tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45135245154283345092024-03-13T17:56:42.050+00:00The 1709 BlogIn 1709 (or was it 1710?) the Statute of Anne created the first purpose-built copyright law. This blog, founded just 300 short and unextended years later, is dedicated to all things copyright, warts and all.Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2587125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-40563234841682437352019-12-31T12:40:00.000+00:002020-01-01T09:40:05.403+00:002019 - THE COPYRIGHT YEAR<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWu9Gp6drvHP0U8YRbibaenCgZBJSJQ847Vhgqcn95MoDrnIt8LxdsVEgbgJfklm5ujr6r4fK9L1W1n4RtwdF9ltxloazpG6eZhVE7cRc8EpKf5Tys-49evmdJufvcP48ADLyDi2Tarcg/s1600/goodbye-2818193_960_720.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="960" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWu9Gp6drvHP0U8YRbibaenCgZBJSJQ847Vhgqcn95MoDrnIt8LxdsVEgbgJfklm5ujr6r4fK9L1W1n4RtwdF9ltxloazpG6eZhVE7cRc8EpKf5Tys-49evmdJufvcP48ADLyDi2Tarcg/s320/goodbye-2818193_960_720.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">DEAR FRIENDS: The bloggers here at the 1709 Blog have decided that this will be our very last post. We have had great fun blogging through a decade, in some very exciting times for copyright law set against a backdrop of rapid technological change in the digital age. So on behalf of Marie-Andree, John, Eleonora, Angela, Ken and Ben, can we thank you for supporting the 1709 Blog, and we wish you every happiness and success going forwards. </b><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"><b><br /></b></span></span>
<span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2019 - what a year ! A year of reforms to copyright laws around the globe; an ongoing debate about the role of Artificial Intelligence, both in the creation of copyright and in the enforcement of copyright; the ever developing ways in which copyright can be infringed; new ways in in which uses and indeed users might be protected by technology; ever developing concepts such as fair use and fair dealing; and the exceptions to copyright - these were just some of our favourite themes in 2109.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2yqWXYqI7uaBsTsAD9Jm_griX96_e14GFfunf4bu99V81vEeacgHuuKXhL1V5ki9AwMgo7OKvh6jEh2_ELf9too6E6YcZpvj3PLsNVvzgYdF86t3KDs6XFhGPCU80Ma4fg0Jfg4t2JBM/s1600/calendar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1248" data-original-width="1600" height="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2yqWXYqI7uaBsTsAD9Jm_griX96_e14GFfunf4bu99V81vEeacgHuuKXhL1V5ki9AwMgo7OKvh6jEh2_ELf9too6E6YcZpvj3PLsNVvzgYdF86t3KDs6XFhGPCU80Ma4fg0Jfg4t2JBM/s320/calendar.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">JANUARY 1st 2019 saw a “public domain day” in the United States as a large number of films, books, songs, and artistic works once protected by US copyright, and all from the year 1923, <a href="https://hyperallergic.com/477918/happy-public-domain-day-marcel-duchamps-bride-stripped-bare-by-her-bachelors-is-now-copyright-free/" style="color: #7d181e; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">fell into the public domain</a>, including Marcel Duchamp’s original <i>“The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even (The Large Glass)”.</i> Other works included Kahil Gibran’s "<i>The Prophet"</i>, Virginia Woolf’s "<i>Jacob’s Room",</i> Agatha Christie’s "<i>The Murder on the Links"</i>, Marcel Proust’s "<i>The Prisoner" (La Prisonnière</i>, vol. 5 of In Search of Lost Time), William Carlos Williams’s "<i>The Great American Novel",</i> H. G. Wells’s "<i>Men Like Gods"</i>, AND any poem from Robert Frost’s Pulitzer Prize-winning compendium <i>New Hampshire</i>. Cinemas </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">cOULD now screen Cecil B. DeMille’s <i>The Ten Commandments</i>, Charlie Chaplin’s <i>The Pilgrim</i>, Buster Keaton’s <i>Our Hospitality</i>, or Rin Tin Tin’s <i>Where the North Begins</i>. And theatres can have performances of songs from Noël Coward’s <i>London Calling!</i> or George Gershwin’s <i>Stop Flirting</i> without having to pay a royalty<i>.</i> </span></span><i style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The Chip Woman’s Fortune</i><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">, the first drama by an African-American author produced on Broadway, also entered the public domain</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">2019 also opened with the news that </span>that a court in southern China has upheld the country's largest ever fine of 260 million yuan (37 million U.S. dollars) for copyright infringement against a media player software company Qvod. The official website of the Guangdong Court said that the Supreme People's Court of Guangdong Province had rejected an appeal against the fine. It ruled that the penalty was justified and the Shenzhen marketing supervisor, the local regulator, had the right to impose it on the Shenzhen-based company. We also had the first inklings of a lawsuit brought by the representatives of the former band Nirvana who sued designer Marc Jacobs for copyright infringement on the basis that the fashion brand’s Redux Grunge collection featured several items that allegedly resembled the Seattle grunge band’s black-and-yellow iconography. Advocate General Maciej Szpunar </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/01/ag-szpunar-advises-cjeu-to-rule-that_12.html" target="_blank">advised CJEU to rule</a> that quotation exception in EU law is not limitless and that there is no fair use in the EU - and that (1) the exception within Article 5(3)(d) of the InfoSoc Directive requires one to consider the purpose of the quotation at issue, and (2) f</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">undamental rights like freedom of expression do not allow EU Member States to go beyond the catalogue of exceptions in Article 5 to envisage new exceptions, or even introduce a general fair use clause. And finally in January (and remembering our need to always feature AT LEAST ONE Star Wars update (even better if on May 4th of course) news broke that </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">Lucasfilm and Disney <a href="https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2019/01/17/lucasfilm-lifts-copyright-claim-star-wars-vader-fan-film/" style="color: #7d181e; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">had lifted the copyright claim</a> on a Star Wars Theory’s Darth Vader 'Fan Film'. </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">It seems pressure by Lucasfilm led to a change of heart by Disney, <a href="https://movieweb.com/star-wars-9-boycott-disney-darth-vader-fan-film/" style="color: #7d181e; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">and the film stayed up</a>! </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4oggUz4E6gsJorKoBiD2NGo4Qg6GZXs65yClMtovMRmFPn_XRHtUq3pCL2HEthx3UdbVklXS08B9soTFkc5DXQl6odJ-9pm-GCWMSxrEt2vkdC8zmLmgNzhjVRUHMM2SdgS0BAkmC_aM/s1600/eu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="254" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4oggUz4E6gsJorKoBiD2NGo4Qg6GZXs65yClMtovMRmFPn_XRHtUq3pCL2HEthx3UdbVklXS08B9soTFkc5DXQl6odJ-9pm-GCWMSxrEt2vkdC8zmLmgNzhjVRUHMM2SdgS0BAkmC_aM/s1600/eu.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">FEBRUARY, and we were back to the ongoing battle between the creative sector (rights owners and actual creators amongst others) and the technology and communications sectors on the planned <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/02/rights-owners-call-for-halt-to-eu.html" target="_blank">revisions to EU Copyright law</a>. Now r</span>ights holders from across the European Union, including the recorded music sector, music publishing, television and sport called for a halt to the planned reforms to copyright laws saying that recent revisions to the draft legislation meant that "regrettably under these circumstances we would rather have no directive at all rather than a bad directive". But interestingly this view caused a split with the actual creators of music who were taking a very different view to the corporate owners of copyrights - as they still saw big benefits from the planned Copyright Directive. Ken Moon updated us on planned <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/01/new-zealand-copyright-act-under-review.html" target="_blank">revisions to copyright law in New Zealand</a> looking at a diverse range of topics including whether a website link to infringing content stored on another website constitute copyright infringement (?) and </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">whether content streaming should be treated the same as broadcasting under the existing right to communicate, as well as questions related to software and enforcement of copyright. F</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ormer "<i>Fresh Prince of Bel-Air</i>" star Alfonso Ribeiro had filed a lawsuit against Take-Two Interactive, publisher of the video game "NBA 2K," and the publisher of "Fortnite" over avatars in the games being able to do the dance that his character popularised on the hugely popular '90s sitcom, the '<i>Carlton Dance</i>'. But that actiontook a February a knock back as details of a letter from Saskia Florence at the US Copyright Office to Ribeiro's attorney, David Hecht surfaced as part of federal court documents in California. In the correspondence, Florence wrote that the moves are "a simple dance routine." adding "as such, it is not registrable as a choreographic work". But at the very same time, <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/02/copyrighting-dance-step-between-hard.html" target="_blank">Marie-Andree Weiss updated us</a> on another case in the USA involving dance steps, and the massive online video game Fortnite. Rapper </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2 Milly claimed that the <i>“Swipe It </i>“dance, an “emote” which in 2018 appeared in season 5 of the game, infringes his copyright in the <i>Milly Rock dance</i> he choreographed. The Plai</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ntiff claimed his work is protected by copyright. Defendant claims they are mere steps, which are not protectable: The Plaintiff argued </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>“[c]opyright law is clear that individual dance steps and simple dance routines are not protected by copyright, but rather are building blocks of free expression, which are in the public domain for choreographers, dancers, and the general public to use, perform, and enjoy.” </i>The Defendants said<i> </i></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>“no one can own a dance step” </i>and that <i>“Plaintiff’s claims is based on his assertion that he has a monopoly on a side step with accompanying swinging arm movement that is then repeated on the other side.” T</i>he US Copyright Office has refused to register the Milly Rock dance, writing that<i> “[c]horeographic works are typically performed by skilled dancers for an audience. By contrast, social dances, such as ballroom dances, line dances, and similar movements are not created by professional dancers. They are instead intended to be performed by the general public for their own enjoyment.” </i></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And finally and <span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">Perhaps in preparation for EU reforms,YouTube has </span><a href="https://gizmodo.com/youtube-updates-its-three-strikes-policy-but-not-the-on-1832726224" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #33b2f3; cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">announced changes</a><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"> to it's 'strikes' system as it applies to content flagged for violating the company’s Community Guidelines. Starting February 25th, the first time a creator’s content is flagged, they will get a one-time warning and their flagged content will be removed. Prior to this change, there was no warning, and a first strike would result in a 90-day freeze on live streaming. A second strike would result in a two-week freeze on video uploads</span> .</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOQJWJTVlpX74eN5f2NI7rN8dB2Vx_2A7Ecxns7YX0cID7hMB7xBJRoHJdCNeaRV9I8j7A0-kA3bMwgj2m82DgQ2Lb61r2boCL0oLJdUf2DzOsXzdiu6mta7Ee7IiROsdTEv_Ejuz98MY/s1600/NIRVANA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="314" data-original-width="600" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOQJWJTVlpX74eN5f2NI7rN8dB2Vx_2A7Ecxns7YX0cID7hMB7xBJRoHJdCNeaRV9I8j7A0-kA3bMwgj2m82DgQ2Lb61r2boCL0oLJdUf2DzOsXzdiu6mta7Ee7IiROsdTEv_Ejuz98MY/s320/NIRVANA.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">MARCH opened with the news that the US Supreme Court <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/03/us-supreme-court-copyright-registration.html" target="_blank">had finally resolved</a> the controversy surrounding copyright registration in the US: </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The US Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), states that “registration" of a copyright is a precondition to filing suit for copyright infringement. Some courts of appeal interpreted “registration” as meaning “filing an application to register the copyright” while others interpreted it as “the Register of Copyrights registers the copyright.” In their decision in </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall Street LLC</b>. T</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he US Supreme Court resolved the circuit courts split and</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-571_e29f.pdf" style="color: #954f72;"><span style="color: #0563c1;">ruled</span></a></span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">that registration occurs when the Copyright Office registers the copyright.</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; margin: 0px;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Only after that may a plaintiff file a copyright infringement suit. However, once the copyright is registered, the owner can recover for infringement which occurred both before and after the registration. In <b><a href="http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/878184/Copyright/US+Supreme+Court+Issues+Two+Copyright+Opinions+On+Same+Day" target="_blank">Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc</a></b>. the Court, relying on statutory text and precedent, held that the Copyright Act's provision for the discretionary award of "full costs" does not allow courts to award costs beyond the categories enumerated in the general "costs" statute. Also in the US,a </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;"> G<i>rand Theft Auto V </i>'cheat maker' was been ordered to pay $150,000 in copyright damages:<b> </b></span><span style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Rockstar Games' parent company Take-Two Interactive </span><a href="https://torrentfreak.com/gta-v-cheat-maker-has-to-pay-150000-in-copyright-damages/" style="color: #954f72; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;" target="_blank">won a default judgment</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> against the developer of the GTA V cheat maker "</span><i style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Elusive</i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">". The Florida-based defendant was ordered to pay the defendant company $150,000 - the maximum that could be awarded as copyright infringement damages. Then news broke that</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">defendant Erik Cameron has now admitted to copyright infringement, breach of the game's End User License Agreement, and profiting from his violations of the law, and would pay Take-Two an undisclosed sum. Cameron was also permanently prohibited from developing, promoting, or using any software program that alters Take-Two's owned software in any way, creating derivative works, or otherwise encouraging others to follow in his footsteps.</span></span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> It</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"> had all been going so smoothly - but in March </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">US publishers and songwriters hit out at an appeal made by the US streaming services, including Amazon and Spotify, who formally objected to the mechanical royalty rate set by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) ruling, with royalty rates for streaming and other mechanical uses set to rise 44% for the compulsory licences over the next five years. That decision was ratified in February when the CRB published the final rates and terms for songwriters. The top line revenue share figure to be paid by streaming services will rise, over a number of years, from 10.5% to 15.1%. Apple Music declined to appeal, but Spotify and Amazon both filed a notice of appeal. Pandora and Google have also asked the CRB to review its decision. In a statement the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) said that a “huge victory for songwriters is now in jeopardy” due to the streaming services’ filings. The NMPA called the appeal a “shameful” move which equated to “suing songwriters”. T</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he case between <b>Nirvana</b> and <span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">Marc Jacobs was back in the news, with the fashion brand seeking to have the copyright infringement case dismissed; </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">Jacobs questioned whether Nirvana LLC even owned the copyright in the happy face illustration (that was seemingly created by the deceased Kurt Cobain). It then argued that - while its happy face t-shirts are clearly influenced by the iconic Nirvana merchandise, the imagery on its garments is sufficiently different to not constitute copyright</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"> infringement. Jacob's also notes that </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">its products don't include the text <i>"flower-sniffin, kitty-pettin, baby-kissin corporate rock whores"</i> which was on the back of the band's original shirts. And where the Nirvana t-shirts bore the band's name, Jacobs' say 'Heaven', albeit in a very similar font. </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And fina</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">lly, <span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">The EU's somewhat controversial copyright reforms were <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-approves-copyright-reform-in-final-vote/" style="color: #7d181e; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">adopted</a> by the European Parliament, with 348 votes in favor and 274 against in the European Parliament, meaning Articles 13 and 11 are one step further on to becoming enshrined in EU law. In the wake of the vote, the chair of ICMP, the global trade body for music publishing, Chris Butler said: “We extend our appreciation to MEPs across party lines and EU Member States for their hard work </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">through this challenging legislative process. We are grateful for important provisions supporting </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">songwriters and composers, recognising that music must be given its rightful value. </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">“We're particularly pleased to secure sector-specific safeguards for music publishers in Articles 4 and </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">12. These battles were hard-fought, amount to crucial wins for music in Europe and are particularly </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">important for our independent publisher members.” </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">ICMP Director General John Phelan commented: </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">“Four years of titanic tussling later, our work to solve the ‘Value Gap’ now begins a new stage after this </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">vote. Namely, to ensure that those who make the music make a fair return. ICMP will keep working </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">with all European governments to transpose this law appropriately. ‘Safe Harbours’ must not become </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">archipelagos for platforms to devalue music. Today redoubles our determination in that mission.” </span></span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda tweeted that voting on individual amendments were rejected by a majority of just 5 votes, before tweeting "Dark day for internet freedom: The @Europarl_EN has rubber-stamped copyright reform including #Article13 and #Article11. MEPs refused to even consider amendments".</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix5f_ndhRJZYhOas3BjcuGj1_Gce5ArqqP0DQc_31PZSu6Y94BQyegq02AvWKZb4UUTsX81BZ2AVgU2Ylzg13DKHk6t2_dpgR_48gqkMetI5WzPwhcZgso0v4s0Wdw5YpcMh4yfKW_6ss/s1600/I+robot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="269" data-original-width="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix5f_ndhRJZYhOas3BjcuGj1_Gce5ArqqP0DQc_31PZSu6Y94BQyegq02AvWKZb4UUTsX81BZ2AVgU2Ylzg13DKHk6t2_dpgR_48gqkMetI5WzPwhcZgso0v4s0Wdw5YpcMh4yfKW_6ss/s1600/I+robot.jpg" /></a><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the beginning of APRIL we published a very interesting update from </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Hayleigh Bosher on the ongoing relationship between creativity and Artificial Intelligence, and the news that Warner Music, the multinational </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">entertainment and record label, the third largest in the global music industry, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">with artists from Ed Sheeran, Coldplay, Madonna to Led Zeppelin. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/04/warner-music-signs-distribution-deal.html" target="_blank">had "signed" an algorithm</a>, Endel, developed by a start-up based in Berlin, which creates tailor-made custom s</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ound frequencies based on personal user inputs such as weather, time of day, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">location, and biometric details such as heart rate. The Verge also published an interesting piece titled "<a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/17/18299563/ai-algorithm-music-law-copyright-human" target="_blank">We've been warned about AI and Music for 50 years, but no one's prepared</a>":<i> </i></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Do AI algorithms create their own work, or is it the humans behind them? What happens if AI software trained solely on Beyoncé creates a track that sounds just like her? “I won’t mince words,” says Jonathan Bailey, CTO of iZotope “This is a total legal clusterfuck”. </i></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">V</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">odafone in Germany blocked access to a popular platform where users shared links to infringing content after a complaint from music collecting society GEMA, but seemingly without GEMA securing an injunction to mandate the block. Vodafone blocked Boerse telling Torrentfreak "On the basis of a notification from GEMA, we have set up a DNS blockade for the 'boerse.to' domain. The blockade affects Vodafone GmbH's fixed and mobile network" citing recent precedents in the German courts regarding the responsibilities and liabilities of internet companies saying "GEMA has officially sent us a notification and we have set up the DNS blockade in order to avoid a legal dispute in accordance with the principles established by the Federal Court Of Justice". </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">adding that whilst it was "critical of these blocking requests" it would nevertheless comply with its legal obligations. T</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">en members of the European Parliament (MEPs) said they voted against a crucial amendment to the EU's Copyright Directive by accident, and that if they had got their votes right it would have let MEPs take a further vote on the inclusion of Articles 11 and 13, the most controversial parts of the law (and named by the tech sector as the “link tax” and “upload filter”. </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A video in support of Donald Trump's 2020 re-election campaign was been removed from Twitter . The video used music from the Warner Bros Batman film '</span><i style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The Dark Knight Rises</i><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">' and in a statement Warner Bros. confirmed it was </span><a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adambvary/donald-trump-the-dark-knight-rises-warner-bros" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #7d181e; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">taking action</a><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> over the video: "The use of Warner Bros.’ score from </span><i style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The Dark Knight Rises </i><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">in the campaign video was unauthorized," a spokesperson said. "We are working through the appropriate legal channels to have it removed.” The video in Trump's tweet had been replaced by a message that it was no longer available "in response to a report by the copyright owner."</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">And finally, </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">Chinese authorities suspended country's largest stock images provider's website after it was found to have put its copyright mark on the first ever photo taken of a black hole. <a href="https://www.news18.com/news/world/china-suspends-website-for-black-hole-copyright-2100687.html" style="color: #d52a33;" target="_blank">China Daily reported</a> that </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">Visual China Group (VCG) had published the black hole photo with a watermark to indicate ownership and that a fee was payable for use. The cyberspace affairs authority in Tianjin (North) to suspend its website. The </span>image was from the Event Horizon Telescope and was available for use where it was properly attributed, a position commonly taken by the European Southern Observatory and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggDBxqycvwap-zdY2n1_c1XGLfm-N2W3x5yGosLmWbfCDNXgftzmAjoQ5i0dv_2WydDp8WKxcbFAAs82KHBQaHhEDf0aMdWBtmKnXLZveE7lA3-UupjvsHahsO9BSNBYu_NGJuk1F89RQ/s1600/pirates.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1208" data-original-width="1376" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggDBxqycvwap-zdY2n1_c1XGLfm-N2W3x5yGosLmWbfCDNXgftzmAjoQ5i0dv_2WydDp8WKxcbFAAs82KHBQaHhEDf0aMdWBtmKnXLZveE7lA3-UupjvsHahsO9BSNBYu_NGJuk1F89RQ/s320/pirates.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">MAY began with the rather odd news that a</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> 49-year-old German man had been found guilty of the theft of four artworks, which had been thrown away as trash by the artist Gerhard Richter some three years earlier. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Richter became aware of the matter when the Gerhard Richter Archive was contacted by the defendant with a request to issue certificates of authenticity, before he would be selling the works at auction in Munich. T</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he head of the Archive became suspicious as the sketches, though clearly authentic, were unusually unframed and unsigned. A judge in the Cologne District Court held that although the works were discarded and thrown away they still belonged to the artist, who had at the time decided to hand them over to a waste disposal facility for the purpose of disposal. The defendant was fined </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">€</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">3,150 for theft and the works (valued at </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> €</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">60,000) were seized. Poland began an action in the CJEU against the implementation of the new Copyright Reforms in the EU, specifically with relation to Article 13 and 17 of the Directive on the ground of it being a “disproportionate measure that fuels censorship and threatens Freedom of Expression”, quoting Prime Minister Matesz Morawiecki. The deputy Foreign Minister Konrad Szymanski has also reportedly stated that such a system may result in adopting regulations analogous to “preventive censorship” which is forbidden in the Polish Constitution and other EU based treaties, raising the question of harmony of legislation. And finally in May, The United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Walt Disney’s “<i>Pirates of the Caribbean”</i> had not lifted copyrighted elements from a screenplay. The court held that core elements of the screenplay were not copied but were non-copyrightable idea, and a storyline based on pirate battles and sea monsters is central to any pirate drama and copyrighting the same would be granting excessive monopoly on generic plot-based elements. The court took into account the jurisprudential principle that the extrinsic test compares “articulable similarities between the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, sequence of characters etc. and does not compare the basic plot ideas but the actual concrete elements making the narrative flow and relationships between major characters”. The court also noted that familiar scenes and themes that are staples of literature are not original enough to be protected and scenes-a-faire elements that flow necessarily or naturally from a basic plot premise cannot sustain the test of originality for being protectable and to bring in an action of infringement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7mSecwHgyIfu5wCpF00hYXz8ByXa9Q-zrSz9qqCxWPikOywdas6YUqhlpMjnq0q5aWIV5MWivN4JSDYpajfcrdhyKGOf3ycxgX0qCgfBEVQYAVIsA75_MqPHaTXVCfxkaBhK7NCTv_Jw/s1600/NASA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1065" data-original-width="1600" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7mSecwHgyIfu5wCpF00hYXz8ByXa9Q-zrSz9qqCxWPikOywdas6YUqhlpMjnq0q5aWIV5MWivN4JSDYpajfcrdhyKGOf3ycxgX0qCgfBEVQYAVIsA75_MqPHaTXVCfxkaBhK7NCTv_Jw/s400/NASA.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">AHHH JUNE! Rolling Stone magazine reported that the Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven case would be reheard by an 11-judge 'en banc' panel in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, to look again at whether or not Zepplin's classic track plagiarised its opening riff from Spirit’s 1968 song “<i>Taurus</i>”. Ken Moon let us know that t</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he Federal Court of Australia (in <b>APRA v Telstra & others</b>) had <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2019/751.html" target="_blank">granted blocking orders</a> against internet service providers to prevent their users from accessing a number of off-shore stream ripping sites. This case </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">targeted online sites which were facilitating the infringement of the music and sound recording copyrights embodied in promotional music videos which had been uploaded onto YouTube by recording companies. The YouTube licence and technology for allowing users to only receive streams was selected. However various ‘pirate’ sites such as 2conv, Flv2mp3, Convert2mp3 and Flvt0 exist to receive a user request for a music video song and from the streamed video from YouTube create an audio file which is then downloaded to the user – ‘stream ripping’. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Perram J had no difficulty in deciding to issue blocking injunctions against the defendant service providers to deny access. And t</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he Supreme Court of Sweden confirmed that the storage of infringing goods with a view to selling the same may pave the way for both kinds of liabilities - civil as well as criminal. This case was reported in detail by </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; color: blue; cursor: pointer; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a class="yiv3219328542OWAAutoLink" href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/06/following-cjeu-syed-ruling-swedish.html" id="yiv3219328542LPlnk712663" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="background-color: white; color: blue; cursor: pointer; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">IPKat</a> who let us know that </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The CJEU had, having established that storing counterfeit goods falls within the scope of Article 4(1) of the <b>InfoSoc Directive</b>, left it for the Swedish courts to determine the question of criminal liability. Due to this clarification, the Swedish SC held the scope of Section 2 and 53 of the Copyright Act to include storage of goods, for commercial purposes within the scope of the distribution right. Hence, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white;">an intention to distribute has been held to be sufficient to <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2018/12/cjeu-rules-that-warehouse-storage-of.html" target="_blank">establish Criminal Liability</a>. And</span><span style="background-color: white;"> <b>NASA</b> announced that it had made its entire collection of images, sounds and videos publicly available on the internet-based platform. A collection of</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><a href="https://images.nasa.gov/" style="background-color: white; color: #7d181e; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">140,000 photos and other resources</a><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span style="background-color: white;">like sound samples and videos has been made available for online viewing as well as download. A huge step by the Space technology giant "towards promoting the Open Access movement" (The featured photo by NASA / </span>Tony Gray & Kevin O'Connell).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRCcIZIlL9kPackMOvgEuSrsGyMut_wedRAWhuBu56pac3m1Fg2gDIfZUNv5t_HOv4QCWG7uN-u_jD1KHbVpcERiwo9rJo6KWn8S3_LgnXkC-sLFRa-0DAF6_lNCuF3LpaH_9Un-UbICw/s1600/PRINCE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="222" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRCcIZIlL9kPackMOvgEuSrsGyMut_wedRAWhuBu56pac3m1Fg2gDIfZUNv5t_HOv4QCWG7uN-u_jD1KHbVpcERiwo9rJo6KWn8S3_LgnXkC-sLFRa-0DAF6_lNCuF3LpaH_9Un-UbICw/s1600/PRINCE.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In JULY </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/700382/bi-arrests-one-of-japan-s-most-wanted-for-copyright-infringement/story/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #7d181e;">GMA report</span>ed</a> that Japan's</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Bureau of Immigration (BI) had arrested a fugitive who was said to be one on Japan's "most wanted" list - for copyright infringement. the BI press release said that </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Romi Hoshino alias Zakay Romi, a Japanese-German-Israeli fugitive, was arrested at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3. </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The BI said Hoshino, 28, managed "Manga-Mura," allegedly an illegal viewing website of Japanese comics or graphic novels, popularly known as manga, that operated from January 2016 to April 2018 i</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">n what is said to be the worst violation of Japan's copyright law, Manga-Mura's operation allegedly cost 320 billion yen or US$2.9 billion in damages, the Bureau reported. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Electronic Frontiers Foundation warned that the new Copyright Alternative in <b>Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act</b> would "supercharge" a “copyright troll” industry. Readers will remember that the CASE Act aims to make it easier for independent creators to better defend their IP from theft, and was proposed in May by Democrat congressman Hakeem Jeffries and Republican Doug Collins - with <a href="https://www.ppa.com/articles/case-act-making-moves-in-the-house" target="_blank">widespread support </a>from the creative industries, in particular photographers and songwriters, musicians and artists. But the EFF argues that the bill would increase the number of trolls filing “many ‘small claims’ on as many internet users as possible in order to make money through the bill’s statutory damages provisions”. And Angela Saltarelli let usa know that </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">the US District Court, Southern District of New York had ruled that Andy Warhol's 1984 "Prince Series" (picture on the right, above) did not infringe Lynn Goldsmith's copyright on a Prince's photograph which she shot in 1981 for Newsweek but which was never published (picture on the left, above). When Goldsmith raised the issue of infringement of her work, the Andy Warhol The Foundation preemptively sued Ms Goldsmith and her company seeking a declaratory judgement that the works based on Goldsmith's photograph did not constitute copyright infringement, being dissimilar to the Goldsmith Prince photograph and, in any event, that the series is protected by fair use doctrine. In addition, the Foundation raised also a statute of limitation defense, arguing that the three-year statute of limitation barred the defendant's claim. Goldsmith responded with a counterclaim for copyright infringement. The court focussed on fair use and found for the Foundation, finding a transformative use, employing a new aesthetic and conveying a new artistic message, that Warhol removed all protectable elements of Goldsmith's photograph in creating his Series and that Warhols use had not diminished the value of Goldsmith's work or it's potential market(s). An appeal by Goldsmith was planned!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglVC8qyH-wo4QQNnxl6W-ZShBsu6HzLcBLd2Ca1eRDGUU8tSS1-jVVe98A2DPPn_pop7aqO6HZOuNdmvUWLgrtlGqy4WkPWGK84MQRO1VZjEsEIjq1LIkeFQ1b6YXE8_getz6AcHbST-Q/s1600/Led+zeppelin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglVC8qyH-wo4QQNnxl6W-ZShBsu6HzLcBLd2Ca1eRDGUU8tSS1-jVVe98A2DPPn_pop7aqO6HZOuNdmvUWLgrtlGqy4WkPWGK84MQRO1VZjEsEIjq1LIkeFQ1b6YXE8_getz6AcHbST-Q/s1600/Led+zeppelin.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In AUGUST Hugo Cox introduced us to the decision in <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/08/copyright-make-up-tips-how-to-make.html" target="_blank"><b>Islestarr Holdings Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd</b></a> where the High Court in London found that the patterns on the lid of a make-up powder palette and embossed on the powder itself could constitute protectable copyright works, dismissing Aldi’s argument that the ephemerality of the powder design meant that it was not sufficiently fixed to be granted copyright protection. Hugo also told us that this </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">conclusion was aligned with the CJEU’s recent ruling in <i><b><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-310/17" target="_blank">Levola Hengelo</a></b></i> on whether the taste of cheese can be protected by copyright. The CJEU reasoned:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Accordingly, for there to be a “work” as referred to in Directive 2001/29, the subject matter protected by copyright must be expressed in a manner which makes it identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity, even though that expression is not necessarily in permanent form. In the Islestarr case, Deputy Master Linwood used the examples of the copyright protection granted to sand sculptures that are washed away by the tide - and a personalised wedding cake that will be eaten can still constitute a copyright work. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white;">Analysing </span><span style="background-color: white;">the 'thin' copyright provision in the US, the US Department of Justice, giving reasons akin to that of the trial judge, sided with Led Zeppelin in the </span><i style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6283238-US-Stairway.html" target="_blank">Stairway to Heaven</a></i><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6283238-US-Stairway.html" target="_blank"> </a>case. </span>The DoJ's amicus brief went on to claim that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to overturn the finding of the lower court which stated the compared compositions were sufficiently similar for copyright infringement. The U.S. government explained that <i>"even if deposit copies do not capture all details of a composition, they generally include the elements of a song, such as the melody and lyrics, that are of most importance to the copyright owner. Failure to incorporate elements such as these in the deposit copy would reflect a failing on the part of the copyright owner or its agent, not an insurmountable obstacle imposed by the statutory scheme." </i><span style="background-color: white;">The Amicus Brief argues that the only similarity between the allegedly infringing work and the original is the selection and arrangement of two basic musical elements: an A minor chord and a descending chromatic scale. These have argued to not substantially be the base of the challenge as a small standard selection and arrangement gets a fairly thin copyright protection due to the “creative” standard of Originality being prevalent in the United States. And a total of 123 musicians and recording artists joined in, publicly s</span>upporting the British rock band in their arguments saying that unless the 9th Circuit reversed the decision it would set a dangerous precedent that would be hugely detrimental to songwriting and an assumption that “trivial and commonplace similarities between two songs could be considered to constitute the basis for a finding of infringement” and that this would confuse artists, stifle creativity, and result in “excessive and unwarranted” litigation by artists and lawyers seeking to profit from ambiguities in the law. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">Turning to music sampling, </span>sampling: The European Court of Justice sided with German electronic music pioneers<b> Kraftwerk</b> <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-copykat-in-wake-of-blurred-lines.html" target="_blank">against against hip-hop producers</a> Moses Pelham and Martin Haas, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ruling that unauthorised sampling of even brief clips of a sound recording can constitute copyright infringement as long as they are recognisable. Kraftwerk brought the action in 1999 over the Sabrina Setlur track “Nur Mir”, where Pelham and Haas used a two-second snippet of Kratfwerk's “Metall auf Metall” as a loop. I</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">n 2012, Germany's Federal Court Of Justice found in favour of Kraftwerk, in part on the basis that Pelham could have easily recreated the sound he sampled, so clipping the snippet out of 'Metal On Metal' was just laziness. Four years later the German Constitutional Court overturned that judgement, deciding Pelham's "artistic freedom" had to be considered - and that the negative impact on Kraftwerk caused by the uncleared sample wasn't sufficient to outweigh the sampler's artistic rights. The case was then referred to the CJEU who gave the win to Kratwerk. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Making clear the difference between sampling a recording and copying part (or all) of a song, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar wrote in his opinion "A phonogram is not an intellectual creation consisting of a composition of elements such as words, sounds, colours etc. A phonogram is a fixation of sounds which is protected, not by virtue of the arrangement of those sounds, but rather on account of the fixation itself" adding "Consequently, although, in the case of [other creative works], it is possible to distinguish the elements which may not be protected, such as words, sounds, colours etc, from the subject-matter which may be protected in the form of the original arrangement of those elements, such a distinction is not, however, possible in the case of a phonogram". </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And finally in August, and in a decision that was echoed as the year ended over the pond, D</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ailymotion was ordered to pay €5.5m in damages to Italian broadcaster Mediaset with the Rome court saying that Dailymotion was “entirely aware” of copyright infringement on it's platform and that safe harbour protection available to intermediaries would not apply if the intermediary did not fulfil the criteria set out in the EU E-Commerce Directive, which is the origin point of the EU Safe Harbour norms - here for failing to have a filtering mechanism and a system to automatically remove infringing content,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLEuO5G249X2boT35LxgvEQ-GYCvuCY7V0_JgpiagR3sDvGp1PSTz5gllneIt02vxeCby5gHBSHU0l2WRC0BnvJBa7KgyoW0jiK0p3JoCRBKTOwX-k8EYsLHUEjK4y43rs2j3jlmddrGk/s1600/pablo+picasso+buste+de+femme.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1454" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLEuO5G249X2boT35LxgvEQ-GYCvuCY7V0_JgpiagR3sDvGp1PSTz5gllneIt02vxeCby5gHBSHU0l2WRC0BnvJBa7KgyoW0jiK0p3JoCRBKTOwX-k8EYsLHUEjK4y43rs2j3jlmddrGk/s320/pablo+picasso+buste+de+femme.jpg" width="290" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.4px;">Buste de femme (Dora Maar) by Pablo Picasso</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">SEPTEMBER. EU copyright reforms had a reasonably quick impact on <b>Google</b> - but maybe not quite the one legislators had hoped for: The internet giant decided that it will not pay European Media Outlets to display and use their content on its search engine and Google News platform - which means it will only portray content from those media groups that have allowed free usage of the content. The EU Copyright legislation was brought in to ensure that media companies could get adequate compensation for the display of their items on platforms of these tech giants, however have Google now played a "trump card", reducing those who do not comply with Google's wishes to just a headline and a bare link to the content in Google results - results which facilitate access to online audiences. The move <a href="http://google%20has%20decided%20to%20not%20pay%20european%20media%20outlets%20to%20display%20and%20use%20their%20content%20on%20its%20search%20engine%20and%20google%20news%20platform.%20it%20has%20decided%20that%20it%20will%20only%20portray%20content%20from%20those%20media%20groups%20that%20have%20allowed%20free%20usage%20of%20the%20content.%20the%20eu%20copyright%20legislation%20was%20brought%20in%20to%20ensure%20that%20media%20companies%20could%20get%20adequate%20compensation%20for%20the%20display%20of%20their%20items%20on%20platforms%20of%20these%20tech%20giants%2C%20however%20google%20has%20played%20a%20trump%20card%2C%20mostly%20propagating%20free%20content%20higher%20access%20philosophy.%20google%E2%80%99s%20vice%20president%20has%20announced%20that%20it%20is%20upon%20the%20europe%20based%20news%20published%20to%20decide%20if%20it%20would%20allow%20google%20to%20show%20%E2%80%9Csnippets%E2%80%9D%20of%20content%20or%20thumbnail%20images%2C%20however%20there%20will%20be%20no%20compensation%20paid%20for%20the%20same.%20if%20they%20don%E2%80%99t%20allow%2C%20only%20a%20headline%20and%20a%20bare%20link%20to%20the%20content%20will%20appear%20in%20the%20results.%20this%20is%20a%20major%20blow%20to%20media%20organisations%20which%20hugely%20depend%20on%20google%20for%20facilitating%20access%20and%20to%20reach%20out%20to%20more%20of%20online%20audiences.%20this%20move%20by%20google%20has%20been%20criticised%20by%20the%20eu%20copyright%20rapporteur%2C%20referncing%20the%20move%20as%20a%20%27digital%20dictatorial%27%20practice%2C%20with%20an%20intention%20to%20create%20a%20monopoly.%20this%20move%20makes%20the%20situation%20even%20worse%20for%20the%20publishers.%20this%20move%20has%20taken%20place%20post%20french%20legislating%20this%20eu%20directive%20in%20its%20domestic%20law.%20in%20germany%2C%20recently%20after%20the%20eu%20directive%20was%20complied%20with%2C%20some%20publishers%20decided%20to%20allow%20google%20to%20publish%20their%20content%20free%20of%20cost%2C%20due%20to%20a%20drop%20in%20traffic%20%28as%20hreported%20by%20politico%29.%20in%20light%20of%20this%2C%20it%20will%20be%20very%20interesting%20to%20see%20the%20implications%20of%20the%20same%20and%20how%20this%20practice%20affects%20the%20news%20industry%20in%20the%20future%20across%20europe./" target="_blank">was criticised</a> by the EU Copyright rapporteur Axel Voss MEP, calling it a 'digital dictatorial' practice, France had already brought in legislation to bring the EU directive into domestic Law - and In Germany, when the law was brought in, some publishers decided to allow Google to publish their content free of cost, due to a huge drop in traffic when Google 'ignored' content they would otherwise have to pay for under the new laws. </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">The <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Federal-judge-rules-for-S-F-art-editor-in-14439019.php" style="color: #7d181e; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">San Fransisco Chronicle report</a>ed that the</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"> San Francisco art editor who reprinted and sold copyrighted photos of paintings by Pablo Picasso as part of a reference book did have the right to do so under U.S. law - and that meant he did not have to pay damages of $2.68 million ordered by a French court. In 2012 the c</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">ourt in Paris ruled that Alan Wofsy, had violated a previous order against making any commercial use of the photos, and ordered him to pay damages to the copyright-holder. Nearly 16,000 photos of Picasso’s works, taken from 1932 to 1970, were published in a 22-volume catalog after the artist’s death in 1973. In 1996, Yves de Fontbrune, a Frenchman who had purchased the publisher’s stock and obtained the copyright, sued Wofsy in France for reproducing some of the photos in “The Picasso Project,” a publication he offered for sale at a Paris book fair. Now</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"> U.S. District Judge Edward Davila sitting in San Jose has ruled the order is not enforceable in a U.S. court because federal law allows publishers to use copyrighted works for different purposes <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Federal-judge-rules-for-S-F-art-editor-in-14439019.php" target="_blank">under the doctrine of “fair use.”</a> </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">Wofsy’s book used less than 10% of the pictures in a photographic material available in a catalogue of Picasso’s paintings, which was intended for a different market and the court found that Wofsy's work did not compete with the catalogue, saying said fair use applies as the new book as the doctrine promotes “criticism, teaching, scholarship and research” by allowing copyrighted works to reach wider audiences with </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">Wofsy's legal team saying said the judge recognised that “what he was doing, generating a reference work for libraries, academic institutions, auction houses and art collectors, is different from trying to compete” with the catalog of copyrighted photos. And </span><a href="https://pitchfork.com/news/ennio-morricone-may-reclaim-copyright-to-film-scores-judge-rules/" style="color: #7d181e; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Pitchfork report</a>ed that an appellate court had ruled that iconic film composer Ennio Morricone could reclaim the rights to his film scores. Morricone sued Bixio Music Group in 2016 in an attempt to regain the copyrights to six of his film scores from the late ’70s and early ’80s arguing that his contract with Bixio expired in 2012, using the provisions of the US copyright law that lets authors terminate a transfer of rights 35 years after a work’s initial publication. The composer reportedly served Bixio a termination notice in 2012, but the company didn’t give their claim. In fact the composer lost at first instance in October 2017 when a New York federal court determined that Morricone’s works should be considered “works for hire” and that would block the composer’s termination rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed that decision, saying the scores shouldn’t be considered “works for hire” in either U.S. or Italian law and so could be reclaimed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHmbjEcIMUUp3vzJjfbEvacDqPE1ABTn-fbxdvNSDndzVRAeKTZ-Gj6lolbZ6WqqRy7wHdNtoNbC2yYy6UPBv-V0SHkd4U8CdUpMGdosyyupqvER04yflb5mPAihGXHFUn7RcUrEPE_Zo/s1600/Copyright_US.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="444" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHmbjEcIMUUp3vzJjfbEvacDqPE1ABTn-fbxdvNSDndzVRAeKTZ-Gj6lolbZ6WqqRy7wHdNtoNbC2yYy6UPBv-V0SHkd4U8CdUpMGdosyyupqvER04yflb5mPAihGXHFUn7RcUrEPE_Zo/s320/Copyright_US.png" width="310" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">OCTOBER. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">Current chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler, <a href="https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8532005/nadler-music-modernization-act-industry-battles" style="color: purple;" target="_blank">aired his thoughts</a> on what might be the next challenges for legislating for m</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">usic copyright in the USA. </span></span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Prioritising the unity that led to the unanimous passage of the Music Modernization Act, Nadler opined "<i>If you want real legislation, the different segments of the industry have to get their act together and speak with one voice,</i>" and admitting that most members of Congress aren't well-versed in music industry particulars. "<i>Once they did that, we were able to pass legislation unanimously."</i> Nadler then highlighted that odd anomaly in the US where there is no performing right for recorded music that are the staple of terrestrial AM/FM radio play - an almost unique position in the World adding <i>"As terrestrial radio becomes relatively less important and streaming becomes more, the question is the extent to which broadcasters will see their interests as less opposed to performance rights. At some point, I do think we will get some [agreement], because the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and their people will see that their interests are less adversely affected than previously." </i></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Queen joined the long list of bands who have taken action against President Trump for using their music without permission. A campaign video featuring '<i>We Will Rock</i> You' <a href="https://themusic.com.au/news/queen-have-trump-campaign-video-pulled-due-to-copyright-infringement/-PXg6u3s7-4/14-10-19/" target="_blank">was removed from the President's Twitter feed</a> following a copyright complaint from the band’s publisher. According to Buzzfeed, within hours of the video going live Queen had "already entered into a process to call for non use of Queen song copyrights by the Trump campaign”. After being viewed more than 1.7 million times, the video was disabled by Twitter and the post now reads: "This media has been disabled in response to a report by copyright owner.” They join REM, Prince, Neil Young, Rihanna, Nickleback and Adele (amongst others) who have objected to Trump using their music. More details on Nickleback's recent takedown can be found here. A Twitter spokesperson told CNN that the company responds to copyright complaints sent to them by a copyright owner or their authorised representatives. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">US comedian Jerry Seinfeld </span><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49878567" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">defeated a lawsuit</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> which alleged he had stolen the idea for a TV series. But the case was decided on basis that the statute of limitations must bar the claim - and not on any infringement or otherwise. Christian Charles, a former colleague claimed he had originally pitched the idea for "</span><i style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee</i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">" to Seinfeld in 2002 - a decade before it debuted. Manhattan District judge Alison Nathan said Charles had taken too long to sue, The statute of limitations applies after three years and Charles had waited for six years to file his lawsuit after Seinfeld rejected his copyright claim in 2012, the year the first series of the show aired. In other news, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The U.S. House of Representatives voted 410-6 in favor of the <b>Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act</b> of 2019, Seeking to address the high cost of copyright litigation, when passed into law, the CASE Act will create a voluntary 'small claims court' within the U.S. Copyright Office, called the Copyright Claims Board. Its not without criticism: the American Civil Liberties Union argued the Act lacked procedural safeguards and could be abused by “copyright trolls” or by those seeking to silence free speech on the internet - and expose millions of Americans to liability who unknowingly violate copyright law for actions seemingly as petty as sharing photos online. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And apart from the US of A? Well in London Hugo Cox <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/10/guest-post-when-creative-collaboration.html" target="_blank">explained the case of <b>Kogan v Martin</b></a></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">a case concerning the screenplay for Florence Foster Jenkins. The question was whether it had been written solely by Nicholas Martin, as had been decided in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in 2017, or whether Julia Kogan was joint author. The Court of Appeal was not content with the reasoning of the lower court and ordered a retrial. Why? Well i</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">t seemed Martin had held the pen and Kogan had contributed only to the first drafts. However, the Court emphasised a joint author can be someone who only offers suggestions to the writer – she does not necessarily have to put pen to paper or have the last word on what goes into the script. Contributions to plot ideas or inventing characters are on an equal footing with contributions to the execution of a work. And if a work has been created through a series of drafts, inputs into the earlier drafts count.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQD0C8ZoAhRgjLmRPJZk13Hia50jtxkXLboOVNioBaZjscbEZVOx2caS-txKDGKs8Kcg7L2ZpZ65-bdHYSybjbDK3kLL4umxXie04OlqTw0aQVKqvfr3Ljc01zYOnQFO1RRyQ4xE61Ydc/s1600/oracle_java.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="388" data-original-width="580" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQD0C8ZoAhRgjLmRPJZk13Hia50jtxkXLboOVNioBaZjscbEZVOx2caS-txKDGKs8Kcg7L2ZpZ65-bdHYSybjbDK3kLL4umxXie04OlqTw0aQVKqvfr3Ljc01zYOnQFO1RRyQ4xE61Ydc/s320/oracle_java.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">NOVEMBER. I<a href="https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/11/15/Supreme-Court-agrees-to-hear-Google-Oracle-copyright-dispute/8781573861507/" target="_blank">n the big news</a>, the US The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal by Google in the case where Oracle accused the tech giant of violating copyright laws when developing its Android mobile platform. The court's decision to hear the case comes more than a year and a half after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Google, saying the company's unauthorized use of 11,500 lines of code in Oracle's open-source Java application programming interface was not fair use, and will provide the final say in the 2013 claim accused Google of infringing the copyright on its Java APIs in the development of Google’s Android OS. Google denied any wrongdoing and has argued, in part, that software APIs cannot be protected under US copyright law. We opened this review of the year with a mention of AI, and with</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> the advent of the concept of “Computer-generated works”, and with the recent advancement in the role of AI in curation of art-based copyrightable works, this debate has gained even more importance and is now the subject of a number of major academic conferences and seminars, with the question surrounding the most appropriate path to be taken by lawmakers and courts. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The US Patent and Trademark Office launched a public consultation in this matter and issued a request for comments on IP protection of AI based innovation, on or before 16th December. The notice reads: <i>“Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly becoming important across a diverse spectrum of technologies and businesses. AI poses unique challenges in the sphere of intellectual property law. At a January 31, 2019 conference on ‘‘Artificial Intelligence: Intellectual Property Policy Considerations,’’ USPTO explored a number of those challenges. On August 27, 2019, the USPTO published a request for comment regarding AI’s impacts on patent law and policy. As a continuation of this work, the USPTO is also considering the impact of AI on other intellectual property rights.” </i>Nigeria</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> emphasized, via its Copyright Commission, a will to stamp out Piracy in totality. Vincent Oyefeso, the commision’s director of public affairs,said:</span><i style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"The NCC is not just a compliance agency, it has the power to arrest and prosecute anybody caught pirating other people’s intellectual properties.” and “Copyright owners could institute civil suit against copyright offenders, apart from the criminal suit the commission normally institutes against such offenders.” And </i><a href="https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2019/11/universal-music-declares-copyright-ownership-over-recently-public-domain-yes-we-have-no-bananas.html" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #7d181e;">Hypebot report</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">ed</span></a><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">that despite an acknowledgement that the the 1923 song “<i>Yes! We Have No Bananas”</i> by composers Irving Cohn and Frank Silver had slipped into the public domain, Universal Music stepped up to claim ownership. Glenn Fleishman had posted a video of the song to YouTube in celebration of it entering the public domain earlier this year. He even titled it “Yes! We Have No Bananas, now in the public domain.” The video is of him and his friends and family singing it at a New Year’s Eve Party: However, Hypebot says that video has now been “claimed” by Universal Music with a claim to “monetize” the video on YouTube - despite them "literally having no rights to speak of". Hypebot say "What’s possibly troubling is that YouTube doesn’t even seem to offer up an option for you to point out that the work is in the public domain, and even if these entities might have once had a claim on the song". </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn7Eaj3uPEevevZWgnRD_IB2DYGgwPtoOL_AwooZ3AiTRLPQVaR_OsHhF__OiUHyjAPKKm3-baBzKnFish0XI8r3srqPFrOKrtJpzjtq28fc7JVBz2GMMfxQ_1WlPayIuqDOdotsDJ5CU/s1600/paris+chic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="275" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn7Eaj3uPEevevZWgnRD_IB2DYGgwPtoOL_AwooZ3AiTRLPQVaR_OsHhF__OiUHyjAPKKm3-baBzKnFish0XI8r3srqPFrOKrtJpzjtq28fc7JVBz2GMMfxQ_1WlPayIuqDOdotsDJ5CU/s1600/paris+chic.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Paris Chic, Tal R, 2017</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We're nearly there - it's DECEMBER!!! And </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">French media organisations have <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/11/21/business/french-media-launch-copyright-case-googles-refusal-pay-display-content/#." target="_blank">lodged a complaint</a> against Google with the country's competition authority in a move over the US internet giant's refusal to pay for displaying their content. In fact the internet platform has taken the decision not to show their content at all - which in turn has reduced traffic to those sites. Earlier this year France implemented the recent EU copyright reforms - one aim of which was to ensure publishers are compensated when their work is displayed online. Google won't pay - but with the law now in place will only display content if they are granted gratis permission. And the APIG press alliance is not happy. Not happy at all - not least because their members have lost visibility and presumably advertising revenue - and the media organisations say the giant is abusing its dominant position in the market. French President Emmanuel Macron has already voiced his support for the press, saying that no company can "break free" of the law in France.'' And also in France, a study into Hadopi, the regime implemented to stem piracy, showed that whilst the law had reduced piracy and benefited established artists and record labels, it may well have disadvantaged emerging talent: “The introduction of the Hadopi anti-piracy law in France had a positive effect on sales for all artists, superstars as well as artists lower in the sales distribution” researcher <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191219/09254343602/study-hadopi-has-been-great-big-artists-labels-bad-spread-culture-smaller-new-artists.shtml" target="_blank">Ruben Savelkoul said</a>, but added “The effect is stronger for superstars, suggesting that smaller or niche artists gain exposure from illegal downloading, partly offsetting the negative substitution effect on sales - and that piracy makes it easier to discover newer music. The Nirvana case was back</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> in the news as f</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ashion firm Marc Jacobs submitted new arguments as to why it has not infringed the intellectual property rights of the band by selling a t-shirt that featured a version of the wobbly face image that was a staple of the band's merchandise. Marc Jacobs has so far failed to have Nirvana LLC's claim dismissed with the judge overseeing the case ruling "a review of the images confirms that the allegation as to substantial similarity is sufficient". Now Marc Jacobs has now filed some new documents with the courts that include copyright and trademark law technicalities, and a challenge to whether or bot the claimant owns the original wobbly face image. On subsistence, Marc Jacobs cite rules and practices of the US Copyright Office which, they say, confirm that Nirvana's wobbly face image does not meet the requirements to be protected by copyright. They also note that the US Patent And Trademark Office refused to register the logo as recently as last summer, and that Nirvana LLC has failed to demonstrate that Kurt Cobain drew the wobbly face, as has been claimed, nor that rights in the drawing passed to the band's company through either explicit or implicit agreement. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Rapper Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Australian Jessica Chiha and her business “The Little Homie”, which sells hip-hop inspired clothing and apparel. The subject matter of infringement refers to the book “<i>AB to Jay-Z</i>” which has been created by te online retail business, and which aims to teach kids alphabets in terms of names and pictures of rappers. Since then, their imagery and names have been expended to use in a coloring book as well as clothing retail options. After being served with a legal notice, the company raised a defence of transformative use and fair use and resisted the rapper's claim, which has consequently landed them in court. As far as the claim over lyrics is concerned, the lawsuit refers to the famous quote by Jay- Z: “If you’re having girl problems, I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one”, which has allegedly been appropriated by the Children’s book, as it displays on its front page a quote on the same lines, which states: “If you’re having alphabet problems, I feel bad for son, I got 99 problems but my ABC’s ain’t one.” A Montana based clothing company called All Season All Terrain (ASAT) Outdoors is suing New York-based fashion company Supreme for copyright infringement after Supreme sold clothing printed with a copyrighted camouflage design. ASAT has told the New York District Court.that it has owned the copyright on a camouflage design since it was created in 1985. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Copenhagen's maritime and commercial court <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/12/artwork-cannot-be-cut-up-to-realize.html" target="_blank">found against art provocateurs Dann Thorleifsson and Arne Leivsgard</a> - founders of Kankse and Letho watch brands - who had purchased and then cut up Tal R's artwork "Paris chic" (for the fairly substantial sum of £70,000 at the Victoria Miro Gallery in London) The duo wanted the painting fragments to decorate the faces of their latest watches, each of which they planned to sell for at least DK 10,000. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Danish court issued a ruling yesterday in favour of the Tal R. Consequently, the two watch designers cannot use Tal R's painting as a raw material and will have to pay DK 31,550 in legal costs. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As the year wound it's way towards Christmas, the CJEU handed down its decision in the long-awaited Tom Kabinet case (Case C-263/18 <b>Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet Internet BV and Others</b>): <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/breaking-cjeu-rules-that-provision-of.html" target="_blank">t</a></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/breaking-cjeu-rules-that-provision-of.html" target="_blank">he Court found</a> that the supply by downloading, for permanent use, of an e-book is not covered by the right of ‘distribution to the public’ provided for by Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29, but that it is covered by the right of ‘communication to the public’ provided for in Article 3(1) of that directive, in which case exhaustion is excluded under paragraph 3 of that article, saying that </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">determined that their is no exhaustion of online media and If there is to be exhaustion of digital copies, then that must be a decision taken by the legislature after a full public policy evaluation. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Paris Court Appeal </span><a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/paris-court-of-appeal-confirms-that.html" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">ruled in favour</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> of the estate of late French photographer Jean-François Bauret in proceedings brought against, inter alia, US artist Jeff Koons for copyright infringement by copying Bauret's photograph 'Enfants' into a sculpture 'Naked', rejecting freedom of the arts and parody defences. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">AND FINALLY, the music industry ended the year on a high note with the news that </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">the jury in the case between RIAA, which represents the recorded music sector in the US, and Internet Service Provider <b>Cox Communications</b> had found in favour of the record companies, primarily on the basis that Cox had set up </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">a deliberately shoddy system for dealing with repeat copyright infringement by users on its customer base.</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> The </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Digital Millennium Copyright Act </b>states that safe harbour protection is conditional on net firms operating takedown systems and policies for dealing with repeat infringers (although the law is less clear on how those systems and policies should operate). But here </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Cox <a href="https://completemusicupdate.com/article/music-industry-wins-billion-dollar-damages-as-jury-rules-in-cox-case/" target="_blank">were found liable</a> for the infringement by its users, of the 10,017 tracks listed in the litigation, and the jury awarded nearly billion in damages ($99,830.29 for each infringement). Cox i</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ntends to appeal saying "We are disappointed in the court's decision" adding "The amount is unjust and excessive. T</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he RIAA's Chief Legal Officer, Kenneth Doroshow, said: "The jury's verdict sends a clear message - Cox and other ISPs that fail to meet their legal obligations to address piracy on their networks will be held accountable. The jury recognised these companies' legal obligation to take meaningful steps to protect music online and made a strong statement about the value of a healthy music ecosystem for everyone - ranging from creators to fans to the available outlets for legitimate music consumption". </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyngcYo9pqCuXgI8vZh2rrOGuGkwQdQm9LgtbmF-nzr9_171kwQ5mDkKZpyEFMgsv4VZwF3FLgupddqODU8AgAblUVkij_V8Ge1CrRps4B7xG2TS7LMbPDJwxCN_pWT0uWo9xA3ds7dWY/s1600/Golden+sunset+1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="1600" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyngcYo9pqCuXgI8vZh2rrOGuGkwQdQm9LgtbmF-nzr9_171kwQ5mDkKZpyEFMgsv4VZwF3FLgupddqODU8AgAblUVkij_V8Ge1CrRps4B7xG2TS7LMbPDJwxCN_pWT0uWo9xA3ds7dWY/s400/Golden+sunset+1.JPG" width="400" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Sadly we have lost some important creative talent this year. In music we lost bandleader Jimmy Cavallo, rapper and songwriter Juice Wrld, drummer Ted McKenna, singer songwriter Scott Walker, The Prodigy's Keith Flint, Roxette singer Marie Fredriksson, South African singer and apartheid activist Johnny Clegg, The Monkees' Peter Tork, king of the surf guitar Dick Dale, João Gilberto, the legendary Brazilian bossa nova pioneer, rock guitarist Bernie Tormé, Stephen Fitzpatrick and Audun Laading of the band Hers who were killed in a car crash along with their tour manager Trevor Englebrektson, French music producer and songwriter Henri Belolo, singer songwriter Dr John (Malcolm John Rebennack), American country musician Chuck Glaser, Brazilian singer, songwriter, and guitarist João Gilberto, Talk Talk frontman Mark Hollis, US songwriter LaShawn Daniels, the Cars' frontman Ric Ocasek, West African singer DJ Arafat, Eddie and The Hot Rods singer Barrie Masters, The Beat's Ranking Roger, Larry Wallis of the Pink Fairies, Level 42's Rowland 'Boon' Gould, and legendary drummer and co-founder of rock band Cream Ginger Baker were just some of those who passed alongside </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Inuit singer-songwriter and activist Kelly Fraser. Italian tenor Marcello Giordani, Japanese soprano singer Shinobu Sato, Zimbabwean musician, philanthropist and human rights activist Oliver Mtukudzi, French producer and DJ Philippe "Zdar" Cerboneschi, Bollywood film and music producer Champak Jain, the Oscar-winning composer, arranger and conductor Michel Legrand, German-American pianist, composer, arranger, and conductor André Previn, and conductor </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Mariss Jansons. And the world of Film, TV and theatre lost a wealth of talent including the actors</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Albert Finney, Luke Perry, Vinny Vella, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Rutger Hauer, Bibi Andersson, Viju Khote, Valerie Harper, Kaoru Yachigusa, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Peter Fonda, Doris Day, Ramesh Bhatkar, Windsor Davies, Freddie Jones, Jan-Michael Vincent, Broadway star Carol Channing</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">, Shaukat Kaifi (Shaukat Azmi), Anna Karina, Tatsuo Umemiya, alongside Oscar-nominated director John Singleton, British theatre director and presenter Jonathan Miller, Japanese film director Yasuo Furuhata, Bollywood film producer Raj Kumar Barjatya, YouTuber Emily Hartridge, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">chef Gary Rhodes, fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">German fashion photographer Peter Lindbergh, photographer Terry O'Neill, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">comedians Arte Johnson, Jeremy Hardy, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">John Witherspoon</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> and Ian Cognito, The Tiger Who Came To Tea writer Judith Kerr, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Doctor Who writer and script editor Terrance Dicks, author Seiko Tanabe, Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison who was the first black woman to receive the prize for literature, critic and broadcaster Clive James, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"King of the Broadway musical" Harold 'Hal' Prince, fiery U.S. theatre critic John Simon, Irish broadcaster Gay Byrne, I.M. Pei, the pre-eminent U.S. architect, Cuban ballet legend Alicia Alonso, and </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Puppeteer Caroll Spinney. </span><br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So all we can do is wish you a happy and healthy 2020, and that you 'live long and prosper'.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: "times new roman";">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">. </span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "times new roman";">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQvMAr3doPWdnMJOC8L2SQA3-1_yLSpxBI8UJ2NIK5B3tsbBtTYGYmOaiTmRUGMDGA-IKQpZD7PmMExQkI-lbaLHh1xkVHkVmu1as-ehFAB4ZkPl1j3I8lTR7YRalv5SFFq2ddkXdNGB8/s1600/eff1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="187" data-original-width="269" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQvMAr3doPWdnMJOC8L2SQA3-1_yLSpxBI8UJ2NIK5B3tsbBtTYGYmOaiTmRUGMDGA-IKQpZD7PmMExQkI-lbaLHh1xkVHkVmu1as-ehFAB4ZkPl1j3I8lTR7YRalv5SFFq2ddkXdNGB8/s200/eff1.jpg" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_pnNCvnC2PjmjMywzqLC7PltHQqhbeUJt3PD07adUPzMVITeZzEQgp2ElmdSgAss8yDMpsmKxIhW4nYa9S6vfKbrO2pq1u5F_c-XDD6r1_THuc9jJttZldYkPyyloHk-hStD06wVmG74/s1600/Kataward.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_pnNCvnC2PjmjMywzqLC7PltHQqhbeUJt3PD07adUPzMVITeZzEQgp2ElmdSgAss8yDMpsmKxIhW4nYa9S6vfKbrO2pq1u5F_c-XDD6r1_THuc9jJttZldYkPyyloHk-hStD06wVmG74/s1600/Kataward.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">You can catch up with Eleonora's excellent and well observed<b> <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-kats-2019-copyright-awards.html" target="_blank">2019 Copyright Awards</a></b> on the <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-kats-2019-copyright-awards.html" target="_blank">IPKat here</a>. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">T</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he EFF also has a number of reviews of 2019, which you can find <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/yet-another-year-fighting-bad-copyright-bill-2019-year-review" target="_blank">here</a> (on the <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/yet-another-year-fighting-bad-copyright-bill-2019-year-review" target="_blank">CASE Act</a>) and <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/2019-review" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/year-we-fought-get-net-neutrality-back-2019-year-review" target="_blank">here</a></span><br />
