However, the site drew fire from the logo design community recently after it was discovered that dozens, possibly more, of their symbols were lifted from other designers without permission.

In response to this controversy and growing pressure from the community, LogoGarden has put out a call on their Facebook page asking for help in identifying the stolen symbols and removing them. But even as that is happening, others are complaining that it is taking too long to get known infringing symbols removed, especially from the UK version of the LogoGarden site.

The latest news is that the Graphic Artists Guild (GAG) is getting involved and asking for those who are infringed to inform them of the theft, with proof. However, it is unclear what, if any, impact the GAG will be able to have with this case.

Nonetheless, the case raises several interesting issues about these types of logo design services as well as other services that operate in a similar manner.

In short, this isn’t just a situation of designer beware, but of customer beware too.

The Issue of Trademark and Copyright

Normally, with logos, there’s an interesting blending of trademark and copyright law. The reason is that logos, by their very nature, used to represent a business, making them an issue of trademark, but in some cases can also qualify for copyright protection.

Though using something from another designer’s catalog might not qualify for trademark infringement, unless they or someone else had used it to represent a business and your use creates confusion in the market place, it very likely qualifies as copyright infringement. Since we’re talking about the symbols, meaning the artistic parts of the logos, it seems likely that most, if not all, of these elements are copyrightable.

What is less clear is who is potentially liable for this infringement. Based on the responses from LogoGarden, it seems they bought many of these symbols from third parties. If so, these parties would seem to be on the front line of any copyright claim as they were the ones who originally sold the logo and made statements of its authenticity.

LogoGarden itself certainly has at least some exposure here, especially if they failed to perform other due diligence, but perhaps most interesting is the potential for liability against their customers.

Simply put, LogoGarden’s Terms of Service (TOS) grants them indemnification from actions taken by their users. However, the TOS also reads as follows:

Users agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless LogoGarden and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, partners and employees from all liabilities or claims of any third party arising out of Users violation of this Agreement.

and this:

Each User agrees and acknowledges that he creates a logo at his own risk and that he is responsible for taking any actions necessary to determine whether its use will infringe any third party intellectual property, including trademark and/or copyright protection.

In short, LogoGarden makes no promises about the authenticity of the logos created on its service and puts the responsibility determining the infringing nature of the logo on the user. While most likely this was meant to hold them harmless against users who infringe trademarks, it specifically writes in copyright as well.

While it’s unclear if this would hold up (perhaps something for one of my lawyer friends to address), it’s clear at least LogoGarden is at least attempting to shift responsibility for infringement in user logos solely on the user.

What this means is that, if a designer targets a LogoGarden customer over user of his symbol, LogoGarden would, most likely, do nothing to help them.

Fixing the Problem

Obviously, there’s a pretty serious problem here and it goes like this:

1. LogoGarden, somehow, ended up with a decent amount of lifted symbols in its library.
2. Customers, thinking they were doing the ethical thing, used those symbols in their logos and put them on business cards and websites.
3. Designers, possibly unaware of the origin, may go after those customers who have signed away rights to go after LogoGarden over such infringements.

This puts both designers and LogoGarden customers in an awkward position and LogoGarden, if it wants to be a good member of the design community needs to resolve it.

First, since the symbols that were stolen appear to have come from third-party designers, all designs by those parties should be removed immediately pending further investigation.

Second, for the symbols that have been found to be infringing, LogoGarden needs to do more than just remove them from its library, but also inform customers who used the symbol of the issue and then offer refunds as needed.

Third, there needs to be a more active hunt for other infringing symbols. Though putting out the call on Facebook was a good first step. There’s much more that needs to be done. Though it may be time consuming, image matching tools may be able to alert LogoGarden of other infringements.

Finally, there’s a greater need for transparency. Right now, other than the posting on Facebook and a few email replies, LogoGarden has been quiet on this issue. It’s time to make a more public announcement and explain exactly what they are doing to fix things, for both the designers infringed and the customers.

If they can do that, they can at least ensure that the damage to others is kept to a minimum. Something that, right now, is not taking place.

Bottom Line

While it’s easy to look at this as a logo design issue or something that affects graphic design only, the truth is that this impacts nearly any creative industry.

