Stanford Center for Internet and Society

The long-awaited Amended Settlement Agreement (ASA) was filed yesterday. The relevant documents (including the new version of the settlement and a summery of the main changes) are available here. As someone who was looking into the international law aspects of the settlement recently, one of the first places for me to look was the new definition to a “Book”, which now reads as follows:

It was brought to my attention that the German high court decision on copyright and music sampling I had previously blogged on here received a fresh English translation that is now available online. (Thanks Tom Braegelmann!) It provides a highly detailed and careful exposition of the legal situation in Germany concerning music sampling and copyright law. As explained in the translators’ note:

Copyright treatise’ author and, for the past few years, Google’s copyright counsel William Patry has recently published a new book with Oxford University Press bearing the title “Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars”.

I was among those who deeply regretted (though fully understood) Mr. Patry’s decision to discontinue his popular blog on copyright about a year ago. Therefore, I was particularly delighted to learn that Patry has decided to start a new blog devoted to his new book.

Today the Supreme Court reportedly resolved not to hear the appeal on the Second Circuit’s Cablevision decision. This denial comes shortly after the Court has received the U.S. Government's brief recommending to reject the petition.

You don't see a lot of law comics, much less comics about copyright law. Does this clever cartoon from across the Web describe an instance of fair use? You be the judge.

Author: Allison Pedrazzi Helfrich

Following an investigation and notification attempts, clothing distributor Louis Vuitton Malletier filed a complaint against several websites that it believed were selling goods that infringed on Vuitton’s copyrights and trademarks, alleging contributory trademark infringement; vicarious trademark infringement; contributory copyright infringement; and vicarious copyright infringement. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the contributory copyright and trademark infringement claims. With respect to the contributory trademark infringement claim, the court held that the proper inquiry in this context was how much control the defendant had over the means of infringement.

Denise hosted her 20th episode (Ethically Cleansed) of her legally-minded program This Week In Law. I had a great time appearing on the program with my co-panelists Evan Brown, Ernie Svenson, and Ben Franske.

Author: Matt Kellogg

Google recently reached a settlement agreement with the authors and publishers who in 2005 sued the company for copyright infringement. As part of the arrangement, copyright owners will not only receive fees from Google for the use of digitized copies of their books in Google Book Search, they will also have the ability to choose how much—if any—of their works they wish to be displayed. The settlement provides for the creation of an independent organization to oversee its administration as well as special modes of access for public and university libraries.

The German Supreme Court (BGH) clarified last week that sampling does not infringe on copyright in the work from which samples were taken for the purpose of creating a new work. There is a catch hiding in the details, though.

A while ago I commented here on the Second Circuit’s decision in The Cartoon Network/Cable News Network v. CSC Holdings/Cablevision. It seemed to me like a decision that would leave a mark, one with implications reaching far beyond the particular dispute between the particular parties. Meanwhile, Cable News appealed to the Supreme Court. During the first week of November, a rainfall of amici curiea (friends of the court) briefs supporting the petition washed the threshold of the Court.