It’s a tough world in the entertainment industry. Everyone’s got an idea and oftentimes they’re the same one. In a recent case brought against NBC, Plaintiff Sonya Latimore alleged that NBC’s original reality television show The Biggest Loser was copied from a show treatment she wrote entitled “Phat Farm/Fat Farm—A Weight Loss Adventure.”

Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case due to a lack of substantial similarity between The Biggest Loser and Latimore’s Phat Farm. Substantial similarity is essential in revealing elements of copyright infringement. In proving substantial similarity quantitative and qualitative data must be assessed; quantitative—how much of the work is copied, what quantity and qualitative—is the expression being coped or just the idea and facts? NBC defense was that the similarities between each program were restricted to the general idea (not protected) and concepts inherently present in a show of the weight loss/reality genre.

In addition to the lack of substantial similarity, Latimore was unable to prove that she owned any sort of copyright or that NBC had direct access to her work. She contented that her agent had sent a copy of the Phat Farm treatment to the studio executives. Unfortunately Latimore was rudely unaware of the rules of the pitching to a network. First and foremost, any creator should register with the Writer Guild of America or the Library of Congress to establish a chain of ownership. Secondly, never send any of your work unsolicited. There must be a trail of conversation about the work. Whoever you are sending your treatment to must be aware of you and your work. When submitting content ideas to a network you must also sign a release waiver for your idea that exempts the network from being sued for any likeness or of ideas that points to infringement. This set though alarming is a necessary evil. In any case of exactness, you as the creator will have grounds against the infringer.

Whether or not NBC copied the treatment idea, Latimore had taken no steps to protect herself or her ideas. This is surprising seeing as Latimore had a agent submit her materials. One would assume that the agent would be aware of such protocol. It is not an uncommon occurrence for and entertainment outlet, specifically a television network to “borrow” ideas from scripts and treatments that are submitted. Where money is tight and ideas are virtually impossible to protect, why wouldn’t a studio head take full advantage of ideas that are improperly submitted?

http://www.ipbrief.net/2011/03/15/nbc-and-the-biggest-loser-are-winners-in-copyright-infringement-suit/

The Pirate Bay was launched in 2003 and has today established itself as the world’s most high-profile file-sharing site. Over the years the site has enraged copyright protection groups all over the world but the Pirate Bay team don’t seem shy about what they are doing – they are pirates, and proud of it. Their logo makes their statement very clear. It shows a ship under full sail with a cassette tape topping a skull and crossbones in a nod to the Jolly Roger pirate flag. They seem to picture themselves more as pirates of freedom, a Robin Hood rather than a Blackbeard, freeing creative content from the shackles of copyright.

Even though the site has been up and running for several years they have received countless numbers of cease-and-desist letters, which they have posted on their site together with sarcastic replies such as; “Please don’t sue us right now, our lawyer is passed out in an alley”( a reply to the videogame giant Electronic Arts). The site doesn’t store the files itself, just the information on where to find them. This distinction is what the Pirate Bay team has claimed will protect them under Swedish law.

The issue of illegal downloads of media is an international dilemma since media is a global commodity. The Pirate Bay is a peer-to-peer network that is composed of several computers enabling files to be shared among users. In our modern technological society where everything changes from one day to another it has been hard for the Swedish law system to keep up and the Swedish authorities always seem to be one step behind. However, in 2006 the Pirate Bay’s fame became too much for Swedish authorities and the site’s offices were raided by police investigating allegations of copyright violations. This finally led to the trial against the Pirate Bay team that started in February 2009, which verdict was predicted to be of great significance for the future copyright issues in Sweden and really determine if this country in fact is the file-sharing paradise many people claim it to be.

Even though all the founders got convicted for contributing to copyright infringement and sentenced to prison together with monetary damages for the copyright violations, the site is still running. This brings up a lot of questions and confusion regarding copyright law in general. Does it mean we have to attack piracy and file sharing even harder to protect the entertainment industry and prevent market harm? Or should we start to consider the fact that the public, that actually are the ones making the piracy industry possible and who are the consumers, seems to think that the copyright protection today isn’t reasonable and far to broad?

Since there currently is a lack of Swedish case law regarding copyright infringement, and no cases except for the Pirate Bay-case concerning contributory infringement, it has been hard to predict how the rules protecting copyright would be applied and in which types of cases, especially online.

