IPNews® - The Department of Commerce has released a report which details just how important a role intellectual property has played in the U.S. economy.
The report also states that patent infringement, trademark infringement and copyright infringement in China alone costs the U.S. economy $50 billion per year and jeopardizes 2.1 million jobs. To continue reading, click: IP and the U.S. Economy
IPNews® - Justin.tv, the online video streaming service that airs broadcasts of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, scored a partcial victory on summary judgment in a trademark and copyright case it has been battling.
The lawsuit, filed by Zuffa LLC, contends that Justin.tv is guilty of trademark infringement in addition to copyright infringement because items such as the UFC logos were featured on the online broadcasts without Zuffa’s authorization. The court dismissed several of the trademark claims as being duplicative of the copyright claims. To continue reading, click: Justin.tv Scores Win
Orange County - Two original members of R&B band Blackstreet have sued two former members for trademark and copyright infringement for using Blackstreet songs without authorization and for confusing consumers into believing that the entire band would be performing at concerts.
The band's most famous song, "No Diggity", became a number one hit in 1996. The original members claim that the former members used a complete set of Blackstreet songs on a European tour and also used old group photos to promote and sell tickets to concerts, all without authorization. The action is pending in Virginia federal court. To continue reading, click here: Blackstreet Band Sues Former Members.
San Diego - Published authors from the United States, Britain, Australia, and Canada are suing five American universities for allegedly “engaging in one of the largest copyright infringements in history.” The writers claim that the universities planned to digitize out of print books and provide them online to students.
The Authors Guild and the Australian Society of Authors were among groups joining eight individual authors to file the lawsuit on Monday in a Manhattan district court. The University of Michigan, the University of California, the University of Wisconsin, Indiana University, and Cornell are accused of pooling the unauthorized scans of an estimated seven million copyright-protected books, which they allegedly obtained from Google. Apparently, the digitized files were being stored in a repository organized by the University of Michigan.
“This is an upsetting and outrageous attempt to dismiss authors’ rights,” stated Angelo Loukakis, executive director of the Australian Society of Authors. “This group of American universities has no authority to decide whether, when or how authors forfeit their copyright protection. These aren’t orphaned books, they’re abducted books.” he added. With out of print books, also know as orphan works, it is difficult to locate the writers, making them prime targets for copyright theft.
According to Paul Courant, the University of Michigan’s dean of libraries, said the digital library project called the HathiTrust, planned to make books available online to staff and students this Fall. He added that the university had been in recent discussions with the Authors Guild and was surprised by the allegations.
Courant stated, “I’m confident that everything we’re doing and everything we’re contemplating doing is lawful use of these works.”
The first set of the orphaned books, 27 works by French, Russian, and American authors is scheduled to be released to an estimated 250,000 students and faculty members on October 13th. In November, an additional 140 books, including works in Spanish, Yiddish, French, and Russian are planned for release.
Authors have been in a long-running battle with Google over its plans to create a massive online library to include out of print books. After the Authors Guild reached an agreement with Google over a copyright infringement claim in 2008, a New York judge rejected the settlement after objections were made by consumer watchdog groups, academic experts, literary agents, and foreign governments.
Another hearing in that case is expected this week.
Los Angeles - The late civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr. made his momentous “I Have a Dream” speech on Washington Mall forty eight years ago this week. For those people too young to have been there, many would turn to YouTube with hopes to view the historical oration about Dr. King’s pursuit for racial equality. But you won’t find the recorded speech on YouTube or anywhere else. The speech is copyrighted content and rights to its usage remain with the King family.
Usually, a speech that is broadcast to a large audience on radio and television, especially one that is considered crucial to historic political change and one of the most memorable speeches of modern times, would be available to the public domain. Soon after Dr. King made the speech in 1963, he applied for and was granted federal copyright protection for the speech under the Copyright Law of 1909. He then successfully sued Mister Maestro Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Records to stop their unauthorized sale of recordings of the famous speech.
Fast-forward to 1995, twenty-seven years after Dr. King’s untimely death, to the “20th Century with Mike Wallace,” an hour-long series that takes a look back at some of the most historical events of that century. Dr. King’s estate sued CBS for copyright infringement, claiming that a portion of King’s speech used in the documentary was taken without permission or any royalties paid.
In 1999, a judge ruled against CBS’s defense that the speech was available in the public domain on the grounds that a public oration did not constitute general publication no matter how large the audience was. Apparently, CBS was not alone in the confusion over general vs. limited publication and fair use laws. In 1994, USA Today paid the King estate $10,000 in attorneys fees and court costs plus a $1,700 licensing fee after publishing the full speech without authorization. CBS reportedly settled with the family for an undisclosed sum.
