At the Nov. 14 USC Annenberg Research Seminar, Jason Mazzone, Gerald Baylin Professor at the Brooklyn Law School, explained the way in which content producers and providers frequently abuse intellectual property rights. Mazzone addressed key topics from his recently published book, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law. His presentation covered examples of "copyfraud," the factors that allow it to occur, and the economic and creative costs of overreaching. As defined by Mazzone, overreaching is when a private party crosses the boundaries of intellectual property law. When content producers claim rights of a property that is actually in the public domain, they are committing copyfraud. Mazzone said that the most common instances of overreaching are:
- When content providers make false claims to intellectual property and assert ownership without any legal basis for the property.
- When a copyright remains enforced even after it has expired.
- When people who do posses a copyright misrepresent the nature or exaggerate the scope of their rights
Mazzone gave examples of instances of overreaching, including when Richard Branson, founder of The Virgin Group, tried to sue people for using the word "Virgin" or when Mattel tried to sue for the use of photos of Barbie in a blender. Mazzone explained that copyfraud occurs due to ambiguity. Although Congress has defended the rights of of copyright owners, user rights have been left undefined. Also, the punishment for copyfraud is unclear, whereas copyright infringement results in a substantial fine and potential jail time. Mazzone said that content providers "take advantage of the fact that the difference between private and public access is not available to the public. They convince people that they have more protection than [the users] do." Mazzone said that even the Fair Use Law, which is meant to protect users, fails to clearly define the boundaries of public rights to private intellectual property. "Copyright owners exploit the ambiguity of the Fair Use Law," said Mazzone. Overreaching imposes economic costs on both consumers and producers of creative content because it influences people to pay for things which are legally free, said Mazzone. "There is no symbol designating stuff in the public domain but there is the copyright 'C.' There is no federal agency that protects the public domain," he said. "This creates an irresistible urge for content providers to claim ownership and attach a copyright notice to every kind of work whether its copyrighted or not," he said.
