Fair use case confirms that using short video clips does not insulate from copyright infringement claims.

26 05 2021

LexBlog/99 park row
Steve Vondran
July 6, 2020

Using the “Heart of the Work” is something everyone should consider before relying on the fair use defense

Plaintiff Los Angeles News Service (LANS) licensed its news stories, photographs, audiovisual works, and other services to other news media outlets. While covering the 1992 Los Angeles riots, LANS filmed several segments of nighttime rioting, including the iconic segment titled Beating of Reginald Denny. Although LANS refused to grant defendant Channel 9 television station a license, the station broadcast the footage a number of times on commercially sponsored news programs.

Plaintiff sued the defendant for using an excerpt of its copyrighted videotape of the Reginald Denny beating during the 1992 Los Angeles riot.

The TRIAL court, weighing the statutory factors of 17 U.S.C.S. § 107, found that summary judgment for the defendant under a “fair use” defense was proper.  On appeal, the APPEAL COURT held that summary judgment was improper:  defendant’s use of plaintiff’s copyrighted tape was arguably in the public interest, as a percipient recording of a newsworthy event, defendant’s use was commercial and came in the wake of plaintiff’s refusal to issue a license.

Although the defendant used the tape because it recorded news of considerable significance from the best perspective of any witness, there was no evidence that alternatives were not available.

There was no dispute that the defendant used the “heart” of the tape. Under such circumstances, the court could not say that “fair use” was the only reasonable conclusion a trier of fact could reach.  Summary judgment was thus improper.

Analysis:

more

Case citationLos Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F. 3d 1119 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

The content in this post was found at https://www.lexblog.com/2020/07/06/fair-use-case-confirms-that-using-short-video-clips-does-not-insulate-from-copyright-infringement-claims/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



A Dubious Decision: Eleventh Circuit Finds Scraping of Data from a Public Website Can Constitute Theft of Trade Secrets (Part I)

26 05 2021
IP Watchdog
Peter J. Toren
July 2, 2020
Much has already been written in a relatively short period of time since the Eleventh Circuit decided Compulife Software, Inc. v. Newman, __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 2549505, (11th Cir. May 20, 2020). However, such commentaries have not addressed whether this decision is legally supportable and whether other circuits should follow this decision, which would provide a legal basis for website operators under certain circumstances to pursue unwarranted scraping of their websites. This is particularly important because the Supreme Court is currently considering whether to grant certiorari in a case involving whether website scraping is legal under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Depending on the outcome of this matter, website operators may be extremely restricted to prevent scraping under that statute.
The content in this post was found at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/07/02/dubious-decision-eleventh-circuit-finds-scraping-data-public-website-can-constitute-theft-trade-secrets-part/id=123029/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Suit Takes Aim at Internet Archive, Spurs End of National Emergency Library

26 05 2021

An update from Kaitie Eke, one of the firm’s summer associates:

A copyright infringement lawsuit filed by four major publishing companies against the Internet Archive has prompted early termination of the site’s National Emergency Library, a project that made books available electronically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the project’s conclusion may render some of the publishers’ complaints moot, the suit also takes aim at the ongoing operation of the Open Library and larger Controlled Digital Lending (“CDL”) practices.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.lexblog.com/2020/06/30/suit-takes-aim-at-internet-archive-spurs-end-of-national-emergency-library/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Marvel’s Venom Vs Spyder’s Venom: Industry Giants In TTAB Trademark Case

24 05 2021

LexBlog/99 park row
Mandour & Associates
November 24, 2020

IPNews® – On November 23rd, Marvel Characters, Inc. filed a trademark opposition against Spyder Active Sports, Inc’s trademark application for “Venom” which will be used to launch a new collection of ski gear.

Venom is the supervillain fictional character of Spider-Man comic books owned by Marvel. The American media franchise alleges that the trademark will cause consumer confusion, especially now that Marvel has recently launched its Venom 2 merchandise to the market.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.lexblog.com/2020/11/24/marvels-venom-vs-spyders-venom-industry-giants-in-ttab-trademark-case Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Good News: Academics Can Make Their Articles Published In Top Journal Nature Freely Available As Open Access. Bad News: They Must Pay $11,000 For Each One

24 05 2021

Tech Dirt
Glyn Moody
Nov. 25, 2020

Two years ago, Techdirt wrote about Plan S, an initiative from top research funders that requires all work they support to be published as open access. It’s one of the most important moves to get publicly-funded work made freely available, and as such has been widely welcomed. Except by publishers, of course, who have enjoyed profit margins of 35-40% under the current system, which sees libraries and others pay for subscriptions in order to read public research. But Plan S is too big to ignore, not least after the powerful Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation joined the coalition behind it. So publishers have instead come up with ways to subvert the whole idea of making knowledge freely available in order to maintain profits. The latest and perhaps most blatant example of this has come from Springer Nature, the publisher of the journal Nature, widely regarded as one of the top two science titles in the world (the other being Science). Here’s what Nature the publisher is doing, reported by Nature the journal:

From 2021, the publisher will charge €9,500, US$11,390 or £8,290 to make a paper open access (OA) in Nature and 32 other journals that currently keep most of their articles behind paywalls and are financed by subscriptions. It is also trialing a scheme that would halve that price for some journals, under a common-review system that might guide papers to a number of titles.

