Consumers caught out as UK firms furnished with crippling copyright laws; Guardian, 11/21/16

Anna Tims, Guardian; Consumers caught out as UK firms furnished with crippling copyright laws:

"Voga, it transpires, reinvented itself as an Irish company in May to escape new UK copyright laws that would have rendered much of its merchandise illegal. There’s no mention of the relocation on its website, which also does not give an address, and the FAQs on delivery and extra charges are silent on the issue. Only deep down in the terms and conditions is it mentioned that customers must arrange their own delivery from Ireland.

McGrath is an early casualty of a change in British legislation which has made it a criminal offence to sell replicas of design icons without a pricey licence. The amendment to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which came in to force in July, retrospectively extends the design rights to unregistered classic works created after 1957 from 25 years after their launch to 70 years after the designer’s death. This sounds the death knell for affordable replicas of 20th-century bestsellers such as the Arco floor lamp and Arne Jacobsen’s Egg chair and threatens to put scores of companies that supply them out of business.

A further proposed rule change will slap copyright on iconic pre-1957 designs which never qualified for copyright protection in the first place, making it a criminal offence to incorporate any element of them into a new work. This means that anyone without a licence from the copyright holder who is selling , for example, the Finn Juhl-inspired chair bought by McGrath could face a £50,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. Householders who want to get the look will now have to fork out thousands rather than hundreds for a piece of furniture, and magazines will be penalised if they show photos of items protected by the copyright without buying a licence."

YouTuber Faces $300,000 Fine Over Donald Trump Parody; Digital Music News, 11/14/16

Paul Resnikoff, Digital Music News; YouTuber Faces $300,000 Fine Over Donald Trump Parody:

[Kip Currier: Interesting fact pattern but misleading clickbait headline and incomplete/inaccurate statements in some areas regarding the potential damages, i.e. the maximum amount for an instance of willful copyright infringement is $150,000. But the range of that damages continuum is $750 - $150,000. Under the U.S. Copyright Act, § 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits sets out under the Statutory Damages provision that: "(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."]

[Paul Resnikoff writes here that:]"Perhaps more importantly, the cost for infringing on copyright is $150,000 per work. At two license violations, that comes to $300,000. Atkins may face that penalty if a judge rules against him. [In that last sentence, "...may face that penalty...", is an important nuance.]

The teardown and lawsuit is raising fresh questions about whether parody is indeed protected by copyright law. Or, whether substantial uses of copyrighted material constitute grounds for a complete rip-down. The ‘Clockwork Trump’ YouTube clip employs plenty of snippets from A Clockwork Orange, though it also borrows heavily from Carlos’ version of William Tell Overture.

Atkin is obviously arguing that this isn’t infringement, though his parody makes no mention of the music itself.

Update: 5:30 am PT: Looks like another version of the Donald Trump video is back up, though we’re not sure if this is the original upload. We’re still determining if this is because the counter-notification was indeed granted.

The teardown comes at a tense moment between YouTube and the music industry. Outspoken critics like manager Irving Azoff have blasted YouTube for failing to compensate artists properly, while YouTube says its takedown system is effective. Now, it appears that copyright owners are taking matters into their own hands."

'Gone With the Wind' and 'Wizard of Oz' protected by copyright in merchandising suit; Los Angeles Times, 11/1/16

David Ng, Los Angeles Times; 'Gone With the Wind' and 'Wizard of Oz' protected by copyright in merchandising suit:

[Kip Currier: This week in my IP and "Open" Movements graduate course we looked at two high profile music infringement lawsuits, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset and Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum. Good case studies (among others) for thinking about use of copyrighted works by individuals/institutions and copyright enforcement. Timely to see Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset damages assessment and rationale cited in the case discussed below.]

"The defense filed another appeal, but this week, a court upheld the ruling as well as damages amounting to $10,000 for 257 copyright infractions, resulting in an award of nearly $2.6 million.

The judgment “sends a strong message about the risk of engaging in copyright and trademark infringement,” said Frederick J. Sperling, a partner at the law firm Schiff Hardin LLP, who represented Warner Bros.

Valencia, the defendant, didn’t respond to a request for comment sent through a lawyer.

The case was filed in Missouri because some of the licensees selling the products in question were based in the state.

In upholding the damages amount, the appeals court cited a 2012 Capitol Records case in which the label sued an individual for putting copyrighted songs on the Kazaa file-sharing platform. In that case, a court awarded damages of $9,250 per infringed work.

Damages for copyright infringement range between $750 and $30,000 per instance, according to U.S. law.

In its 2011 decision, the 8th Circuit court ruled that characters such as Dorothy and the Scarecrow, as well as Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler, are “sufficiently distinctive to merit character protection under the respective film copyrights.”"

