Prenda Law principal pleads guilty to federal charges in porn copyright case; ABA Journal, March 7, 2017

Stephanie Francis Ward, ABA Journal; 

Prenda Law principal pleads guilty to federal charges in porn copyright case

"A defendant in the Prenda Law case, which involved alleged shakedowns of people accused of illegally downloading pornography, pleaded guilty Monday to federal conspiracy charges of money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud. 

John L. Steele, the defendant, previously bragged about earning millions from suing people for illegal downloads, the Star Tribune reports. Federal prosecutors claim that Steele and Paul Hansmeier, a Minneapolis attorney, created two fake businesses to acquire copyrights for the pornographic films, some of which they filmed themselves, and posted the materials to file-sharing websites. Then they and other lawyers filed John Doe lawsuits against the downloaders and subpoenaed Internet service providers to identify defendants.

The government asked for a sentence of eight to 10 years. But according to the Star Tribune, prosecutors could agree to something shorter if Steele cooperates with them, which presumably would involve testifying against Hansemeier.

Between April 2011 and December 2012, Steele and Hansmeier, along with lawyers who worked for them, collected more than $6 million in settlements, according to the article."

"Jail for Self-Publishing Novels"; Bizarro, 7/16/16

Dan Piraro, Bizzaro:

"Jail for Self-Publishing Novels"

Huckabee’s anti-gay-marriage rally leads to copyright suit, $25,000 payment; Ars Technica, 6/27/16

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica; Huckabee’s anti-gay-marriage rally leads to copyright suit, $25,000 payment:

"Now, CNN has reported that Huckabee's campaign ended up paying $25,000 to Sullivan's music company to resolve a copyright infringement lawsuit over the incident. Two payments of $12,500 each appeared on a June 20 document filed with the Federal Election Commission...

Huckabee's campaign didn't give up without a fight, though. In court documents, Huckabee argued that his use of "Eye of the Tiger" was "de minimis" and should be considered fair use. He also said the rally for Davis was a "religious assembly," which further mitigated against a finding of infringement.

This isn't the first time "Eye of the Tiger" has been in the political eye of the storm. Newt Gingrich used the song at rallies for years before getting sued in 2012, when he mounted a presidential bid. He settled for an undisclosed sum. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney also used the song in 2012, but he quickly stopped after receiving a warning from McGarry.

In an interview with CNN, song co-writer Jim Peterik said he doesn't want the song to be used at political events."

Crosswords and copyright; Washington Post, 3/15/16

David Post, Washington Post; Crosswords and copyright:

"What’s interesting, to me, in all this, aside from the light it sheds on puzzle construction, is that it illustrates how “plagiarism,” though it is often conflated with copyright infringement, actually covers very different territory and involves very different interests. A crossword’s “theme” is probably one element of the puzzle-creator’s work that is not protected by copyright; copyright law doesn’t protect “ideas,” only the expression of ideas, and a puzzle’s theme is, in my opinion, just such an unprotectable “idea,” free for the taking (as far as copyright law is concerned). But it’s precisely this kind of taking — theme theft — that gets the angriest response from those in the puzzle-writing business.

This has a direct parallel in academic writing. There, too, the plagiarism norms focus on a kind of borrowing that the law of copyright deems permissible: taking another’s ideas or expression without attribution. Nobody in the academic world will complain if you use their ideas or quote their work — in fact, that’s very much the whole point of the enterprise. But to do so without citation — that will get you into the hottest of hot water. [Just ask Doris Kearns Goodwin, or Stephen Ambrose or Joseph Ellis]. Yet copyright law gives an author no enforceable right to have his/her work properly attributed to him/her — a fact that surprised the hell out of many of my law prof colleagues when they first learned of it (insofar as proper attribution was really the only thing they cared about)."

Photo Copyright: Oscar Wilde, Richard Prince, and Your Instagram Content; Huffington Post, 3/15/16

Kim Farbota, Huffington Post; Photo Copyright: Oscar Wilde, Richard Prince, and Your Instagram Content:

"Richard Prince, an "appropriation artist" well-known in creative spheres, is showing blown-up screen shots from his Instagram feed in renowned Manhattan galleries. The contemporary counterparts of Wilde's Gilded Age fan base buy the inkjet-on-canvas prints for upwards of $100,000. The original snappers hear through the proverbial grapevine that their filtered selfies are featured in high-end art shows.

