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

1: Warner Music Videos to Return to YouTube

First off today, after a nine-month standoff, Warner Music’s videos are returning to YouTube. Warner and YouTube, which is owned by Google, had a falling out after the two companies could not agree on the amount WMG should be paid for users of their content on the site. This lead to many videos being removed or muted if they had WMG music, which includes artists such as Madonna and Metallica.

The two have resolved their differences and, in a statement, WMG even hinted at some new changes to YouTube including “an enhanced user experience on YouTube with a feature-rich, high-quality premium player and enhanced channels” whatever that may mean.

YouTube says it expects the WMG vides to be online by the end of this year.

2: Court denies preliminary injunction in constitutional challenge to Copyright Royalty Board

Next up today, a court has denied a preliminary injunction against the Copyright Royalty Board and the Copyright Office that was requested by music streaming service Live365. Live365 had sued the CRB claiming that the appointment of the judges was in violation of the U.S. Constitution, as they were not appointed by an appropriate government official.

This is an argument that has been raised before, including in a recent case involving SoundExchange, and there is a case on this topic in front of the Supreme Court currently. If it is found that the CRB is unconstitutional, it would almost certainly be stripped of its powers to set licensing and royalty rates while also endangering many of its recent rulings, including ones dealing with podcasting and music streaming over the Web.

The Live365 case is continuing. With the preliminary injunction denied, the case will now move on toward a trial.

3: Video Company Asks For $6.3M In Lennon Film Case

Finally today, we have a continuation in one of the strangest copyright cases in a long time. In 1970 Anthony Cox shot video of former Beatle John Lennon at home who, in turn, sold the rights to World Wide Video LLC in 2000 for $125,000. However, in 2002, it Yoko Ono, Lennon’s widow, claims to have bought the rights to the video for $300,000 from Anthony Pagola. The problem being that Pagola, by all accounts, had no rights to offer the footage for sale.

Despite this, the courts recently ruled that Ono is the rightsholder following a suit that saw World Wide Video file against both Pagola and Ono after Ono threatened a documentary produced using the footage. According to the judge, World Wide Video did was aware of Ono’s claim and did not act timely to resolve it. However, the court also found that Pagola, who did not respond to the suit, did not have the rights and now World Wide Video is asking for a judgment of $6.3 million against him. According to World Wide Video, this accounts for the value of the video, which is between $4-$6 million according to their attorneys, and the sale price of $300,000.

The judge has not ruled but did hint that she found the amount to be “speculative”. Ono has said that she has never cleared the work for any commercial use and that the value seemed inflated.

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: Judge: Ono owns copyright to rare Lennon footage

First off today, a judge has ruled that Yoko Ono, the widow of the musician John Lennon, exclusively owns the rights to 10 hours worth of footage shot of the star while at home. World Wide Video, who claimed to have bought the video from Anthony Cox, who shot the footage, claimed they held the rights to the work but the judge found that Ono had a very clear agreement with the photographer and she was the rightsholder.

The dispute came about after World Wide Video had planned to show a two-hour documentary produced using the footage to a school in Maine in 2007. When Ono found out about the showing, she sent a letter that put a stop to it. Ono, who wishes to keep the footage private, paid $300,000 to Anthony Pagola, an intermediary who had copies of the film, for the rights.

Pagola was served in the lawsuit as well but failed to answer, leading the judge to file a notice of default against him.

2: DOJ Officially Opens Investigation Into Google Book Search

Next up, the Department of Justice has officially announced it is investigating Google’s Google Book Search product for possible anti-trust violations. This move had long been expected, especially last month when the DOJ sent “civil investigative demands” to Google indicating that they were eyeing Google Book Search for possible violations.

Though it is unclear how serious this investigation is, the DOJ is saying it has not yet determined the merit of the case against Google, but the Google Books Search settlement is still pending final approval in the courts, which should come later this year if all hurdles are cleared.

3: Supreme Court Lets Cable Company Store Recorded TV Shows

Finally today, the Supreme Court has declined to hear the Cablevision case, which pitted several major media companies against the cable company over its remote DVR system. In doing so, it allows the lower court’s ruling to stand, which found that the system was legal.

The system, which allows users to record shows on Cablevision’s servers rather than an in-home DVR, drew the ire of many TV networks and movie studios who sued Cablevision claiming that the service was an infringement. However, the lower courts found that, since in-home DVRs were non-infringing and this service did not function any differently, other than where the data was stored, this service was a non-infringement as well.

The Supreme Court, by not taking the case, has allowed those rulings to stand, clearing Cablevision to continue offering the new service.

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.