THE COPYKAT

1)    Record Labels in the United States claim Copyright Infringement against COX

In another US case on the question of liability of intermediaries such as Internet Service Providers and the ambit and threshold required to prove  Contributory/Secondary infringement, US Magistrate Judge, Judge F. Anderson has taken a stance on evidentiary presentations and has blocked the request of COX to not admit certain evidence presented by the Record Labels due to alleged non-credibility, as reported by Law 360. COX had gone on to argue certain issues with the credibility of the evidence, wherein they said that the record labels had not kept all the data related to the finding of infringement (worked by the Record Labels in collaboration with Anti- Piracy agencies – Mark monitor and Audible Magic) on record.

For a claim of such secondary liability to be conclusively established, firstly a user having performed primary infringement must be shown, after which, the burden shifts upon proving actual knowledge of the infringement with the intermediary, and a positive role in promoting the same. A safe harbor protection is available to the intermediaries, which do not conclusively pursue an actual knowledge of infringement. The main argument brought in by the record labels herein is that the ISP COX deliberately had shoddy systems for dealing with infringement and infringers on their networks and produced certain evidence on it, using the worked data, but not all of it. The Judge went on to hold that, whatever is the issue with the evidence, it needs to be brought before the jury, and cannot be blocked, due to such reasons. The court concluded (as reported by Complete Music Update) that the labels weren’t under any obligation to keep all the data which they and their partners had gathered, on record.

2)    Robert “Bobby” Prince sues Gearbox, its President as well as Valve for unauthorized exploitation of copyrighted music.

The original music for the video game Duke Nudem 3d was created and composed by music composer Robert Prince, but has seemingly been used without unauthorisation (without a license or a compensation) by Gearbox Software LLC., in its new game - Duke Nukem 3d World Tour. Further, these allegedly infringing copies were conveniently distributed by another defendant, “Valve Corporation”, which even ignored a takedown notice, hence denying a claim to safe harbor. Another interesting fact to note is that the allegedly infringing game includes text specifically giving accreditation to Mr. Prince for his music, but has not compensated or even contacted Prince to get a license in the use. In light of the same, Robert Prince has filed an infringement suit in the United States District Court Eastern District of Tennessee, Northern Division. The Petition can be found here.  The game is supposed to be released on October 11^th and It will be interesting to see, how this one plays out.

3)    CJEU clears the air over conflict between Design and Copyright Protection and the ambit of Copyright.

The CJEU, in the case of Cofomel (C-683/17) decided on the issue as to whether Copyright would subsist in the designs of G-Star Raw’s Jeans and T-Shirts. The question peculiarly concerned itself with whether member states had the freedom to choose the threshold which works of applied art, industrial designs and works of design are required to meet for Copyright Protection. The Court held that, even in the cases of functional products, the ambit required for it being a work is the same and that is “the author’s own intellectual creation”, that is one reflecting free and collective choices, which could give the non-functional aspect of the work, Copyright Protection. Most importantly, as reported by IAM Media, the judgement makes it clear that an analysis of artistic merit or aesthetic impression need not be done, as it is extremely subjective and non-precise, to conclude whether a work is copyrightable or not.

This makes it clear that the aesthetic aspects of useful articles can also be protected as Copyrightable, insofar as they fulfill the originality standard of “Author’s own intellectual creation”. Read more on this on the IPKAT.

4)    STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN back in court!!

The US Deptartment of Justice had recently released their Amicus Brief in favour of Led Zeppelin in the now infamous copyright suit, covered herein by the blog. In a latest update to this case, as reported by The Rolling Stone, the case started with a filing by Michael Skidmore, a trustee representing the estate of Randy Wolfe, and this accused Led Zeppelin of stealing the opening guitar riff from Spirits' 1968 instrumental track Taurus. The case is now back in court before an 11 judge bench in the 9^th Circuit US Court of Appeals. A request to make available the sound recording was made and a claim was brought in by the plaintiff attorney saying that if these were made available, Led Zeppelin would lose out on the case. However the court observed that if the law limited the claim to the 4 corners of the deposited sheet music, and the currentthinking is that the justices feel that on that basis there was no chance the plaintiff could establish an infringement. Led Zepplin's attorney Peter Anderson argued that “There is no similarity between these two songs, but they both combine a scale, little pairs of notes that are in different melody and an eighth note rhythm.” It will be interesting to see how the court proceeds this time, in light of the Justice Deptartmen's Amicus brief.

5)    GOOGLE undercuts new EU Copyright Law

Google has decided to not pay European Media Outlets to display and use their content on its search engine and Google News platform. It has decided that it will only portray content from those media groups that have allowed free usage of the content. The EU Copyright legislation was brought in to ensure that media companies could get adequate compensation for the display of their items on platforms of these tech giants, however google has played a trump card, mostly propagating free content higher access philosophy. Google’s vice president has announced that it is upon the Europe based news published to decide if it would allow Google to show “snippets” of content or thumbnail images, however there will be no compensation paid for the same. If they don’t allow, only a headline and a bare link to the content will appear in the results. This is a major blow to media organisations which hugely depend on Google for facilitating access and to reach out to more of online audiences. This move by Google has been criticised by the EU Copyright rapporteur, referncing the move as a 'digital dictatorial' practice, with an intention to create a monopoly. This move makes the situation even worse for the publishers. This move has taken place post French legislating this EU directive in its Domestic Law. In Germany, recently after the EU Directive was complied with, some publishers decided to allow Google to publish their content free of cost, due to a drop in traffic (as hreported by Politico). In light of this, it will be very interesting to see the implications of the same and how this practice affects the news industry in the future across Europe.

This update by Akshat Agrawal

THE COPYKAT

The UK's Intellectual Property Office has said it has plans to simplify the way websites which contain copyright infringing material are blocked - currently the system is based on injunctive relief that must be obtained from a court - giving orders are often easy to circumvent. In a statement the IPO confirmed that the UK government was now considering "the evidence for and potential impact of administrative site blocking - as opposed to requiring a high court injunction in every case - as well as identifying the mechanisms through which administrative site blocking could be introduced". The IPO's announcement also covered their position on devices that came pre-loaded with apps that can be used to easily access infringing streaming and other content - something of real concern to the entertainment and sports sectors. The government's IP Minister, Sam Gyimah, said that recent criminal prosecutions of individuals concerned with the distribution of devices that enable infringement showed the  current law to be working, but he said that education of the public and the involvement of Trading Standards officers would be followed up, as would new new anti-piracy measures such as administrative site blocking.

As of the end of October, six of the eleven “Trans Pacific Partnership" member states had ratified the Trans Pacific Partnership 11 Agreement.  The agreement will go into effect in two months’ time on December 30 this year. The amendment of Japan's copyright law will be effective on the same day, and the statutory term will be extended to life + 70 years from January 2019, including for those creators whose copyrights would have expired on December 31, 2018. The Diet's Upper House approved the move to match US (and EU) law, and the provision has been retained even though the United States government has withdrawn from the TPP agreement (at least for now).  What is interesting is how the "war extension" in copyright law might (or might not) be accommodated. 

Lucien Greaves, spokesmen and co-founder of The Satanic Temple ("TST"), has tweeted that the Temple is taking legal action against Netflix in connection with the "Chilling Adventures of Sabrina". TST has decided to take this route because of what Greaves claims is copyright infringement. He claims the statue of Baphomet in the hall of the school depicted in the show is a copy of TST’s deity.

From Hell to Heaven? Led Zeppelin have asked the Ninth Circuit appeals court to reconsider its recent ruling in the "Stairway To Heaven" copyright lawsuit 'en banc' to determine the law in the case that involves allegations that the 1971 classic is rip-off of the 1968 instrumental song "Taurus" recorded by Spirit and written by Randy "California" Wolfe's whose estate brought the claim. The group's representatives argue that by overturning the original judgement, the appeals court could "cause jurors to find infringement just because the same unprotected elements are present, upsetting the 'delicate balance'" between copyright protection and the freedom of music creators to employ common techniques and musical elements when composing music" and "if uncorrected," the Ninth Circuit's recent conclusion will "allow a jury to find infringement based on very different uses of public domain material" which, it then argues, "will cause widespread confusion in copyright cases in this circuit."  You can compare the two recordings here and a very interesting analysis by TJR here.  'Top 10 Sound Alike Songs' here. 

Seven sports photographers have been given another chance to pursue copyright allegations against the National Football League (NFL) in the U.S. The World Intellectual Property Review reports that the NFL had asked that the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit hold an en banc rehearing of the matter, which was decided against the NFL last month - this has been denied. The 2013 complain relates to claims by the photographers against 
against the NFL, all 32 NFL teams, the Associated Press (AP), and image companies Replay Photos and Getty Images that the defendants exceeded the terms of original licence agreements that granted limited use of certain images. The case was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (image: C Watts). 

And finally, Lyor Cohen is the latest YouTube executive to take aim at the planned reforms to EU Copyright Law, and in particular Article 13. An ex-record label man himself, Cohen is now YouTube’s global head of music and he posted a warning about the new Copyright Directive saying “Let me be clear: we understand and support the intent of Article 13. We need effective ways for copyright holders to protect their content” adding “But we believe that the current proposal will create severe unintended consequences for the whole industry. We still have a couple of weeks to work together towards a better final version of the law. The music industry should really pay attention to these unintended consequences - the system that largely contributes to their success is at risk of major change in the European Union”, opining that "Remixes and covers, tutorials, fan tributes, parodies" were all at risk, and that "these are such powerful promotional tools for the industry". More on the Verge here.

