PRS Launches New Anti-Piracy System ‘MAPS’

PRS for Music has announced the launch of its new anti-piracy take-down tool ‘MAPS’. The newly developed system will "revolutionise" the way PRS for Music tackles copyright infringement of its members’ repertoire in the continued fight against online music piracy.

Working in partnership with The Publishers Association, the trade body for the UK book publishing industry, MAPS has been developed for PRS for Music to deliver a bespoke notice and takedown system. MAPS will initially be available to a selected number of publisher members in March 2016. The tool will locate unlicensed and infringing content made available online and will then allow users to automatically generate and serve notices to remove the content.  It will also allow users to remove links to the content found on Google and elsewhere.

PRS for Music’s Head of Litigation, Enforcement and Anti-Piracy, Simon Bourn said: “We are very excited to be rolling-out our new anti-piracy system to publisher members.  Where opportunistic and illegal use is made of our members’ repertoire online, without the necessary business model to sustain a legitimate licensed marketplace, it is important that we take action to protect the rights of our members and to preserve the value of their repertoire.  MAPS will deliver greater control and transparency to our members, allowing them to participate in our content protection work."

He added: "The system will also allow for a far greater number of infringements to be detected, reported and removed online. Whilst we call for the responsibilities of internet intermediaries to be clarified by law-makers, MAPS will utilise cutting-edge technology to enhance, automate and streamline PRS for Music’s rights protection work. ” adding "MAPS will be able to cut-off instances of piracy at the source, helping to ensure that the legitimate licensed services can be more easily found and that PRS for Music members receive fair remuneration for use of their repertoire online."

Members without access to the system in the initial roll-out can contact the PRS for Music Anti-Piracy Unit for removal of infringements of repertoire on their behalf.

The CopyKat

TOO LATE!

During a review of the “legally verified” version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Jeremy Malcom, the Senior Global Policy Analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has discovered a significant change in the text which will reintroduce criminal penalties for the violation of copyrights protecting intellectual property.  Malcom said in his statement posted to EFF’s website that he believes this change substantially expands the criminal penalties for copyright infringing activities saying "In its revised form, the only criminal provision that a country is exempted from applying in those circumstances is the one to which the footnote is attached—namely, the ex officio action provision. Which means, under this amendment, all of the other criminal procedures and penalties must be available even if the infringement has absolutely no impact on the right holder’s ability to exploit their work in the market. The only enforcement provision that countries have the flexibility to withhold in such cases is the authority of state officials to take legal action into their own hands.”

A YouTube video that is part of a Harvard University online course on copyright law is once again accessible to students after Sony Music Entertainment unblocked it and released its copyright claim. Sony had the lecture taken down from YouTube on the grounds of copyright infringement. The videotaped lecture, which explains aspects of copyright law as it applies to music and licensing, is taught by William Fisher, the Wilmer Hale Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Harvard Law School. The lecture includes clips of several versions of the Jimi Hendrix song "Little Wing," which prompted Sony Music, which owns the rights, to have it removed. More here and here.


TechDirt tell us that the US Copyright Office "has decided to take a stance on copyright law that requires two slightly odd things. First, it requires ignoring what the Copyright Act actually says and then, separately, it requires pretending that the law says something that it clearly does not say. That's pretty incredible when you think about it. " Its a well written piece that looks at the 'making available' right in the USA concluding that when it comes to 'making available', it is "somewhat disappointing that the Copyright Office has decided that it can create a right that isn't written into the law and insist that must be what Congress meant all along, while at the same time ignoring the stuff that is written in the law and saying that couldn't possibly have been what Congress meant."

And don't forget that back at the end of December, the U.S. Copyright Office published a Notice of Inquiry seeking to “evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor provisions” found at 17 U.S.C. § 512. Comments in response to the Notice of Inquiry are due in by March 21st, 2016, and the Office indicated it will hold public meetings to discuss the issues raised after the comments have been reviewed.

And finally, The Copykat notes that in Hong Kong, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So Kam-leung has said that if the copyright amendment bill does not pass next week, it will be withdrawn. At a press conference Secretary So said that the decision was made in the interest of society overall. He denied that it was an act of admitting defeat. So said that there were still many bills waiting to be discussed at Legislative Council, as he called pan-democratic lawmakers “selfish”, blaming them for wasting time and money.

News from Scotland

A Glasgow bar has become the first in Scotland to be hit with a court penalty for showing English Premiership football matches via the unauthorised use of foreign broadcasts. The Football Association Premier League (FAPL) have issued a release saying that the Merchants Quay bar in Paisley Road faces having to pay the FAPL up to £6,000 for copyright infringement in damages and costs awarded in the Court of Session - although the final amount has yet to be determined. The FAPL says the judgement follows an 18-month long crackdown in Scotland against bars using foreign feeds to show matches from the top flight of English football. The Premier League says it has sent 31 'letters before action' to pubs in Scotland. It says that in the majority of cases the pubs  simply agreed to cease showing the matches. In five  cases the FAPL took legal action against pubs and interim interdicts were awarded, preventing unauthorised broadcasts until a court hearing.

The FAPL have pledged further strong action as it undertakes a programme to prevent 'the undermining of its deal with Sky Sports and BT Sport for coverage of Premier League matches'. Readers of this Blog will remember the case involving Portsmouth landlady Karen Murphy which established that individuals living in the UK are allowed to use digiboxes which provide authorised services from other EU member states to watch Premier League football in the UK However this case did not extent such a right to commercial premises.

A Premier League spokesman said: "The courts granted the judgment following failure by the defendants to engage in the case, despite several attempts to contact the publican."

And also from Scotland - and the Scottish Law Society - who have said that proposed EU legislation allowing holiday makers travelling in Europe to access online content, such as digital film and TV services is 'too timid'. Whilst the Society has welcomed the European Commission’s proposed legislation, which would allow EU residents travelling within the EU to access digital content services which they have paid for in their home country, they have called for the legislation on cross-border portability of digital content services to be extended to cover digital subscriptions purchased by EU residents anywhere in the EU.

Jim McLean, convener of the Law Society’s Intellectual Property committee, said: “We’re delighted that the European Commission is looking at ways to improve online content services for consumers and welcome the proposed regulation which will allow EU residents to access digital services such as Netflix, Sky and Amazon Prime, when travelling within the EU on holiday or business. But he added: “However we believe the proposed legislation is too timid and should also cover online content services purchased or obtained by a subscriber within the EU, even if that is outside of their home country" and “This would align with the Commission’s strategy to allow for wider online access to works by users across the EU and would be more straightforward for both the consumers and the providers.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14278737.Glasgow_pub__quot_first_in_Scotland_quot__to_receive_penalty_for_Premier_League_copyright_breach/

Joined cases C-403/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others and C-429/08 Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd 

More on the Karen Murphy case here. 

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/news/2016/02/eu-proposals-for-tv,-music-and-sport-subscriptions-too-timid-says-law-society/

French National Assembly Considering Bill to Modify Private Copy Levy Regime

Last week, we looked at some of the legislative developments currently wending their way through the French Senate.

France's other legislative body, the National Assembly, is also considering copyright-relevant legislation, namely a bill to modify the regime applicable to the private copy levy.  The main proposed changes are as follows:

- to rename the levy from "remuneration for private copy" to "compensation for private copy"; this change in terminology is intended to hew more closely to the levy's function as stated by the CJEU;

- the make up of the commission that sets the rate of the levy is currently 50% representatives of the rightsholders, 25% representatives of manufacturers of the various media to which the levy applies and 25% representatives of consumers; the bill proposes to changes this to one-third for each category;

- under existing law, 25% of the amounts collected under the levy by the Collective Management Organziations are to be used in connection with certain statutorily defined purposes including aid for artists and authors and live shows; the bill adds to this list the purpose of reinforcing legal online offerings;

- the bill proposes to streamline the process whereby professionals can obtain reimbursement of the levy.


The text of the bill is available (in French) here

The CopyKat - topical treats from the world of copyright

Music publisher Warner/Chappell has filed papers indicating the settlement terms in the 'Happy Birthday' case - and has agreed to pay $14m to  to a class of “thousands of people and entities” who had paid licensing fees to use the song since 1949 and to end the lawsuit that challenged its copyright to Happy Birthday To You – possibly the world’s most famous song. Readers will remember that back in September 2015, US district judge George H King ruled that Warner/Chappell did not own the lyrics to the song, just some of its musical arrangements. Next month, King must approve the settlement. The settlement would also grant $4.6 million in fees to the lawyers for the plaintiffs, a group of independent artists and filmmakers who filed separate suits in 2013 that were later combined. More on this case on CMU here.

