Topic: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law (Read 58734 times)

Büge · « **Reply #440 on:** February 13, 2012, 04:50:54 PM »

So Disney is planning to release a film, Oz, the Great and Powerful. Should be easy-peasy, right?

NOPE

Yeah. Even though Baum's original work is under public domain, Warner is fighting tooth and nail for the trademark to everything about the Wizard of Oz.

McDohl · « **Reply #441 on:** February 13, 2012, 04:58:44 PM »

Too bad this isn't Talking Time, because James Franco.

Thad · « **Reply #442 on:** February 15, 2012, 09:19:36 AM »

BleedingCool has a post from Steve Bissette on the Ghost Rider case, mostly consisting of comments by actual-lawyer Jean-Marc Lofficier. Lofficier takes something of an alarmist position -- that this is the first step in Disney handing out C&D's at Artist's Alley -- but of course it's legally possible.

There's an extensive post early in the comments section that rebuts some of Lofficier's major points and it's worth reading too. I haven't read the rest of the comments section yet but I assume it devolves back into the usual cesspit shortly after.

Mongrel · « **Reply #443 on:** February 15, 2012, 10:15:53 AM »

Wow... Jean-Marc Lofficier? He and his wife Randy worked with Moebius for years and years as Moebius' translator (still does, I think) and the Lofficiers been involved with comic and sci-fi in general for years and years as well as being writers and creators themselves. I had no idea the guy was a Lawyer ON TOP of all that.

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #444 on:** February 15, 2012, 12:10:30 PM »

Quote from: Thad on February 15, 2012, 09:19:36 AM

BleedingCool has a post from Steve Bissette on the Ghost Rider case, mostly consisting of comments by actual-lawyer Jean-Marc Lofficier. Lofficier takes something of an alarmist position -- that this is the first step in Disney handing out C&D's at Artist's Alley -- but of course it's legally possible.

There are rumors going around that Marvel/Disney are going to use the blank 'sketchbook' covers as entrapment to sue artists for copyright violation. It's ridiculous, of course, but it says something about how cartoon-villainous their behavior has been of late that such rumors almost seem credible.

Mongrel · « **Reply #445 on:** February 15, 2012, 02:00:53 PM »

"Disney itself to feature as main villain in upcoming Disney movie"

Brentai · « **Reply #446 on:** February 15, 2012, 02:07:14 PM »

I thought that WAS The Muppets.

Thad · « **Reply #447 on:** February 16, 2012, 08:22:21 AM »

Davids Brothers and Uzumeri analyze pirated versions of Marvel comics to try and determine where they're coming from, and conclude it's from inside the house.

Quote

Messed up fonts, print indicia, missing digital comics redemption codes, the fact that Avengers 22 is available as a digital scan despite not being available on ComiXology (or on Marvel’s stupidly exclusive app), the standard DPI, the rigid resolution, the perfect scans… it’s obvious what this is. Someone’s got Marvel’s print-ready files before they’re finalized, and they’re slapping them up online as digital scans. Clever girl.

EDIT: The post's been updated; apparently they've found the real culprit and, in compliance with Hanlon's Razor, it's not someone in the supply chain, it's an unspecified "dumb" security hole. Marvel has apparently fixed it and hopefully more info is forthcoming.

Thad · « **Reply #448 on:** February 20, 2012, 07:38:10 AM »

Eternal Copyright: A Modest Proposal, by Adrian Hon

Quote

But what, I ask, about your great-great-great-grandchildren? What do they get? How can our laws be so heartless as to deny them the benefit of your hard work in the name of some do-gooding concept as the "public good", simply because they were born a mere century and a half after the book was written? After all, when you wrote your book, it sprung from your mind fully-formed, without requiring any inspiration from other creative works – you owe nothing at all to the public. And what would the public do with your book, even if they had it? Most likely, they'd just make it worse.

(via Doctorow, naturally)

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #449 on:** February 23, 2012, 06:36:01 PM »

Marvel totally not trying to bully artists who make a living selling sketchbooks. Nope. No sir, not at all.

Thad · « **Reply #450 on:** February 24, 2012, 06:48:38 AM »

"Sketchbooks" is distinct from "sketches". He should probably have known better.

But yes Marvel trying to get him to sign away the rights in exchange for not being sued is a bully tactic.

Thad · « **Reply #451 on:** February 29, 2012, 09:03:00 AM »

Ars: Why wait? Six ways that Congress could fix copyright, now

It's pretty much shit that we've been discussing for 23 pages already, but it's pretty well-assembled and -summarized.

Thad · « **Reply #452 on:** March 01, 2012, 08:05:32 AM »

Ars explores YouTube's asinine copyright claim policy.

Quote

On Friday, a YouTube user named eeplox posted a question to the support forums, regarding a copyright complaint on one of his videos. YouTube’s automated Content ID system flagged a video of him foraging a salad in a field, claiming the background music matched a composition licensed by Rumblefish, a music licensing firm in Portland, Oregon.

The only problem? There is no music in the video; only bird calls and other sounds of nature.

[...]

Back at YouTube, eeplox found himself at a dead end. YouTube now stated, “All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content.” No further disputes were possible, the case was closed.

Whether caused by a mistake or malice, Rumblefish was granted full control over eeplox’s video. They could choose to run ads on the video, mute the audio, or remove it entirely from the web.

I've already linked Doctorow's piece on how Big Content has been pushing false copyright claims on public-domain material. This is along the same lines. Ars argues, and I'm inclined to agree, that this is much worse than the DMCA takedown process.

I think this policy is likely to change soon, and Google will move ContentID to be more inline with DMCA takedowns. Because there will be more, and increasingly embarrassing, abuses of this nature, and sooner or later somebody's going to sue.

Thad · « **Reply #453 on:** March 02, 2012, 08:05:44 AM »

Gaiman v McFarlane settlement: $382,000

Gaiman's already said it's all going to charity. Must be nice to be able to spend 15 years in court just to set a precedent.

Thad · « **Reply #454 on:** March 07, 2012, 09:47:58 AM »

Reg: EFF accuses Warner of spamming DMCA takedown notices

Quote

Much of the legal battle is still sealed, but according to the brief, Warner has acknowledged that the notices were sent out incorrectly, saying they were mistakes churned out by the software while searching for content. The EFF brief points out that such practices are barred under the terms of the DMCA.

"The law requires the sender of a takedown notice has to have a good-faith belief that their copyright is being infringed," Mitch Stoltz, staff attorney at the EFF told The Register. "The system they are using appears to only be looking at file names, and sending out notices with no human review of the requests, or even an automated review of the file in question."

In essence, the EFF claims, Warner is attempting to set a precedent that would allow DMCA takedown notices to be used for competitive advantage. By being able to blame the whole thing on computer error, companies would have a "perverse incentive to dumb-down the process," the brief reads.

The EFF points out that over a third of takedown notices received by Google are false, and warns the problem will get worse if Warner wins this point.

Thad · « **Reply #455 on:** March 08, 2012, 12:01:58 PM »

Warner Bros. Embarrasses Self, Everyone, With New “Disc-to-Digital” Program

Quote

The program, which would have merely been ill-advised had it been announced ten years ago, today stands as a testament to the ability of movie studios to blind themselves to reality.

[...]

The head of Warner Home Entertainment Group thinks that an easy, safe way to convert movies you already own on DVD to other digital formats is to take your DVDs, find a store that will perform this service, drive to that store, find the clerk who knows how to perform the service, hope that the “DVD conversion machine” is not broken, stand there like a chump while the clerk “safely” converts your movie to a digital file that may only play on studio-approved devices, drive home, and hope everything worked out. Oh, and the good news is that you would only need to pay a reasonable (per-DVD?) price for this pleasure.

A² · « **Reply #456 on:** March 08, 2012, 01:20:11 PM »

Well, what are they to do, let consumers do it themselves?

That'd let them play it however they want, instead of under the watchful eye of the studio execs.

Mongrel · « **Reply #457 on:** April 20, 2012, 10:58:27 AM »

German court rules that YouTube must install front-end filters to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material

Thad · « **Reply #458 on:** May 08, 2012, 02:46:53 PM »

Quote from: http://dajaz1.com/our-response-to-unsealed-court-documents-in-dajaz1-domain-seizure/

The owner of Dajaz1.com appreciates the fact that the United States Government, on studying the matter further with all the information the RIAA could furnish, determined that there was in fact no probable cause to seek a forfeiture of the domain it had seized and held for a year.

That exoneration, however, did not remedy the harms caused by a full year of censorship and secret proceedings — a form of “digital Guantanamo” — that knocked out an important and popular blog devoted to hip hop music and has nearly killed it.

The original seizure was unjustified. The delay was unjustified. The secrecy in extensions of the forfeiture deadlines was unjustified.

Five details are notable here.

First, the seizure occurred pursuant to language the PRO-IP Act authorizing seizures of property used in connection with the making of, or trafficking in, “articles” in violation of copyright law. In that context, “articles” are physical items. The law does not authorize seizure of domains that link to other sites. So from the beginning this seizure was entirely legally unjustified, no matter what the allegations about infringement.

SEC. 2323. FORFEITURE, DESTRUCTION, AND RESTITUTION.
(a) CIVIL FORFEITURE.-
(1) PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE.-The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government:
(A) Any article, the making or trafficking of which is, prohibited under section 506 of title 17, or section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of this title.
(B) Any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A).
(C) Any property constituting or derived from any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A).

Second, seizing a blog for linking to four songs, even allegedly infringing ones, is equivalent to seizing the printing press of the New York Times because the newspaper, in its concert calendar, refers readers to four concerts where the promoters of those concerts have failed to pay ASCAP for the performance licenses.

Third, RIAA’s grand and sweeping attacks on dajaz1.com suggest that RIAA’s powers of demonization far exceed its ability to substantiate its malicious statements with specific and credible facts.

Fourth , when I explained that the blog publisher had received music from the industry itself, a government attorney replied that authorization was an “affirmative defense” that need not be taken into account by the government in carrying out the seizure. That was stunning.

Fifth, when discussing the secret extensions with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles, I repeatedly asked the government attorney to inform the court that my client opposed any further extensions and asked for an opportunity to be heard. Not once did the government reveal those requests or positions to the court. The government should be embarrassed for keeping that information from the court.

This entire episode shows that neither the government nor the recording industry deserves any additional powers with new so-called “antipiracy” legislation, especially in the context where copyright law has been expanded and new anti-piracy remedies have been crafted ***16 times*** since 1982. This episode shows that the copyright establishment and the government are very much the “rogues” that deserve to be reined in.

Booya.

(via)

Mongrel · « **Reply #459 on:** May 08, 2012, 03:36:52 PM »

Hate to say it, but that response is only going to matter if they succeed in suing the US gov for abuse of power (or whatever the relevant violation would be). I would not be surprised if the law specifically included a clause disallowing any claims for redress.

News:

Author Topic: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law (Read 58734 times)