Apple officially trademarked its store design last week, an endeavor the company has been pursuing since May 2010.

After being rejected twice by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which claimed the store design was not “inherently distinctive,” Apple submitted additional materials and drawings, and gained the trademark on its mall-centric, rectangular store layouts.

(Source: Wired)

Fans of indie musician Jonathan Coulton were incensed last week when an alleged Glee version of “Baby Got Back” surfaced on the internet that seemed to shamelessly rip off Coulton’s distinctive arrangement of the 1992 Sir Mix-A-Lot song. Last night, that cover version was confirmed as an official Glee track when it appeared on the mid-season premiere of the Fox show, and is currently for sale on iTunes.

Fox’s hard-nosed, corporate disregard for the work of an independent musician seems ironic particularly in the context of Glee, a television show whose core themes have so often revolved around the plight — and triumph — of the underdog. “If this were an episode of Glee I would win. The way they’re behaving is so antithetical to the message of their show,” Coulton told Wired.

“It’s a little frustrating. Whether or not they’re in the right legally, it doesn’t seem like the best way to handle it. If you’re going to claim that you’re giving an artist exposure and they should be grateful — there’s a right way to do that. Contact them ahead of time. Say this is great, we’re going to talk about it on our blog and tell all our fans that they should be fans of yours. We’re going to put a credit in the show. That doesn’t cost them anything. It’s a show with something like a $3.5 million budget for each episode, but there are still so many free things they could have done to engender goodwill.”

[via Underwire]

As live streaming video surges in popularity, so are copyright “bots” — automated systems that match content against a database of reference files of copyrighted material. These systems can block streaming video in real time, while it is still being broadcast, leading to potentially worrying implications for freedom of speech.

On Tuesday, some visitors trying to get to the livestream of Michelle Obama’s widely lauded speech at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday were met with a bizarre notice on YouTube, which said that the speech had been blocked on copyright grounds.

On Sunday, a livestream of the Hugo Awards — the sci-fi and fantasy version of the Oscars — was blocked on Ustream, moments before Neil Gaiman’s highly anticipated acceptance speech. Apparently, Ustream’s service detected that the awards were showing copyrighted film clips, and had no way to know that the awards ceremony had gotten permission to use them.

Last month, footage from NASA’s triumphant Curiosity rover landing was blocked numerous times on YouTube, despite being in the public domain, because several companies — such as Scripps Local News — claimed copyright on the material.

Those incidents foretell an odd future for streaming video, as bandwidth and recording tools get cheaper, and the demand for instant video grows. Just in the last year, Google Hangouts, a feature of Google+ that allows multiple people to video conference, became a cult hit. Now it’s used by news sites, such as the Huffington Post, for live video interview segments. Ustream and Justin.tv have made it simple to livestream book readings, Meetups and the police siege of Julian Assange’s embassy sleepover.

Copyright bots are being wired into that infrastructure, programmed as stern and unyielding censors with one hand ever poised at the off switch. What happens if the bot detects snippets of a copyrighted song or movie clip in the background? Say a ringtone from a phone not shut off at a PTA meeting? Or a short YouTube clip shown by a convention speaker to illustrate a funny point? Will the future of livestreaming be so fragile as to be unusable?

(Source: Wired)