as a compilation (if selected and organized with some creativity). In addition, databases are also sometimes protected under license agreements. So, for example, if you're at a league website and you click on a "I Agree" button under which you promise not to copy data, you may be bound by that agreement despite the fact that copyright doesn't protect the underlying data.

Can Yoga Moves Be Copyrighted?

Dear Rich: I've been following the Bikram Yoga stories and it's still not clear to me. Can I practice Bikram Yoga techniques at my studio or will I get sued by the Bikram people? The jury is still out on the case you're discussing in which Bikram founder Bikram Choudhury sued a former Bikram practitioner who started a competing "hot yoga" school (Yoga To The People or "YTTP") for copyright and trademark infringement. We thought we answered a similar question a while back but we couldn't dig it up so we assume it was written in a parallel universe.
The copyright case(s).  Bikram and his competitors have been in and of courtrooms over the past ten years. One group of yoga practitioners sought relief after Bikram sent out a bunch of cease and desist letters in approximately 2002 and 2003. That battle ended in a settlement in 2005 but not before a court weighed in on a few important issues. The court determined that: individual yoga moves could not be protected; a compilation of moves might be protected if sufficient originality could be demonstrated; even if a copyright were granted for a collection of moves, it would be a "thin copyright" and would likely be limited to performing the moves in the exact sequence; and the performance of yoga moves did not necessarily amount to their publication. As for the use of heat as part of the sequence -- and who wouldn't want to be in a yoga room packed with half-naked sweaty people -- no protection can be granted for this "concept." In September of this year, Bikram started up again, this time going after YTTP for copyright and trademark infringement. Bikram has received several copyrights for books and other compilations. However, the Copyright Office announced last week that yoga moves are not eligible for copyright protection. Bikram's lawyers discounted that decision as meaningless because Bikram's copyright has already issued and is presumed valid. It's true that there is a presumption of validity associated with a copyright registration but it's a rebuttable presumption and courts periodically eighty-six registrations when the situation calls for it. This may prove to be one of those situations.
Can you use the trademark? Probably, the strongest claim that Bikram can make is for trademark rights -- specifically as to the use of the name, Bikram Yoga. Bikram hasn't made the mistake of Pilates and permitted the unlicensed use of his name. So, if he can demonstrate that the Bikram marks (and we're not sure what is claimed beyond the name)  have been used, he may be able to succeed on trademark infringement claims.
Can it be patented? We don't think a collection of yoga moves is patentable, an opinion shared by other patent practitioners and by the patent office, although it is possible to obtain patents on yoga products, like the yoga gloves and shoes, shown above). (And of course let's not make the sad journalistic mistake of confusing copyrights and patents.)
Bottom Line Dept. If we were a betting blog, we would bet that Bikram will fail in his current copyright case though we doubt if that will deter the celebrity attraction that is associated with his "brand." The takeaway point, however, is that, until stopped by a published court ruling, the company is likely to continue to aggressively "protect" its turf.