Now those are seven words that tell a story. However not all seven words from the AP are as interesting. Bethat as it may, the AP apparently charges for quotations by the word (see rate sheet below) and my quote falls under the 5 to 25 word level for $12.50. Background here.
UPDATE: TechCrunch and Media Bloggers Association on ‘backstory’ of AP?Cadenhead dispute

Read this document on Scribd: AP license

meshworks car.jpg
Plaintiff Meshworks was hired to make computerized, animated 3D models of several Toyota cars for an ad campaign. Faithfulness to what a ‘real’ car would look like was a ‘point’ of the model (which was used on web swites so that customers could manipulate the images (e.g. change color)). A dispute broke out, plaintiff sued for infringement, defendants claimed the models weren’t protectible, District Court held that models were insufficiently original for copyright protection, 10th circuit affirmed.
Prof Patry criticism of District Court decision here. I certainly hope he’ll weigh in on the circuit court decision.
I’ve read the decision once. My initial take is this:
The court is conflating fidelity with originality. In my view, if there was creativity and originality in achieving the fidelity, then to the extent those creative and original efforts are expressed, that expression should be copyrightable. The expression is embodied in the final work.
Read the opinion, think it over, please comment.
UPDATE: Prof Patry weighs in. I think that what I said above re fidelity was influenced heavily (ok, stolen) from what Bill said two years ago about this case. While he is more sympathetic to the holding, I do agree with his final paragraph:

I am still bothered by the premise that efforts to realistically depict an actual object are unoriginal. Superrealist oil paintings are an obvious example. I have a few posters of them, and if you don’t look closely you think it was a photograph. Photographs are of course protectible, usually, due to the lighting, shading, angle and other choices. But in Meshwerks those choices were made by G&W, and this is what seemed to persuade the court of appeals Meshwerk’s contributions were unoriginal.

Read this document on Scribd: decision meshworks toyota derivative

goodnight bush.jpg
goodnight moon.gif
NY Times: “The Secret to Success in Publishing: Bash Bush, With Nods to a Classic“:

The cover of “Goodnight Bush” looks almost exactly like “Goodnight Moon — green and orange, with an image of a window and fireplace — and uses a similar rhyme scheme. But there the thematic similarities end.
The authors, Erich Origen and Gan Golan, set their story in “a situation room.” There is no bunny snuggling into bed, but rather George W. Bush, grinning and wearing a “Mission Accomplished” flight suit. Instead of three little bears sitting on chairs, there are “war profiteers giving three cheers.”

Well, let’s see. First I would read the book and dust off one of our copies of “Goodnight Moon.” I would check out the Cat Is Not In The Hat case, then the Priceless decision, and take it from there.
UPDATE: 43(b)log take on this.

Workbench: “AP Files 7 DMCA Takedowns Against Drudge ReTort“:

[Workbench is] currently engaged in a legal disagreement with the Associated Press, which claims that Drudge Retort users linking to its stories are violating its copyright and committing “‘hot news’ misappropriation under New York state law.” An AP attorney filed six Digital Millenium Copyright Act takedown requests this week demanding the removal of blog entries and another for a user comment.
The Retort is a community site comparable in function to Digg, Reddit and Mixx. The 8,500 users of the site contribute blog entries of their own authorship and links to interesting news articles on the web, which appear immediately on the site. None of the six entries challenged by AP, which include two that I posted myself, contains the full text of an AP story or anything close to it. They reproduce short excerpts of the articles — ranging in length from 33 to 79 words — and five of the six have a user-created headline.

UPDATE: Salon’s Scott Rosenberg comments.

Wired: “Judge Says You Can Sell Your CDs“:

A federal judge is trashing UMG Recordings’ claim that it retains perpetual ownership of promotional CDs it sends out before an album’s release
.
The case was brought by the recording label against a California man who was auctioning off the promo discs on eBay. The music concern claimed Troy Augusto was violating its copyright because the discs were labeled with messages that they could not be resold.

sp legendary cuts 2006.jpg

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants, and its agents, distributors, representatives, assigns,
and anyone acting in concert with them, from using the names, images, likenesses, signatures,
personae, and other related indicia of deceased baseball legends Jackie Robinson (“Robinson”),
Lou Gehrig (“Gehrig”), Mel Ott (“Ott”), Jimmie Foxx (“Foxx”), Rogers Hornsby (“Hornsby”),
Thurman Munson (“Munson”), George Sisler (“Sisler”), and Johnny Mize (“Mize”)
(collectively, the “Legends”).
Specifically, Defendant is on the verge of releasing its “2008 MLB SP Legendary Cuts”
products, which make use of the Legends’ name, image, likeness and other elements (the
“Legends’ Intellectual Property Rights”), which—as Defendant is aware—are exclusively
licensed to TOPPS (“Defendant’s Cards”).

X is the first
Of two X’s in Foxx
Who was right behind Ruth
In powerful Soxx
Ogden Nash

Read this document on Scribd: brief CMG Topps v Upper Deck rt of publicity

SDNY: On remand, the Charbucks Marks does not dilute Starbuck’s famous mark even under the TDRA. See Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., Case No. 01 Civ. 5981, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44147 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2008).
Commentary by the Las Vegas Trademark Attorney.

Read this document on Scribd: Decision SDNY STARBUCKS v CHARBUCKS