THE COPYKAT

This CopyKat from Tibbie McIntyre

The UK Copyright Officers survey – deadline 3^rd April

If you work at a UK library and educational/cultural institution, your organisation is warmly invited to take part in a survey about copyright officers and copyright education here. The survey is available until 3^rd April.

The UK Copyright Literacy page states that the research is regarding “copyright officers or similar specialists in UK libraries and educational / cultural institutions. We want to find out more about the value and status of these positions, the responsibilities that they entail and the ways in which copyright education is delivered. … The findings should be of interest to organisations wishing to benchmark the copyright training and advice services they currently offer.”

Even if your UK library and educational/cultural institution does not have a dedicated copyright officer, your organisation is still invited to participate, as there are questions designed to determine how copyright is managed in the absence of a designated copyright post.

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact [email protected].

You can find the survey here until 3^rd April.

Australia NOT to grant safe harbour to Google, Facebook, at al.

The Australian government had recently been seeking to extend its safe harbour provisions to online intermediaries (including Google and Facebook) that rely on user-generated content. The move would have given immunity to online intermediaries for infringing content uploaded onto platforms by users.

Across Europe and the U.S., online intermediaries already enjoy such a safe harbour (European legislation can be viewed here, American here). However, safe harbour provisions have generated much heated debate, with copyright holders arguing that it has led to the copyright ‘value gap’. For example, rights holders have argued that platforms that benefit from the safe harbour rule facilitate nearly half of all music consumption on the internet but represent only around 4% of the revenue generated by the industry.

Also, platforms are only under an obligation to remove infringing content when notification is given by the rights-holder. This leaves copyright holders in the position of eternally having to search YouTube, Facebook et al. for instances of infringement – an eternal game of ‘whack-a-mole’. This topic is coveredhere and here, and reports on controversial measures proposed by the EU to overcome the ‘value gap’ can be found here.

TorrentFreak reports that “Due to what some believe amounts to a drafting error in Australia’s implementation of the Australia – US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), so-called safe harbor provisions only apply to commercial Internet service providers.” This means that platforms allowing the upload of user-generated content may be found liable for infringing content uploaded by 3^rd parties.

Communications Minister Mitch Fifield confirmed in a statement that the amendment had been dropped: “Provisions relating to safe harbour were removed from the bill before its introduction to enable the government to further consider feedback received on this proposal whilst not delaying the passage of other important reforms”.  

Lobbying from a consortium on copyright holders to drop the safe harbour amendment has been intense. The Australian has published a series of articles against implementation of the safe harbour rule, arguing that Google et al. are “ruthlessly exploiting” safe harbour rules in the US and Europe (no links are available as the content is behind a paywall).

What are the implications for platforms that allow 3^rd parties to upload content?

There is legal uncertainty – platforms may be found liable for any acts of infringement by their users. There are a number of options from which the platforms can choose;

1.      Run the risk of being found liable of copyright infringement because of the actions of 3^rd party users, having to pay penalties to copyright holders.

2.      Enter into agreements with copyright holders on a pre-emptive basis, licensing content that 3^rd party users might upload onto the platform.

3.      Implement filtering technology, identifying and blocking infringing content when it is uploaded. (This is also a live issue in Europe.)

4.      Exit the Australian market altogether.

The exemption from liability enjoyed by platforms is an important issue worldwide, and it should be interesting to observe how events unfold in Australia in the coming months.

There are more stairs? – Stairway to Heaven saga continues

This saga has previously been reported on the 1709 blog here and on the  IPKat here. This case deals with the potential infringement of a song by Spirit, ‘Taurus’, by Led Zeppelin in their ‘Stairway to Heaven’.

A 90 page brief was recently filed to the 9^th Circuit Appeals court by the agent of Michael Skidmor, trustee of Spirit guitarist, Randy Woolfe (California). The brief asks the court to reverse the previous finding, where the jury found unanimously in favour of Led Zeppelin in June 2016. This brief also asks for remand for a new trial, including striking the bill of costs.

Copykat will issue updates as and when they come.

By Alf van Beem (Own work), via Wikimedia Commons

Compulsory Licences for “cable systems” do not apply to TV streamers

The 9^th Circuit delivered its ruling in the Fox Television Stations v Aereokiller case on 21 March. The case relates to the TV streaming services provided by FilmOn.

FilmOn provides a service that uses antennas to capture over-the-air broadcast programming – much of it copyrighted – and then uses the internet to retransmit this programming, utilising both subscription and ad-based methods of revenue generation. Essentially, it enables you to watch TV on your computer.

