Weekly Updates

  • First Circuit holds that failure to register copyrights in underlying musical compositions dooms copyright infringement claims. Alecia v. Machete Music (link)
  • N. Dist. Cal. court holds that websites copy of photo of politician is protected by copyright fair use doctrine. Dhillon v. Does 1-10 (link)
  • The 9th Circuit has declared open season on the petition for rehearing or hear en banc in its decision in Garcia v. Google – anyone can file an amicus brief (link). This case has been the subject of massive criticism by the copyright community, and it seems likely that it is headed for en banc review.
  • Techdirt: Google Points Out That Even the Copyright Office Thinks Judge Kozinski’s ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Rule is Wrong. Techdirt sums up recent developments in Garcia v. Google, including the fact that the plaintiff has been unable to obtain a copyright registration (see first bullet above).
Read the full article

The week ending February 21, 2014 was a light week, so this week’s Update covers the two weeks ending February 28, 2014

  • 9th Circuit holds actress owns copyright in her individual performance, reverses lower court’s denial of preliminary injunction. Garcia v. Google (link). See blog post on this case here.
  • Utah federal district court issues preliminary injunction order against Aereo, limited to Tenth Circuit. Aereo’s first loss in court, although courts in California and the District of Columbia had enjoined FilmOn X, which provides retransmission of over-the-air broadcasting using the same technology. Communityy Television of Utah v. Aereo.
  • Southern District of Florida grants motion to dismiss in case alleging copyright infringement of architectural worksSieger Suarez v Arquitectonica
  • The USPTO has published more material relating to the Green Paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity and Innovation in the Digital Economy (link). A transcript of the December 12, 2013 public hearing is available here.  
Read the full article

Mass Law Blog Update, Week Ending February 14, 2014

by Lee Gesmer on February 14, 2014

  • “The Future of Fair Use After Google Books.” Jonathan Band summarizes his debate with John Baumgarten over whether the district court’s decision in Google Books was rightly decided.  (link)
  • Terry Hart on Copyhype –  “Volitional Conduct: Primetime Anytime and TV Now”
  • Future of Music Coalition’s Casey Rae’s post, “What’s the Deal with ‘Pre-’72’ Copyrights?” (link)
  • Massive, 478 page report concludes that yes, Australian copyright law should include fair use exceptions. However, it is only a recommendation, not the law (link to 478 page pdf)
  • The Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law has issued a 284 page report titled, “Copyright, Competition and Development.” The Report “analyzes the  practice  of  competition  law jurisdictions on copyright-related markets around the world.” (link to 284 page pdf)
  • “Russian-SOPA” used to shut down music site domain name (Torrent Freak post)
  • EU court holds that clickable link does not infringe copyright in the site to which users are redirected.
Read the full article
  • House hearings on copyright reform continue. January 28, 2014 focused on the scope of fair use. Paper submissions from the five panel members are collected here.
  • Harvard Law School professor William Fisher’s 2014 CopyrightX online course has begun. If you are not one of the 500 students selected to participated in the course, you can still audit the course. First week lecture is  on “The Foundations of Copyright Law.” CopyrightX
  • Prince’s N. D. Cal. lawsuit against “Doe” defendants who have created links to infringing material. The suit was withdrawn by the end of the week.
  • Court sets aside jury verdict finding copyright infringement of source code under “virtually identical” standard of comparison. Antonik v. Electronic Arts, N. D. Cal.
  • Audio recording of Swatch earnings classified as fair use, and therefore not copyright infringement. Swatch Group v. Bloomberg
  • Copyright owner sues YouTube following user-requested “put back” request. Would seem to be a meritless claim, since YouTube is following DMCA, and only proper defendant is the user.  
Read the full article