Ricky Spicer, one third of The Ponderosa Twins Plus One (Spicer being the "One" after he joined up with the singing twins), has filed a law suit seeking class action status against and damages from a large cross-section of the digital music landscape that includes Spotify, Apple, Google, SoundCloud, iHeartMedia, Pandora and Sony Computer Entertainment - over royalties related to pre-1972 recordings. Spicer's action directly relates to several other ongoing cases, all related to the same complex issues of copyright ownership and music licensing - including the cases brougt by Flo and Eddie from the Turtles against Sirius XM. But interestingly the filing says the various defendants may have thought they had licensed his album - but they haven't: In the filing Spicer makes the allegation that a "phantom party... used back channels and private under-the-table dealings to transfer licenses that ultimately wound up in the hands of Defendants."

Two US publishers are having a spat over who has the right to publish the law - here the right to exclusively publish the Georgia Administrative Rules and Regulations. Legal publisher Fastcase wants a federal judge to fend off a cease-and-desist demand from rival Virginia-based Lawriter, which has been designated as the exclusive publisher of Georgia's compilation of the rules and regulations of its state agencies. Fastcase argue that the Georgia Regulations are public law published under statutory mandate and are in the public domain: "Defendant cannot claim any exclusive right in, to, or in connection with, the Georgia Regulations. Thus, Fastcase seeks declaratory judgment that Lawriter has no basis from which to prohibit Fastcase from publishing the Georgia Regulations in its subscription legal research service." The case is in the US District Court in the Atlanta Division of the Northern Division of Georgia. 

The New York Times has launched a legal action against  David Shields, the author of War Is Beautiful, a book that argues the Times systematically glamorises war by the way that it depicts armed conflicts and their aftermath. Shields licensed several dozen images for his book  - but he also included thumbnail versions of some images without clearance, and the Times claims that these reproductions violate its copyrights. One would think that Shields has a good case that the uses constitute "fair use" - not least from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) which confrimed that the use of thumbnail images of Grateful Dead posters in a coffee table book about the band was indeed faor use - but we shall see. In all events its rather good publicity for Mr Shield's book.

Whilst the copyright status of the The Diary of Anne Frank remains a topic of debate in Europe, with the Foundation that controls the copyright arguing that an edit by Anne Frank's father and later translations mean it is still protected by copyright law,  the Diary has been withdrawn from Wikisource in the US because of the longer term of copyright protection in that jurisdiction. Anne Frank died in 1945 which means that the book moved into the public domain in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe on January 1, 2016, 70 years after her death - although the Anne Frank Fonds say that this term should run from the death of Otto Frank in 1980. But in the US, Wikisource, a digital library of free texts maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, have withdrawn the text. Their legal counsel Jacob Rogers, said the removal was the result of an overreach of U.S. copyright law but believes that they have no other option than to comply saying “Today, in an unfortunate example of the overreach of the United States’ current copyright law, the Wikimedia Foundation removed the Dutch-language text of The Diary of a Young Girl” adding  “We took this action to comply with the United States’ Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as we believe the Diary is still under US copyright protection under the law as it is currently written”.  Wikimedia's servers fall under the U.S. jurisdiction - and wikimedia had apparently been informed that the publication of the text would violate US copyright laws.  More on TorrentFreak here.

The IPO's China IP Newsletter tells us that the State Administration of Press & Publications, Radio, Film & Television (SAPPRFT) and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) have jointly announced new regulatory measures governing online content distribution. The Regulations cover the administration of Internet platforms and require platforms to register in order to publish content online. The platforms should keep records of all uploaded works for 60 days and will be subject to annual inspections. The Regulations also include a pre-approval mechanism for publication of online games. Meanwhile, the State Council Legislative Affairs Office (SCLAO) has launched a separate consultation on Regulations on the Administration of Publication of Digital Material. The deadline for comments on the Regulations is March 10. More here and here (in Chinese).

And finally - an article on ArtsTechnica that's well worth a read: "Embattled copyright lawyer uses DMCA to remove article about himself". Its all about attorney Marc Randazza's battles to delete an online article about a dispute between his former employer and himself and who told Wordpress that the unflattering story "is not fair use." 

Recent Legislative Developments in France

                                                           

While the French Senate continues to debate whether (and to what extent) the private copying exception and corresponding levy should be extended to the cloud (and in particular network PVRs), there have been two interesting amendments introduced intended to strengthen the CNC's ability to act against copyright infringement.  The Centre national du cinéma et de l'image animée (CNC) is the regulatory body overseeing French cinema.