Article sites, for example, regularly find themselves hosting plagiarized content and leave their customers out to dry. The same goes for stock photo sites.

Middlemen and value adding services, like LogoGarden, need to step into their roles and protect their customers as well as others in the community. Because it’s only with that protection that the industry can thrive.

It means taking some risks, but the risks of not doing it are even greater.

Special Thanks to @garrick_s for the heads up on the story!

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

1: Google: Belgian Papers to Appear in Searches Again

First off today, a consortium of Belgian newspapers, which Google had dropped from its main index, will reappear in Google searches following legal assurances that they will not sue. The newspapers had previously sued Google for copyright infringement over its Google News product and a Belgian court issued an order forcing Google to drop the papers. Google claimed the order did not discriminate between Google News and its main index, forcing them to drop the papers, something the papers said was not the case. Regardless, the two sides have struck a deal and now the news sites will reappear in Google’s main index and have already begun to show up again.

2: Indie Labels Sue LimeWire Over Failed Copyright Deal

Next up today, Merlin, a collection of independent labels, has filed a lawsuit against the now-defunct LimeWire service claiming that the company went back on a previous agreement and failed to offer them a settlement similar to the one they offered the major labels. According to the suit, when Merlin filed a cease and desist notice in 2008, they held off on suing because LimeWire said they had struck a deal with the other labels and would offer them a similar set of terms. However, Merlin came to collect on that deal, LimeWire did not pay up. Merlin is seeking some $5 million in damages plus costs in the suit.

3: Church of God Sues Sony Pictures and Comcast for Copyright Infringement

Finally today, Sony and Comcast are being sued by the Church of God over their new religious comedy “Salvation Boulevard”. In the movie, a pastor takes a church and grows it into an international empire and the church in the movie uses a logo similar to the Church of God’s famous logo, which is what sparked the lawsuit. The Church of God is suing for copyright and trademark infringement over the film’s use of the similar logo and is seeking both damages and to stop the film’s distribution.

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: U.K. Film, TV Directors Support Rejection of ‘Fair Use’ Copyright Policy

First off today, Directors U.K., a group which represents some 4,000 film and television directors in the country, has come out in support of the Hargreave’s report, especially its decision not to recommend a U.S.-style fair use provision in the country. The group also favors another proposal in the report, the addition of a central body to manage the rights clearance for film and music. The report, which was prepared by professor Ian Hargreaves, was at the request of the UK government and proposes several changes to UK copyright law, including the legalization for format shifting and a system for obtaining rights to orphan works.

2: The Learning Company Suing Zynga Over Oregon Trail Trademark

Next up today, rightsholders in the classic game “Oregon Trail” have filed suit against Zynga, the makers of the “Farmville” game claiming that an expansion for the game, also entitled “Oregon Trail”, infringes on both their copyright and trademark. The lawsuit, filed by The Learning Company (TLC), which is a subsidiary of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, claims the game has many similarities to the original “Oregon Trail” and violates both their trademark and copyright protections. According to the lawsuit, TLC had approached Zynga about making a Facebook version of their game, only to have Zynga use a third-party to create the expansion, which was released in February.

3: Copyright firm purports trademark protection on copyright symbol

Finally today, what seems to be a design error lead to controversy for Access Copyright, a Canadian non-profit organization that seeks to help artists protect copyright, by making them appear to claim trademark over the famous copyright symbol. The “C” with a circle around it was prominently displayed on their site with a “TM” next to it, indicating they were claiming the symbol was their trademark. The group has since corrected the issue, saying it was an error on their part, but not before many bloggers jumped on the controversy.

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.

A few weeks ago I talked about common mistakes I see from the first camp, including ignoring licensing, not looking at other factors, misguided lawsuits, etc. Now it’s time to bring some balance to the discussion and talk about mistakes that the other side seems to be constantly making when presenting their arguments and taking their various legal actions.

To be clear, this isn’t about me passing judgment on which side is “right” or “wrong” in this debate, I view myself primarily as a copyright centrist (even once referred to as an “extremist centrist”) who sees copyright as valuable also the need for reasonable reform. Also, this isn’t about casting blame or discrediting anyone.

