Judge awards graffiti artists $6.7M in suit against building owner who whitewashed their art; ABA Journal, February 14, 2018

Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal; Judge awards graffiti artists $6.7M in suit against building owner who whitewashed their art

"A federal judge in Brooklyn, New York, awarded statutory damages of $6.7 million to 21 graffiti artists in a suit that contended a building owner violated federal law when he painted over their artwork.

U.S. District Judge Frederic Block ruled Monday that 45 works of graffiti art on the 5Pointz warehouses in the borough of Queens were protected under the Visual Artists Rights Act because of their “recognized stature,” report the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Dean Nicyper, a Withers Bergman partner who specializes in art law, told the New York Times that the decision is the first to find that graffiti and graffiti artists were protected by VARA.

The Visual Artists Rights Act amends copyright law to give artists the right to attribution and integrity of their visual work."

Artist Says Kendrick Lamar Video for ‘Black Panther’ Song Stole Her Work; New York Times, February 11, 2018

Robin Pogrebin, New York Times; Artist Says Kendrick Lamar Video for ‘Black Panther’ Song Stole Her Work

"In detailing the infringement, the letter says the video contains a 19-second segment (starting at the 2:59 mark) “that incorporates not just the immediately-identifiable and unique look of her work, but also many of the specific copyrightable elements in the ‘Constellations’ series of paintings, including stylized motifs of mythical animals, gilded geometric forms on a black background, and distinctively textured areas and patterns, arrayed in a grid-like arrangement of forms.”

Nancy E. Wolff, a copyright lawyer who currently serves as the president of the Copyright Society of the USA, said that the video’s directors are likely to argue that the images in the video are not exact copies. But because the gold-on-black aesthetic of Ms. Viktor’s work “is so strong,” Ms. Wolff said, “it’s just going to look like it’s the same.”

“It’s really tricky because style is not protected,” Ms. Wolff added, “but I can see why everyone assumed this artist was involved.”"

Theft of intellectual property is a crime; St. Cloud Times, June 17, 2017

Karen Cyson, St. Cloud Times, sctimes.com; Theft of intellectual property is a crime

[Kip Currier: Wow...do we ever need more Intellectual Property education and awareness; lots of misconceptions and confusion out there. (Brief aside: See this story I posted a few days ago highlighting widespread confusion between copyrights and trademarks.)

This Op-Ed by Karen Cyson presents a wildly unbalanced understanding of the checks-and-balances codified within U.S. copyright law; regardless of whether one is or is not swayed by the facts of the alleged infringement. One of the biggest issues I have with this piece is that copyright law is often much more grey, more dependent on the specific facts of each particular case than Cyson makes it out to be:

No mention at all about whether the defense/doctrine of fair use might be applicable.

No acknowledgement of the increasing role of transformativeness within copyright law.

No insights into the downsides of copyright for the quilting community. No benchmarking comparisons made between the fashion industry (where there is no copyright protection for designs, at present, though various bills have been introduced over the past several years) and the quilting community.

And no distinctions between "attribution" and "infringement".

For an informative, more balanced look at the issues, read Tech Dirt's Glyn Moody (2012) post What Quilting's Legal Battles Can Teach Us About Copyright  ]

"We all know copying is wrong. If someone else wrote it, designed it, sang it, filmed it, drew it or photographed it, it's wrong to copy their work. It's illegal...

Theft of intellectual property — anyone's — is a crime. You can quote me. With attribution.

This is the opinion of Karen Cyson, a child-care provider in Stearns County and coordinator of Central MN Mensa. Her column is published the third Sunday of the month."

