Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter Esquire reports that a district court judge is refusing to lift an injunction against TV streaming service FilmOn X and further warns that the service may be operating in defiance of the court’s order.
The judge recently ordered FilmOn X to cease operations in most of the country. FilmOn X, like its competitor Aereo, is a TV streaming service that works by using a series of tiny antenna, one per customer, to capture, record and retransmit over-the-air broadcast television to customers. But where Aereo has found success in the courtroom, with broadcasters being denied injunctions in both New York and Boston, Filmon X has found defeats, being enjoined in both California and Washington D.C., the latter of which extended to the entire country other than the Second Circuit, where Aereo also won on appeal.
FilmOn X had petitioned the court to reconsider its injunction in the light of the recent ruling in favor of Aereo in Boston, however, the court said that the ruling was not binding in any way to the FilmOn X case and, furthermore, that FilmOn X had until Oct. 21 to state why it should not be held in contempt for continuing to operate in defiance of the court’s injunction.
Next up today, Susanna Kim at ABC News reports that graffiti artists in New York are suing a developer that plans on tearing down a building in Queens that have become known as “5Pointz”, a haven for graffiti artists and a destination for tourists.
According to the lawsuit, filed by artist Jonathan Cohen, who tags under the name “Meres One”, the artists have copyright in their work and Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) forbids the destruction of their works without permission. Cohen further states that the owners of the building have allowed artists to paint their walls since 1993 and have taken no action to force artists to sign VARA waivers.
Cohen says that has been a “volunteer curator” for the area since 2002 and approves designs before they are posted to the walls. He is asking the court to stay the destruction of the property and has also said that those who willfully destroy the works could be liable for copyright infringement, between $750 to $150,000 per work.
Finally today. Dave McNary at Variety reports that the lawsuit over the James Cameron film “Avatar” may not yet be over. Though Eric Ryder’s challenge against the movie, which claimed that the film was a plagiarism of an idea he had pitched Cameron, was tossed out by a judge, Ryder is now seeking to have that judge disqualified from the case.
According to Ryder, the judge, Superiour Court Judge Susan Bryant-Deason, is the wife of Paul Deason, who has allegedly serviced as an executive producer and unit production manager for Fox. Though Fox was not named as a party to the lawsuit, it was the production company behind the film and, according to Ryder, the judge failed to disclose her husband’s relationship with the company and the potential conflict of interest.
Fox reports that Deason is not a current employee of the company and attorneys for Cameron and his company, Lightstorm Entertainment, said that the motion was simply, “A reaction to the fact the court ruled he had no claim.”
That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.
Want the Full Story?
Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.