Showing posts with label class action lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class action lawsuit. Show all posts

Friday, May 25, 2018

It Took 17 Years: Freelancers Receive $9 Million in Copyright Suit; The New York Times, April 30, 2018

Jaclyn Peiser, The New York Times;It Took 17 Years: Freelancers Receive $9 Million in Copyright Suit

"Seventeen years after nearly 3,000 freelance journalists filed a class-action lawsuit claiming copyright infringement by some of the country’s biggest publishers, the checks are finally in the mail.

The 2,500 writers who made it through the tortuous legal process will start receiving their pieces of a settlement totaling $9 million this week...

The Authors Guild filed the suit — along with the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the National Writers Union and 21 freelance writers named as class representatives — in 2001 after publishers licensed articles by freelancers to the electronic database Lexis/Nexis and other digital indexers without getting the writers’ approval. The publishers include The New York Times, Dow Jones, and Knight Ridder, as well as Reed Elsevier, the provider of Lexis/Nexis.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Pitt Law Librarians Help Uncover Smoking Gun Evidence in Historic “Happy Birthday” Song Lawsuit; Pitt Law, 7/28/15

Pitt Law; Pitt Law Librarians Help Uncover Smoking Gun Evidence in Historic “Happy Birthday” Song Lawsuit:
"It’s evidence that might prove conclusively there is no copyright to the lyrics of the “Happy Birthday” song, and attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit Good Morning To You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc discovered it was housed in the University of Pittsburgh’s library storage facility. Scrambling to get a hold of it, the attorneys contacted Pitt Law professor and intellectual property law expert Michael Madison. He put them in touch with the Barco Law Library's interim director Marc Silverman and law librarian Linda Tashbook.
The fourth edition of The Everyday Song Book was published in 1922 and contains lyrics for “Happy Birthday To You” without any copyright notice, which predates Warner/Chappell’s 1935 copyright registration...
Now with the help of Pitt Law and the University, the world’s most recognized song in the English language (according to the Guinness Book of World Records) may become free to the public. In a new filing in the case (PDF), the attorneys for the plaintiffs write, “[T]he documents prove conclusively that the song is in the public domain, thus making it unnecessary for the Court to decide the scope or validity of the disputed copyrights…""

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Filmmakers fighting “Happy Birthday” copyright find their “smoking gun”; ArsTechnica.com, 7/27/15

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.com; Filmmakers fighting “Happy Birthday” copyright find their “smoking gun” :
"t's been two years since filmmakers making a documentary about the song "Happy Birthday" filed a lawsuit claiming that the song shouldn't be under copyright. Now, they have filed (PDF) what they say is "proverbial smoking-gun evidence" that should cause the judge to rule in their favor.
The "smoking gun" is a 1927 version of the "Happy Birthday" lyrics, predating Warner/Chappell's 1935 copyright by eight years. That 1927 songbook, along with other versions located through the plaintiffs' investigations, "conclusively prove that any copyright that may have existed for the song itself... expired decades ago."
Even if the owner wasn't first, "Copyright law requires originality, not novelty." If the filmmakers' lawyers are right, it could mean a quick route to victory in a lawsuit that's been both slow-moving and closely watched by copyright reform advocates. Warner/Chappell has built a licensing empire based on "Happy Birthday," which in 1996 was pulling in more than $2 million per year."

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Judge Allows Class-Action Suit Over Google’s Book Scanning; New York Times, 5/31/12

Julie Bosman, New York Times; Judge Allows Class-Action Suit Over Google’s Book Scanning:

"A federal judge in Manhattan granted class-action status on Thursday to authors suing Google over the company’s ambitious book-scanning project, allowing the long-stalled case to move forward...

James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School who has studied the legal aspects of the case, said the judge’s decision “makes it very likely that we’re going to have a very high-stakes decision about Google’s book-scanning project.”"