Instead, this is about clearing up the misconceptions and wrong ideas that have been muddling the copyright debate for a long time in hopes that we can move past them and have a real dialogue on the issues that are important.

1. Blaming the Law for Morons

Copyright is the only area of law where the law itself is blamed for when others use it unjustly. If a company misuses some element of employment law to fire an employee unjustly, the company is a jerk that behaved badly and we rejoice when the employee gets justice in the courts. Do something similar with copyright law and there’s an immediate call for copyright reform.

The truth is that anyone can sue anybody for anything at any time. The law itself isn’t very important. Copyright law is controversial so cases of stupid copyright lawsuits get a lot of media attention, but dumb lawsuits happen all the time and people abuse nearly every area of law almost every day.

Just because a person or company files a stupid copyright lawsuit or doesn’t understand the law doesn’t mean the law needs reform, instead, it’s a sign that someone did a dumb thing, nothing more.

2. Seeing One Success as a New Business Model

In 2007, when Radiohead conducted their “Pay what you want” experiment with their “In Rainbows” album, it was at least a moderate success and many heralded it as the (potential) future of the music industry. This ignored many facts, including that Radiohead was already popular, partially because of the investment from their record labels, and that the novelty of the experiment had attracted a great deal of media attention to the album (all of which were elements discussed in the video linked above).

The problem is that one success, or even a handful, does not mean that the business model is viable or that copyright isn’t important. Every artist is in a different position and while it’s exciting to see new models work, they might not work again. In fact, Radiohead went back to a more traditional pricing system with its latest album “The King of Limbs” (though I admittedly do not see why).

What works for one artist may not work for another. There is no great new single business model for everyone and, even if there is, one success does not prove it to be as such.

3. Confusing Trademark and Copyright

This is a common one in many places, including with traditional journalists, but many times those who are eager to show the ridiculousness of copyright point to trademark cases and call them copyright ones.

When someone is suing over titles, names, logos, etc. they are usually talking about trademark, not copyright. Copyright sounds very silly when you say that a person is trying to enforce the copyright of their business name, but that usually isn’t the case and, if it is, it’s a lawsuit that fits under the first point.

Trademark and copyright are not interchangeable and each come with a very unique set of goals and questions as to how they apply in the digital world. The discussion of what rights one should have over a trademark is a very different one than the discussion over the rights they should have over their copyrightable works.

4. Not Understanding How the Court Process Works

This was a big one when the RIAA hinted that damages in the Limewire case could reach the trillions of dollars. Yes, the RIAA did say that in a filing but it’s safe to assume that the company never actually expected to get anywhere near that.

Smart attorneys do everything they can to keep their clients out of court. Trials are expensive and risky. As such, most litigation effort is spent on trying to secure a settlement. Settlements are basically negotiations. It’s common in all areas of law for the plaintiff in a case to request the highest amount of damages possible under any possible theory they can come up with in order to try and drive the settlement price higher. Likewise, the defendants try to position their damages as low as they can so the sides can meet in the middle.

Anyone who has been involved in litigation has seen this happen and it takes place in all areas of law. Was the RIAA a bit overreaching trying to ask for more damages than the GDP of the entire earth? Yes. But it’s unlikely they actually felt that was a reasonable amount and the judge agreed, quickly and severely limiting the damages ceiling, just as the judge is supposed to.

Likewise, lawyers often times make arguments in court that they know have little chance of success. Mostly this is to procure better settlements but also because sometimes you get a judge who actually agrees to them. This can help explain many of the insane theories spread by both sides in various copyright cases.

These elements, by themselves, do not indicate a problem with the law. Nearly all litigation involves these kinds of tactics. It’s up to the judge or the negotiation process to separate the ridiculous from the sensible.

5. Painting Copyright with a Broad Brush

Copyright is about a lot more than just suing alleged pirates or even piracy at large. Copyright is a whole set of rights, protections and exceptions that serve a variety of functions. Yes, people sue pirates but copyright also ensures record labels have to pay royalties to artists, such as with the recent Eminem lawsuit and it also stops people from selling other’s work without permission.

