Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: The Catcher in the Rye ‘Sequel’ to be Published

The estate of JD Salinger and Frederik Colting, the author of the unofficial “sequel” to “Catcher in the Rye” have reached an agreement to publish the book, just not in North America. The book, entitled “Coming Through the Rye” was the subject of much controversy and a lawsuit, which resulted in its publication being blocked in the U.S. by Salinger. The book follows “Catcher” protagonist Holden Caulfield, now in a retirement home, escaping and visiting many of his old spots. The two sides have worked out an agreement to publish the book, which Colting originally said was a parody but a court in the U.S. ruled it to be an unlawful derivative work of the original.

2: `Harry Potter’ Copyright Suit Against Scholastic Dismissed by U.S. Judge

Next up today, Scholastic, the U.S. publishers of the “Harry Potter” series of books, have won their lawsuit against the estate of Adrian Jacobs, which had claimed that “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” was an infringement of “The Adventures of Willy the Wizard–No. 1 Livid Land”, which had been published 13 years prior. The suit was dismissed citing no evidence of copyright infringement. The U.S. dismissal, however, has no bearing on the UK case, which is against Potter author JK Rowling and her British publisher, Bloomsbury. That case is scheduled for trial in February 2012.

3: Righthaven Extends Copyright Lawsuit Campaign to Individual Web Posters

Finally today, Righthaven, the Las Vegas-based copyright litigation firm that works on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal (among others) has expanded their litigation effort and is now target individuals who post LVRJ content on sites. Previously, Righthaven would simply target the owners of sites, even when the person who posted the work was a message board member or commenter. This represents something of a shift in strategy for Righthaven and it helps them avoid a potential legal showdown with giants like Google.

Suggestions

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 6 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.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Upload Limit Increases to 15 Minutes For All Users

First off today, YouTube has increased the upload limit on videos to 15 minutes, up from the previous limit of 10. YouTube, however, attributes the change to its content ID system, which copyright holders use to monitor and enforce their work on the service. This, according to YouTube, has limited the site’s usefulness for infringement, making it possible to raise the limit, which was largely in place to limit infringing uses of the site’s services.

2: U.S. Copyright Group ‘Steal’ Competitor’s Website

Next up today, mass litigator the U.S. Copyright Group has been accused of “stealing” a competitor’s website. The company, best known for filing thousands of infringement lawsuits over independent films, reused images and code from copyrightsettlements.com. The latter company has confirmed they are not affiliated with the USCG and that they plan to file a cease and desist letter. Originally the two sites were almost identical but even a new, stripped-down version of the USCG’s site still reuses some of the code.

3: Attorneys for J.K. Rowling Request Dismissal in Copyright Suit

Finally today, attorneys for J.K. Rowling have responded to the “Willie the Wizard” lawsuit, which alleges much of Rowling’s book “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is based on the book created by the late Adrian Jacobs. Rowling has asked the court to dismiss the suit saying that there is no evidence to show that she copied from Jacobs’ book and the pleading also took a few potshots at the work saying that the book was “very, very badly written.”

Suggestions

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 6 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.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

1: Google Books Fosters Intellectual, Legal Crossroads

First off today, it is now showdown time in the Google Book Search case. Today is the day of the hearing on the amended settlement as Google, the Author’s Guild and publishers attempt to defend their agreement against objections from competitors, authors and the Department of Justice. If the court allows the settlement to go through, Google will be able to scan and sell copies of in-copyright but out of print works in exchange for sharing revenue with the authors and publishers. The hearing today is expected to be a heated one.

2: Harry Potter Author Is Defendant in Plagiarism Suit

Next up today, J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series of books, has been added as a defendant to a lawsuit by the estate of Adrian Jacobs, which the suit says developed many of the ideas for the Harry Potter books before Rowling and, since the two authors shared the same agent, they believe there is proof of infringement. The estate had sued Rowling’s publisher previously but only recently added Rowling to the suit after changing their mind about their ability to do so.