The research will indeed by freely available to the world, but the authors’ institutions have to cough up the massive sum of $11,000 for every article.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201125/02325845767/good-news-academics-can-make-their-articles-published-top-journal-nature-freely-available-as-open-access-bad-news-they-must-pay.shtml Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Dumb Mistake in Copyright Registration Leads to Brutal and Unjust Consequences

24 05 2021

LexBlog/99 park row
June 26, 2020
Rick Sanders

Americans assume copyright is something you have to register for. The rest of the world assumes either registration is voluntary or honestly doesn’t know what you’re talking about.

The truth about copyright registration, in the United States, is a little more complicated. Or, more accurately, a little more mystical. You do not need to register a work to have copyright in it. Copyright attaches itself (“vests in”) the author as soon as it’s “fixed in a tangible medium.” As a result, almost everything you’ve ever written, doodled, painted in an art class, sculpted out of Play-Doh®, sketched out, etc. is protected by copyright.1For the rest of your life, plus another 70 years, so your heirs can benefit from those notes, doodles, emails, finger-paintings, etc.

BUT: Unless and until you register your work, you cannot enforce the copyright.

Having an unregistered copyright is a bit like having only the blueprints for a house, then trying to live in it.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.lexblog.com/2020/06/26/dumb-mistake-in-copyright-registration-leads-to-brutal-and-unjust-consequences/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Section 230 Protects Twitter from the “Devin Nunes’ Cow” Lawsuit–Nunes v. Twitter

23 05 2021

Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Eric Goldman
June 25, 2020
In this well-publicized case, Rep. Devin Nunes sued Liz Mair (@LizMair) and the accounts @devincow (“Devin Nunes’ Cow”), and @DevinNunesMom for various tweets. That lawsuit is dubious. Even less wisely, Nunes also sued Twitter for these third-party tweets. The judge gave Nunes a first-hand tutorial in Section 230 and dismissed Twitter. The case wasn’t close.

The court rejects Nunes’ key arguments:

  • Courts can grant the Section 230 defense on a motion to dismiss because it is an immunity from suit. This issue has vexed courts from time to time (remember the tortured Barnes v. Yahoo ruling?). At this point, most courts will grant Section 230 on a motion to dismiss when the defense is apparent on the complaint’s face. (Like when a plaintiff tries to hold Twitter liable for third-party tweets).
  • Nunes tried the common “conservative” talking point that Twitter lost its eligibility for Section 230 because it made editorial decisions about third-party content (the “it’s no longer a platform, it’s become a publisher” argument you find routinely featured on @BadLegalTakes and @BadSec230Takes). The court responds simply: “Plaintiff seeks to have the court treat Twitter as the publisher or speaker of the content provided by others based on its allowing or not allowing certain content to be on its Internet platform. The court refuses to do so” (citing Zeran). THERE IS NO PUBLISHER/PLATFORM DISTINCTION IN SECTION 230 JURISPRUDENCE AND NEVER HAS BEEN. Anyone suggesting otherwise deserves to be posterized on @BadLegalTakes and @BadSec230Takes.
  • Nunes tried another popular “conservative” talking point that Twitter exhibited viewpoint bias against him, and that means Twitter should lose Section 230’s protection. The court says that the Nemet Chevrolet v. ConsumerAffairs court found Section 230 even when the plaintiff alleged bias.

The opinion concludes with a curious statement: “The court further finds that 47 USC Section 230 (c)(2) provides immunity for all civil liability and therefore Twitter is immune from Plaintiff’s negligence claim.” This sentence makes more sense if the court meant Section 230(c)(1) and not Section 230(c)(2). Zeran and Barnes both rejected negligence claims on (c)(1) grounds. If the court meant what it said, this sentence seems likely to exacerbate “conservatives’” baffling obsession about Section 230(c)(2).

Case citation: Nunes v. Twitter, Inc., CL19-1715-00 (Va. Cir. Ct. June 24, 2020)

more

The content in this post was found at https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/06/section-230-protects-twitter-from-the-devin-nunes-cow-lawsuit-nunes.htm Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Another Court Rejects Turo’s Eligibility for Section 230–Turo v. Los Angeles

23 05 2021

Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Eric Goldman
June 24, 2020

As I previously blogged:

Turo is a peer-to-peer marketplace for car rentals. “Colloquially put, Turo is the ‘Airbnb’ of private motor vehicles.” Though Turo doesn’t dictate where the buyer and seller exchange the car, Turo facilitates matches at airports, either by the seller leaving the car in the parking garage or doing curbside delivery.