Sweden first began enforcing it’s anti-piracy laws under the European Union Copyright Directive, which had made it illegal to distribute software with the purpose of promoting copyright infringement. The problem with copyright law in general is that there is no universal copyright protection. American record labels and movie companies haven’t been able to do much about the fact that their rights to their works have been violated in Sweden since other rules apply there. What they have been able to do is to try to push Swedish authorities to act, and that is probably one of the main reasons why this case became so important. The Swedish authorities probably felt a huge pressure internationally that they had to settle this matter once and for all and take control. However, it seems like the judges have been confused and not quite sure how to deal with these copyright issues online since they never had to face it before. Therefore, it’s definitely an important case to bring up in the Supreme Court with a lot of questions to be solved.

At the same time this case brings up another important question of whether or not it’s justified for multinational companies to interfere in the laws of another country simply because those aren’t favorable to them? Even if you can understand their concern it’s definitely questionable. A bill (Combating Online Infringement & Counterfeits Act) was proposed to the U.S. Senate last year that suggested that U.S. authorities would have the possibility to shut down foreign websites that are providing copyrighted material to their users illegally since it’s costing American companies billions of dollars each year, resulting in thousands of lost possibilities of employment. The bill wasn’t passed but the U.S. is currently negotiating with a number of nations, such as the EU, in order to create an agreement regarding how to deal with the international spread of copyrighted material.

Obviously, people don’t seem to stop file sharing even though it’s illegal and the Pirate Bay website is still active and the servers have moved abroad. It has been said that the site has been sold for 60 million SEK even though no contract has been presented to support it. The founders claim that they no longer have any active part in the site. So, even if it might be an important case to settle in the Supreme Court, it probably won’t have that much effect on file sharing. The process before it will be tried there will take several years, and by then file sharing will probably be a part of the past given the speed in which the technology changes. The market could very likely have adapted itself by then and might be able to provide legal alternatives. So, a verdict in the case might be a solution to an old problem.

The problem is that the average file sharer won’t really care about this verdict, not even the convicted founders care, since they know it’s impossible to stop them. If one site shuts down, another one opens. For the movie and music industry it’s probably most a matter of prestige since they need to scare people in order to make an example. The solution isn’t easy and of course a part of the problem is that no file sharer views his individual infringement as a big damage to the industry in large. But it’s clear that the public obviously thinks that the protection of copyright is taken too far. Maybe a higher price on an Ipod for example in exchange of a big nr unlimited downloads could be a way? Forming international agreements to harmonize the copyright legislation is a good initiative, but in the end the authorities can’t ignore the public opinion in this matter for too long. They should try to meet halfway.

As Google increases its efforts to “organize the world’s information” (as promised by their slogan), the question has arisen: does Google have the right to digitize information? More specifically the question has become does Google have the right to digitize books as a personal company? This is an interesting question to ask, especially since this appears to be a governmental job, due to the fact that the library of congress holds books that are as old as this country. If the government uploaded all of the books in the world and stored all of this information in a “virtual library” citizen would not complain they might even glorify this idea. But recent events in Washington D.C may prove that this may not be such a good idea and definitely one that should face the same criticism as Google’s attempt to create a virtual library.

The entirety March and the duration of April has been a big chess match for the Republicans and Democrats in Washington. It has been an uphill battle to present a bill that both parties can agree on while the fate of the American citizen’s livelihood is at stake. The Republicans ultimate tactic (and endgame) was presenting the Democrats with an Ultimatum, either the Democrats agree to the demands of limited spending or the Republicans will shut down the government. This sounds like a shareholders meeting gone way wrong. They are treating America like it is a private business and they are the feuding executive board. The result would be shutting down government owned and public benefit sites.

Though it has not come to this (postponed at least until an official vote is made) the mere fact that the Government can threaten to shut down over a dispute tells us that similar issues and concerns about Google in its attempts to digitize books can be applicable to the Government’s attempt. At least Google is making the effort. In the book Googled by Ken Auletta, it stated that Dan Clancy a lecturer with a PhD in artificial intelligence stated that when he polled college students on how many of them went to the library nearly half raised their hands. This is due to the fact that so much information is on the Internet now, so why not add more. Google founder Larry Page stated in the book, that in his quest for knowledge he wanted to become a “sort of a ‘super librarian’”.

