A.P. Says Shepard Fairey Lied About ‘Hope’ Poster; New York Times, 10/16/09

Anahad O'Connor, New York Times; A.P. Says Shepard Fairey Lied About ‘Hope’ Poster:

"Lawyers for the visual artist who created the famous “Hope” poster of Barack Obama have acknowledged that he lied about which photograph he based the poster on and that he fabricated evidence in an effort to bolster his lawsuit against The Associated Press, according to a statement released by The A.P. on Friday night.

The artist, Shepard Fairey, is best known for his iconic poster of Mr. Obama — head cocked to one side, eyes pointed skyward — that gained international recognition during the presidential election. The A.P. sought credit and compensation from Mr. Fairey earlier this year, claiming that the poster was based on one of its photographs and that Mr. Fairey needed permission to use it. Mr. Fairey then filed suit against The A.P. in February, citing fair-use exceptions to copyright law, which prompted The A.P. to file a countersuit in March, claiming “misappropriation.”

But in a statement released Friday night, Srinandan R. Kasi, The A.P.’s general counsel, said that Mr. Fairey’s lawyers had acknowledged he lied when he claimed in court papers that he used a different photograph of Mr. Obama than the one The A.P. has alleged.

“Fairey’s lies about which photo was the source image were discovered after the AP had spent months asking Fairey’s counsel for documents regarding the creation of the posters, including copies of any source images that Fairey used,” Mr. Kasi said. “Fairey’s counsel has now admitted that Fairey tried to destroy documents that would have revealed which image he actually used.”
Lawyers for Mr. Fairey also acknowledged that he created fake documents to conceal which image he used and fake stencil patterns of the “Hope” and “Progress” posters, Mr. Kasi said. The statement hinted at turmoil between Mr. Fairey and his lawyers, and suggested The A.P. would continue its battle with the artist.

“Fairey’s counsel informed the AP that they intended to seek the Courts permission to withdraw as counsel for Fairey and his related entities,” Mr. Kasi said. “The AP intends to vigorously pursue its countersuit alleging that Fairey willfully infringed the AP’s copyright in the close-up photo of then-Sen. Obama by using it without permission to create the Hope and Progress posters and related products, including T-shirts and sweatshirts that have led to substantial revenue.”

Update 12:55 a.m. A lawyer for Mr. Fairey, Anthony Falzone, wrote in an e-mail message early Saturday morning: “This is a very unfortunate situation. I hope it does not obscure the underlying issues of fair use and free expression at the center of this case. But as Mr. Fairey’s attorney, it would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond that.”"

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/ap-says-shepard-fairey-lied-about-hope-poster/?scp=6&sq=copyright&st=cse

A Legal Blast From the Past: Course-Pack Company Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/15/09

Eric Kelderman, Chronicle of Higher Education; A Legal Blast From the Past: Course-Pack Company Loses Copyright Lawsuit:

"Norman Miller, who owns the company Excel Test Preparation, Coursepacks & Copies, in Ann Arbor, Mich., might have benefited from knowing more about James M. Smith and his company, Michigan Document Services, which also operated in Ann Arbor.

In 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against Mr. Smith's company, saying it had infringed on publishers' copyrights by providing course packs and anthologies of excerpted materials to students at his copy shop.

The ruling affirmed a 1991 federal-court decision against Kinko's Copy Centers for similar infractions and seemed to settle the matter, legally, that a for-profit entity could not reproduce such material under the "fair use" provision of the law without getting permission or paying copyright fees to the publishers.

The U.S. District Court in Ann Arbor referred to that decision in its ruling Wednesday against Mr. Miller, who was being sued by a group of five publishing companies: Blackwell Publishing, Elsevier, Oxford University Press, Sage Publications, and John Wiley & Sons."

http://chronicle.com/article/A-Legal-Blast-From-the-Past-/48824/

Google Books Is Not a Library; Huffington Post, 10/13/09

Pamela Samuelson, Huffington Post; Google Books Is Not a Library:

"Sergey Brin published an op-ed in the New York Times last Friday likening the Google Book initiative to the famous ancient library of Alexandria. Brin suggested that Google Books would be "a library to last forever," unlike its Alexandrian counterpart that was ravaged by fire...

Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search...

If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents. Google is obliged to set prices in conjunction with a newly created Registry that will represent commercial publishers and authors. Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books. This is because Google will have a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. The DOJ has raised concerns that price-setting terms of the GBS deal are anti-competitive.

Besides, Google can sell the GBS corpus to anyone without anyone's consent at any time once the settlement is approved...

Brin and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt have also been saying publicly that anyone can do what Google did--scanning millions of books to make a corpus of digitized books. They perceive Google to have just been bolder and more forward-looking than its rivals in this respect. But this claim is preposterous: By settling a lawsuit about whether scanning books to index them is copyright infringement or fair use, Google is putting at risk the next guy's fair use defense for doing the same...

Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy...

Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_317518.html

Libraries and Readers Wade Into Digital Lending; New York Times, 10/15/09

Motoko Rich, New York Times; Libraries and Readers Wade Into Digital Lending:

"Pam Sandlian Smith, library director of the Rangeview Library District, which serves a suburban community north of Denver, said that instead of purchasing a set number of digital copies of a book, she would prefer to buy one copy and pay a nominal licensing fee each time a patron downloaded it.

Publishers, inevitably, are nervous about allowing too much of their intellectual property to be offered free. Brian Murray, the chief executive of HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide, said Ms. Smith’s proposal was “not a sustainable model for publishers or authors.”