The dispute centred on section 111 of the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 111), which provides that a “cable system” is eligible for a compulsory license. Such a compulsory licence allows “cable systems” to retransmit “a performance or display of a work” originally broadcast by someone else without having to secure the consent of the copyright holder.

In order to maintain its compulsory licence, the “cable system” must pay a statutory fee to the Copyright Office – as well as complying with other regulations.

FilmOn contended that its services fall under the “cable system” definition and it should therefore be granted a compulsory licence.  

A group of broadcasters (including, inter alia, Fox, NBC Universal, ABC, CBS and Disney Enterprises Inc.) argued that the services provided by FilmOn do not fall under the definition of “cable system” as provided under § 111 and it should therefore not be granted a compulsory licence.

A statement on page 7 the ruling sheds further light on why this issue was so hotly contested by the parties:

“Compulsory licences are highly coveted, in no small part because, according to the Copyright Office, the royalty payments the Act requires cable companies to pay are “de minimis” when compared to the gross receipts and revenues the cable industry collects, a gap suggesting that the government-set rates fall well below market levels.”

Unfortunately, court found itself at an impasse: “The text of § 111 is written in broad terms, and both sides can make plausible arguments about the statute’s purposes and legislative history.”

The court goes on to state “that the meaning of § 111 is ambiguous on the precise question before us”.

To overcome this impasse, the decision hinged on arguments brought by the Copyright Office and the weight the court was willing to give those arguments. The court utilised the Skidmore framework (precedent that allows the court to rely on the arguments of a government agency in cases where there is no clear law).

The Copyright Office argued that FilmOn’s services do not fall under the definition of “cable systems”. Historic Copyright Office arguments have posited “that a provider of broadcast signals [must] be an inherently localized transmission media of limited availability to qualify as a cable system.” Significantly, Congress has for years been aware that the Copyright Office views internet-based retransmission services as not falling under the definition of “cable systems” and has never moved to amend or comment upon this view.

The arguments presented by the Copyright Office were therefore afforded significant deference in this case, since the statute was found to be ambiguous on the issues at stake and the Copyright Office proffered cogent arguments to address matters. The court noted that “To the extent the legislative history provides relevant evidence of § 111’s meaning, we would defer to the Copyright Office’s interpretation of it, seeing as the Copyright Office has a much more intimate relationship with Congress and is

institutionally better equipped than we are to sift through and to make sense of the vast and heterogeneous expanse that is the Act’s legislative history.

In summary, it was on the strength of the arguments brought by the Copyright Office, that court found that “a service that captures copyrighted works broadcast over the air, and then retransmits them to paying subscribers over the Internet without the consent of the copyright holders, is not a “cable system” eligible for a compulsory license under the Copyright Act.”

This story will continue, as FilmOn is arguing two similar cases at the D.C. Court of Appeals and the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeal.

Read all about it - new book is a real Page turner!

Robbie Williams co-manager Tim Clark has told the Popkomm conference that the U.K.’s recently passed Digital Economy Act – aimed at curbing Internet piracy – was “laughable and unworkable" saying that "It allows ISPs to sit on their hands for longer, knowing they are off the hook,” claiming one major label CEO agrees with him that the Act is "a waste of time” and “is never going to work.” Clark said that “the truth is digital technology has driven a panzer division through copyright law” (an interesting choice of words given the location of the Berlin based event) adding “If 70% of the population are ignoring a law, it’s no longer a law – we have to figure out a new way of working with copyright.”

Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails front man, has been at the forefront of creating new music business models for copyright which combine new media and traditional business models – offering free internet downloads of albums alongside premium internet products, limited edition CD and vinyl box sets, special merchandise and other paid for product – in an eclectic mix of free and paid for. Now Jimmy Page, the legendary guitar hero from Led Zeppelin, recently voted the best ever rock band in a BBC Poll, has announced that he will be releasing a limited edition signed photo-memoir priced at £445 bound in silk and leather. The Book was trailed in the Sunday Times Magazine two weekends ago with new and unseen images, and now 2,500 fans can get their hands on the unique book which will contain more than 700 Page picked photographs, starting with the guitarist as a 12 year old choirboy. If the band’s recent massively oversubscribed and sold out 02 reunion is anything to go by, selling 2,500 copies won’t be a problem for Page – whatever the price. Page was described by Rolling Stone magazine as “probably the most digitally sampled artist in pop after James Brown” but he and his publisher Genesis Publishers seem to have hit on a neat revenue generating idea here – free from the worries of digital copyright infringement – and which will net them a cool million – well actually £1,112,500.00.

Photo Sean Preston (c) 1995