Group items tagged

"A federal appeals court upheld a ruling that EchoStar infringed TiVo patents for digital recording technology, raising hopes the long legal battle could end with a TiVo victory."

"Samsung chose to copy Apple's technology, user interface and innovative style in these infringing products," Apple said. "The copying is so pervasive that the Samsung Galaxy products appear to be actual Apple products."

the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has filed a copyright infringement suit against Hotfile (a file hosting service) on behalf of Disney Enterprises, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal City Studios, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros, claiming that it promotes piracy. This suit is reminiscent of the music industry's attack on Limewire which resulted in it being shut down. Read the original Associated Press article on the Wall Street Journal Website: http://online.wsj.com/article/APba256b5b302d4d9c9e8af569d017dba6.html

"Surveys have found the number of people who think digital copyright infringement is wrong has increased from 34% in 2007 to 54% in 2010." The keyword here being "think." Just because we know it's wrong doesn't mean we'll stop doing it.

Google worries that the 2009 ruling against isoHunt will affect its own services and services of its website, YouTube. While Google believes isoHunt is liable, they would like the court to be more precise. They would like to see isoHunt charged with only specific instances of inducing. Google is also pushing to see isoHunt protected by safe harbor under DMCA. "It's clear this court thinks the DMCA online safe harbors only insulate against direct infringement, not secondary infringement," writes intellectual property attorney Eric Goldman on his Technology & Marketing Law Blog. "The interplay between the safe harbors and secondary infringement remains a multi-billion statutory ambiguity."

Viacom is maintaining its 2007 billion dollar lawsuit against Google (as it acquired YouTube in 2006), despite the latter continuous fervent denial. Though "Google argues that when YouTube promptly took down tens of thousands of videos after Viacom gave it notice, YouTube was within provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act." Viacom is stating that the infringement is taking the form of violating the 1998 Copyright Act. Which holds both content owners and systems operators responsible for the protection of copyrighted content online. After reading this article, a few questions come to mind: What can Google do to appease and keep the "integrity" of YouTube? and Isn't it interesting that Viacom only filed this $1 billion lawsuit AFTER Google had acquired YouTube? What can we say about interested parties possibly abusing copyright law?

"The internet titan was found guilty of infringing a patent related to the Linux kernel and fined " "The software is used by Google for its server platforms and could also extend to its Android mobile platform.The kernel is at the core of the open-source operating system meaning this verdict could be far-reaching" "The implication here is really that there is a huge number of Linux users who will be required to pay royalties if this patent holder knocks on their doors in the US. This is definitely a major impediment to the growth of Linux and makes companies, including Google, that rely on open source code particularly vulnerable to patent threats.

Does Guetta have the right to artistic expression, even if it means distorting an iconic image he does not have rights over?

"Guetta used the photo specifically for this reason, it was already iconic, very well known and he used it in his artwork because of that. He wasn't just referencing Run DMC, he was referencing the most famous photo of them." This is really interesting. Does this rationale mean that he isn't committing copyright infringement? A friend of mine at RISD is toying with using frames from the (iconic) opening scenes of Woody Allen's "Manhattan" for a school printmaking project, does she need to pay Woody or the city of New York royalties even if she credits her (famous) original source? Does a deal need to be struck when such a famous work is reproduced or reinterpreted. Can't anyone parody or pay homage without asking for permission first?

Lady Gaga's new single has already reached the top of the charts, but avid listeners and fans are debating whether or not her work is completely original. Although some claim that it's possible to hear the similarities, others claim that "Born This Way" and Madonna's "Express Yourself" are completely different creative works. Either way, there's a possibility for an infringement suit. The article mentions that an Arizona band sued Daughtry for copying an original tune called "Tonight," while Coldplay was sued for "Viva La Vida," which was allegedly ripped off of the title of another album.

On Leno, Gaga notes that Madonna approves of the song. This brings forth an even more interesting question. If an artist doesn't press charges for copying, then can it still be considered copyright infringement?

The Country music duo the "Bellamy Brothers" are upset over Britney song title's resemblance to their 1979 hit but it seem they will not be suing the popstar.

I know that the Bellamy Brothers specifically mention the title, but I think they would have a much stronger case on the basis of "fixing" the double entendre within the song: the BB's lyrics are "If I said you had a beautiful body / would you hold it against me" vs. Britney's "If I said I want your body now / would you hold it against me." That's pretty startlingly similar, and even if you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright the expression of those ideas... and there's enough overlap between the two to be persuasive.

Now that I know copying a song title doesn't count as copyright infringement, I wonder what percentage of a songs lyrics must be exactly the same as another song in order for that to count as copyright infringement. And even if the lyrics happen to be the same, can an artist still avoid a lawsuit if his or her melodic line/ chordal progression/ instrumentation is different enough to make the song "original"? I'm guessing that its a case-by-case thing...

This is a few months old, but it shows how copyright issues can come up years after a work is created. The author of a biography of Fela Kuti sued the producers and creative team of Fela! the musical, even though the production had been shown Off-Broadway and on Broadway for a few years.

I think Mr. Gordon may have a good chance of winning the lawsuit. If you look at the original picture he drew, you can see that it was more than just an idea that was taken and used to make Kung Fu Panda. He even titled his own drawings "Kung Fu Panda Power." When comparing this to Rihanna's infringement for her S&M music video, I feel that Rihanna has a better chance of escaping charges for infringement than does Dreamworks, because Rihanna was able to take photos and recreate them originally into a different form of media. Kung Fu Panda, on the other hand, is an animated film, which means that these photos weigh more heavily because they were not really originally transformed, they are the same pictures, just moving. This will be an interesting case to follow.

The operator of popular live streaming site channelsurfing.net, has allegedly made $90,000 from sold ad space on the site since 2005. "Brian McCarthy allegedly hid behind the anonymity of the Internet to make a quick buck through what is little more than high-tech thievery". This is true, but then he got arrested and is facing a maximum 5 year jail sentence...

not actually news, but an interesting article on plagiarism from 2007. "The idea that culture can be property-intellectual property-is used to justify everything from attempts to force the Girl Scouts to pay royalties for singing songs around campfires to the infringement suit brought by the estate of Margaret Mitchell against the publishers of Alice Randall's The Wind Done Gone." What do you all think of Lethem's article?

The A.P. and artist, Mr. Shepard Fairey settled on sharing the copyright to the famous photograph of Obama that became the iconic HOPE portrait of the then-presidential candidate. The amount of financial compensation agreed upon has not been disclosed, though in the future, their deal will apply to proceeds coming from any posters or other merchandise sold with the image. Originally, the A.P. sued in February 2009 for copyright infringement, but Mr. Fairey counter-sued, arguing that the HOPE image fell under the fair-use exception to copyright law. As our class has read thus far, regarding the exceptions of parodies to copyright law because of their transformative nature and in turn become a creative work wholly different from the original, the A.P.'s photograph was used in a similar capacity. The artist claimed "that he had effectively transformed the work into an idealized image 'that created powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message.'"

According to the Washington Post, although the case has been settled with Fairey, the Associated Press intends to go to trial in March with Obey Clothing, a clothing line selling apparel with the Obama image. Another apparel manufacturer, One 3 Two, on the other hand, settled because they did not want to give the appearance that their primary goal was to make a profit. In fact, One 3 Two initially began selling the t-shirt to retailers, such as Urban Outfitters, to ultimately raise funds for Obama's campaign. Do you think that the A.P. had the right to sue over this photograph? Why or why not?

This is a short article from last year but it shows how copyright holders view "fair use" differently than those who want to use copyrighted material