Granted, this is an issue both sides have when talking about the law as broad statements get a lot more attention than nuanced ones, but I find many times that people who say they are “anti-copyright” actually are only upset about some elements of the law.

This makes it a lot more difficult to talk about the law and have a real discussion on copyright when two people, who might agree more than they disagree, often position themselves as extremists on the opposite sides of the argument by trying to find one or two-word labels to describe their viewpoint and taking a very limited view as to what copyright does and is meant to do.

Bottom Line

I’ve had a lot of conversations about copyright over the years and what I’ve learned is simple. There are very few people at either extreme and most lie somewhere in the middle.

There is a lot of legitimate room for disagreement on matters of copyright and we will never reach a point where everyone completely agrees. However, if both sides stop making some of the more obvious mistakes, we might be able to tone down the rhetoric, find that there is more agreement than we thought and start finding common ground we can build from.

In fact, we might stop seeing it as “two sides” at all and, instead, see that there is a whole spectrum of perspectives and ideas.

In the end, everyone shares the goal of making sure that there is a rich culture online and off and that artists receive fair compensation for their work. The argument is over how copyright law can best help achieve those goals.

If everyone can stop making the stupid copyright blunders that pollute the legal and political environment, cease seeing those who disagree with us as “evil” and start dealing with the actual issues rather than the rhetoric, we might start to get somewhere and bring civility to the copyright debates.

However, this doesn’t mean I won’t be thinking about copyright issues. Halloween, like any other holiday, is a time ripe for copyright and other intellectual property pitfalls and there are even a few specific to the holiday. So, as a person who tries to do the right thing (legally and ethically) on matters of copyright, here are just a few of the copyright concerns (and solutions) I face every year when trying to put on my haunted house.

To be clear, as a non-commercial haunt, we coul get away with a lot more than we try to do. Not only does the law favor us, but we wouldn’t be a likely target. Still, we run everything we do as if we were a professional haunted house as that is an eventual goal for us.

Also, as usual, this isn’t meant to be a complete list by any stretch but, instead, is just to highlight some of the larger, more common issues that myself and others face around this time of year.

1. Music

A haunted house needs music. Not only does it set the atmosphere but it helps hide smaller noises such as actor movements that might give away a good scare. However, playing a music inside a haunted house is a public performance of the work and is not allowed without a license. Non-commercial use, such as what we’re doing now, has much greater leeway but professional haunters need to obtain music licensing from ASCAP and BMI if they are going to use recorded music in their haunted house.

How We Resolve It: There’s a band called Midnight Syndicate that does great haunted house music and freely licenses it to all professional haunted attractions if you display a poster. However, typically we record our own inside audio, using the actual actors voices to fit better with the theme each year, sometimes mixing it with public domain music loops available from The Internet Archive.

2. Movie Characters

Freddy, Jason, Pinhead, etc. may be some of the biggest names in fright but they are also copyrighted characters by their various studios. Though the fact they make costumes and masks grants some form of implied license to dress up like them in public, it’s unclear if that license would extend to professional or even charity haunted houses. While there might also be a fair use argument in favor of the haunts, if the use is transformative enough, but the studios often also hold trademark interest in the characters as well, further complicating the issue.

How We Resolve It: We have a very strict “no movies” rule in our haunt. Aside from the copyright/trademark issues, we just don’t think it’s that scary and work to craft original stories every year. We find this to be much more effective than relying on other’s stories.

3. Masks/Costumes

Masks, at least the part of them you that makes them a costume element, are essentially sculptures, which are copyrighted works. Though in selling them as a mask there is an implied license to wear them in the intended manner, it’s unclear how far that implied license would go, especially in a professional haunted house. However, I haven’t been able to find any evidence to date of someone being threatened or sued for doing this and any mask maker who did would likely go right out of business. Still, it’s an interesting copyright question without a clear answer.

How We Resolve It: Given the fair use, implied license and other defenses in this case, we don’t worry about it too much. However, we do limit our use of store-bought masks greatly, only using a few each year. Instead, we prefer to custom make masks using latex to have a more original look. However, we are careful not to pattern our masks after anything we’ve seen as that can create problems of its own (Note: Parody article but the most creative “commercial use” definition to date).