Their zeal caused them to initially scan books without permission, but Google later made a deal with the Library of Congress to scan books and even went so far as o pay the University of Michigan to digitize books. As far as copyright concerns Google agreed to show “snippets of books” which Google proclaims, “is permissible under the fair use clause of the copyright law”. The snippets provide a link, which allows viewers to click through to the book (which the author gets compensated for) to a platform where the user can purchase the book (which the author again gets compensated for). Since Google not only compensates the authors and publishers and respects the copyright law, I do not see the issue with “issue” of Google digitizing the books, especially when the strongest argument against it is that Google is a private business and that digitizing books for a virtual library should be handled by the government. That is a claim that holds little weight in my opinion especially in light of the current dispute in Washington D.C and threats from our government.

A recent blog post on Techdirt examines how the United States has influenced intellectual property laws in Spain, Sweden, and most recently, Canada. The United States demanded that Canada adopt anti-circumvention provisions when reforming its intellectual property laws, which would prevent the digital circulation of copyrightable materials. Canada agreed to this, even though it had originally decided that a main part of its copyright reform would be to oppose these anti-circumvention provisions. .

Another interesting point made in the blog post is that during negotiation, the public is hardly, if ever, mentioned. There is no discussion about the benefit or harm to the public if these intellectual property laws undergo reform, which might lead one to believe that it is not really so much about protecting people as it is about protecting businesses, primarily the entertainment industries between Canada and the United States that have “cozy” relationships with each other.

While it is obviously convenient for the entire world to operate under the same intellectual property laws, is it right for the United States to impose its laws on other countries? If the situation involved other laws more concrete than intellectual property laws, which even the United States is having trouble defining in a quickly changing digital world, would the United States dare to interfere? Another problem is the potential consequence on the United States itself. If we are not willing to recognize other ways of interpreting what is considered intellectual property and are not receptive to other legal systems and their ways of protecting innovation, then we are at a potential loss ourselves. Also, it is important that intellectual property laws are changed with the focus of protecting intellectual property in the hope that there can be more innovation, which is very people-driven in itself. It would have been interesting to see how Canada operated under a system without anti-circumvention provisions. There might be better ways of doing things, but these methods will remain unknown until governments are willing to see how other systems  choose to operate.

As many of you know, Mike Tyson, the famed boxer, has a very distinct tattoo on his face that surrounds his eye.  Apparently, the man who created the tattoo art, S. Victor Whitmill, is suing the Hangover Two movie for copyright infringement.  In the movie, Ed Helms’ character gets the same tattoo on his face during a crazy night.  Whitmill claims that he, in fact, did copyright his art and is justly suing over infringement.

This brings me to the question: should tattoo art be copyrighted? I know we have discussed this, and it is practically art, but I feel as though the only reason he is suing is because the original is on the face of a celebrity.  Would a tattoo artist sue if the tattoo in the Hangover movie was one that he inked on some average joe?  I would say, probably not.  I get that the artist is mad because producers ripped-off his work in their movie and did not compensate him for it, but I think he is just aiming to monetize from the situation, which could be an obvious statement.

Another thing I find interesting about this case is the fact that apparently Whitmill has not let anyone use the image since he tattooed it to Tyson’s face.  Due to this, he is suing Warner Bros. and he wants to make sure that the studio does not show the tattoo in the movie at all.  This, I believe, is a tad extreme.  However, I do not think he would benefit from it being in the movie at all.  People already know him and his art, and viewers will only connect the tattoo to Mike Tyson and not to the artist.

Tattoo Comparison

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/mike-tyson-tattoo-artist-sues-183716

What really drives an infringement lawsuit? Do people really care about their ideas, inventions or materials so much that they would compare them to [their] children? Or is it fortune and/or fame that cultivates an infringement lawsuit. It is truly hard to say, or it is hard to blanket this issue with one specific answer I should say. One thing is for certain that recognition is the underlying motivator. If people accomplish something that makes a difference not only to them but to others as well, they would want the recognition. This is understandable, and so is wanting compensation for that accomplishment. If people want to receive a profit for their work that is understandable as well, but in some cases it the arguments appear to be so far fetched that they not only lose the case, but their lust for profit becomes salient. Especially in the cases involving celebrities.