The first legislative development concerns the CNC's ability to file a criminal copyright complaint directly with the investigating magistrate (juge d'instruction), thereby putting in motion the criminal action.  The proposed amendment would allow the CNC to do so where the alleged infringement diminishes the financial resources to which it is entitled (i.e., certain taxes), which is a relatively low threshold.  Moreover, the amendment specifies that, contrary to ordinary practice in criminal matters, there is no obligation to file a complaint with the Procureur de la République (district attorney) prior to lodging the complaint with the investigating magistrate.

The other proposed amendment would add the CNC to the list of persons and entites entitled to bring an action in cessation in the event of online copyright infringement.  In accordance with EU law, French law adopted Section L.336-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, which allows certain parties to seek a court order against intermediaries (such as ISPs and search engines) to take the necessary steps to cease online copyright infringement.  Currently these include, in addition to the rights holders themselves and their assignees, Collective Management Organizations for copyright and professional bodies that defend rights holders; should the proposed amendment be adopted, the CNC would be added to this list. 

Is the Future of Copyright only going in One Direction?

The website Petapixel and the Daily Mail have reported on a spat between a Belgian photographer named Ezequiel Scagnetti and One Direction band member Harry Styles. It seems that Styles used a photograph of a Burmese boxer taken by Scagnetti on his Instagram page, without crediting Scagnetti or obtaining his permission. Scagnetti responded in a fairly forthright way, and in so doing incurred the disdain of some of Styles's fans. Given that Styles has nearly 16 million followers on his various social media accounts, there was a high probability of the flame war which ensued.

It is debatable whether the posts of the young fans who leapt to the defence of their idol are indicative of the general level of knowledge about copyright of that particular demographic as a whole. But the fact that Harry Styles - someone whose considerable fortune is largely thanks to copyright - saw fit to just appropriate this image in the way that he did, is a sad reflection on how the use of social media has the potential to undermine the value of copyright, particularly in photographs. I have no idea aboout Styles's personal position on the UK government's attempts to bring in the private copying exception, but I can be pretty sure that his record label, and many others in the music business, vehemently oppose it, unless it is accompanied by a levy on recordable media etc. It is therefore more than a little ironic that one of the most high profile of musicians should effectively be saying that copying other people's work on social media is acceptable. Don't forget that, unlike the two examples I quoted in my previous posting about 'lifting' images from social media, Scagnetti is a professional photographer, and thus stands to be financially damaged by this sort of behaviour.

However following his somewhat intemperate initial outburst, the photographer was wise enough to know that he couldn't win in slanging match with the fans. Instead he posted a short summary (an extract of which is shown below) of why copyright matters both to him and Harry Styles, presumably in the hope of educating the fans who clearly neither know nor care about such things.

 " Do you know that #harrystyles and myself, we live of [sic] copyright? Every streamed song, every CD you buy, every concert ticket you pay, you are paying artist’s copyrights. If you are not paying for it, some sponsor or company is doing it for you. Nothing is free. Neither Harry Styles work’s [sic], neither my work."

However I fear it will take much more than this and the IPO's initiatives, to eradicate the widespread practice of lifting and sharing of other people's work, particularly photographs, on social media.

Love performers' rights + early career lawyer/researcher? Here's some fun and a competition for you

A couple of months ago this blog reported that the new (5th) edition of Performers' Rights by The Hon Mr Justice Arnold has finally become available.

Via 1709 Blog friend Hasan Kadir Yilmaztekin (University of Exeter) comes the news that the recently created New IP Lawyers network [see here] is now organising what looks like a great event.

On 18 April 2016 in London there will be an evening of discussion on - indeed - performers' rights with a keynote address by The Hon Mr Justice Arnold himself.

This, however, is not all.

PhD students, early career researchers and young lawyers are in fact invited to submit a short paper on any area related to performers’ rights. 

Papers should be no more than 1,500 words and be submitted to newiplawyers@gmail.com (alongside a short bio) before 18th March 2016.
 

The New IP Lawyers Executive Committee will select the three best papers, the authors of which will be invited to present at the Performers’ Rights Seminar. 

The presentations should be no longer than 15 minutes. 

Mr Justice Arnold has agreed to provide feedback to the presenters and select a final winner. 

The papers will also be published on the New IP Lawyer’s IPOwl Blog.