If you have posted photos online and want to know where others might have used them – or if you want to use a photo you have found but are nervous about the poster’s claim that it is free for use, you can search images to see where they appear on the web.

That’s not to guarantee that the searches will be comprehensive, but the information could be valuable.

The photattorney blog mentions 2 ways to search.  One is to use tineye.  The other is to use Google Images.

See the post for more detail.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

Google+ is the latest social media tool. It will take some time before we know how it will fit in with twitter, facebook and linkedin. Opinions range from it being a nuisance as it is just another thing we need to follow, to being a superior tool that will supplant other social media. But for now its growth rate has been phenomenal – 20 million users in 24 days.

So I thought it would be interesting to look at what I would have learned so far this week from Google+ if that was my only source of information. These are just a small number of selections based on my following of a relatively small number of people (25 at the moment) and without looking at its “Sparks” topical news feeds.

• The Globe and Mail is running a series this week on facial recognition and privacy that is well worth looking at. (Including a live chat with David Fraser today at 1:00 Eastern)
• The privacy mess over cancer screening tests lost in the mail.
• Dress for the job we want.
• Universities opting out of Access Copyright.
• Research discovers sugar doesn’t melt, it decomposes - which is a big deal for food scientists.
• A Wall Street Journal article entitled “As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More are Ensnared” about the alarming increase in number and complexity of US federal laws that are resulting in people getting charged for innocuous things.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

The .XXX top level domain application period is underway. This has been a very controversial topic. The XXX domain is available for users in the “sponsored community”, being the “adult entertainment industry”.

One of the criticisms of this TLD is the fear that people will try to register domains using names or trade-marks of those outside of the sponsored community. disney.XXX, or apple.XXX for example.

So a procedure is in place called “Sunrise B” where for a short period of time (September 7 to October 28), trade-mark owners can apply to have their marks blocked from registration. The wrinkle is that it costs hundreds of dollars to do that. Sunrise B applications are now being accepted.

So if you want to block your brand so others can’t use it to get a XXX TLD – the time to act is now.

But doesn’t this seem like a protection racket?

For the London Free Press – July 18, 2011 – Read this on Canoe

The Canadian privacy commissioner, in her 2010 annual report to Parliament, commented on what she believes to be the future of privacy law in Canada.

Jennifer Stoddart mentions three things that need to happen for Canadians to secure a future that is private. They are enforcing privacy laws and ensuring they remain modern and relevant, increasing co-operation between privacy authorities and ensuring that privacy literacy matches our online literacy.

With respect to modern legislation, the privacy commissioner posed the following question: “laws designed for a bricks-and-mortar world up to the task of protecting privacy in the online context?”

The privacy commissioner views it as crucial to the future of Canadians that privacy laws are constantly updated to meet current and future challenges. The drafters of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents (PIPEDa) – which is the cornerstone of Canadian privacy law – created the legislation in a way that mandated a review of the act by Parliament every five years. The first review occurred in 2006. The next review is scheduled to begin in 2011.

Perhaps the most interesting recommendation arising from the report is not something from the commissioner herself, but rather from two legal scholars involved in the preparation of the latest PIPEDa review.

The scholars – Sossin, dean of Hall law school, and Prof. France Houle of the of Montreal – recommended the office of the privacy commissioner should acquire limited power to make orders, including the ability to impose penalties such as fines. They also proposed explicit guideline-making power to assist with the fair and transparent implementation of new order-making powers. This controversial suggestion would significantly increase the power and authority of the privacy commissioner and will no doubt be the subject of debate during the 2011 review.

The increased popularity of the commissioner over the years is remarkable.

The commissioner opened a second office in 2010 in Toronto. The office is targeted at the business, industrial and academic sector located in the GTa. The office of the privacy commissioner determined that almost 44.5% of respondent organizations were located in Toronto or in the GTA.

The privacy commissioner’s office received 200 requests to present speeches and attended and delivered 150 speeches and presentations in 2010. The commissioner also received more than 250 media requests; launched a blog, youth website and youth blog; sent out 700 tweets and attracted almost 2,000 followers on Twitter.

It is ironic to note the privacy commissioner uses various types of social media – such as Facebook and Twitter – to warn Canadians of the privacy dangers of using social media.

Even in the digital age, the paper publications of the privacy commissioner have remained quite popular. The office distributed almost 15,500 publications in 2010 – including pamphlets, guidance documents, fact sheets, guides for businesses and individuals and annual reports.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

Last week I mentioned a survey about the proposed UK 3 strikes law that concluded that it would not significantly deter filesharing behaviour. And added my views on why such laws are not a good idea.

Here’s a Reuters article that starts off by saying:

“U.S. Internet service providers, including Verizon Communications Inc, Comcast Corp, Time Warner Cable Inc, Cablevision Systems Corp and AT&T Inc agreed to alert customers, up to six times, when it appears their account is used for illegal downloading. Warnings will come as e-mails or pop-up messages.