4. Stories

Most of the classic horror tales such as Dracula and Frankenstein have long fallen into the public domain. However, many of the more current stories, such as the stories of the characters above, are not. There’s actually a long history of disputes over horror stories, the most famous being the Nosferatu/Dracula battle from the early era of cinema that almost resulted in the destruction of all copies of Nosferatu, now considered a classic film. A more recent conflict would be “Living Dead” creator Gorge Romero’s lawsuit against Capcom over the video game Dead Rising, which was later thrown out.

How We Resolve It: As mentioned above, we try to create our own stories for each haunt and try to stick with more of a fake true crime theme than any horror staple. Though some non-copyrightable elements may be the same or similar to other stories, practically unavoidable in this niche, we try to be as original as possible as a means to separate ourselves and create our own folklore.

5. Names, Logos and Trademarks

Despite there not being many haunted houses, especially large professional ones, most of them have very similar-sounding names. In fact, my friends run Chamber of Horrors, a small haunted house in LaPlace, but there are at least three other haunts with that name in the country. Combine that with the fact that the logos almost always seem, at least at a glance, to be similar and that logos can have both trademark and copyright protection, something very common in the haunt world, and you have a huge potential mess on your hands if you have name or logo too close to someone else’s.

How We Resolve It: Fortunately, geography keeps this from being too big of a problem. There may be four Chamber of Horrors out there but they are scattered all over the country. Still, for our part, we once again try to put the focus on doing something unique. Our name is Bernie Baxter’s Traveling Sideshow and instead of using typical themes for our logo (blood, lightning, etc.) we went with an old poster look to fit with the sideshow theme.

Bottom Line

By now, this column likely sounds like a broken record. We’ve managed to avoid most of these potential copyright and trademark pitfalls by trying to do something original. However, the decision to do original work never came from a desire to skirt copyright or trademark law or out of fear of it, but rather, out of a desire to put on the best haunt possible.

Though this doesn’t mean I’ve avoided every potential copyright hazard, especially the extremely unlikely issue of using masks in the haunt, it’s helped me avoid nearly all of them without thinking about it too much.

On that note though, I need to get back out there and finish it up. With two days left to go there is final preparations to be made and actors to train. It is going to be a busy few days for me and I will see you guys in November!

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

1: Big Media Wants More Piracy Busting from Google

First off today, heads from both the IFPI and the RIAA recently approached Google to see what the search engine could do to help them track down pirates more efficiently. Google, according to a response, was less-than-helpful saying that they only help they could offer would be an API solution that would charge 5 dollars for every 1,000 queries, an amount that the organizations said would cost millions per year. Google has said it complies with copyright law and does not charge for content removals, but has to charge the amount above for the API to recoup costs.

2: American P2P Law Firms Now Threatening… Each Other

Next up today the Media Copyright Group and the U.S. Copyright Group are in something of a trademark spat. The two firms specialize in anti-piracy work, namely filing massive lawsuits against suspected file sharers to procure settlements, making them direct competitors. Observers had previously noticed that MGC’s filings used whole passages from the USCG’s previous filings but it seems to be trademark that has put the two companies at odds. The USCG had sent a letter to the MCG demanding that they change their name and pay damages, in response, the MCG has now filed a preemptive lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgement that the name is legal and to try to revoke USCG’s trademark application. USCG has not yet responded to the lawsuit.

3: Knock Out makers ordered to share screenplay with Fox

Finally today, the makers of the Bollywood film Knock Out have been ordered to turn over their screenplay to Fox, which accuses them of plagiarizing the work from the film Phone Booth. Both films feature a protagonist being held hostage in a phone booth and ordered to reveal dark secrets. Knock Out is scheduled to be released on Oct. 15th and there appears to be no plans to halt the release at this time.

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.

As a person who is interested in copyright law and how it impacts creators of all size, I read a lost of mainstream media reports on the subject.

While much of the reporting I see is at least reasonably good, many articles that simply make me want to scream in frustration as they simply get the facts about copyright completely wrong.

Though there are literally too many mistakes to count, I keep seeing the same few mistakes made over and over. So, as a service to my friends in the mainstream media, here is my top 4 mistakes that the MSM makes regarding copyright law when they are covering it.