For example Oprah Winfrey recently defeated a lawsuit against her for copyright infringement. According to a CBS news article, author Charles Harris wanted to sue Oprah for $100 million for allegedly releasing information about his book on her show without permission. The hefty sum was to cover the market damage that the leaked information caused. First of all $100 million dollars is a little high for a book even if it was a bestseller. Second Oprah did not copy or read over the allotted amount of the book that is provided under the fair use clause. Lastly she was using the information as a promotional tool. The only thing that Oprah revealed that was from the book was a fact, according the article and as Oprah stated “facts can not be copyrighted”. With that Oprah won her case.

Recognition alone was clearly not the issue in this case because he was receiving it. Oprah never claimed anything as her own thoughts. It is cases like this that I feel can be used as a counter argument when it comes to copyright law provisions. One factor that seems to be neglected in the deliberation is people’s greed. Fair use was an excellent addition to the law because it seems that people will try to look to get paid for every little thing that is apart of their copyrighted material even facts! Celebrities appear to be the ultimate copyright infringement targets. You get the recognition and the money, and this seems to be all that matters in these cases; not the property itself, but the money making potential of the property.

This reminds me of the case Field v. Google. The courts ruled in favor of Google because the plaintiff Blake Field was aware of the cache system and the possibility of infringing activity on Google’s behalf but he just sat back and let Google cache more of his pages to amend his previous complaint and add to the statutory damages.

Celebrities are not only the ideal targets; they make the most interesting cases, such as Charlie sheen. He is attempting to copyright content from his ramblings. He may very well be successful, if so then these are the cases that I feel should be reviewed and taken into consideration as counter arguments when looking to give so much power to the authors of materials. They are locking certain things down and expecting to get paid for things that are said and done all of the time. The sad thing is that they (not just celebrities but copyright authors in general) are protected for such a long time. Integrity seems to be lacking in these cases. Maybe the case of “Tiger Blood” may open our eyes and make us rethink how we perceive copyright and construct copyright law.

referenced:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20048723-504083.html

“Happy Birthday to You” is a song that is known throughout the world as the birthday song. Yet this song is not sung in many instances, such as in private and company owned/franchised restaurants or at least not this particular version. This is due to the fact that the ‘original’ birthday song; “Happy Birthday to You” was copyrighted by Preston Ware Orem and R.R Forman, according to Wikipedia. Since they were the first to actual print the song they received the copyright, which was estimated at $5 million dollars in 1990. The article also said that this copyright would not expire (in the United States) until 2030, which raises the question is copyright getting out of hand?

I think that 2030 is a bit too long for a copyright especially on material that can benefit the public. Every time you go out to a restaurant your otherwise peaceful dinner is disrupted by the screech of a generic remake of a song that we have grown up with and (sung of course within the private sanctity of our homes) recognize from anywhere. The reason for this is because someone (Warner Chappell) obtained the company that owned this copyright and extended the copyright.

Ironically enough the song derives from a song by Patty Smith Hill titled “Good Morning to All”, a song she sung to her class. This song outdates the “Happy Birthday to You” song over forty years from its copyrighted date. The irony is that the song is strikingly close to that song from the lyrics to the melody. When the two songs are sung back to back the resemblance is uncanny. Yet Patty has never received any compensation, just minor recognition years later. Is the song that is in the Guinness Book of world record as “the most recognized song in the English language”, a case of intellectual property theft?

It appears so and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer actually contested the legitimacy of the song’s existing copyright. I feel that this is cold case that needs to be solved. For a song that is possibly a derivative of original content and no fair use practices were exercised by the authors to be protected for so long and furthermore granted an extension is ludicrous. What is even more insane is that the song benefits the public. It is a staple in most homes for a birthday and the fact that it cannot be sung outside of home unless that establishment compensates the company that owns the copyright is outrageous.

Lastly it is possible that the song’s existing copyright legitimacy hangs in the balance, due to the fact that copyright issues are so complicated. It is any man’s guess, but this is an issue that I feel should be dealt with no further delay. Not just because it is the birthday song, because it s an issue that regards public. I am personally tired of hearing the different variations to a classic song because no one is certain if it is okay to be used in public. Copyright law needs provisions but I feel that the areas to target first are areas like this, where the material directly effects the public sphere and not just to artists and authors of content.