<div style="font-family: "times new roman";">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "times new roman";">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>As ever - readers will have their own views on what should (or perhaps should not) be included in the copyright year. The CopyKat writes from a UK/US, music industry and common law perspective: So please let us know if you think something important is missing - comment is free on the 1709 blog, but please be polite and thoughtful! </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>And finally, on a personal note, this review will be my last post for the 1709 Blog as me and the team take a break. Time to move on! I would never say never again, but 2020 is, for me, the time to go. It's been a blast! Ben Challis. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">THE FABULOUS IPKAT</a> will of course continue to cover blog on all things related to IP, including copyright. </b></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-27779235168506388522019-12-26T13:30:00.001+00:002019-12-26T13:33:11.332+00:00Paris Court of Appeal confirms that Koons’s 'Naked' sculpture infringes copyright in 'Enfants' photograph, rejecting freedom of the arts and parody defences<div class="post-header" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.6; outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Paris Court of Appeal confirms that Koons’s 'Naked' sculpture infringes copyright in 'Enfants' photograph, rejecting freedom of the arts and parody defences</b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>By Eleonora Rosati writing for the IPKat and first published <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">on the IPKat here</a> </b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Last week, the Paris Court Appeal ruled (<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qqb2NXAIaZLzoSd7vbScX050dQntyB95/view" target="_blank">decision No 152/2019</a>) in favour of the estate of late French photographer Jean-François Bauret in proceedings brought against, inter alia, US artist Jeff Koons (an artist who, as readers will know, has been sued a few times for copyright infringement: see, eg, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/rogers-v-koons-3" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/arts/design/jeff-koons-fait-dhiver-naf-naf-copyright.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2018/11/13/is-jeff-koons-a-plagiarist/" target="_blank">here</a>). </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The action related to the unauthorized reproduction of a photograph (Bauret’s ‘Enfants’, shown below on the left hand side) in a sculpture (Koons's ‘Naked’, below on the right hand side). </span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh50MLLznLgHJIUDkNYa7y8VA6WYRQgxiIykyiK4XslkExxRgOZp-wRkcQ1OThomMbXURxO0fia11BfKLvWRSBbylft9TB7kjPDTFa-3thU6sQr2OVhiiUrIgaid0KwCfLRsPq-jiTtnws/s1600/enfants.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="442" data-original-width="640" height="442" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh50MLLznLgHJIUDkNYa7y8VA6WYRQgxiIykyiK4XslkExxRgOZp-wRkcQ1OThomMbXURxO0fia11BfKLvWRSBbylft9TB7kjPDTFa-3thU6sQr2OVhiiUrIgaid0KwCfLRsPq-jiTtnws/s640/enfants.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i style="color: #010101; font-family: Nobile; font-size: 12px; outline: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">'Enfants' (L) and 'Naked' (R)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The defendants had advanced a number of arguments, including that: </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- ‘Enfants’ is not original; </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- even if it was, ‘Naked’, would not incorporate any original elements thereof; </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- even if prima facie infringement was established, freedom of the arts and parody would prevail over copyright.</span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The court rejected them all. Let’s see what happened in greater detail. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Background </b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In 1970, Bauret realized a black-and-white photograph titled ‘Enfants’. No print of the photograph was sold, but in 1975 the photographer authorized the making of postcards carrying the image of the work. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In 2014, the Bauret estate found out that Jeff Koons had realized a porcelain sculpture, ‘Naked’, which was similar to the ‘Enfants’ photograph. Koons’s work had been made in 1988 in 4 copies as part of the Banality series, a readymade collection of artworks that contains a mix of pop art and kitsch. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The sculpture was never exhibited in France, though in 2015 it should have been on display in an exhibition at the Centre Pompidou in Paris. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Bauret estate sent a warning letter to both Koons and the museum. For reasons linked to damage during transportation, ‘Naked’ was not included in the exhibition in the end. The museum subsequently also removed the image of the sculpture from the exhibition catalogue. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A lawsuit followed and, in 2017, the TGI Paris partly ruled in favour of the photographer’s estate. Both parties appealed. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Aside from issues concerning the personal liability of Koons, the judgment is particularly interesting as far as substantive issues of copyright subsistence and infringement are concerned.<b> </b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Originality of ‘Enfants’</b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As regards the protectability of the photograph, the defendants had submitted that Bauret had failed to express his own personal touch. The choices made were not sufficient for the work to be considered his own intellectual creation, in that the photograph represented a ‘spontaneous pose’ assumed by the two children and the estate had failed to demonstrated where the originality of such creation would lie. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The court disagreed, and held that Bauret’s work revealed a new concept of nude, which is raw and devoid of any sexual connotation, and such as to disclose the personality of the author. Among other things, the particular use of the light was meant to confer some ‘sculptural’ character to the photograph and the overall composition (including the pose and expression of the children) served to add a ‘geometric’ dimension to the work. According to the court, the latter in particular served to dispel any idea that the pose of the children would be spontaneous: rather, they had been directed by the photographer to assume a certain pose and expression. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In light of all this, like at first instance, the photograph was found to be original and protectable. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Prima facie infringement</b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The claimants pointed to the several similarities between the photograph and challenged the relevance of the argument, made by the defendants, that the different character (real vs fictional) and message (children’s innocence vs Adam & Eve) conveyed by, respectively, the photograph and the sculpture would exclude the recognizability of the former in the latter (it should be noted, however, that Koons never denied that he had had access to the photograph). </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The defendants submitted that the sculpture had not reproduced anything that would confer originality to the photograph, and highlighted the differences between these two, including the colour, dimensions (a 2D photo vs a 3D sculpture) and size ('Naked''s height is 1m), as well as other differences (hair colour, navel, children’s gaze, position of the hands, background, elements in the composition). </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The court disagreed, and found that the sculpture had actually incorporated the “essential features” of the photograph, which constituted its original character. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Defences </b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Copyright and freedom of expression </b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The court also considered an important point: to what extent can freedom of expression – including freedom of artistic expression – restrict or even trump copyright protection? </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To answer this, the court followed a similar approach to the one indicated (correctly) by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its recent Grand Chamber rulings in <b><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-469/17" target="_blank">Funke Medien, Spiegel Online</a></b>, and <b>Pelham</b> [Katposts <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/07/breaking-cjeu-rules-that-freedom-of.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/07/breaking-cjeu-rules-that-use-of.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-pelham-decision-only-recognizable.html" target="_blank">here</a>] notably that only available copyright exceptions and limitations can be relied upon in an infringement action, and that it is not possible to invoke directly fundamental rights and freedoms or a ‘fair use’ of a work to trump the application of copyright's exclusive rights<b>. </b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In this sense, like the CJEU, the Paris court confirmed that the balance between different rights and freedoms is internal to the copyright system, and has been undertaken by legislature when envisaging available copyright exceptions and limitations. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In all this, the court also considered that the unlicensed use of the photograph by Koons was not “necessary” for the exercise of his own freedom of expression. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Parody </b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The defendant had also raised an argument that the use at issue could qualify as parody. The court referred to the 2014 CJEU <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-201/13" target="_blank"><b>Deckmyn</b> decision</a> [Katposts <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/search/max-results=7?q=deckmyn" target="_blank">here</a>] and the requirements that, for a work to be considered a parody, first, it must evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it and, second, it must constitute an expression of humour or mockery. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The court considered that neither requirement would be fulfilled in the case at issue. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>'Chats', by Merpel</b></span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Comment </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The decision appears correct from a substantial standpoint and is also compliant with case law of the CJEU. The court correctly applied the <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?&num=C-145/10" target="_blank"><b>Painer</b> test</a> (though it did not expressly refer to that decision) for determining originality of a photograph, by considering the ‘free and creative choices’ that the photographer had made in the pre-shooting phase, when taking the photograph, and in the post-production phase.</span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It also appropriately applied (again, without mentioning them expressly), the CJEU holdings in Funke Medien, Spiegel Online, and Pelham. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>I</b>n all this, the most interesting aspect of the decision probably relates to the application of the CJEU Deckmyn decision. As mentioned, one of the characteristics of a parody is that it must constitute an expression of humour or mockery. The CJEU did not clarify whether this requirement is fulfilled when an alleged parody pursues a humorous intent, or whether it is also required that it achieves it (as the Advocate General had suggested in his <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=DC9A4ABB8A32947F5D4A440026A9F058?text=&docid=152656&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=970095" target="_blank">Opinion</a>). </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If the test was ‘intent’, then the exception under Article 5(3)(k) of the<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML" target="_blank"> <b>InfoSoc Directive</b></a> would be broader than if a humorous ‘effect’ was also required. Above all, requiring just intent would be better compliant with the need to safeguard parody as a means to exercise freedom of expression. As I discus at greater length here, the difficulties that might arise should a humorous effect be required, lead to the conclusion the correct test under Deckmyn is that of a humorous ‘intent’. </span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In its decision the Paris Court of Appeal suggested that both intent and effect might fall within the concept of ‘expression of humour or mockery’ when it stated that: “La parodie doit aussi présenter un caractère humoristique, faire oeuvre de raillerie ou provoquer le rire” (“The parody must also have a humorous character, make fun of or provoke laughter”). So, an acceptable parody might perhaps be both one that makes fun without necessarily provoking laughter and one that provokes laughter without necessarily making fun. This might be an interesting take worth elaborating further in future case law. In all this, however, neither was the case of ‘Naked’.</span></div>
<div class="post-head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; position: relative; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
<span style="color: #12043d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>The IPKat thanked <a href="https://www.llcg-avocats.com/associes/" target="_blank">Stéphanie Legrand,</a> who represented the Bauret estate in the proceedings, for kindly providing a copy of the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal</b></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<article style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #010101; display: block; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-top: 20px; orphans: 2; outline: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8263389750043256119" itemprop="articleBody" style="color: #010101; line-height: 1.5em; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; width: 770px;">
<div dir="ltr" style="outline: 0px; text-align: left; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; outline: 0px; transition-property: all; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;"></span></span></div>
</div>
</article>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-76175178289546906292019-12-19T11:34:00.000+00:002019-12-19T11:34:01.613+00:00Tom Kabinet decision - no digital exhaustion of e-books<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVO5n3qiVlPaXAK9CVKtCVGes8CR1VslbwtFMHjmkq1aUxldQHnw-B0B09hHFYn1W_hlcaqQnQD0jn43y-kUjEeVOKfFEsxe1vvaL-gJ8icoII3hvwWZThsKGXrCSwna4-_S3GtiQplpY/s1600/Ginger_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1067" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVO5n3qiVlPaXAK9CVKtCVGes8CR1VslbwtFMHjmkq1aUxldQHnw-B0B09hHFYn1W_hlcaqQnQD0jn43y-kUjEeVOKfFEsxe1vvaL-gJ8icoII3hvwWZThsKGXrCSwna4-_S3GtiQplpY/s320/Ginger_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg" width="213" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div>
picture credit Gage Skidmore</div>
<div>
and nods to the IPKats</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Among its usual pre-Christmas deposit of multiple judgements, the CJEU has today handed down its decision in the long-awaited Tom Kabinet case (Case C-263/18 Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet Internet BV and Others)<br />
<br />
Both the <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/cp190159en.pdf">press release</a> and the <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=221807&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=43327">judgement</a> are now available in English.<br />
<br />
As the press release succinctly explains: "The Court found that the supply by downloading, for permanent use, of an e-book is not covered by the right of ‘distribution to the public’ provided for by Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29, but that it is covered by the right of ‘communication to the public’ provided for in Article 3(1) of that directive, in which case exhaustion is excluded under paragraph 3 of that article."<br />
<br />
In doing so, the Court has followed the advice of Advocate General Szpunar, which met with the approval of our friends at IPKat in this <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/09/ag-szpunar-advises-cjeu-to-rule-that.html">commentary</a>.<br />
<br />
The Court has therefore correctly (in this author's view) determined that their is no exhaustion of online media (even if incidently bound up in a computer program that might be the subject of the<i><u> Usedsoft</u></i> decision). If there is to be exhaustion of digital copies, then that must be a decision taken by the legislature after a full public policy evaluation, but with the move away from download-to-own towards more flexible business models (such as subscriptions), it seems unlikely that this will be seen as a policy priority.<br />
<i></i><u></u><i></i><u></u><br />
<br />John Enserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03074205512008603577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-32800363489778290852019-12-16T15:18:00.001+00:002019-12-19T12:33:28.030+00:00THE COPYKAT<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfx2PbQ4aDx9EXthutaOUoFL5g0FiA2y7OaC0cN54bf_osXTYNvP4LPH7CgfcVnKKAf1nq79opwFvqzydAMHwL8u6XA1cXaIpNOeZ36TQdoDRnjNbN7sQCNMkcHM8Kc3DBwMKme5SSaPo/s1600/google1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="163" data-original-width="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfx2PbQ4aDx9EXthutaOUoFL5g0FiA2y7OaC0cN54bf_osXTYNvP4LPH7CgfcVnKKAf1nq79opwFvqzydAMHwL8u6XA1cXaIpNOeZ36TQdoDRnjNbN7sQCNMkcHM8Kc3DBwMKme5SSaPo/s1600/google1.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">French media organisations have <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/11/21/business/french-media-launch-copyright-case-googles-refusal-pay-display-content/#." target="_blank">lodged a complaint</a> against Google with the country's competition authority in a move over the US internet giant's refusal to pay for displaying their content. In fact the internet platform has taken the decision not to show their content at all - which in turn has reduced traffic to those sites. Earlier this year France implemented the recent EU copyright reforms - one aim of which was to ensure publishers are compensated when their work is displayed online. Google won't pay - but with the law now in place will only display content if they are granted gratis permission. And the APIG press alliance is not happy. <a href="https://techxplore.com/news/2019-11-french-media-copyright-case-google.html" target="_blank">Not happy at all</a> - not least because their members have lost visibility and presumably advertising revenue - and the media organisations say the giant is abusing its dominant position in the market. French President Emmanuel Macron has already voiced his support for the press, saying that no company can "break free" of the law in France.''</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0BeY7vTxhgKxeNATI7aH-Bgx5pXnY0ULZIGw6ftrIZPAyvPom_nI52Q26A_RsLsJC5jh23z75fX_MNpuEMWyUxtXNP6I_ogcdLoXJrs-1IDEl4eP-kxwadiGqjVKchE99RPBv0KoJhL8/s1600/NARCOS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="804" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0BeY7vTxhgKxeNATI7aH-Bgx5pXnY0ULZIGw6ftrIZPAyvPom_nI52Q26A_RsLsJC5jh23z75fX_MNpuEMWyUxtXNP6I_ogcdLoXJrs-1IDEl4eP-kxwadiGqjVKchE99RPBv0KoJhL8/s320/NARCOS.jpg" width="214" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A Colombian writer <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/netflix-win-in-narcos-copyright-case-appealed-by-journalist" target="_blank">is appealing</a> a Miami federal court’s ruling that Netflix's hit show “<i>Narcos”</i> does not infringe copyright in her memoir about her experiences with drug lord Pablo Escobar. The US District Court in Florida said that t</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he common aspects of two scenes from “<i>Narcos</i>” and Virginia Vallejo’s book “<i>Amando a Pablo, Odiando a Escobar</i>” were factual -and not protectable. The case will go to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A <a href="https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/quantification-of-ipr-infringement/online-copyright-infringement-in-eu/online-copyright-infringement-in-eu_pr_uk_en.pdf" target="_blank">new report from the European Union's Intellectual Property Office</a> that between 2017 and 2018, overall access to pirated content in </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">the EU fell by 15.1% on average, and </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">shows that online piracy among young internet users continues to decline - with a major factor being the development of legal and accessible music, video and gaming platforms. Of course piracy amongst the 15-24 year generation hasn't gone away from an age group where 97% stream or download music, 94% stream or download movies and TV series, 92% play online video games, and 79% who find other TV shows and sporting events: a third of those surveyed still accessed at least some of their online content from unlicensed sources, but this number is in decline particularly with music. The report says that young people will still find illegal sources of material they cannot easily access legally - in particular movies, TV shows and sport. <a href="https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/reports/2019_Status_Report_on_IPR_infringement/2019_Status_Report_on_IPR_infringement_en.pdf" target="_blank">More here</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The High Court in London has found that the patterns on the lid of a make-up powder palette and embossed on the powder itself could constitute protectable copyright works. The decision in the case, <b>Islestarr Holdings Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd</b> [2019] EWHC 1473 (Ch) dismissed Aldi’s argument that the ephemerality of the powder design meant that it was not sufficiently fixed <a href="https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/en/insights/brands-update/can-copyright-protection-subsist-in-a-make-up-powder" target="_blank">to be granted copyright protection</a>. Deputy Master Linwood used the examples of the copyright protection granted to sand sculptures that are washed away by the tide - and a personalised wedding cake that will be eaten can still constitute a copyright work. The Deputy Judge held that Aldi had no real prospect of successfully defending Islestarr's claim for copyright infringement of each design. <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/08/copyright-make-up-tips-how-to-make.html" target="_blank">More from <b>Hugo Cox</b> on this case here</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOQJWJTVlpX74eN5f2NI7rN8dB2Vx_2A7Ecxns7YX0cID7hMB7xBJRoHJdCNeaRV9I8j7A0-kA3bMwgj2m82DgQ2Lb61r2boCL0oLJdUf2DzOsXzdiu6mta7Ee7IiROsdTEv_Ejuz98MY/s1600/NIRVANA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="314" data-original-width="600" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOQJWJTVlpX74eN5f2NI7rN8dB2Vx_2A7Ecxns7YX0cID7hMB7xBJRoHJdCNeaRV9I8j7A0-kA3bMwgj2m82DgQ2Lb61r2boCL0oLJdUf2DzOsXzdiu6mta7Ee7IiROsdTEv_Ejuz98MY/s320/NIRVANA.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Fashion firm Marc Jacobs has newly submitted new arguments as to why it has not infringed the intellectual property rights of Nirvana by selling a t-shirt that featured a version of the wobbly face image that was a staple of the band's merchandise. Marc Jacobs has so far failed to have </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nirvana LLC's claim dismissed with </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">the judge overseeing the case ruling "a review of the images confirms that the allegation as to substantial similarity is sufficient". Now </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Marc Jacobs has now filed some new documents with the courts that include copyright and trademark law technicalities, and a challenge to whether or bot the claimant owns the original wobbly face image. On subsistence, Marc Jacobs </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">cite rules and practices of the US Copyright Office which, they say, confirm that Nirvana's wobbly face image does not meet the requirements to be protected by copyright. They also note that the </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">US Patent And Trademark Office refused to register the logo as recently as last summer, and that </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nirvana LLC has failed to demonstrate that Kurt Cobain drew the wobbly face, as has been claimed, nor that rights in the drawing passed to the band's company through either explicit or implicit agreement.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAfBRiyIdBng0bcL34C16p3EUKLHPpqF9nBWQ_aRAqC5hrU2U4RXLAj4nnhyfQ5c7oSsmNN-6D0BdbE3UBpn7PoG3ZDbJpDpLLIro7Cgf1LfYVigC2HALXwu10aK9NGp-3ski-7-Y2mTY/s1600/camouflage+%2528from+court+documents%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="641" data-original-width="796" height="257" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAfBRiyIdBng0bcL34C16p3EUKLHPpqF9nBWQ_aRAqC5hrU2U4RXLAj4nnhyfQ5c7oSsmNN-6D0BdbE3UBpn7PoG3ZDbJpDpLLIro7Cgf1LfYVigC2HALXwu10aK9NGp-3ski-7-Y2mTY/s320/camouflage+%2528from+court+documents%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And more from the world of fashion - this case from the USA where a Montana based clothing company called All Season All Terrain (ASAT) Outdoors is suing New York-based fashion company Supreme f<a href="https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-news/montana-clothing-company-sues-over-use-of-copyrighted-camouflage-design" target="_blank">or copyright infringement</a> after Supreme sold clothing printed with a copyrighted camouflage design. ASAT has told the</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> New York District Court.that it has</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> owned the copyright on a camouflage design since it was created in 1985.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A Japanese government panel has now approved a plan to limit the scope of what is considered illegal downloading of any copyrighted work, including manga, computer games and literary writings, reversing its initial plan to restrict such online activity more broadly. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Cultural Affairs Agency panel said a future amendment to the copyright law would not apply to partial downloads of copyrighted works, such as a few frames from a comic book or a screenshot of a copyrighted image. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/11/27/national/japan-limits-scope-illegal-downloading-copyrighted-work/#.XfecFOj7SUk" target="_blank">In the new proposa</a>l, the panel said further discussions were needed to decide whether to narrow the scope of illegal acts to the downloading of complete original works, excluding parodies and derivative works, and downloads from piracy websites.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU7qObhtETXFopwP39od8cTSzaEiFChtvjeQNdSBvaOJCRHMaiSwEkLJD7a9fs4s_sUWi8ARp1sFfrvOwAiyt2LUb0X3QFGebLlsWcQB7EzjxbkczHZuMtgiMWwCxgPVIMduRsYDO-7pM/s1600/WIPO.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="881" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU7qObhtETXFopwP39od8cTSzaEiFChtvjeQNdSBvaOJCRHMaiSwEkLJD7a9fs4s_sUWi8ARp1sFfrvOwAiyt2LUb0X3QFGebLlsWcQB7EzjxbkczHZuMtgiMWwCxgPVIMduRsYDO-7pM/s320/WIPO.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has called for public comments as part of its process to develop a policy on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights. <a href="http://machine%20learning%20relies%20on%20information%20in%20the%20form%20of%20electronic%20data%2C%20which%20is%20also%20at%20the%20heart%20of%20intellectual%20property%20and%20innovation%20in%20a%20global%20digital%20economy.%20i%20invite%20everyone%20with%20an%20interest%20to%20assist%20us%20in%20formulating%20the%20questions%20that%20are%20confronting%20policy%20makers%20and%20to%20share%20with%20us%20their%20expertise%20in%20order%20to%20have%20a%20focused%20dialogue./" target="_blank">The call is available here</a> and is open until February 14th 2020. “Artificial intelligence is set to radically alter the way in which we work and live, with great potential to help us solve common global challenges, but it is also prompting policy questions and challenges,” said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry adding "Machine learning relies on information in the form of electronic data, which is also at the heart of intellectual property and innovation in a global digital economy. I invite everyone with an interest to assist us in formulating the questions that are confronting policy makers and to share with us their expertise in order to have a focused dialogue.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And finally, US audio streaming service TuneIn is appealing against last month’s High Court judgment which it says is “fundamentally bad for freedom of expression on the Internet and cultural diversity” (in the United Kingdom).Tunein is the internet radio service, available online and via an app, which has both free and premium versions. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/12/09/stay-tuned-for-insight-into-the-cjeus-approach-to-communication-to-the-public-when-does-an-internet-radio-service-infringe-copyright/" target="_blank">The Kluwer Copyright Blog</a> has more on the decision by Mr Justice Birss</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> in </span><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Warner Music & another v TuneIn Inc</b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> [2019] EWHC 2923 (ch). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-45543117660519845452019-12-11T23:05:00.000+00:002019-12-11T23:05:04.673+00:00
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">COPYRIGHT & TRANSIENT
REPRODUCTION IN STREAMING – STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS TO INFRINGEMENT FOR RECIPIENTS</span></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;"> </span></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">Internet streaming, due to the packet switching
technology used in internet communication, inevitably means the streamed
content is transiently reproduced by recipients at the end of the communication
chain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, the practicalities of
internet delivery of content mean there is transient and temporary reproduction
by intermediaries in the chain, but the focus of this blog is end user
copyright issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">Unlike the situation where recipients download content, transient
reproductions involved with streaming are beyond the control, or even
knowledge, of the recipients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They should
not constitute infringements of creators’ or communicators’ reproduction rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As was recognised, but unfortunately not
codified, in the international negotiations which led to the 1996 WIPO Internet
treaties, there should be statutory exceptions to copyright infringement which expressly
cover these types of transient reproduction. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A model provision in the treaties would have
meant that not only would all jurisdictions ratifying the WIPO treaties now
actually have an exception in their copyright legislation, but they <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>might also have less ambiguous provisions for
their courts to apply.<span style="background: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">Streaming is different to browsing<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> pages on a website where the reproduction on
a screen might better be categorised as ‘temporary’ (a limited period of time)
rather than ‘transient’ (a momentary, fleeting or short-lived period of
time).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may be easier to achieve
clarity and certainty by having a separate statutory exception for ‘temporary
reproductions’ such as browsing, if indeed it is considered to be an infringing
reproduction in the first place. </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Transient Reproduction prior to and outside
the Digital World</span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">Watching ‘analogue’ television programmes required transient
reproduction of the individual picture frames making up such works on the
user’s TV screen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite a technical
reproduction occurring this was treated like reading a book and was never
considered infringement of copyright in the programme, let alone the TV
broadcast.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor, going way back in time
was watching a movie being transiently reproduced frame after frame on a screen
using a home projector.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was the
case even in the rare situation where the programme or its transmission
breached a third party’s copyright.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Reproduction of Content on the Internet</span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 12pt 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">The first hot internet issue
for the music industry was peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing where millions of consumers
shared content files via a central database (eg Napster) and later
decentralised databases such as Grokster and Kazaa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here the users/consumers were active infringers and not simply
recipients of content.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So-called file
sharing involved copies being made and stored by uploading and
downloading.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Somewhat different from
streaming! <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although, as mentioned below,
in the US receiving a stream has been equated with a download rather than with
a broadcast.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i></b></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Transient Reproduction in Streaming
Technology </span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Although the copyright issue being dealt with here is transient copying
in consumers’ equipment any overview of the streaming process must start with
the communicator of the content.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, analogue
content is digitised by periodically sampling it (at 40,000 times per second
for music) and representing the magnitude of each sample using binary numbers. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The numbers, in the form of groups of bits (0s
and 1s), are chained together to form a digital file.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Next the digitised content file is split into
data packets (10,000 bits per packet) to be able to be transmitted over the
internet which uses packet switched data technology.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">For video content the consumer will usually have a ‘set top box’
connected between their internet router and TV set.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All this can be done on a suitably programmed
computer, but lack of user friendliness and the small screen are negatives for
family groups of drama and sports lovers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Perhaps using a smart phone to receive and play audio content is more
directly analogous to using a computer. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">The STB, among other components, contains a buffer memory for transiently
storing received packets of content until enough packets are accumulated to
constitute one picture frame to be displayed on the TV screen – 50
packets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After each frame is displayed
the frame packets stored in the buffer memory are deleted to make way for
packets making up the next frame.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Maximum packet storage time in theory would be 0.04 seconds – very
obviously ‘transient’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In practice
because optimum bandwidth might not be available continuously for many viewers
the buffer memory will be set up to store more than one picture frame’s worth
of data packets so storage time might be 0.2 seconds – still rather
transient.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">So, this is how the domestic consumer is carrying out transient
reproduction – simply an essential part of the technological process executed
by his STB to enable private watching or listening to content.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without a legislative exception many
jurisdictions consider this to be infringement of the copyright in the content.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">But is the Subject Matter that is being
Transiently Reproduced actually a Copyright Work or a Substantial Part of a
Work?</span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">The answer may be different for audio streaming as opposed to video
streaming, but why has little, if any, consideration given to the quantity or
quality of the fragment of the work which is actually transiently reproduced by
storage in memory?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we look at the
groups of binary digits which are transiently stored when receiving an audio
stream they may only represent half a musical chord – a mere fragment of a
musical work.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Infringement by reproduction in many jurisdictions requires the whole
or a substantial part of the work to be reproduced.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is half a chord a substantial part of the
whole musical work?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the
‘substantial part’ approach to infringement is not part of US law, copyright there
has traditionally not even subsisted in short insubstantial things like, say, a
short phrase.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, it does need to
be mentioned that this has recently been thrown into turmoil by the </span><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/schuylermoore/2019/11/12/the-ninth-circuit-is-tone-deaf-to-copyright/#74f6a0513eab"><span style="color: #58595b; font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Ninth
Circuit</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;"> in a case brought against Taylor Swift where a phrase in a song was
considered possible copyright subject matter.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">The EU is a bit more liberal – any expression which is an author’s
intellectual creation will be protected (even 13 words according to the CJEU in
the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Infopaq</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> case) – but in the EU half a chord should not constitute an intellectual
creation by a composer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor even would
any whole chords since they will have been used by many composers over the centuries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">For video the issue of substantiality of the part transiently
reproduced (even a single picture frame) was essentially decided in the days of
film long before the internet – reproduction of a single frame being considered
to constitute infringement of film copyright.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Nevertheless, for audio streaming, transient reproduction in the streamer
device’s buffer memory should never have constituted infringement of the
copyright in the piece of music being streamed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Debate over a statutory exception for these transient reproductions
should have been superfluous. </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i></b></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Home recipients versus transmission
initiators and intermediaries.</span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Why should domestic consumption of content ever be a
potential infringement?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reading books is
not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As already mentioned above, watching
movie films on a screen using a home projector system was not and watching
television was not and even with those countries which have TV licences the
licence is not a copyright licence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Listening
to a radio broadcast is not. These acts were only infringements where the
playing or showing was in public.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">There is a clear difference between passive watching and
active recording of received content.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Why should the mode of communication, that is digital transmission, have
a different legal outcome?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why have some
courts thought viewing or listening to streamed content could constitute
infringement of copyright?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This appears
to be contrary to copyright philosophy.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">Taking a cynical viewpoint, maybe there was a
‘commercial’ motive for promoting the concept that transient reproduction of
streams by recipients should be considered an infringement which could only be
exempted by detailed statutory exceptions (or by case law developments of a
fair use doctrine). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would
facilitate additional or alternative claims against communicators further up
the distribution chain such as infringement by ‘authorising’ or ‘promoting’ the
recipients’ infringement and/or by making them contributory infringers unless
they obtained licences and paid royalties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Consider, for example, the countless legal actions
against Spotify in the US based on Spotify not always having obtained and paid
for ‘mechanical rights’ licences from music publishers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although, as Spotify has claimed in </span><a href="https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7964869/spotify-mechanical-rights-legal-argument-upend-music-industry-recovery"><span style="color: #58595b; font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">one
case</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">, streaming does not fall within the mechanical rights scenario of delivery
of a reproduction for repeated playing by the recipient’s equipment. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">A Statutory Exception to Infringement for Recipients
of Streamed Content <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">What are the necessary elements for an effective copyright exception for
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">recipients</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> of video and audio streams?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
position of private recipients is different from intermediaries and the
statutory exceptions should also be different and not merged together in a
generic provision as is common in many of those jurisdictions which have
incorporated exceptions for transient and/or temporary reproduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The latter (‘temporary’) should be at the
heart of a separate exception for browsing web pages and the like. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Obviously, the duration of the reproduction must be limited to being transient
and it must be an essential part of the technology for receiving and enabling
the viewing and/or listening of the streamed content.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reception must be for private
viewing/listening only and not the public at large.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Exceptions for private end of chain recipients need not have these
further qualifications: a ‘lawful use’ or lawful dealing (EU, NZ); no
independent economic significance (UK, NZ); a use that is not an infringement
of copyright (CA); or communications which are not infringements (AU). </span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">On the other hand some jurisdictions have omitted elements that would
seem to be required for clarity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example,
UK section 28A when listing the sole purposes for which transient reproduction
is permitted does not expressly mention ‘for the enabling of the receipt of a
work’.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Law Reform </span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">Although it has not introduced a statutory exception for the transient
reproduction involved in streaming, the US has signed into law the Music
Modernization Act 2018.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This requires
audio streaming service companies, such as Spotify, to obtain and pay for
mechanical rights licences from the composers/publishers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even though what they deliver vaporises on
receipt – unlike a CD or LP.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fundamental
technological and legal distinction is between streams and downloads.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Streams of musical pieces, whether on demand
or not, do not result in the recipient obtaining possession of a copy of the
music any more than is the case with analogue radio broadcasts.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">New Zealand is currently in the process of conducting a comprehensive
review of its Copyright Act 1994, which was last substantively updated by
amendments in 2008.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Ministry
responsible has identified many issues where it seeks submissions and one of
them concerns the 2008 exceptions for all transient copying which takes place
in technological communications.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) was tasked with a review of
copyright in the light of the ‘digital economy’ back in 2013.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ALRC, when considering the arguments for
and against specific statutory exceptions for transient reproduction </span><a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/copyright-and-the-digital-economy-alrc-report-122/11-incidental-or-technical-use-and-data-and-text-mining/incidental-or-technical-use/"><span style="color: #58595b; font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">recommended</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">
that these should be put aside in favour of amending Australia’s Act to
incorporate an American style fair use doctrine which would, among other
things, apply to technologically inevitable transient reproduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This recommendation has yet to be
implemented.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">This blogger would not like to see New Zealand adopt such a fair use
approach.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we have seen in the US, the
fair use doctrine must be fleshed out by the courts over some years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The introduction of a fair use doctrine even
for less complex non-digital scenarios will only lead to a magnification of legal
uncertainties and as a result increased copyright litigation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And it will be even worse for digital
scenarios.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would be better to stay
with statutory exceptions, albeit somewhat better targeted and separately
applying to each of the participants in an internet communication chain.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-NZ; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">The increasing popularity
of streaming services over recent years has had the incidental effect of
reducing content piracy and in particular music piracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An international exception to infringement
for recipients of streamed content which is crystal clear for courts and easy
for users to understand is likely to further diminish content piracy.</span></span>Ken Moonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16881390151826807561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-47412946523615703332019-12-03T18:06:00.001+00:002019-12-03T18:06:55.604+00:00Artwork cannot be cut up to realize watch faces, Danish court rules<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh63-3raPw2WcLdJtEwK5sYuHhBd1fKqKXI3F_ZOMfRAmwI4IR8AqQTPRvRNgQ2yJSAL1c8uj_FBb1tMpIyD1nhUas6_iuYUolSRCREpdOnAMpgeC_qpLBvqGXLlKP7IGnmIYmR_JRBPrA/s1600/tal+r.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="620" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh63-3raPw2WcLdJtEwK5sYuHhBd1fKqKXI3F_ZOMfRAmwI4IR8AqQTPRvRNgQ2yJSAL1c8uj_FBb1tMpIyD1nhUas6_iuYUolSRCREpdOnAMpgeC_qpLBvqGXLlKP7IGnmIYmR_JRBPrA/s320/tal+r.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Paris Chic, Tal R, 2017</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Copenhagen's maritime and commercial court was recently asked to decide whether Dann Thorleifsson and Arne Leivsgard - a duo of Faroese art provocateurs and founders of Kankse and Letho watch brands - could cut up Tal R's artwork "Paris chic", which the duo had purchased last August for 70,000 £ at the Victoria Miro Gallery in London. The duo wanted the painting fragments to decorate the faces of their latest watches, each of which they planned to sell for at least DK 10,000. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Danish court issued a ruling <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/02/danish-court-rules-artist-work-cannot-be-cut-up-to-make-watches-tal-r" target="_blank">yesterday</a> in favor of the Danish artist. Consequently, the two watch designers cannot use Tal R's painting as a raw material and have to pay DK 31,550 in legal costs.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Danish court awarded an injunction under the Danish Act on Copyright, protecting copyrights and moral rights. Indeed, the Court accepted Tal R's argument that the duo's project would have been an illicit alteration of the artist's work rather than a destruction of same, as contrarily argued by the duo's lawyers. Tal R's lawyer alleged that the watch brand planned to market the watches as fragments of a Tal R's work. The artist's lawyer also argued that whilst the purchasers of Tal R's art could sell it or even destroy it, they could not alter it, as to do so would infringe Danish copyright law. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the duo is still considering whether to appeal the ruling or to reach a settlement, this case questions again the boundaries of copyright and ownership of artworks, and namely whether a work of art can be freely destroyed by its owner. In this last regard, the answer seems to differ from country to country: in Denmark, for instance, is considered <a href="https://www.art-critique.com/en/2019/12/tal-r-wins-injunction/" target="_blank">permissible</a>. </div>
Angelahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00521285567302038210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-39189423399646065652019-12-02T13:06:00.003+00:002019-12-02T17:05:54.907+00:00CMOs public performance tariffs: Spanish court indirectly urges for the application of an “European average” criterion but then uses the UK one. Is there any room for discretion besides the CRM Directive?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>In this guest post <b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidserraspereira/">David Serras Pereira (SCM)</a></b> discusses a recent decision which is interesting to anyone working in the collective rights management sector.</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Here's what David writes:</i></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">CMOs public performance tariffs: Spanish court indirectly urges for the application of an “European average” criterion but then uses the UK one. Is there any room for discretion besides the CRM Directive?</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs9KZCtlWaNJNfSIqZD53_4oaap3dyNJWrJ2AxViWvn8m8VzzJzp-JMDQgnq4iQL0bwOBPgN9vZRXo55w-YGG3LSyOw18udXqxGyKom-1GDCdspxK2Pbme-P1HBqTuOUrqivwI9V9r9oY/s1600/sgae.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="998" data-original-width="1600" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs9KZCtlWaNJNfSIqZD53_4oaap3dyNJWrJ2AxViWvn8m8VzzJzp-JMDQgnq4iQL0bwOBPgN9vZRXo55w-YGG3LSyOw18udXqxGyKom-1GDCdspxK2Pbme-P1HBqTuOUrqivwI9V9r9oY/s320/sgae.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Another interesting Spanish decision (</span><a href="http://www.poderjudicial.es/search/indexAN.jsp" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>here</b></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> – search using reference 2000/2019 of Catalunya - Barcelona Court) concerning copyright collective management organizations (CMOs)’ tariffs was issued on November 7th last in the context of proceedings between a music promoter and Spanish CMO </span><a href="http://www.sgae.es/es-ES/SitePages/index.aspx" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>SGAE</b></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">. </span></div>
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona considered that the criterion applied in relation to the public performance tariffs used by SGAE was too ‘heavy’ for a heavy metal show, and thus reversed the decision at first instance. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Usually, CMOs have their own “Book of Tariffs”, which are applicable to different types of events and venues. At the time when the proceedings began, SGAE applied a 10% licence fee on the box office income (it is now 8,5%). The 10% fee was considered abusive by the court while, curiously, pointing to another CMO’s (UK </span><a href="https://www.prsformusic.com/" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>PRS for Music</b></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">) criteria as a fair and good percentage to apply, ie 3% on the box office income. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The case began in 2013, when promoter of Def Leppard y Whitesnake, by the name of Rocknrock, refused to pay the 10% licence fee requested by SGAE, claiming that SGAE did not represent all rightsholders and that it had abused its dominant position. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Regarding the latter aspect, the Spanish Competition Authority in separate proceedings sanctioned SGAE with a EUR 3 million fine following this and other matters (</span><a href="https://www.cnmc.es/node/375255" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>here</b></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">). This eventually led SGAE to reduce the fee from 10% to 8,5%. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In its ruling, the Barcelona court considered that SGAE had a monopoly and that 8,5% was still too high a percentage. The court pointed, among other things, to the fact that the percentage asked by SGAE was above the European average and, unexpectedly, indicated the UK case as the role model: 3% of box-office revenue, which is perhaps the lowest or one of the lowest in all EU. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The decision can still be appealed to the Supreme Court and a final ruling will have to be made, but the decision raises a number of interesting points. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The tariffs of a CMO (as a body representing several rightholders) normally reflect the criteria that the individual rightholders considered to be fair for licensing use of their works (either decided during a general assembly or by other means). </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is possible for a court to make an intervention in the exclusive rights’ nature setting a maximum threshold not decided by the rightholders themselves? The basis for any such intervention should be framed in the context of the CRM Directive (</span><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0026" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>here</b></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">; Recitals 31 and 35 and Articles 16(2) and 35), which followed the Commission Recommendation 2005/737/EC (</span><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2005.276.01.0054.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2005:276:TOC" style="font-family: inherit;"><b>here</b></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">). Even prior to the adoption of the directive, in OSA the Court of Justice of the European Union highlighted how tariff setting might also fall within the scrutiny of competition authorities. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">From the Directive it follows that, while tariff setting is in principle a matter of autonomy, there are some limits to it, ie:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li><div>
Tariffs should be determined on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria </div>
</li>
<li><div>
Tariffs should be reasonable in relation to, inter alia, the economic value of the use of the rights in a particular context and the nature and scope of the use of the work </div>
</li>
<li><div>
Tariffs should offer appropriate remuneration to rightsholders for the use of their rights </div>
</li>
<li><div>
Tariffs sh<span style="font-family: inherit;">ould be made public by the CMO </span></div>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This decision raises the following issues: </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">a) Can rightholders right to set up how much they want to charge for the licensing of their creations be limited beyond the limitations set up by the CRM Directive and national legislation? </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">b) If so, can such limitation be based on an European average of licencing practices of all the CMOs? </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">c) Can it be considered abusive any tariff that is not close to the 3% one used by PRS? </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If SGAE decides to appeal, we will have to wait for the Supreme Court decision. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span> </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-49336383218365239672019-12-02T08:57:00.000+00:002019-12-02T10:09:49.818+00:00THE COPYKAT<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Kylie Minogue’s fashion range loses copyright It claim</b></span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZkAm5mf2XU6Lr_vqiuZB8HPHDfENtIw97r4YEVa8eckxvpP_9QkypF_v6tTqcO6reE8z-UX9uqDxziwrr7Z3M54ldIhvDbzL6uosA1P4ysfrwH5_OOv-_t1L2oCDdy6VJx6C-sy5yMX4/s1600/1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZkAm5mf2XU6Lr_vqiuZB8HPHDfENtIw97r4YEVa8eckxvpP_9QkypF_v6tTqcO6reE8z-UX9uqDxziwrr7Z3M54ldIhvDbzL6uosA1P4ysfrwH5_OOv-_t1L2oCDdy6VJx6C-sy5yMX4/s1600/1.png" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Australian pop star Kylie Minogue is associated with a range of interior design and bed linen products, produced by Ashley Wilde. In a recent action, this design company went on to sue BCPL, a brand which sells bed linen products, primarily owned by another well-known model and TV star Caprice Bourret. The subject of the litigation was with respect to a duvet cover (the cotton shell which covers a comforter) and a matching runner. The allegations of similarity were concerned with the following factual determinations (as reported in the <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/11/kylie-minogue-not-so-lucky-in-ipec.html" target="_blank">IPKat</a>):</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- The choice of a the pattern of scallop-style pleats in repeating horizontal rows; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- The relative size of each pleat; </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- The relative spacing between each pleat; and</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- The relative spacing between each horizontal row. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Justice Melissa Clarke firstly went on to establish that a presumption of copying will exist if the works are primarily substantially similar and there is proof of access to the prior work. However, she then went on to reiterate the rule that the question of copying concerns with the quality of the work, and not merely the quantity taken, and whether the intellectual expression and creation of the author is appropriated or not. It is not just the similarities but also the differences which need to be looked at, and the copyright needs to be determined as a whole. The differences cannot be downplayed, as was done in the case at hand.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">These jurisprudential notes in combination with the determination that scallop-style pleats were relatively commonplace in the fashion industry and could not be monopolized due to it being a concept (Idea-Expression dichotomy), led the court to reject a finding of presumption of copying. Apart from this, the court found that the expression of such scallop-style pleats in the conflicting designs, in fact, encompassed sufficient differences and were not in any case substantially or extensively similar to bring in a case for the presumption of copying. The differences in the method of pleating the scallops, the number of pleats in the pleated scallops, the size of the pleated scallops and the shape of the pleated scallops, the number of repeated scallop motifs were rendered to be sufficient to avoid a claim for infringement and to establish an original distinct expression of a design made out of the concept of a scallop-styled pleat. In lieu of the same, the court rejected a finding of copyright infringement and Ashley Wilde was unsuccessful in the action.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Interestingly, this case reinforces the importance of factual evaluation and the fine line between inspiration and infringement especially in the fashion industry, to recognize the multitude of possibilities of expression in a copyrightable design and its dominion, and balance the interests of the copyright holder and the general public (other designers in the fashion industry) accordingly. It reinforces the principle of creative freedom and the leeway of experimentation on similar ideas, provided in copyright, to account for designs, which may prima facie seem similar intuitively, but are much more detailed and different when such details are analyzed. <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2019/3166.html" target="_blank">The judgment can be found here</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Versace sues Fashion Nova for infringement of the gold “Barocco” print</b></span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYUb3u_Tq8rpibnFGZ_h7UBGl-B_2DjIkFwGJ5lxvMZoPLHVN5sWLkVLYeMviScjTCHeqafBG27kdC6ON9jLKOGx3CuLueqK_WcFJl0ag-v14qeeqDZBmASxaeIkYVA3d7ox3kJuCwi74/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="410" data-original-width="618" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYUb3u_Tq8rpibnFGZ_h7UBGl-B_2DjIkFwGJ5lxvMZoPLHVN5sWLkVLYeMviScjTCHeqafBG27kdC6ON9jLKOGx3CuLueqK_WcFJl0ag-v14qeeqDZBmASxaeIkYVA3d7ox3kJuCwi74/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In yet another infringement action concerning the Fashion industry, Italian brand Versace has sued Fashion Nova to seek a remedy and redress with respect to the copyright infringement of its apparel involving the black and gold <i>“Barocco-57”</i> print, pop-hearts design the “Jungle print dress” that was worn by Jennifer Lopez in the Grammy Award functions. This case has been lodged in the US District Court for the Central District of California, as reported by the World IP review. The claim of Versace revolves around the principle of Fashion Nova deliberately riding on the popularity and renown of Versace’s signature designs and its valuable goodwill and business reputation, to make profits. (Trademark logic?) The use has been alleged to be within the content, text, and meta-tags of the Fashion Nova website, as well as on social media websites, wherein “Fashion Nova” results pop-up upon a search of Versace products, due to this infringing action, resulting in alleged misdirection of consumers. A notice has already served and despite the same, Fashion Nova has not allegedly taken down these infringing designs which are substantially similar to Versace’s copyrights, from its web-portal. Interestingly Kim Kardashian took to twitter to address this claim by tweeting:</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">“<i> It’s devastating to see these fashion companies rip off designs that have taken the blood, sweat, and tears of true designers who have put their all into their own original ideas.”</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>David Gilmour involved in a legal battle for the 2015 solo-single “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1v7hXEQhsQ&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">Rattle That Lock</a>”.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDBqBQIbcy_ahV98OnAF0k_dInaGlKYklaRuqEaytJKgvus9UZiUWslBZzR0nUTcgzuZT90xEIxzjgnWsmeYP5rsDROh9bFTKdWKbOfwwhAbPlSIad7JJjAqed4ro1_5tsgwKcgxmStrU/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDBqBQIbcy_ahV98OnAF0k_dInaGlKYklaRuqEaytJKgvus9UZiUWslBZzR0nUTcgzuZT90xEIxzjgnWsmeYP5rsDROh9bFTKdWKbOfwwhAbPlSIad7JJjAqed4ro1_5tsgwKcgxmStrU/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/nov/19/david-gilmour-legal-fight-composer-french-sncf-train-jingle-michael-boumendil" target="_blank">In a suit for copyright infringement</a>, Pink Floyd’s iconic guitarist David Gilmour has been sued by French jingle composer Michaël Boumendil, over a four-note jingle, which Gilmour was first exposed to at a French train station and was instantly charmed. According to reports, he had approached Boumendil to seek a license to use the music in a song, wherein the agreement stipulated co-authorship for the resultant song. In a suit filed by Boumendil it is alleged alleged that instead of replaying the notes (as was stipulated in the licensing contract), Gilmour went on to interpolate the exact recorded notes. The claimant sought damages worth 450,000 Euros. When the court had to decide upon this, it was noted by the court that this infringement suit was a year after the stipulated release of the song, and hence was time-barred. But Boumendil has now more recently appealed this decision and is seeking damages for the alleged unlicensed use of this jingle, and a breach of the contract between the parties.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Jay-Z sues Australian retailer over lyrics</b></span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsc6bNZgbquufNaLXlULby9mVfUy9I32lxCnO68xLCSmI-H23WIfkUgCwiFCL3AIOEp_r5fvddO30W9asLMEXnKwaMA41kl0fzdOWivQLLkR3v7EhlmJ6QLM4jSNqrVv_5hf3yvkDdO6k/s1600/Glastonbury+2008+032.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="299" data-original-width="448" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsc6bNZgbquufNaLXlULby9mVfUy9I32lxCnO68xLCSmI-H23WIfkUgCwiFCL3AIOEp_r5fvddO30W9asLMEXnKwaMA41kl0fzdOWivQLLkR3v7EhlmJ6QLM4jSNqrVv_5hf3yvkDdO6k/s320/Glastonbury+2008+032.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">American rapper Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) has <a href="https://www.thefader.com/2019/12/01/jay-z-sues-hip-hop-childrens-books-copyright" target="_blank">filed a copyright infringement lawsuit</a> against Australian Jessica Chiha and her business “The Little Homie”, which sells hip-hop inspired clothing and apparel. The subject matter of infringement refers to the book “<i>AB to Jay-Z</i>” which has been created by this online retail business, to teach kids alphabets in terms of names and pictures of rappers. Since then, their imagery and names have been expended to use in a coloring book as well as clothing retail options. After being served with a legal notice, the company has maintained its defence of transformative use and fair use and has resisted the claim, which has consequently landed them in court. As far as the claim over lyrics is concerned, the lawsuit refers to the famous quote by Jay- Z: “If you’re having girl problems, I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one”, which has allegedly been appropriated by the Children’s book, as it displays on its front page a quote on the same lines, which states: “If you’re having alphabet problems, I feel bad for son, I got 99 problems but my ABC’s ain’t one.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">These actions and use of the image, likeness, and quotes purported by Jay-Z have been alleged to be “a deliberate attempt to trade-off the reputation and goodwill of Jay-Z for own commercial gain”. As reported by Pitchfork, there have been multiple cease and desist notices sent to Chiha, however this retail business is adamant of this use being fair.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Can a claim of fair and transformative use subsist on the facts? It seems so - however, the main issue before the court would be the task to balance the transformative use factor with the commercial advantage factor of fair use and the acknowledgment of a violation of the publicity rights of Jay-Z. Use in clothing, unauthoriasedly, raises a direct claim under violation of Publicity rights, but as far as the use of likeness in the Children’s book is concerned, there is no direct commercial benefit accruing out of the use of the likeness of Jay-Z and it can be argued to be merely incidental and a transformative use of his identity. It will be interesting to see how this case shapes up in court.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Indian Production House Yash Raj Films booked for an alleged failure of royalty payments to the tune of 100 Crores to Authors</b></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXXaxwm-nKxV2MfJO2JsqXrOVvmZjw2K-0TSYjeC_a9bZYKFR4t-eX6zRGaByvVdeU5G1Z7cI16kc4H7bzf2QuEeaHCnk9B2NogDsiU5Bt5BGUAuz54w-Y9FYokQE9-KFkuezSQNkcXyE/s1600/5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="440" data-original-width="660" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXXaxwm-nKxV2MfJO2JsqXrOVvmZjw2K-0TSYjeC_a9bZYKFR4t-eX6zRGaByvVdeU5G1Z7cI16kc4H7bzf2QuEeaHCnk9B2NogDsiU5Bt5BGUAuz54w-Y9FYokQE9-KFkuezSQNkcXyE/s320/5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Indian Performing Rights Society, which represents composers, lyricists and music producers has accused Bollywood production house YRF of unauthorisedly collecting and not distributing royalties worth 100 crores, legitimately belonging to authors as reported by the I<a href="http://iprmentlaw.com/2019/11/24/iprmentlaw-weekly-highlights-november-18-24/" target="_blank">PRMENT law blog</a>. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A First Information Report has been filed before the Mumbai Police Economic Offences Wing. Further, an allegation of pressurising artists to enter into signing illegal agreements has also been raised. The FIR claims that while YRF managed to extract royalties from TV broadcast platforms, it hasn’t been able to collect the same from telecoms, radio stations and music streaming platforms to pay up. The core issue involved here is the non-membership of YRF in the IPRS collecting society, which is one of the major copyright societies indulging in revenue distribution. The lacunae is primarily because of the Indian Copyright Act as although it intends that royalties must be paid to the authors via a copyright society, it does not explicitly state so. The Copyright Act does not take into account the following questions, as reported in the IPRMENT law blog:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Who is supposed to pay these non-assignable and non-waivable royalties?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Who is supposed to collect these royalties?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Are authors and the assignee of their works compulsorily required to become members of a registered copyright society to claim royalties or can they continue dealing in their own works without becoming members </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Hence, due to no statutory compulsion to act through a copyright society, such dubious practices are being entered into by the Production houses, which have allegedly denied authors their claim to royalty. Recently, music composer/singer duo Salim-Sulaiman came forward in a journalistic report to state that they haven’t indulged in a work-based relationship with YRF in the last 4 years due to continuous non-payment of royalties, in spite of having allegedly collected the same. Such practices deny the authors their inalienable right to reproduction and right to receive royalty, on such assignments and the prime reason for the same is the lacunae and vagueness in the drafting of the Copyright Act of India.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> <b>$1 Billion Lawsuit on Spotify by PRO Music Rights and Sosa Entertainment</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzPPrU_ZL7oHNgP-sJYLDacYtYhNIqNRN90LWJw8HesqqGp-Cjk4qPORksryImeXYIdWHRiE0QHZYOhWZcBZolAXmbt_FJl1IFR9aBZDyKxwaIhCrmBF2K1x6yl1lZsnMtbGcsMaWuDlA/s1600/6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="508" data-original-width="768" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzPPrU_ZL7oHNgP-sJYLDacYtYhNIqNRN90LWJw8HesqqGp-Cjk4qPORksryImeXYIdWHRiE0QHZYOhWZcBZolAXmbt_FJl1IFR9aBZDyKxwaIhCrmBF2K1x6yl1lZsnMtbGcsMaWuDlA/s320/6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A law suit has been filed by PRO Music Rights, LLC and SOSA Entertainment, LLC alleging that Spotify failed to pay royalties on over 550,000,000 streams. Pro music rights intends to ask a Florida based jury at the trial to hold Spotify responsible for its conduct and alleged infringement, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The case was filed on 25th November at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The suit involves an allegation of removal of content for anti-competitive reasons, engaging in unfair deceptive and business practices and inter alia refusing to pay royalties - and publicly performing songs without a licence. According to the petition, Spotify removed the Plaintiff's profile without an advance notice without ever informing the claimant why these songs were removed. The Plaintiff's songs had genuine 550,000,000 streams before being removed an was one of the most popular playlists. The petition further states:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">“<i>As it knows and claims to do, Spotify is required to remit royalty payments to Plaintiffs for the streams of their songs and to obtain public performance licenses for the public performance of songs on its platform. To date, however, Spotify has not paid full royalties for the 550,000,000+ streams of Plaintiffs’ songs on Spotify’s service”</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It has also been alleged that the motive for removal of all these songs is linked with its equity deal with Music and Entertainments Rights Licensing Independent Network in order to pressurize MERLIN to terminate its contract with SOSA, as high stream counts from unknown independent acts do not generate close to the same revenue for Spotify from advertisements, as compared to mainstream acts, and do not offset the royalties owed. Further, it was alleged that 99% of the users responsible for the 550,000,000 streams of Sosa’s songs were ad-supported users rather that subscription users. Is this as a result of such discrimination on the part of Spotify against less established artists? the Plaintiff thinks so and says it's musicians have suffered economic loss. This has been alleged to be an anti-competitive practice to oust independent musicians from the music market, merely due to less revenue for streaming services. In continuation, Sosa has also alleged that”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">“<i>Spotify continues to unilaterally profit from Plaintiffs’ music; despite purporting to remove Plaintiffs’ content, some of the Plaintiffs’ music continues to stream without license via Spotify-generated playlist(s), and without any compensation made to copyright holders, in blatant disregard of the Copyright Act. Spotify is legally obligated to pay royalties for streaming music.”</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This battle will be interesting for the survival and growth of the Independent music circuit. The math can be done here:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">1) Mainstream artists are targeted by companies with a higher marketing budget, due to the expectation of more number of streams and popularity, resulting in more consequent advertisements (of the company). These companies offer large sums to Spotify, in lieu of the advertisements – which gives Spotify its revenue</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2) Independent Artists and non-mainstream music artists have a low budget advertisement attached to them, which provides less money per stream for Spotify, due to budget advertisement companies being associated therein (less revenue per stream as compared to mainstream songs).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">3) Royalties to be paid in lieu of streaming is equal because of it being a statutory amount and does not in any way vary upon the artist being mainstream or not. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">4) This leads Spotify to a situation that with the enhanced popularity and number of streams of non-mainstream and indie music as well (550,000,000), they get less revenue for a large number of streams (as compared to what they would have gotten, had the streams been on mainstream songs), and they have to pay equivalent royalties to both mainstream as well as indie artists.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">5) The ultimate conclusion out of this analysis is the low earning on the part of Spotify through indie artists, and equal royalties to be paid, which has led them to oust them from the market, in order to attract more streams for mainstream artists only which would lead to a higher ad revenue per stream for Spotify (when balanced with the amount of royalty to be paid, which remains constant).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the core of this is the allegation that Spotify is contributing to the already persisting anti-competitive and unequal structure of distribution of music, wherein mainstream artists who have more funds to produce and market the music and are signed to a bigger record label are able to flourish, whereas independent artists are left marginalised - and fail to get fair compensation - or reach.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">From the point of view of a musician, this is a sad state of affairs, where mere economic benefit is being preferred on the cost of access of more genuine and original content to the public, which was, in fact, the goal of copyright in the first place. This arguably de-incentives the musicians (especially independent ones) from creating music (to some extent), due to the lack of marketing capability (although money is not the sole incentive), and is not competitive or ethical practice. True or not - does that matter in a court of law?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It will be interesting to see how the court approaches this and if it enters into this socio-economic aspect of survival of musicians who do not have much access to funds to market their music and content.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Plaintiff’s <a href="https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/spotify_v_PRO_Sosa_complaint.pdf" target="_blank">petition can be read here</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This Copykat by <b>Akshat Agrawal</b></span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-67222288105875913182019-11-25T13:43:00.001+00:002019-11-25T13:43:51.071+00:00THE COPYKAT<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBnKZ8SjwTwyz6xbyGMXRX9xjwRbieF_E-Jd_hYHd7hKqSgyVGV-modMkbXM7BBNnJHqnN49dX5ZpYJ7EsyeJis-_0b1VbAP2UTw1qIMOyVirpcMWhGZVgYwxDLi4WBRLLYLu9viRl9tM/s1600/Krath2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="299" data-original-width="353" height="271" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBnKZ8SjwTwyz6xbyGMXRX9xjwRbieF_E-Jd_hYHd7hKqSgyVGV-modMkbXM7BBNnJHqnN49dX5ZpYJ7EsyeJis-_0b1VbAP2UTw1qIMOyVirpcMWhGZVgYwxDLi4WBRLLYLu9viRl9tM/s320/Krath2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In a curious turn of events, police in Thailand have now said that they will seek a warrant to arrest copyright agents who allegedly attempted to extort 50,000 baht from a 15 year old for copyright infringement. About 50 vendors in Korat are also said to be preparing to file criminal complaints against the same copyright agents. They had ordered krathongs decorated with cartoon characters from the teenage girl and had been threatened with 'fines' or they would face criminal charges. Korat provincial police chief Maj. Gen. Sujin Nitpanit said the investigation was almost complete and court warrants would be issued for copyright agents, whose names have been withheld by police: Police said they were in contact with the actual owners of the copyrights in the cartoon characters <a href="http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/2019/11/05/copyright-troll-demands-50000-baht-from-15-year-old-cartoon-krathong-maker/" target="_blank">who were not involved </a>in the attempts to.extort money from the teenage girl. <a href="http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/2019/11/12/police-seek-arrest-of-copyright-troll-who-demanded-50k-from-teen-krathong-maker/" target="_blank">Press reports</a> say that Korat City police chief Col. Kachen Setaputta had been moved from his post after allegations that police officers under his command were colluding with the so called copyright agents. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDR4CdGWwQ5gdnR7HFFxzc_UcfSXuxS1uEIheEre3bsgmi-lzf2_Hvz0FbNJJ-0lV3bRjqKBgWHI8JvGH2diIW6KHiorTeIq0t7d3vhisxjTpeGwWr1XymfLfup4Kfa9NWQjX478b0bb4/s1600/banana.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="609" data-original-width="958" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDR4CdGWwQ5gdnR7HFFxzc_UcfSXuxS1uEIheEre3bsgmi-lzf2_Hvz0FbNJJ-0lV3bRjqKBgWHI8JvGH2diIW6KHiorTeIq0t7d3vhisxjTpeGwWr1XymfLfup4Kfa9NWQjX478b0bb4/s320/banana.png" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2019/11/universal-music-declares-copyright-ownership-over-recently-public-domain-yes-we-have-no-bananas.html" target="_blank">Hypebot reports</a> that despite an acknowledgement that the the 1923 song “Yes! We Have No Bananas” by composers Irving Cohn and Frank Silver had slipped into the public domain, Universal Music stepped up to claim ownership. Glenn Fleishman had posted a video of the song to YouTube in celebration of it entering the public domain earlier this year. He even titled it “Yes! We Have No Bananas, now in the public domain.” The video is of him and his friends and family singing it at a New Year’s Eve Party: However, Hypebot says that video has now been “claimed” by Universal Music with a claim to “monetize” the video on YouTube - despite them "literally having no rights to speak of". Hypebot say "What’s possibly troubling is that YouTube doesn’t even seem to offer up an option for you to point out that the work is in the public domain, and even if these entities might have once had a claim on the song". </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In a related update, <a href="https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-matt-lowne-copyright-demonetized/" target="_blank">reclaimthenet.org says</a> that another YouTuber is struggling with the platform's harmful and often confusing copyright protection system. This time it's the turn of Kerbal Space Program game aficionado Matt Lowne, who has come under fire from copyright holders for using what he was sure was a royalty-free track in his videos. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The creator, with a quarter-million subscribers and more than 55 million views, tried to navigate the system by carefully choosing a legal and copyright-unencumbered audio track – only to fail all the same with </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">YouTube informing him that the music featured in these videos – namely, “Dreams” – “may” be licensed or owned by music industry heavyweights like SonyATV, PeerMusic, Warner Chappell, Audiam and LatinAutor. </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh83DZ2DkDnjSvVnI2z4uXxmWNMyDpGFM-4GIeP7M35E0-LAFWUYVDcyx1szoe_n4_oMobOeIbez9Yw5n83Ioqa_W5AZrazTP1WEl2MzxEfHdqsf6qAdLz2eYRDshHCCPxI_Q1O5ahxso/s1600/oracle_java.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="388" data-original-width="580" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh83DZ2DkDnjSvVnI2z4uXxmWNMyDpGFM-4GIeP7M35E0-LAFWUYVDcyx1szoe_n4_oMobOeIbez9Yw5n83Ioqa_W5AZrazTP1WEl2MzxEfHdqsf6qAdLz2eYRDshHCCPxI_Q1O5ahxso/s320/oracle_java.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The US The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/11/15/Supreme-Court-agrees-to-hear-Google-Oracle-copyright-dispute/8781573861507/" target="_blank">has agreed to hear</a> the appeal by Google in the case where Oracle accused the tech giant of violating copyright laws when developing its Android mobile platform. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The court's decision to hear the case comes more than a year and a half after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Google, saying the company's unauthorized use of 11,500 lines of code in Oracle's open-source Java application programming interface was not fair use, and will provide the final say in the 2013</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> claim accused Google of infringing the copyright on its Java APIs in the development of Google’s Android OS. Google denied any wrongdoing and has argued, in part, that software APIs cannot be protected under U.S. copyright law. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ0psqkrikzoG7SDyKlKLPE-dzQXj9KreE7L1l3qCkJUL1cYoMHhdOg3DEcSiqDD7fr07hG25OLeNfFIXEjvYMBF3qnZhQQXZmkyx5fqbCQusWf8HXW9cMRiTXDShmoG5HbnHqkGQzXHc/s1600/NIRVANA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="314" data-original-width="600" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ0psqkrikzoG7SDyKlKLPE-dzQXj9KreE7L1l3qCkJUL1cYoMHhdOg3DEcSiqDD7fr07hG25OLeNfFIXEjvYMBF3qnZhQQXZmkyx5fqbCQusWf8HXW9cMRiTXDShmoG5HbnHqkGQzXHc/s320/NIRVANA.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nirvana‘s 2018 lawsuit against Marc Jacobs will proceed. <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/marc-jacobs-cant-evade-nirvanas-lawsuit-heaven-t-shirt-1254762" target="_blank">According to The Hollywood Reporter</a>, a Californian judge has denied the motion to dismiss the band’s copyright complaint over the designer’s smiley face T-shirt which seems to bear an uncanny resembla</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">nce to Nirvana's own artwork. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">he copyright infringement concerns Jacobs’ “Redux Grunge” collection, which Nirvana's representatives claim used the band’s smiley face logo created by Kurt Cobain in 1991. The Jacob's T-shirt features a similar coloration and font to Nirvana's original T-shirt, replacing the word Nirvana with “Heaven” and the smiley face’s X eyes with “M” and “J.” iN MaRCH 2019 Marc Jacobs filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing, among other things, that the band doesn't explain how or when Cobain transferred the rights in his design and that the two designs aren't sufficiently similar. U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt has denied the motion, finding the complaint sufficiently alleges Nirvana owns the copyright registration and that the only "discernible difference" in the faces is the use of "M" and "J" as eyes instead of two X's. Kronstadt found that the asymmetrical circle of the face, the relatively wide placement of the eyes, the distinctive squiggle of the mouth and the stuck-out tongue are enough to distinguish the happy face from a generic smiley saying </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"It is also noteworthy that the Accused Products have combined this protectable artwork with other distinctive elements of the Nirvana T-shirt, including through the use of yellow lines on black background and a similar type and placement for the text above the image on the clothing". The case is Nirvana LLC v Marc Jacobs International LLC et al. LA CV-18-10743 JAK. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.asianage.com/entertainment/bollywood/191119/hyderabad-filmmaker-sends-legal-notice-to-jhund-makers-over-copyright-infringement.html" target="_blank">AsianAge reports</a> that </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hyderabad-based short-filmmaker Nandi Chinni Kumar has sent legal notices to the makers of forthcoming Hindi film "Jhund" and megastar Amitabh Bachchan, the lead actor of the movie, over alleged copyright infringement. At the heart of this seems to be a dispute over who owns the rights to the story of the life of Akhilesh Paul, a slum soccer player who was the Indian captain at the Homeless World Cup. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-10619532102438699122019-11-11T16:54:00.001+00:002019-11-12T10:09:18.449+00:00THE COPYKAT<div style="background-color: white; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwCQCooJf7XlUsK9BQ8f75ogiLm9kvpgrGZ-STPCIlZ1zvmHgbb5EieLOpree3CebPiFOeDRhyUJTfmjwaLLOk-W8c03krY6gfHLsX5IxpZoq91Fs1ryE1NvsR-3oKlFFpF4tR-hiTRRk/s1600/1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="165" data-original-width="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwCQCooJf7XlUsK9BQ8f75ogiLm9kvpgrGZ-STPCIlZ1zvmHgbb5EieLOpree3CebPiFOeDRhyUJTfmjwaLLOk-W8c03krY6gfHLsX5IxpZoq91Fs1ryE1NvsR-3oKlFFpF4tR-hiTRRk/s1600/1.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u>USPTO brings in the all-important question of whether AI can create or infringe Copyrighted “Works”</u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Artificial Intelligence is a well discussed and debated topic in the realms of Copyright - since the advent of the concept of “Computer-generated works”, but with the recent advancement in the role of AI in curation of art-based copyrightable works, this debate has gained even more importance and is now the subject of a number of major academic conferences and seminars, with the question surrounding the most appropriate path to be taken by lawmakers and courts.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">The US Patent and Trademark Office has now launched a public consultation in this matter and The USPTO has issued a request for comments on IP protection of AI based innovation, on or before 16<sup>th</sup> December. The notice reads: “</span><i>Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly becoming important across a diverse spectrum of technologies and businesses. AI poses unique challenges in the sphere of intellectual property law. At a January 31, 2019 conference on ‘‘Artificial Intelligence: Intellectual Property Policy Considerations,’’ USPTO explored a number of those challenges. On August 27, 2019, the USPTO published a request for comment regarding AI’s impacts on patent law and policy. As a continuation of this work, the USPTO is also considering the impact of AI on other intellectual property rights.”</i> </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In lieu of the same, 13 specific question have been posed by the USPTO including concerns around a work produced by an AI, without the involvement of a natural person contribution expression, constituting a protectable work of authorship or not, kind of involvement of human which would be regarded as authorial, state of existing law in lieu of evolving AI technology, AI getting authorship as a separate legal entity or not etc. The whole list of questions posed can be found <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-30/pdf/2019-23638.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">herein.</a> Even in the UK, while evaluating a claim to inventorship, and identifying an inventor, the UK government has <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/formalities-manual-online-version/chapter-3-the-inventor?fbclid=IwAR0J8xtMFVmWmNCxyTv6Mcik_W11l7IJgS-EztMhyo-ctFx9Y_LVVrhOpro#ref3-02" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">herein</a> gone on to specify that “An AI inventor is not acceptable as this does not identify a “person” which is required by law.” Further, and importantly, as reported by the <a href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/11/feilin-v-baidu-beijing-internet-court.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">IPKAT</a>, even in China, the Beijing internet Court in its decision in th case of Feilin v. Baidu has gone on to hold that for it to be a copyrightable “work”, it must be created by a natural person, which is a fundamental tenet of Copyright law. The court even held that neither the software developer nor the user and not even the software could be the Author of the work. The court further pointed towards the establishment of a sui generis right system (although indirectly) to protect the investment in the generation of the production. This is a core academic debate, and will be interesting to see how it takes shape in other jurisdictions.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbBOGeTRU19dqpb8IbH1b5yGyBOzor-BJPIVRxqRMuGRCirV8cAfcLR29leq3qmeRyAFIcoCILOzG-WssuF2l16nIMphOdlsMftEARHb7SesRRWbUoDowWU7WjOhKkNGRa_NBTW3FcZV4/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="563" data-original-width="1000" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbBOGeTRU19dqpb8IbH1b5yGyBOzor-BJPIVRxqRMuGRCirV8cAfcLR29leq3qmeRyAFIcoCILOzG-WssuF2l16nIMphOdlsMftEARHb7SesRRWbUoDowWU7WjOhKkNGRa_NBTW3FcZV4/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Musicians urge for a similar regime to the EU Copyright Directive in the United States, to protect them against digital exploitation</span></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">CISAC recently saluted the EU Copyright system for its reform and fight against digital upload based services and has urged other jurisdictions including the United States to follow its example. With the digital market taking over the means of “communication” of content, the CISAC has urged for fairer norms, in light of a higher contribution of the digital market to these authorial royalties and revenues. The income from digital sources has substantially increased and is EUR 653 million more in 2018 than in 2014. Of course the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers has at its core the aim to protect the rights and promote the interests of creators worldwide and is a known advocate for strong legal protection of copyright and authors' rights. The EU Copyright Directive offers a stronger negotiating position for authors and composers against these distributing agencies and tech giants which display content and further holds them completely responsible for the content uploaded on their platform, in order to rapidly curb piracy. As reported by <a href="https://www.cisac.org/Newsroom/News-Releases/Creators-royalties-shift-to-digital-as-CISAC-global-collections-hit-record-9.7-billion" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">CISAC newsroom</a>, Jean-Michel Jarre, CISAC President, said: “Digital is our future and revenues to creators are rising fast, but there is a dark side to digital, and it is caused by a fundamental flaw in the legal environment that continues to devalue creators and their works. That is why the European Copyright Directive is so momentous for creators everywhere. The Directive has sent an amazing, positive signal around the world, building a fairer balance between creators and the tech platforms.” A few <a href="https://draft.blogger.com/null" rel="nofollow" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">highlights</span></a> of this report as well as the full report released by CISAC can be accessed <a href="https://draft.blogger.com/null" rel="nofollow" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">here</span></a>. But a number of m</span><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ajor tech companies, including Google, Facebook and Twitter are concerned about harmful copyright legislation being created around the world. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Meanwhile TechDirt reports that </span><a href="https://torrentfreak.com/tech-companies-warn-u-s-against-harmful-copyright-laws-worldwide-191109/" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">tech industry groups are warning</a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> that these developments, including the EU Copyright Directive, will harm the interests of US companies, while conflicting with various free trade agreement. T</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">he Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and Internet Association have registered their unhappiness in submissions to the US Trade Representative in response to a call for opinions on foreign trade barriers. </span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">According to the CCIA, whose members include Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Pandora and Samsung, the EU’s directive “poses an immediate threat to Internet services and the obligations set out in the final text depart significantly from global norms”.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6ykqEJQ1H1gjQ8IOidCUKmzouH-aiaaNNO3QmZtI-r4LmQgGxZM-4Y0d-bb_9OXRC63ZztHeZRXPbWcaU4pQr7og6IIYvH_uYWuYRGrLb7n0xsm7ooS4Q_sEbFQ6bsn2LFftuvaiVPoc/s1600/3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="223" data-original-width="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6ykqEJQ1H1gjQ8IOidCUKmzouH-aiaaNNO3QmZtI-r4LmQgGxZM-4Y0d-bb_9OXRC63ZztHeZRXPbWcaU4pQr7og6IIYvH_uYWuYRGrLb7n0xsm7ooS4Q_sEbFQ6bsn2LFftuvaiVPoc/s1600/3.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">Important question of Jurisdiction in Copyright Infringement cases, resolved by the US Court of Appeals for the 6<sup>th</sup> Circuit</span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In a lawsuit involving a lack of proximity or territorial nexus of the infringing action to the venue wherein the suit was instituted, the court in the US dismissed a claim of Copyright infringement, This is the case of <i>Parker v. Winwood (6<sup>th</sup> Circuit Sept. 17, 2019)</i>. The main question is this case was around the taking of a bass line from the plaintiff’s song <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkWplwfLZc" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">“(Aint that) A lot of love”</a> in their song <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iQeQO113es" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">“Gimme Some Lovin’”</a> Due to Mervyn Winwood’s residence in the UK and his conduct of the subject matter of the suit (and the alleged infringement) taking place in the UK, the sixth circuit relying on the Supreme Court decision in <i>Walden v Fiore</i> where the forum of the act was given prominence, held that there is no personal jurisdiction to bring in the suit at Tennessee. Further, due to lack of evidence showing distribution of the infringing work in Tennessee, the steam of commerce argument was also rejected. In the dissenting opinion however, justice Donald stated that “<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Plaintiffs could not properly assert personal jurisdiction over Mervyn because Plaintiffs did not set forth evidence or affidavits establishing jurisdiction . . . is incorrect, as Plaintiffs have submitted evidence supporting the district court’s ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over Mervyn.” Further, an evidence related to a nationwide distribution agreement was also accounted for, in support of personal jurisdiction, however the majority rejected the same. This judgment seems fallacious in relying on <i>Walden v Fiore</i> as this judgment doesn’t cover situations where the defendant has minimum contacts with the United States and any of the states within itself. Read more </span><a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/you-can-have-some-lovin-no-personal-jurisdiction" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">here.</span></a><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"> The judgment can be accessed </span><a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/18-5305/18-5305-2019-09-17.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">here</span></a><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimXPRiWP726KL2QG56r-Xc4pdxnsxilp2AxF82MrZYT8MIihdytJ9RsemcepeRgJRnFrAYUquSFfnPsAKXESQiIkbanCjWKnNI48pVNC_Hxzx_mZ6V8T1mDg8yrD28HXsSJ8Tv8UVb2Yo/s1600/4.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimXPRiWP726KL2QG56r-Xc4pdxnsxilp2AxF82MrZYT8MIihdytJ9RsemcepeRgJRnFrAYUquSFfnPsAKXESQiIkbanCjWKnNI48pVNC_Hxzx_mZ6V8T1mDg8yrD28HXsSJ8Tv8UVb2Yo/s1600/4.jpeg" /></a></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u>Nigeria declares no tolerance policy on issues surrounding acts of Piracy</u></b></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><u></u></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">The West African Country has emphasized, via its Copyright Commission, a will to stamp out Piracy in totality. In a declaration by Vincent Oyefeso, the commision’s director of public affairs, as reported by </span><a href="https://www.musicinafrica.net/magazine/nigeria-copyright-commission-declares-zero-tolerance-piracy" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Music in Africa</span></a><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">. the Director said:</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #111111;"><i>"The NCC is not just a compliance agency, it has the power to arrest and prosecute anybody caught pirating other people’s intellectual properties.” </i>and<i> </i></span><i><span style="color: #111111;">“Copyright owners could institute civil suit against copyright offenders, apart from the criminal suit the commission normally institutes against such offenders.”</span></i></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #111111;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Further, there has also been a call to update Nigerian Copyright laws to come in line with the digital era. And to combat piracy, the commission has adopted surveillance, inspections, raids, investigations and diligent prosecutions of alleged and suspected offenders and infringers. This is all the more keeping in mind the agenda to bolster economic growth through the creative industries.</span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #111111;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #111111;">Even in South Africa, there have been concerns around the amendments surrounding authors and performers rights and the impact of the bill on rights of creators. There has been a formulation of a tribunal to address these issues concerning the same. The general consensus as reported by </span><a href="https://www.musicinafrica.net/magazine/sa-ramaphosa-questions-copyright-performers-amendment-bills" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">Music in Africa</a><span style="color: #111111;">, is that the amendment bill supports users and multinational streaming company by providing them free content and going against the economic concerns of the rightful authors and composers including performers. There is no punitive clause which provides for a remedy against infringing use. Read more </span><a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2019-11-05-ramaphosa-queries-proposed-changes-to-entertainment-industry-laws/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">here</a><span style="color: #111111;">.</span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguNnQ9ctMXgyK8owm2uLoF4rwYk8SJFFKmkccj13NQHVbsUenL1pPBCGDuEgj2HaNq0WkmCgo5sXCX6MP54dC_ZV3o1zDYnsRx1hflSEOiK6-2PC3WMKlBTRW7PoDBRh-7Vd085_uBeQs/s1600/5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="427" data-original-width="550" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguNnQ9ctMXgyK8owm2uLoF4rwYk8SJFFKmkccj13NQHVbsUenL1pPBCGDuEgj2HaNq0WkmCgo5sXCX6MP54dC_ZV3o1zDYnsRx1hflSEOiK6-2PC3WMKlBTRW7PoDBRh-7Vd085_uBeQs/s320/5.jpg" width="320" /></a><b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Claim against the Constitutionality of the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, 1990 (United States), being heard in the Supreme Court</span></u></b></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><u></u></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">The case of <a href="http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2019/11/08/icymi-this-week-scotus-hears-arguments-on-blackbeards-pirate-ship-controversy/" target="_blank">Allen v. Cooper</a> where the US </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Supreme Court is looking at a modern-day dispute involving the pirate Blackbeard's ship that went down off North Carolina's coast more than 300 years ago<i> </i></span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">discusses the question of whether a limitation on state sovereign immunity in copyright claims via a statute (CRTA,1990) is constitutional. This case highlights the statute which abrogates sovereign immunity in claims of copyright infringement. The Supreme Court, in a similar claim to unconstitutionality concerning Sovereign Immunity being abrogated in Patent and Trademark cases, has already held it to be unconstitutional (</span><i style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank</i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">)</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">which is generally used as a precedent by the lower courts even in Copyright Cases (concerning CRTA) to hold sovereign immunity applicable. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The SC has peculiarly started hearing these claims with respect to this particular act since November 5, 2019, as reported by the </span><a href="http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/110719-supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-in-copyright-sovereign-immunity-case/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Disruptive Competition Project</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">. The core issue is whether there can be a distinction drawn from the treatment of this act with respect to the other ones which have already been held to be unconstitutional. In the <i>Florida </i>case, the core reasoning against such immunity being removed was that there needs to be a pattern of cases showing infringement by the State or constitutional violations, which weren’t established. The focus of the plaintiff in this case is on distinguishing the factual scenario and establishing that infringement by states is a growing problem which has also been identified in the study by the Copyright office and in the </span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-877/112132/20190813115452725_2019-08-13%20No.%2018-877%20Allen%20v.%20Cooper%20-%20Oman%20Merits%20Amicus%20Br.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">amicus brief</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> filed by Ralph Oman, ex registrar of Copyrights, in favour of the plaintiff, .</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">North Carolina-based Nautilus Productions who had for nearly two decades documented the ship's salvage. In the process, the company copyrighted photos and videos - which were then published by the state. </span><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Nautilus sued in federal court, but the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled North Carolina could not be sued despite using the materials without permission. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The plaintiff has also relied upon the dissenting opinions of Justice Ginsburg and Breyer and has firstly argued to overturn the Florida Prepaid case, but later in a second argument has also gone on to establish as to how the Florida prepaid case is not a valid precedent for the CRTA. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">States generally are protected from lawsuits in federal courts, and the justices in 1999 ruled out federal court cases against states over patent infringements. Patent and copyright protections come from the same constitutional provision that outlines Congress' powers.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">As reported by </span><a href="http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/110719-supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-in-copyright-sovereign-immunity-case/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Disruptive Competition Project</span></a><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">, </span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Justices Alito and Kagan questioned the adequacy of the evidence of widespread copyright infringement when Congress adopted the CRCA. <i>Florida Prepaid</i> found the eight instances of patent infringement considered by Congress to be insufficient. Here, the Copyright Office study had identified sixteen instances of copyright infringement by state entities. So are sixteen infringements by 50 states enough to constitute a widespread pattern of constitutional harm, while eight are not? </span>Read more on this case <span style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;"><a href="http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/110719-supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-in-copyright-sovereign-immunity-case/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">here.</a> </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"<i>All that would be very persuasive if we didn't have the patent decision"</i> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during the legal arguments. Ginsburg dissented in the patent case.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This CopyKat from <b>Akshat Agrawal </b></span></span></div>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-26478056204839334402019-10-29T10:34:00.001+00:002019-10-29T11:14:06.059+00:00THE COPYKAT<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHmbjEcIMUUp3vzJjfbEvacDqPE1ABTn-fbxdvNSDndzVRAeKTZ-Gj6lolbZ6WqqRy7wHdNtoNbC2yYy6UPBv-V0SHkd4U8CdUpMGdosyyupqvER04yflb5mPAihGXHFUn7RcUrEPE_Zo/s1600/Copyright_US.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="444" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHmbjEcIMUUp3vzJjfbEvacDqPE1ABTn-fbxdvNSDndzVRAeKTZ-Gj6lolbZ6WqqRy7wHdNtoNbC2yYy6UPBv-V0SHkd4U8CdUpMGdosyyupqvER04yflb5mPAihGXHFUn7RcUrEPE_Zo/s320/Copyright_US.png" width="310" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The U.S. House of Representatives HAS voted 410-6 in favor of the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019, or CASE Act. Seeking to address the high cost of copyright litigation, if passed into law, the CASE Act would create a voluntary 'small claims court' within the U.S. Copyright Office, called the Copyright Claims Board. Lawsuits filed under the CASE Act would allow recovery up to $30,000, with a cap of $15,000 for statutory damages per work infringed. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Whilst widely supported by content creators and copyright owners, <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/house-approves-bill-that-could-fast-track-30000-copyright-penalties/" target="_blank">the CASE Act is not without criticism</a>: the American Civil Liberties Union, argues the CASE Act lacks procedural safeguards and could be abused by “copyright trolls” or by those seeking to silence free speech on the internet - and expose millions of Americans to liability who <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191022/17065143246/house-overwhelmingly-votes-to-empower-copyright-trolls-to-bankrupt-americans-sharing-photos.shtml" target="_blank">unknowingly violate copyright law</a> for actions seemingly as petty as sharing photos online. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">“There is no gun that is being held to anyone’s head, because the small claims court like tribunal is voluntary in nature,” Rep Hakeem Jeffries, the bill's sponsor, told The Verge. “Any argument made to the contrary, represents a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what’s at stake as part of the effort to do away with the content copyright laws that have been part of the fabric of our democracy since the founding of the Republic and in fact the Constitution.” adding </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">“The internet doesn’t change the Constitution,” </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The CASE Act now heads to the Senate for a full vote. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The CoStar Group has settled copyright infringement against rival Xceligent with the commercial real estate data conglomerate being paid $10.75 million by its competitor’s insurers, although according to court filings that’s a fraction of the $450 million CoStar initially sought. CoStar and Xceligent's court-appointed bankruptcy trustee <a href="https://draft.blogger.com/CoStar%20and%20Xceligent's%20court-appointed%20bankruptcy%20trustee%20filed%20a%20proposed%20judgment%20in%20Delaware%20Bankruptcy%20Court%20Tuesday,%20finding%20Xceligent%20liable%20for%20$500M%20in%20damages%20for%20stealing%20tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20images%20from%20CoStar's%20databases.%20%20Read%20more%20at:%20https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/technology/costar-wins-500m-judgment-in-xceligent-copyright-infringement-case-101421?utm_source=CopyShare&utm_medium=Browser" target="_blank">filed a proposed judgment in Delaware Bankruptcy Court</a>, finding Xceligent liable for $500M in damages for stealing tens of thousands of images from CoStar's databases. Xceligent, which filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation in December 2017, doesn't have the assets to fulfill the entire $500M ruling. BisNow says that the parties reached a settlement through which Xceligent's insurers will pay CoStar $10.75M. The bankruptcy settlement and judgment in the copyright infringement case are both subject to court approval.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaAhRSq5oDLwEj0hj88ZGEleMelHgRulkrn7AH7BrcTQJucIjkCOb3mHsDVkwyokXKIneZle6mpj7R6AvU77btU8-QQdr6yN9yhgwYOb6fLIqBKkE1Z400yrpt1LK6am27CNCKkuMRjA/s1600/Justin+Bieber+Robert+Barbara+by+%2528from+complaint%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="776" data-original-width="775" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaAhRSq5oDLwEj0hj88ZGEleMelHgRulkrn7AH7BrcTQJucIjkCOb3mHsDVkwyokXKIneZle6mpj7R6AvU77btU8-QQdr6yN9yhgwYOb6fLIqBKkE1Z400yrpt1LK6am27CNCKkuMRjA/s320/Justin+Bieber+Robert+Barbara+by+%2528from+complaint%2529.png" width="319" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The settlement of a case between photographer Robert Barbera and CBS over the 'use' of Barbera's photo of Justin Beiber has left open the question of whether the unauthorised embedding of a social media posts that contain copyright-protected photos amounts to copyright infringement - leaving some of the issues in the <b><i>Goldman v. Breitbart</i></b> lawsuit unanswered: That case concerned embedded tweets that featured a photo of football star Tom Brady - but the case was voluntarily dismissed in May. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In a highly-contested decision in early 2018, Judge Katherine Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that a handful of media companies, including Vox, Time, Yahoo, and Breitbart, among others, had infringed a copyright-protected image that Eric Goldman took of Tom Brady by embedding third-party tweets that contained the image into articles on their websites. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Finding for Goldman, Judge Forrest’s February decision was a stark contrast to the general agreement among U.S. courts that when a party embeds a photo into an article, and thus, does not actually create a copy of the image or store it on its server, there is no new “display” of the photo for copyright purposes, and as a result, no copyright infringement - although case such as </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc</i></b> in 2007 are themselves not without critics who disagreed with the appellate court ruling that embedding does not require that an image be copied or stored, and thus, does not run afoul of copyright law. <a href="http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/does-the-unauthorized-embedding-of-social-media-posts-amount-to-copyright-infringement" target="_blank">More on The Fashion Law website here</a>. Robert Barbera's Image from complaint. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGTG0_3ecHAvjSQj4jXGGB97sNBWbGuCevXF3vj177jPhZ8MiIVr4wUvhctA9l5OwW4iMxlWjjgZRG-Zs6_McVgETlQSduAYCIb5LK9DWl38vqhy7KrwsxJ5hSA70K5NUeeaiGNrKZ_0c/s1600/Turtles.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="431" data-original-width="800" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGTG0_3ecHAvjSQj4jXGGB97sNBWbGuCevXF3vj177jPhZ8MiIVr4wUvhctA9l5OwW4iMxlWjjgZRG-Zs6_McVgETlQSduAYCIb5LK9DWl38vqhy7KrwsxJ5hSA70K5NUeeaiGNrKZ_0c/s320/Turtles.png" width="320" /></a><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Those Turtles and the issue of<a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/turtles-copyright-suit-against-pandora-depends-on-new-music-law" target="_blank"> pre-1972 copyrights in sound recordings</a> in the USA keep going on and on - with the Ninth Circuit appeals court now asking the lower court in California to consider what the Music Modernization Act (MMA) means for any ongoing disputes involving unpaid digital royalties on pre-1972 recordings. CMU Daily reports that the MMA reformed US copyright law in a number of ways and "Perhaps the biggest reforms related to the way the mechanical rights in songs are licensed Stateside. In theory those reforms were meant to bring to an end the long line of lawsuits being pursued against the on-demand streaming services over unpaid mechanical royalties .... Another part of the MMA related to the use of recordings - rather than songs - by online and satellite radio services, including personalised radio platforms like Pandora. Under US-wide federal copyright law AM/FM radio stations aren't obliged to pay any royalties to artists and labels for the recordings they play, but satellite and online stations are. However, recordings released before 1972 are protected by state-level rather than federal copyright law, so digital services argued that that royalty obligation didn't apply to pre-1972 tracks." Probably one of the best known cases on the matter was litigation pursued in the Californian courts against both Sirius and Pandora by Flo & Eddie, former members of 1960s band The Turtles and whilst a settlement was reached in California, and new law removes any debate over the ongoing royalty obligations of services like Pandora moving forward, the question remained over what royalties should have been paid in the past. Now the Ninth Circuit has said that the question of assessing whether Pandora still faces liabilities for past non-payment of royalties in the context of the MMA is matter for the district court that first considered the original lawsuit. The appeals court said in a ruling last week: "Whether the MMA applies to and pre-empts Flo & Eddie's claims, as Flo & Eddie note, cannot be answered on the record before us. The resolution of this issue depends on various unanswered factual questions".</span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjdNO94aA7ksyhze2z2yDpbNJ46py4eHodyyWlFRclDkzT3Mv4yO3-XmWEJhycybB-NNwLLeC2O7hPwEdYUmyTVkJPgZAm7x7qkoHDrBTHLWGcSvb25iUilAJfKJ1fFhpJeNWdQwDVAc0/s1600/IFPI.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="163" data-original-width="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjdNO94aA7ksyhze2z2yDpbNJ46py4eHodyyWlFRclDkzT3Mv4yO3-XmWEJhycybB-NNwLLeC2O7hPwEdYUmyTVkJPgZAm7x7qkoHDrBTHLWGcSvb25iUilAJfKJ1fFhpJeNWdQwDVAc0/s1600/IFPI.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Global record industry trade groups IFPI and WIN have announced a new initiative designed to simplify the way record labels and music distributors provide key data about the sound recordings they own and represent - and the UK record industry's collection society, PPL, will lead on the initiative. With each country in what is now a global market having its own collecting society, with their own database(s), this presents a number of logistical challenges for the recorded music industry (and indeed the music publishing sector too) not least as new platfors and new technologies develop. The new Repertoire Data Exchange project, or RDx, aims to make it easier for record labels and other owners of the copyright in sound recordings to log their tracks with all the relevant society databases, ensuring databases are updated promptly and efficiently. IFPI and WIN explained: "Record companies have historically used a variety of data delivery processes to supply content to individual [societies] around the world, presenting challenges in the supply of recording data. RDx will offer recording right holders of all sizes, from all countries, a single registration point to supply their repertoire data in a standardised format that can be quickly and easily accessed by all [societies], leading to improvements in data quality" and IFPI boss Frances Moore said: "Record companies continue to invest in and enhance the accuracy and management of music data in many different areas of the industry. RDx is a key example of an initiative that will benefit all parties involved. It will improve operational efficiencies and lower costs for right holders whilst allowing [societies] to retrieve authoritative repertoire data from a single point - enabling more accurate and timely distribution of revenues".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgroWc00rL3u1M_Eauu41W14rbWXpyY8pXEDU2NE2sAmvj6uNPFLc_26ayECdxH_WiAjD2i_tnPHUvsf3hGkNUVEPVyIJCZ48wdyiv5B3Lyyh7_D3iobp3Tr4F5uFt5y9-a9SiEjeeO_zo/s1600/taylor-swift-pressroom-bbma-2013-650-430.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="212" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgroWc00rL3u1M_Eauu41W14rbWXpyY8pXEDU2NE2sAmvj6uNPFLc_26ayECdxH_WiAjD2i_tnPHUvsf3hGkNUVEPVyIJCZ48wdyiv5B3Lyyh7_D3iobp3Tr4F5uFt5y9-a9SiEjeeO_zo/s1600/taylor-swift-pressroom-bbma-2013-650-430.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Taylor Swift by George Chin</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Taylor Swift’s 2014 hit “Shake It Off” and th controversy over the phrases “playas gonna play” and “haters gonna hate” </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">s once again at the <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/copyright-suit-targeting-taylor-swifts-shake-it-revived-by-appeals-court-1250545" target="_blank">centre of a legal battle</a> as </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the 2017 </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">a previously dismissed copyright lawsuit from songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler, who allege the single lifts lyrics from their 2001 composition “Playas Gon’ Play.”. Hall and Butler say Swift's famous lyric "Cos the players gonna play, play, play, play, play/And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate" was a copy of the line "The playas gon play/Them haters gonna hate" from their 2001 track. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> February 2018. Judge Michael Fitzgerald in the District Court concluded “By 2001, American popular culture was heavily steeped in the concepts of players, haters, and player haters … The concept of actors acting in accordance with their essential nature is not at all creative; it is banal.” But a </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">1903 ruling from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes might give some hope to Hall and Butler: “It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of pictorial illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits” Holmes wrote . “At the one extreme, some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke.” In their ruling the appellate court said</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> “originality, as we have long recognized, is normally a question of fact … Justice Holmes’ century-old warning about judges appointing themselves the sole arbiter of originality remains valid. By concluding that: ‘for such short phrases to be protected under the Copyright Act, they must be more creative than the lyrics at issues here,’ the District Court constituted itself as the final judge of the worth of an expressive work. Because the absence of originality is not established either on the face of the complaint or through the judicially noticed matters, we reverse the District Court’s dismissal” and t</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he case goes back to the District Court </span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-18497375702643193252019-10-25T10:32:00.000+01:002019-10-25T10:32:10.053+01:00[Guest post] When creative collaboration goes wrong<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="376">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hashtag"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Unresolved Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Link"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Header Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
tab-stops:center 225.65pt right 451.3pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Footer Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
tab-stops:center 225.65pt right 451.3pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:36.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:36.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.HeaderChar
{mso-style-name:"Header Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Header;}
span.FooterChar
{mso-style-name:"Footer Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Footer;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">The 1709 Blog is happy to host the following contribution by <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/hugocox/?originalSubdomain=uk"><b>Hugo Cox</b></a> (Hamlins), concerning the recent joint authorship decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in <i>Kogan v Martin</i> <b><span style="color: red;">[see also IPKat <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/10/guest-post-martin-v-kogan-court-of.html">here</a>]</span></b>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Here's what Hugo writes:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">When creative collaboration goes
wrong<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNQ7718ymXtqyQ0xbxNv_fLl4lJmfdaKqYD8C6XH0gJ13y9HEc2OZyORXcu8hEu_b4dtjfbTnxp2mU1OelXoyqhbvFn8WO_qXXcnuev2aw9bKJo707na6cVYrd54ATaqgAu3tYvdLCz60/s1600/Arnold_Boecklin-fiedelnder_Tod.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="517" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNQ7718ymXtqyQ0xbxNv_fLl4lJmfdaKqYD8C6XH0gJ13y9HEc2OZyORXcu8hEu_b4dtjfbTnxp2mU1OelXoyqhbvFn8WO_qXXcnuev2aw9bKJo707na6cVYrd54ATaqgAu3tYvdLCz60/s320/Arnold_Boecklin-fiedelnder_Tod.jpg" width="258" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">One
of the most distinctively <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">European</i> contributions
of European law to UK copyright law has been its test for originality (being
one of the requirements for copyright protection). Previously UK courts had
looked for the prosaic inputs of labour, skill or judgment. Now they ask
whether the work is the author’s ‘intellectual creation’, looking to see if it
reflects the author’s personality, expressing free and creative choices – there
must be a certain … <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">je ne sais quoi</i>,
you might say.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">There
is some doubt as to whether this new test has made much difference in deciding
which works do or do not acquire copyright protection. However, in the law of
joint authorship, a change seems unmistakable. In the past, English courts have
required a contributor to input significant skill and labour to earn the title
and rights of a joint author. So, for example, an attractive 16-bar saxophone
solo did not meet the threshold. Now the Court of Appeal has affirmed the ‘relatively
undemanding’ requirement is, once again, to contribute elements which express
the contributor’s own intellectual creation. We know from the CJEU’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Infopaq</i> judgment that this can be
achieved in just eleven words.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Kogan
v Martin<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;">This
conclusion of the Court of Appeal was arrived at in its judgment of 9 October in
</span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1645.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><b>Kogan v Martin</b></span></i></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;">,
a case concerning the screenplay for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Florence
Foster Jenkins</i>, a film which starred Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant. The
question was whether it had been written solely by Nicholas Martin, as had been
decided in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in 2017, or whether Julia
Kogan was joint author. The Court of Appeal was not content with the reasoning
of the lower court and ordered a retrial.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">It
seemed Martin had held the pen and Kogan had contributed only to the first
drafts. However, the Court emphasized a joint author can be someone who only
offers suggestions to the writer <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>– she does
not necessarily have to put pen to paper or have the last word on what goes
into the script. Contributions to plot ideas or inventing characters are on an
equal footing with contributions to the execution of a work. And if a work has
been created through a series of drafts, inputs into the earlier drafts count.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Complex relationships, complex
law<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">The
Court set exacting standards for the assessment of the complex evidence of
creative collaboration. The fact witnesses’ recollections may be imperfect does
not absolve the judge of his duty to take those recollections into account
alongside any documentary evidence and to come to a conclusion about the nature
of the interaction between the parties and their contributions. Were Julia
Kogan’s contributions akin to those of a researcher, or was there a joint
creative process? The assessment is highly fact-specific and difficult, but
must be undertaken.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Though it seems the quantitative threshold for
joint authorship has been lowered, the overall assessment of the evidence has
become ever more complex, subtle and exacting. And the legal concepts are slippery.
Joint authors must be engaging in a ‘common design’ – according to the Court of
Appeal this is not something Ezra Pound was doing when he made extensive
revisions to Eliot’s<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> The Waste Land</i>.
