Saturday, July 20, 2013

Can’t Buy Me Love? A Lawsuit Debates It; New York Times, 7/15/13

Eric Grode, New York Times; Can’t Buy Me Love? A Lawsuit Debates It: "This time, however, the bad blood extends to the courthouse, where one Beatles tribute band is in the curious position of defending itself against copyright infringement claims leveled by another Beatles tribute band. The creators of the Beatles tribute show “Rain,” which played on Broadway for nine months in 2010 and 2011, filed suit last month against the “Let It Be” producers Jeff Parry and Annerin Productions, among others. The suit contends that the new musical — which steers clear of those contentious “Let It Be” recording sessions, focusing instead on peppier Beatles moments like the “Ed Sullivan Show” appearance — owes a significant debt to “Rain,” from the musical arrangements to the between-song patter to the mop-toppy wigs. All but 3 of the 31 songs in “Rain” are also in “Let It Be,” according to the lawsuit, and “the artwork used as background during the performance of many of those songs are similar or identical.”"

The Past Is Not Dead, but Faulkner Case Against ‘Midnight in Paris’ Is Dismissed; New York Times, 7/19/13

Dave Itzkoff, New York Times; The Past Is Not Dead, but Faulkner Case Against ‘Midnight in Paris’ Is Dismissed: "A courtroom face-off between the film studio that released Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” and the rights holders of William Faulkner’s novels did not yield any terrific legal sparks. But it may have produced a noteworthy literary creation in the form of a thoughtful and funny decision from the judge overseeing the case... Having viewed “Midnight in Paris” and read “Requiem for a Nun” in the course of the case, Judge Mills wrote that the court was “thankful that the parties did not ask the court to compare ‘The Sound and the Fury’ with ‘Sharknado.’""

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

A Legal Defeat for Anne Frank House; New York Times, 6/26/13

Scott Sayare, New York Times; A Legal Defeat for Anne Frank House: "In what may prove to be the conclusion to a long and bitter legal battle over control of the legacy of Anne Frank, a district court in Amsterdam on Wednesday ordered the Anne Frank House to return a collection of archives to a foundation in Switzerland. The Anne Frank Fonds, based in Basel, Switzerland, sued in 2011 for the immediate return of some 10,000 documents and photographs linked to Anne and her father, Otto Frank. The foundation, which manages the copyrights of Anne’s diary, had lent the documents in 2007 to the Frank House, a museum and research center in Amsterdam... In its ruling, the court found the Fonds, which Mr. Frank designated as his universal heir, to be the rightful owner of the entire collection and within its rights to demand the archives’ return. The court ordered that the archives be transferred to the Fonds by Jan. 1, 2014."

Appeals Court’s Ruling Helps Google in Book-Scanning Lawsuit; New York Times, 7/1/13

Julie Bosman, New York Times; Appeals Court’s Ruling Helps Google in Book-Scanning Lawsuit: "Google scored a victory in the long-running lawsuit over its book-scanning project on Monday, as a federal appeals court ruled that it was “premature” that the authors suing Google had been certified as a class... In a five-page ruling on Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected that decision and said that the lower court must first consider the “fair use” issues raised by the case."

Over 50 Countries Sign Marrakesh Treaty On Copyright Exceptions And Limitations For The Blind; Intellectual Property Watch, 7/1/13

Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch; Over 50 Countries Sign Marrakesh Treaty On Copyright Exceptions And Limitations For The Blind: "The 28 June signing of the new international treaty to improve access to published materials for the visually impaired brought relief to the beneficiaries and satisfaction to delegations. But some underlined the need to sign and ratify the new treaty. On the final day of the World Intellectual Property Organization diplomatic conference, held from 17-28 June, fifty-one countries signed the treaty to the loud applause of the plenary, in particular from the visually impaired people. A large number of developing countries, notably from Africa and Latin America, signed the treaty. A few developed countries signed the treaty, such as Switzerland and the United Kingdom."