Archive for the ‘Copyrights’ Category

New University Rules

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Effective this month, colleges and universities that don’t do enough to combat the illegal file sharing on their computer networks put themselves at risk of losing federal funding.

One provision of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008  makes institutions of higher learning forced allies of the entertainment industry’s campaign to stamp out unauthorized distribution of copyrighted music, movies and TV shows.

According to the Act, which went into effect yesterday, institutes of higher learning must  “effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material by users of the institution’s network” without hampering legitimate educational and research use.

Despite initial opposition about invading students’ privacy and doing the entertainment industry’s dirty work for it, college and university officials are generally satisfied with regulations since many such institutions have had such systems in place for years.

The Motion Picture Association of America, one of the entities that pressed for the legislation, is encouraged by what campuses are doing but believe it’s too early to tell whether it will ultimately curb piracy, according to MPAA spokesperson, Elizabeth Kaltman.

How Things Change

Saturday, May 9th, 2009

Celebrity gossip Perez Hilton (né Mario Lavandeira)  has won an injunction against those who operate the site PerezRevenge.  The PerezRevenge site styled itself as an antidote to Lavandiera’s mean-spiritedness.

Here’s the rub:  When Lavandeira started his blogging career he called his site PageSixSixSix (a rather obvious play on the New York Post’s Page Six gossip column).  The Post objected, and won.

Then he adopted the moniker Perez Hilton, an obvious reference to Hilton heiress, Paris Hilton.  Indeed, a good choice since both are famous for nothing.

“He also routinely doctors celebrity photos, arguing that sprinkling cocaine dots on them is a transformative use, entitling him to publish them.”  Ugh.

It is ironic that one becomes famous “borrowing” from others, but when others borrow from you when seeking fame, you object like it’s nobody’s business…  With any luck, Perez (and Paris) will just be a flash in the pan.

How ‘bout that picture?

Ben vs. Yoko

Friday, April 18th, 2008

Apparently the producers of “Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed” have “incurred the wrath” of Yoko Ono for using 25 seconds of the song “Imagine” in their movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” which opened today.

Categorizing the issue as a First Amendment issue, we presume that they intend to inform us that they consider it to be a fair use issue.

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

Sunday, September 2nd, 2007

Chris Knight writes:

Last fall, as part of my campaign for Rockingham County Board of Education, I produced three commercials that ran on local television. The first of them – which I simply dubbed “Christopher Knight for School Board TV Commercial #1″ – was hosted on YouTube the same evening that the ad started running on WGSR in Reidsville. You can watch it at http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLi5B0Iefsk.

Well, the concept of a candidate for Board of Education pitching himself by using the Death Star to blow up a little red schoolhouse is admittedly unusual. The YouTube clip got around quite a bit: as of this writing it’s received over sixty-six thousand views. I put it and the other two ads on YouTube so that I could post them on this blog (because I was trying to chronicle everything that happened during the course of my campaign). And I’d always intended to keep them up after the election too, in case anyone else might find and enjoy watching them. Heck, I’ve always liked to think that maybe someday, others might see how I was a candidate and feel led to run for office themselves!

 VH1′s Web Junk 2.0 show profiled Mr. Knight’s ad in a segment entitled “Animals & Other Crap”.  Mr. Knight was flattered so he obtained a copy of the segment featuring his own video and posted it on YouTube.com. 

Recently, Mr. Knight received notice from YouTube that it had removed its posting because it received a letter from Viacom International claiming that Mr. Knight’s posting violates Viacom’s copyright.

While, technically, that may be true, the fact remains that Viacom would not have been able to produce this segment without Mr. Knight’s original video.  Viacom didn’t even bother to inform Mr. Knight that it was featuring his video on one of his segments – fair use or not.

Apparently, Mr. Knight and Viacom are negotiating this situation.

Even if Mr. Knight’s posting of Viacom’s material is copyright infringement, it seems that in this case, Viacom should overlook the situation in light of the all of the circumstances.

Facebook Face-Off

Thursday, July 26th, 2007

Social networking website Facebook faces legal action from the founders of a rival site over claims that their ideas were stolen, in a case that could lead to a change of ownership at the fast growing $10bn (£4.9bn) internet business.The founders of the ConnectU site allege that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, stole their site’s software code while he was working for them as a Harvard student.

Already the subject of a $1bn approach from Yahoo!, the company said this week it would only consider selling out for more than $10bn.

In their suit, brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra, claim Mr Zuckerberg worked for them on a project called Harvard Connection, which aimed to create a network for the university’s students and alumni.

They also claim that they asked Mr Zuckerberg in November 2003 to complete software and database work on the site, and asked him to finish his task before they graduated from Harvard in June 2004.

Big Money.  Big Money.  No Whammies.

Daily Motion Found to Infringe

Thursday, July 19th, 2007

A French court has ruled that the online site Daily Motion infringed copyright by knowingly allowing users to post videos without permission of the copyright owner. Daily Motion plans to appeal.

You can view the French decision here.

Bad Chunkey Monkey

Thursday, May 31st, 2007

chunky-monkey.gifMaker of ice cream flavor Chunkey Monkey, Ben & Jerry’s (a division of Unilever) is facing another lawsuit regarding its use of flavor name Chunkey Monkey.  Daughter of the designer of the “Chunky Monkey” cartoon character (of which I’ve never been aware), Pauline Comanor, has sued Ben & Jerry’s claiming the ice cream maker violated legal agreements with artist Pauline Comanor by using Chunky Monkey to promote lip balm and by printing a misleading story on packaging about the character’s origin. Comanor died in 2005.

Apparently, the agreements outlined permissible uses of the character, the daughter said. Ben & Jerry’s paid Comanor at least $80,000 to settle earlier trademark disputes, according to the agreements. Chunky Monkey is the third-most-popular flavor of Ben & Jerry’s, a unit of Unilever NV. The article, however, suggests that Ben & Jerry’s began using the flavor name before any agreements with Comanor were signed:

In 1988, Ben & Jerry’s began using Chunky Monkey as a trademark and a flavor with bananas, walnuts and fudge chunks, according to the complaint. Two years later, the company reached an agreement with Comanor over its use of the design, acknowledging her as the creator and paying her $30,000.

If that is the case, Comanor’s daughter’s claims concerning “packaging that includes a story describing two campers’ claim they devised the name “Chunky Monkey” seems specious.  While the agreements with Comanor may give Ben & Jerry’s the right to use the name Chunkey Monkey, it is still entirely plausable that the story about “a fan wrote us about her summer camp job encounter with a mischievous campers who presented her a goofy food-mash they called ‘Chunky Monkey.’”   Even if it story is a fabricated marketing ploy – as so many are – so what.  The ice cream story has nothing to do with the cartoon or the plush animals.  If Ben & Jerry’s were fabricating a story about the plush animals, perhaps there would be a law suit.  However, Ben & Jerry’s is describing its own product – not Comanor’s cartoon or its plush toys … unless, of course, the agreement states something to the contrary.

Concerning the lip balm, I have insufficient information to form a belief as the the merits of that claim.

It seems to me, however, that Comanor’s daughter is looking to milk this for everything it’s worth.

La Dolce Vita vs. La Dolce Vita

Friday, February 16th, 2007

According to International Media Films Inc., the good name and dignity of the classic 1960s film “La Dolce Vita,” directed by Federico Fellini, is being stripped away by two pornographic movies using the same name. So it says in its lawsuit against Michael Luca (née Andrei Treivas Bregman). It claims that Lucas’ films “Michael Lucas’ La Dolce Vita: Parts 1 & 2″ infringes the trademarks in the 1960s classic “La Dolce Vita”.

Bregman, who moved to the United States from Moscow in 1997, called the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan a joke.

“Nobody can be confused and think they’re buying Fellini’s movie by buying mine,” said Bregman, noting the name Michael Lucas was part of his title, which otherwise means “The Sweet Life.”

New York-based International Media Films said it believed the gay pornographic films, released last month, will “infringe, tarnish and dilute” its trademark rights to the highly decorated “La Dolce Vita,” which won the 1961 Academy Award for costume design and the New York Film Critics Circle Award for best foreign film of that year.

70%

Thursday, December 28th, 2006

According to this web site, 70% of all China’s internet bandwith is used to transfer pirated movies. 

Google Adds Functionality

Saturday, November 25th, 2006

to Google Book Search.

It seems that Google is adding additional functionality to its book search feature.