The Internet Is Where We Share — and Steal — the Best Ideas; New York Times, June 6, 2017

Jenna Wortham, New York Times; The Internet Is Where We Share — and Steal — the Best Ideas

"In April, a photograph of Rihanna and Lupita Nyong’o taken at a Miu Miu fashion show three years ago began recirculating online. Their friendly body language and chic clothes (Rihanna wore thigh-highs, fur and leather; Lupita a plum jacket with a jeweled collar) caught the imagination of the internet. A Twitter user named @1800SADGAL suggested that “Rihanna looks like she scams rich white men and Lupita is the computer-smart best friend that helps plan” the scams. People began talking about an “Ocean’s 11”-type film written by and starring black women. Issa Rae was nominated to write the script and Ava DuVernay to direct. All four women chimed in on Twitter, announcing their support, though what that meant seemed unclear. Like any other online frenzy, it disappeared after a few days.

But a few weeks later, Entertainment Weekly reported that the social-media fantasy was actually coming to life: Netflix beat out several bidders at Cannes to buy the concept, which could go into production as early as next year. Viewed one way, this is a tale about how the web has collapsed the distance between audience and creator. But it also raises questions about ownership in the digital age."

Can You Copyright Your Dumb Joke? And How Can You Prove It's Yours?; NPR, May 17. 2017

Laurel Wamsley, NPR; 

Can You Copyright Your Dumb Joke? And How Can You Prove It's Yours?

"In 2008, law professors Dotan Oliar and Christopher Sprigman published a paper that explored the norms comics had established to protect their intellectual property: their jokes...

Can you really copyright a dumb joke?

"The question really focuses on originality, and there is no freestanding barrier to copyright extending to a joke on any topic ... so long as that joke meets the fairly minimal requirements for originality," says Perzanowski. "That means it has to demonstrate some low level of creativity and importantly that it not be copied from some other source."

"Copyright will give you protection for this specific arrangement of words," he says, but not for a whole subject matter.

When it comes to topical comedy, he says, the question is whether one can separate an idea (which can't be copyrighted) from its expression (which can).

Judge Sammartino agrees. "[T]here is little doubt that the jokes at issue merit copyright protection," she writes, citing the relevant case law, "noting originality requires only independent creation of a work that 'possess[es] some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be.'"

However, she adds, the jokes here "are similarly constrained by their subject matter and the conventions of the two-line, setup-and-delivery paradigm."

The result is that for O'Brien's jokes to infringe on Kaseberg's copyright, they must be "virtually identical," one step below verbatim."

‘Remix’ or plagiarism? Artists battle over a Chicago mural of Michelle Obama.; Washington Post, April 24, 2017

Derek Hawkins, Washington Post; ‘Remix’ or plagiarism? Artists battle over a Chicago mural of Michelle Obama.

"Devins’s mural had only been up for a matter of hours when word got back to Mesfin. She objected to the use of her work without permission in a widely circulated Instagram post that triggered a wave of outrage online, saying she felt like Devins stole her piece.

“I was very disheartened when he did that,” Mesfin told The Washington Post. “There’s a common code among all artists that you can get inspired by someone’s work but you have to pay homage and you have to give credit for it.”...

Devins said he never intended to take credit for Mesfin’s creation, which itself was based off a portrait in the New York Times by photographer Collier Schorr. Mesfin credited Schorr’s work on her Instagram post...

Devins said he came across Mesfin’s drawing on the sharing site Pinterest and was unable to track down the artist. He explained his decision to use the image without permission in an analogy, saying he was creating a “remix” of a piece of art in the way that a DJ remixes songs."

He dreamed of screams: Meet the man behind the modern haunted house; Washington Post, 10/26/16

John Kelly, Washington Post; He dreamed of screams: Meet the man behind the modern haunted house:

" Itsi Atkins always believed that if he built it, they would scream.

And they did, by the thousands, at Blood Manor, the pulse-pounding, scream-inducing haunted house Itsi unveiled in 1971. When it became world famous — when a British tabloid called it “the sickest show in America” — Itsi knew that it had all been worth it — all that blood, all those severed limbs, all those fake guts and fake snakes, all those monsters, murderers and ghouls . . .

And to think it started in the wilds of St. Mary’s County, Md...