Some librarians object to the current pricing model because they often pay more for e-books than do consumers who buy them on Amazon or in Sony’s online store. Publishers generally charge the same price for e-books as they do for print editions, but online retailers subsidize the sale price of best sellers by marking them down to $9.99."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/books/15libraries.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=libraries%20rich&st=cse

Pioneers to publish 'personalised papers'; Guardian, 10/14/09

Roy Gleenslade, Guardian; Pioneers to publish 'personalised papers':

"Despite the advance of the net, newsprint newspaper innovation continues apace. Here's a zany idea, for example, dreamed up by two young German entrepreneurs.

They plan to publish papers tailored to readers' individual wishes, and then have them delivered to their doors before 8am.

Customers will choose what topics they want to read about - be it sport, politics, fashion, whatever - and receive news only on their chosen subjects.

The articles will be selected from major German papers, such as Handelsblatt, Bild and Tagesspiegel, foreign titles such as the International Herald Tribune or the New York Times, as well as major blogs and a variety of internet news sources.

The newspaper, called niiu, will carry articles in both English and German and is aimed primarily at students, say newsprint pioneers Hendrik Tiedemann, 27, and Wanja Soeren Oberhof, 23...

But what about the copyright problem? AFP doesn't report on that. Did their reporter even ask? And what realistic chances has it of succeeding? My hunch: virtually none."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/14/newspapers-germany

Still Hoping to Sell Music by the Month; New York Times, 10/14/09

Brad Stone, New York Times; Still Hoping to Sell Music by the Month:

"The idea of selling monthly subscriptions to a vast catalog of online music has met with only limited success. That isn’t stopping a new batch of entrepreneurs from trying to make it work.

The latest and perhaps most surprising entrants to the field are the European entrepreneurs Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis. In 2001, they created and financed Kazaa, one of the original peer-to-peer file-sharing services that hurt the music industry. The two have created and financed a secretive start-up called Rdio, with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/technology/internet/14music.html?_r=1

Sex Pistols threaten ice-cream firm over 'God Save the Cream' strapline; Guardian, 10/14/09

Mark Sweney, Guardian; Sex Pistols threaten ice-cream firm over 'God Save the Cream' strapline:

Lawyers demand that company stops using Sex Pistols-related imagery on T-shirts, deck chairs and online material

"The company launched its "guerilla ice-cream installation" in Selfridges in September and also uses the phrase "God Save the Cream" in advertising online, on a Facebook profile and the official company website, and in an ad campaign at the Oxford Street department store.

The company also uses a guitar instrumental featuring parts of the national anthem. Promotional material by Selfridges describes the company as "More Sid & Nancy than Ben & Jerry".

Lawyers representing the band are understood to have written a letter to the company demanding that it stop using the Sex Pistols-related strapline and imagery on T-shirts, deck chairs and promotional material online – including the snippet of a guitar version of the national anthem.

There is also understood to be a demand for damages for allegedly "passing off and copyright infringement" based on the fees the band is able to get for licensing its imagery.

"We are a bit dumbfounded that a group that made its reputation for being banned is trying to ban one of our ice creams and claim copyright over the national anthem and the Queen," said Matt O'Connor, founder of the Icecreamists."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/sex-pistols-ice-cream

Samuelson Says Google Book Search Settlement Doesn’t Fully Reflect “Public Trust Responsibilities”; New York Times, 10/13/09

Norman Oder, New York Times; Samuelson Says Google Book Search Settlement Doesn’t Fully Reflect “Public Trust Responsibilities”:

"“You create a public good this substantial, guess what: public trust responsibilities come with it.” So said University of California law professor Pamela Samuelson Friday during a keynote lunch at the D is for Digitize conference, held at New York Law School.

And Google and the plaintiffs, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, have not responded sufficiently, she said, noting concerns about price-gouging for institutional subscriptions and user privacy. With Samuelson on the dais was Paul Courant, the University of Michigan library dean, a Ph.D economist and self-described “faux librarian,”whose library was the first to agree to have its works scanned by Google and supports the project.

“I think the public trust responsibilities are and ought to be widely shared,” Courant said. His bottom line: the benefits of the deal are worth the costs."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701727.html?desc=topstory

Anka Given Credit for Jackson Song; New York Times, 10/13/09

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Anka Given Credit for Jackson Song:

"When Michael Jackson’s new single, “This Is It,” was released on Sunday night, many listeners were surprised by its resemblance to “I Never Heard,” a 1991 track by the R&B singer Safire, which gave songwriting credit to Mr. Jackson and Paul Anka.

But no one was more surprised than Mr. Anka, who said in an interview on early in the day on Monday that he had not been contacted about the use of the song and that he was not given proper writing credit for the single, which now credits only Mr. Jackson as a writer.

“They have a major, major problem on their hands,” he said. “They will be sued if they don’t correct it."

