Who framed the CopyKat?

The UK government has confirmed another two years of funding for the City Of London Police's Intellectual Property Crime Unit, or PIPCU, which has been spearheading a number of anti-piracy initiatives since its launch last year.

Finnish Parliamentarians have voted to reject a proposal to reform copyright laws by reducing infringements by private individuals to a misdemeanour. The bill reached the attention of lawmakers by way of a citizen’s initiative following a highly-publicised case in which anti-piracy authorities fined a 10-year old girl for illegally downloading pop music on to her home computer. The Finnish Parliament's Education and Culture Committee had already proposed rejecting the Bill.

Napoleon Crossing the Alps,
Jacques-Louis David (1805)

"Napoleon's conquest of Italy led to a copyright-fuelled opera boom" - well that caught my eye! And it seems a new study provides evidence of how copyright laws inspire more and higher-quality artistic works. Michela Giorcelli and Petra Moser, Stanford University economists, studied Italian opera from the late 1700s through 1900 and found that after Napoleon invaded Italy — bringing with him French copyright laws — those copyright laws were associated with both more and higher-quality operas. More here. 

Over on the IPKat, Eleonora has alerted all CopyKats to a new decision from the CJEU which follows in the wake of Svennson: in the  BestWater  case the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a "landmark" verdict - ruling that embedding or framing copyrighted videos is not copyright infringement, even if the source video was uploaded without permission. The CJEU said (this is a translation from German and may not be wholly accurate) as long as the original video not altered or communicated to a new public.- and in this case the original video was already available on YouTube - embedding it is not seen as a new communication with the court saying "“The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology … does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [Article 3(1) of the EU Infosoc Directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication”. The CopyKat thinks this is an important decision - with major ramifications for owners of audio visual content - Eleonora has already updated this breaking news with a second post over on the IPKat with some assistance from a guest contribution from Oliver Löffel who says this was the answer to the question posed by the  Bundesgerichtshof (as translated):

The embedding, within one’s own website, of another person’s work made available to the public on a third-party website, by means of a link using the framing technology, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [the InfoSoc Directive], insofar as the work concerned is neither directed at a new public nor communicated by using specific technical means that differ from that used for the initial communication. 

This means that embedding videos which are freely available on, for example (and is it was the case here) YouTube, does not constitute an infringement of the right of communication/making available to the public if the work concerned is neither directed at a new public nor communicated by using specific technical means different from that used for the initial communication.

Another case referencing Svennson is the recent decision by Mr Justice Arnold in 1967 Ltd & Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Others [2014] EWHC 3444 (Ch) (23 October 2014). Here - in another clear judgment on how website blocking injunctions should be applied for pursuant to section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (itself a result of Article 8.3 of the InfoSoc Directive which provides that  "Member States shall ensure that rightsholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right) Arnold J noted that the following four matters had to be established: (1) that the Defendants are service providers; (2) that users (i.e. consumers) and/or the operators of the target websites infringe the Claimant's copyrights; (3) that users and/or operators of the target websites use the Defendants' services (here ISPs - the big UK five of BSkyB, BT, EE, Talk Talk and Virgin) to do that; and (4) that the Defendants have actual knowledge. These four matters had been covered by the record label claimants and so Arnold J had no difficulty in finding all four matters established.  And Arnold J found that users infringe by copying and communicating the Claimant's works to the public and also found that the website operators infringe by communicating those works to the public - and here held that in the case of the 13 target websites, it is a communication to a new public, "...which is to say a public which was not considered by the rights holders concerned when they authorised the original communication or other act of dissemination of the recordings." (emphasis added).

Friday's CopyKat is a snappy Katty

We have recently posted a couple of blogs looking at the position of hardworking professional photographers who feel somewhat let down by the current copyright regime. No, not the Getty Iamages of this world, but the likes of inspect photographer Alex Wild who takes brillant shots and just wants to make an honest living. Well, now we have Pixsy, a new automated copyright infingement software that looks to help photographers around the globe tackle an issue that plagues the industry and for the most part goes unresolved - "Fighting copyright infringement can be a long and costly ordeal and Pixsy hopes to be your one stop solution for fair compensation.". For a disfferent perspective, TechDirt have more to say on this.

A U.S. judge has thrown out a screenwriter's copyright suit accusing Academy Award-nominated director Neill Blomkamp of stealing his screenplay and turning it into the 2013 movie “Elysium.”. U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted Blomkamp and co-defendants Sony Pictures, TriStar Pictures and others a summary judgment against writer Steve Wilson Briggs, who claimed that Blomkamp read his screenplay called “Butterfly Driver” online and turned it into his film starring Matt Damon. Both stories are set in a futuristic world in which the protagonists leave Earth for a satellite space city, but the shared aspects are only abstract, Hamilton wrote in her decision. More here. 

In Nigeria a group of copyright owners under the auspices of Concerned Copyright and Intellectual Property Owners (CCIPO) have decried "the monopoly imposed on the business of collecting societies in the copyright sector of the economy" by "a cabal in the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC)". CCIPO says this negates the spirit of President Goodluck Jonathan’s Transformation Agenda, which centres on the observance of the rule of law and opening up of the nation’s economy to enable all Nigerians participate. The group also called for the implementation of the December 18, 2013, House of Representatives’ resolution directing the NCC to immediately de-monopolise the collective administration of copyright, particularly the business of royalty collection in the entertainment industry.

