A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued its much-anticipated opinion in the TVEyes appeal, reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and holding that TVEyes’ copying, storage, and re-distribution for viewing, downloading, and sharing, of massive amounts of copyrighted TV content was not fair use.
TVEyes is a for-profit media company offering a service that allows its clients to “sort through vast quantities of television content in order to find clips that discuss items of interest to them.” TVEyes records 1,400 channels’ worth of TV broadcasts, 24 hours a day, and makes the copied content searchable by also copying the closed-captioned text that accompanies the videos. Clients can search for videos based on keywords and play unlimited video clips, each up to ten minutes in duration, and may archive, download, and share clips by e-mail. Clients pay $500 per month for these services. Continue reading
Update to November 17, 2017 Post.
Last week, Judge Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Goldman v. Breitbart News, LLC – one of a pair of cases pending in Manhattan federal court concerning the practice of “embedding” copyrighted content – issued a ruling in favor of the plaintiff, photographer Justin Goldman, holding that embedding (or framing) does not immunize content users from copyright infringement claims. The court declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s “server test” as set forth in Amazon v. Perfect 10, holding that the location of the allegedly infringed work does not determine whether a defendant has “publicly displayed’ that work in violation of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights. Put another way, “the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party . . . does not shield” defendants from a finding that a plaintiff’s display right had been violated.
The court chiefly relied on the language of the Copyright Act, including § 101’s definition of “display,” which includes showing a copy of a work by any “device or process,” and transmitting or communicating a display by means of any “device or process.” The court explained that the Copyright Act does not require a user to possess, or to store at their own physical location, a copy of the work in order to display it within the meaning of the statute. The court further looked to legislative history and the 2014 decision in Aereo to note the application of the Copyright Act to new technologies. Continue reading
On January 9th, Kodak announced its intention to enter the cryptocurrency craze by developing a blockchain-based service that presumably allow participating photographers to get paid each time their licensed work is used on the Internet without their prior consent. As described on the company’s website, the digital platform, currently referred to as KODAKOne, will “provide continual web crawling to monitor and protect the [intellectual property] of images registered in the KODAKOne system.” Upon detection of an unlicensed use, Kodak will manage the post-licensing process and (i) have the picture removed, or (ii) compensate the participating photographer in the company’s own currency, referred to as KodakCoin. By December 11th, the company’s stock had more than tripled. Continue reading
In a decision issued last month in the ongoing battle waged by former members of the 1960s rock group The Turtles over the scope of copyright performance rights in sound recordings, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that pre-1972 sound recordings are not protected by Florida state law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit asked the Florida Supreme Court to interpret Florida state law in connection with the federal lawsuit brought by Flo & Eddie, Inc., the company that owns the master sound recordings of certain musical performances by The Turtles—recordings that are not subject to federal copyright law—against satellite and internet radio provider Sirius XM Radio. Sirius broadcasts Turtles songs to Sirius’s subscribers without paying any royalties to, and without a license from, Flo & Eddie – a practice that Flo & Eddie, for several years, have also sought to invalidate in the New York and California courts.
Flo & Eddie claimed that Sirius’s broadcast of Turtles songs constitutes unauthorized public performances of the sound recordings, and that Sirius’s creation of back-up and buffer copies of the sound recordings constitutes unauthorized reproductions. Because sound recordings created before February 15, 1972 are not protected by federal copyright law, the question of whether “pre-1972” recordings enjoy a public performance right (as post-1972 sound recordings do when digitally transmitted) was certified to the Florida Supreme Court. That court ultimately found that no such right exists. Continue reading
In a pair of cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, photographer Justin Goldman and various online media outlets seek to set the record straight on whether embedding images on a website through in-line linking without authorization constitutes copyright infringement. A website embeds an image using an in-line link when it uses HTML code to direct a user’s browser to an image file hosted on and transmitted from a server controlled by a third-party (usually another website) yet it appears as if the image resides on the website the user is actually viewing. The allegedly infringing website effectively opens a “window” allowing the user to see an image hosted by a third party, yet never actually copies, stores, or serves up the image itself.