For Mr. Anka, the song has a long and painful history. He said in an interview that he and Mr. Jackson wrote and recorded it in 1983 in Mr. Anka’s studio in Carmel, Calif., and that it was intended as a duet for Mr. Anka’s album “Walk a Fine Line.” But shortly after it was recorded, Mr. Jackson took the tapes, Mr. Anka said. He threatened to sue to get them back, he said, and now has the original multitrack tapes in his possession, along with documentation that the copyright for the song was held by both."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/arts/music/13anka.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=anka&st=cse

Press Release re Orphan Works Best Practices; Society of American Archivists (SAA), 10/12/09

Peter Hirtle, Press Release re Orphan Works Best Practices:

"The Society of American Archivists (SAA) has issued Orphan Works: Statement of Best Practices, a 16-page report that provides what professional archivists consider the best methods to use when attempting to identify and locate copyright holders. The statement, which primarily focuses on unpublished materials because they are usually found in archives, is available on the association's website as a PDF at http://www.archivists.org/standards/"

Google Co-Founder Defends Book Search Settlement, Draws Criticism; Library Journal, 10/12/09

Norman Oder, Library Journal; Google Co-Founder Defends Book Search Settlement, Draws Criticism:

Says "agreement limits consumer choice in out-of-print books...as much as it limits consumer choice in unicorns."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701481.html

From ‘Cabaret’ to Kanye, Songs of ‘Glee’ Are a Hit; New York Times, 10/12/09

Edward Wyatt, New York Times; From ‘Cabaret’ to Kanye, Songs of ‘Glee’ Are a Hit:

"Ryan Murphy, the creator of the series, said in an interview in May that the search for music has been an integral part of the script development. “Each episode has a theme at its core,” he said. “After I write the script, I will choose songs that help to move the story along.”

Clearing the rights to the music for the series has not been a problem, he added. “I can’t think of one artist we’ve gone after or a song I wanted that has been denied.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12glee.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=glee&st=cse

Musicians Starting To Assert Copyright Termination Rights Against Record Labels; Techdirt, 10/9/09

Mike Masnick, Techdirt; Musicians Starting To Assert Copyright Termination Rights Against Record Labels:

"There's been a lot of attention recently to the news that the heirs of comic book artist Jack Kirby are alerting companies of plans to take back the copyright on various Kirby characters, using the termination rights in the Copyright Act. This followed a very long and drawn out lawsuit involving a similar attempt over Superman. The details are really complex, but copyright law allows the original creator (or heirs if that creator has passed away) certain opportunities to basically negate a deal that was signed early on to hand over the copyright on certain works. The idea was to help protect artists who signed bad deals, but in practice, it's just been a total mess.

Still, given the success of the Superman saga in getting at least some of the copyrights back, suddenly lots of people are looking to see what other copyrights can be reclaimed. Apparently, a bunch of musicians are now lining up to try to regain their rights from the labels starting in 2013 (the first year musical works are eligible). As the article notes, with record labels still too clueless to figure out how to successfully build business models around new acts, many still rely on sales of old music to bring in a lot of their revenue. If the labels lose the copyrights on much of that music... well... let's just say suddenly The Pirate Bay may be the least of their concerns."

http://www.techdirt.com/

Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?; TechDirt, 10/9/09

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?:

http://www.techdirt.com/

Music biz still in need of "radical overhaul" to thrive; Ars Technica, 9/30/09

Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Music biz still in need of "radical overhaul" to thrive:

The music industry is stuck in a rut and it needs to make some radical changes if it wants to stop bleeding money, according to Forrester. The firm has several suggestions for how to overhaul music products and insists that they must be consumer-friendly, not business-oriented.

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/09/music-biz-still-in-need-of-radical-overhaul-to-thrive.ars

Kindle now $259, available worldwide with wireless delivery; Ars Technica, 10/11/09

Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Kindle now $259, available worldwide with wireless delivery:

The Kindle 2 keeps having its price tag slashed this year, and Amazon has done it again in preparation for the holidays and to keep up with the competition. The company has also begun offering a global wireless feature, allowing users to buy e-books in more than 100 countries.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/10/kindle-now-259-available-worldwide-with-wireless-delivery.ars

Amazon Kindle 2: Centuries of evolved beauty rinsed away; Guardian, 10/10/09

Nicholson Baker, Guardian; Amazon Kindle 2: Centuries of evolved beauty rinsed away:

This week Amazon announced the UK launch of its latest generation of e-reader. But don't all rush at once, warns one American writer – despite the hype, the Kindle 2 is still no match for the book

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/10/amazon-kindle-uk-launch-book

Google digital library plan opposed by Angela Merkel; Guardian, 10/11/09

Jamie Doward and Paul Harris, Guardian; Google digital library plan opposed by Angela Merkel:

"German chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday waded into the row over Google's plans to build a massive digital library.

The move was a remarkable intervention from a leading world politician in a growing dispute about the threat posed by the internet, and Google in particular, to publishing companies, authors and also newspapers.

In her weekly video podcast, before the opening of the Frankfurt Book Fair this week, Merkel appealed for more international co-operation on copyright protection and said her government opposed Google's drive to create online libraries full of scanned books.

"The German government has a clear position: copyrights have to be protected on the internet," Merkel said, adding that there were "considerable dangers" for copyright protection online.

Merkel, who will officially open the world's largest book fair in Germany's financial capital on Tuesday, said there was a need to discuss the issue in greater detail."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/11/google-digital-library-merkel-opposition

"Libraries, Publishers and Leading Advocates Join Open Book Alliance in Calling for Open, Transparent Settlement Process", Reuters, 10/6/09

Reuters; Libraries, Publishers and Leading Advocates Join Open Book Alliance in Calling for Open, Transparent Settlement Process in Google Book Search Case:

"Dozens of leading academic,library, consumer advocacy, organized labor and publishing organizationsjoined the Open Book Alliance today in calling on Google and its litigationpartners to create an open and transparent process to negotiate a settlementin the Google Book Search case.
The parties published an open letter toGoogle, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers,demanding that they include key stakeholders to represent the broad range ofpublic interests in the mass digitization of books. Google and its partnersabandoned a previous settlement proposed in the case after the U.S. Departmentof Justice and others criticized the deal and recommended that the courtreject it, but Google and the plaintiff publishers continue to negotiatebehind closed doors on a revised settlement proposal.

