Tag: Copyright Alliance

Categories
Copyright Legislation

Just What Is the Case with the CASE Act? A Brief Overview

The following post comes from Ryan Reynolds, a 3L at Scalia Law and Research Assistant at CPIP.

chrome copyright symbolBy Ryan Reynolds

The phrase “creators have rights, but no remedies” is likely familiar to those aware of the current landscape of copyright protection for individual creators and small businesses (“Creators”). While the Copyright Act of 1976 grants a bundle of rights to Creators for the protection of their works, for years Creators have faced an uphill battle enforcing those rights against infringers. There are many who are optimistic, however, that things might soon change with the passage of “The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020” (CASE Act).

Signed into law as part of H.R. 133, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, [for Fiscal Year] 2021 (“CAA”), the CASE Act creates a Copyright Claims Board (“CCB”) within the Copyright Office to handle small copyright claims (small only in the sense of their relatively modest economic value). As there is some time before the CCB comes into operation, the earliest being December 21, 2021, and the latest June 2022, now is a good time to provide an overview of just what the CASE Act does. Before venturing fully into the mechanics of the CASE Act, however, it is important to first highlight why its supporters felt it was needed.

Why Is It Needed?

Copyright cases are almost exclusively an area of federal jurisdiction, meaning that copyright infringement cases must be brought in a federal rather than state court; however, litigating a copyright infringement case in federal court is anything but easy. First, the average cost of litigating a copyright infringement claim has been estimated at $397,000—a cost that often greatly outweighs any potential recovery for Creators’ works. It is for this reason that many attorneys are simply unwilling to take Creators’ copyright infringement cases, leaving many Creators feeling disenfranchised.

Second, the complexity of the federal court system is often overwhelming for Creators. As stated in the Copyright Office’s 2013 Copyright Small Claims report, “Small copyright owners, who frequently lack experience with federal courts, often find federal litigation too difficult . . . and may be unable to navigate ‘the often complex procedural rules that govern federal litigation . . . .’” As highlighted in the report, even the Copyright Act’s registration requirement—the gateway requirement to launch a copyright infringement claim—can be problematic for Creators. It requires that a copyright owner successfully register, or receive a rejection of registration, from the Copyright Office before launching an infringement claim. Moreover, for a Creator to qualify for statutory damages and attorney’s fees, the Copyright Act requires the registration of the work within three months of its publication, or if unpublished, before the act of infringement. The failure to register within the required time is critical, as without the potential recovery of statutory damages (which can range up to $150,000 per work infringed), a Creator’s recovery would not likely overcome the legal fees incurred litigating the case.

As stated in the report, the result of this cost and complexity is that “federal court is effectively inaccessible to copyright owners seeking redress for claims of relatively low economic value, especially individual creators who are of limited resources.” Enter the CASE Act, which aims to create a less expensive and less procedurally complex alternative to the current system by creating the CCB within the Copyright Office. But how will the CCB operate?

How Will It Operate?

When the CCB becomes operational, a party will have the choice of commencing a copyright infringement proceeding in either federal court or the CCB. In contrast to federal court, and as will be discussed in more detail later, proceedings in the CCB are completely voluntary. Another way in which the CCB differs from federal court is in its authority over copyright infringement claims only where the total damages sought do not exceed $30,000. As to the CCB’s structure, it will be composed of three full-time Copyright Claims Officers. Each of the Officers must have seven years of legal experience; two of them must also have extensive copyright adjudication experience, while one must have extensive alternative dispute resolution experience. The Librarian of Congress will appoint these Officers to staggered six-year terms, and they will be supported by at least two full-time Copyright Claims Attorneys with at least three years of experience.

To make the CCB more accessible to Creators, the CCB’s proceedings aim to be more streamlined and user friendly than federal courts. A proceeding before the CCB begins when the claimant files a claim to the CCB that includes the proper filing fee and a statement of the material facts. In contrast to federal court, the CASE Act only requires a completed application for registration of the claimant’s work(s), rather than a certificate of registration or refusal of registration by the Copyright Office to commence the claim. After the claim is approved for compliance with the law and applicable regulations by a Copyright Claims Attorney, the claimant has 90 days to complete service. After receiving service, the respondent then has 60 days to opt out of the proceeding before it becomes “active”; however, in the “interests of justice,” the CCB can extend this window another 60 days.