The last time I blogged about Turo, Logan Airport in Boston successfully shut them down despite Turo’s invocation of Section 230 to strike down the airport’s regulations. In the latest ruling, LAX Airport similarly overcomes a Section 230 claim to shut Turo down as well.

This is a pretty easy case after the Ninth Circuit’s HomeAway v. Santa Monica ruling. The court says:

Consistent with the holding in HomeAway.com, recent decisions by federal courts across the country have also denied Section 230 immunity to platform services where it was only the platforms’ commercial transaction-facilitating functions that were subject to regulation.

Case citation: Turo v. City of Los Angeles, 2020 WL 3422262 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2020)

more

The content in this post was found at https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/06/another-court-rejects-turos-eligibility-for-section-230-turo-v-los-angeles.htm Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Jonas Brothers Sued for Copyright Infringement

23 05 2021

Orange County – Nick Jonas – along with Jonas Brothers Enterprises, LLC – have been sued by Joshua Wong Photography, LLC for copyright infringement. The complaint was filed yesterday June 22, 2020 in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.  The claim stems from a photograph of Priyanka Chopra that was shared by Nick Jonas on both Instagram and Twitter. Joshua Wong Photography claims the use was unauthorized and thus a violation of the Copyright Act.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.mandourlaw.com/blog/jonasbrothers-sued-for-copyright-infringement/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Social Media Ownership Disputes Part II: Bridal Wear Company Takes Back Control of Instagram Account from Ex-Employee

17 03 2021

Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Venkat Balasubramani
March 8, 2021

This is Part II of a review of recent social media ownership disputes. In Part I, I looked at how the Satanic Temple of Washington could not use the CFAA or ACPA to get its Facebook accounts back. Part II involves a bridal wear business’ (JLM Couture) successful reclaim of its Instagram and other social media accounts. In this case, a New York federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against the defendant, Hayley Paige Gutman, prohibiting her from interfering with plaintiff’s use of the account, which generally gave control over the account to JLM.

[Eric’s comment: if you’re like me and you have no idea who Hayley Paige Gutman is, this Cornell alumni magazine spotlight might help. Also, this Business Insider story provides a chronology of this high-profile and messy dispute, featuring an unfortunately public war of words.]

The big difference between the cases: JLM and Gutman had an agreement that addressed JLM’s right to use Gutman’s name. The agreement, which the parties entered into in 2011 (and which was extended at JLM’s option through 2022), also allowed JLM to register a range of trademarks using Ms. Gutman’s name, had solid work-for-hire language, and included a non-compete. The court’s opening paragraph of the findings of fact tells you how this is likely to go:

In the Contract, Ms. Gutman agreed, inter alia, to perform certain duties and granted Plaintiff certain exclusive rights to use and trademark the name “Hayley Paige” and variations thereof. . . . Ms. Gutman also granted Plaintiff “the exclusive world-wide right and license to use her name ‘Hayley’, ‘Paige’, ‘Hayley Paige Gutman’, ‘Hayley Gutman’, ‘Hayley Paige’ or any derivative thereof ([defined] collectively [as] the ‘Designer’s Name’)” for certain purposes during the stated term of the Contract and for two years thereafter. . . .  Explicitly in exchange “for the assignment to the Company of the Designer’s Name and the Trademarks,” JLM agreed to pay Ms. Gutman as consideration, in addition to her base pay and additional sales volume-related compensation, and for ten years following the termination of her employment with the company, a further percentage of “net revenues derived from the sale of goods under the Designer’s Name and Trademarks based on the Designer’s [N]ame.” . . .  The parties engaged in “rounds of negotiations” over the terms of the Contract, during which Ms. Gutman referenced a “Kenneth Pool example” and asked to “add perpetuity language.” . . .  Ms. Gutman represented to Plaintiff during the negotiations that she had an attorney review the Contract during the negotiations, a statement she now claims was untrue. . . .

Breach of contract:

Trademark infringement:

Non-disparagement:

Irreparable Harm:

This is a great case that covers a lot of ground. The docket is overflowing and worth digging into. The big takeaway of course is that there’s a written agreement between the litigants, which distinguishes this case from other social media ownership cases out there. The agreement isn’t necessarily perfect (no agreement is), but it does a nice job of protecting JLM’s rights. Unfortunately, the agreement appears to be filed under seal, although given the docket’s volume, I can’t say I combed through it carefully. In any event, the court liberally quotes from the agreement and it has many helpful provisions. It’s worth noting that the agreement does not expressly cover the social media accounts in question.

The trademark claim also differentiates this case.

The big question is what happens with the account going forward. Does Ms. Gutman have to assist in its operation, or does she have to just hand it off to JLM? Would the court allow her to post some sort of personal (or agreed-to) message to followers in the event she were to create a separate personal account?

Case citation: JLM Couture v. Gutman, No. 20 CV 10575-LTS-SLC (S.D.N.Y. March 4, 2021)

more

The content in this post was found at https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/03/social-media-ownership-disputes-part-ii-bridal-wear-company-takes-back-control-of-instagram-account-from-ex-employee.htm Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico