Richard Prince to Pay Photographers Who Sued Over Copyright; The New York Times, January 26, 2024

 Matt Stevens, The New York Times; Richard Prince to Pay Photographers Who Sued Over Copyright

"The artist Richard Prince agreed to pay at least $650,000 to two photographers whose images he had incorporated in his own work, ending a long-running copyright dispute that had been closely monitored by the art world...

Brian Sexton, a lawyer for Prince, said the artist wanted to protect free expression and have copyright law catch up to changing technology...

Marriott said the judgments showed that copyright law still provided meaningful protection to creators and that the internet was not a copying free-for-all.

“There is not a fair use exception to copyright law that applies to the famous and another that applies to everyone else,” he said."

Marvel Settles Fight Over Spider-Man, Doctor Strange Rights; The Hollywood Reporter, December 8, 2023

Ashley Cullins, The Hollywood Reporter; Marvel Settles Fight Over Spider-Man, Doctor Strange Rights

"It looks like Marvel won’t be bringing its battle over the rights to Spider-Man and Doctor Strange into the new year. Attorneys for the company and the estate of Steve Ditko on Wednesday notified the court that they’ve reached an amicable settlement and expect a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice to be filed in the coming weeks.

This all started back in 2021, when Marvel filed a series of lawsuits in response to copyright termination notices from Larry Lieber and the estates of Gene Colan, Steve Ditko, Don Heck and Don Rico. A very long list of characters were at issue, including Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, Hulk and Thor. In June, all but one of the matters settled."

Who owns your ink? Tattoos artists turn to lawsuits to protect intellectual property; Australian Broadcasting Company, 10/26/16

Antony Funnell, Australian Broadcasting Company; Who owns your ink? Tattoos artists turn to lawsuits to protect intellectual property:

"Professor Johnson said she had never heard of a situation where a judge has ordered the physical removal of a tattoo. Most disputes are resolved before the need for court intervention.

"Oftentimes when there is a lawsuit, they settle very quickly because the tattoo artist a lot of times doesn't have much to lose. They are very, very interested in getting justice," she said.

"But we do have a lot of settlement talks, a lot of negotiations where people are trying to figure out how to agree in this particular capacity."

Her advice for anyone thinking of getting a tattoo in this modern litigious world?

"Get a release very early. Get a contract signed between you as the tattooed individual and the tattoo artist," she said.

"That is one of the best things an individual can do if they find themselves running afoul of some copyright-related claim, some type of contract.""

Can R.E.M. demand Donald Trump “cease and desist” playing their song?; Salon.com, 9/10/15

Scott Timberg, Salon.com; Can R.E.M. demand Donald Trump “cease and desist” playing their song? :

"We spoke to intellectual property lawyer Joel Schoenfeld, a former counsel for the Record Industry Association of American and now an attorney at the New York firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp. The interview has been edited slightly for clarity.

This week we have another couple of cases of political figures using rock songs at rallies and the bands objecting. Do the musicians – R.E.M. and Survivor in these cases — have any legal leg to stand on?

Yes. Basically, when an artist records a song, there are usually two copyrights involved. One is the musical composition being performed, which may or may not be written by the people who perform it, and the other is the master recording of that song, usually owned by the artist or the band. Usually, if they’re relatively successful, the artist or band has signed a deal with their record label, who has then the full rights to exercise their copyright in that master recording. Same with a songwriter or composer, who has probably done a deal with a music publisher who also has those rights.

There are [also] artists who alleged public confusion – making the public think that artist is endorsing that politician. I’m not aware of any case that’s come to a judgment, but they’re usually settled and the politician is usually the one that apologizes."

The Biggest Filer of Copyright Lawsuits? This Erotica Web Site; New Yorker, 5/15/14

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Canadian court ruling in Teksavvy file sharing case a blow to copyright trolls: Geist; Toronto Star, 2/21/14

Michael Geist, Toronto Star; Canadian court ruling in Teksavvy file sharing case a blow to copyright trolls: Geist: "The outbreak of copyright trolling cases in the United States and Britain in recent years has sparked considerable anger from courts, Internet providers, and subscribers. These cases, which typically involve sending thousands of legal letters alleging copyright infringement and demanding thousands of dollars to settle, rely on ill-informed and frightened subscribers, who would rather pay the settlement than fight in court.

Canada was largely spared these cases until 2012, when Voltage Pictures, a U.S. film company, filed a lawsuit demanding that TekSavvy, a leading independent Internet provider, disclose the names and addresses of thousands of its subscribers who it claimed infringement its copyright. TekSavvy did not formally oppose the request, but it did ensure that its subscribers were informed about the lawsuit and it supported an intervention from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, a technology law clinic, that brought the privacy and copyright trolling concerns to the court’s attention (I sit on the CIPPIC advisory board).

The federal court issued its much-anticipated decision on Thursday, granting Voltage’s request for the subscriber names, but adding numerous safeguards designed to discourage copyright trolling lawsuits in Canada...

The big remaining question is whether copyright trolls will now view Canada as hostile territory."

Is a picture really worth £1,000?, London Guardian, 11/27/08

Via London Guardian: Is a picture really worth £1,000?
A church and small businesses are just some of those accusing picture agencies of using heavy-handed tactics when pursuing payment:

"Dozens of small businesses and charities tell similar stories. On the online forums run by the Federation of Small Businesses, copyright infringement blows away every other subject. Many of those posting on the federation's forum have tried to do everything right; they aren't arguing about copyright. It's the enforcement tactics they find objectionable...

In the UK they'd struggle to make these amounts stick," he says. "UK law is only concerned with restoring the situation had licensing been correctly obtained. The courts don't like to be used as a means of extortion."

Drake says: "I understand the difficulty companies like Getty have and photographers have - they have a product that needs to be protected. But where is the Getty publicity campaign? Why aren't they issuing press releases and education to remind people that these images are not to be used?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/27/internet-photography

RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later - Electronic Frontier Foundation, September 2008

RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later:

"On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against the people that should be the recording industry’s best customers: music fans.1 Five years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals.2 These individuals have included children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers, college professors—a random selection from the millions of Americans who have used P2P networks. And there’s no end in sight; new lawsuits are filed monthly, and now they are supplemented by a flood of "pre-litigation" settlement letters designed to extract settlements without any need to enter a courtroom.3

But suing music fans has proven to be an ineffective response to unauthorized P2P file-sharing. Downloading from P2P networks is more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of lawsuits.4 And the lawsuit campaign has not resulted in any royalties to artists. One thing has become clear: suing music fans is no answer to the P2P dilemma."
http://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later