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

1: High Court Grants AFACT Special Leave to Appeal iiNet Copyright Case

First off today, Australia’s highest court has agreed to hear the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft’s (AFACT) case against local ISP iiNet. The case hinges on AFACT’s accusations that iiNet was not doing enough to slow infringement over its service, even after notification. Though both a lower court and appeals court ruled that iiNet was not liable, the appeals court hinted at situations where an ISP might be liable and have to take action against their customers. The High Court trial will occur later this year.

2: Mattel Appeals Judgment in Bratz Dolls Case

Next up today, the Mattel/MGA case may be heading for yet another twist as Mattel has appealed the most recent ruling. The seesaw battle between the two has been over the Bratz doll line, which Mattel accused MGA of producing illegally after it was developed by an employee working for them. A lower court agreed with Mattel, nearly forcing MGA to turn over the doll line. However, an appeals court stopped the injunction and sent the case back for a retrial, where MGA emerged victorious and received a $309 million damages award. Mattel is now appealing that ruling, possibly setting the stage for another reversal.

3: ‘Jersey Shore’ Star JWOWW Sued Over Tanning Lotion

Finally today, a Oklahoma company Phigogam has filed suit against Jersey Shore star Jenni “JWOWW” Farley claiming that she violated copyright with the design of her latest suntan lotion bottle. The two sides had been working on a business partnership to release a JWOWW-branded suntan line but, according to the lawsuit, JWOWW cut them out of the deal and used their copyrighted bottle design in the process. The suit also alleges breach of contract as well as unjust enrichment and seeks an injunction against further infringement as well as all profits and additional damages.

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 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.

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: European ISPs Could Block Copyright Infringing Material

First off today the European Commission, the governing body of the EU, has released a new Intellectual Property Rights Strategy (IPRS) that will requires ISPs in the bloc to cooperate with copyright holders and, assumedly, help filter out copyright infringing sites. However, the measure is due to be reviewed in the spring of 2012, hinting that there may be changes for it on the horizon.

2: MGA Seeks $339 Million in Damages, Fees From Mattel for Bratz Doll Suit

Next up today, the seesaw battle between MGA, the makers of the Bratz doll line, and Mattel, the makers of Barbie, may be taking another turn. MGA, who after an initial defeat at the district court won on appeal and on retrial, is asking the judge in the case to grant them a total of $339 in damages and attorney fees. The figure includes some $177 million in punitive damages, $129.7 million in attorneys fees, and $32.4 million in costs. Mattel is asking the judge to throw out the (second) jury verdict and is also asking that the attorney fees be stricken as the copyright claims they brought were, according to them, “objectively reasonable”. A hearing on these damages and Mattel’s counter arguments was due to he held today but has been postponed to tomorrow.

3: Nude Nuns Mass BitTorrent Lawsuit Killed, Clone Lives On

Finally today, one of two dueling lawsuits targeting bittorrent file sharers of the move “Nude Nuns with Big Guns” has been dropped. The lawsuit brought by Camelot Distribution Group was dropped however, an identical lawsuit filed by Incentive Capital of Utah is ongoing. Though Camelot did not say why it dropped the suit, there were questions raised about its ownership of the film after Incentive claimed to have received the rights to the movie after foreclosing on a loan it had given Camelot. The Incentive lawsuit is continuing but the company said that they are exploring their options regarding pushing it forward.

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.

Note: Due to an editing problem and time constraints, last week’s Copyright 2.0 Show, episode 191, was not uploaded to the site. It will be available next week. I’m very sorry for the delay. In the meantime, here’s this week’s show!

It is Friday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

It was a major week for copyright news as we have yet another jury ruling in the ongoing Bratz case, one that complete reverses the first such ruling. We also have copyright and other concerns over the recent PSN outage and Dropbox going toe to toe with an open source project that exploits their hashing system.

However, the big news this week was Patrick’s recent trip to see Diddy live as part of his “Dirty Money” tour and the strangely copyright-centric focus the trip took. Definitely a story worth hearing.

This week’s stories include:

• MGA Gets Big Win in Bratz Case
• Did Jailbroken PS3s Cause the PSN Hack and Outage?
• Dropbox Tries to Drop DropShip
• Anonymous Threatens New Zealand Parliament, Maybe
• Publishers Seize Public Domain Music Resource
• Much, Much More!

