Censoring Jon Hamm's Penis Doesn't Violate Copyright Law, Federal Judge Rules; Gizmodo, September 11, 2020

Matt Novak, Gizmodo; Censoring Jon Hamm's Penis Doesn't Violate Copyright Law, Federal Judge Rules

"The lesson for all you meme-makers out there? Make sure your images are transformative and put a black box over those bulging packages."

Fair Use, "The Frankenstein," and the Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler; Lexology, August 9, 2020

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC - Brian Murphy, Lexology; Fair Use, "The Frankenstein," and the Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler

"Larry Marano is the professional photographer (and self-described dedicated fan of hard rock and heavy metal music) who snapped the above photo of Van Halen. Marano sued the Met in the Southern District of New York, alleging that the use of his photograph was unauthorized and infringed upon his copyright. Two days after Marano filed, Judge Valerie Caproni ordered him and his attorney (Richard Leibowitz - see this post) to show cause why the complaint shouldn't be dismissed on fair use grounds.

As a preliminary matter, the court noted that even though the case was at the pleading stage, dismissal on fair use grounds would be appropriate if "transformativeness [could] be determined by doing a side-by-side comparison of the original work and the secondary use." After the matter was briefed, the court concluded that such a determination was indeed possible in this case and that the complaint should be dismissed.

Here's a rundown of the court's analysis of the statutory factors:

Marano v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 19-CV-8606 (VEC), 2020 WL 3962009 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2020)."

'Electric Avenue' Singer Files Suit Against Trump Campaign for Copyright Infringement: Exclusive; Billboard, September 1, 2020

Gil Kaufman, Billboard; 'Electric Avenue' Singer Files Suit Against Trump Campaign for Copyright Infringement: Exclusive

"Eddy Grant argues his signature hit was used without permission in a campaign video. "This is copyright 101," his lawyer tells Billboard.

Singer Eddy Grant filed a copyright lawsuit against Pres. Donald Trump's campaign on Tuesday (Sept. 1) over a campaign video that his lawyers say illegally uses the singer's iconic 1983 song "Electric Avenue."

The suit is tied to a bizarre animated ad posted on Twitter by Trump's campaign on Aug. 12 which depicts a cartoon version of Trump's White House rival, former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden, driving an old-fashioned train car while a speeding train that says "Trump Pence" and "KAG 2020" zips through a desolate town.

There is no context for the use of the song, which plays as the animated Biden hand-pumps his way through the empty streets in a handcar labeled "Biden President: Your Hair Smells Terrific" while random snippets of old quotes and interviews are played. The lyrics of the song, which include the lines, "Down in the streets there is violence/ And a lot of work to be done," were written by the Black Guyanese-British singer in reaction to the 1981 race riots in Brixton, England. The track spent five weeks at No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1983."

Volvo says copyright claim to photo of SC-made S60 doesn’t extend to Instagram; Post and Courier, August 16, 2020

David Wren, Post and Courier; Volvo says copyright claim to photo of SC-made S60 doesn’t extend to Instagram

"The Facebook-owned photo- and video-tagging app has created a legal gray area by requiring its users to grant the social media site a copyright license for any images they upload. Instagram can then sublicense those rights to others. In a recent similar case, however, Instagram said anyone who reposts images also might need a license from the original photographer."

Can Neil Young Sue Donald Trump Into Silence?; Rolling Stone, August 5, 2020

Amy X. Wang, Rolling Stone; Can Neil Young Sue Donald Trump Into Silence?

"The lawsuit is just the latest in a long line of clashes between Young and Trump — dating back to June 2015, when Trump played “Rockin’ in the Free World” after announcing his presidential run. Trump most recently played the Freedom cut at events in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Mount Rushmore, despite Young’s longstanding objection.

But does the musician have a case? “It’s absolutely a license issue,” Gary Adelman — a New York-based entertainment business attorney at Adelman Matz — tells Rolling Stone. He notes that the case will hinge on whether the artist has specifically removed those particular songs from his public performance organization’s blanket licenses: “If he has withdrawn those two particular songs from BMI’s political license program, then the Trump administration does not have a license to play them at a political rally and they have a good case that they will more likely win.”"

Twitter disables video retweeted by Donald Trump over copyright complaint; The Guardian, July 19, 2020

Reuters via The Guardian; Twitter disables video retweeted by Donald Trump over copyright complaint

"Twitter has disabled a campaign-style video retweeted by Donald Trump, citing a copyright complaint.

The video, which included music from the group Linkin Park, disappeared from the president’s Twitter feed late Saturday with the notification: “This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner.”

Twitter removed the video, which Trump had retweeted from the White House social media director, Dan Scavino, after it received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice from Machine Shop Entertainment, according to a notice posted on the Lumen Database which collects requests for removal of online materials."

Arthur Conan Doyle’s estate sues Netflix for giving Sherlock Holmes too many feelings; The Verge, June 25, 2020

Adi Robertson, The Verge; Arthur Conan Doyle’s estate sues Netflix for giving Sherlock Holmes too many feelings

"The estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has sued Netflix over its upcoming film Enola Holmes,arguing that the movie’s depiction of public domain character Sherlock Holmes having emotions and respecting women violates Doyle’s copyright.

Enola Holmes is based on a series of novels by Nancy Springer starring a newly created teenage sister of the famous detective. They feature many elements from Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, and most of these elements aren’t covered by copyright, thanks to a series of court rulings in the early 2010s. Details from 10 stories, however, are still owned by Doyle’s estate. The estate argues that Springer’s books — and by extension Netflix’s adaptation — draw key elements from those stories. It’s suing not only Netflix, but Springer, her publisher Penguin Random House, and the film’s production company for unspecified financial damages.

The Doyle estate made a similar argument five years ago in a lawsuit against Miramax for its film Mr. Holmes — among other things, it claimed Mr. Holmes included plot details about Holmes’ retirement, which only happens in the final stories. But its new argument is a lot more abstract: basically, if this movie wants Sherlock Holmes to express emotions, its creators need to pay up."

United States: Welsh Government Not Immune from Copyright Lawsuit for Using Dylan Thomas Photos in Tourism Ads; Library of Congress Law, June 23, 2020

Library of Congress Law; United States: Welsh Government Not Immune from Copyright Lawsuit for Using Dylan Thomas Photos in Tourism Ads

"On June 8, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that the Welsh government is not immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) from a private lawsuit alleging claims of copyright infringement because of the commercial-activity exception to the FSIA. (Pablo Star Ltd. v. Welsh Government, No. 19-1262, slip op. (June 8, 2020).)"

Publishers Sue Internet Archive Over Free E-Books; The New York Times, June 1, 2020

Elizabeth A. Harris, The New York Times; Publishers Sue Internet Archive Over Free E-Books

Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette and Wiley accused the nonprofit of piracy for making over 1 million books free online.

"A group of publishers sued Internet Archive on Monday, saying that the nonprofit group’s trove of free electronic copies of books was robbing authors and publishers of revenue at a moment when it was desperately needed.

Internet Archive has made more than 1.3 million books available free online, which were scanned and available to one borrower at a time for a period of 14 days, according to the complaint. Then in March, the group said it would lift all restrictions on its book lending until the end of the public health crisis, creating what it called “a National Emergency Library to serve the nation’s displaced learners.”

But many publishers and authors have called it something different: theft.

“There is nothing innovative or transformative about making complete copies of books to which you have no rights and giving them away for free,” said Maria A. Pallante, president of the Association of American Publishers, which is helping to coordinate the industry’s response. “They’ve stepped in downstream and taken the intellectual investment of authors and the financial investment of publishers, they’re interfering and giving this away.”"

Facebook and Twitter took down a Trump campaign video over copyright concerns; Vox, June 5, 2020

Theodore Schleifer, Vox; Facebook and Twitter took down a Trump campaign video over copyright concerns

"This is not the first time Twitter has removed content posted by Trump due to copyright reasons. But notably, this takedown comes shortly after a series of much more controversial decisions by Twitter to limit the reach of Trump’s posts because they either did not pass a fact-check or, in Twitter’s opinion, glorified violence.

Facebook has made different decisions, citing its commitment to free speech, and has been willing to leave Trump’s posts up.

Complaints about copyright violations are not uncommon in the world of social media."

Georgia Can’t Copyright Its Entire State Code, the Supreme Court Rules; The New York Times, April 27, 2020

Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Georgia Can’t Copyright Its Entire State Code, the Supreme Court Rules

In a 5-to-4 ruling with unusual alliances, the court said that annotations cannot be copyrighted if they are the official work of state lawmakers.

"Georgia may not copyright its entire official code, which includes both the state’s laws and annotations interpreting them, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. The 5-to-4 decision featured unusual alliances and would most likely be widely felt, as about 20 other states have claimed that parts of similar annotated codes are copyrighted."

Copyright Alliance blasts Internet Archive’s Emergency Library launch as “vile”; ZDNet, March 31, 2020

Charlie Osborne, ZDNet; Copyright Alliance blasts Internet Archive’s Emergency Library launch as “vile”

The National Emergency Library opened to help learners “displaced” by COVID-19.

"The Authors Guild said that COVID-19 has been used "as an excuse to push copyright law further out to the edges" which, in turn, is causing authors that are already struggling to pay the bills additional harm...

"Acting as a piracy site -- of which there already are too many -- the Internet Archive tramples on authors' rights by giving away their books to the world," the group says.  

More criticism has come in the form of comments made by the Copyright Alliance, an organization that represents the rights of those in creative industries including authors and artists. CEO Keith Kupferschmid noted that creators are among the hardest hit at present, and while projects have been set up to help those in these industries, the executive said IA's project is making "things much worse for those that need our help.""

The Real Cost Of Doing Business: Newport Gallery Owner Kristen Coates Sued For Copyright Infringement; Newport Buzz, February 17, 2020

Newport Buzz; The Real Cost Of Doing Business: Newport Gallery Owner Kristen Coates Sued For Copyright Infringement

"Newport, RI born artist Mia Tarducci is suing Bellevue Avenue art gallery owner Kristen Coates in federal court for copyright infringement revolving around a series of works that Coates produced that look eerily similar to works produced by Tarducci."

How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits; The Rolling Stone, January 9, 2020

Amy X. Wang, The Rolling Stone;

How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits

 "Artists, songwriters, producers, and labels are now awaiting the next Zeppelin verdict, with many hoping that a judgment in Page and Plant’s favor could unwind some of the headache-inducing ambiguity introduced by the “Blurred Lines” ruling. Others see the case, which has a chance of going all the way up to the Supreme Court, as a reopening of Pandora’s box. Will the latest ruling clarify the scope of music copyright — or muddy it even further? “At what point is an element of creative expression protectable?” says media intellectual-property attorney Wesley Lewis. “Litigators are all hoping for more clarity.”"

A Tool That Removes Copyrighted Works Is Not a Substitute for Fair Use; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 20, 2020

Katharine Trendacosta, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);

A Tool That Removes Copyrighted Works Is Not a Substitute for Fair Use

"By making eliminating material flagged by Content ID so easy—just click here!—and making challenging matches so perilous, YouTube has put its thumb on the scale against fair use and in favor of copyright abuse. That thumb gets especially heavy given how few real alternatives to YouTube exist.

Hosting creative content should mean a robust commitment to fair use. Fair use enriches our culture and our understanding of it. It is what ensures that copyright doesn’t strangle free expression and creativity. Subtle reinforcement of anti-fair use ideas enacted by private companies, done by the largest players in the ecosystem, does real damage."

Here’s How The Supreme Court Can Stop Google From Stealing People’s Ideas; The Federalist, January 17, 2020

David Hogberg, The Federalist;

Here’s How The Supreme Court Can Stop Google From Stealing People’s Ideas

The Supreme Court will rule this year on Google v. Oracle, and when it does, it can rein in both Google and the legal doctrine of 'transformative use,' an abuse of the 'fair use' exceptions to copyright laws.

"Google has long abused intellectual property protections and thus far managed to skirt any severe negative repercussions for it. But the tech giant may soon be held responsible for its borderline illegal behavior.

The Supreme Court will rule this year on Google v. Oracle, a case some say is the copyright case of the century. When it does, it will have the opportunity to rein in both Google and the legal doctrine of “transformative use,” an abuse of the “fair use” exceptions to copyright laws."

EFF Asks Supreme Court To Reverse Dangerous Rulings About API Copyrightability and Fair Use; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 13, 2020

Press Release, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);

EFF Asks Supreme Court To Reverse Dangerous Rulings About API Copyrightability and Fair Use

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that functional aspects of Oracle’s Java programming language are not copyrightable, and even if they were, employing them to create new computer code falls under fair use protections.

The court is reviewing a long-running lawsuit Oracle filed against Google, which claimed that Google’s use of certain Java application programming interfaces (APIs) in its Android operating system violated Oracle’s copyrights. The case has far-reaching implications for innovation in software development, competition, and interoperability.

In a brief filed today, EFF argues that the Federal Circuit, in ruling APIs were copyrightable, ignored clear and specific language in the copyright statute that excludes copyright protection for procedures, processes, and methods of operation."

Can R.E.M. stop Trump campaign from playing its songs at rallies?; CBS News, January 17, 2020

Kate Gibson, CBS News; Can R.E.M. stop Trump campaign from playing its songs at rallies?

"As R.E.M. threatens legal action to stop President Donald Trump from playing its classic hit songs at campaign rallies, the iconic band joins other musicians who have objected to their work serving as backdrops for politicians. Legal experts say artists do have a say in how their music is used, but getting their day in court can be costly and take years to pursue."

Should You Be Allowed to Copyright a Law? We're Going to Find Out; Gizmodo, December 4, 2019

Whitney Kimball, Gizmodo; Should You Be Allowed to Copyright a Law? We're Going to Find Out


"Copyright law, boring on its face, has posed various unprecedented threats to intellectual freedoms in recent internet history. It threatens to kill our links, kill our news, kill our memes, kill our precious videos of babies dancing to Prince. And yesterday, the Supreme Court considered the momentously stupid question: should you be able to paywall a law?"

Open Access: SCOTUS will consider whether publishers can copyright annotated state codes; ABA Journal, November 27, 2019

Mark Walsh, ABA Journal; Open Access: SCOTUS will consider whether publishers can copyright annotated state codes

"The question in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. is whether a work such as the Official Code of Georgia Annotated may not be copyrighted because it falls under the doctrine of “government edicts.” The doctrine stems from a series of 19th-century Supreme Court cases holding that judicial writings and other official legal works published under state authority are not “the proper subject of private copyright,” as an 1888 decision put it."