On January 12th, 2023, the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC) filed comments with the assistance of TLPC concerning the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA). The comments are in response to the Colorado Attorney General’s Office’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and they strongly promote consumer autonomy. More specifically, the TLPC’s contributions focused on the CPA’s proposed rules involving consumer personal data rights, universal opt-out mechanisms, bona fide loyalty programs, and definitions.
TLPC Files Comments in Colorado Privacy Act Pre-Rulemaking
TLPC student attorneys Rebecca Gruber, Richard Koch, and Stacey Weber, with the aid of Professor Margot Kaminski, developed comments responding to the Attorney General’s Pre-Rulemaking Considerations for the Colorado Privacy Act. Their response to the considerations, filed in anticipation of formal rulemaking in the fall, discusses several areas for potential rulemaking that closely impact the strength and effect of consumer privacy rights and company obligations in handling consumer data. The submission can be downloaded below.
TLPC Partners with Network Security Researchers and Public Interest Organizations to Call for Greater Cell Network Security
(by TLPC student attorneys Parker Nagle, Andrew Leddy, and Kennedy Smith)
On behalf of a coalition of independent network security researchers and public interest organizations, the Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law and Policy Clinic at Colorado Law filed reply comments on the FCC’s 2019 National Security Supply Chain Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking calling for greater cell network security. The TLPC worked with the coalition to draw attention to the many vulnerabilities plaguing cell networks that the Order did not address and to outline the broad but underutilized, authority the FCC has to advance meaningful solutions. The coalition included CU-Boulder researchers Dr. Eric Wustrow, Dr. Dirk Grunwald, and Dr. Sangtae Ha, mobile security researchers Joseph Hall, Yomna Nasser, Marcus Prem, and Ashley Wilson, and public interest organizations Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Public Knowledge, and Eye on Surveillance.
TLPC Partners with CU Engineering to Comment on New Satellite Regulations
The TLPC, partnering with Dr. Scott E. Palo and CU Engineering, worked in close collaboration to influence important national policy for small satellites at the Federal Communications Commission. The Samuelson-Glushko Tech Law and Policy Clinic at Colorado Law, led by Colorado student attorneys (now alums) Galen Pospisil and Megan Chavez, and Jake Stephens, accompanied by Stefan Tschimben a PhD candidate in the Technology, Cybersecurity, and Policy Program (TCP), worked under the supervision of Colorado Law Associate Clinical Professor Blake E. Reid to represent Dr. Palo, Professor in the Smead Aerospace Engineering Sciences Program to comment on the FCC’s rulemaking process.
The CU-led comment was the result of collaboration with distinguished small satellite researchers at universities across the U.S, including the University of Florida, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Michigan, and others. The collaboration between TLPC and Palo allowed the comment to offer thoughtful commentary on a variety of complex issues, including satellite deployment heights, propulsion requirements, application fees, wireless spectrum requirements, and more.
The CU comment had a significant effect on the FCC’s rulemaking, helping lead the FCC to significantly lower deployment height, ensuring university researchers would maintain a range of small satellite licensing options, and more. For example, the comment successfully argued that the FCC’s proposed deployment rules would hinder university researchers from conducting important climate and space weather research.
“It’s critical that university researchers can launch critical scientific and other public interest missions that take advantage of the decreased size and cost of the small satellite form factor. It’s a privilege for the clinic to work with Dr. Palo and his colleagues to ensure the ability for university researchers to have access to space for their important work,” Professor Reid said.
“This project was a great example of how a collaboration between the College of Engineering and Law School can be impactful while educating student. As subject matter experts, the engineers provided specific details about the technical challenges and the law students used this information to create a convincing argument,” Dr. Palo said. “The TLPC took the lead on creating the filing and insured the documents were succinct and professional.”
- The FCC’s Order can be found here: FCC Report and Order.
- The CU-led comment can be found here: University Small Satellite Researchers Comment on NPRM.
How The rightsback.org Termination of Transfer Tool Helps Authors (Cross-post from Authors Alliance)
The following is a guest post by Luke Ewing, student attorney at the Colorado Law Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law & Policy Clinic. We’d like to thank Luke and his classmates Sean Doran and Andi Wilt, and their supervisor Blake Reid, at Colorado Law; and law students Eric Malmgren, Erica Row, and Julia Wu, and their supervisor Jack Lerner, at UC Irvine Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic for their assistance with the development of the Termination of Transfer tool and templates.
Erica Row, Julia Wu, Pamela Samuelson, Mike Wolfe, Eric Malmgren, and Jack Lerner (not pictured: Sean Doran, Luke Ewing, Andi Wilt, and Blake Reid)
Yesterday, Authors Alliance and Creative Commons released the Termination of Transfer tool at rightsback.org. You may be wondering what the tool does and how termination helps authors. Along with many other beta testers, student attorneys at the Colorado Law Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law & Policy Clinic and the UC-Irvine Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinichelped verify that the tool accurately reflects the state of termination law. We scoured statutes, regulations, and case history to determine what is required to make the termination process go smoothly under a wide range of circumstances. We also tested the tool to ensure that its results accurately reflect the current state of the law. Finally, we drafted a standardized form and written guidance that make the paperwork simple once an author decides to exercise their termination right.
Authors who assigned their copyrights many years ago may feel that their works are being underutilized or misrepresented, or they may want to renegotiate their earlier agreements. Fortunately, Congress devised a mechanism by which authors can take back those rights. This is a critical opportunity for authors who made less-than-advantageous deals early in their careers, saw their works become unavailable when a publisher went bankrupt, or want to release their works into the public domain or under an open access license. But because the window for termination opens decades after that original transfer of rights and requires navigating a particularly difficult and complex area of copyright law, exercising termination rights can be daunting.
Termination windows are determined by three separate subsections of the Copyright Act (§ 203, 304(c), and 304(d)), the format and instructions for notifying the Copyright Office are spelled out in a list of very particular regulations, and each subsection of the Copyright Act yields a different list of regulations. Determining whether the window is open for a copyrighted work, or which subsection applies, depends on a number of variables, including:
- Was it published?
- If so, when was it published?
- When were rights transferred?
- Did those rights include the right of publication?
- Has the agreement already been renegotiated?
- Were there multiple authors involved, and do they all agree to terminating the transfer?
- Are all the authors still alive?
- And more.
Every one of these questions is relevant, and every answer leads down different branches of a decision tree that indicates whether, when, and how an author may exercise termination rights rights. Without help, trying to understand these rights can be tedious and discouraging.
The tool makes understanding the process easy. It knows which questions to ask and what to do with the answers to those questions. Within minutes, the tool helps authors better understand how termination of transfer works. Congress intended for authors to exercise these rights, and Authors Alliance wants to simplify the process by removing as much confusion and uncertainty as possible. If you want to learn more about taking back the rights to your work, or are just curious about the process, you can try out the tool right now. It’s free, simple, and only takes a few minutes.
And if you decide to exercise your termination rights, check out our termination of transfer resource page for notice of termination templates, a cover letter, and instructions on how to notify the Copyright Office as well as any relevant parties.
TLPC Presents on Disability and Copyright at WIPO SCCR/38
(by Colleen McCroskey, Colorado Law 2L)
TLPC student attorneys Colleen McCroskey, Kevin Doss, and John Schoppert, along with TLPC Director Blake Reid and colleagues from the University of Cape Town, including Prof. Caroline Ncube recently presented to the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on the intersection of copyright law and disability.
Continue reading “TLPC Presents on Disability and Copyright at WIPO SCCR/38”