Copyright law has evolved markedly in the century separating Richard Prince from Napoleon Sarony. On the shoulders of Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons, Prince has made a decades-long career selling slightly altered versions of other people's images. He evades copyright infringement liability through legal principles that allow certain "transformative works" to make use of copyright-protected materials without the owner's consent. Broadly, a transformative "fair use" alters or recontextualizes the original work for the purpose of commentary, criticism, or parody. All of the pieces in the Instagram-based New Portraits series include Prince's own original "comment" within the captured frame, submitted via his Instagram handle, "richardprince1234". He also enlarges the images and moves them from digital to print media. The original photos, which cover most of the space on the printed canvases, remain otherwise untouched.

Donald Graham, a career photographer whose portrait of a Rastafarian man was involuntarily featured in New Portraits, is not impressed. In a complaint filed in federal court this January, Graham calls Prince's work a "blatant disregard of copyright law". Graham's suit challenges whether Prince's transformations are sufficient to trigger "fair use" protection...

At the intersection of copyright and social media, balancing the benefits of exposure with the risks of theft and appropriation is an evolving challenge."

Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge; Science Alert, 2/12/16

Fiona MacDonald, Science Alert; Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge:

"A researcher in Russia has made more than 48 million journal articles - almost every single peer-reviewed paper every published - freely available online. And she's now refusing to shut the site down, despite a court injunction and a lawsuit from Elsevier, one of the world's biggest publishers.

For those of you who aren't already using it, the site in question is Sci-Hub, and it's sort of like a Pirate Bay of the science world. It was established in 2011 by neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan, who was frustrated that she couldn't afford to access the articles needed for her research, and it's since gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of papers being downloaded daily. But at the end of last year, the site was ordered to be taken down by a New York district court - a ruling that Elbakyan has decided to fight, triggering a debate over who really owns science."

Readers Debate Online Piracy and the Future of Digital Entertainment; New York Times, 9/29/14

Jenna Wortham, New York Times; Readers Debate Online Piracy and the Future of Digital Entertainment:

"On Sunday, The New York Times published the story of a popular — and illegal — website that let people stream and download movies and television shows at their leisure. The site was taken offline in 2010 by the federal government, and the administrators behind the site were charged with conspiracy and copyright infringement. Nearly all served time in prison. The article touched a nerve among Times readers, eliciting hundreds of reactions about copyright infringement and intellectual property, and how the digital world complicates both.

Here is a sampling of their comments..."

A Stolen Video of My Daughter Went Viral. Here’s What I Learned; New York Times, 9/26/14

Carrie Goldman, New York Times; A Stolen Video of My Daughter Went Viral. Here’s What I Learned:

"In early September, someone downloaded my video of Cleo, stripped it of all identifying information, changed the title from “Cleo on Equality” to “Wisdom of a 4-Year-Old”, and re-uploaded it to YouTube, passing it off as his or her own video. A woman in Amsterdam posted an embedded version of the stolen video to her Facebook page, from which it went viral. Within a matter of days, the stripped-down version of the video had been shared over 80,000 times.

I only learned about it when the pirated video began appearing in the news feed of people who recognized Cleo and noticed that it was not linked to any of my accounts. I felt sick on multiple levels. I have always known, of course, that the mere act of uploading a video to any digital site means potentially losing control over that content. But now it had happened, and even though the shares appeared to be harmless — approving, even — it was still terrifying. What if someone decided to do something creepy with it?

There was also a part of me that saw all the comments lauding Cleo’s grasp of acceptance, and I wanted those people to be linked back to my anti-bullying work. I missed the opportunity to share what I do for a living with a wide audience. I was sad and confused. Was I upset because the video was out there being viewed by tons of strangers, or was I upset because it was out there and I wasn’t getting credit? Both, probably...

I knew I had rights under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Since I speak to students and teachers all the time about good digital citizenship, I knew what steps to take next:

• Do not retaliate against someone online

• Take a screen shot and record the evidence

• Use this online form to report the violation to Facebook.

• Use this online form to report a copyright infringement on YouTube."

[Podcast] How to Anger the Internet; NPR's On the Media, 11/12/10

[Podcast] NPR's On the Media; How to Anger the Internet:

"Two weeks ago, the internet erupted in anger over unapologetic plagiarism by a small Massachusetts magazine Cooks Source. Bob and Brooke ponder what happens the internet becomes an angry mob."

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/11/12/04