3: Copyright Panel Row: Sibal Steps In, Asks Aamir Khan to Continue

Finally today, an update to the India copyright panel case. Bollywood star Aamir Khan, who had resigned from a government-selected panel to discuss reforms to the copyright act after a controversy between him a composer, has been asked to stay on the panel by both the composer involved and at least seven others on the ten-member panel. Khan has said he is considering it.

Suggestions

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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: RIAA lawyers toss “a skunk in the jury box,” apologize

First off today, day two of the Jammie Thomas trial took an interesting twist as an expert witness for the plaintiffs said that he found evidence of an external hard drive on her computer, indicating that perhaps Thomas had stored the music there. However, the evidence had not been properly introduced into the trial, giving the judge and defendants time to analyze it, and the judge threatened to strike all of the witness’ testimony.

However, after a recess and a few apologies from the record labels attorneys, the judge agreed to only strike the portions of the testimony that pertained to the external hard drive, thus avoiding a potential disaster for the record labels.

The trial is continuing today.

2: Harry Potter publisher denies plagiarism claim

Next up today, JK Rowling’s UK publisher Bloomsbury have strongly denied plagiarism accusations that were filed against them in by the estate of Adrian Jacobs.

According to the Accusation, Rowling had copied “substantial parts” of Jacobs’ 1987 book “The Adventures of Willy the Wizard — No 1 Livid Land” in her 2000 book “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”.

Bloomsbury has said that “This claim is without merit and will be defended vigorously,” indicating that they plan to litigate it and seek a judgment in their favor.

3: Scribe: ’60 Years’ is ‘Rye’ parody

Finally today, the “Catcher in the Rye” lawsuit has taken another turn. Fredrik Colting, the now-unmasked author of the upcoming book, “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye”, has said his book is a parody of the original, not an unauthorized sequel.

In their court filing, Colting and his publisher described the book as “a transformative commentary and criticism, a fair use of minimal elements from ‘Catcher’”

Obviously, without seeing the book it is very hard for anyone to offer much commentary, but it appears that there is more to this case than what was initially said.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll 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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: Second verse of file-sharing case takes on music copyrights

First off today, the Jammie Thomas retrial begins today. Thomas, who now goes by the last name Thomas-Rasset, was accused in 2006 of file sharing by the record labels and was the first case to reach a courtroom. Her trial became an instant spectacle and ended with her being ordered to pay $222,000 in damages.

That case, however, was thrown out due to a fault in the jury instructions and the retrial is beginning today.

For this occasion, Thomas has an all-new legal team and they are presenting an equally-new legal theory, that the copyrights to the music allegedly downloaded belong to the artists, not to the record labels. They are honing their attack on the copyright registrations for the works in question.

It will be an interesting spectacle a trial for which we will likely have many updates over the next week.

2: Virgin Media, Universal to offer unlimited music

Next up, in the UK, ISP Virgin is looking to deliver a 1-2 punch to piracy via a strategy that may actually have a shot at working.

The first punch is that they are announcing a new partnership with the world’s largest record label, Universal, to create an unlimited access plan for 10-15 pounds per month that would give would-be file sharers unlimited access to Universal’s music library. Hopefully, other record labels will sign on to make this even more appealing.

The second punch is that they are promising to disconnect file sharers that skip on the service and continue to download music illegally. However, these disconnections will not be permanent, but will only last a few minutes to a few hours, enough to annoy pirates but not outright cut them off.

This combination of “carrot and stick” seems to have the best likelihood of success and given the nature of the disconnections, they are unlikely to ruffle the feathers of too many activists. It seems like a solid win-win.

3: Bloomsbury faces Harry Potter copyright claim

Finally today, here we go again. Bloombury press, a UK publisher, is being sued by the estate of children’s author Adrian Jacobs for copyright infringement over JK Rowling’s 2000 book “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”.