Itsi had trademarked the name “Blood Manor,” so when he saw the name being used for a Manhattan attraction — the sort of place lampooned in the “Saturday Night Live” David S. Pumpkins sketch — he sued them. They credited him with the name and concept on their website."

Led Zeppelin’s ‘Stairway to Heaven’ to Be Scrutinized in Court in Copyright Case; New York Times, 6/5/16

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Led Zeppelin’s ‘Stairway to Heaven’ to Be Scrutinized in Court in Copyright Case:

"Whatever happens with the Led Zeppelin trial, the industry is still trying to understand the effects of the “Blurred Lines” case, which is under appeal.

Matt Pincus, the chief executive of Songs Music Publishing, an independent publisher that works with current pop and hip-hop acts like the Weeknd and Desiigner, said his company was seeing far more claims of infringement now — most made privately, outside of court — than ever before. But the reasons were not clear, he said.

“It could be opportunism, because lawyers are smelling blood,” Mr. Pincus said. “But it could also be because we have moved to a real collaboration economy now, where pop records have multiple collaborators in a way that they didn’t five or six years ago.” Those collaborators may dispute credits or royalties after the fact."

Led Zeppelin members face trial in ‘Stairway to Heaven’ copyright infringement lawsuit; Washington Post, 4/12/16

Justin Wm. Moyer, Washington Post; Led Zeppelin members face trial in ‘Stairway to Heaven’ copyright infringement lawsuit:

"Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” has faced a lot of accusations in the 45 years since it was released. It’s overplayed, some say, particularly at high volumes by dudes trying to impress other dudes at guitar shops. It’s overlong, say others. And, for years, people have said “Stairway” sounds a lot like “Taurus” — a song by a much less famous band called Spirit who performed it allegedly while sharing bills with Zeppelin in the late 1960s. (You can listen for yourself here.)

But after decades of gossip, members of Led Zeppelin — specifically, singer Robert Plant and guitarist Jimmy Page, the writers of “Stairway” — will face a jury trial on May 10. The question: Did they copy at least some parts of their most famous song?"

Crosswords and copyright; Washington Post, 3/15/16

David Post, Washington Post; Crosswords and copyright:

"What’s interesting, to me, in all this, aside from the light it sheds on puzzle construction, is that it illustrates how “plagiarism,” though it is often conflated with copyright infringement, actually covers very different territory and involves very different interests. A crossword’s “theme” is probably one element of the puzzle-creator’s work that is not protected by copyright; copyright law doesn’t protect “ideas,” only the expression of ideas, and a puzzle’s theme is, in my opinion, just such an unprotectable “idea,” free for the taking (as far as copyright law is concerned). But it’s precisely this kind of taking — theme theft — that gets the angriest response from those in the puzzle-writing business.

This has a direct parallel in academic writing. There, too, the plagiarism norms focus on a kind of borrowing that the law of copyright deems permissible: taking another’s ideas or expression without attribution. Nobody in the academic world will complain if you use their ideas or quote their work — in fact, that’s very much the whole point of the enterprise. But to do so without citation — that will get you into the hottest of hot water. [Just ask Doris Kearns Goodwin, or Stephen Ambrose or Joseph Ellis]. Yet copyright law gives an author no enforceable right to have his/her work properly attributed to him/her — a fact that surprised the hell out of many of my law prof colleagues when they first learned of it (insofar as proper attribution was really the only thing they cared about)."

The Fat Jew, Plagiarism and Copyright Law; Forbes, 8/24/15

Oliver Herzfeld, Forbes; The Fat Jew, Plagiarism and Copyright Law:

"What are the differences between plagiarism and copyright infringement?

