copyright infringement

Subscribe to copyright infringement via RSS

A longstanding battle between Google andAudrey-Millemann-03_web the authors of published books has been resolved (at least for now) in favor of Google. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Google’s use of copyrighted books in its Library Project and Google Books website, without the permission of the authors, is fair use and therefore not copyright infringement. The Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2015) 804 F.3d 202.

In 2004, Google began its Library Project. Google entered into agreements with some of the world’s leading research libraries, including the University of California, the University of Michigan, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Princeton, the New York Public Library, and Oxford. Under the agreements, the libraries submitted certain books to Google which Google digitally scanned, made machine-readable texts, and indexed the texts. Google has now scanned and indexed over 20 million books. Some of the books were copyrighted, while others were in the public domain. Most of the books were out of print, non-fiction books. The digital copies are stored on Google’s servers.

The public can access Google’s database of machine-readable texts through the Google Books website. On the website, the user can search for key words and find all books that include the key words and the number of times the search terms appear in each book. The search results also include a short summary description of each book and may include a link to purchase the book or the names of the libraries where the book is located. The website also offers the user the ability to see up to three snippets (segments of about an eighth of a page) of the text of the book. Searches for different words will turn up different snippets, but one snippet out of every page and one page out of every ten pages of each book are permanently inaccessible to the user (referred to by Google as “blacklisted”). In 2005, Google agreed to remove the snippet feature for any book at the copyright owner’s request. Google does not permit advertising in the Google Books searches and does not get paid for any sales of books.Continue Reading When Copying is Not Copyright Infringement

Laches, a judiciallyAudrey-Millemann-03_web created defense based on the plaintiff’s delay and prejudice to the defendant, is a proper defense to the recovery of damages in a patent infringement suit, even though the Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that laches does not apply in copyright infringement cases.

A divided en banc Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products (September 18, 2015) 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16621 that Congress specifically provided for a laches defense in the Patent Act, unlike the Copyright Act.

SCA owned a patent for adult incontinence devices; First Quality was a competitor. In 2003, SCA sent First Quality a letter stating that it believed First Quality’s products infringed SCA’s patent. First Quality replied that SCA’s patent was invalid based on a prior art patent. In 2004, SCA filed a petition for reexamination of its patent in the Patent and Trademark Office, citing the prior art patent. In 2007, the PTO upheld SCA’s patent. SCA had not informed First Quality of the reexamination because the reexamination proceedings were public, but First Quality believed that SCA had dropped its accusation in response to First Quality’s letter. During this time, First Quality had made significant investments in its business. SCA knew First Quality was expanding its business, but did not inform First Quality of the reexamination decision. In 2010, seven years after its last communication with First Quality, SCA sued First Quality for patent infringement.Continue Reading Patent Owners Beware: Don’t Sleep on Your Rights!

Pending before the 9th CircuitScott-Hervey-10-web is a case which may change the landscape for online copyright protection. The case, Lenz v. Universal, may make it more difficult for copyright owners to protect against infringement in today’s environment of hyper infringement. Defenders of Lenz argue that this case represents the quest for a legitimate balance between overzealous copyright enforcement and legitimate, non-infringing use.

The facts of Lenz are fairly simple. Lenz posted to YouTube a very short video of her young child dancing to a Prince song playing in the background. At the time, Universal Music Publishing was managing Prince’s music publishing. An attorney at Universal manually reviewed the posting but acknowledged that he did not consider whether the Lenz video was fair use. Universal sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube and YouTube removed access to the video. Most normal takedown situations end there; however, Lenz was upset and, after trying and failing to remedy the situation herself, sought the aid of attorneys at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The DMCA was enacted in 1999 as an attempt by Congress to stem the tide of rampant online copyright infringement. The DMCA offered copyright owners a streamlined process for taking down from the Internet allegedly infringing material and online service providers had great incentive to follow the process laid out in the DMCA; to not do so opened one up to potential secondary liability for their users’ activities. Congress included a requirement that the allegation of infringement in a takedown notice include a statement that the sender had a good faith belief that the posting of the allegedly infringing content was not authorized by law. Specifically, Section 512(c)(3)(A)(v) requires a takedown notice to include “[a] statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.”Continue Reading Will Lenz v. Universal Make Online Copyright Enforcement More Challenging for Copyright Owners

By: Scott Hervey

Periscope (owned by Twitter) and Meerkat are two new “live streaming” appsScott-Hervey-10-web which allow users to live stream videos from their phones.  These applications could potentially change the way live sporting or music events are broadcast or change the way news footage is gathered.  They can also be used by a viewer to re-broadcast copyrighted content.  HBO was recently on the receiving end of that lesson when it found out that dozens of viewers were live streaming the season premiere of Game of Thrones.

HBO said that Periscope was responsive to its take down notices, but also added “We feel developers should have tools which proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps and not be solely reliant upon notification.”   This sounds very similar to the argument Viacom initially made in its protracted copyright infringement litigation against YouTube.  However, in 2010 U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton rejected this argument when he found that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”) insulated YouTube/Google from Viacom’s infringement claims and granted YouTube’s motion for summary judgment.

Under the DMCA, a “Service Provider” may be entitled to immunity from claims of copyright infringement in four areas: 1) transitory communications; 2) system caching; 3) storage of information on systems or networks at direction of users; and 4) information location tools. While each area would appear to have some application to Periscope and Meerkat’s business, the information storage category is of primary focus.Continue Reading Live Streaming Apps Raise New/Old Copyright Concerns

transparentMany of you may be familiar with the pop hit “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke, Clifford Harris, more popularly known as T.I., and Pharrell Williams (the “Composers”).  If it does not sound familiar by title, perhaps you may recall it for its controversial nudity laden music video, or the fact that it was the song performed by Thicke and Miley Cyrus at the MTV Video Music Awards in 2013 when Miley’s scandalous conduct went viral and shocked the world—including Thicke’s spouse.  However, what you may be less familiar with is the fact that the heirs of Motown great Marvin Gaye (the “Heirs”) have been threatening to sue the Composers since at least early 2013.  The Heirs claim that “Blurred Lines” infringes their copyright in the Marvin Gaye song “Got to Give it Up.”  However, in August 2013, after months of discussion on the issue, the Composers opted to file an action for declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking a judgment that “Blurred Lines” does not infringe “Got to Give it Up.”  The justification there was likely that sometimes the best defense is a strong offense.  The Heirs then filed a counterclaim for copyright infringement alleging that “Blurred” Lines” does in fact infringe “Got to Give it Up” and also that another song by Robin Thicke and Paula Patton—“Love After War”—infringes Marvin Gaye’s song “After the Dance.”  The trial on this matter began on February 24, 2015 and is currently ongoing.
Continue Reading The Blurred Lines of an Infringement Action