In August, MediaPost reported that Redigi and one of its founders, John Ossenmacher, had filed bankruptcy:
“ReDigi recently stipulated to pay Capitol $3.5 million in damages, but also appealed the underlying copyright infringement finding to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. This week, the company said in an appellate filing that it had declared bankruptcy in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. ReDigi co-founder John Ossenmacher also declared bankruptcy in the same court.” (link)
Very likely, this ends the appeal to the Second Circuit.
I’ve written about this case several times, and in April 2013 I observed:
In addition, Capitol may seek leave of court to add as defendants the individual owners and employees of Redigi that exercised control over or benefited from the infringement. While Redigi could oppose such as motion as coming too late in the case, a decision would be at the discretion of the judge.
… Read the full article
The press calls Melania Trump’s use of Michelle Obama’s 2008 nomination speech “plagiarism,” but is it also copyright infringement? Could the authors or assignees of Michelle’s speech sue Melania and others for copyright infringement?
It’s hard to imagine this would ever happen for political and practical reasons (one of which I discuss below). But it’s interesting (fun?) to think about whether a copyright infringement suit against Melania would have legs. In that spirit, consider the following.
Ownership. It’s likely that Michelle’s 2008 speech was written by several people, each of whom could be considered a co-author. The Forward reports that the speech was first written by Sarah Hurwitz, but it’s not clear if she was an independent contractor, an employee of the Obama campaign or working for someone else. This could raise ownership issues under the work-for-hire provision of the copyright statute.
Setting aside work-for-hire, if several people participated in writing the speech (Hurwitz, Michelle, Barack?), assuming that each of these people meets the stringent requirements for co-authorship under U.S copyright law (independently copyrightable contribution and intent) and hasn’t assigned ownership to someone else, each co-author has independent standing to sue Melania for copyright infringement.… Read the full article
The fictional Kevin Kickstarter last met with his lawyer, Mr. Jaggers, in January 2014. Still pondering Mr. Jaggers advice (following the then-recent Second Circuit’s decision in Viacom v. Youtube), he recently heard of the Second Circuit’s new DMCA ruling in Capitol Records v. Vimeo, and he set up an appointment with Mr. Jaggers to get an update on the law.
Before listening in on this fictional conversation, a brief recap: YouPostVid is a small “you post, we host” music video website. Kevin Kickstarter is its sole owner. YouPostVid is struggling to meet the confusing requirements necessary to receive safe harbor protection for copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA). (See the earlier transcript to be updated on how the DMCA can protect web hosts, aka “service providers”, from copyright liability for works uploaded by users).
Two years ago Mr. Jaggers advised Kevin on how to stay on the safe side of the DMCA.… Read the full article
A quick update on Capitol Records v. Redigi.
The SDNY federal court entered summary judgment against Redigi on liability in March 2013.
The last two years have been spent preparing for trial on damages.
However, on Monday of this week, on the eve of trial, the parties reported the case settled. Very likely, this settlement (which is confidential), was engineered to allow the decision on liability to be appealed to the Second Circuit. The way this works is that if the appeal is unsuccessful, the defendants will owe a certain amount of money (stipulated in the settlement agreement, which is confidential/non-public). If Redigi wins on appeal, it will not owe that money (and, presumably, it will be able to resume offering its service, which appears to be inactive at present). The settlement agreement likely provides for either outcome.
It has always been the expectation that Redigi wanted to get this case to the Second Circuit, so I believe this is likely to be the scenario that is in progress, particularly since there is no permanent injunction issued pursuant to the settlement. … Read the full article