One crucial fact supporting the King family’s copyright claims was that although Dr. King himself had obtained a copyright registration on the speech a month after delivering it, his original claim against Mister Maestro was deemed valid since no “tangible” copy of the speech had been distributed before he had made his claim (as based on the copyright law from 1909).
Various excerpts and remixes of “I Have a Dream” can still be used under fair use laws. However, any recorded versions are hard to come by. At thekingcenter.org, the family’s website, video and audio recordings of the speech are available for sale. The King family will retain copyright privileges of the speech until 2038, seventy years after King’s death.
Los Angeles - A Los Angeles fashion house retailer has recently been faced with some hell on wheels, so to speak. Design company, Wildfox Couture is being sued by the Hells Angels for alleged copyright infringement over the unauthorized use of its name on a t-shirt.
The woman’s t-shirt, a cotton crew neck tee, reads: “My Boyfriend’s A Hells Angel,” and sells online for $60.00. The copyright infringement complaint is accusing the designer of “exploiting the fame” (or in this case, notoriety) of the world-known motorcycle club. Amazon.com and other online retailers are also being named in the lawsuit for selling the t-shirts.
The lawyer filing the lawsuit on behalf of the intimidating biker group explained that even “the club itself does not put ‘Hells Angels’ on shirts they sell to the general public” and that the goal of the lawsuit is to “get them off the market, sequester them and have them destroyed.”
As with many motorcycle clubs, the club has a Hells Angels trademark on its name and logo. The gang’s insignia or patch, worn on the back of a black leather vest, depicts a white banner with red lettering that says ‘Hells Angels’ across the top and the name of the Charter’s location at the bottom. The centered logo is called the ‘Death head’ and has a small square with the letters MC, which stands for Motorcycle Club. The Hells Angels insist they are indeed a motorcycle club, and not a gang.
Wildfox is not the first to be in the tracks of the proud bikers. Last year, the Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation sued fashion house Alexander McQueen for trademark infringement after its clothing featured motifs similar to the winged death head design. The lawsuit against McQueen cited four different products, including a $1,500 ‘Hells Angels’ jacquard box dress, a $500 knuckle-duster ring, a scarf and a handbag which were created shortly before the designer’s suicide in February 2010. Saks Fifth Avenue and online retailer Zappos.com were also named in the lawsuit for selling the apparel and accessories.
Remarks from the McQueen complaint read, “From decades of notoriety, the HAMC trademarks have acquired very widespread public recognition, consequently, they evoke very strong and immediate reactions whenever used. The impact of these trademarks is virtually incomparable, and as a result they have great commercial value.” The McQueen lawsuit was settled and no similar designs have been made by the London fashion house.
No comment was available from Wildfox Couture, however it appears that the t-shirt has been removed from its website as well as from Amazon.com.
Los Angeles - A Brooklyn heavy metal band is suing the New Jersey Devils for $10 million in a copyright infringement case over a song. Rob Traynor, lead singer of Black Water Rising is claiming that the professional hockey team used one of the band’s songs in a video without authorization. The lawsuit was filed after the Devils refused to pay the band for use of the song, “Rise.”
In a statement from the attorney representing the band, he said the Devils “are stubbornly stuck on offering an insultingly small amount of money to settle the case.”
According to details in a statement released by Traynor, the alleged infringement took place in September 2010. Traynor was informed via text message by a friend attending a Devils game that the hockey team was using the band’s song, “Rise” as their entrance/introduction music. Traynor then investigated the matter by posting the news on Facebook, which led to many responses from Devils fans claiming that they too had witnessed the song being played.
It seemed that “Rise” was the song of choice for the hockey team in its 2010-2011 “Devil’s Army Rise Up!” campaign to create energy and excitement with the fans. Traynor admits that the band was flattered to hear that its song had been chosen but also very shocked since the band had not been contacted for its permission. After further investigation, Traynor discovered that “Rise” was not only being played at New Jersey Devils hockey games, but also in a video on the Devils website used to promote the team.
An organization known as ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) serves as the middle man between musicians and organizations by licensing music and collecting royalties owed to the musicians. Most of the organizations that use ASCAP hold “blanket licenses” which cover just about every public use of ASCAP-licensed music. The claim from the band is that the blanket license doesn’t cover use of the song and that the Devils must hold a “sync license” to use the song in a pre-game pump-up video for the fans. Any videos on the team’s website with use of the song, have since been removed.
San Diego - Major music labels achieved a major victory in the copyright wars when, in May, Limewire agreed to pay $105 million to settle a copyright infringement suit. As federal copyright laws have become much stricter and the entertainment industry much more litigious against infringement, many saw this victory as an end of a decade-long era of the illegal piracy of music on peer-to-peer online networks.
The copyright war, however, is not over for the music industry. A new threat has reared itself to record labels, forcing them to shift their attention to the new, cloud-based “music-locker” services currently offered by Apple, Amazon, and Google. The new cloud services have been created for users of smartphones and other mobile media devices. Users will have the ability to upload their digital music files to remote Web services for immediate access anytime, anywhere and on any device.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has responded by claiming that the new cloud-based model still requires the copying of copyrighted content, which will require valid licenses. Unconvinced that the cloud services will prevent users from illegally swapping music, RIAA general counsel Steven Marks stated, “For some services, the term ‘cyber-locker’ is a misnomer because the content is not locked. These services have the potential to become hubs for illegal distribution.”
Electronic Frontier Foundation’s intellectual property directory Corynne McSherry disagreed, stating, “You don’t need a license for simply providing storage for people to upload their music.” She added, “That’s silly. They [RIAA] want to wring every possible cent out of every reproduction of music. That’s listening to your lawyers and not your business people.”
While Amazon and Google both unveiled their cloud services without the blessing of the music industry, Apple took a different approach. While Amazon’s Cloud Drive and Google’s Music Beta require users to upload files manually in a time-consuming process, the Apple iCloud scans the music files on a user’s computer and, for those it recognizes, grants the user access to identical copies stored in Apple’s central database. Unrecognized files can be uploaded to an iCloud server.
Apple didn’t announce its new service until June, after negotiating deals with the four biggest record labels that will give them a combined 70 percent of revenue generated from iCloud. The service costs $24.95 for unlimited storage. The RIAA has acknowledged the fact that iCloud has created a more user-friendly service that will attempt to compensate music-makers for their copyrighted work, however it maintains that Apple needs a license because it is making copies of music for its central database.
The major music labels have not commented on whether they plan on filing a complaint against Amazon and Google over the cloud services. A top executive with one label who wished to remain anonymous, said that he predicts that Amazon will negotiate a licensing deal so that it can offer a scan-and-match service similar to Apple’s. Google is also reportedly in talks over a licensing deal.
San Diego - Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG) has announced its plans to launch a comprehensive takedown service targeting websites committing Internet piracy. The websites that will be the focus of this new service to deter copyright infringement include Rapidshare, Cyberlockers, User Generated Content (UGC), Direct Download, Tube, Streaming, Auction, and other Unauthorized Distributor and/or Reseller Websites by the end of the year.
The service, called WWW Takedown, will provide the same monitoring and validation processes as CEG’s existing P2P Collect and WWW Collect services. Under the new service, acts of infringement will be traced and calculated by CEG’s proprietary systems and global network of servers before passing a stringent multi-level validation process involving steps such as fingerprinting and visual human authentication to eliminate false positives.
Automated daily reports will be emailed to copyright owners, who will have access every day of the year to a web-based client portal that will provide statistical information and real-time piracy data. WWW Takedown will be provided to copyright owners at no charge who submit their entire catalog of copyright titles with CEG exclusively for global monitoring and monetization services. The service will also be available for a small monthly fee to clients who don’t wish to provide their entire copyright catalog.
The Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG) is the leading provider of intellectual property protection and recovery services. Its protection and monetization services cover all types of content including audio, video, logo, image, trademark and text across P2P networks, user-generated content sites, and other infringing sites. CEG’s services are designed to assist intellectual property owners with maximizing content coverage, reduce infringements, and generate revenues that otherwise would have been lost to digital piracy.
San Diego - It seems as if legal troubles follow Lil’ Wayne wherever he goes. Just after his recent release from jail for serving a one-year sentence for weapons possession, the rapper is now a defendant in a $15 million copyright infringement suit for allegedly stealing parts of the hit song, “Bedrock.”
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Done Deal Enterprises, are accusing Wayne and his record label, Young Money Records, of stealing parts of the song which also featured artists Drake, Nicki Minaj, and Lloyd. The song hit number one on Billboard Magazine’s Rap Charts and number two in the Hot 100. Also named in the lawsuit are Universal Music Group and Cash Money Records.
Done Deal is claiming that it owns the copyrights to the song samples and is asking for monetary damages of $15 million. Lil’ Wayne has been ordered to appear in court on October 12, to answer the claims.
The rapper, born Dwayne Carter Jr., has also been sued by several music producers for unpaid royalties from a 2008 duet with rapper, T-Pain. In addition, music producer David Kirkwood is suing Wayne for outstanding payments for his work on the rapper’s album, ‘Tha Carter III.’ Probably the most notorious copyright allegations Wayne has faced came from Abkco Music, Inc. in 2008, which claimed Wayne infringed on its rights to the Rolling Stone’s song “Play With Fire,” when he released an altered version without their permission. As a result, “Play With Fire” was removed from the online music tracklists for Wayne’s album, ‘Tha Carter III.’
No comment was available from Wayne and his attorneys.
