[LINK] copyright 'protection'

Sun Apr 12 12:16:50 AEST 2009

[this one struck me funny --- who do they think 
they're protecting? lawyer's picnic]
the_harlequin writes "A successful designer, who 
has a showcase of his own work available online, 
has had a stock image site accuse him of 
copyright infringement over his own 
illustrations, citing damages of $18,000. The 
story doesn't end there; the stock photo site 
hired lawyers, who have contacted the original 
designer's clients. The lawyers told them the 
designer is being investigated for copyright 
infringement and their logos might be copied, 
thus damaging his reputation. 'My theory is that 
someone copied my artwork, separated them from 
any typography and then posted them for sale on 
the stock site. Someone working for the site 
either saw my [LogoPond] showcase or was alerted 
to the similarities. They then prepared the bill 
and sent it to me. The good thing is that the 
bill gives me a record of every single image they 
took from me. That helps me gather dates, 
sketches, emails, etc. to help me prove my case. 
The bad thing is that despite my explanations and 
proof, they will not let this go.'"
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/05/125209&from=rss

[don't bite the hand that feeds you copyright 
breach lesson, especially if it's Uncle Rupert's hand]
Hugh Pickens writes "Roger Friedman, an 
entertainment columnist for FoxNews.com, 
discovered over the weekend just what Rupert 
Murdoch means by 'zero tolerance' when it comes 
to movie piracy. On Friday, the film studio 20th 
Century Fox  owned by the News Corporation, the 
media conglomerate ruled by Mr. Murdoch  became 
angry after reading Friedman's latest column, a 
review of 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine,' a 
big-budget movie that was leaked in unfinished 
form on the Web last week. Friedman posted a 
mini-review, adding, 'It took really less than 
seconds to start playing it all right onto my 
computer.' The film studio, which enlisted the 
FBI to hunt the pirate, put out a statement 
calling Friedman's column 'reprehensible' while 
News Corporation weighed in with its own 
statement, saying it had asked Fox News to remove 
the column from its Web site. 'When we advised 
Fox News of the facts,' the statement said, 'they 
promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.'"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/06/1246232&from=rss

ACTA:
narramissic writes "Change is afoot at the Office 
of the US Trade Representative. New details have 
been released about an anti-counterfeiting trade 
agreement that has been discussed in secret among 
the US, Japan, the European Union and other 
countries since 2006. Although the six-page 
summary (PDF) provides little in the way of 
specific detail about the current state of 
negotiations, the release represents a change in 
policy at the USTR, which had argued in the past 
that information on the trade pact was 'properly 
classified in the interest of national 
security.'" Michael Geist has a timeline that 
puts together more details about the ACTA 
negotiations than any government has so far been willing to reveal.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/07/2212227&from=rss

YouTube and Fair Use not playing nice:
Richard Koman writes "Warner Music Group is 
apparently blocking everything YouTube ContentID 
comes up with as potential infringement. We knew 
that, but this piece by Jason Perlow shows that 
they're also spewing out DMCA takedown notices 
for some pretty clearly fair-use stuff. In my 
interview with EFF's Fred von Lohmann he talks 
about how, as bad as the DMCA process is  and 
it's pretty firmly against fair-use  YouTube's 
process gives remixers and digital creators even 
fewer options to assert their right to speak 
through the fair use of copyright material. While 
EFF is negotiating with Google and the studios, 
he suggests that users boycott YouTube if they won't stand up for fair use."
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/09/1847236&from=rss

and last, but not least: RIAA challenged
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Leading copyright 
law scholar Prof. Pamela Samuelson, of the 
University of California law school, has 
published a 'working paper' which directly 
refutes the position taken by the US Department 
of Justice in RIAA cases on the constitutionality 
of the RIAA's statutory damages theories. The 
Department of Justice had argued in its briefs 
that the Court should follow a 1919 United States 
Supreme Court case which upheld the 
constitutionality of a statutory damages award 
that was 116 times the actual damages sustained, 
under a statute which gave consumers a right of 
action against railway companies. The Free 
Software Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief 
supporting the view that the more modern, State 
Farm/Gore test applied by the United States 
Supreme Court to punitive damages awards is 
applicable. The paper by Prof. Samuelson is 
consistent with the FSF brief and contradicts the 
DOJ briefs, arguing that the Gore test should be 
applied. A full copy of the paper is available for viewing online (PDF)."
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/10/2313233&from=rss

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the 
world is to paint or sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _