Swatch Defeats Bloomberg's Motion to Dismiss re Unauthorized Transcript of Analyst's Conference Call
From the complaint: Plaintiff Swatch, a Swiss publicly traded company, hosted a conference call for securities analysts. The call was transmitted and recorded by a conference call service. Participants were instructed not to record the call for publication or broadcast. Bloomberg News was not invited or authorized to participate in the call. Bloomberg recorded the call, created a transcript which it made available to others.
Bloomberg moves to dismiss. Denied. If a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission, the Copyright Act creates the fiction that the simultaneous fixation occurs before the transmission, for purposes of an infringement claim. (page 4). Also, the conference call satisfied the requirement of originality.
Plaintiff Monastery translated works by St. Isaac the Syrian, also known as Isaac of Nineveh, from Greek into English (the copyright subsists in the derivative work, namely the translation). Archbishop (who had settled a previous case with the Monastery) posted Homily 46 to his website. Archbishop seeks to nullify the prior contract, and also alleges fair use. Archbishop’s ‘devotional’ use of the homily was not transformative, and was not fair use. Note: various homilies are excerpted on the Wikipedia page. Image obtained here.
Decision Holy Transfiguration Copyright
Vimeo is a video-sharing site (owned by InterActive Corp). It apparently hosts many videos consisting of ‘lip dubs,’ like the one above actually performed by the Vimeo staff. Plaintiff record labels allege that Vimeo is no ‘so-called video sharing service’ as it induces such infringing works.
The video above appears to reproduce a copyrighted work in its entirety (I have no way of knowing if the creator of the video received authorization). IO Group v Veoh and UMG v Veoh discuss video-sharing service liability. Plainitff will attempt to show how Vimeo’s behavior takes it out of the Veoh cases analysis.
Should I worry that my son is filming his friends and himself singing to songs, and then uploading them to YouTube, where they are viewed in the ten’s of ones? If the labels go after him, my son can’t afford me. I will have to turn to the EFF.
Complaint Capitol v Vimeo
Kottke.org: “Extreme Borrowing in the Blogosphere” (discussing linking/excerpting/attribution issues).
Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Facebook): Update on Terms
Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we’ll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms.
2006 interview with ‘mash up’ artist Girl Talk about, among other things, waiting for the cease and desists to arrive.
Memo from McCain’s Motion to Dismiss Copyright Action brought by jackson Browne re McCain campaign’s use of ‘Running on Empty.’
A. Browne’s Copyright Infringement Claims Are Barred By The
Fair Use Doctrine
1. The First Factor, The Purpose And Character Of The Use,
Favors McCain Because The Use Was Made In A Non-
Commercial Political Message About Matters Of Public
Concern And Was Transformative
2. The Second Factor, The Nature Of The Copyrighted Work,
3.The Third Factor, The Amount and Substantiality Of The
Use, Favors McCain
4.The Fourth Factor, The Effect Of The Use On The Potential
Market For Or Value Of Plaintiff’s Work, Favors McCain
B. Browne’s Lanham Act Claim Fails As A Matter Of Law
1.The Lanham Act Does Not Apply To Political Speech
2.Browne’s Lanham Act Claim Is Barred By The “Artistic
Relevance” Test Imposed By The First Amendment
3.As A Matter Of Law, There Can Be No Likelihood Of
Confusion Stemming From The Political Video
The Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society will represent the defendant in the appeal of the Harry Potter Lexicon case, discussing whether defendant’s ‘Lexicon’ of the Harry Potter books constitute fair use.
Publishers Weekly: “Google Settles with AAP, Authors Guild“:
Google has reached an out-of-court-settlement with the Authors Guild and the AAP involving two separate lawsuit brought by the organizations against Google’s Library Search program that made scans of books from libraries, including books under copyright. The settlement includes a $125 million payment by Google plus the establishment of a new licensing system.
WSJ: Lessig: “In Defense of Piracy“:
How is it that sensible people, people no doubt educated at some of the best universities and law schools in the country, would come to think it a sane use of corporate resources to threaten the mother of a dancing 13-month-old? What is it that allows these lawyers and executives to take a case like this seriously, to believe there’s some important social or corporate reason to deploy the federal scheme of regulation called copyright to stop the spread of these images and music? “Let’s Go Crazy” indeed!