Weibo vs Leica Camera AG: Social Networks and the loss of control over corporate brands

An advertising video titled “The Hunt” and aimed at promoting the “Leica experience” raised controversy in China because of a frame showing a lens that mirrors the Tank Man picture portraying the activist that in Tien An Men Square blocked a PRC Tank just refusing to give way.

As a result for what has been perceived as an infringement of the chinese social networking platfrom Weibo terms and conditions, the word “Leica” (both in English and Chinese) is banned from the platform.

Furthermore, the partnership between Leica and HwaWei to establish a Chinese presence of the German camera manufacturer seems to having being jeopardized, at least for now. Continue reading “Weibo vs Leica Camera AG: Social Networks and the loss of control over corporate brands”

The Battle of Copyright-Fishes

Contrary to the public opinion, copryight’s abuses don’t belong to “pirates” only.

Using the “weight” of his business size, singer Ariana Grande allowed photographers to participate to her show only if they surrender their copyright over the picture they shoot.

That’s rather interesting and disturbing because to criticize this decision, f the photography industry “shouted fire” claiming an infringement of the freedom of press.

But  the Arianagrandegate is about money, not freedom, and it is unfair – to say the least -to invoke free speech to protect a pure business interest.

So, it will be interesting to see how this will evolve: copyright fishes that peacefully swim in the same pond now discover that friends has become foes.

End everybody knows what happens when a smaller fish meets a bigger one.

 

A contribution to the analysis of the legal status of cryptocurrencies

Summary
This paper advocates that cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum don’t challenge the current legal system, since they fit comfortably enough into the immaterial asset legal definition. As such, while a blockchain-based cryptocurrency can’t be considered as legal tender or electronic money, it can be exchanged on a contractual basis as it happens with every other kind of good. Continue reading “A contribution to the analysis of the legal status of cryptocurrencies”

GDPR is a danger for (non)intellectual property

There is no such thing as  “right to access algorithms” under the GDPR .

Section 15 first paragraph letter h) GDPR only gives the right to obtain

meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject.

but this definition can hardly be considered as a synonym for algorithm, thus is just plain wrong to say that GDPR deals with mathematical methods.

As it should be well known even outside the circle of the Intellectual Property cognoscenti, within the EU algorithms have no legal protection (and this is rightly so, because you can neither copyright nor patent mathematics) so the only way an industry can take advantage of a specific mathematical method (i.e. an algorithm) is through secrecy.

Pushing the GDPR reach more far from what is written into the law means to force a company to withdraw from the only way to protect a company’s valuable assets.