The letter, available at http://www.openbookalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Open-Letter-Oct-6-09.pdf,states in part:

"The Department of Justice identified scores of serious problems with theproposed settlement, which cannot be fixed with simple alterations to theagreement. Other stakeholders raised even more objections, which the partieshave largely ignored. In order to address these very real and very complexchallenges, negotiations on this issue must involve a broad range ofstakeholders in an open and transparent manner."

Joining the Open Book Alliance in calling on Google and its partners to openthe process in service of the public interest are leading library associationssuch as the New York Library Association, the Ohio Library Council, the NewJersey Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association; publisherssuch as the Council of Literary and Magazine Presses and Sarabande Books;writers' representatives such as the National Writers Union/UAW Local 1981;and many others concerned that Google will unfairly monopolize the massdigitization of books, raising prices for consumers and limiting access toimportant literary works.

The letter signatories universally support the goal of book digitization -making books searchable, readable and downloadable. They insist, however, thatGoogle and a few publishing groups not be permitted to be the sole controllersof this major cultural development, saying:

"Discussion and debate about the right way to digitize the world's writtenworks must proceed through a robust process that includes input from allstakeholders, including authors, libraries, independent publishers, consumeradvocates, state Attorneys General, the Justice Department, and Congress.""

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS168494+06-Oct-2009+PRN20091006

Google's Sergey Brin lashes out at critics of $125m book deal; Guardian, 10/9/09

Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; Google's Sergey Brin lashes out at critics of $125m book deal:

"Google co-founder Sergey Brin has hit out at critics who derailed the company's $125m deal with American publishers to give it the right to digitise millions of books...

In a column published in the New York Times, Brin - who founded the internet giant with Larry Page in 1998 - hit out at those objectors, called many of their accusations "myths" while dismissing other concerns as fantasy...

Brin's comments come a day after he came in for fierce criticism from Brewster Kahle, the founder of the non-profit Internet Archive, which has been working to secure a change in copyright law to help digitisation projects. In particular, the archive has been working to clarify the status of so-called "orphan" works - books whose copyright holder remains unknown - by pushing new legislation through the US Congress.

Under Google's proposal, the Californian internet company would have gained the exclusive right to sell advertising or access to orphan works - something Kahle felt was inappropriate.

"Many of us are objecting because we have been working together for years on the mass scanning of out-of-print books – and have worked to get books online for far longer than Google – and Google's 'settlement' could hurt our efforts," he wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. "A major part of our efforts have concentrated on changing the law so everyone would benefit."

"There is an alternative, and they know it — orphan works legislation — that up until the last session of Congress had been working its way through the house and senate. It was not perfect, but was getting close to what we need. Best yet, it passed one house — at least until Google effectively sideswiped the process with their settlement proposal."

In his editorial, Brin admitted that Google would have exclusive rights over such material, at least in the short term - but then suggested that Google's deal would actually help attempts to force through a legislative change.

"While new projects will not immediately have the same rights to orphan works, the agreement will be a beacon of compromise in case of a similar lawsuit, and it will serve as a precedent for orphan works legislation, which Google has always supported and will continue to support.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/09/google-books-brin

OpEd: A Library to Last Forever; New York Times, 10/9/09

Sergey Brin, New York Times; OpEd: A Library to Last Forever:

"In the Insurance Year Book 1880-1881, which I found on Google Books, Cornelius Walford chronicles the destruction of dozens of libraries and millions of books, in the hope that such a record will “impress the necessity of something being done” to preserve them. The famous library at Alexandria burned three times, in 48 B.C., A.D. 273 and A.D. 640, as did the Library of Congress, where a fire in 1851 destroyed two-thirds of the collection.

I hope such destruction never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise. More important, even if our cultural heritage stays intact in the world’s foremost libraries, it is effectively lost if no one can access it easily. Many companies, libraries and organizations will play a role in saving and making available the works of the 20th century. Together, authors, publishers and Google are taking just one step toward this goal, but it’s an important step. Let’s not miss this opportunity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09brin.html

Fighting for the right to download: Sydney Morning Herald, 10/9/09

Jarrad Mitchell, Sydney Morning Herald; Fighting for the right to download:

"It is about time the Australian public rose from the couch. Seemingly overnight, technology has once again made criminals of the majority (recording TV shows was technically illegal until 2006). It might have happened slowly in your household, or perhaps you've been a pirate for a while now.

If, after reading the above passage, you're thinking, “Criminal? Not me!” then listen up: we're all criminals now.

If you don't believe me, just go to the movies where you'll see a hip little advertisement that talks about how, while you wouldn't steal a car, downloading pirated movies is a crime.

Now I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that any law that renders the vast majority of the public criminal is just a little bit ridiculous. But surely there is a good reason for all this hype, right? The answer lies in exploring why we even have copyright."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/fighting-for-the-right-to-download-20091009-gpnl.html

Japan court acquits file-share software creator; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/8/09

Sydney Morning Herald; Japan court acquits file-share software creator:

"A Japanese high court on Thursday acquitted the creator of a popular file-sharing software program of copyright violations, overturning an earlier conviction.