The user-friendly goal of the CCB is best exhibited by the Act’s requirement that the proceedings take place solely “by means of written submissions, hearings, and conferences carried out through internet-based applications.” The only exception to this convenience is when there is “material” “physical or other nontestimonial evidence” that otherwise the CCB cannot review. Further, proceedings before the CCB will be more informal than in federal court. There is no requirement for representation by an attorney, there is limited discovery, and the formal rules of evidence do not apply. If the parties do not settle, at the close of the proceeding the CCB must make factual findings based on the preponderance of the evidence and issue a publicly available written determination.

With regard to remedies, the CCB has the authority to award either actual damages, and the respondent’s profits, or statutory damages. If the CCB awards statutory damages, it “may not make any finding that, or consider whether, the infringement was committed willfully,” and if timely registration has been made with the Copyright Office, the CCB can award up to $15,000 for each work infringed, though this is subject to a $30,000 maximum. In an important shift from existing law, however, even if the work was not timely registered, the CCB may still award up to $7,500 for each work infringed to a maximum total of $15,000 in a single proceeding.

Within 30 days of the issuance of the final determination of the CCB, a party can request reconsideration by the CCB. After giving the other parties an opportunity to respond, the CCB may either deny the request or amend the determination. If the CCB denies the request for reconsideration, a party then has 30 days to request the Register of Copyrights to review the CCB’s determination. After giving the other parties time to respond, the Register may deny or remand the proceeding to the CCB for reconsideration. Finally, within 90 days of the final determination, or the post-determination reconsideration, a party can appeal to a U.S. District Court. It is also in federal district court where a party can seek enforcement of the CCB’s determination if the other parties to the matter refuse to abide by its determination. For a visual representation of this process, the Copyright Alliance has put together an informative flowchart.

The CASE Act requires that three years after the CCB becomes operational the Register of Copyrights make assessment of its effectiveness. While whether the CASE Act will create the change hoped for by its supporters is yet to be seen, in my view, the attention given to address the challenges to Creators is critically important.

Categories
Copyright

CPIP’s Sandra Aistars and Scalia Law Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic Co-Host Virtual Copyright Event on Arts and the Pandemic

The following post comes from Chris Wolfsen, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

flyer for Arts and the Pandemic eventBy Chris Wolfsen

On October 27, 2020, CPIP Director of Copyright Research and Policy Sandra Aistars and students from her Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic at Scalia Law School co-hosted a virtual event with Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts (WALA) and the Copyright Alliance. This virtual copyright clinic, focused on Arts and the Pandemic, provided information to artists wishing to protect their works as well as educators incorporating creative works into distance learning and museums wishing to make work available during the pandemic.

The event kicked off with a testimonial from the Rock Creek King’s Evan Moses, explaining WALA’s assistance in pairing the band with an attorney who advised them in securing the proper permits and asserting their First Amendment rights to perform outdoors during the COVID-19 quarantine for the Save Our Stages Movement. The band continues to raise awareness of the need for legislation to support local music venues during COVID-19 shutdowns. The Rock Creek Kings are calling on both the D.C. City Council and the U.S. Congress to assist these small businesses until they can reopen safely again.

Professor Aistars then turned the event over so her clinic students could answer questions submitted by attendees, with former clinic student, now adjunct professor, Dr. Stephanie Semler moderating. First was an explanation from David Ward on how artists can copyright their artwork. He explained that artists have a copyright as soon as their work is fixed in a tangible medium, but that registering that copyright with the United States Copyright Office will benefit artists. This registration will allow people seeking to license works to find artists and for artists to recover statutory damages in the case of a successful infringement claim. David explained that there are six categories of protectable works and shared a quick walkthrough of the process on https://copyright.gov/.

Bernard Horowitz then fielded a question on the minds of many artists: should I sign a COVID waiver in the studio or for the live event I participate in? Bernard explained that this question is a moving target—COVID waivers have not yet been litigated and Congress has not acted on the matter. He noted that we can look to current personal injury laws to draw conclusions about what may happen with this type of waiver and went on to explain the sharp distinction between the laws in Maryland and D.C. compared to those in Virginia.

Another topic that has been brought to the forefront during the pandemic is collaboration between artists and teachers. Yumi Oda walked attendees through the concept of fair use—a defense to copyright infringement—explaining that teachers using creative works during a live stream of their lesson can take certain measures to improve the likelihood that they will have a good argument that their use of a work in a classroom setting is a fair use. She explained that fair use is a fact-specific inquiry, but that educational use in a classroom setting is a classic example. Yumi also recommended teachers take additional steps such as protecting the lectures, and the creative works within them, with a password and removing student access at the end of the semester.