For my final project I think that I will attack the issue of Google and copyright. Google is a totally innovative Internet company that has proven to staying true to the company’s slogan, which is ‘organizing all of the world’s information’. Accompanying their slogan is their motto which is “don’t be evil”. This motto derives from the world-bettering atmosphere at Google’s headquarters in Silicon Valley, California. Though the company has been successful in many different ways when it comes to making the world’s information accessible via their search engine, they have also been successful in gaining a reputation for themselves. Amongst their users, Google is the best thing to happen to the Internet and on the opposite end of the spectrum there is the competitors of Google, who feel that in Google’s attempt to do it all, they infringe on not only the rights of a competitive market, but media copyright as well. Google is facing a number of lawsuits. Most of which come from old or traditional media companies which believe that Google is unlawfully uploading, scanning and digitizing their content without any remorse. These companies feel that this is done deliberately to damage the market potential of this content and eliminate all competition; both internet and traditional media companies. Google’s claim in many cases is fair use.

Google claims that by digitizing information, they are making the works more accessible. Google never takes the credit for the works; they only take credit for the search results. Whether Google is digitizing this information and content deliberately to affect the markets is an issue that is deliberated in the courts. I plan to look closer at the court cases and apply the material from the class to reach a conclusion or better understanding of Google’s motives, intentions and speak on their actions for the future. Lastly there is the issue of compensation
.
Though Google does not get directly compensated for the works, they receive a portion of the money through their search engine. There was also an issue as to whether Google was compensating these companies for the products that they used arose circa 2006. Whether Google pays these companies or found a legal loophole is another issue I will incorporate into my research. For resources I plan on using a book by journalist Ken Auletta titled Googled. Googled is the best most in depth analysis of Google as a company and cultural staple. I also plan on using research databases and University law libraries to gain access to the lawsuits against Google.

It is important for me to look into these lawsuits closely and carefully because as a student, I do not see the harm in Google, but I do suppose that some issues could be raised such as copyright infringement and market damage whether it is done intentionally or not. I also plan on addressing the issue that was brought up in class: what gives a private company the right to archive information at this magnitude? Why not the government? Furthermore I will explore what stops other private companies from doing this, when they can encapsulate information and release it for a profit (not to say this is what Google odes or will do).The challenge of this assignment is to remove my bias and look at the issue neutrally and deliver a paper the covers the copyright issues that Google cause.

Many iPad users know the convenience of getting the news directly onto their devices, anytime, anywhere. IPad news apps make it easy for users to find the news they are looking for quickly and in the case of Zite, offer users customizable and personalized news based on ones interests and behaviors.

Launched on March 9^th, the Vancouver based news app Zite is a free app offered in Apple’s App Store. Zite’s description in the App Store claims, “Zite is a personalized magazine for your iPad that automatically learns what you like and gets smarter as you use it. Zite gives you personalized news, articles, blogs, videos and other content from a variety of both mainstream and niche publications and sites.” With over 1,400 five star ratings in the App Store, it seems to be a hit.

It’s anything but a hit though for news organizations such as The Washington Post, Dow Jones, and Time Inc. who were just some of the news organizations who sent Zite a cease-and-desist letter. In their letter, the news organizations said Zite “intentionally and pervasively infringes on our copyrights”. They claim this is done by the way Zite presents the news to users: instead of directing a reader to a news organization’s website, where they display online advertising, many of the stories appear on Zite reformatted in a pop-up window without ads. The companies suing Zite claim “By systematically reformatting, republishing and redistributing our original content on a mass commercial scale without our permission in your iPad application, Zite directly and adversely impacts our businesses.” The go on to claim that Zite deprives their websites of traffic and of business they gain due to ads.

The CEO of Zite claimed that displaying the articles in a pop-up rather than a web view was a “design decision in order to give users a better reading experience.” He also claimed that Zite was more than willing to work with the publishers and change the app to redirect users to the website the articles come from.

I downloaded Zite to my iPad to do a little investigating myself. The way the news organizations made it sound was that Zite was not giving them any credit for the articles, hence the copyright infringement. But as I searched through the articles, I saw that they said which organization they were from and who wrote it. I also notices that when you tapped on an article to read, a pop up to the article on the news organizations website came up, but only for some articles. (It looks like Zite took care of the complaint a little). Maybe it’s because the format has been changed but I’m kind of confused as to why it was a copyright issue. To me it personally seems more like a money issue; the organizations were not getting the revenue from their ads because of less traffic. The credit had always been there but it was more of a question of where the users got their news. What do you think? Was this a copyright issue or just big businesses wanting more money?

Read the Article