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

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

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

1: Barbie Mugged by the Bratz In $89 Million Jury Verdict

First off today, we have more information about the outcome of the Mattel/MGA lawsuit over Bratz and it seems it is an even more complete defeat for Mattel than previously indicated. Mattel, who sued MGA claiming that they stole the initial concept for the Bratz line when they hired on a former Mattel employee, who they said created the idea while working for them, not only lost their lawsuit over the line, but also lost a counter-lawsuit filed by MGA where the company claimed Mattel had stolen company secrets. Mattel will now have to pay MGA nearly $89 million. The jury, however, did agree that MGA had agreed with Carter Bryant’s Mattel contract, Bryant being the creator of the Bratz line, and awarded Mattel $10,000.

2: China to Punish Baidu for Illegal Music Search Service

Next up today, Xinhua, China’s official news agency, is reporting that the government is planning on taking punitive action against some 14 sites for providing illegal music, including the country’s largest search engine, Baidu. The nature of the punishment hasn’t been disclosed and Baidu, according to previous statements, is preparing to launch a licensed music service in May. Baidu, however, has promised to take quick action against any files identified by the government. There are fears that the punishment could impact Baidu’s notoriously soaring stock price, which has grown over 50 percent in the past year alone.

3: Playstation Network Shut Down To End Piracy Free-For-All

Finally today, the Playstation Network (PSN) has been down for nearly a week though Sony, the company that operates it, has been rather quiet on the cause. The reason may be because of a hacked Playstation 3 firmware which enabled users to access developer functions on the network and begin downloading Sony content for free. According to a staff member at a PS3 modding site, Sony has taken the network offline while they secure against the hack, which could also, potentially, expose credit card and other sensitive data. This information, however, is unconfirmed and even the person making the claims admits he can not be 100% certain.

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.

However, the case actually deals with a lot of thorny and interesting copyright issues that, over the course of the seesaw battle, has raised some interesting questions that can impact copyright holders of all stripes, not just those who are interested in making plastic dolls.

So, if you’re a content creator, here’s why you need to be paying attention to this case and what the recent ruling may mean for you.

Background of the Case

The strange tale of the Mattel/MGA dispute actually began in 2000. An employee of Mattel’s, Carter Bryant, had developed a new line of dolls and was working the company MGA, in secret from Mattel, to bring them into production. After turning in his two-week notice and signing a consulting agreement with MGA Bryant helped get the Bratz line released in 2001, where it became a near-instant success.

Some the thereafter, when Mattel learned that the line was developed by Bryant, they filed a flurry of lawsuits. The one which was ruled today first made it to court in 2008. That trial was nothing short of a sweeping win for Mattel, finding that they owned the doll line, ordering MGA to stop production of the Bratz dolls and prepare to turn over all of the related intellectual property to Mattel.

However, that injunction was stayed pending an appeal and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the matter almost exactly a year later, completely vacating the lower court’s ruling.

The reason for the sudden reversal was that, according to the Appeals Court, the lower court had erred on the issue of Bryant’s employment agreement. The lower court had ruled that it was a matter of fact all of the ideas Bryant had created during his time of employment were owned by Mattel, leaving only the question of which elements he had developed during that time. However, the Appeals court said that the agreement was more ambiguous and the matter should be left for the jury to decide.

(Note: Bryant has maintained that he actually came up with the idea for the Bratz line in 1998, while he was on a break from working for Mattel, an assertion Mattel has attacked both in and out of court.)

And decide they did. With new jury instructions, the case headed back to the District Court, where jurors listened to over three months of testimony and deliberated for over two weeks before finding that Mattel does not own the Bratz line and awarding the company no damages.

Of course, this is only one piece of the Mattel/MGA legal battle. The two sides have traded blows over alleged espionage (another matter ruled upon in this verdict, once again favorably for MGA), hidden money and much more.

But while the bad blood between the two companies may not be ready to die down any time soon, much less the legal wrangling, it seems the copyright issues are at least more resolved and that gives pause for content creators to stop and figure out what the verdict means.

What it Means to You

The biggest area that this verdict seems to deal with is the concept of work for hire and of employment. Generally, any work you create for an employer as part of your job becomes copyright of the employer, not you. However, almost instantly there becomes issues as to what is and is not part of your employment, especially when you do creative work on the side that is similar to the work you do for a living.

So, for example, if you are a writer for an employer but also do creative projects on the side, there could be issues as to who owns the rights of the work you create, especially if you use any company time or equipment to make it.

On that front, the Bratz case actually has some interesting input, consider the following:

1. Interpreting the Employment Agreement: Bryant’s employment agreement with Mattel states that Mattel owns any intellectual property created by him “at any time during my employment by the Company.” Mattel pushed that that included creations made during his off hours and outside of his scope of employment and the lower court initially agreed. The Appeals Court, however, ruled that this was ambiguous and needed to be decided by a jury and it seems the second jury ruled against Mattel’s theory.
2. Determining the Scope of Employment: Bryant was employed by Mattel not to develop new doll lines, but to develop fashion for existing ones. As such, MGA argued that the Bratz were outside of his scope of employment. The lower court initially ruled against them, but the Appeals Court found this to be ambiguous and sent it back to the jury to decide.

Finally, the case also raised some interesting derivative works issues.

This is because, prior to 2001, well after Bryant ended his employment with Mattel, the Bratz dolls did not exist and were only sketches and prototypes. There were questions about how much the current dolls were infringing, especially since new dolls had been developed.

The lower court ruled that the dolls were substantially similar to the drawings but the Appeals Court ruled that the lower court had failed to remove all of the unprotectable elements from consideration and found that the jury’s verdict in the first trial should be vacated. It is unclear at this time if and how the second jury dealt with this issue as all we know is that the jury ruled Mattel does not own the sketches and ideas.

Bottom Line

All in all, the case seems to be a big win for creators who develop copyrightable works outside of the scope of an existing employment. The Appeals Court, and seemingly the second jury, took a very narrow view of both the scope of employment and the actual agreement. This can be good for dealing with employers who want to grab rights to works created by employees off the job.

The derivative works questions are also interesting, especially for those who develop artwork based on the human form. The Appeals Court goes into great detail about what elements are and are not protectable in such an expression, making some very interesting points.

The main take away from all of this is that copyright law is in a constant state of flux. Not only are we adding new laws and new tests, but the ways the existing tests are interpreted is constantly changing. As such, if you make a living in any regard off of copyrighted works, you need to do your best to follow recent rulings, even those that might not seem to have a direct bearing on you, as they can have a great impact down the road.

In that regard, this case is just one of the dozens, if not hundreds, that could have a similar impact, but it certainly is one of the more interesting and exciting.

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

1: Breaking News: Mattel Loses As Jury Rules in Favor of MGA in Bratz Case (via Twitter)

First off today, early reports state that Mattel suffered a severe legal defeat in its case against MGA over the popular Bratz dolls. A jury today ruled, after two weeks of deliberation, that Mattel does not own the line and MGA is free to continue producing the dolls. The verdict comes after a lengthy trial with months of testimony and a seesaw legal battle that has already involved one appeal and one jury favoring Mattel’s arguments. According to Mattel, the inventor of the Bratz line was working for Mattel when he came up with the line, thus making it their property. However, MGA has denied this, saying he came up with the idea before working for Mattel, and it seems that the jury agreed. This is a breaking story and I will have more information tomorrow and as it becomes available via Twitter.

2: China Says Makes Progress on use of Copyrighted Software

Next up today, China is touting progress in getting its government offices to stop using pirated software, saying that 2/5 of its offices are now using legal software and another 2/5 are in the buying process. According to government officials, they expect all central offices to be in compliance by the end of May and all local or regional offices to be in compliance by the end of October. This comes amid many complaints from other nations, including the U.S., that China is not doing enough to thwart piracy and enforce copyright.

3: Zumba Fitness Files Copyright Lawsuits

Finally today, the company behind Zumba fitness has filed six lawsuits in California and is preparing more both in the U.S. and the UK, targeting sites and individuals who illegally distribute their content. The claims include trademark violations, unjust enrichment and copyright infringement, particularly for the production and sale of counterfeit DVDs. The dance-based fitness system has become wildly popular over the past few years, with an estimate 12 million people taking Zumba classes every week.

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: Jury Gets Case in California in Spat Over Who Owns Copyright of Popular Bratz Dolls

First off today, the jury in the MGA/Mattel trial now has the case. The battle, which has been going on for over six years, centers around the Bratz doll line, the creator of which, Carter Bryant, worked at Mattel since he came up with the concept but took the idea to a relatively new company, MGA, which turned the doll line into a major success. According to Mattel, Bratz are a work for hire creation that is owned by them and covered under Bryant’s contract but MGA disagrees. The jury will begin deliberating today, also weighing whether Mattel engaged in unfair business practices by spying on MGA and attempting to steal secret information.

2: RIAA Lobbyist Turned Judge Backpedals On BitTorrent Cases

Next up today, Judge Beryl Howell, who earlier handed a major victory to those engaged in mass copyright infringement lawsuits but was later found to be a former RIAA lobyist, has placed some limitations on what rightsholders can do in the case, namely forcing them to drop lawsuits against individuals who have been named by their ISPs but have not been actively named in the case. While likely a minor shift for the defendants, who were likely to be dropped regardless in search of a settlement or more appropriate jurisdiction, it represents a turn for the judge and is being seen by some as an indication that the pressure has affected her position from the bench.

3: Copyright Holders Formulate ISP Piracy Website Blocking Scheme

Finally today, in the UK copyright holders have been tasked with coming up with a draft proposal for how the blocking of alleged pirate sites would work within the country. The proposal has to address ISP issues of cost, feasibility, liability and effectiveness among other issues. This proposal is part of a proposed voluntary scheme between ISPs and copyright holders to block allegedly infringing sites in a bid to head off further potential legislation.

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.

It is Friday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

Due to personal time off and illness, this show is being posted a week late but fret not we will be back on schedule next week to get caught up and resume as usual. In the meantime, enjoy this action-packed episode as we go over what we got for Christmas, the great games Patrick and I have purchased over the past month and a bit of copyright news as well.

This week’s stories include:

• Posting on Twitter Does Not Mean a License to Steal
• Promo CDs Can Be Resold
• Mattel’s Claim Against MGA Over Bratz Dolls Gets Limited
• “Expendables” Producer Next on P2P Litigation Train
• Pornographers Unite to Sue Infringers
• And Much More!

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

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

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

1: Bratz Dolls Thrown Back Into Legal Limbo

The Bratz dispute appears to be poised to continue a while longer. MGA, the developer of the doll line, was sued by Mattel who claimed that the creator of the series was employed at Mattel when he came up with the idea, making the dolls Mattel’s property. The district court famously agreed in 2008 and ordered MGA to transfer ownership to Mattel but now the Appeals Court has overturned that verdict, this after putting a hold on the transfer. The court believes the earlier ruling was mistaken and that the case may need to be retried.

2: More Copyright Lawsuits Filed Over Review-Journal Stories

Next up today, Righthaven, a company representing the Las Vegas Review-Journal has filed four more lawsuits against sites it accuses of using its content without permission. Those sites include Armed Citizen, Infowars, a wordpress.com blog and the DC-area nonprofit Americans for Democratic Action. This brings the total sued by the Review-Journal to 76.

3: Most Torrents Breach Copyright, Say Researchers

Finally today, in a study that should surprise no one, researchers in Australia have found that, in their survey, some 89% of torrents were copyright infringement. In three categories, movies, music and TV shows, there were no legal torrents to be found. The study has already been heralded by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft and other anti-piracy groups.

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.

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

1: Bratz Dolls to Remain on Shelves in Mattel-MGA Battle

First off today, MGA and their Bratz line is getting something of a reprieve following a ruling from the appeals court. The dollmaker had been sued by arch-rival and Barbie maker Mattel after Mattel discovered that the designer for the Bratz line was working for them at the time he created the first designs for the dolls. Mattel got a lower court to agree that the doll line was their intellectual property and ordered MGA to stop selling the dolls by year’s end and transfer ownership to Mattel.

However, an Appeals Court has taken up the case and has questioned whether the original order went too far, calling it “draconian” and also questioning Mattel’s employment contracts. It has suspended the order for MGA to stop selling the dolls but has not said when it plans on issuing a final ruling.

Bratz dolls are famous rivals to Mattel’s Barbie line. Mattel had said previously that they were prepared and able to take over the manufacture and sale of the Bratz line when the transfer took place though it now appears that will not be for some time.

2: Court Hears Copyright Lawsuit Over Baltimore Ravens Old Logo

Next up today, the Baltimore Ravens are also in an Appeals Court but they are arguing over their logo, or rather, their first one. In 1998, a jury ruled that the Baltimore Raven’s stole the idea for their logo from Frederick Bouchat but refused to award any damages. The American football team changed its logo the next year.

However, now Bouchat wants the court to bar any commercial use of the original logo, a shield with wings and a letter B in the middle, an issue that seemed to divide the panel.

The team no longer promotes itself using the logo but it routinely appears in “historical” items that are sold, including videos.

The panel is not expected to rule for several weeks but it may finally bring an end to what has been a long-standing and, at times, bitter lawsuit between the two sides.

3: Why Google’s Glad to Dance to Vevo’s Tune

Finally today, Google is trying out a new role for them, second fiddle. Google CEO Eric Schmidt was at a a music industry function announcing the launch of their new music video site Vevo, which Google is providing technical and marketing support to.

As the author of the article points out, there was a time when Google was very combative with major copyright holders of all types, including record labels, movie studios and TV networks, but has more recently begun to forge partnerships with many of its old adversaries, Vevo perhaps being the most dramatic example.

The author hypothesizes the change came from competition, including Hulu and Netflix, which has shown how successful such partnerships can be.

You can view an example of a Vevo video here.

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.