Roy Greenslade, Guardian; Photographer wins copyright ruling:
"The high court made a ruling on 16 October that has important ramifications for newspaper and magazine publishers and photographers, but it appears to have slipped under the mainstream media radar.
Judges found in favour of a freelance photographer Alan Grisbrook who had sued Mirror Group Newspapers for infringing his copyright in archived images.
In a 2002 consent order, following a previous legal action taken by Grisbrook against MGN over unpaid licence fees, MGN agreed to delete all electronic copies of his photos from its systems.
So when Grisbrook discovered last year that MGN were making available back copies of their titles to paying customers through websites, and that these contained some of his images, he believed MGN were infringing his copyright and breaching the previous consent order.
He said that he had never consented to the inclusion of his images in the group's back numbers database nor on their websites.
MGN argued that the use of the images was in the public interest, and that Grisbrook's licence extended to back copy editions archived electronically.
Following the ruling, technology lawyer Tom Cowling said that photographers should look at their licences.
If they have licensed images to a newspaper which, like MGN, is making back copies of their editions available online to paid subscribers, they may well have a claim in copyright infringement if their licence agreement did not clearly allow such use."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/26/trinity-mirror-medialaw
Showing posts with label potential copyright infringement lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label potential copyright infringement lawsuits. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Muggle lawyers ban Harry Potter feast; Guardian, 10/25/09
Anushka Asthana, Guardian; Muggle lawyers ban Harry Potter feast:
"Warner Bros has banned a woman who runs a restaurant at her home in west London from hosting a Harry Potter Night to celebrate Hallowe'en.
The owner of The Underground Restaurant, who uses the pseudonym Ms Marmite Lover, regularly holds themed evenings and for her latest event she had planned a menu of food and drink enjoyed by Harry Potter and his friends in the JK Rowling stories: from dandelion wine and pumpkin soup to Dumbledore's favourite sweets, such as mint humbugs. Guests were to be taken down Diagon Alley (the side of the house) before entering and would be met by a portrait of the "Fat Lady" to whom they would have to give a password.
However, Warner Bros has written to her warning that it owns all things Harry Potter: the "name, stylised logo, the name of the characters, themes, incidents and other associated indicia from the series of... books and films".
The letter from the company's legal and business department says: "Dear Ms Marmite Lover. While we are delighted you are such a fan of the Harry Potter series, unfortunately your proposed use of the Harry Potter properties... without our consent would amount to an infringement of Warner's rights."
Ms Marmite Lover has now renamed the event, as Warner Bros suggested, "Generic Wizard Night".
The Underground restaurant is one of the first of a new trend of "pop-up restaurants" – dining experiences operated out of people's homes and advertised via Facebook and word-of-mouth. However, the publicity it has generated also brought it to the attention of Warner Bros.
Ms Marmite said: "I understand that you need to protect the rights but this is two dinners, one-offs, from which I am not making a profit, inspired by the books and the mentions of food in them. My daughter is a huge fan, even an obsessive."
Feeling the corporate might of Warner Bros is quite a surprise for the new chef. When she hosted a Marmite night at The Underground Restaurant, with the spread included in every dish, the company was more than a little pleased. Instead of warning her about its copyright position, it made sure she was stocked up with plenty of marmite – and all for free."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/25/harry-potter-lawyers-ban-restaurant
"Warner Bros has banned a woman who runs a restaurant at her home in west London from hosting a Harry Potter Night to celebrate Hallowe'en.
The owner of The Underground Restaurant, who uses the pseudonym Ms Marmite Lover, regularly holds themed evenings and for her latest event she had planned a menu of food and drink enjoyed by Harry Potter and his friends in the JK Rowling stories: from dandelion wine and pumpkin soup to Dumbledore's favourite sweets, such as mint humbugs. Guests were to be taken down Diagon Alley (the side of the house) before entering and would be met by a portrait of the "Fat Lady" to whom they would have to give a password.
However, Warner Bros has written to her warning that it owns all things Harry Potter: the "name, stylised logo, the name of the characters, themes, incidents and other associated indicia from the series of... books and films".
The letter from the company's legal and business department says: "Dear Ms Marmite Lover. While we are delighted you are such a fan of the Harry Potter series, unfortunately your proposed use of the Harry Potter properties... without our consent would amount to an infringement of Warner's rights."