According to the estate, Rowling’s book borrows heavily from Jacobs’ 1987 book The Adventures of Willy the Wizard-No 1 Livid Land. Though we don’t have much information about the alleged similarities at this time, this isn’t the first time that Rowliing has faced such accusations. The last time, the plaintiff was ordered to pay $50,000 and costs for making the claim after her case was tossed out.

This will be another case to follow but, simply playing the odds on these types of accusations, it doesn’t seem likely to go anywhere.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll 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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: Are Tweets Copyright?

First off today, a new post by Mark Cuban regarding whether or not tweets are copyrighted has raised quite a stir. In it, he asks if tweets are copyright able and, if so, is their republications, including via retweeting, an infringement.

I actually touched on many of these issues earlier this year on the Blog Herald and it seems what I wrote has held up reasonably well. But obviously Mark is right to ask the questions as there is a lot of legal gray area with copyright and Twitter, as there is with any new technology.

2: Harry Potter Author JK Rowling Attacks Scribd For Pirated Content

Next up today Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling seems to have had at least some form of disagreement with “YouTube for documents” site Scribd. However, the actual nature of that disagreement seems to be very much in debate.

Initially it was reported that the author had sued the site for allegedly hosting copies of her famous books but updates to the story indicate that no such lawsuit has been filed though it is likely Rowling and her publisher used Scribd’s takedown process to remove some of those works.

In the end, it appears to be much ado about nothing as there is very little to report.

3: Jeff Vogel’s View From the Bottom #11

Finally today, independent game developer Jeff Vogel has posted a lengthy editorial cover the video game industries fight against piracy in which he draws the conclusion that all game developers are, essentially, charities since the only reason to buy the games is to feel good and do the right thing.

Vogel also concludes that DRM is a failed strategy that only punishes legitimate customers but does clarify to say that he isn’t going to “give” anyone his game and he does use license keys. According to him, if someone wants to steal his games, they will actually have to steal them.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll 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 Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

Later, in 2004, JK Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, gave the site high praise saying that it was “such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an internet café while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter.”

However, the friendly relationship between Rowling and the Lexicon took a famous turn for the worse in late 2007 when RDR Books persuaded Vander Ark to publish a printed version of the Lexicon. This was after Vander Ark had been rejected by Rowling’s agents for a formal position in an official Harry Potter Encyclopedia.

What followed was a letter exchange between the three parties and, eventually a lawsuit by Rowling and Warner Bros., the makers of Harry Potter films, to stop publication of the book. The lawsuit, which concluded yesterday, found that the lexicon was not a fair use and officially barred publication of the book.

It is an unhappy end to a very sad saga but it is a case that illustrates the problems copyright holders, large and small, have when fans cross the line.

A Difficult Relationship

Getty Images via Daylife

On matters of copyright, the relationship between fans and creators has always been a somewhat tumultuous one. Fans, often eager to use the works they enjoy to express their creativity, routinely create fan fiction, remixes and other homemade derivative works.

Artists, whether they are musicians, authors or filmmakers, are typically very lenient about such practices. They realize that such creations are not only free promotion for their work, but that such efforts create a community that comes together and supports the original work. In short, there is nothing to be gained by going to war with your fans.

However, there are times in which fans simply go too far. They do something that is a perceived slight to the original artist and that creates a backlash, often from both the artist and the community.

An excellent example of that was in 2005 when a fan of the Applegeeks Webcomic, Chris Davis, tired of waiting for a printed version and created his own, printing it using an online publisher. Though just one copy of the book was made, this resulted in outrage from both the creators and the fans of the series, eventually resulting in Davis sending the book to the artists.

Clearly these are tricky matters that do not fit neatly within the paradigm of artist and infringer. As such, the usual system for dealing with copyright issues is not effective nor appropriate here.

Kid Gloves

Though tossing about DMCA notices and cease and desist letters is fine when dealing with plagiarists and spammers, with fans and supporters, it is much less desirable. Not only are such tactics likely to turn supporters against you, but it damages the community that is forming and hinders the market for your own work.