The Court explained, perhaps less than helpfully: ‘he was acting as a friend
and critic and not a collaborator in a common design’. And appealing though the
European ‘intellectual creation’ test is, can you necessarily spot someone’s
personality in their output and when exactly are choices free and creative?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">We live in a time when creative collaboration
is widespread – from pop bands to sitcom writers’ rooms to the interactive
world of the internet. It’s a complex picture, and one which the law should try
to avoid complicating further.</span></span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-55531736386476884492019-10-22T14:00:00.001+01:002019-10-22T14:00:35.259+01:00Leonardo's Vitruvian Man will be lent to France, Italian court rules<div style="text-align: justify;">
Venetian administrative court recently rejected the appeal filed by Italia Nostra, an Italian cultural heritage conservation group, opposing the loan of Leonardo da Vinci's 'Vitruvian Man' to Louvre museum. The loan was part of a bilateral agreement signed in September by Italy and France according to which Italy should lend seven Leonardo's works to France and, in return, the latter will send some Raphael's paintings next year to be exhibited at Scuderie del Quirinale in Rome to commemorate 500 years since Raphael's death. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNmOOrpXDi1QhnSVqq50tp2djKhynNO7aa5rewrJIuogqaeGve88OI27C3pn6SzRkxRvGWW3ljGcHeIuTTZWmdeOMYMo4WXryG8-7UKM6GYhi_XRUlJAIplQqVTRfY-SukTIay68T4taw/s1600/Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1177" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNmOOrpXDi1QhnSVqq50tp2djKhynNO7aa5rewrJIuogqaeGve88OI27C3pn6SzRkxRvGWW3ljGcHeIuTTZWmdeOMYMo4WXryG8-7UKM6GYhi_XRUlJAIplQqVTRfY-SukTIay68T4taw/s320/Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg" width="235" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Leonardo da Vinci's 'Vitruvian Man', 1492</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Italia Nostra <a href="http://www.iitaly.org/magazine/focus/art-culture/article/vitruvian-man-will-travel-louvre-italian-court-rules" target="_blank">argued</a> in its appeal that Leonardo's 'Vitruvian Man' was too fragile to travel as it would risk being damaged by lighting if displayed during the Louvre exhibition; indeed, the work shall be constantly protected from direct light. The plaintiff alleged also that the loan would then infringe art. 66 of Italian Code of the Cultural and Landscape Heritage prohibiting temporary exit from national territory of cultural property on the occasion of art events if the artwork is susceptible to damage during transportation or because of unfavorable environmental conditions. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a precautionary measure, the Court suspended the loan and even the bilateral agreement signed between Italy and France.<br />
<br />
On October 16, the Court overturned its previous decision rejecting the appeal, observing that other works among the Venice Galleries' masterpieces were already lent in the past. Moreover, the two Italian most important restoration institutes confirmed that the drawing could be exhibited for a limited period of time if under the correct lighting.</div>
<div>
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="text-align: justify;">The 'Vitruvian Man' </span><span style="text-align: justify;">will then be displayed during the exhibition starting at Louvre on October 24, celebrating the 500th anniversary of Leonardo's death. Italian media reported also that this masterpiece </span>will be insured for little less than <a href="https://www.thelocal.fr/20191016/should-italy-loan-da-vinci-vitruvian-man-to-france" target="_blank">1 billion euro</a>. The drawing, which shall be s<span style="text-align: justify;">hown for a </span><a href="https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/louvre-secures-key-italian-loans-for-leonardo-retrospective" style="text-align: justify;" target="_blank">few weeks every six years</a>, will not be exhibited for a long time after being displayed twice this year: one time in Venice and now at Louvre. </div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While this dispute seems solved (unless Italia Nostra decides to appeal), one member of the Uffizi Galleries' scientific committee, Tomaso Montanari, have recently claimed that two Leonardo's paintings - "Study of the Landscape" and "The Adoration of the Magi" - were exported for the same exhibition despite being on Uffizi's list of unmovable works. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Italia Nostra's appeal highlighted the problems concerning the loan of masterpieces, besides two different visions of cultural heritage: as a national treasure or as a part of a world cultural heritage to share.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Angelahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00521285567302038210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-40125338405921773922019-10-16T12:27:00.000+01:002019-10-16T12:43:28.734+01:00THE COPYKAT<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-google/france-to-redouble-efforts-to-create-eu-tech-regulator-after-copyright-spat-idUSKBN1WU1YO" target="_blank">Reuters report</a> that France is pushing for the creation of a European-wide regulator of digital platforms including Google and YouTube, to sanction any possible abuse of power. A spokesperson cited the dispute between Google and European publishers saying “A big American company, Google namely, has announced it would not comply with an EU copyright directive,” the official told reporters. “France and Germany share the view that... we have to put an end to this illegal behavior.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKh7dnnE8D2tU0QfHpcAUegTUnHFWk0526nJBYDEYtELCu2raOd0Yf0R7_aeQcsNiK4zgU4UvieMMUXVbMKANhWJFx7xlOVKMv9menex1fqb4PWcWyN1xByzWz9N8ikWYdGwrTnIqb5qA/s1600/google4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="144" data-original-width="351" height="131" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKh7dnnE8D2tU0QfHpcAUegTUnHFWk0526nJBYDEYtELCu2raOd0Yf0R7_aeQcsNiK4zgU4UvieMMUXVbMKANhWJFx7xlOVKMv9menex1fqb4PWcWyN1xByzWz9N8ikWYdGwrTnIqb5qA/s320/google4.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And more on Google: In a U.S. Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department has urged the court to deny Google’s petition for review of a pair of rulings that put the company on the line for billions of dollars in damages for infringing Oracle’s copyrights in the Java computer code. <a href="https://in.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-google/justice-department-once-again-advises-scotus-to-skip-java-copyright-case-idINKBN1WF21C" target="_blank">Reuters say that </a></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://in.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-google/justice-department-once-again-advises-scotus-to-skip-java-copyright-case-idINKBN1WF21C" target="_blank">Google’s lawyers</a> at Goldstein & Russell have argued that the case presents important questions about the copyrightability of certain kinds of computer code and fair use of that code. The Justice Department, however, said in Friday’s brief that the copyrightability question has already been resolved definitively - and that the Google case isn’t a good vehicle for the Supreme Court’s consideration of fair use.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915688/youtube-copyright-troll-lawsuit-settled-false-dmca-takedown-christopher-brady" target="_blank">The Verge reports</a> that alleged copyright troll Christopher Brady will no longer be able to issue DMCA takedowns to YouTubers. According to a lawsuit settlement, an agreement has been reached and Brady is banned from “submitting any notices of alleged copyright infringement to YouTube that misrepresent that material hosted on the YouTube service is infringing copyrights held or claimed to be held by Brady or anyone Brady claims to represent.” Brady agreed to pay $25,000 in damages as part of the settlement. He is also prohibited from “misrepresenting or masking their identities” when using Google products, including YouTube.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghsd2c0A6sB5cFMNv5k3ZKxpWxkHwXpfkmZR5VXvjv6b806yO4hh7VGFduT6IZRvL2IO5bmBRcQ3Wspj98qigTUX2CgvDqd6nlxIUzsR72cX6mmYEtToYGLhWetFslUPDG-wNrwKcNG0U/s1600/queen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghsd2c0A6sB5cFMNv5k3ZKxpWxkHwXpfkmZR5VXvjv6b806yO4hh7VGFduT6IZRvL2IO5bmBRcQ3Wspj98qigTUX2CgvDqd6nlxIUzsR72cX6mmYEtToYGLhWetFslUPDG-wNrwKcNG0U/s1600/queen.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Queen have joined the long list of bands who have <a href="https://themusic.com.au/news/queen-have-trump-campaign-video-pulled-due-to-copyright-infringement/-PXg6u3s7-4/" target="_blank">taken action against President Trump</a> for using their music without permission. A campaign video featuring '<i>We Will Rock You' </i>has been<i> </i>removed from his Twitter following a copyright complaint from the band’s publisher. According to Buzzfeed, within hours of the video going live Queen had "already entered into a process to call for non use of Queen song copyrights by the Trump campaign”. After being viewed more than 1.7 million times, the video was disabled by Twitter and the post now reads: "This media has been disabled in response to a report by copyright owner.” They join REM, Prince, Neil Young, Rihanna, Nickleback and Adele (<a href="https://people.com/music/musicians-who-have-told-politicians-to-stop-using-their-music/" target="_blank">amongst others</a>) who have objected to Trump using their music. More details on Nickleback's <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/twitter-donald-trump-nickelback-tweet-copyright-complaint-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">recent takedown</a> can be <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-nickelback-video-gets-taken-twitter-copyright-violation-n1061881" target="_blank">found here</a>. A Twitter spokesperson told CNN that the company responds to copyright complaints sent to them by a copyright owner or their authorised representatives.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzLmpQdeCx1NYrICVdX3gIMFnwRipfWudmSYqiWXCSzi9lVrONhtQNb5evgLdT1xMp9Pr9fCKHhe9hiQpWzIQzrKIBgR3sjy4bEU9USetOCCZYBNJVbeECX5xib8Vr_PfUhgQRl6ymM68/s1600/bnaksy+street+art.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="822" data-original-width="1232" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzLmpQdeCx1NYrICVdX3gIMFnwRipfWudmSYqiWXCSzi9lVrONhtQNb5evgLdT1xMp9Pr9fCKHhe9hiQpWzIQzrKIBgR3sjy4bEU9USetOCCZYBNJVbeECX5xib8Vr_PfUhgQRl6ymM68/s320/bnaksy+street+art.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Why bring a <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2019/10/banksys-fake-store-is-an-attempt-to-abuse-trademark-law-to-avoid-copyright-law/" target="_blank">Trade Mark claim in place of a copyright claim</a>? Well it seems that the super secret street artist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy" target="_blank">Banksy</a> might be doing that to avoid revealing his true identity. Above the Laws's take on this is "<i>Banksy’s Fake Store Is An Attempt To Abuse Trademark Law To Avoid Copyright Law"</i> but it's an interesting story in Banksy's attempt to stop a small greeting from selling “fake Banksy merchandise.” Full Colour Black "run a small business that does photography and sells cards involving public graffiti". Above the Law say this "But… that’s all about copyright. In reading the news coverage of all of this, I was stumped as to why were were discussing trademark at all — until I realized something kind of important. Banksy is using trademark because Banksy can’t use copyright without revealing who Banksy is". And Full Colour Black’s lawyer, Aaron Wood, explained </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">“We are contesting the validity of one of his [Banksy's representing company </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Pest Control Office Limited</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">] EU trademarks on the basis that he has freely permitted it to be reproduced such that it no longer functions as a trademark (if it ever did), on the basis that he never intended to use it as a trademark and that he is trying to register for collateral purposes (ie, to avoid evidential issues with copyright and to avoid having to file a ‘statement of use’ in the US).”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqt8wIFSu0T6aoOd4_Y2Tb31eopi2cMwG-NKalqVH5E8rF8nzXK4fY8bkp_2UTWMmugqpw_H3ba65ExddzbM-P035wS-1QRK_DJElBwor0ngThmkk7NDu4EATJESXanofkRvjQZJtVjEo/s1600/Jerry_Seinfeld_%25281997%2529_cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="322" data-original-width="173" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqt8wIFSu0T6aoOd4_Y2Tb31eopi2cMwG-NKalqVH5E8rF8nzXK4fY8bkp_2UTWMmugqpw_H3ba65ExddzbM-P035wS-1QRK_DJElBwor0ngThmkk7NDu4EATJESXanofkRvjQZJtVjEo/s320/Jerry_Seinfeld_%25281997%2529_cropped.jpg" width="171" /></a><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">US comedian Jerry Seinfeld <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49878567" target="_blank">has defeated a lawsuit</a> which alleged he had stolen the idea for a TV series. But the case was decided on basis that the statute of limitations must bar the claim - and not on any infringement or otherwise. Christian Charles, a</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> former colleague claimed he had originally pitched the idea for "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee"</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> to Seinfeld in 2002 - a decade before it debuted. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Manhattan District judge Alison Nathan said Charles had taken too long to sue, The statute of limitations appies after three years and </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Charles had waited for six years to file his lawsuit after Seinfeld rejected his copyright claim in 2012, the year the first series of the show aired.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Current chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler, has <a href="https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8532005/nadler-music-modernization-act-industry-battles" target="_blank">aired his thoughts</a> on what might be the next challenges for legislating for m</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">usic copyright in the USA. He </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">joined National Music Publishers' Association president and CEO David Israelite for NYU Steinhardt's inaugural Ralph S. Peer Lecture, named after the music visionary who founded Peermusic in the 1920s. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Prioritising the unity that led to the unanimous passage of the Music Modernization Act, Nadler opined "If you want real legislation, the different segments of the industry have to get their act together and speak with one voice," and admitting that most members of Congress aren't well-versed in music industry particulars. "Once they did that, we were able to pass legislation unanimously." Nadler then went to on talk about the fact that in the US there is no performing right for recorded music terrestrial AM/FM radio play - an almost unique position in the World adding "As terrestrial radio becomes relatively less important and streaming becomes more, the question is the extent to which broadcasters will see their interests as less opposed to performance rights. At some point, I do think we will get some [agreement], because the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and their people will see that their interests are less adversely affected than previously.</span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-12060995027658680542019-10-04T14:37:00.001+01:002019-10-04T14:37:27.224+01:00CREATe Symposium 2019<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUsMO3NxNBnM0_9sOVGcy36st3EGrLt4p-A6AOfmUpn3WUweCMy2L-gRpXIJ9gyU1nnzjRCJkKxdSnG1HnOPWTb-DMvJ9ZaIqnoqIn-hxQWQbfT8P57sMKnaMW4xe7YlP-7x1i1XVdDxY/s1600/CREATe-Symposium-8-10-Oct-2019.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="196" data-original-width="1200" height="52" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUsMO3NxNBnM0_9sOVGcy36st3EGrLt4p-A6AOfmUpn3WUweCMy2L-gRpXIJ9gyU1nnzjRCJkKxdSnG1HnOPWTb-DMvJ9ZaIqnoqIn-hxQWQbfT8P57sMKnaMW4xe7YlP-7x1i1XVdDxY/s320/CREATe-Symposium-8-10-Oct-2019.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">CREATe, the UK Copyright & Creative Economy Centre based at the University of Glasgow, recently has started work on a number of ambitious projects that will occupy the team for the next five years.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">CREATEe have announced <a href="https://www.create.ac.uk/create-symposium-2019/" target="_blank">a Symposium</a> with series of events to support this. The events are free, They include a BLACA lecture by CREATe’s Elena Cooper on Portrait of Lady Eden by Whistler (subject of a famous Paris court case in 1897, and held in the University of Glasgow’s Hunterian collection); and a policy keynote by Catherine Stihler, CEO of the Open Knowledge Foundation (and until 2019 a Member of the European Parliament for 20 years). Come and join us in shaping the next phase of CREATe’s research programme! The link below takes you to the full programme but here is some more detail on the two featured events:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFBI5AWA7vdS8qp-ElYejeX5YQyl_eBztv02bVptfeijligwGr6k4BAOjhyMm3kkKWMvsk3RlkanphYFfNRu1AxMJH8RDKBGhJvvmAFvgTjqJjxNk4VxKvI3IiXshwWTKamQ-YatMkvVQ/s1600/portrait+of+lady.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1" data-original-width="1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFBI5AWA7vdS8qp-ElYejeX5YQyl_eBztv02bVptfeijligwGr6k4BAOjhyMm3kkKWMvsk3RlkanphYFfNRu1AxMJH8RDKBGhJvvmAFvgTjqJjxNk4VxKvI3IiXshwWTKamQ-YatMkvVQ/s1600/portrait+of+lady.gif" /></a></div>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Glasgow - Tuesday 8 October 2019</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">17:15 – 18:45</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Location: Hunterian Art Gallery</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">British Literary & Artistic Copyright Association and CREATe lecture – ‘Whistler, Faed and Painting Copyright in the Nineteenth Century’</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Speaker: Dr Elena Cooper (CREATe)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Welcome by Prof. Jane Mair (Head of School of Law, University of Glasgow) and Prof. Alison Firth (BLACA)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Until recently, copyright history has overwhelmingly concerned literary copyright protecting books. Drawing on her recent monograph, Art and Modern Copyright: The Contested Image (CUP, 2018), the first in-depth and longitudinal account of copyright as it applies to the visual arts, Dr Cooper will explore a number of ways in which nineteenth century copyright applying to painting was understood to be different. In doing so, and to celebrate the fact that this is the first BLACA event in Scotland for some years, Dr Cooper will connect UK copyright history to two paintings with links to Scotland: Brown and Gold: Portrait of Lady Eden by James McNeil Whistler (1834-1903) and Home and the Homeless by Thomas Faed (1826-1900).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We are delighted to announce that the first picture – Portrait of Lady Eden by Whistler (the subject of Eden v Whistler, Cour d’appel de Paris, 1897) – will be brought out of store especially for this talk.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Glasgow - Wednesday 9th October 2019</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">17:00 – 19:00</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Location: Humanities Lecture Theatre, Main Building</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Public lecture – Catherine Stihler: Reflections on the Making of EU Copyright Law</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The first CREATe public lecture of 2019/2020 will be given by Catherine Stihler, CEO of the Open Knowledge Foundation. She was a Member of the European Parliament from 1999 to 2019. As an MEP, her roles included Vice-Chair of the Internal Market Committee, and Rapporteur for Article 13 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive (now Article 17).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chair: Prof. Martin Kretschmer (CREATe)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Academic responses: Prof. Giorgio Fazio (Newcastle University, Professor of Economics, PEC Management Board Member), Assoc. Prof. Rebecca Giblin (Monash University; head designate, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia IPRIA, University of Melbourne)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">MORE INFORMATION HERE <a href="https://www.create.ac.uk/create-symposium-2019/">https://www.create.ac.uk/create-symposium-2019/</a></span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-59687959050837442782019-09-30T20:27:00.000+01:002019-09-30T20:27:37.544+01:00THE COPYKAT<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span lang="EN-US">1)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></b><b><u><span lang="EN-US">Record Labels in the United States claim Copyright Infringement against COX</span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><u><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcFVcsfznRiwXUBcQqjlbXJQJKeJRmeWUgd2BYOwzxAxTMHTlcRo0z3ZT6FAWy01Gn3yy9nKFkj3GfCm84STJ2Rq13bnHLuPCEyJBpjQvVcfHILNWYGZmL8inn-WESUHLvDsN1VvZvmMk/s1600/1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcFVcsfznRiwXUBcQqjlbXJQJKeJRmeWUgd2BYOwzxAxTMHTlcRo0z3ZT6FAWy01Gn3yy9nKFkj3GfCm84STJ2Rq13bnHLuPCEyJBpjQvVcfHILNWYGZmL8inn-WESUHLvDsN1VvZvmMk/s1600/1.png" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">In another US case on the question of liability of intermediaries such as Internet Service Providers and the ambit and threshold required to prove Contributory/Secondary infringement, US Magistrate Judge, Judge F. Anderson has taken a stance on evidentiary presentations and has blocked the request of COX to not admit certain evidence presented by the Record Labels due to alleged non-credibility, as reported by </span><a href="https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1203905/cox-can-t-get-discovery-sanction-in-pirating-fight-with-labels" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US">Law 360</span></a><span lang="EN-US">. COX had gone on to argue certain issues with the credibility of the evidence, wherein they said that the record labels had not kept all the data related to the finding of infringement (worked by the Record Labels in collaboration with Anti- Piracy agencies – Mark monitor and Audible Magic) on record.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">For a claim of such secondary liability to be conclusively established, firstly a user having performed primary infringement must be shown, after which, the burden shifts upon proving actual knowledge of the infringement with the intermediary, and a positive role in promoting the same. A safe harbor protection is available to the intermediaries, which do not conclusively pursue an actual knowledge of infringement. The main argument brought in by the record labels herein is that the ISP COX deliberately had shoddy systems for dealing with infringement and infringers on their networks and produced certain evidence on it, using the worked data, but not all of it. The Judge went on to hold that, whatever is the issue with the evidence, it needs to be brought before the jury, and cannot be blocked, due to such reasons. The court concluded (as reported by </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;"><a href="https://completemusicupdate.com/article/missing-data-shouldnt-stop-labels-presenting-its-evidence-in-cox-copyright-case-judge-reckons/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">Complete Music Update</a>)</span><span lang="EN-US"> that the labels weren’t under any obligation to keep all the data which they and their partners had gathered, on record.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span lang="EN-US">2)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></b><b><u><span lang="EN-US">Robert “Bobby” Prince sues Gearbox, its President as well as Valve for unauthorized exploitation of copyrighted music.</span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFsJ1-Z6FzgZkAgboG6u_UDbwpQs9yBDXWxyEQvvgwVuUWX6H3I8-jHYruG6rcbvMMe_tv3pG5OlZBFpNkuDHABRZTTKlHIi-7H-BIRTr78nl9OMUwCnQSTISJNvAMEbo8GkvEZX88CQE/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1024" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFsJ1-Z6FzgZkAgboG6u_UDbwpQs9yBDXWxyEQvvgwVuUWX6H3I8-jHYruG6rcbvMMe_tv3pG5OlZBFpNkuDHABRZTTKlHIi-7H-BIRTr78nl9OMUwCnQSTISJNvAMEbo8GkvEZX88CQE/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">The original music for the video game Duke Nudem 3d was created and composed by music composer Robert Prince, but has seemingly been used without unauthorisation (without a license or a compensation) by Gearbox Software LLC., in its new game - Duke Nukem 3d World Tour. Further, these allegedly infringing copies were conveniently distributed by another defendant, “Valve Corporation”, which even ignored a takedown notice, hence denying a claim to safe harbor. Another interesting fact to note is that the allegedly infringing game includes text specifically giving accreditation to Mr. Prince for his music, but has not compensated or even contacted Prince to get a license in the use. In light of the same, Robert Prince has filed an infringement suit in the United States District Court Eastern District of Tennessee, Northern Division. The Petition can be found </span><a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/PrincevGearboxSoftwareLLCetalDocketNo319cv00380EDTennSept272019Co?1569767444" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US">here</span></a><span lang="EN-US">. The game is supposed to be released on </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;"><a href="https://wccftech.com/duke-nukem-3d-20th-anniversary-world-tour/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">October 11<sup>th</sup></a> and</span><span lang="EN-US"> It will be interesting to see, how this one plays out.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span lang="EN-US">3)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></b><b><u><span lang="EN-US">CJEU clears the air over conflict between Design and Copyright Protection and the ambit of Copyright.</span></u></b><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><u><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT_ex5CMWrriHH6jhsmOYAVljrgyweaibMTNw70TaXzOAlQ5PR2jhd2sP_DOKsPhJ1l5L9tWasLb3acFeUUn0fdIeNmH3rw012SvzuT3uyZs9rpnOCAtMbbsRIi9QlRCwG1K-CHOVGNDU/s1600/3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT_ex5CMWrriHH6jhsmOYAVljrgyweaibMTNw70TaXzOAlQ5PR2jhd2sP_DOKsPhJ1l5L9tWasLb3acFeUUn0fdIeNmH3rw012SvzuT3uyZs9rpnOCAtMbbsRIi9QlRCwG1K-CHOVGNDU/s1600/3.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">The CJEU, in the case of <i>Cofomel </i>(C-683/17) decided on the issue as to whether Copyright would subsist in the designs of G-Star Raw’s Jeans and T-Shirts. The question peculiarly concerned itself with whether member states had the freedom to choose the threshold which works of applied art, industrial designs and works of design are required to meet for Copyright Protection. The Court held that, even in the cases of functional products, the ambit required for it being a work is the same and that is “the author’s own intellectual creation”, that is one reflecting free and collective choices, which could give the non-functional aspect of the work, Copyright Protection. Most importantly, as reported by </span><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/copyright/cjeu-copyright-cofomel" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US">IAM Media</span></a><span lang="EN-US">, the judgement makes it clear that an analysis of artistic merit or aesthetic impression need not be done, as it is extremely subjective and non-precise, to conclude whether a work is copyrightable or not.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">This makes it clear that the aesthetic aspects of useful articles can also be protected as Copyrightable, insofar as they fulfill the originality standard of “Author’s own intellectual creation”. Read more on this on the </span><a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-cofemel-decision-well-beyond-simple.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US">IPKAT</span></a><span lang="EN-US">.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>4)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></b><b><u>STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN back in court!!</u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga_sSUtHpP5KO32tugl2PnbhCw0M0YF8qGDuwDrsUnj11cMim_iGGfO05PVL0j-0owW4LajMHlWrco7b9W7Q0giBpTaNpM18dU3WshFX-hp0A3LOGzMRX9xAmjYK_mUWiHI0G9izIDawM/s1600/4.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="284" data-original-width="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga_sSUtHpP5KO32tugl2PnbhCw0M0YF8qGDuwDrsUnj11cMim_iGGfO05PVL0j-0owW4LajMHlWrco7b9W7Q0giBpTaNpM18dU3WshFX-hp0A3LOGzMRX9xAmjYK_mUWiHI0G9izIDawM/s1600/4.jpeg" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The US Deptartment of Justice had recently released their Amicus Brief in favour of Led Zeppelin in the now infamous copyright suit, covered <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-copykat.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">herein</a> by the blog. In a latest update to this case, as reported by <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/led-zeppelin-stairway-to-heaven-retrial-879298/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">The Rolling Stone</a>, the case started with a filing by Michael Skidmore, a trustee representing the estate of Randy Wolfe, and this accused Led Zeppelin of stealing the opening guitar riff from Spirits' 1968 instrumental track <i>Taurus</i>. The case is now back in court before an 11 judge bench in the 9<sup>th</sup> Circuit US Court of Appeals. A request to make available the sound recording was made and a claim was brought in by the plaintiff attorney saying that if these were made available, Led Zeppelin would lose out on the case. However the court observed that if the law limited the claim to the 4 corners of the deposited sheet music, and the currentthinking is that the justices feel that on that basis there was no chance the plaintiff could establish an infringement. Led Zepplin's attorney Peter Anderson argued that “<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">There is no similarity between these two songs, but they both combine a scale, little pairs of notes that are in different melody and an eighth note rhythm.” It will be interesting to see how the court proceeds this time, in light of the Justice Deptartmen's Amicus brief.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>5)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></b><b><u>GOOGLE undercuts new EU Copyright Law</u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u></u></span></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy-qnx3Q5QqpRVwTMnP8deEuAay3pxN1yLseD57hiJmgeN5Tyojoi3GakMX111DOhMhDZEA_PwNJz7vGHSrOnEAxxeS0MYM66JPsW_dA_ksCLB2Vbgwwc_K-KNnriIhU5jvKOqoDYbQ_8/s1600/5.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="512" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy-qnx3Q5QqpRVwTMnP8deEuAay3pxN1yLseD57hiJmgeN5Tyojoi3GakMX111DOhMhDZEA_PwNJz7vGHSrOnEAxxeS0MYM66JPsW_dA_ksCLB2Vbgwwc_K-KNnriIhU5jvKOqoDYbQ_8/s320/5.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Google has decided to not pay European Media Outlets to display and use their content on its search engine and Google News platform. It has decided that it will only portray content from those media groups that have allowed free usage of the content. The EU Copyright legislation was brought in to ensure that media companies could get adequate compensation for the display of their items on platforms of these tech giants, however google has played a trump card, mostly propagating free content higher access philosophy. Google’s vice president has announced that it is upon the Europe based news published to decide if it would allow Google to show “snippets” of content or thumbnail images, however there will be no compensation paid for the same. If they don’t allow, only a headline and a bare link to the content will appear in the results. This is a major blow to media organisations which hugely depend on Google for facilitating access and to reach out to more of online audiences. This move by Google has been criticised by the <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/copyright/news/google-is-like-a-digital-dictatorship-says-eu-copyright-rapporteur/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">EU Copyright rapporteur,</a> referncing the move as a 'digital dictatorial' practice, with an intention to create a monopoly. This move makes the situation even worse for the publishers. This move has taken place post French legislating this EU directive in its <a href="https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000038821358&categorieLien=id" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">Domestic Law</a>. In Germany, recently after the EU Directive was complied with, some publishers decided to allow Google to publish their content free of cost, due to a drop in traffic (as hreported by <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/licensing-agreements-with-press-publishers-france-google/?fbclid=IwAR0CjSOBOUrSysgk7oszOymbACtXPZhtQRsIVW8E8Chca5Kzl0eSvUAavlc" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">Politico</a>). In light of this, it will be very interesting to see the implications of the same and how this practice affects the news industry in the future across Europe.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This update by <b>Akshat Agrawal</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "New serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "New serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "New serif";"><br /></span></div>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-52940743502455330012019-09-14T11:38:00.002+01:002019-09-14T11:38:28.777+01:00THE COPYKAT<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyrLz-Z2NHgqLHEYj18ri_xLn5rj8nICayHzUnXshWE_7uVA8V_vkRvcQuCxAINIx0aoezmt7is6ImwpfAIUwfXZ6lVfVACkDR1Xh8_niRcm7ZLuD5agxsAkRarIMTb39BGZLGL0Xb9Ak/s1600/GREASE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="630" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyrLz-Z2NHgqLHEYj18ri_xLn5rj8nICayHzUnXshWE_7uVA8V_vkRvcQuCxAINIx0aoezmt7is6ImwpfAIUwfXZ6lVfVACkDR1Xh8_niRcm7ZLuD5agxsAkRarIMTb39BGZLGL0Xb9Ak/s320/GREASE.jpg" width="168" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The makers of a 'Grease' spoof have gone to the courts in the US seeking confirmation that their show is covered by the doctrine of "fair use" in retaliation to a 'cease and desist' letter from the publishers of the original musical. Grease, made world famous by the 1978 romantic comedy movie starring John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John is based on the 1971 musical of the same name by Jim Jacobs and Warren Casey. Theatre publisher Samuel French, now owned by Concord, represents the rights in the original musical. According to Sketchworks which created the spoof '<i>Vape: The Musical'</i> <a href="https://www.broadwayworld.com/atlanta/article/Sketchworks-Comedy-Parodies-GREASE-in-New-Musical-VAPE-20180907" target="_blank">the new production</a> "uses millennial slang, popular culture, a modern lens, and exaggeration to comment upon the plot, structure, issues and themes of 'Grease' and to criticise its misogynistic and sexist elements". But Sketchworks say their argument that the play was a parody of Grease failed with Concord's lawyers and indeed the theatre that was due to host the spoof was putt off by the cease and desist letter. Sketchworks <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/1187359" target="_blank">now wants</a> "a declaratory judgment of fair use so that it may perform and otherwise exploit 'Vape' without further delay".</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnU5p-tHx1gK5iZIoKIUCQWyHr00BFmw7N9zkESbX6maoUlONwt1GR8Tvl-n0935cdWN8l6R2sYGoE3EVjwu5r8Xi00Ajg0-tZOSLAwXUJQNwBVHR01Wx39UXwYgcAIIa4U-XGbJ7fL-s/s1600/pablo+picasso+buste+de+femme.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1454" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnU5p-tHx1gK5iZIoKIUCQWyHr00BFmw7N9zkESbX6maoUlONwt1GR8Tvl-n0935cdWN8l6R2sYGoE3EVjwu5r8Xi00Ajg0-tZOSLAwXUJQNwBVHR01Wx39UXwYgcAIIa4U-XGbJ7fL-s/s320/pablo+picasso+buste+de+femme.jpg" width="290" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Buste de femme (Dora Maar) by Pablo Picasso</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Federal-judge-rules-for-S-F-art-editor-in-14439019.php" target="_blank">San Fransisco Chronicle reports</a> that the</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> San Francisco art editor who reprinted and sold copyrighted photos of paintings by Pablo Picasso as part of a reference book did have the right to do so under U.S. law - and that means he does not have to pay damages of $2.68 million ordered by a French court. In 2012 the c</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ourt in Paris ruled that Alan Wofsy, had violated a previous order against making any commercial use of the photos, and ordered him to pay damages to the copyright-holder. Nearly 16,000 photos of Picasso’s works, taken from 1932 to 1970, were published in a 22-volume catalog after the artist’s death in 1973. In 1996, Yves de Fontbrune, a Frenchman who had purchased the publisher’s stock and obtained the copyright, sued Wofsy in France for reproducing some of the photos in “The Picasso Project,” a publication he offered for sale at a Paris book fair. Now</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> U.S. District Judge Edward Davila sitting in San Jose has ruled the order is not enforceable in a U.S. court because federal law allows publishers to use copyrighted works for different purposes under the doctrine known as “fair use.” </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Wofsy’s book used less than 10% of the pictures in a photographic material available in a catalogue of Picasso’s paintings, which was intended for a different market and the court found that Wofsy's work did not compete with the catalogue, saying said fair use applies as the new book as the doctrine promotes “criticism, teaching, scholarship and research” by allowing copyrighted works to reach wider audiences with </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Wofsy's legal team saying said the judge recognised that “what he was doing, generating a reference work for libraries, academic institutions, auction houses and art collectors, is different from trying to compete” with the catalog of copyrighted photos.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEwLEYahTCAHV14lzltd686IgW79czM_dlU0XSayhchysbhGrS_THydjABTWVD2j9omQD25_6YcuvwM-70LFqUTuTQQxp4Wj3GvY1EL0etHWDWiHdErlTbyo5C8WEHy0shEbLpl0_SwLM/s1600/DSC_6888.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1588" data-original-width="1172" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEwLEYahTCAHV14lzltd686IgW79czM_dlU0XSayhchysbhGrS_THydjABTWVD2j9omQD25_6YcuvwM-70LFqUTuTQQxp4Wj3GvY1EL0etHWDWiHdErlTbyo5C8WEHy0shEbLpl0_SwLM/s320/DSC_6888.JPG" width="236" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Fitness firm Peloton that was<a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/music-publishers-v-peloton-claimed-copyright-damages-double-300-million-1239448" target="_blank"> recently called out for using unlicensed music</a> and sound recordings in its popular (and profitable) exercise videos has admitted that "the challenges and complexities of music licensing are a key risk to its business". Peleton is facing a lawsuit </span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">from a number of music publishers which alleges that Peleton's fitness videos contain unlicensed songs. Peloton countersued in April, mainly citing competition law arguments. The company is now heading for IPO and the pre-IPO filing states: "Given the high level of content concentration in the music industry, the market power of a few licensors, and the lack of transparent ownership information for compositions, we may be unable to license a large amount of music or the music of certain popular artists, and our business, financial condition, and operating results could be materially harmed" adding that despite "expending significant resources" on music licensing, the complexities of music rights ownership and song licensing meant that it could never be absolutely certain it wasn't "infringing or violating any third-party intellectual property rights" with the music already featuring in videos on its platform. At the time of the </span><a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/03/" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">March lawsuit</a><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> against Peleton David Israelite, president and CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association said “It is frankly unimaginable that a company of this size and sophistication would think it could exploit music in this way without the proper licenses for this long, and we look forward to getting music creators what they deserve.” The claim now stands at $300 million. Image (c) 2018 Ben Challis. </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRYiaJYJPuU-9NTz2quXAJjL3i2oI3c-Eq7BUlnMnU5yq_82AtwmDOjQbTJvK5cBsYbgEIJo8ZSzy_Kgqztwhjt4UiSM5ylAkvAkj34IoyUh93IG-9_-KYBr8-F7f8V9k0KG6BrhbfYRI/s1600/ennio.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRYiaJYJPuU-9NTz2quXAJjL3i2oI3c-Eq7BUlnMnU5yq_82AtwmDOjQbTJvK5cBsYbgEIJo8ZSzy_Kgqztwhjt4UiSM5ylAkvAkj34IoyUh93IG-9_-KYBr8-F7f8V9k0KG6BrhbfYRI/s320/ennio.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://pitchfork.com/news/ennio-morricone-may-reclaim-copyright-to-film-scores-judge-rules/" target="_blank">Pitchfork reports</a> that an appellate court has ruled that iconic film composer Ennio Morricone can reclaim the rights to his film scores. Morricone sued Bixio Music Group in 2016 in an attempt to regain the copyrights to six of his film scores from the late ’70s and early ’80s arguing that his contract with Bixio expired in 2012 using the provisions of the US copyright law that lets authors terminate a trasfer of rights 35 years after a work’s initial publication. The composer reportedly served Bixio a termination notice in 2012, but the company didn’t give their claim. In fact the composer lost at first instance in October 2017 when a New York federal court determined that Morricone’s works should be considered “works for hire” and that would block the composer’s termination rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed that decision, saying the scores shouldn’t be considered “works for hire” in either U.S. or Italian law.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCZYl7bz2TJiqwP3-IYOPV6VSVnRdkUgFmBJGS-DJvszRTs-p-KG7PkHUBPVhTTYHoBd_00_Tof_dkcSGAxeKxq7wFAIgcHH0ULThd6aGZRykXd9-0ndYR23K3hdfamp5-z_X4jgTIGcs/s1600/pipes2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="375" data-original-width="500" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCZYl7bz2TJiqwP3-IYOPV6VSVnRdkUgFmBJGS-DJvszRTs-p-KG7PkHUBPVhTTYHoBd_00_Tof_dkcSGAxeKxq7wFAIgcHH0ULThd6aGZRykXd9-0ndYR23K3hdfamp5-z_X4jgTIGcs/s320/pipes2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And finally, the three major recorded music labels, </span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Universal, Sony, and Warner have issued legal proceedings against a US internet service provider to be found liable for facilitating its customers’ copyright infringement. </span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">In their complaint, the major labels allege RCN Telecom has been aware for years of rampant copyright infringement by its subscribers, thousands of whom they assert include repeat offenders (<i>UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. RCN Telecom Servs., LLC et al., 19-cv-17272 (D.N.J.))</i>. <a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-big-three-sue-an-isp-for-enabling-72739/" target="_blank">JDSupra reports</a> that the federal suit contends RCN has received more than 5 million infringement notices, but turned a blind eye to music piracy by continuing to provide high speed internet to these users. The major labels claim RCN’s inaction facilitated copyright infringement and caused RCN to become a “haven for infringement.” </span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-57974307710091843892019-08-29T10:02:00.001+01:002019-08-29T10:02:08.298+01:00THE COPYKAT<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span lang="EN-US">1) </span></b><b><u><span lang="EN-US">YouTube in the NEWS</span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br clear="none" /></span></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the last fortnight, there have been a couple of extremely interesting developments in the copyright regime operated by the online video platform YouTube.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1cvvXAsQNCSPjtasfxbiVX2A9oUTa3PtwTZhT6FHunFs1b7idbnt0pOEKLLEJa2Mkjda4ZMaXvtgEPwsuR_4CuISwlqbOb6trr2kK-hAf4Es8v521-ucZ-WSOTgZlGjSYpUn54Qu-zqI/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="133" data-original-width="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1cvvXAsQNCSPjtasfxbiVX2A9oUTa3PtwTZhT6FHunFs1b7idbnt0pOEKLLEJa2Mkjda4ZMaXvtgEPwsuR_4CuISwlqbOb6trr2kK-hAf4Es8v521-ucZ-WSOTgZlGjSYpUn54Qu-zqI/s1600/1.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Firstly</span></b><span lang="EN-US">, YouTube has taken a step to forbid manual claims by copyright holders and specifically record companies, which is done to claim revenue upon videos including extremely short music clips or “unintentional music.” Inculcating the importance of quantitative content in a video, YouTube in a </span><a href="https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/08/updates-to-manual-claiming-policies.