The Traklight Blog

The current era of content has proven difficult to navigate for many of the creators that take advantage of the platform that social media offers to all to make their voices heard, particularly for those working in the areas of education or critique. There has always existed a tension between artists and studios and those who base their own work off of the work of others, but there has never before been the means for such an escalation of the conflict between the two parties as exists now.

The latest tool in the fight against IP infringement is technology, but it remains to be seen how effective those tools might be in that fight. Technology can be easy and efficient, but it can fail the test when it comes to things like judgement and intuition that humans (ideally) can do better. Machines looking at certain markers or data points aren't going to be able to render the same verdict on a photo or video as someone who can literally look at the entire picture, and understand context and nuance.

Where would we be without the suite of tools provided us by Adobe? This isn't an endorsement so much as an acknowledgement that the software they distribute plays a significant role in much of what we see and hear on the internet. Beyond the many professional applications of its editing and creative tools, we wouldn't have so many of the memes that we now enjoy without Photoshop, and what is the internet without memes?

Fighting piracy has proven to be one of the greatest challenges facing content creators in this century, and has proven troublesome ever since there existed the means to replicate the work of others. Creators lose billions collectively to piracy and theft, as too many others are all too willing to perpetrate a seemingly victimless crime. For many of the victims, legal action is the only means of redress against the injury done to them; given how hard it is to stamp out piracy once a work is disseminated online, even that can seem like an ineffectual tool against an overwhelming problem.

Intellectual property concerns and copyright law are big, important matters; we've preached that message in this space for years. Despite our messaging, that importance is often up to the interpretation of the reader; is it on par with getting insurance, or securing funding for your company? (Both important, by the way.) In many cases, it seems as though concerns over IP don't often rise to the level that they should, as potential issues to grind any company to a halt.

You can read the first part here.

In the long tradition of youthful cultural crazes, Fortnite is the latest entry in a pantheon of things that, like sounds at a particularly high frequency, are lost on those over a certain age. For those as yet unaware, Fortnite is an online mulitplayer battle-royale game that is currently consuming the free hours of young people he world over. In addition to being all-consuming for kids, it's highly profitable for its creator, Epic Games, who reportedly brought in $3 billion in profit last year.

The new year is an opportunity for a fresh start in our personal and professional lives. But many still fail to tackle the intellectual property issues that their business could potentially have to deal with, resolutions or not. While you should be managing your IP from its inception, it's better to start late than never; here are some tips on identifying and protecting your IP for 2019.

Dig hard enough, and you can find curious cases of copyright dispute around the world pertaining to things that you might never have guessed would be subject to a copyright claim. It seems that if there's a product or creation or invention worth protecting, people will take whatever steps necessary to try and protect it, even as it launches us into new and unexplored avenues of intellectual property that would seem more at place on the Food Network than in a courtroom.

The advance of technology brings new problems that we are forced to grapple with. We're confronted with problems that we're ill-equipped to handle, because our society is forever trying to catch up to the last issue that upended some part of how we live or work or entertain ourselves.

Starting a business is a complicated process, and with any difficult and time-consuming effort, it is inevitable that a mistake or oversight can happen despite the best intentions. The long hours can leave you frazzled, and there simply aren't enough hours in the day to attend to every detail that you'd like.

Companies get big by protecting their intellectual property (among other things), but what happens when they become huge? It can be hard to manage a massive international concern as it is, and trying to fend off a multitude of instances of infringement while handling all of the other daily corporate concerns can be like trying to play whack-a-mole while juggling. It's important to protect your brand and send a message to other scofflaws, but can it prove to be a case of exerting more resources than you're losing when weighing the cost of continued legal action?

It's not hyperbole to say that the future of commerce and industry depends heavily on creativity. New products, methods and techniques allow businesses to adapt to a world that is ever changing, and the creative arts are what sustain and define us as a culture. We need creativity more than ever to face new challenges; at the same time that the safeguards for creative work are under greater strain to try and adapt to past changes in order to provide the necessary protections that make the act of creation a worthwhile enterprise for those with the requisite ambition.

There is a fine line as it relates to passion and nostalgia when it comes to properties owned by big corporations. Fan efforts to pay tribute and keep alive the things they love are fine, and probably even appreciated by those companies, until there is the loss of potential revenue involved. While big brands vary on how aggressive they are in pursuing legal action against what might be well-meaning enthusiasts, they tend to be very litigious when it comes to concerted efforts at what they see as exploitation of their intellectual property.

There is much made over automated programs that look to protect copyright online. They can be overly aggressive in what they consider to be infringement, and often lack the understanding and nuance of human arbiters when it comes to determinations between actual infringement and fair use and determining the original creators of work. This lack of actual cognition and comprehension can lead to cases of unfounded takedown requests or permitted infringement that escapes the notice of the programs designed to prevent that very problem.

The internet has changed so much about how we live so quickly, and now the organizations and bodies that govern our lives are scrambling to reckon with and control those changes. Privacy and ownership rights have faced perhaps some of the biggest challenges in an era where both so much content and personal information is spread widely and quickly. And the policies that governments put in place to try and combat those issues could change how millions experience the internet.

The strength of our existing intellectual property system is the ability of any creator to protect their work through filings with the government. Not every artist or inventor has the resources of a large corporation to protect their work, so the accessibility and affordability of protection helps to level the playing field and allows independent creators to profit from their work without having to expend limited resources. But some proposed changes to the U.S. Copyright Office might make things more challenging for creators, and freelance photographers in particular.

The business of freelance work can be fraught with complications not otherwise experienced with employees, especially when intellectual property is involved. Contracts have to be specific about ownership of the work created once it is transferred from the creator to the contracting party. And use beyond what was originally agreed can complicate matters, as a recent long-running class-action lawsuit proved.

Television can be fertile ground for copyright lawsuits, given the amount of creative work that goes into producing a single episode of original programming, to say nothing of the hundreds of scripted programs that now exist across the largest number of channels and streaming platforms that have ever existed in the history of the medium. But not all lawsuits are the same, and not every case is an example of an entertainment company taking advantage of a creator (though those undoubtedly exist in substantial numbers.)

So many people have unique creative ideas, but a lot of those ideas never come to fruition. Part of that is due to the fleeting nature of inspiration, and people simply throwing out ideas without any serious thought to trying to make more of them. But a number of people are held up from capitalizing on their ideas because they don't know how to and don't understand what rights they may or may not hold to any idea or work. Too many people fail to bring these terrific ideas to fruition, and those who do are often at a loss as to how to combat having their work misappropriated by others. Understanding the basics of intellectual property protection is the foundation for artists and creators to receive the credit and compensation they are owed.