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Class-action lawsuit targets Righthaven's "extortion litigation"; ArsTechnica.com, 5/18/11

Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; Class-action lawsuit targets Righthaven's "extortion litigation" :

"Righthaven has gone after more than 250 publishers for allegedly violating newspaper copyrights, and it has extracted settlements from many of them. But one defendant is fighting back in Colorado, launching a class-action counterclaim against Righthaven.

"Class Plaintiffs are victims of extortion litigation by Righthaven,” says the counterclaim, “which has made such extortion litigation a part of its, if not its entire, business model.”"

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Visual Artists to Sue Google Over Vast Library Project; New York Times, 4/7/10

Miguel Helft, New York Times; Visual Artists to Sue Google Over Vast Library Project:

"As Google awaits approval of a controversial settlement with authors and book publishers, the company’s plan to create an immense digital library and bookstore may face yet another hurdle.
On Wednesday, the American Society of Media Photographers and other groups representing visual artists plan to file a class-action lawsuit against Google, asserting that the company’s efforts to digitize millions of books from libraries amount to large-scale infringement of their copyrights.

The lawsuit, in some respects, mirrors the complaints filed in 2005 by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers when they first opposed Google’s library project on copyright grounds.

Those groups have since agreed to a sweeping $125 million settlement that, if approved, would allow Google to make available and sell digital copies of millions of out-of-print books. The settlement would also give authors and publishers new ways to make money from digital copies of their work.

The photographer group decided to file suit after its efforts to intervene in the settlement were rejected by a court last year. The complaint claims Google’s mass copying efforts infringe on the rights of photographers and other creators of graphic works.

“We are seeking justice and fair compensation for visual artists whose work appears in the 12 million books and other publications Google has illegally scanned to date,” said Victor Perlman, general counsel for the American Society of Media Photographers.

Other groups joining the class action include the Graphic Artists Guild, the North American Nature Photography Association and the Professional Photographers of America, as well as individual photographers and illustrators.

Google’s settlement with authors and publishers largely excluded photographs and other visual works. Legal experts said it was not unexpected that Google would face claims from groups that were not part of the original case and are not covered by it.

“Google is trying to control or expand access to virtually all information in the world,” said Scott Moss, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Law School. “It isn’t surprising that their settlement with written authors doesn’t end all their legal battles.”

Professor Moss said that while Google would have to contend with the allegations made by the photographers and graphic artists, the new case was not likely to delay or otherwise affect the company’s settlement with authors and publishers.

Judge Denny Chin, of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is expected to rule on the validity of the proposed settlement in the coming months.

The agreement has faced a barrage of opposition from Google rivals like Amazon.com and Microsoft, as well as many academics and legal scholars, representatives of authors and estates, and even some foreign governments. The Justice Department said the settlement posed antitrust and other legal problems.

Unlike the suit by authors and publishers, which focused largely on Google’s scanning of books from libraries, the suit from the photographers and graphic artists includes Google’s “partner program,” under which some publishers allow Google to include their books in the company’s book search service. The new suit claims the program fails to adequately compensate visual artists for the use of their work."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07google.html?scp=1&sq=visual%20artists&st=cse

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The Computer Stole My Homework -- and Sold It Through an Essay Mill; Wired Campus, 11/23/09

Ben Terris, Wired Campus; The Computer Stole My Homework -- and Sold It Through an Essay:

"Without her knowing it, a paper that Melinda Riebolt co-wrote while getting her M.B.A. was stolen and put up for sale. And, according to an article that USA Today reported last week, that same scenario has played out many times before.

The article discusses how some essay mills -- Web sites that provide written works for students -- surreptitiously steal work and then sell it for others to pass off as their own.

For the first time, however, those who find unauthorized postings of their work online may have a way to seek legal retribution. The article says a class-action lawsuit filed in 2006 is making its way through the courts, and one judge in Illinois has found a provider liable on six counts, including fraud and copyright infringement. That site is called RC2C Inc. and hosts at least nine sites that sell term papers.

Essay mills often provide their own written works."

http://chronicle.com/blogPost/The-Computer-Stole-My-Homework/8961/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en