Clearly, if you are fortunate enough to have a problem with fans misusing your work, you need to think about a separate strategy for dealing with such issues.

Any such strategy would likely include the following elements:

1. Clear Guidelines for Fans: It may be unpleasant, but one of the first elements of avoiding conflicts is setting clear and fair guidelines for what fans can and cannot do. Creative Commons Licensing can help some but most larger copyright holders have set up Webmaster/fan sections, such as the one created for Harry Potter.
2. Communicate Desires Effectively: In addition to a good set of guidelines, it is important to keep in touch with the fans and let them know if anything upsets you. This would be an excellent use for your blog or official site. Usually if fans are aware of an issue, they will work to avoid it and fan site administrators will usually help head off any problems before they reach a level where a lawsuit might be considered.
3. Distinguish Between Fans and Other Infringers: This can be tricky to do at times, but remember that willful infringers are a different group with a different set of intentions than those who enjoy your work and may stumble across legal boundaries. Look for plagiarism, heavy commercialization, piracy or other signs that an infringer is a merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing and treat them as such. Be prepared to back up your reasons if needed.
4. Try to Resolve Fan Issues Peacefully: Though we are quick in a litigious society to throw about legal threats, with these types of issues there are usually a more direct and less hostile ways of handling them. If a fan goes too far, if legal action isn’t immediately necessary, contact them and let them know ask them to work with you and explain your reasons. A small olive branch extended on the front end not only prevents conflict with the community as a whole but should things turn ugly, can put you on the high road.
5. Include Fans When Possible: Though not a copyright issue directly, if fans feel that they have a voice and a say in the new works, they are much less likely to do engage in behavior that both offend the law and the artist. Letting the fans in, rather than keeping them at arms reach, is a huge asset in stopping problems before lawyers become involved.

The bottom line is that cases of copyright infringement that involve fans are as much about matters of politics as they are legal issues. Though Rowling doesn’t seem to have taken too much flak for her actions in this case, likely due to her known tolerance for non-commercial use and the nature of this book, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how this could have blown up into a much bigger headache.

Conclusions

In the end, fans are different from plagiarists, scrapers and other copyright infringers. Their intentions are different, their motivations are different and, thus, the way to approach them is different.

Most copyright holders, including the ones I’ve listed in this article, are very good about realizing this and acting accordingly. Others, especially big corporations, have not been so good in this area.

This is a difficult area of copyright law that requires both nuance and diplomacy. Furthermore, no solution is going to work well for every creation.

It all goes back to communicating with your fans and finding out what they want and letting them know what you need. If everyone works together, these problems can be few and far between and the less common these messy situations are, the better off everyone is.

Related Links

• Stupid Celebrities Gossip: More information about the book that never will be.
• P2PNet: More background on the suit.
• Ars Technica: More background on the lawsuit.

Further Discussion

• Was it a sound business decision for Rowling to file suit?
• Do you agree with the ruling?
• What lasting impact will it have on fan creations?

In addition to that, we had a shortened version of the news, 12 stories in all. including news about J.K. Rowling, The Pirate Bay and even Yoko Ono.

So, to help me sense of it all, I sat down with Chris Matthieu from Numly and we tore through the week’s copyright happenings with our usual mix of news, views and abuse.

This week’s stories include:

• J.K. Rowling Meets a Fan in Court
• Facebook Gives Away Key Witness in The Pirate Bay Trial
• Cindy Mcain, Lonely Planet and Fox News all Hammered by Plagiarism Allegations
• Assassin’s Creed Kills Itself with Bad DRM
• Yoko Ono Goes After the Movie “Expelled”
• And Many more…

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Let us know what you think of the interview segment and if we should do more of these in the future!

Show Notes

[audio:http://media.libsyn.com/media/plagiarismtoday/copyright20eps55.mp3]