What spoons have to do with the Samsung-Apple patent lawsuit; PBSNewsHour, 10/11/16

Gretchen Frazee, PBS NewsHour; What spoons have to do with the Samsung-Apple patent lawsuit:

"The court’s task is not to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple’s patents but to determine how much money Samsung should pay Apple for doing so.

It marks the first time in 120 years that the the court has reviewed a design patent case. (The Supreme Court has reviewed patents based on function, but not appearance.) And the last design patent cases reviewed by the high court dealt in saddles, rugs and spoons.

In fact, one particular case involving 19th-century spoons, Gorham v. White, was cited multiple times by lawyers before the Supreme Court on Tuesday."

Apple-Samsung iPhone patent feud leaves U.S. top court struggling; Reuters, 10/11/16

Andrew Chung, Reuters; Apple-Samsung iPhone patent feud leaves U.S. top court struggling:

"The fierce, big-money patent fight between Apple and Samsung left the U.S. Supreme Court groping for a solution on Tuesday, as the justices puzzled over how to discern the value of individual design elements in a complex product like an iPhone.

The eight justices heard arguments in Samsung's bid to pare back $399 million of $548 million it paid Apple in December following a 2012 jury verdict finding that it infringed Apple's iPhone patents and copied its distinctive appearance in making the Galaxy and other competing devices.

The $399 million penalty stemmed specifically from Samsung's violation of three Apple patents on the design of the iPhone's rounded-corner front face, bezel and colorful grid of icons that represent programs and applications."

Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm & Sanrio slice into cake-frosting seller; ComicBookResources.com, 9/4/15

Kevin Melrose, ComicBookResources.com; Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm & Sanrio slice into cake-frosting seller:

"Disney, Marvel and Lucasfilm have joined with Sanrio to stop a company from selling unlicensed cake frosting featuring their incredibly lucrative properties.

As first reported by THR, Esq., the entertainment giants filed a trademark- and copyright-infringement lawsuit against George and Danielle Wilson, whose Wilson Cake Imaging offers printed, edible frosting sheets and cake toppers depicting a wide range of characters and performers."

‘Blurred Lines’ Infringed on Marvin Gaye Copyright, Jury Rules; New York Times, 3/10/15

Ben Sisario and Noah Smith, New York Times; ‘Blurred Lines’ Infringed on Marvin Gaye Copyright, Jury Rules:

"According to the jury’s decision, Nona and Frankie Gaye, two of Marvin Gaye’s children, are to receive $4 million in damages, plus $3.3 million in profits attributed to Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams, as well as about $9,000 in statutory damages for the infringement of copyright. Clifford Harris Jr., better known as T.I., who contributed a rap in the song, was found not liable.

The decision is one of the largest damage awards in a music copyright case, some legal experts said. In one of the few comparable cases, Michael Bolton and Sony were ordered to pay $5.4 million in 1994 for infringing on a 1960s song by the soul group the Isley Brothers."

Pharrell Williams Acknowledges Similarity to Gaye Song in ‘Blurred Lines’ Case; New York Times, 3/4/15

Ben Sisario and Noah Smith, New York Times; Pharrell Williams Acknowledges Similarity to Gaye Song in ‘Blurred Lines’ Case:

"How closely does Robin Thicke’s hit “Blurred Lines” resemble a classic by Marvin Gaye?

That question is central to a closely watched copyright case here, and on Wednesday, Pharrell Williams, the producer behind “Blurred Lines,” acknowledged a similarity to Gaye’s 1977 song “Got to Give It Up” but denied that there had been any intention to copy it.

“I must have been channeling that feeling, that late-’70s feeling,” Mr. Williams testified in the case, which pits him and Mr. Thicke against the family of Gaye, who died in 1984...

Mr. Busch then asked Mr. Williams whether “Blurred Lines” had a similar “feel” to “Got to Give It Up” and others from its era.

“Feel,” Mr. Williams said, “not infringement.”"

Industry Issues Intrude in ‘Blurred Lines’ Case; New York Times, 3/1/15

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Industry Issues Intrude in ‘Blurred Lines’ Case:

"Copyright cases can be esoteric affairs. But the “Blurred Lines” trial, which began Tuesday before Judge John A. Kronstadt in United States District Court for the Central District of California, has provided a rare window into an unseemly and embarrassing side of the music industry. Testimony and a flurry of pretrial documents have revealed lurid details of drugs, unearned songwriting credits, and intentional deception of the news media employed as a standard promotional practice...

If Mr. Thicke’s side loses, the potential damages could be large. “Blurred Lines” has sold 7.3 million copies in the United States, and Richard S. Busch, the Gaye family’s lawyer, claimed in his opening statement that the song had earned at least $30 million in profit — a figure Mr. Thicke’s lawyers disputed. If Mr. Thicke’s side is found liable of infringement, then the jury would decide what percentage of the song’s profits should be shared with the Gayes as damages."