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US">blog post</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> has revealed this change. The reason provided for the same move reads: “</span>These claims can feel particularly unfair, as they transfer all revenue from the creator to the claimant, regardless of the amount of music claimed.” However, although manual claiming of money has been restricted, the ability to block or disable putting ads on videos using the manual claims tool will still exist. YouTube has gone on to acknowledge that in the short run, this might result in a lot more videos being blocked, however it is pragmatically focussing on the long term impacts. Even “Timestamps” to recognise exactly which part of the video is infringing have been brought in place for all manual claims, for invoking copyright claims in a balanced and fair manner. As reported by <a href="https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/youtube-music-copyright-claims-monetizing-short-clips-1203304462/" target="_blank">V<span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;"><span style="cursor: pointer;">ariety</span></span></a>, if YouTube creators feel that their use of unlicensed content falls within the fair use bracket, they can always dispute the same in the service’s appeals process.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, <b>Secondly</b>, YouTube has resorted to the DMCA to take action and file a suit against a major alleged copyright troll whi they have identified as one Chris Brady, and who YoTube says has been making extraneous and illegitimate copyright claims. The basis of the complaint is that Brady has taken aim at the Minecraft gaming community, alleging several infringing claims against two users - not only to extort money - but to allegedly slander as well as part of the 'trolling'. It has apparently been also reported that these copyright takedown notices were allegedly abusive and involved an element of blackmail wherein the message read that the YouTuber ought to pay Brady 150 $ via PayPal, or another copyright strike would take place. This information was conveyed to YouTube after multiple efforts, finally through another video, upon which YouTube has restored the videos and filed a suit against Bardy. A false accusation suit has been filed. Upon being enquired, as reported by <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/19/20812144/youtube-copyright-strike-lawsuit-alleged-extortion-minecraft" rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #5b9bd5;">The Verge</span></a><span style="color: #5b9bd5;">, </span>YouTube has released a statement that: <i><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">“We regularly terminate accounts of those that misuse our copyright system. I</span>n this case of particularly egregious abuse, where the copyright removal process was used for extortion, we felt compelled to pursue further legal action and make it clear that we do not tolerate abuse of our platform or its users</i>.” An issue highlighted in this system of YouTube is the focus of scrutiny on the accused rather than the accuser. The assumption is an extremely good faith oriented one that focusses on every takedown request being legitimate. It is imperatively needed that a balanced approach is followed for proper implementation of the Copyright system on such vulnerable intermediary platforms.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span lang="EN-US">2) </span></b><b><u><span lang="EN-US">Meanwhile, Spotify catches the attention of the Copyright world, yet again</span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br clear="none" /></span></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There have been two recent occasions when Spotify has hit the (legal) news - and the music streaming platform been on both sides of a lawsuit concerning copyright.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiojXc9w11gBJOKW3dmCg4L6ysVzYF9VwdrUq8Y0I8bfI52GvSXL5gJ9XDFBTxLFhr7fWTAz-rjBzqfp54wEXwEsYItob7DkhnDCKG2MLs_SGfXX4NHS5z1_6di9DYZaYsHV4zFDnSbqpc/s1600/2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="136" data-original-width="371" height="117" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiojXc9w11gBJOKW3dmCg4L6ysVzYF9VwdrUq8Y0I8bfI52GvSXL5gJ9XDFBTxLFhr7fWTAz-rjBzqfp54wEXwEsYItob7DkhnDCKG2MLs_SGfXX4NHS5z1_6di9DYZaYsHV4zFDnSbqpc/s320/2.png" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Firstly, </span></b><span lang="EN-US">on the plaintiff side Spotify filed their appeal, joining Amazon, Google and Pandora, on the Copyright Board’s decision regarding the rates to be paid to sing writers and music publishers under the mechanical rights regime, by digital platforms. The challenge is at its core upon the decision which increases the per song royalty rate from 10.5% to 15.1%. This increase has been brought in the first place to harmonize, to some extent, the American policy, to the prevailing international normative practice followed by various copyright societies. This move has been subject to fair amount of criticism due to the songwriters claiming inadequate payments for exploitation of their creative endeavor. In an attempt to negate the criticism, Spotify and other digital streaming companies have resorted to being okay with the rate change, however, have claimed procedural misconduct on the part of CRB. The core of the claim is on the ground of lack of stakeholder consultation and cross-evidence provision, and not the rate in principle. Further, the publishers have argued that merely offering family plan discounts or student ones do not support the proposition of low willingness to pay for streaming music. It will be interesting to see how the appeal court approaches this. Read more </span><a href="https://completemusicupdate.com/article/spotify-et-al-file-their-appeal-over-the-us-copyright-royalty-boards-song-rate-increase/#targetText=Spotify%2C%20Amazon%2C%20Google%20and%20Pandora,songwriters%20and%20music%20publishers%20Stateside." rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US">here</span></a><span lang="EN-US">.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Now, <b>Secondly, and </b>on the receiving end of a law suit, Spotify, as reported by </span><a href="https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/eminems-publisher-sues-spotify-claiming-massive-copyright-infringement-1203310370/" rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US">Variety,</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> has been sued by Eight Mile Style, the publishing company that hollds the rights to Eminem’s earlier works, for copyright infringement. The major claim revolves around the unlicensed exploitation and streaming of 250 of Eminem’s songs. It has alleged Spotify to have paid a mere fraction of the payments properly due and have remitted such without any license in place. Further Spotify has also been alleged to have mischievously concealed the accreditation of certain well-known songs like “<i>Lose Yourself”</i> claiming inability to trace Copyright holder. Further, an obligation to live up to the responsibilities provided under the Music Modernization Act was emphasized upon, which was not fulfilled by Spotify in the present case. To claim a liability limitation under the Music Modernization act, it is imperative for Spotify to have not known the copyright owner of the composition or the work was unmatched with previous sound recordings, after proper due diligence. This also has been alleged to not have been complied with, in the suit.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br clear="none" /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><span lang="EN-US">3) </span></b><b><u><span lang="EN-US">US Dept. of Justice release Amicus Brief in favor of Led Zeppelin in infamous Copyright Suit</span></u></b><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br clear="none" /></span></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1mWmiTyJuvbNw-BkMYSKjueBU_VAvMMnZZ-C2DqMdRFk8vxo_vIKldcsav0EdL8sQUAPCgBP8sDIpOsUG8xpb0p7tquGS3tV1qDnSVXTdDbj_k423nEsSqTB60JD1a8E-ARD_nIXuQp4/s1600/3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1mWmiTyJuvbNw-BkMYSKjueBU_VAvMMnZZ-C2DqMdRFk8vxo_vIKldcsav0EdL8sQUAPCgBP8sDIpOsUG8xpb0p7tquGS3tV1qDnSVXTdDbj_k423nEsSqTB60JD1a8E-ARD_nIXuQp4/s1600/3.jpeg" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Analyzing </span>the 'thin' copyright provision in the US, the US Deptartment of Justice, giving reasons akin to that of the trial judge, sided with Led Zeppelin in the <i>Stairway to Heaven</i> case. previously covered <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-copykat-in-wake-of-blurred-lines.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-copykat_15.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">here</a> against Randy California, the now deceased songwriter with the band Spirit. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Under old US law (the 1909 Copyright Act), sound recordings weren't conferred protection. Songs were, and pre-1978 unpublished works would be as represented by sheet music. The song at the centre of the copy claim, Taurus, was written by California in 1968. And so surely all that could be used at the trial to determine infringement (or not) was the sheet music? The trial judge concurred. On appeal, the 9th Circuit then decided that the sound recording should have been played plus held that the jury was improperly advised about unprotectable music elements and standards of originality. But the new opinion </span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">relies on the fact that prior to 1972, it was only sheet music that was covered under copyright and audio recording need not be heard by the jury to find out whether there was an infringement or not. The “thin” copyright protection has been emphasized upon. The DoJ's amicus brief goes on to claim that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to overturn the finding of the lower court which stated the compared compositions to not be sufficiently similar for copyright infringement. </span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">T<i>he U.S. government explains that "even if deposit copies do not capture all details of a composition, they generally include the elements of a song, such as the melody and lyrics, that are of most importance to the copyright owner. Failure to incorporate elements such as these in the deposit copy would reflect a failing on the part of the copyright owner or its agent, not an insurmountable obstacle imposed by the statutory scheme." </i>The Amicus Brief argues that the only similarity between the allegedly infringing work and the original is the selection and arrangement of two basic musical elements: an A minor chord and a descending chromatic scale. These have argued to not substantially be the base of the challenge as a small standard selection and arrangement gets a fairly thin copyright protection due to the “creative” standard of Originality being prevalent in the United States. </span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Virtual Identicality needs to be proved, which has not been done in the present case according to the brief. This interpretation as a friend of the court has consciously been taken up the DoJ in order to foster intentional and sound interpretation of copyright laws. It will be interesting to see the force of this brief when ultimately deciding the case, for the second time. The amicus brief can be found </span><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6283238-US-Stairway.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">here</a><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>4) </b><b><u>Victory for Universal Studios in “<i>Nightcrawler” </i>Copyright Case</u></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; padding: 0px;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br clear="none" /></span></u></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4WEQlB1mnebdAbb7ym24hqDW9zYwDX-lhNU4TqgXMymS8uwbS7hQM5P_w3qS_ERsGVZzgGses1zyy1_pcSEoBc-KvT7C3H7ZYke1p8C1IoOtd8ZpXUXLqNUPVV-Ukccr9XDDFIH7MSaA/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="343" data-original-width="220" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4WEQlB1mnebdAbb7ym24hqDW9zYwDX-lhNU4TqgXMymS8uwbS7hQM5P_w3qS_ERsGVZzgGses1zyy1_pcSEoBc-KvT7C3H7ZYke1p8C1IoOtd8ZpXUXLqNUPVV-Ukccr9XDDFIH7MSaA/s320/4.jpg" width="205" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As reported by the <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-tosses-nightcrawler-copyright-lawsuit-1232946" rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">Hollywood Reporter</a>, a Utah Federal judge delivered a summary opinion in the 4 yearlong copyright case dealing with the film <i>Nightcrawler</i>, wherein the accused Oscar winning writer director Dan Gilroy, was alleged to have plagiarised a work by Richard Dutcher called <i>Falling</i>. The judge devised an important precedent recognising certain <i>scenes a faire </i>elements in films and eradicating the same from the scope of the analysis of any copyright infringement. In the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6301221-Nightcrawler.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">opinion</a>, the District Judge held that to establish a copyright claim there are two separate enquiries to be undergoneL The first is whether the defendant factually copied portions of plaintiff’s work, and second being those expressions that have been copied are protectable expressions and important to the copied work, citing <i>Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus Ltd.</i> It is imperative for protected elements to be copied. The abstraction test requires separation of non-protectable ideas and then warrants a mere comparison of the protectable elements. Here the court looked at what elements were “standard, stock, or common” to the <i>stringer</i> (newsman) profession and material that <u>necessarily </u>followed from that theme and setting (citing <i>Autoskill 994 F.2d 1494).</i> The court<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"> held that <i>Falling</i> is not the first film to portray stringers in action and on a review of previous stringer films, it was found that there were no independent claims in Falling that did not exist state of the art. The court held the similarities between <i>Falling </i>and <i>Nightcrawler</i> were (primarily) due to both focussing on the role of the Stringer. Apart from these generic similarities, the court held the plots to be quite different. The court also held the cliché journalistic phrases found in <i>Falling</i> as non-protectable and were scenes a faire expressions. After deducing these elements, the court used the ordinary observer test to eradicate infringement claims, holding the aesthetic appeal to be different.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This CopyKat from<b> Akshat Agrawal</b></span></div>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-48285434876538757232019-08-29T01:39:00.003+01:002019-08-29T10:05:26.860+01:00ReDigi: Distribution of Digital Content via the Internet; Exhaustion of the Right of Distribution; Is a Statutory Licence the Answer?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">REDIGI; DISTRIBUTION OF DIGITAL CONTENT VIA THE
INTERNET; EXHAUSTION OF THE RIGHT OF DISTRIBUTION: IS A STATUTORY LICENCE THE
ANSWER? </span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The appeal decision in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html"><span style="color: blue;">Capitol
Records v ReDigi</span></a></i> issued December 2018 did not attract anywhere near the
same attention as the 2015 trial decision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Presumably this was because audio streaming has largely replaced audio
downloads and consumer demand for a web marketplace facilitating second-hand
sale of such downloads has dissipated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or
possibly, at least so far as lawyers are concerned, because the Court of
Appeals confined its decision (although not its reasoning) to infringement by
reproduction. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The District Court finding
that the first sale doctrine was not drafted so as to apply to distribution
over the internet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nevertheless, the appeal decision was another reminder
that there are still unresolved copyright issues arising from the ‘distribution’
of intangibles such as the delivery of digital files over the internet,
especially at the consumer end of the delivery chain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite the WIPO ‘Internet treaties’
concluded 23 years ago copyright law is still more tuned to distribution of
tangible objects that may constitute or contain copyright works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">For example, the making of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">new</i> copies is an inevitable part of online distribution of digital
content.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And not just for uploads and
downloads, but also for streaming, despite the transient nature of the part
copies created within that technology (to be discussed in an upcoming blog).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Redigi</i>
serves as a reminder that there are fundamental copyright exhaustion issues
which have to be addressed and resolved for the digital world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Should section 109<span style="color: red;"> </span>of
the US Act be amended to ensure first sale of a digital file over the internet
exhausts the distribution right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similarly
in the EU, although their issue must be expressed as: should first sale of
intangible content exhaust the copyright holder’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">communication right</i>?</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As argued at the WCT negotiations in the 1990s the US,
unlike the EU, considered the distribution right included communication and that
they had no need to create a new communication right as had been proposed by
WIPO.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But clearly both the US and the EU
either overlooked first sale exhaustion for internet communicated works or
decided they did not want it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And should jurisdictions that do not have legislation to
exhaust either distribution or communication rights – like New Zealand and
Australia – start reform programmes to achieve this?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Should exhaustion be an international outcome
for a given set of circumstances?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If so should
there be any exceptions?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Exhaustion is primarily a commercial issue rather than a
legal issue. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ReDigi</i> trial court noted a report from the US Copyright Office that
pointed out that second-hand digitised content files remained in perfect
condition, unlike, say, second-hand paper books.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Allowing the sale of perfect digital replicas
by download at a price cheaper than the price required on first sale by the
copyright holder under a first sale doctrine could be seen as a disincentive to
publish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe this was the rationale
for the exhaustion provision in Article 6(1) of the EU InfoSoc Directive being
restricted by the associated Agreed Statement: ‘<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">As used in these Articles, the expressions “copies”
and “original and copies,” being subject to the right of distribution and the
right of rental under the said Articles, refer exclusively to fixed copies that
can be put into circulation as tangible objects.’</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "verdana"; font-size: xx-small;">On the other hand Jessica Stevens at the Queensland
University of Technology </span><a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/98942/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: xx-small;">argues</span></a><span style="font-family: "verdana"; font-size: xx-small;">
for exhaustion of the distribution right even in such a circumstance because she
sees the issue as a cultural or moral one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For example, with university text books becoming digitised the long
established student practice of selling a text book second hand when a course
has been completed has become unlawful. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">The CJEU will soon be deciding on the references to it
from The Court of the Hague in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tom
Kabinet</i> case and giving its further views on exhaustion of the ‘distribution
right’ for second hand sale of eBooks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Tom Kabinet is a Dutch company which is virtually a mirror image of
ReDigi except it trades in eBooks rather than iTunes. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It relies on the 2012 CJEU decision in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">UsedSoft</i> to provide for exhaustion despite
the works it is dealing with not being software and which could be expected to fall
under the InfoSoc Directive (which excludes exhaustion of the communication to
the public right) rather than the Computer Program Directive which contrary to
the WCT does not provide a communication right for software.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The issue is unlikely to be comprehensively
resolved and advocates for exhaustion will no doubt continue to argue for legislative
change to bring the distribution/communication of intangibles into line with
that which applies to tangibles.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">ENTER THE
LICENSING DOMAIN</span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Contrary to the CJEU this blogger is adamant that the
correct legal classification of a commercial transaction resulting in the
delivery of an intangible such as software or digital content over the internet
is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">licence</i> and not a sale.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is surprising that this issue was not
dealt with in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ReDigi</i>, bearing in mind
the structure of Apple’s iTunes agreement. Putting that aside, it is suggested
that exhaustion advocates should adopt and extend the traditional English
common law substitute for exhaustion of IP rights, namely the concept of an
implied licence to ‘resell’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Sir
Robin Jacob stated at the 27<sup>th</sup> Fordham IP Conference, doctrines of
exhaustion of IP rights were unknown in English law and instead it was always
considered that an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">implied licence</i> to
resell ran with the patented or copyright ‘goods’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">It is not just that the written contracts for internet
deliveries are ‘dressed up’ as licences (as the CJEU thought in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">UsedSoft v Oracle</i>) and contain the terms
that are only befitting of a licence, but also that the technological process
for a download necessitates a licence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Unlike the situation for the supply of tangibles where the copyright
holder makes each and every copy which is subsequently delivered to each
acquirer, with internet deliveries it is the acquirer, not the supplier, who
makes the copy he/she will retain for their private use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The internet delivery is facilitated by: (i)
the supplier making a temporary copy on its server, (ii) dividing it up into
packets, (iii) transmitting the packets over the internet to the acquirer’s
computer device where (iv) the received packets are assembled into a digital
file (which is a copy of the one held on the suppliers server) which is (v)
loaded onto the hard disk of the computer device.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The acquirer could not lawfully make this new copy
without a licence from the supplier/copyright holder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The acquirer holds his copy under
licence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has not become his property
by any transfer of title under a sale agreement so as to allow him to do
whatever he likes with it, including selling it second hand. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Having now entered the licensing domain this blogger
suggests that content exhaustion advocates pursue a statutory licence to allow ‘second
hand sales’ of internet delivered content.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">How about statutory provisions vaguely along these lines:</span></div>
<ol style="direction: ltr; list-style-type: decimal;">
<li style="color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><div style="color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A licensed
private user of a copy of content in the form of a digital file has the right
to assign his/her licence from the copyright holder to another private user so
as to allow that user to make a single copy of that digital file, provided:</span></div>
</li>
<li style="color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><div style="color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The first
licensee then immediately deletes his/her copy of the file.</span></div>
</li>
<li style="color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;"><div style="color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Any
term in the copyright holder’s licence which purports to exclude or limit the
operation of sub-section (1) will have no effect.</span><span style="color: red; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></div>
</li>
</ol>
Ken Moonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16881390151826807561noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-12851794285993764612019-08-14T20:31:00.002+01:002019-08-14T20:31:51.065+01:00Copyright make-up tips - How to make a lasting impression<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The 1709 Blog is happy to host this guest contribution by former 1709 Blog team member Hugo Cox (<a href="https://hamlins.com/">Hamlins LLP</a>) on a recent decision of the High Court of England and Wales concerning copyright and make-up.<br />
<br />
Here's what Hugo writes:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Copyright make-up tips - How to make a lasting impression</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><i>by Hugo Cox</i></i></div>
<i>
</i>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
One of the basic requirements for copyright protection in the UK is ‘fixation’ – the work has to have material form. <br />
<br />
But what happens if the work loses its material form? Does the copyright protection disappear too? This question is of some significance to those who create things that do not last, whether they are disposed of, eaten or otherwise annihilated… <br />
<br />
The question has now been decided in <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2019/1473.html"><i>Islestarr Holdings Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd</i></a>, a judgment delivered on 17 June concerning the make-up powder palettes below:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVrvLotJb3zcviXDuWIFA6TYtXAl4-IggtE-ANZ_GiAIw0t9yf3nQly82LQytlb7LHRsu5XlNZ04pZndUwGtAx3l2L9cQ_cEaWexgl9hsljtogZQb0X4WDaecPaA7luIBDhDP-JjbI5uQ/s1600/Picture+1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="575" data-original-width="937" height="392" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVrvLotJb3zcviXDuWIFA6TYtXAl4-IggtE-ANZ_GiAIw0t9yf3nQly82LQytlb7LHRsu5XlNZ04pZndUwGtAx3l2L9cQ_cEaWexgl9hsljtogZQb0X4WDaecPaA7luIBDhDP-JjbI5uQ/s640/Picture+1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Islestarr had been selling its Filmstar Palette since 2013, retailing for about £49 and clocking sales to date of £12.9m. When Aldi began selling its palette for £6.99 (reduced to £4.99), Islestarr sued for copyright infringement, pointing to Aldi’s slogan ‘Like brands, only cheaper’. <br />
<br />
Aldi resisted the claim arguing, among other things, copyright could not subsist ‘in such a transitory medium as the top surface of a powder as the purported copyright work is not thereby fixed.’ <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDGeCtjF1zHvEx-0n3oqmJ-Wc2lAU3DzknklLjyyvV1PDZkRlrykD3fYRzg6DlxIpOB2J3McCt79sJd6rZQGrSzRdkQpk55mTDRFUd9R8bAwUtB2jy6-_U9rzxvI24rBQOTLpgbwsSyp0/s1600/Picture+1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="625" data-original-width="939" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDGeCtjF1zHvEx-0n3oqmJ-Wc2lAU3DzknklLjyyvV1PDZkRlrykD3fYRzg6DlxIpOB2J3McCt79sJd6rZQGrSzRdkQpk55mTDRFUd9R8bAwUtB2jy6-_U9rzxvI24rBQOTLpgbwsSyp0/s320/Picture+1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
The judge took a different view:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I am in no doubt that the design embossed into the powders can be subject to copyright protection in principle. Otherwise, artistic works by, for example, persons who make sculptures out of sand at low water on a tidal beach, which are then washed away, could have no claim to copyright in, say, a pre-construction sketch or photograph of the completed work. Likewise, I can see no reason why the creator of a bespoke wedding cake could not claim copyright in his or her work. The fact that the design in the powders disappears by being rubbed away by the user, does not, in my judgment, affect or remove the copyright protection to which such an artistic work is entitled, as that is as set out as a visual record in Annex 4. In other words, the powders are a three-dimensional reproduction of the two-dimensional object, namely the drawing.</blockquote>
Certainly, this conclusion is aligned with the CJEU’s recent ruling in <i><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-310/17">Levola Hengelo</a></i> on whether the taste of cheese can be protected by copyright. The CJEU reasoned:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Accordingly, for there to be a “work” as referred to in Directive 2001/29, the subject matter protected by copyright must be expressed in a manner which makes it identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity, even though that expression is not necessarily in permanent form.</blockquote>
The judge in our case then determined:<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Though copyright does not protect individual words (such as the words SCULPT and HIGHLIGHT embossed on the powder), copyright did subsist in the presence of the words as part of the overall artistic work.</li>
<li>Though Art Deco has inspired the Islestarr designs and Fabergé and others had manufactured objects decorated with sun rays and diamonds, Islestarr had made their own intellectual choices in creating their designs.</li>
<li>Aldi had admitted being aware of Islestarr’s packaging, there were substantial similarities between the designs and Aldi failed to persuade the judge those similarities did not result from copying.</li>
</ul>
<br />
He therefore decided to award summary judgment against Aldi. <br />
<br />
Transient creations are not, it seems, at least in the eyes of UK copyright law, so transient after all.<br />
<img border="0" src="file:///Users/eleonorarosati/Library/Group%20Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_image002.jpg" /> </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-85003603125930795402019-08-12T10:00:00.000+01:002019-08-12T10:00:05.805+01:00THE COPYKAT - in the wake of "Blurred Lines" - more blurred lines <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There have been two major US decisions in the word of music and sound recordings with a win for Kraftwerk and a loss for Katy Perry, and in the background a third (the Led Zepplin "<i>Stairway to Heaven</i>" case waits for an upcoming an en banc appeal in the Ninth Circuit, and a fourth involving Ed Sheerhan in turn waiting for that decision (<b>Sheerhan v Townsend</b>) with Judge Louis L Stanton acknowledging that as the appeal judges will be considering some copyright technicalities that are very relevant to the 'Thinking Out Loud' action, even if not binding, to proceed with Sheerhan case in "wilful ignorance" of their conclusions would be "folly". </span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX3o8ZrtnAUWwl5OHbYxgqFgcHIxcR5OJVYeuXxImtV_lPC9QwdA-XVq_iCeA95j13AdLWD0HZKDDACD-4EvKSbhQLDzkH5lm3k8nQqPquwASpPJ6bbsP-l9UcWgOgvLL6kRsQD4eP61w/s1600/kraft.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="400" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX3o8ZrtnAUWwl5OHbYxgqFgcHIxcR5OJVYeuXxImtV_lPC9QwdA-XVq_iCeA95j13AdLWD0HZKDDACD-4EvKSbhQLDzkH5lm3k8nQqPquwASpPJ6bbsP-l9UcWgOgvLL6kRsQD4eP61w/s320/kraft.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">First off - sampling: The European Court of Justice <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/top-eu-court-bolsters-music-copyright-protection/" target="_blank">sided with German electronic music pioneers Kraftwerk</a>, ruling that unauthorised sampling of even brief clips of a sound recording can constitute copyright infringement as long as they are recognisable, in a long running case that has added some clarity to how sampling should be treated in the European Union. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Kraftwerk brought the action against hip-hop producers Moses Pelham and Martin Haas in 1999 over the Sabrina Setlur track “<i>Nur Mir</i>”, which revolves around a two-second snippet of Kratfwerk's “<i>Metall auf Metall</i>” used as a loop.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-align: justify;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">In 2012, Germany's Federal Court Of Justice found in favour of Kraftwerk, in part on the basis that Pelham could have easily recreated the sound he sampled, so clipping the snippet out of '<i>Metal On Metal' </i>was just laziness. Four years later the German Constitutional Court overturned that judgement, deciding Pelham's "artistic freedom" had to be considered - and that the negative impact on Kraftwerk caused by the uncleared sample wasn't sufficient to outweigh the sampler's artistic rights. <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/0e566ad2-b211-11e9-8cb2-799a3a8cf37b" target="_blank">The case was then referred to the CJEU</a>.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-align: justify;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Making clear the difference between sampling a recording and copying part (or all) of a song, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar wrote in his opinion "A phonogram is not an intellectual creation consisting of a composition of elements such as words, sounds, colours etc. A phonogram is a fixation of sounds which is protected, not by virtue of the arrangement of those sounds, but rather on account of the fixation itself" adding "Consequently, although, in the case of [other creative works], it is possible to distinguish the elements which may not be protected, such as words, sounds, colours etc, from the subject-matter which may be protected in the form of the original arrangement of those elements, such a distinction is not, however, possible in the case of a phonogram".</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwgSDRC8Dc_rsHASK4_k5MoCMZKT9mv-U7jhVFc53OHtIVJz9vcEGn3fHW9WXFbDWlY5U4z1032PznO3KSQ_zV65AoL6cV7V6mS3SGu0-sVDxBaL9PGLrPq7kdRqdHUFyOeOUThVbFDXk/s1600/katy-perry-dark-horse-capitol-press-image-1100.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="211" data-original-width="400" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwgSDRC8Dc_rsHASK4_k5MoCMZKT9mv-U7jhVFc53OHtIVJz9vcEGn3fHW9WXFbDWlY5U4z1032PznO3KSQ_zV65AoL6cV7V6mS3SGu0-sVDxBaL9PGLrPq7kdRqdHUFyOeOUThVbFDXk/s320/katy-perry-dark-horse-capitol-press-image-1100.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">In the second major case, a jury has now ruled that t<a href="http://musiclawupdates.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-copyright-in-songs-ed-sheeran.html" target="_blank">he Katy Perry song <i>Dark Horse</i> does plagiarise a Christian rap song</a>. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">After two days of deliberations, the jurors concluded that Perry's team had likely heard 2008 release '<i>Joyful Noise</i>' before writing '<i>Dark Horse',</i> and that the latter was sufficiently similar to the former to constitute copyright infringement.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-align: justify;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Both producer Dr Luke, a co-writer on Perry's hit and Perry herself said they had never heard of 'Joyful Noise' nor heard of the artist behind it, the rapper Flame, real name Marcus Gray - before they started work on their song and recording. Gray's team argued that </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">there had been many opportunities for Perry and her co-writers to to have heard 'Joyful Noise' and argued that whilst the copying may not have been deliberate, her team had subconsciously infringed the earlier work. Gray's legal team also also pointed to the </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">similarities between the two songs - each share a distinct musical phrase consisting of four C notes followed by two B notes. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Perry's legal team argued that this was a very common musical phrase that couldn't possibly be protected by copyright. Luke added that if the court did indeed decide that a musical phrase of this kind enjoyed copyright protection, it could set a dangerous precedent that would impede the music making process.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-align: justify;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">They're trying to own basic building blocks of music, the alphabet of music that should be available to everyone," said Katy's lawyer Christine Lepera during her closing arguments in court last week, but the jury has accepted that this was copyright infringement. The case now goes to a penalty phase, where the jury will decide how much Perry and other defendants owe for copyright infringement. Jurors found all six songwriters and all four corporations that released and distributed the songs were liable, including Perry and Sarah Hudson, who wrote the song’s words, Juicy J, who wrote the rap he provided for the song. Other defendants found liable included Capitol Records as well as Perry’s producers: Dr. Luke, Max Martin and Cirkut, who came up with the song’s beat.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtHXxTZLrDkLl6KArGUe91dwVrLlLuCkDfeXEUZMhXUBBgth59j7BK5N41z7dUoVk5JEcCaZsToC-P90K-wsmz9LvO99v5SJXrrkwjZS20jh3omFVEN3f1KAvdBEpjRc_9Q4nZ4yHkpxY/s1600/Led+zeppelin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtHXxTZLrDkLl6KArGUe91dwVrLlLuCkDfeXEUZMhXUBBgth59j7BK5N41z7dUoVk5JEcCaZsToC-P90K-wsmz9LvO99v5SJXrrkwjZS20jh3omFVEN3f1KAvdBEpjRc_9Q4nZ4yHkpxY/s1600/Led+zeppelin.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">A wide array of artists – including Korn, Tool, Sean Lennon, Linkin Park and Jason Mraz have joined the amicus brief submitted in the ongoing ‘<i>Stairway To Heaven’</i> case, supporting the British rock band in their arguments and calling on the judges in the Ninth Circuit appeals court to uphold the earlier ruling that Led Zeppelin did copy ‘Taurus’ when they wrote their 1971 classic. <a href="https://completemusicupdate.com/article/123-artists-speak-out-in-support-of-led-zeppelin-in-stairway-to-heaven-song-theft-case/" target="_blank">In total </a></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://completemusicupdate.com/article/123-artists-speak-out-in-support-of-led-zeppelin-in-stairway-to-heaven-song-theft-case/" target="_blank">123 artists support the amicus brief</a> saying that if the original ruling in the ‘<i>Stairway to Heaven</i>’ case is overturned it could create a dangerous precedent that would be hugely detrimental to songwriting and an assumption that “trivial and commonplace similarities between two songs could be considered to constitute the basis for a finding of infringement” and that this would confuse artists, stifle creativity, and result in “excessive and unwarranted” litigation by artists and lawyers seeking to profit from ambiguities in the law.</span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/katy-perry-led-zeppelin-ed-sheeran-music-lawsuits-865952/" target="_blank">Rolling Stone magazine published the articl</a>e <b><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/katy-perry-led-zeppelin-ed-sheeran-music-lawsuits-865952/" target="_blank">Why All Your Favorite Songs Are Suddenly Being Sued</a>? </b>asking<b> </b>asking w</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">hy is so much music being hit with lawsuits, in a trend a trend that shows no sign of slowing. You can find that here and more comment and analysis <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/02/how-katy-perry-could-have-won-dark-horse-lawsuit/" target="_blank">here (from Professor Edward Lee in the Washington Post</a>) </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Major US broadcasters ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC Universal h<a href="https://www.mediaplaynews.com/networks-sue-online-tv-service-for-copyright-infringement/" target="_blank">ave filed a lawsuit</a> against an upstart online TV service offering free over-the-air digital TV service. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The suit filed in U.S. District Court in New York alleges Locast owner, New York-based non-profit advocacy group Sports Fans Coalition violates broadcaster copyrights streaming content to users for free. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The suit is similar to 2013 litigation brought by studios against Aereo, the defunct OTT service that transmitted digital signals to subscribers via over-the-air antennas. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The litigation also pits broadcasters against AT&T, which owns and operates WarnerMedia — although the telecom is not party to the lawsuit. <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/abc-cbs-fox-nbc-sue-locast-a-free-streaming-app-1228244" target="_blank">More here</a> and <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/31/20748677/locast-streaming-tv-lawsuit-abc-cbs-fox-nbc" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDR4CdGWwQ5gdnR7HFFxzc_UcfSXuxS1uEIheEre3bsgmi-lzf2_Hvz0FbNJJ-0lV3bRjqKBgWHI8JvGH2diIW6KHiorTeIq0t7d3vhisxjTpeGwWr1XymfLfup4Kfa9NWQjX478b0bb4/s1600/banana.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="609" data-original-width="958" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDR4CdGWwQ5gdnR7HFFxzc_UcfSXuxS1uEIheEre3bsgmi-lzf2_Hvz0FbNJJ-0lV3bRjqKBgWHI8JvGH2diIW6KHiorTeIq0t7d3vhisxjTpeGwWr1XymfLfup4Kfa9NWQjX478b0bb4/s320/banana.png" width="320" /></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">And more from the US: <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/banana-costumes-artistic-features-can-be-copyrighted-3d-cir" target="_blank">Bloomberg Law</a> reports that a battle over banana costumes continues in federal court with one manufacturer under order to stop selling full-body banana suits because they likely infringe another’s valid copyright. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a lower court’s order stopping Kangaroo Manufacturing Inc. from selling banana costumes that are confusingly similar to plaintiff Rasta Imposta’s copyrighted design. Rasta’s copyright is valid because it didn’t “monopolize the underlying idea” of a banana, the court said. <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/banana-costumes-artistic-features-can-be-copyrighted-3d-cir" target="_blank">More here</a>. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And finally - copyright notices - serious business yes? It seems not always! <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190730/14320442682/authors-take-copyright-so-seriously-they-hides-jokes-their-copyright-notices.shtml" target="_blank">Techdirt</a> have been doing some digging and have found some very <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190730/14320442682/authors-take-copyright-so-seriously-they-hides-jokes-their-copyright-notices.shtml" target="_blank">amusing notices</a> that certainly do not fit in with the prescribed formats: How about ""<i>No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, cookie jar or spare room... Unless you want to write the whole thing out in green crayon, in which case feel free." and "This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, carried across the country by relay, fired into space, turned upside down, eaten... On pain of death."</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Kraftwerk </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Image </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Nigel Hardy</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> </span><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/92352391@N00/35441036106" style="background-color: white; color: #009eb8; display: inline; font-family: "Helvetica Neue Light", HelveticaNeue-Light, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; outline: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">https://www.flickr.com/photos/92352391@N00/35441036106</a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-37523683003736489792019-08-08T17:14:00.002+01:002019-08-08T18:55:08.001+01:00BOOK REVIEW: Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union by Eleonora Rosati <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUUjjiNA43heFHsk2sl5PfNPThAesUGHSPWvFTIYAytK4goxKVgVkl_jEplc0ggg530lONKjrvvQ_Der5MCnMOzKW15WbruSP8L7hTmBkgmTyzKgcIM2HBAJRvjektsxfT74ccl4bOjMs/s1600/JPEG.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="550" data-original-width="364" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUUjjiNA43heFHsk2sl5PfNPThAesUGHSPWvFTIYAytK4goxKVgVkl_jEplc0ggg530lONKjrvvQ_Der5MCnMOzKW15WbruSP8L7hTmBkgmTyzKgcIM2HBAJRvjektsxfT74ccl4bOjMs/s400/JPEG.jpg" width="263" /></a></div>