And more from Nigeria - Linda Ikeji, owner of one of the top ten most visited websites in Nigeria, is seemingly facing being taken offline by Google because her site allegedly contains infringing images and recycled text.  A social commentator on Twitter (@MrAyeDee) tweeted that Google had responded to his complaints about  Ikeji using his content without compensating him or giving recognition to the original author. Ikeji responded to the news in a blog post titled "To the guys that want to take down LIB, here's a message to you...lol"  saying "I admit that I take content from other sites. Plenty of it sef, but the question is, which website in the world doesn't?" before adding "So Mr Aye Dee, Mr EE, Mr #bringmedown or whoever you are and Jeremy Weate (look who is talking ..lol) and all the others talking, I am not afraid of you! You didn't bring me this far and you're not enough to bring me down" and commenting that the reason she was being attacked was because of the success of her blog - which earns her an estimated $900,000 per annum (N140M).


Rights holders could lose even more control over their content if they take cases to court to test new copyright exceptions, Professor Ian Hargreaves, the Cardiff Ubiversity academic whose proposals prompted the new laws has exclusively told Out-Law.com. As this theor exclusive why not head over to thier website to see more. 

In Canada it seems that the Conservative government is planning to change Canada’s copyright law to allow political parties to use content published and broadcast by news organisations for free in their own political ads. An internal Conservative cabinet document obtained by CTV News details an amendment to the Copyright Act which would allow “free use of ‘news’ content in political advertisement intended to promote or oppose a politician or political party.” The amendment would also remove “the need for broadcasters to authorize the use of their news content.” And it would force media outlets to run political ads even if their own footage and content was used in a negative message to voters. More from CTV News here and CBC here. Heritage Minister Shelly Glover was reported as saying "There is a public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions and accountable for what they say in public settings" and "Major television networks should not be able to censor what can and cannot be broadcast to Canadians. We believe this has always been protected under the fair dealings provisions of the law, and if greater certainty is necessary, we will provide it." Comments from Michael Geist and video footage from both sides of the argument here.

Reuters report that Google has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into the contentious litigation against Oracle Corp, arguing that the court must act to protect innovation in techology. Google is seeking to overturn an appeals court ruling that found Oracle could copyright parts of the Java programming language, which Google used to design its Android smartphone. The three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington reversed this decision of Judge William Alsup in the District Court saying "We conclude that a set of commands to instruct a computer to carry out desired operations may contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection". The EFF had previously gathered together 32 computer scientists and tech industry leaders to support an amicus brief  to the appellate court arguing that  APIs should not be copyrightable because they are critical to spurring innovation and inter-operability in the tech world. In its filing this week, Google said the company would never been able to innovate had the Federal Circuit's reasoning been in place when the company was formed.  More on this here.

And finally: the citizens' initiative in Finland to amend laws regarding copyright violations, which was partly spurred on by the 2012 police raid on the home of a young girl who had illegally downloaded music onto her 'winnie-the-pooh' computer is likely to fail. The 'Common sense for copyright' proposal, which 50,00 citizens signed up to,  would water down sanctions for illegal downloading of both music and movies by private individuals (although penalties for 'commercial' sharing and wholesale downloading would be retained). Format shifting woulld be legalised and other exceptions to copyright rewritten, and these would include a 'fair use'exceptionThe Finnish Parliament's Education and Culture Committee is proposing that a citizens' initiative on making copyright laws more lenient be rejected.  More here.

Finland blacks out for copyright reform

Ahhh, Finland, land of lakes, trees, and lovely people. And, you will remember from Iona’s blog, the place where a nine year-old girl had her home raided by the police and her Winnie the Pooh decorated laptop confiscated after attempting to illegally download Finnish pop star Chisu's latest album in November last year. Ho hum.

Well, today is “Finnish Black Out Day” – set up to mark the half-way point of the campaign by Avoin Ministeriö (Open Ministry) to reform Finnish copyright laws. To help gather enough signatures, numerous Finnish websites will be blacked out today, pointing visitors to sign the online petition in support of a “Common Sense in Copyright Law” proposal. Just over a year ago the Finnish parliament amended the national constitution so that any petition that reaches 50,000 signatures must be brought to the parliament for a vote. At the time of writing, the proposal had gathered 26,678 signatures.

The proposed reform centres on reducing the penalty for "small scale" piracy to a fine, rather than the current maximum of two years custody. In turn this would limit the powers available to the Finnish police to investigate infringement claims, including a restriction in their right to obtain private data online or confiscate property. The proposal also includes the right of "fair use" of copyrighted material for teaching and research, and adds a new category of fair use to cover parody and satire, which Arctic StartUp tells me are currently “unclear in the current legislation”.

There are some interesting twists in this proposed reform – and some I quite like: Recording artists' rights would be strengthened, allowing artists to license their works through open licenses.  But additionally, if a fan of an artist was being prosecuted in court for infringement, the artist would have the ability to require their representative organisation to stop any action which involved their content. Now that I do like! But I am not clear if an artist could overrule their record label who may well be the owner of the copyright - despite the fact that until recently labels had done little to enamour themselves to with either consumers or those seeking to promote new business models, with the Recording Industry Association of America coming in for some fairly fierce criticism after conducting a number of high profile (and lengthy) trials for infringement, most of which ended up as nothing short of PR disasters.

The proposal goes further,  and asks for reforms to the composition of Finland’s Copyright Council, which currently includes representatives from the “old” media industries, such as the TV and recording industries. The proposal would add internet operators, software, and gaming industries into that mix. What fun!

http://www.arcticstartup.com/2013/04/22/finnish-sites-blacking-out-tomorrow-in-support-of-copyright-petition