"It was a very fair judgement," Isamu Kaneko, the 39-year-old developer of the Winny "peer-to-peer" program, told reporters after the Osaka High Court in western Japan handed down the verdict.

"This will obviously have a good impact" on software development, he said.

Winny, which Kaneko had made available on his website, enables users to exchange files such as computer games and movies over the Internet for free, making Kaneko a cyberspace icon in Japan.

He had pleaded not guilty, arguing that holding programmers responsible for copyright infringement would hamper technological development.

In December 2006, the Kyoto District Court had convicted Kaneko, ruling that he made the software available on the Internet while knowing it would be widely used for illegal purposes.

The Kyoto court had refused a call from prosecutors for a one-year prison sentence but fined him 1.5 million yen (17,000 US dollars) in Japan's first ruling on file-sharing software.

Chief judge Masazo Ogura at the Osaka High Court said Thursday that Kaneko had been aware of the possibility that the software might be used for inappropriate purposes but had not recommended users to do so."

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/japan-court-acquits-fileshare-software-creator-20091008-goql.html

iiNet launches counter attack in copyright case; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/8/09

Miriam Steffens, Sydney Morning Herald; iiNet launches counter attack in copyright case:

"IN THE movie industry's landmark case over illegal film downloads, internet service provider iiNet has launched its counter-attack, calling the movie studios' claims of tens of thousands of copyright infringements over its network ''highly exaggerated'' and ''out of kilter''.

As hearings went into their second day in the Federal Court yesterday, iiNet's lawyer, Richard Cobden, SC, outlined the Perth internet company's line of defence. Lambasting the film studios' ''exuberant rhetoric,'' iiNet maintains it was not doing anything different from its larger rivals such as Telstra and Optus selling access to the internet, and had done nothing that would amount to willingly allowing its customers to download pirated movies."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/iinet-launches-counter-attack-in-copyright-case-20091008-gnv5.html

YouTube pacts heighten copyright vigilance; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/8/09

Sydney Morning Herald; YouTube pacts heighten copyright vigilance:

"YouTube on Wednesday said it will be able to quickly track snippets from live television shows thanks to new partnerships with three broadcast video delivery specialty firms.

Google has been working to assuage piracy worries of film and television studios since the Mountain View, California, Internet powerhouse bought YouTube in 2006 in a deal valued at 1.65 billion US dollars.

YouTube said alliances with broadcast video delivery and management titans Harmonic, Telestream, and Digital Rapids will let it speedily recognize content from live events posted at the video-sharing service.

Many media companies will be able to give YouTube reference files, or "fingerprints," of video almost as soon as it is produced so fresh content can be identified, product manager George Salem said in an official blog post.

"Our partners will be able to provide us with reference files in a few minutes, allowing them to block, leave up, or monetize videos of their live events on YouTube in near real time," Salem said."

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/youtube-pacts-heighten-copyright-vigilance-20091008-gnio.html

Illegal downloads case gets its own medicine; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/7/09

Miriam Steffens, Sydney Morning Herald; Illegal downloads case gets its own medicine:

THE opening salvo in the landmark case by Australian and US film studios against the internet access provider iiNet over illegal film downloads featured gunshots in the Federal Court yesterday when lawyers showed a bank robbery scene from The Dark Knight to illustrate the copyright piracy the company is alleged to allow its customers.

Tony Bannon, SC, barrister for the 34 claimants, which include Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, Village Roadshow and Kerry Stokes's Seven Network, said in his opening submission that a year of investigations into iiNet showed 94,942 instances where users made unauthorised copies of titles such as Harry Potter and the Batman movies available using file-sharing software such as BitTorrent.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/illegal-downloads-case-gets-its-own-medicine-20091006-gldl.html

ISP takes on Hollywood studios over copyright; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/7/09

Miriam Steffens, Sydney Morning Herald; ISP takes on Hollywood studios over copyright:

"IN THE movie industry's landmark case over illegal film downloads, internet service provider iiNet has launched its counter-attack, calling the movie studios' claims of tens of thousands of copyright infringements over its network ''highly exaggerated'' and ''out of kilter''.

As hearings went into their second day in the Federal Court yesterday, iiNet's lawyer, Richard Cobden, SC, outlined the Perth internet company's line of defence. Lambasting the film studios' ''exuberant rhetoric,'' iiNet maintains it was not doing anything different from its larger rivals such as Telstra and Optus selling access to the internet, and had done nothing that would amount to willingly allowing its customers to download pirated movies.

Thirty-four entertainment companies, including Hollywood studios Paramount, Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox as well as Australia's Village Roadshow and Kerry Stokes's Seven Network, have accused the company of authorising copyright infringements by not cutting off accounts of users who repeatedly downloaded illegal copies of films and TV programs through file-sharing software such as BitTorrent.

The court battle is not only critical to the future of iiNet, but to the internet industry as a whole, which is seeking to avoid having to police its users to prevent illegal downloading."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/isp-takes-on-hollywood-studios-over-copyright-20091007-gn5a.html

Amazon settles suit over deleted Orwell books; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/2/09

Sydney Morning Herald; Amazon settles suit over deleted Orwell books:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/amazon-settles-suit-over-deleted-orwell-books-20091002-gey5.html

Shorter copyright would free creativity; Guardian, 10/7/09

Victor Keegan, Guardian; Shorter copyright would free creativity:

"Disney made its early money by reworking ideas in the public domain such as Cinderella and the fairytales of the brothers Grimm – themselves collectors rather than originators of folk tales. It then turned turtle and used copyright to boost profits without having to do anything. But suppose copyright had been restricted to 20 years, as for patents?...

If we want to nurture Britain's amazing creative talents then we must have much shorter copyrights to bring into the public domain millions of orphaned books to reduce prices and to enable music, books and films to be enjoyed and reworked by others. In Shakespeare's time, when there was no protection for copyright at all, writers stole passages and ideas from each other. Today's copyright laws would have suffocated much Elizabethan and Jacobean creativity. Artists who claim that income from books and records is their pension are deluded. The vast majority of income from books and records comes immediately after publication."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-copyright-term

Judge Sets Nov. 9 Deadline For Revised Google Book Settlement; New York Times, 10/7/09

New York Times; Judge Sets Nov. 9 Deadline For Revised Google Book Settlement:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/judge-sets-nov-9-deadline-for-revised-google-book-settlement/?scp=4&sq=google%20books&st=cse

In E-Books, It’s an Army vs. Google; New York Times, 10/7/09

Miguel Helft, New York Times; In E-Books, It’s an Army vs. Google:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/technology/internet/07google.html?scp=5&sq=google%20books&st=cse

Essay: Advantage Google; New York Times, 10/4/09

Lewis Hyde, New York Times; Essay: Advantage Google:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/books/review/Hyde-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=google&st=cse&scp=4

Focusing In On The Value: Google Books Provides An Amazing Resource; TechDirt, 10/2/09

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Focusing In On The Value: Google Books Provides An Amazing Resource:

"With all of the fighting over the Google Book settlement, it seems that an awful lot of people have lost sight of the key issue, which is that the tool itself, Google's Book Search, is amazing. "

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091002/0331316405.shtml

Copyright Dispute Ensnares Creator of Copyright Shield; Wall Street Journal, 10/1/09

Geoffrey A. Fowler, Wall Street Journal; Copyright Dispute Ensnares Creator of Copyright Shield:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125435298036654255.html

‘Winnie-The-Pooh’ Suit Is Dismissed; New York Times, 9/30/09

Dave Itzkoff, New York Times; ‘Winnie-The-Pooh’ Suit Is Dismissed:

"A longstanding lawsuit involving royalties for the characters of Winnie-the-Pooh and his lovable, lucrative friends from the Hundred Acre Wood was dismissed in federal district court in Los Angeles, Reuters reported. In a legal dispute that dates to 1991, the estate of Stephen Slesinger, the producer who first acquired licensing rights to the Pooh works and characters from A. A. Milne in 1930, was suing for more than $700 million in royalties it says it was owed by the Walt Disney Company, which acquired the rights from Stephen Slesinger Inc. in 1961. When lower courts threw out that case after the misconduct of a private investigator, Mr. Slesinger’s heirs filed a copyright-infringement suit against Disney. On Friday Judge Florence-Marie Cooper ruled that Stephen Slesinger Inc. “transferred all of its rights in the Pooh works to Disney, and may not now claim infringement of any retained rights.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/arts/30arts-WINNIETHEPOO_BRF.html?scp=2&sq=winnie&st=cse

Record Stores: Out of Sight, Not Obsolete; New York Times, 9/30/09

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Record Stores: Out of Sight, Not Obsolete:

"To survive in a market in which most products are just a click away, the dealers serve micro-niches, catering to ever fewer but more discriminating customers. One Vinylmania shopper, Jusoong Sun, 47, said he preferred the tactile and social aspects of nonvirtual retail: “To me the whole experience of buying is coming here and feeling the record, putting on the turntable. It’s still tangible.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/arts/music/30private.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=vinyl&st=cse

Warner Music Videos to Return to YouTube; New York Times, 9/29/09

Brian Stelter, New York Times; Warner Music Videos to Return to YouTube:

"Ending a nine-month standoff, YouTube said Tuesday that it had reached a new agreement with Warner Music Group that would return the label’s music videos to the world’s largest video Web site.

Warner Music had demanded that its videos be removed last December after licensing talks stalled with YouTube, a unit of Google. The new deal means that YouTube has deals with the country’s four major record labels and four major publishers."

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/warner-music-videos-to-return-to-youtube/?scp=2&sq=youtube&st=cse

Public morals and private property; Economist, 92/4/09

Economist; Public morals and private property:

Chinese websites come to the defence of Western intellectual property

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14517414

In Defense Of Google Books; Forbes, 9/25/09

Quentin Hardy, Forbes; In Defense Of Google Books:

Go ahead and hate Google, but it guaranteed our heritage a future.

"If Google's actions seem entirely wrong, consider how we would feel if, in response to all the criticism, Google simply destroyed the 10 million-volume corpus. We would feel an almost irrevocable loss.

The agreement will be reached. Most likely it will be tentative, and subject to review in a few years. It will not be perfect. But if Google had not made its audacious move, we could be heading into the future with a stunted and partial heritage."

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/25/books-copyright-internet-intelligent-technology-google.html

Unpacking The Kirby Reclamation Case; Comic Book Resources, 9/25/09

Kiel Phegley, Comic Book Resources; Unpacking The Kirby Reclamation Case:

"From the Fantastic Four to Iron Man and even to Spider-Man (a character most comics historians generally don't attribute to Kirby's pen beyond a possible hand in design), almost the entirety of what many fans both hardcore and casual would consider the core of the Marvel Universe are named in the papers, which were served both to Marvel Entertainment, their prospective buyer the Disney Corporation and Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and more companies who have profited from major adaptations of the Marvel characters.

However, while the idea that the Kirby estate may regain a piece of the copyrights for the superheroes has kept talk and speculation high, only a small part of the conversation has gotten to the heart of what's at stake in the filing. While part of this comes from fact that very little about the case has made it to the public eye just yet (when reached via e-mail by CBR, the Kirby's attorney Marc Toberoff declined to comment), many of the issues surrounding copyright law and this case in particular can be confusing to those without law degrees. "In reading some of the articles that are out there, I keep wanting to send notes to people saying, 'No, that's not right,'" laughed intellectual property lawyer and comic rights expert Michael Lovitz of Los Angeles firm Buchalter Nemer. CBR contacted Lovitz (who aside from hosting the annual "Comic Book Law School" panels at Comic-Con International in San Diego also represents comic artists like Colleen Doran and Bob Layton) to help parse out the details of the Kirbys' attempt at reclaiming rights from Marvel.

Lovitz stressed that, at this point, there is no lawsuit involved in the proceedings, and for now neither side has to do much of anything for a number of years. The notice of reclamation filed by the Kirby family only indicates that they do intend to lay claim to a share of the Marvel characters once the initial period of copyright would have ended, which for the individual heroes and villains in question could fall somewhere between 2017 and 2019. "And then they could exercise their rights for the remainder of the extended period [if they win]. They could sell it to the same people, sell it to someone else or do something with it themselves."

"The way the trademark statute is set up, each time the law was rewritten and the term of protection extended, there was an addition that said, 'We recognize that when a creator goes to a big company and sells a property to them, they're not in the best bargaining position,'" Lovitz explained, citing the current case of Jerry Siegel's family over the rights to he and Joe Shuster's Superman as a prime example. "They made an original bargain back then for 56 years of protection. If I write a novel and sell it to [you as a company] back in the '30s, I know the maximum amount of time you'll be able to capitalize on it is 56 years, and I take that into consideration when I make the bargain with you. What the people who lobbied congress said was, 'That's fine, but you're extending from 56 to 75 and then later 95 years of protection for those older works. They only bargained for 56, so you should give the original creators the ability to terminate the transfer.' That's what's going on here: a termination of the transfer of rights."

The major difference between the Kirby case and the Siegel case (which, since its moved into an actual lawsuit with Warner Brothers, has been handled with much success by Toberoff) is that in the case of Superman no one ever argued that Siegel and Shuster had not created the character independently and then sold it to DC....

However, the Kirby case holds many more complications as the process of figuring out what exactly the family might be owed involves placing a concrete legal answer onto one of the great comic fan debates of all time: Who exactly created what and when at Marvel Comics?...

Ultimately, the future of the legal rights of Jack Kirby and Marvel both will make for exciting reading for comics fans and legal types, especially since the future may only hold more and more cases of creators and their families trying to reclaim their classic characters. "You always read these little comments of people saying, 'How interesting that in ten years you could have Time Warner doing a Spider-Man movie and Disney doing a Superman movie?' " laughed Lovitz. "And how ironic that the company that was one of the biggest proponents of the copyright extension, Disney, may find itself being burned because of those extensions that gave in the rights of reversion?""

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=23063

Google Books deal forces us to rethink copyright; Guardian, 9/25/09

Nick Harkaway, Guardian; Google Books deal forces us to rethink copyright:

The Google Books deal has been postponed: good. But what we really need is copyright reform

"Last Friday, the US Department of Justice gave the Google Books settlement a clip across the ear. The DoJ filing basically told the parties they were overreaching the bounds of a settlement, effectively creating new law. It also waved the anti-trust stick. The settlement as we knew it now seems to be off the table.

In one sense I'm relieved. I opted out, which felt like a huge decision, and now it looks as if things are less cut and dried than I feared they might be. I'm also relieved that the good practice of copyright is being protected. On the other hand, I'm disappointed. Google's library plan was staggering and exciting – it wasn't the idea I objected to, but the method."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/sep/25/google-books-copyright

Judge delays Google books hearing; BBC News, 9/25/09

Maggie Shiels, BBC News; Judge delays Google books hearing:

""Clearly voices such as ours had an impact on Judge Chin," wrote consumer watchdog advocate John Simpson in an email to BBC News.

"There was no way the proposed settlement could go forward. We believe that the proper place to solve many of the case's thorniest problems, such as that of orphan books, is in Congress because it is important to build digital libraries."

Orphan books - of which there are thought to be five million - are titles where the authors cannot be found.

Judge Chin has called for a "status conference" to be held on 7 October - the original date for the hearing - to determine "how to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible". "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8274115.stm

French publishers take Google to court for 'forgery'; AVP, 9/24/09

Dominique Chabrol, AVP; French publishers take Google to court for 'forgery':

"France's Seuil publishing house filed its suit accusing Google France and Google inc. of forgery back in June 2006 but had to wait until Thursday before the case finally reached a courtroom.

It reckons that up to 4,000 works published by the group have been digitized by Google without his consent.

The SNE estimates that about 100,000 French books that are still under copyright have been digitized by the Internet company."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hyDbbeAx_jy90Oq6FAzOmiGTj4-A

Google Books Settlement Delayed Indefinitely; New York Times Bits Blog, 9/24/09

Miguel Helft, Google Books Settlement Delayed Indefinitely; Google Books Settlement Delayed Indefinitely:

"Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to delay an Oct. 7 hearing on the settlement, which would pave the way for Google to create an immense digital library and bookstore. The motion was filed earlier this week by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, the plaintiffs in the case, and was unopposed by Google, the defendant.