First, plagiarism is a violation of ethics and industry norms that involves the failure to properly attribute the authorship of copied material, whereas copyright infringement is a violation of law that involves the copying of “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,” without a license or a so-called “fair use” exemption. So claims of plagiarism would apply to any joke even if it is only conveyed in a live performance that is not recorded, while copyright infringement would not apply to any such jokes that are never recorded or published in any way. Exposure to claims of copyright infringement would only apply to jokes that are written down, captured on film or memorialized in some other physical medium, whether paper, video or computer server.

Second, plagiarism applies to the copying of both ideas and the expression of ideas, while copyright law only protects the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. The copyright law’s so-called “idea/expression dichotomy” can lead to a lot of thorny issues. For example, if a comedian changes the words of another’s joke and puts it into her own words, is that a copying of only the “idea” which would not constitute a copyright infringement or a “substantially similar” copying that would constitute a copyright infringement? This has led to an informal standard in the world of comedy, namely, claims of joke copying must be based on material that is highly original, not simply topical, obvious or based on common denominator topics such as mothers-in-law, bosses or airline food. In this case, however, Ostrovsky is accused of copying others’ works lock, stock and barrel. For example, in one instance, Ostrovsky copied another comedian’s image of a daily planner with time blocked off for “drugs and alcohol” and other humorous scheduled items. Ostrovsky deleted the name, social media handle and face of the author from the image but made no effort to recreate it, rephrase the wording or otherwise alter the expression of the original idea in any manner."

A Stolen Video of My Daughter Went Viral. Here’s What I Learned; New York Times, 9/26/14

Carrie Goldman, New York Times; A Stolen Video of My Daughter Went Viral. Here’s What I Learned:

"In early September, someone downloaded my video of Cleo, stripped it of all identifying information, changed the title from “Cleo on Equality” to “Wisdom of a 4-Year-Old”, and re-uploaded it to YouTube, passing it off as his or her own video. A woman in Amsterdam posted an embedded version of the stolen video to her Facebook page, from which it went viral. Within a matter of days, the stripped-down version of the video had been shared over 80,000 times.

I only learned about it when the pirated video began appearing in the news feed of people who recognized Cleo and noticed that it was not linked to any of my accounts. I felt sick on multiple levels. I have always known, of course, that the mere act of uploading a video to any digital site means potentially losing control over that content. But now it had happened, and even though the shares appeared to be harmless — approving, even — it was still terrifying. What if someone decided to do something creepy with it?

There was also a part of me that saw all the comments lauding Cleo’s grasp of acceptance, and I wanted those people to be linked back to my anti-bullying work. I missed the opportunity to share what I do for a living with a wide audience. I was sad and confused. Was I upset because the video was out there being viewed by tons of strangers, or was I upset because it was out there and I wasn’t getting credit? Both, probably...

I knew I had rights under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Since I speak to students and teachers all the time about good digital citizenship, I knew what steps to take next:

• Do not retaliate against someone online

• Take a screen shot and record the evidence

• Use this online form to report the violation to Facebook.

• Use this online form to report a copyright infringement on YouTube."

Intellectual Property Watch; Meeting Highlights Use Of Open Data In Science, Health And Sustainable Development, 9/18/13

Alessandro Marongiu, Intellectual Property Watch; Meeting Highlights Use Of Open Data In Science, Health And Sustainable Development: "At the end of a two-day conference in Switzerland, open knowledge experts emphasised the role of open data in strengthening science findings’ credibility, fostering medical research and enhancing sustainable development. The 2013 Open Knowledge Conference, an annual event organised by the Open Knowledge Foundation, aimed at understanding existing trends with a specific focus on open data use in new areas and sectors. The event was held in Geneva on 17-18 September... However, opening up scientific data may raise some concerns, particularly under the perspective of intellectual property rights. “As you access code and data, the role of copyright is not something to be ignored,” Victoria Stodden said. “US law says that original expressions of ideas fall under copyright by default. This is a barrier for me. To use a code I have to ask permission, it is actually not legal to just grab a code even if you put it on the web,” she added. She called on scientists to give up their IP rights for the sake of reproducibility and ask just for attribution when others use their data."