Copyright Commerce and Culture

Wow. It really is fascinating how people attempt to manipulate facts for personal gain through legal action. Now good business sense is collusion? My personal favorite comment on the article: "Good luck to him, he's 3 ignorant judges and 15 years in lawsuits away from winning"

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?

NY federal judge ruled against google last week in their copyright case, having  "[tossed] out a 165-page settlement reached in 2008 between Google and authors and publishers groups". This article discusses Google's 2009 plan for a global digitized library and the lawsuits that have surrounded it.

The article is recent from March 25th (LA Times, Business Section). It's discussing Google's history regarding the e-book controversy. Judge Chin's decision forces us to think about what an online digital library might look like without infringing parties, like Google. As noted in the article, Google was attempting to use "orphan works," whose right holders could not be found. As a result, Google would be using the works without being held accountable under copyright law. Here's the original document, filed by the U.S. Supreme Court, on 3/22/2011: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/74854-chin-ruling

Righthave "wrong" on fair use!!

This report from Business Week highlights some recent developments in intellectual property news. Chrysler is actually suing a Detroit clothing company for trademark infringement on the slogan "Imported from Detroit." The saying was introduced in a Chrysler commercial that aired during the Super Bowl this year, featuring Eminem. Chrysler brings the case to court with the justification that the phrase is intended to indicate "luxury" to customers, in addition to the fact that millions were invested to produce the commercial. As a result, t-shirts with the slogan are misleading to the public, the automaker claims. Do you think Chrysler has a strong case? Here's the original commercial, if you haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI6puP3cClM

I thought this was interesting because whoever wins no longer has the right to his own face. I thought it would be an interesting case study considering the interplay between life-rights, copyright of the Ken doll, and any other contractual restrictions that would go with winning this kind of competition.

International Publishing Company, Hachette has signed a "print-on-demand" agreement with the French National Library (BnF) which will allow them to sell out-of-copyright works from the BnF's online library. European Union countries have been known for setting limitations on the reproductions of oeuvres, particularly where the web is concerned. Hachette seems to have found a way to profit from this...

Apple sues Amazon for starting an app store called appstore. Apple's app store is called "App Store". Too similar? In addtion, Amazon is selling a game "Angry Birds Rio" while Apple has the very popular game "Angry Birds" in their app store. I think its a little too similar

Films by Hitchcock, books by Virginia Woolf and Picasso's Guernica--just to name a few--are some of the works that are no longer readily accessible to the public. In a new case, Golan v. Holder, orchestra conductors, teachers and film archivists, are fighting for the right to perform, adapt and distribute creative works that they relied on for years without having to consider copyrights and their respective fees. Should these famous works be returned to the public domain?