Beastie Boys win $1.7 million in copyright case vs. Monster Beverage; Reuters, 6/5/14

Nate Raymond, Reuters; Beastie Boys win $1.7 million in copyright case vs. Monster Beverage:

"Beastie Boys' fight for their right to not let Monster Beverage Corp use the hip-hop group's music without their permission resulted in a verdict of $1.7 million on Thursday.

A federal jury in Manhattan issued the verdict on the eighth day of trial in a copyright dispute between members of the Brooklyn-born band and the energy drink maker over songs the band says Monster used without a license in a 2012 promotional video.

The Beastie Boys had sought up to $2.5 million for copyright infringement and false endorsement."

Haitian Photographer Wins Major U.S. Copyright Victory; New York Times, 11/23/13

James Estrin, New York Times; Haitian Photographer Wins Major U.S. Copyright Victory: "Photographers have struggled financially over the last decade as millions of images have been taken and published on the Web without proper attribution or compensation. And when photographers try to pursue copyright violators, it is often difficult and expensive. On Friday, the Haitian photographer Daniel Morel won a major copyright victory after a four-year fight over images he had originally sent out via social media. A Manhattan jury found that Agence France-Presse and its American distributor Getty Images willfully infringed upon Mr. Morel’s copyright of eight pictures he took of the 2010 Haiti earthquake and awarded him $1.22 million."

Is The NFL Committing Copyright Infringement By Using Photos Without Consent?; Forbes, 10/23/13

Darren heitner, Forbes; Is The NFL Committing Copyright Infringement By Using Photos Without Consent? : "On October 21, 2013, seven photographers filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the National Football League (NFL), Replay Photos, Getty Images and the Associated Press. The lawsuit requests damages for copyright infringement from all the defendants, damages for vicarious and contributory copyright infringement, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The basis for the action is that the NFL has used photos in violation of the photographers’ copyrights in the same. The photographers further allege that the NFL’s failed to receive consent to use the photos in connection with the NFL’s advertisements, news, promotions and products."

Filmmaker picks a copyright fight with “Happy Birthday”; ArsTechnica.com, 6/14/13

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.com; Filmmaker picks a copyright fight with “Happy Birthday” : "Filmmakers and TV producers have long been harassed by Warner/Chappell Music, a subsidiary of Time Warner that enforces the copyright on "Happy Birthday," probably the most popular song in the world. If that song pops up in any TV show or movie, the creators are sure to get a hefty bill. The makers of the critically acclaimed 1994 documentary Hoop Dreams had to pay $5,000 for a scene of one of the protagonists' families singing the song. By 1996, Warner/Chappell was pulling in more than $2 million per year from licensing. Now there's a new documentary about the song, and of course, the filmmakers had to pay the fee for a "synchronization license"—it was $1,500. But it sure didn't sit well with them. Yesterday, Good Morning To You, the company that made the documentary, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to prove once and for all that the copyright on "Happy Birthday" is long dead."

Copyright breaches land group in trouble; Sydney Morning Herald,

Kate Benson, Sydney Morning Herald; Copyright breaches land group in trouble:

"An anti-vaccination group is under fire for allegedly breaching copyright laws by selling newspaper and medical journal articles online without permission from the authors.

The Australian Vaccination Network, which was the subject of a public warning issued by the Health Care Complaints Commission last month, withdrew 11 information packs from its website yesterday after complaints from authors.

The packs, which were selling for up to $128, included home-made books filled with articles photocopied from journals around the world, information on drugs taken from MIMS, the medical guide used by doctors and nurses, and copies of brochures inserted in medication boxes by pharmaceutical companies.

Under the Copyright Act, articles can be copied for personal research or for use by students but cannot be disseminated widely or sold...

Mary-Anne Toy, from The Age newspaper, said she did not recall giving the network permission to sell her work and would seek payment. Leigh Dayton, a science reporter at The Australian newspaper, was also unaware her story was being sold.

Kate Haddock, a copyright lawyer, said those found breaching the law could face substantial damages.

Damages would increase if articles were reproduced in a way which would cause readers to think less of the writers, Ms Haddock said."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/copyright-breaches-land-group-in-trouble-20100831-14fna.html

Rhode Island Pub Owner Faces Suit Over Music Copyrights, New York Times, 12/14/08

Via New York Times: Rhode Island Pub Owner Faces Suit Over Music Copyrights:

"The bar’s owner, Patrick Griffin, is being sued by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, or Ascap. The organization says the bar violated federal copyright law during the show and is seeking up to $120,000 in damages."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/us/14pub.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=copyright&st=cse

Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case, New York Times, 11/18/08

Via New York Times: Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/legal-jujitsu-in-a-file-sharing-copyright-case/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse