Larry O'Dell, Los Angeles Times; Appeals court rules game films showing NFL team's 1st logo violates artist's copyright:
"An amateur artist who designed the original logo used by the Baltimore Ravens won a partial victory Thursday when a federal appeals court ruled the commercial use of game and highlight films from the Ravens' first three seasons violates his copyright."
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-ravens-logo-suit,0,6282798.story
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Sharron Angle hit with R-J copyright infringement lawsuit; Las Vegas Sun, 9/3/10
Steve Green, Las Vegas Sun; Sharron Angle hit with R-J copyright infringement lawsuit:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/03/sharron-angle-hit-r-j-copyright-lawsuit/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/03/sharron-angle-hit-r-j-copyright-lawsuit/
Is The Contract Cast Members Sign To Be On Survivor Covered By Copyright? CBS Thinks So...; TechDirt.com, 9/3/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Is The Contract Cast Members Sign To Be On Survivor Covered By Copyright? CBS Thinks So...:
"Eric Goldman points us to the news that CBS sent a DMCA takedown to Scribd after the reality TV site RealityBlurred.com uploaded a copy of the contract castmembers sign before being able to go on the show Survivor, as well as a copy of the "rulebook" they receive. CBS apparently claimed that both of these were covered by copyright. Thankfully, RealityBlurred filed a counternotice, claiming fair use due to its use for reporting and commentary -- leading to a scary two week period where CBS would have to sue if it wanted to keep the document offline. However, the two weeks passed and CBS did not respond to notification from Scribd, meaning that the Survivor Contract and the Survivor Rulebook are back online."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/15345210865.shtml
"Eric Goldman points us to the news that CBS sent a DMCA takedown to Scribd after the reality TV site RealityBlurred.com uploaded a copy of the contract castmembers sign before being able to go on the show Survivor, as well as a copy of the "rulebook" they receive. CBS apparently claimed that both of these were covered by copyright. Thankfully, RealityBlurred filed a counternotice, claiming fair use due to its use for reporting and commentary -- leading to a scary two week period where CBS would have to sue if it wanted to keep the document offline. However, the two weeks passed and CBS did not respond to notification from Scribd, meaning that the Survivor Contract and the Survivor Rulebook are back online."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/15345210865.shtml
Bartenders Looking For Greater Intellectual Property Protection For Drinks; TechDirt.com, 9/2/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Bartenders Looking For Greater Intellectual Property Protection For Drinks:
"Copycense points us to yet another story about another person in another industry whining about not getting enough monopoly privileges from the government. This time, believe it or not, it's bartenders wanting to protect mixed drink recipes. Seriously. Unfortunately, the writeup at the Atlantic, by food writer Chantal Martineau seems to get an awful lot of points about intellectual property totally mixed up. The article slips back and forth between trademark law and copyright law (which are extremely different) and then has this whopper:
The publication of a recipe can be legally protected, but the "expression of an idea," as the lawyers in the seminar explained, cannot. It's the reason musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show.
So many things wrong in two short sentences. First of all, no, the publication of a recipe cannot be protected. Straight from the US Copyright Office: "Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection." That said, if there is "substantial literary expression" in, say, the description of how to prepare the recipe that part (and that part alone) could be covered by copyright, but that should have little impact on bartenders making similar mixed drinks. Also, copyright is, in fact, supposed to protect the expression, contrary to the statement above. This is the whole basis of the idea-expression dichotomy, which Martineau seems to get backwards. As for why musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show, that's got nothing to do with the difference between an expression and an idea, and everything to do with performance rights licenses from venues to PROs like ASCAP and BMI that (in theory) are supposed to cover the copyright (yes, there is one) on the composition."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/17381410868.shtml
"Copycense points us to yet another story about another person in another industry whining about not getting enough monopoly privileges from the government. This time, believe it or not, it's bartenders wanting to protect mixed drink recipes. Seriously. Unfortunately, the writeup at the Atlantic, by food writer Chantal Martineau seems to get an awful lot of points about intellectual property totally mixed up. The article slips back and forth between trademark law and copyright law (which are extremely different) and then has this whopper:
The publication of a recipe can be legally protected, but the "expression of an idea," as the lawyers in the seminar explained, cannot. It's the reason musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show.
So many things wrong in two short sentences. First of all, no, the publication of a recipe cannot be protected. Straight from the US Copyright Office: "Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection." That said, if there is "substantial literary expression" in, say, the description of how to prepare the recipe that part (and that part alone) could be covered by copyright, but that should have little impact on bartenders making similar mixed drinks. Also, copyright is, in fact, supposed to protect the expression, contrary to the statement above. This is the whole basis of the idea-expression dichotomy, which Martineau seems to get backwards. As for why musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show, that's got nothing to do with the difference between an expression and an idea, and everything to do with performance rights licenses from venues to PROs like ASCAP and BMI that (in theory) are supposed to cover the copyright (yes, there is one) on the composition."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/17381410868.shtml
The Era of Copyrighted Cocktails?; Atlantic, 8/31/10
Chantal Martineau, Atlantic; The Era of Copyrighted Cocktails?:
"So, can a cocktail be copyrighted? In short, no. The publication of a recipe can be legally protected, but the [following portion between brackets crossed out as correction for error in updated version of article] ["expression of an idea,"] idea of the recipe, as the lawyers in the seminar explained, cannot. [following portion between brackets crossed out as correction for error in updated version of article] [It's the reason musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show.] But few bartenders publish their recipes. They tend to pass them on as an oral tradition."
http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/08/the-era-of-copyrighted-cocktails/62153/
"So, can a cocktail be copyrighted? In short, no. The publication of a recipe can be legally protected, but the [following portion between brackets crossed out as correction for error in updated version of article] ["expression of an idea,"] idea of the recipe, as the lawyers in the seminar explained, cannot. [following portion between brackets crossed out as correction for error in updated version of article] [It's the reason musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show.] But few bartenders publish their recipes. They tend to pass them on as an oral tradition."
http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/08/the-era-of-copyrighted-cocktails/62153/
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
"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
German court rules against YouTube over copyright; Sydney Morning Herald, 8/27/10
Sydney Morning Herald; German court rules against YouTube over copyright:
"A German court ruled Friday that Google Inc.'s subsidiary YouTube LLC must pay compensation after users uploaded several videos of performances by singer Sarah Brightman in violation of copyright laws.
The Hamburg state court said the standardized question to users about whether they have the necessary rights to publish material is not enough to relieve YouTube of the legal responsibility for the content, especially because the platform can be used anonymously.
The wording of the court statement appears to be a major blow to YouTube's business model, but Google Germany spokesman Henning Dorstewitz told The Associated Press YouTube will appeal the decision detailed in the 60-page ruling."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/german-court-rules-against-youtube-over-copyright-20100827-13w8o.html
"A German court ruled Friday that Google Inc.'s subsidiary YouTube LLC must pay compensation after users uploaded several videos of performances by singer Sarah Brightman in violation of copyright laws.
The Hamburg state court said the standardized question to users about whether they have the necessary rights to publish material is not enough to relieve YouTube of the legal responsibility for the content, especially because the platform can be used anonymously.
The wording of the court statement appears to be a major blow to YouTube's business model, but Google Germany spokesman Henning Dorstewitz told The Associated Press YouTube will appeal the decision detailed in the 60-page ruling."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/german-court-rules-against-youtube-over-copyright-20100827-13w8o.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)