Judge Chin said that it made no sense to hold a hearing on the current settlement since the parties have indicated that they are negotiating significant changes to it."

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/google-books-settlement-delayed-indefinitely/?hpw

Free the Orphans: Are we being played for fools in Google Books play?; ZDNet, 9/23/09

Richard Koman, ZDNet; Free the Orphans: Are we being played for fools in Google Books play?:

"I’m reposting an insightful piece about the pull-back of the Google Books settlement by Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive. Brewster was among the first to cry foul over the deal and he has been a leading voice throughout the full debate."

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=5475

New deal sought in dispute over Google book plan; Associated Press, 9/22/09

Larry Neumeister, Associated Press; New deal sought in dispute over Google book plan:

"The government encouraged an improved settlement, saying it "has the potential to breathe life into millions of works that are now effectively off limits to the public."

Lawyers for the authors and publishers said in court papers Tuesday that, "as the United States government put it, no one wants `the opportunity or momentum to be lost.'"

They urged Chin to delay a hearing scheduled for Oct. 7, saying that a new agreement may take away some objections among the roughly 400 opinions, both pro and con, which were filed with Chin by a deadline earlier this month...

Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocacy group that has asked the court to reject the settlement, said in a statement that key copyright issues should be settled by Congress in a fully public process.

"Essentially Google and the authors and publishers groups are back at square one and must re-negotiate the deal," said John M. Simpson, a consumer advocate with Consumer Watchdog who was one of eight witnesses to testify about the deal to the House Judiciary Committee."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9ASM9G00

Confirmed: Jack Kirby's heirs want a piece of Spider-Man; Comic Book Resources, 9/22/09

Kevin Melrose, Comic Book Resources; Confirmed: Jack Kirby's heirs want a piece of Spider-Man:

"According to the Heat Vision report, Kirby's heirs seek to recapture a share of the copyright to characters and story elements that appeared in Amazing Fantasy #15 -- Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Flash Thompson, etc. -- plus characters and concepts like J. Jonah Jameson, the Daily Bugle, Chameleon, the Tinkerer and the Lizard, most of which debuted months later in issues of The Amazing Spider-Man. (The Daily Bugle first appeared in Fantastic Four #2.)

If the Kirby children are successful, they would reclaim their father's portion of the copyright to key characters and concepts from the Marvel Universe as early as 2017 for the Fantastic Four. In most cases, that would seem to mean co-ownership with Marvel, as Lee agreed to waive claim to any of the characters. With Spider-Man, one-third ownership could be possible if the Kirbys were to prevail yet the judge recognized Ditko's interests."

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/09/confirmed-jack-kirbys-heirs-want-a-piece-of-Spider-Man/

Disney Faces Rights Issues Over Marvel; New York Times, 9/21/09

Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes, New York Times; Disney Faces Rights Issues Over Marvel:

"Walt Disney’s proposed $4 billion acquisition of Marvel Entertainment may come with a headache: newly filed claims challenging Marvel’s long-term rights to some of its superhero characters.

Heirs to the comic book artist Jack Kirby, a creator of characters and stories behind Marvel mainstays like “X-Men” and “Fantastic Four,” last week sent 45 notices of copyright termination to Marvel and Disney, as well as Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, and other companies that have been using the characters.

The notices expressed an intent to regain copyrights to some of Mr. Kirby’s creations as early as 2014, according to a statement disclosed on Sunday by Toberoff & Associates, a law firm in Los Angeles that helped win a court ruling last year returning a share of the copyright in Superman to heirs of one of the character’s creators, Jerome Siegel."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/business/21marvel.html?scp=1&sq=marvel&st=cse

Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement; New York Times, 9/21/09

Miguel Helft, New York Times; Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement:

"Legal experts say the new round of discussions, and the government’s intervention, are almost certain to delay an agreement that Google and the other parties were eager to see ratified quickly.

“The news out of this is that there are frantic negotiations going on in back rooms right now,” said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, which raised antitrust and other objections to the settlement. “The parties are scared enough to be talking seriously about changes, with each other and the government. The government is being the stern parent making them do it.”...

The Justice Department’s filing on Friday, echoing other critics, said that the settlement could give Google a virtually exclusive license to millions of out-of-print “orphan books,” whose rights holders were unknown or cannot be found, making it impossible for anyone else to build a comparable digital library; the interests of some class members, including authors of orphan works and foreign authors, might not have been adequately represented; and the efforts to notify class members about the settlement might have been inadequate.

But unlike some of the more strident opponents, who have argued that the settlement is so flawed that it must be rejected, the Justice Department said it hoped the accord could be fixed so that its benefits — most notable the unprecedented access to millions of out-of-print books it would offer — could be achieved. And it said the parties appeared willing to make changes to address such concerns."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/internet/21google.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=google&st=cse

U.S. Urges Court to Reject Google Book Deal; New York Times, 9/18/09

Reuters via New York Times; U.S. Urges Court to Reject Google Book Deal:

"The U.S. Justice Department urged a New York court on Friday to reject Google's controversial deal with authors and publishers that would allow the search engine giant to create a massive online digital library.

The Justice Department said in a filing that the court "should reject the proposed settlement in its current form and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to modify it so as to comply with ... copyright and antitrust laws...

A fairness hearing on the deal has been set for October 7 in the federal court in Manhattan.

The case is Authors Guild et al v Google Inc 05-08136 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)"

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/18/technology/tech-us-google-books.html