The Japan Times says that architects whose design for the original 2020 Tokyo Olympics stadium was scrapped due to ballooning costs say they have rejected a request to give up the copyright to their plans in return for an overdue final payment. U.K. based Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) was chosen in an international contest to build the main Tokyo stadium, but the much-criticized futuristic design was dropped last year. A design by Japanese architect Kengo Kuma with a price tag of ¥149 billion ($1.27 billion), as opposed to an estimated ¥252 billion for Hadid’s plans, was chosen last month instead.
A copyright suit filed against rapper 50 Cent over his 2007 hit “I Get Money” has been dismissed. The plaintiff, Tyrone Simmons (aka Young Caliber) filed papers against 50 and the song’s producer William Stanberry in 2010, claiming they had infringed on his rights to use the instrumental for “I Get Money”, reported Billboard. Simmons also named Universal Music Group, Interscope Records and Aftermath Entertainment as defendants.
Officials at the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled the case was “time-barred” adding Simmons had waited beyond the allowed three years to file the suit. More here.
Beastie Boys have resolved their lawsuit that accused the energy drinks company Monster Beverage Corp of using excerpts from five of the hip-hop group’s songs without permission in a video promoting a Canadian snowboarding competition. Capitol Records and Universal-Polygram International Publishing settled a related lawsuit against Monster over the same video. The terms were not disclosed. Orders dismissing the cases were filed in two Manhattan federal courts but it appears Monster dropped its appeal of a $1.7 million jury verdict and an award of $667,849 in legal fees which resulted from the Beastie Boys’ lawsuit.
Readers will no doubt remember the epic battle between Supap Kirtsaeng, who built a business on eBay buying textbooks in Asia and reselling them to students in the US, and academic publisher John Wiley & Sons who took action against him. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court who ruled in favour of Kirtsaeng under the first sale doctrine, but he's going back to the Supreme Court to try and get his attorney's fees paid by Wiley, having been rejected by both the district court and the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Why? Well Kirtsaeng's petition says this: "Had Kirtsaeng prevailed in the Ninth or Eleventh Circuit, he would have obtained his reasonable attorneys’ fees. Had he prevailed in the Fifth or Seventh Circuits, he would have had a rebuttable presumption in favor of obtaining his attorneys’ fees. Had he prevailed in the Third, Fourth, or Sixth Circuits, Kirtsaeng very likely would have obtained his attorneys’ fees. Unluckily for Kirtsaeng, Wiley sued him in the Southern District of New York, and so when Kirtsaeng prevailed, he prevailed in the Second Circuit, where Second Circuit precedent meant Kirtsaeng could not obtain his attorneys’ fees."
And finally, and this is no laughing matter, we have a very interesting article from US attorney Dylan Price on .... wait for it ...... the potential for the infringement of copyright in jokes. As Dylan says, the case in question is a surprisingly rare foray into humour by the courts, but he tells is that last summer, comedian Robert Kaseberg filed a copyright infringement suit against Conan O’Brien, among others, alleging that O’Brien incorporated four jokes written by Kaseberg in the opening monologues of his television show “Conan.” According to the complaint, Kaseberg published each of the jokes – all of which were based on then-current events and news stories – on his personal blog and Twitter feed on various dates between January and June, 2015, only to have O’Brien feature the same jokes in his monologues on the same respective dates. The case has yet to get to court by Dylan gives us a thorough review of the position of jokes under copyright in US law - in particular the decision Foxworthy v. Customer Tees, Inc., 879 F.Supp. 1200 (N.D. Ga. 1995) and its well worth a read on the Sheppard Mullin IP Law Blog here.
Perfect 10, the adult magazine and now online company, which had previously litigated against the likes of Google & Amazon, CCBill, Megaupload and Visa amongst many others, and which is often tarred with the 'copyright troll'' moniker, has suffered a bit of a set back in its litigation quest after a U.S. judge ordered the company to pay $5.6 million in legal fees and costs (Perfect 10 v. Giganews). Judge Andre Birotte Jr's judgment is a educational read on just why the Company faced such substantial fees and costs, and perhaps the background is a good place to start for this explantion: The judge noted that the action has involved more than 30 noticed motions, including a motion for change of venue, two motions to dismiss, three Daubert expert witness motions eight motions for summary judgment, and multiple discovery and sanctions motions. The docket in this action includes nearly 700 entries and exceeded 38,000 pages.
The Judge confirmed the award of fees and costs, not least as the almost complete success enjoyed by the defendant "weighs heavily in support of an award of attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act. On each of Perfect 10’s three theories of copyright infringement, Defendants won unqualified victories: Livewire defeated Perfect 10’s claims of secondary infringement at the pleading stage without leave to amend, and Defendants won on each of Perfect 10’s remaining claims on summary judgment. This sort of complete victory on the merits is significant" . Including a very interesting review of the nature of 'frivolous' claims, the judge puts out what might be seen as an interesting warning to other 'trolls': "All of the evidence before the Court demonstrates that Perfect 10 is in the business of litigation, not protecting its copyrights or “stimulat[ing] artistic creativity for the general public good.” Fogerty I, 510 U.S. at 527."
Noting that Perfect 10 seemed to be run as a tax loss entity, the judge also noted "The evidence before the Court also demonstrates Perfect 10 continued that pattern in this litigation, which, as the Court previously noted, has been inconsistent with that of a plaintiff interested in actually protecting its copyrights from unauthorized use." He finally went on to consider the last 'Fogerty' factor, considerations of compensation and deterrence, of which which the judge said "weighs in favor of an award of attorneys’ fees under section 505. This aspect of the Fogerty analysis recognizes that “[d]eterring nonmeritorious lawsuits against defendants seen as having ‘deep pockets’ and compensating parties that must defend themselves against meritless claims are both audible ends”.
Judge Birotte ended this section of his judgment with this "In light of Perfect 10’s well-documented improper motive in bringing suit (see section III.A.1.c, above), the Court has little concern that an award of attorneys’ fees in this action will discourage “starving artists” from protecting their copyrights. If anything, it will discourage serial litigants from bringing unmeritorious suits and then unnecessarily driving up litigation costs in order to drive a settlement. Such a result is entirely consistent with the purpose of the Copyright Act, and this factor weighs in favor of an award of attorneys’ fees."
The judge also took time to comment on what he clearly regarded as another spurious argument from Perfect 10's - that it shouldn't have to pay legal fees because it is was in effect insolvent and heavily in debt. The court noted that Perfect 10 has been making this same exact claim for years in almost every case it had brought, and that president and CEO Norman Zada seemingly ran the business as a tax write off, making it somewhat unbelievable as a defence to meeting costs: As TechDirt notes, Perfect 10 admits that it has likely “never been solvent” in more than 15 years of operation.... Indeed, Perfect 10 has repeatedly reported that it was on the verge of bankruptcy. See, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, ... (noting Perfect 10’s argument the same year this action was filed that Perfect 10 was “very close to bankruptcy”). That is, despite the fact that Perfect 10’s primary business is copyright litigation: "Perfect 10 effectively argues that it could never be subject to any attorneys’ fee award under the Copyright Act because it is perpetually in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy. The Court is not persuaded, particularly where, as here, the evidence suggests Perfect 10’s impecunity is intentional."
Perfect 10 is an online adult website - and formerly a monthly and then quarterly men's magazine - that features high resolution topless or nude photographs of 'all natural' women who have not had cosmetic surgery.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1693604/2015-03-24-order-re-defs-mtn-for-attys-fees.pdf
