Today on Slate, Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu lays out an excellent explanation of why RDR Books has the right to publish the Harry Potter Lexicon, and why J.K. Rowling's copyright claims to the contrary are misplaced. Read the article here.
Today on Slate, Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu lays out an excellent explanation of why RDR Books has the right to publish the Harry Potter Lexicon, and why J.K. Rowling's copyright claims to the contrary are misplaced. Read the article here.
This week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked satellite television provider DirecTV's heavy-handed legal tactics and protected security and computer science research into satellite and smart card technology.
Last month we filed suit against Viacom for taking down Robert Greenwald's parody of the Colbert Report. We are happy to report that Viacom has conceded it should not have done so, agreed to withdraw its objections to the parody, and also agreed to take steps to help avoid incidents like this in the future.
In return for that, we have dismissed our complaint, and are working with Viacom to establish specific procedures to avoid the takedown of protected material -- and to expedite the restoration of it once mistakes have been identified.
Personally, I applaud Viacom for doing the right thing here, and for its willingness to do more.
While fair use can be murky in some respects, there is no doubt that parody lies at the center of its protections. Viacom had YouTube take down Robert Greenwald's clear parody of Stephen Colbert. While the parody is funny, silencing protected speech is not. So here is the complaint we filed along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation seeking a declaration that Greenwald's parody is protected by fair use, and compensation for wringful takedown under DMCA section 512(f).
View the video here
News: In a great article (which I'm asking for permission to post in full) by Louis Trager for Communications Daily, Tracfone is claiming that I received personal favoritism from the Copyright Office. I. Received FAVORITISM. From the COPYRIGHT OFFICE! Stop laughing and keep reading.
Plaintiff Carol Loeb Shloss (“Plaintiff”) sought a declaratory judgment that the use of written works in an electronic supplement to Plaintiff’s book Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake would not infringe the copyrights of Defendants Seán Sweeney and the Estate of James Joyce (“Defendants”). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment based on several grounds. The Court found that Plaintiff demonstrated the existence of an actual “case or controversy” and interpreted Defendants’ unwillingness to extend a covenant not to sue based on the amended electronic supplement as a continuing threat of litigation. The Court denied Defendants’ motion to strike three of Plaintiff’s claims. First, and most significantly, the Court denied the motion to strike Plaintiff’s copyright misuse affirmative defense, holding that the standard for copyright misuse merely requires “a nexus between the copyright holder’s actions and the public policy embedded in the grant of a copyright.” In applying this standard, the Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrated such a nexus between Defendants’ actions and their negative effect on creative expression. Second, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s claims that the 1922 Paris edition of Ulysses is in the public domain. Third, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to strike allegations of Defendants’ unclean hands.
There is one thing about the 9th Circuit’s decision in Kahle v. Gonzales that I could not find any discussion about – namely, the international copyright law implications of the issue. The basics first.
here.
Though the Court acknowledged that there had been a change from an opt-in to an opt-out system of copyright, the court held that because Eldred had resolved a “similar” claim, it would not “ignore the clear holding of Eldred” (about, apparently, not the same claim, but a “similar” claim.)
Some sad news to report: the 9th Circuit has rejected constitutional challenges to the copyright laws in *Kahle v. Gonzales*. The opinion is here. Sad, yes, but also positively maddening, for reasons I will explain shortly.