<b style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union by Eleonora Rosati </b><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">[Oxford</span><b style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </b><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">University Press, 2019, ISBN: 9780198837176, #pp273, £70.00, h/bk]</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This title focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), primarily its role, action, and its legacy in the area of copyright law. In light of the fact that copyright policy and legislative initiatives have intensified over the past few years, the book provides a thorough overview of the existing copyright framework, together with an exclusive survey that covers two decades of CJEU decisions in this area of the law – up to August 2018. In doing so, it explores all the key and controversial issues in EU copyright from EU reform proposals (value gap, press publishers' right, fair compensation for private copying, and out-of-commerce works) to the impact of Brexit. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As such, the book is presented in three main parts. The first part is looks at the role of the CJEU as an EU institution, the second considers the action of the CJEU and the third part focuses on the CJEU legacy. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Part One: EU harmonization and the functioning of the CJEU </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Chapter one provides an overview of the history of EU harmonisation from the adoption of the 1991 Software Directive and explains the structure, composition and work of the CJEU. It also looks at the references for preliminary ruling, including data on areas of the cases referred to, the referring Member State Courts, intervening Member States, Judges-Rapporteur and Attorney Generals (AG). The research demonstrates the expansive approach to copyright protection, whereby the CJEU tended to agree with the AG opinion when it favoured copyright holders. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Chapter two focuses on the standards consistently applied in copyright rulings using a data-based case law analysis to demonstrate the principles and policies the CJEU have utilised in the development of EU copyright law. The second part of this chapter provides novel statistical analysis that illustrates the relations between such standards. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">B.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Part Two: CJEU Action </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The second part looks at how the underlying principles discussed in Part One play out in specific cases relation to: 1) the construction of economic rights [chapter four], 2) limitations and exceptions [chapter five], 3) enforcement [chapter six]. It delves into the question of whether the CJEU action, which has decreased flexibility at national level and expanded harmonisation, exceeds its competence as an interpreter of EU copyright law. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This part is made up of four chapters. Chapter three demonstrates the CJEU activity that has extended the boundaries of harmonisation further than the legislation alone, building substantially those areas of law beyond the legislative framework. The conclusions drawn show the common patterns of the CJEU in constructing a copyright system based on high-protection, harmonisation and the development of the internal-market. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">C.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Part Three: The Legacy of the CJEU </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The third part focuses on the legacy of the CJEU, specifically from the perspective of the impact on national copyright laws [chapter seven] and of existing case law in the context of current policy discourse around EU copyright reform [chapter eight].</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Chapter seven considers the legacy of the CJEU in view of Brexit, tackling the consequences of leaving the EU and EEA. It argues that even in the event of complete departure, the impact of the CJEU case law would remain relevant, highlighted by the reliance of the UK Courts on the EU Courts and amending domestic concepts accordingly. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Part three concludes with chapter eight highlighting the polarization of the discourse around EU copyright reform. It argues, for example, that the proposals made in the Digital Single Market Directive went against the legislative framework and the interpretations of the CJEU, which need to be taken into account in the discourse of EU copyright reform. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">II.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS RESEARCH</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The goal of the book is to provide readers with a sense of direction of EU copyright cases by rationalising the large number of references to the CJEU and portray an underlying CJEU action in copyright. This is achieved with robust and novel research that sets out the power of the CJEU in shaping EU copyright law to a degree of harmonisation, impact and significance of the decisions. Importantly, it is convincingly argued that harmonisation as and end is not the guiding force of CJEU action, instead it has developed a principle approach to copyright protection. The guarantee of a high level of protection for copyright has allowed the CJEU to develop an expansive protection for copyright and a narrow scope for exceptions and limitations. The need for a fair balance between conflicting interests has also guided the Court to rely on standards such as proportionality and effectiveness, as well as the EU Charter playing an increasingly prevalent role. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Appeal and Audience </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This book makes an important contribution to the literature, as Advocate General Maciej Szpunar (CJEU) explains in the forward: ‘This extremely profound analysis by Professor Rosati of EU copyright protection and relevant Court of Justice decisions constitute uncharted territory, unveiling new information, perhaps never considered, event by members of the Court like myself.’ As such, this book would appeal to anyone interested in European Copyright law, including practitioners, judges, policy makers, academics, researchers and students. The writing style enables the complexities of EU Copyright issues to be understood, providing clarity to a challenging area of law with rigour and ease. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">THERE IS A 20% DISCOUNT AVAILABLE for individual purchases from the OUP website - Quote promotional code ALFLY5F to claim your 20% discount and with the price of this book discounted to £56 (terms apply). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Reviewed by <b>Hayleigh Bosher</b></span></div>
</div>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-33899639404720898862019-07-30T17:46:00.000+01:002019-07-30T17:54:05.629+01:00THE COPYKAT<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Unauthorised sampling - the CJEU adds some clarity</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP3qnwHuhfUdbI5O7KBqwGz8190ZIvFvepFhErrXkxUYsJcpyMkbdfp7ympMtkkwm1gzfHSo3UetH5wA89CoCq3h8D_mQ7tW2dpIeeVvkhy5bDgHFU1hkCryeTzXhJNgDiRXtvCh8Vcdg/s1600/7.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP3qnwHuhfUdbI5O7KBqwGz8190ZIvFvepFhErrXkxUYsJcpyMkbdfp7ympMtkkwm1gzfHSo3UetH5wA89CoCq3h8D_mQ7tW2dpIeeVvkhy5bDgHFU1hkCryeTzXhJNgDiRXtvCh8Vcdg/s1600/7.png" /></span></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The core issue in this all important case between the German electronic music pioneers Kraftwerk and and hip-hop producers Moses Pelham and Martin Haas in 1999 over the Sabrina Setlur song “<i>Nur Mir</i>”, which revolves around thse sample a two-second snippet of Kratfwerk's “<i>Metall auf Metall</i>” used as a loop was whether a license is required for sampling and could non-pursual of the same violate the phonogram producers rights? The AG's opinion which was released in December and 2018 gave an affirmative view to the same arguing that the “reproduction in part” does not require copied portions to be original. The CJEU in its decision (according to <a class="yiv0122327133OWAAutoLink" href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/07/breaking-cjeu-rules-that-unauthorized.html" id="yiv0122327133LPlnk515830" rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">IPKAT</a> and the <a class="yiv0122327133OWAAutoLink" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_5LUmeG7zNbntrey1XrsiUSFmHkDSBxq/view" id="yiv0122327133LPlnk34767" rel="noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">Press Release</a>) has stated that the reproduction of a sound sample by a user even if a very short clip must be regarded as a reproduction in principle “in part” and falls in the realm of the exclusive ownership of the phonogram producer. However the court went on to add that a rational respect towards freedom of artiatic expression in music must be recognised when the sampled portion is creatively played with to the extent that it is unrecognisable to the ear in another phonogram. In that case it won’t be a reproduction. So the CJEU has now said that sampling a sound recording, however short a snippet the sampler takes, needs approval from the copyright owner of the original track and in accordance with the same it held the German Legislation allowing for an exception in the case of sampling as incompatible with the EU law, and it imperative to harmonize this substantive phonogram producers exclusive right irrespective of the fundamental right grounds claimed by the national jurisdiction. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">5 Seconds of Summer accused of copying by Hungarian songwriters</span></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1IiXLZe2zH8FqVH1BpTqx4Y4mNUcKw_TzJo81-HRD40halW7Z17RZQe2e9rqIouuECZ7WOIQBPXKf-mdyBdJUvhT6yy6nNR2cQNgOp-N6jvqmIzq97cVOJRTEryGD_DzAF95tvSEg68I/s1600/1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="173" data-original-width="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1IiXLZe2zH8FqVH1BpTqx4Y4mNUcKw_TzJo81-HRD40halW7Z17RZQe2e9rqIouuECZ7WOIQBPXKf-mdyBdJUvhT6yy6nNR2cQNgOp-N6jvqmIzq97cVOJRTEryGD_DzAF95tvSEg68I/s1600/1.jpeg" /></span></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Moving from sampling to allegations of plagiarism, A Texas court recently saw a case where the Aussie pop group Five Seconds of Summer had been accused of ripping off a 2018 hit called “<i>Younghood”</i> from a song composed by Hungary based musicians David Henderson, David Toth and Peter Ferencz called “<i>White Shadows”</i>. It has been alleged by the applicants that the success of this rip-off has substantially taken to band to new heights virtually single-handedly, as reported by <a class="yiv6044613330OWAAutoLink" href="https://completemusicupdate.com/article/five-seconds-of-summer-accused-of-ripping-off-hungary-based-songwriters-on-youngblood/" id="yiv6044613330LPlnk464114" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">Complete Music Update</a>. </span>It has been alleged that the first melodic phrase of “Youngblood” shares virtual identicality with the similarly placed phrase from “White Shadow” and are both repeated equal number of times in the songs i.e. 4 times. The lay-listener has been used to allege an infringement by the Hungarian composers. It has further been alleged that the worldwide acclaim and substantial revenue which has been garnered by virtue of Youngblood, is a result of exploitation and appropriation and the applicant’s deserve accreditation and compensation in lieu of the same.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Take a listen - w</span><span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">ith the </span><span lang="EN-US">Applicant’s song is here </span><span style="color: black; cursor: pointer; letter-spacing: 0.75pt;"><a class="yiv6044613330OWAAutoLink" href="https://youtu.be/7zMzXQU5dkA" id="yiv6044613330LPlnk293602" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/7zMzXQU5dkA</a> and the a</span><span lang="EN-US">llegedly infringing song here </span><span style="color: black; cursor: pointer; letter-spacing: 0.75pt;"><a class="yiv6044613330OWAAutoLink" href="https://youtu.be/-RJSbO8UZVY" id="yiv6044613330LPlnk564188" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/-RJSbO8UZVY</a> . </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In a second major case, a jury has now ruled that the Katy Perry song <i>Dark Horse</i> does plagiarise a Christian rap song. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">After two days of deliberati</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ons, the jurors concluded that Perry's team had likely heard 2008 release '<i>Joyful Noise</i>' before writing '<i>Dark Horse',</i> and that the latter was sufficiently similar to the former to <a href="http://musiclawupdates.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-copyright-in-songs-ed-sheeran.html" style="color: #33b2f3; cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">constitute copyright infringement</a>.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black; cursor: pointer; letter-spacing: 0.75pt;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black; cursor: pointer; letter-spacing: 0.75pt;"><b style="letter-spacing: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now NIKE sues Kawhi Leonard - claiming exclusive rights on <u>its</u> Logo!</span></span></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black; cursor: pointer; letter-spacing: 0.75pt;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsAG6W_2_kOfQMXXPZBM3ZXRqMMAm8VLJalha1naTNwxVLmQTNNN0U_NX6uUTwhzhML2oP1YujxnWCvIpB3-EAqeEh2zH7L2GyBf53NMPLd0AUnW0Pg-rtebliCyIAqRDEwan5pnn2FiU/s1600/2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsAG6W_2_kOfQMXXPZBM3ZXRqMMAm8VLJalha1naTNwxVLmQTNNN0U_NX6uUTwhzhML2oP1YujxnWCvIpB3-EAqeEh2zH7L2GyBf53NMPLd0AUnW0Pg-rtebliCyIAqRDEwan5pnn2FiU/s1600/2.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Nike has filed a countersuit against NBA star Kawhi Leonard, arguing that it holds exclusive rights to the claw logo that its “talented team of designers” created and claims its distinct from the design that Leonard had sketched and provided to the company, </span><span style="text-align: justify;">his “Klaw” logo, which he had conceived and created in college drawing on his hands. Although it has been admitted by the NIKE legal representatives that Kawhi Leonard had submitted a design, they have gone on to state that it is a false claim that the design was the “Claw” design, as reported in </span><a class="yiv6044613330OWAAutoLink" href="https://www.bendbulletin.com/business/7309120-151/nike-countersues-nba-star-over-logo" id="yiv6044613330LPlnk225368" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer; text-align: justify;" target="_blank">the Bulletin</a><span style="text-align: justify;">. In the form of a counter claim, NIKE has gone on to now allege copyright infringement and breach of contract. This has been done in lieu of the use of the claw design on non-Nike apparel in the NBA finals. Nike had already served notice to Leonard’s lawyers in lieu of the same which was responded with non-agreement and compliance. Nike has further argued as reported in </span><a href="http://nicekicks.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer; text-align: justify;" target="_blank">NiceKicks.com</a><span style="text-align: justify;"> that Leonard had on an earlier occasion claimed that “I drew up the rough draft and sent it over and they made it perfect. They refined it and made it look better than I thought it would ever be, and I’m extremely happy with the final version.” Further, Nike has produced the initial sketch in the court which was given by Leonard which looks like an amateur drawing as has been reported by the Bulletin. Also, Nike does not claim any ownership over this initial rough design, rather merely on the final refined version.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">CASE Act passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee</span></b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjYoaWWvek0k5cF4dkY8vXddxhiH7OezScuH8_3zE7zVQ7DF9ogrGMS8ISHHdu2cwplGQW-nv16vfw9HbeAG3mQpK0uLMmTQYgSFC0dHrys3QUS5Nx98dRmS19TsDS8YphWNqSQjW_hPQ/s1600/3+%25281%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjYoaWWvek0k5cF4dkY8vXddxhiH7OezScuH8_3zE7zVQ7DF9ogrGMS8ISHHdu2cwplGQW-nv16vfw9HbeAG3mQpK0uLMmTQYgSFC0dHrys3QUS5Nx98dRmS19TsDS8YphWNqSQjW_hPQ/s1600/3+%25281%2529.png" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As had been reported by <a class="yiv6044613330OWAAutoLink" href="https://petapixel.com/2019/07/19/major-case-act-copyright-legislation-passed-by-senate-judiciary-committee/" id="yiv6044613330LPlnk228784" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">PetaPixel</a>, the long awaited CASE Act has been passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee - if passed, the bill will go on to establish a small claims court for Copyright Infringement cases in the USA. There is yet to be a full vote on the Senate Floor. Currently, to defend one’s copyright, a direct action needs to be made before the Federal Court which is an expensive and an extremely formalistic procedure. However, this act if legislated successfully would establish a small claims tribunal within the US Copyright Office, simplifying defense of copyrights. The highest amount of damages which can be awarded by this court per infringed work would be $15,000 with the total being a maximum of $30,000. This definitely increases the efficiency and reduces a certain amount of burden on the Federal Court. It will involve the appointment of three full-time Copyright Claims Officers who will look after the same.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">This bill has been extensively supported by the US photographers, illustrators, graphic artists, songwriters and authors as well as bloggers! Even the National Press Photographers Association went ahead to commend the pressing of this act in the Senate by saying “</span><span style="color: #121212;">“This is a very positive step in addressing infringement issues, where previously individual creators felt they had a right with no remedy because of the high cost of copyright litigation”, as reported by PetaPixel. The only criticism which has been drawn however has been upon the unappealable nature of this tribunal and the high amount of $30,000 being involved as a punitive power. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #121212;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It will be interesting to see the voting view taken by the Senate floor.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">DailyMotion denied safe harbour protection</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimtJlLmepVklcM16bveplpBTKcw3npbfNoGl0wCvR6hIfu2QRaFrynwYe81DtB82x6aK3kDOU-xRu4uJi1T29R1ldsV3yRfoo8iEZFQO7hcXYNEcEW2pC3cgkckLPIo5enCKbFcniAG8Q/s1600/4+%25281%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="95" data-original-width="531" height="57" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimtJlLmepVklcM16bveplpBTKcw3npbfNoGl0wCvR6hIfu2QRaFrynwYe81DtB82x6aK3kDOU-xRu4uJi1T29R1ldsV3yRfoo8iEZFQO7hcXYNEcEW2pC3cgkckLPIo5enCKbFcniAG8Q/s320/4+%25281%2529.png" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Dailymotion has been ordered to pay €5.5m in damages to Italian broadcaster Mediaset with the Rome court saying that Dailymotion was “entirely aware” of copyright infringement. </span>As reported by <a class="yiv6044613330OWAAutoLink" href="https://completemusicupdate.com/article/italian-court-says-dailymotion-doesnt-qualify-for-safe-harbour-protection/" id="yiv6044613330LPlnk850259" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">Complete Music Update</a>, in a case brought in by the Italian TV company RTI against Dailymotion, it was argued by the applicant that Dailymotion should be held liable for hosting copyright infringing content without a license, involving programmes of the applicant. The take-down commitments were fulfilled by Dailymotion, and upon serving a notice, it had taken down such alleged infringing material. However, the Rome Court, absolved the safe harbour protection available to such intermediaries like Dailymotion as it did not fulfil the criteria set out in the EU E-Commerce directive, which is the origin point of the EU Safe Harbour norms. It has been ruled to be an “Active Host”. For failing to have a filtering mechanism and a system to automatically remove all such infringing content, Dailymotion has been asked to pay 5.5 million euros in damages. This has greatly increased the responsibility of a user-upload based intermediary platform and has reduced the standard from actual knowledge to mere presence. The courts of Rome have further refused to involve the European Court to confirm and clarify the interpretation and applicability of the EC Directive. It has been held that the right holder did not have an obligation to provide URL’s for the content that the platform should remove in its take down request and a simple indication in the title of the video would be sufficient. This seems all the more as an absurd and a non-sustainable interpretation and it will be interesting to see how this case turns out in lieu of the pending cases on the interpretation of Article 14 of the EC Directive in the CJEU. Although, this decision has been hailed by Italian media Conglomerate wherein it has reportedly been stated by its Chief Executive that: <i>“Today’s decision is therefore an authentic turning point in consolidated national and EU jurisprudence (repeatedly referred to by the Court in the judgment in question) aimed at protecting the work of publishers, which is under attack by diverse forms of online piracy: A phenomenon that destroys both economic value and jobs in journalism and publishing companies.” </i>(Reported by <a class="yiv6044613330OWAAutoLink" href="https://www.ibc.org/monetise/dailymotion-to-pay-mediaset-55m-for-copyright-infringement/4123.article" id="yiv6044613330LPlnk638798" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">IBC 365</a>). More on this in the <a class="yiv6044613330OWAAutoLink" href="https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/07/rome-court-finds-videosharing-platform.html" id="yiv6044613330LPlnk485953" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">IPKAT.</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-US"><b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The functionality doctrine revisited in the Lego’s Copyright dispute against its British Competitor</span></span></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifPKjt2RNOokZetG-xF88ELYqKNiv55LRjpebmCl1SbzZqn-zsEAbYtgsZCjkebJSNUA1QwfzciVz7g4t8AVLLjlmrFrZJyFUYXpAfhHoKYv3ePbyjcY_e7AUgqBadFpir8yadvZ-YNv8/s1600/5.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifPKjt2RNOokZetG-xF88ELYqKNiv55LRjpebmCl1SbzZqn-zsEAbYtgsZCjkebJSNUA1QwfzciVz7g4t8AVLLjlmrFrZJyFUYXpAfhHoKYv3ePbyjcY_e7AUgqBadFpir8yadvZ-YNv8/s1600/5.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The world famous toy maker from Denmark, Lego, has successfully won a copyright infringement suit against a British competitor in the US District court for the District of Connecticut. This dispute was launched in 2011 when Lego had sued Best-Lock for producing and selling infringing minifigurines. It was alleged, as reported by <a class="yiv6044613330OWAAutoLink" href="https://www.worldipreview.com/news/lego-wins-copyright-dispute-against-british-competitor-18401" id="yiv6044613330LPlnk667518" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">World IP review</a>, that Best Lock’s advertisements had highlighted the well-known interchangeability of its figures and body parts with Lego’s. The main argument of the defendant in this case was the elements of Lego’s copyrighted work being functional. The court after confirming access, went on to conclude that the fact that some elements of the work are functional doesn’t render the whole work as non-copyrightable. The court said: </span></span><i style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“A comparison of the works makes clear that Best-Lock has copied protectable, expressive elements that are original to Lego” </i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Remember the case of</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><i style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderbund_Software_Inc._v._Unison_World,_Inc." target="_blank">Broderbund Software v. Unison World</a></i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">?</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Copyright Protection of Military Reports, of national importance</span></span></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8hdInVFHlIgc9qRekjyBSgNqBWrVXYreAVoIJt9zLwJ30c6HdPXJAm2gjHGVyXj1huOcvuYLx10M7ROAk0c5l3MgUkpN68Fkltcup42LSMHEpqu48Qf0TAhhKiwVnl9qazFD_jVg7vkg/s1600/6.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="176" data-original-width="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8hdInVFHlIgc9qRekjyBSgNqBWrVXYreAVoIJt9zLwJ30c6HdPXJAm2gjHGVyXj1huOcvuYLx10M7ROAk0c5l3MgUkpN68Fkltcup42LSMHEpqu48Qf0TAhhKiwVnl9qazFD_jVg7vkg/s1600/6.jpeg" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In a very important opinion issued by the CJEU on a reference made in context of litigation between the German Government and a newspaper over unauthorized publication of “Afghanistan papers” and certain confidential reports, wherein the question of interplay of Copyright and Freedom of Press was brought in before the CJEU. Basically, the question was can freedom of expression and information be a valid defense for copyright infringement? The AG opinion reflected reluctance in admitting copyrightability of military reports. However, the CJEU has gone on to rule that Freedom of Information and press are not justifiable grounds to derogate from rights of copyright holders beyond exceptions set out itself within the InfoSoc directive. The concept of external limitations is not viable in law. As on the question of whether military reports are copyrightable in the first place, the court went on to hold that it is upon the national courts to decide whether the conditions of copyrightability and intellectual creation showing free and creative choices are there in these reports or not. If fulfilling the criteria of being a “work”, no justification in the form of freedom of information is sustainable.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">The court went on to finally hold that: </span><i>“As is clear from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, for the purpose of striking a balance between copyright and the right to freedom of expression, that court has, in particular, referred to the need to take into account the fact that the nature of the ‘speech’ or information at issue is of particular importance, inter alia in political discourse and discourse concerning matters of the public interest. In those circumstances, having also underlined the way in which Funke Medien published the military status reports on the internet, the Court of Justice states that it is not inconceivable that such use may be covered by the exception concerning current events reporting provided for in the Copyright Directive.” </i>More on this once the judgment is available on <a class="yiv6044613330OWAAutoLink" href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/07/breaking-cjeu-rules-that-freedom-of.html" id="yiv6044613330LPlnk354316" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: blue; cursor: pointer;" target="_blank">IPKAT</a>.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And finally - trolls get a bashing</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A High Court Judge has torn apart a trolling application made against Virgin subscribers in the United Kingdom - D<span style="background-color: transparent;">ouglas Campbell QC's can be found on <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/high-court-slams-brakes-on-new-uk-copyright-trolling-effort-190718/" target="_blank">TorrentFreak and is well worth a read</a> - here's a snippet: "</span><span style="background-color: transparent;">“<i>I do not accept that I should simply assume that a 9 year old expert report remains up to date, particularly one given in the field of computer software,” </i>the Judge commented, noting that the report also lacked the required “statement of truth” to comply with civil procedure rules ...<i>.. . </i></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This Copykat by <b>Akshat Agrawal</b></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-73156322924834626912019-07-30T12:19:00.000+01:002019-07-30T12:19:09.124+01:00Copyright Infringement Suit Against Supermodel Gigi Hadid Dismisssed<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:DoNotShowComments/>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="371">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Judge Pamela K. Chen from the Eastern District
Court of New York dismissed on July 18 a copyright infringement suit filed by
XClusive-Lee, Inc. against supermodel Gigi Hadid, claiming that a picture she
posted on her Instagram account was infringing.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Hadid’s Instagram account currently has almost
49 million followers, interested in viewing family pictures, fashion magazines
cover featuring Hadid, fashion shoots and fashion photographs. Hadid posted in
October 2018 a cropped version of a photograph of her taken the day before by a
paparazzi outside <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.vogue.com/article/a-force-for-change-vogues-forces-of-fashion">Vogue’s
Force of Fashion conference</a></span>, where Hadid was part of a <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.vogue.com/article/forces-of-fashion-models-kendall-jenner-gigi-hadid-ashley-graham-paloma-elsesser">panel</a></span>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The original version of the photograph showed
Defendant wearing a denim jacket and shorts, a small handbag, high heels,
jewelry and make up, smiling at the camera in an outdoor urban setting,
probably outside the New York City studio where the conference took place. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The photo posted by Hadid on social media
was cropped mid-thigh. She added as comment:”<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all smiles post #ForceOfFashionpanel @voguemagazine.wearing
#messikabygigihadid mini-cuffs and mono earing</i>”, referring to a line of
jewelry bearing her name which is sold by a French jeweler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “mono earrings”referred to in the post
retail at $5,710. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Xclusive-Lee, Inc., the company which owns
the copyright to this photograph, filed a copyright infringement suit against
Hadid in January 2019, claiming Hadid “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">copied
and posted Copyrighted Photograph to Hadid’s Instagram account without license
or permission from Xclusive-Lee</i>.” It claimed that it was entitled to
statutory damages, including any profits realized by Hadid attributable to the infringement,
pursuant to <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411">17 U.S.C. § 504</a></span>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">As a reminder, a work is protected by
copyright, if it is fixed in a tangible medium and if it is original enough,
even if it is not registered. However, a registration is required if filing a
copyright infringement suit, and the Supreme Court recently held in <span class="MsoHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4728796451311095418&hl=en&as_sdt=40006">Fourth
Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street. Com LLC<span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></a></i></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>that </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411">§<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> 411(a) of the Copyright Act</span></a></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">
requires that</span><span lang="EN-US"> copyright registration occurs “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">only when the Copyright Office grants
registration</i>” (at 888).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">At the time of filing the suit, Plaintiff
had applied for a copyright in the photograph, but had not been granted
registration. Plaintiff argued that it had filed the copyright infringement
suit before the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fourth Estate</i>
decision, but the EDNY rejected the argument as the Court cannot decline
applying a Supreme Court decision “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">merely
because the Supreme Court decision was issued after the filing of the compliant
at issue in this case.”</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The case was dismissed because the
photograph was not registered with the Copyright Office. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">That said, posting a photograph protected
by copyright on Instragram without permission is copyright infringement. The
Complaint noted that Hadid’s Instagram account featured several examples of “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">uncredited photographs of Hadid in public,
at press events, or on the runway</i>” and that “[<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">m</i>]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ost if not all of these
photographs were posted by Hadid without license or permission from the copyright
holder</i>.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Could it be fair use? Hadid may have used
this photograph in order to contribute to the promotion of her jewelry line.
Therefore, the character of the use, one of the <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/">four fair
use factors</a></span>, may have been for commercial gain, not for the sake of
commenting or news reporting for the Vogue conference. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The second factor, the nature of the work,
would probably be in Hadid’s favor, as it is not very creative. Hadid did not
use all of the work, but cropped it, but she nevertheless substantially used
the work, and so the third factor could have been in Plaintiff’s favor as well.
The fourth factor, the economic effect on the value of the work, measures the
effect of the use on the market. The picture could be licensed to be used on
her Instagram account in order to promote a commercial line, and so it is
possible that the fourth factor would have been in Plaintiff’s favor. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">It could it be argued that this
particular photograph was not protected by copyright, as a work must be
original enough to be protected. The photo was taken in the streets of New
York, and must have been taken quickly, thus leaving little time for the
photographer to make choices. Hadid deftly takes the pose, and it can be argued
that it is her professional experience which contributed to the picture being
original, unless the pose was directed by the photographer. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">If a copyright registration had been
granted before filing the case, the suit would likely not have been dismissed,
as fair use is fact-based and thus is unlikely to be decided when granting a
motion to dismiss.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">However, if a copyright registration is
mandatory for filing a copyright infringement suit, the Copyright Office may
start to examine more closely whether a particular work is indeed original
enough to be protected by copyright…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Take-away: Plaintiff must have a valid
copyright registration before filing a copyright infringement suit. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-23674657341364579232019-07-16T11:15:00.002+01:002019-07-16T11:20:09.607+01:00THE COPYKAT<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia6NRHgDPibeTSbXaTQew7aBkJPsc0YilNfydoWbV33iLyhS1YE6nNgbb10Xb_WjT0PtkxNjwCg47Q8DyCTVXfAnZB_05UNBPJ1RWKWUSErPmRp34iwf6hL_1axxE8842hsZHu0JjEU9M/s1600/copyright-registration-attorney-application-los-angeles.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia6NRHgDPibeTSbXaTQew7aBkJPsc0YilNfydoWbV33iLyhS1YE6nNgbb10Xb_WjT0PtkxNjwCg47Q8DyCTVXfAnZB_05UNBPJ1RWKWUSErPmRp34iwf6hL_1axxE8842hsZHu0JjEU9M/s320/copyright-registration-attorney-application-los-angeles.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The United States Copyright Office has chosen the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) as the new entity tasked with licensing and administering rights under the Music Modernization Act. The MLC is seen as the 'establishment choice' in the music rights industry and is backed by the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), the Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI), and the Songwriters of North America (SONA). <a href="https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/nmpa-backed-mechanical-licensing-collective-mlc-approved-by-us-copyright-office/" target="_blank">Music Business Worldwide reports</a> that One of the group’s first tasks will be the negotiation of a budget with streaming services who, by law, must fund the collective. It will also include setting up administration and matching services and development of a user portal through which publishers and songwriters will be able to manage rights and royalties. If a funding agreement cannot be voluntarily determined, the MLC and the digital services will go before the Copyright Royalty Board which will set the MLC’s budget through an assessment proceeding.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhthEuMwjkh5RWeEmuso4LVhpcLj2zRFgryXkMI2qp-78KK2Nwkuig47HjtYzgjpqxU0UzjiAhwOLRolMhnqNGp9nJ-P5D1YR2HqOOpca8JzUYxqzlJBmvFXR0UsFveDRUzif8l2Lg6EdQ/s1600/pen-spinning-MANGA-free.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="960" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhthEuMwjkh5RWeEmuso4LVhpcLj2zRFgryXkMI2qp-78KK2Nwkuig47HjtYzgjpqxU0UzjiAhwOLRolMhnqNGp9nJ-P5D1YR2HqOOpca8JzUYxqzlJBmvFXR0UsFveDRUzif8l2Lg6EdQ/s320/pen-spinning-MANGA-free.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/700382/bi-arrests-one-of-japan-s-most-wanted-for-copyright-infringement/story/" target="_blank">GMA reports</a> that Japan's</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Bureau of Immigration (BI) has arrested a fugitive who is said to be one on Japan's "most wanted" list - for copyright infringement. the BI press release says that </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Romi Hoshino alias Zakay Romi, a Japanese-German-Israeli fugitive, was arrested at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The BI said Hoshino, 28, manages "Manga-Mura," allegedly an illegal viewing website of Japanese comics or graphic novels, popularly known as manga, that operated from January 2016 to April 2018. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">n what is said to be the worst violation of Japan's copyright law, Manga-Mura's operation allegedly cost 320 billion yen or US$2.9 billion in damages, the Bureau reported, citing Japanese authorities.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUEP0dVxGebNz1fPGN-mWXNtp3yMOPMiS__E-VZry5AmhTQoweUaP2WXyi48Rht9RK5l1Q0D6C6E44YABM9cr8_O0tsdI45kqXv9l98MLJhwhGs8YYy9tWGW438t1r17IxZpEQaYP5q1c/s1600/COPYRIGHT+TROLL+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="232" data-original-width="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUEP0dVxGebNz1fPGN-mWXNtp3yMOPMiS__E-VZry5AmhTQoweUaP2WXyi48Rht9RK5l1Q0D6C6E44YABM9cr8_O0tsdI45kqXv9l98MLJhwhGs8YYy9tWGW438t1r17IxZpEQaYP5q1c/s1600/COPYRIGHT+TROLL+1.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://boingboing.net/2019/07/12/rot-you-bastard.html" target="_blank">BoingBoing reports</a> that attorney </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">John Steele, one of the Prenda law copyright 'trolls', has been sentenced to 5 years in prison. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Last month, Paul Hansmeier was sentenced to 14 years in prison and ordered to pay $1.5m in restitution for his role in the firm that BoingBong says "used a mix of entrapment, blackmail, identity theft, intimidation and fraud to extort millions from its victims by threatening to drag them into court for alleged infringement of copyright in eye-watering pornography". </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Steele cooperated with authorities, while Hansmeier fought the system for longer before entering a plea. Like Hansmeier, Steele has to pay $1.5m in restitution. Both men have also been disbarred. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Hansmeier is appealing both the conviction and the sentence. In August 2015 a third Prenda law attorney, Paul Duffy, died. Along with Steele and Hansmeier, <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/prenda-linked-copyright-trolling-lawyer-paul-duffy-dead-at-age-55/" target="_blank">Judicial sanctions had been upheld</a> against him by</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for engaging in “abusive litigation” and failing to pay attorney's fees in a porn-downloading lawsuit. In June that year US District Judge David Herndon ruled that Steele and Duffy had "engaged in unreasonable, willful obstruction of discovery in bad faith" in its case. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And whilst on the fruity topic of trolls, The Electonic Frontiers Foundation has warned that the new Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act would "supercharge" a “copyright troll” industry. <a href="http://www.ippromagazine.com/ippromagazinenews/article.php?article_id=6886" target="_blank">IPPro reports</a> that </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The CASE Act aims to make it easier for independent creators to better defend their IP from theft, and was proposed in May by Democrat congressman Hakeem Jeffries and Republican Doug Collins - and it has had wide support from the creative industries, <a href="https://www.ppa.com/articles/case-act-making-moves-in-the-house" target="_blank">in particular photographers</a> and songwriters, musicians <a href="https://copyrightalliance.org/news-events/copyright-news-newsletters/copyright-small-claims/" target="_blank">and artists</a>. But t</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he EFF argues that the bill would increase the number of trolls filing “many ‘small claims’ on as many internet users as possible in order to make money through the bill’s statutory damages provisions”. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Under the bill, the US Copyright Office would gain a Copyright Claims Board, which would reduce costs and easing the burden for creators defending their intellectual property. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The legislation would allow the Copyright Office to create a determination process for claims seeking up to $5,000 in damages which the EFF suggest is a "most</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> trivial nod towards due process”. There again, many in the creative sector argue that the </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">CASE Act "addresses a decades-old inequity in America's copyright system: a copyright system that all too often denies individual creators and small businesses a viable means of protecting their creative efforts. When it passes, the bill will give smaller individual creators the same kind of protections that larger scale creators have enjoyed for years."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH5ooKWYRmuVJrpeibb1wR9BF6A95Ix9Sj-nri7QE6Aei1PSgbDu3LVJHxDHQyUN34o-LVo6pW2OAzUxX9a1cIemDLluEc7J5iRW-6E5qN1IqmVJ9pbrKDt6etpxTvX2-5ulYD4oTlyso/s1600/youtube-logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="142" data-original-width="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH5ooKWYRmuVJrpeibb1wR9BF6A95Ix9Sj-nri7QE6Aei1PSgbDu3LVJHxDHQyUN34o-LVo6pW2OAzUxX9a1cIemDLluEc7J5iRW-6E5qN1IqmVJ9pbrKDt6etpxTvX2-5ulYD4oTlyso/s1600/youtube-logo.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">YouTube has been </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">updating its ways of handling copyright claims with changes that give the owners of the copyrighted content more control over their content - much to the horror of some YouTube users and creators who use other people's content in their work. - but to the delight of others. <a href="https://boingboing.net/2019/07/12/rot-you-bastard.html" target="_blank">Digital Information World</a> says "With the new policies, owners of any copyrighted content will now exactly mention the part in the video where the copyrighted material appears. With this feature, they can easily verify whether the claim is legitimate or not and to edit out the content if they don’t want any issues like losing revenue or having the video taken down. With this new update, the whole system will be more clear and very smooth to operate. Video creators will be able to see the part that’s been claimed, and YouTube will allow them to mute the audio during that portion or to easily replace the audio with any free-to-use song from YouTube’s library. If they chose any of these options, the copyright claim will automatically be removed." In February <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/11/18220032/youtube-copystrike-blackmail-three-strikes-copyright-violation" target="_blank">The Verge reported</a> that an anonymous blackmailer has caught at least two YouTube creators in a scheme involving cash ransoms and "esoteric copyright laws". B</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">oth creators shared stories of how their channels were being threatened with a third copyright strike — and the possible termination of their channels — from an anonymous extortionist. The scammer offered to reverse the strikes in return for payment to a bitcoin wallet or to an adjoining Paypal account.</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> YouTube now requires copyright owners to <a href="https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/youtube-revamps-manual-copyright-claims-1203263607/" target="_blank">provide timestamps</a> for all new manual Content ID claims. and </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">YouTube said in a blog post that it’s going to be vigilant about policing false claims: “We’ll be evaluating the accuracy of these timestamps. Copyright owners who repeatedly fail to provide accurate data will have their access to manual claiming revoked.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01868498334405853494noreply@blogger.com0