Ms Marmite Lover has now renamed the event, as Warner Bros suggested, "Generic Wizard Night".
The Underground restaurant is one of the first of a new trend of "pop-up restaurants" – dining experiences operated out of people's homes and advertised via Facebook and word-of-mouth. However, the publicity it has generated also brought it to the attention of Warner Bros.
Ms Marmite said: "I understand that you need to protect the rights but this is two dinners, one-offs, from which I am not making a profit, inspired by the books and the mentions of food in them. My daughter is a huge fan, even an obsessive."
Feeling the corporate might of Warner Bros is quite a surprise for the new chef. When she hosted a Marmite night at The Underground Restaurant, with the spread included in every dish, the company was more than a little pleased. Instead of warning her about its copyright position, it made sure she was stocked up with plenty of marmite – and all for free."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/25/harry-potter-lawyers-ban-restaurant
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Librarians Fighting Google's Book Deal; Time, 6/17/09
Janet Morrissey via Time; Librarians Fighting Google's Book Deal:
"Goliath Google facing off against a legion of librarians and, possibly, the U.S. Justice Department — now there's a fight...
In a complex settlement agreement, which took three years to hammer out and spans 135 pages excluding attachments, Google will be allowed to show up to 20% of the books' text online at no charge to Web surfers. But the part of the settlement that deals with so-called orphan books — which refers to out-of-print books whose authors and publishers are unknown — is what's ruffling the most feathers in the literary henhouse. The deal gives Google an exclusive license to publish and profit from these orphans, which means it won't face legal action if an author or owner comes forward later. This, critics contend, gives it a competitive edge over any rival that wants to set up a competing digital library. And without competition, opponents fear Google will start charging exorbitant fees to academic libraries and others who want full access to its digital library.
"It will make Google virtually invulnerable to competition," says Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system.
Although competitors could scan orphans, they would not be protected from copyright suits as Google is under the agreement. "They'd face lawsuits all over the place," making the risk too big, said Darnton.
Without competition, pricing could go wild, critics claim. The registry, which oversees pricing, is comprised of authors and publishers who stand to benefit from high subscription fees. "There will be no incentive to keep prices moderate," Darnton says.
The library community recalls with horror the pricing fiasco that occurred when industry consolidation left academic journals in the hands of five publishing companies. The firms hiked subscription prices 227% over a 14-year period, between 1986 and 2002, forcing cash-strapped libraries to drop many subscriptions, according to Van Orsdel. "The chance of the price being driven up in a similar way (in the Google deal) is really very real," he says.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1904495,00.html?imw=Y
"Goliath Google facing off against a legion of librarians and, possibly, the U.S. Justice Department — now there's a fight...
In a complex settlement agreement, which took three years to hammer out and spans 135 pages excluding attachments, Google will be allowed to show up to 20% of the books' text online at no charge to Web surfers. But the part of the settlement that deals with so-called orphan books — which refers to out-of-print books whose authors and publishers are unknown — is what's ruffling the most feathers in the literary henhouse. The deal gives Google an exclusive license to publish and profit from these orphans, which means it won't face legal action if an author or owner comes forward later. This, critics contend, gives it a competitive edge over any rival that wants to set up a competing digital library. And without competition, opponents fear Google will start charging exorbitant fees to academic libraries and others who want full access to its digital library.
"It will make Google virtually invulnerable to competition," says Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system.
Although competitors could scan orphans, they would not be protected from copyright suits as Google is under the agreement. "They'd face lawsuits all over the place," making the risk too big, said Darnton.
Without competition, pricing could go wild, critics claim. The registry, which oversees pricing, is comprised of authors and publishers who stand to benefit from high subscription fees. "There will be no incentive to keep prices moderate," Darnton says.
The library community recalls with horror the pricing fiasco that occurred when industry consolidation left academic journals in the hands of five publishing companies. The firms hiked subscription prices 227% over a 14-year period, between 1986 and 2002, forcing cash-strapped libraries to drop many subscriptions, according to Van Orsdel. "The chance of the price being driven up in a similar way (in the Google deal) is really very real," he says.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1904495,00.html?imw=Y
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)