In a similar vein, Emily Gunberg discussed how museums are adapting to life in a pandemic. Curators have to consider whether they have the right to display a visual work online, which requires making a reproduction. This is a right that does not automatically attach when a museum acquires the physical work for display within the museum building. Emily noted that some types of online postings are usually acceptable, such as thumbnail images due to their lower resolution and limited use. For general availability to the public, such as a feature in a museum’s virtual tour, curators should revisit licensing agreements to ensure they have permission from rights owners.

Heather Uzer was given a more holistic and open-ended question: is the pandemic a catalyst for reform, or a death knell for independent creators? She emphasized that it is within our capacity to use this moment as an opportunity and as a catalyst for change. Artists’ right to protect their works still remain and there are many resources available to help with that protection. WALA, the Copyright Alliance, and many others are committed to protecting independent creators. David Ward also noted that several legislative efforts have gained attention, and that some record labels are holding special days to acknowledge creator efforts and supplement revenue for broadcasting artists by returning all revenues to performing artists on those days.

The event concluded with a performance by the Rock Creek Kings, live, but socially distanced from Crescendo Studios in Falls Church, Virginia. You can watch the video of their performance here on YouTube. One of the owners of Crescendo Studios, Eddie Fuentes, spoke about the importance of art and music in a time where we cannot be physically connected, and Evan, the lead singer of the band, reinforced the message during the performance This has been a year where people have missed weddings, graduations, funerals, and birthdays. Our communities rely on creators now more than ever to bring us together through shared experiences when we are six feet, or even oceans, apart.

Categories
Copyright

Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic Students File Amicus Brief in Brammer v. Violent Hues

a gavel lying on a desk in front of booksBy Rachelle Mortimer & Grant Ossler*

The Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic at Antonin Scalia Law School recently filed an amicus brief in the Brammer v. Violent Hues case that is on appeal in the Fourth Circuit. The Clinic provides a unique opportunity for students interested in intellectual property and entertainment law. Each semester, students participating in the Clinic are able to gain practical experience working with clients and industry professionals on various projects related to copyright law and policy.

One organization that the Clinic often works with is Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts (WALA), which helps to provide legal services for local artists through volunteer attorneys who take on cases pro bono or at a reduced rate. By working with WALA to hold legal intake Clinics and take on pro bono cases, Clinic students are able to understand how copyright law affects individual artists. It is this understanding that led the Clinic to file the amicus brief in order to protect the rights of artists and prevent a dangerous expansion of the fair use defense to infringement.

Working with local attorneys from Protorae Law, students from the Clinic drafted portions of the amicus brief to explain how the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia eviscerated the meaning and analysis of fair use under the Copyright Act.

Case Background

In 2016, the owner of defendant Violent Hues found a photograph online, copied it, cropped it, and posted it on a website that his organization created for its annual film festival. The photo in question was first posted to the photographer’s personal website, as well as to several online image-sharing websites. Violent Hues created the website to guide festival goers and provide information about the local area for filmmakers and festival attendees.

The owner of Violent Hues claimed he did not see a copyright notice on the photo when he used it, believing the photo was “a publicly available photograph.” Plaintiff Russell Brammer sent a demand letter, and upon receipt of the letter, Violent Hues removed the photo from its website. Brammer brought suit against Violent Hues claiming two causes of action: (1) copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), and (2) removal and alteration of copyright management information under 17 U.S.C. § 1202.

District Court Decision

Brammer did not respond to arguments regarding count two, therefore the district court considered that claim abandoned. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Violent Hues on count one, deeming the use of the photo was fair use per the Copyright Act. Fair use is codified in the Copyright Act and guides us through four factors of consideration when conducting an analysis to determine whether a use is a fair use. These factors are:

(1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature …; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

17 U.S.C.§ 107.

Unfortunately, the district court eviscerated any meaning to fair use under copyright law. In its examination of purpose and character, the district court determined Violent Hues’ use was “transformative in function and purpose” because Violent Hues’ use of the photo was informational: “to provide festival attendees with information regarding the local area.” The district court distinguished this from Brammer’s use, which was “promotional and expressive.” Additionally, the district court determined the use was non-commercial because the photo was not used for advertising or to generate revenue. Regrettably, this is as far as the transformative analysis went.

In the district court’s analysis of the second factor, fair use weighed in favor of Violent Hues again because the photo was factual in nature and “fair use is more likely to be found in factual works than in fictional works.” The district court acknowledged that Brammer incorporated creative elements in his photo (e.g., lighting and shutter speed), but ultimately held that because it was a “factual depiction of a real-world location,” it was purely factual content. The district court determined this without regard to creativity, though. The photo itself is a time-lapse photo of the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

In examining the third factor of fair use, the district court determined that Violent Hues did not use any more of the photo than was necessary, and therefore this factor substantiality weighed in favor of Violent Hues. Keep in mind, though, that the photo in question was merely cropped.

Lastly, the district court concluded that because there was no evidence that Violent Hues’ use had any effect on the potential market for the photo, the fourth factor also weighed in favor of Violent Hues. To support its decision, the district court stated: “The Court’s task is to determine whether the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s works would materially impair the marketability of the works and whether it would act as a market substitute.” The district court arrived at this decision despite Brammer testifying he had been compensated for the photo six times—two times after Violent Hues’ infringement.

And thus, we have summary judgment for Violent Hues under a non-comprehensive fair use analysis.

Amicus Brief Summary and Commentary

The purpose of the Clinic’s amicus brief is to assist the court with regard to a proper, comprehensive fair use analysis, and to prevent the possible harm that an overly broad interpretation of the fair use defense could bring.

In examining the first factor of fair use, “purpose and character”, the district court unfortunately dedicated approximately two sentences to the analysis of why Violent Hues’ use was transformative in “function and purpose.” The district court simply stated that because the use was “informational,” and not “expressive” like Brammer’s use, the use was thus transformative. The proper examination requires looking at whether the new use adds something new “with a further purpose or different character.” As Judge Leval stated in his seminal article, Toward a Fair Use Standard, a different purpose or character, constituting a transformative use, is one that “alter[s] the first with new expression, meaning, or message,” and “employs the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original, thus transforming it.”

The district court failed to understand that Violent Hues’ use merely superseded Brammer’s. Violent Hues cropped the top and bottom of Brammer’s photo then posted it to its website with the purpose of showing the Adams Morgan neighborhood. A “wholesale taking” of the heart of the work, without adding additional value or meaning, is not transformative. The erroneous conclusion reached on this first factor destroys any meaning to transformative use and effectively erodes the exclusive rights held by copyright owners. To further illustrate this point, if the district court’s analysis is upheld, an author who writes a book regarding his life as president and his controversial pardon of a former political figure would have no recourse against a film producer who takes the author’s content verbatim and makes it into a movie. Why? Because the book is merely “informational,” while the film is “expressive” and thus transformative in function and purpose.

The district court’s opinion also addressed the role of “good faith” in a fair use defense and concluded that Violent Hues had acted in good faith when it found Brammer’s photo online because a copyright notice was not attached. This is not the law. Copyright protection under U.S. law is automatic from the moment of creation and notice need not be affixed to the published work for that protection to adhere. The good faith of alleged infringers is not frequently considered in fair use cases because “good faith” is not a statutory factor in the fair use analysis, and this has led to a lack of clear precedent on this point.

We proposed in our brief that if an alleged infringer acts in good faith, the court should neither weigh this factor for or against a finding of fair use. However, if an alleged infringer is shown to have acted in bad faith, using an artist’s work with the purpose of usurping the exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106, it should be weighed against a finding of fair use. Good faith should not weigh in favor of fair use because the purpose of the fair use defense is to protect First Amendment rights and allow limited uses of copyrighted works. On the other hand, bad faith should be weighed against a finding of fair use because trying to usurp an artist’s rights or using a work without paying for it does not align with the important purposes of the fair use defense.

Violent Hues did not act in good faith, but it also did not act in bad faith. Thus, the good faith factor should not have been considered at all in this case. A copyright notice is not required for a photograph to be protected. If the court allows Violent Hues’ lack of education on copyright law to be considered good faith, this would encourage internet users to remain ignorant of copyright law and infringe upon works more frequently. For these reasons, we asked the Fourth Circuit to clarify the role of the good faith factor in a fair use analysis.

The other factor our amicus brief addressed was the second factor of the fair use analysis. Digging into this factor, we asked that the court to clarify the analytical framework for evaluating the nature of the copyrighted work. In clarifying this framework, parties and other courts will be better able to determine when factual elements of copyrighted works are outweighed by the creative elements of such works. Brammer’s photo, specifically, is an appropriate vehicle for this since it combines creative and factual elements. Our brief articulates that a court can borrow from more familiar concepts of trademark’s nominative fair use and the defense of necessity to the tort of trespass on real property (noting that the prevailing theory of copyright is a property). Such theories provide for a defense on the basis of “necessity.”

In this analysis of necessity, one would believe that content in the factual lexicon would lean strongly toward a finding of fair use for the alleged infringer. However, where the use of the copyrighted work is not necessary to convey the same factual content, the motivation behind copyright law should be preserved—rewarding and protecting creativity. Brammer’s photo was a time-lapse photo of the Adams Morgan neighborhood; it was creative and depicted a factual setting. However, the mere fact that an original, creative work is factual does not imply that others may freely copy it.

The district court improperly analyzed this second factor in light of Violent Hues’ use of the photo, and not the intended use of the content creator, giving greater weight to the fact that the photo depicted a real-world location. We argued that this analysis “sanctions abuse of the fair use defense to appropriate copyrighted material so long as the user can claim that a factual element within the whole was the reason for their unauthorized appropriation.” The appropriate analysis centers on the concept of protecting creative elements while simultaneously not limiting the public’s use of facts. In the case at hand, Violent Hues’ use of Brammer’s photo to convey factual information about Adams Morgan was unnecessary because to convey the same message, and arguably in a more factual manner, Violent Hues could have driven to Adams Morgan to take its own snapshot of the neighborhood.

Finally, the district court’s determination that prior publication weighs in favor of a fair use is erroneous. As Patry on Fair Use provides: “The fact that a work is published does not mean that the scope of fair use is broader.” To state that publishing a copyrighted work broadens the scope of fair use renders the exclusive rights afforded to copyright owners null. Such a holding undermines the “special reward” of copyright protection and discourages creation of works—in stark contrast to the affirmative statements on copyright in the U.S. Constitution. Publication should be viewed as neutral until it can be considered under the fourth factor of the fair use analysis, wherein a court examines the impact of the alleged infringing use on the market for the copyrighted work. The district court’s simplistic approach to its analysis allows for parties to undermine the core purposes of copyright protection and, again, eviscerates a proper fair use analysis.

It is our hope that our amicus brief will help guide the Fourth Circuit as it assesses the extent of the fair use doctrine in the digital age. We are especially thankful to Antigone Peyton and David Johnson of Protorae Law, Terrica Carrington of the Copyright Alliance, and Professor Sandra Aistars of the Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic for the opportunity to work on this important issue. To read our amicus brief, please click here.

*Rachelle Mortimer and Grant Ossler are students at Antonin Scalia Law School, where they study under Professor Sandra Aistars in the Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic.

Categories
Copyright Infringement Internet Uncategorized

Advertiser Pledge Sets Example of Accountability in the Fight Against Piracy

Cross-posted from the Mister Copyright blog.

cameraIt should come as no surprise that popular websites make money by hosting advertisements. Anyone surfing the web has undoubtedly been bombarded with ads when visiting certain sites, and for websites that offer free services or user experiences, advertisements are often the only way to generate revenue. Unfortunately, websites that promote and distribute pirated material also attract advertisers to help fund their illicit enterprises, and despite a recent push for awareness and response to these sites, legitimate advertisers, search engines, and domain name registrars continue to enable them to profit from flagrant copyright infringement.

A 2014 study by the Digital Citizens Alliance found that ad-sponsored content theft is a big and growing business. Even after a year that saw the shutdown of some of the most notorious file-sharing websites, an examination of 589 illicit websites found aggregate annual advertising revenues of $209 million. Premium brand advertising also rose from 89 observed brands in 2013 to 132 to in 2014.

The transition from downloading to streaming as the preferred method of consuming entertainment has led to content thieves taking advantage of higher advertising rates, as the cost of advertising during a video stream is far greater than a traditional display ad. Additionally, the Digital Citizens Alliance stresses that websites are easily able to ditch a domain name targeted by authorities and set up shop under a new one, contributing to the never-ending whack-a-mole nature of online piracy:

The content theft industry’s low barriers to entry and the ability of operators to switch domains quickly make it easy for new sites to fill the void left by those that do get shut down, and to evade enforcement.

The presence of recognizable brand advertisements on websites involved in illegal activity does damage far beyond lining the pockets of those distributing the unauthorized works. When users visit a website in search of music, a television show, or movie, and they see the creative work (or links to the work) displayed alongside professional, recognizable advertisements, the advertisements lend legitimacy to the website. This can be especially dangerous for younger or less-informed users who have no idea that downloading or streaming the creative works through one of these websites is copyright infringement that will ultimately harm creators and artists.

The confusion these ad placements create is similar to the misperceptions furthered by search engines and domain name registrars that have made little effort to preclude pirate websites from taking advantage of their services. Despite promises to remove them from their search results, Google continues to display links to pirate websites alongside legitimate links in its results, often displaying the illicit links at the very top of the search results.

Filmmaker and artists’ rights activist Ellen Seidler recently exposed Google’s unwillingness to remove links to websites that distribute unauthorized creative works when she ran a simple Google search for her film And Then Came Lola. As she relates, not only was the film’s official website nowhere to be found among the first page of results, the list was made up of many websites offering pirated versions of the film. Sadly, most people searching for Ellen’s movie would not be able to immediately distinguish between legitimate and illicit links and would likely be steered towards a pirate website.

Domain name registrars have also added to the confusion surrounding the legitimacy of certain infamous pirate sites by allowing them to play domain name musical chairs and evade prosecution. The Pirate Bay—one of the most notorious file-sharing websites—has operated using domain names from 14 different countries, jumping from domain to domain name to stay online in the face of prosecution. Copyright Alliance CEO Keith Kupferschmid warns against providing sanctuary to sites like The Pirate Bay, revealing that the website recently returned to its original .org domain run by the U.S.-based Public Interest Registry (PIR):

It is shocking that a domain name registry in the United States – one that is dedicated to “the public interest” – is allowing a blatantly illegal site to have a home on the .org domain. This is especially disturbing given that the operators of The Pirate Bay have been found guilty of criminal copyright infringement, The Pirate Bay domain names have been seized or suspended around the globe, and even its co-founder, Peter Sunde, has walked away from it.

Despite these alarming trends in the facilitation of pirate websites, there have been some recent initiatives to deter companies from doing business with illicit websites. One notable initiative is the Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG). A joint effort by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s), and the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), TAG was formed “to create transparency in the business relationships and transactions that undergird the digital ad industry, while continuing to enable innovation.” In 2015, TAG announced the launch of the Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy—an effort to help advertisers and advertising agencies keep their ads off websites that promote or distribute counterfeit goods or pirated content.

TAG’s mission has resonated with both advertisers and ISPs, demonstrated by a recent announcement that dozens of leading ad agencies, as well as Google and GoDaddy, have taken TAG’s Anti-Piracy Pledge. The Pledge includes a vow to curb the placement of digital advertising on websites associated with the unauthorized distribution of materials and lists the following actions that companies can take to ensure compliance:

(i) directly employing the services of validated Digital Advertising Assurance Providers;

(ii) directly employing advertising placement services that carry the TAG logo “Certified Against Piracy”; and/or

(iii) placing online advertisements through Advertising Agencies that do business exclusively with advertising placement services that carry the TAG logo “Certified Against Piracy

TAG created Digital Advertising Assurance Providers (DAAPs) as part of its Brand Integrity Program to help advertisers identify and weed out websites that do not meet their brand standards. The DAAPs are validated technology companies that the advertisers can employ to gauge the level of risk they are comfortable with and then eliminate websites and other properties that do not meet the advertisers’ standards for risk of infringement.

It’s difficult to measure how harmful advertising on illicit websites is to creators and copyright owners, but it’s not a stretch to presume that without ad revenue, many pirate sites would lose their incentive to operate. In her call to action to marketers, Hannibal executive producer Martha De Laurentiis lays out the destructive effect piracy has on the creative community:

It forces companies to either shrink their production budgets or commit to fewer, less risky projects. And ultimately, it harms audiences by limiting the types of stories that creatives can tell.

De Laurentiis explains that these pirate sites bring in millions in advertising dollars a year, and because they don’t pay for distribution rights for the creative works they steal, profit margins are estimated at around 90%. Potential profits of this scale are irresistible to those behind the pirate sites, but with a little vigilance and responsibility these incentives could be eliminated.

The co-chairs of the International Creativity and Theft-Prevention Caucus, Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, and Congressman Adam Schiff, recently praised TAG for its promotion of the Anti-Piracy Pledge, and it seems like the movement for more responsibility in digital advertising is gaining traction. But domain name registrars and search engine services need to follow the example set by advertisers and establish accountability and awareness in their sectors. Only when these services refuse to aid websites that distribute stolen copyrighted works will real progress be made in the fight against digital piracy.