If suspected illegal activity persists, the provider might temporarily slow Internet speed or redirect the browser to a specific Web page until the customer contacts the company. The user can seek an independent review of whether they acted legally.”

It is touted as an educational vehicle that will help reduce online copyright infringement.

In my view, that assumption is wrong. Consider all the efforts taken over the last several years to sue music filesharers – which clearly hasn’t had that effect. And consider that every time a lawsuit ends a filesharing site, others immediately pop up to fill the void.

3 strikes – or however many more you want to add – is not the answer.

People download music, movies and TV shows from various locations for many reasons. Fundamentally, I believe its because they want the content, and they want it when they want it. The solution is not to beat people up for wanting to consume your product. The solution is to make your content easy to get, timely, safe from malware, and inexpensive. In other words – find a way to get it to people when and how they want it.

OUT-LAW news, a publication of the Pinsent Masons law firm, reports that the European Patent Office has rejected the Amazon “one-click” patent application.   The subject is a one-click shopping cart to reduce the amount of input one has to make on subsequent orders.

The US courts narrowed the scope of Amazons’s original patent claims, but ultimately allowed the patent.  In Canada, the Federal court allowed the patent last fall – but is has been appealed.

I’m not a patent lawyer, so weighing in here with my thoughts might be dangerous, but IMHO, the European Patent Office has it right.

The brochure for the Canadian IT Law Association’s annual conference is out.   In my view this is consistently the best continuing education conference available for lawyers practicing IT/IP law. (And I’m not saying that just because I’m on a panel this year.)

The Fifteenth Annual Canadian Information Technology Law Association

It will be held in Toronto, ON, October 27-28, 2011.  For the full conference brochure including registration details, please visit the website at www.it-can.ca. If you have any questions about the program please contact Lisa Ptack, IT.CAN Executive Director at lisa.ptack@rogers.com.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

A survey by British ISP BE Broadband shows that if the three strikes proposal in the UK Digital Economy Act becomes law, it won’t significantly deter behaviour. Only 5% of those surveyed said they would reduce or stop using filesharing software. 47% said they would simply take steps to conceal their IP address.

This article at TorrentFreak.com talks about some of the concerns about three strikes laws, such as putting innocent users at risk, and a UN report that says such laws breach human rights.

Three-strikes laws are a controversial proposal to address download infringement concerns of creators and publishers of movies and music.

The concept is that if someone alleges an internet user is downloading copyrighted material, they can advise their ISP. The ISP then tells the customer to cease this illegal activity. If this happens three times, the ISP must turn off the customer’s internet access.

My view, and that of many others, is that such laws are draconian and should not exist. This link is to posts I have written about this topic before including links to others with similar thoughts, including a short video interview with author Cory Doctorow.

For the London Free Press -  July 4, 2011 – Read this on Canoe

You have designed the perfect logo for your business. Before investing more time and money in using and promoting your new logo, you want to make sure you have the right to use this trademark for a long time and you’re not infringing someone else’s existing trademark.

You start by doing a search of existing registered trademarks in the database of trademark registrations on the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) website.

The search doesn’t turn up any similar marks relating to the wares and services you provide, so you file a trademark application. A few months later a CIPO examiner approves your application. CIPO then publishes your application in the Trademarks Journal to allow the public an opportunity to oppose it.

Two months pass without a challenge to your application and the trademark is successfully registered.

You are now the first person to register that trademark in Canada for your wares and services. You now have exclusive Canada-wide rights to use this logo for the next 15 years. Or do you?

In a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, the registered trademarks of a retirement company in Ottawa were invalidated because of the likelihood of confusion with similar unregistered trademarks of a company in Calgary that had used them before the Ottawa company.

The Trademarks Act prohibits the registration of a trademark that is confusing with a trademark previously used in Canada, regardless of whether that trademark has been registered.

However, some people thought the test for confusion took into account the geographic region of the operations associated with the trademark. For example, if a Calgary-based retirement residence did not operate in Ontario, its trademarks would not be considered confusing with trademarks of a retirement residence in Ottawa.

The Supreme Court in Masterpiece v Alvida determined the Trademarks Act affords Canada-wide rights even if a trademark is only used locally.

The test is based on the assumption both trademarks under consideration are used in the same area. It was irrelevant the operations of the companies were in different provinces.

The companies had similar trademarks in the same industry, so the trademarks were deemed confusing. Since the unregistered trademark was used prior to registration and use of the registered mark, the registration was expunged.

This demonstrates importance of conducting searches for unregistered trademarks before filing a trademark application. It may be difficult to locate every potentially confusing unregistered trademark throughout Canada, but search services are available that perform reasonably comprehensive searches.

The case also demonstrates the usefulness of registering trademarks as early as possible. In this case, if the Calgary company had registered its marks when it first used them, it would have prevented the Ottawa company from registering its mark, thus avoiding a costly and time-consuming court battle.