This is the technological method the defendants used in the Goldman cases, and that many other digital media companies have come to rely on in certain situations (e.g., when images or videos are not available for license), but that many content owners believe harms the image licensing market by leaving open a legal back door around otherwise infringing unlicensed uses. Continue reading
For the many everyday citizens who have no recollection of when the New England Patriots won Super Bowl XLIX against the Seattle Seahawks after a “questionable” play call, comedy blogger Robert “Alex” Kaseberg’s (“Kaseberg”) saves the day. Thanks to his witty remarks, and the legal controversy that subsequently unfolded, the world may never forget. Kaseberg wrote in his blog “A Little Bit Bad” on February 3, 2015: “Tom Brady said he wants to give his MVP truck to the man who won the game for the Patriots. So enjoy that truck, Pete Carroll”. Pete Carroll is the Seahawk’s head coach, and was at the time of the fateful “Big Game.” The U.S. Copyright Office seems to have gotten the joke, at least on the second telling.
Kaseberg originally sought to register the joke as a two-sentence 27-word textual work, titled “A LITTLE BIT BAD, Blog Content, Brady Joke February 3, 2015” (the “Work”). The U.S. Copyright Office federal review board (the “Board”) denied Kaseberg’s first request to register the Work. Kaseberg later sued, among others, Conan O’Brien, and his production company Conaco, after the late night host told a similar joke during his show. On May 12, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled partially in Kaseberg’s favor, holding that he was entitled to a “thin” copyright in the Work. Continue reading
For many copyright owners, especially those attempting to register works of visual arts, determining whether a work is published or unpublished for registration purposes is one of the more challenging issues and an impediment to registration. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in Archie MD, Inc. v. Elsevier, Inc., No. 16-CV-6614 (JSR), 2017 WL 3601180 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2017) recently clarified the standard by which a copyright registration may be considered valid despite containing inaccurate information.
In 2005, Archie MD, Inc. entered into an Animation License Agreement (“ALA”) with the publisher Elsevier, Inc., under which Elsevier would license Archie’s library of 3-D medical animations for use in its various publications. About two weeks after entering into the ALA, and after Archie had delivered the works to Elsevier, Archie submitted a single copyright registration application for a group of unpublished works. This registration included the work at issue in this case, an animation entitled “Cell Differentiation.” The Copyright Office eventually registered the group of works on August 15, 2005. Continue reading
On August 30, 2017, the Ninth Circuit published an amended opinion in Mavrix Photographs v. LiveJournal, a case which concerns the situations under which social media websites and other internet service providers can be held liable for copyright infringement for content submitted by users. The amended opinion removed language from the original opinion that could have potentially penalized websites that use software to automatically block infringing content by causing them to lose protection under the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The case involved a copyright dispute between a paparazzi photo agency, Mavrix Photographs, and the social media website LiveJournal over twenty photographs posted in the site’s celebrity gossip community, Oh No They Didn’t! (“ONTD”). The photos at issue were submitted by users of the website but were reviewed and approved by moderators before they were publicly posted on the site. The Ninth Circuit’s decision concerned the issue of whether LiveJournal was immune from liability under the safe harbor, which protects internet service providers from being held responsible for infringing content submitted by users if the provider complies with the statute’s requirements. In its original opinion, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether the acts of the moderators in screening the photographs and making them publicly accessible can be attributed to LiveJournal under agency principles—an overall result which did not change in the amended opinion. (CDAS’s blog post on the Court’s original opinion, which was issued April 7, is available here. Continue reading
Earlier today, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a new release of its electronic system used to designate and search for Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) agents.
Under the DMCA, a qualified online service provider (OSP) is not liable for copyright infringement with respect to infringing material residing on the OSP’s network if, upon notification of a claimed infringement, the OSP acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material. One of the prerequisites to receiving this statutory “safe harbor” protection is that OSPs must designate an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement. The OSP must supply its agent’s contact information to the Copyright Office; in turn, the DMCA instructs the Register of Copyrights to maintain a publicly available, current directory of agents. Continue reading