4. A Takedown or Cease and Desist is Not a Lawsuit

Whenever there is a newsworthy copyright dispute that involves a DMCA takedown or a cease and desist letter being sent out, especially if it is controversial, at least one reporter takes it too far and says that the person was “sued” and not merely having the work removed or requesting it to be removed.

A DMCA notice and cease and desist letter involves little more than filing a notice, it does not require filing paperwork with a court or going through the motions of a lawsuit. Also, one does not receive damages from a mere notice.

Granted, many notices and cease and desist letters heavily threaten lawsuits, but one is not “sued” until the case is filed in a court, an important distinction, especially considering the majority of such notices never make it that far.

3. Copyright is, Usually, Not a Criminal Matter

Though it might seem to be a minor difference, it is a pretty important one in terms of the results to the defendant. Though there is a such thing as criminal copyright infirngement, it is rarely applied and nearly all copyright cases are civil matters. This means copyright infringers are usually not “convicted”, “sentenced”, etc. They are instead, “found liable” or “found to be infringing”. Likewise, damages are not the same as fines.

This one could actually be a serious mistake as saying (or at least implying) someone was convicted of a crime when they were not can have serious libel implications if someone wished to pursue it. Still, it is a subtle mistake that few others will notice, but it certainly is one that can and should be avoided.

2. Fair Use is Not a Right

This one is often just a difference in language but it is worth noting that fair use is not a right, it is a defense against a copyright infringement suit. Whenever reporters talk about someone asserting their right to fair use, it is somewhat misleading.

I don’t usually get too upset about this one as it is a language difference and there are many misnomers in copyright law that are well-tolerated, but it is a somewhat risky one as it gives people an impression that fair use is far more protective and expansive than it really is.

1. Trademarks and Patents are Not Copyright

This is one of the most common mistakes made and it is one of the most frustrating for me personally as it ruins my alerts and newsfeeds. Copyright, trademark and patent are three different, though at times overlapping, areas of IP law.

Yet, every time two companies get into a dispute over their names, such as the recent IHOP v. IHOP story, at least some of the reporters are inclined to say it is a copyright issue when the issue is clearly a trademark one. Copyright does not protect names, slogans, titles or similar works though they can be protected under trademark law if applicable.

Sometimes this is caused by lawsuits that sue for copyright infringement even when it doesn’t apply, usually though it is a reporter not understanding the difference between the three areas of the law and not reading the complaint thoroughly.

Bottom Line

In the end, most of these mistakes are fairly minor, other than potential libel issues in some cases, but they are annoying and they do feed a great deal of the misunderstandings and misinformation that exist around copyright law.

As journalists, one would expect them to be very familiar with the law and have a firm grasp of how it works, both as content creators and as people who use copyrighted works in their reporting. However, it is very clear that many do not.

So to the reporters doing good work in this area, and that includes many blogs and non-MSM sites, keep up the good work and to the reporters getting it wrong, it may be time for quick refresher in media law.

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

It was a very busy week for copyright news with several major, breaking stories including file sharing raids all across Europe, a new leak of the ACTA treaty and more updates in the Righthaven lawsuits, including them suing a prominent Nevada politician. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t slow it down toward the end to grab a drink and, that is until someone accuses us of infringement for that too.

Just one of those weeks.

This week’s stories include:

• Righthaven Sues Nevada Senate Candidate Sharron Angle, Wants Domain
• File Sharing Raids Across Europe Target “Scene” Networks
• ACTA Leaked, ISP Liability Gone, DRM Protection Still In
• Google Loses YouTube Case in Germany, No Safe Harbor
• Can You Copyright a Cocktail?
• Woot and the AP Have a Spat

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: Sharron Angle Hit With R-J Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

First off today, Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle has been hit with a lawsuit by the controversial Righthaven group, which is enforcing copyright for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Righthaven, as is typical for their suits, is demanding $150,000 and the forfeiture of her domain. Righthaven had previously sued the Democratic Party of Nevada, leading to claims of bias as Angle had used R-J content in a similar fashion on her site. Others said that her use of the content meant Righthaven had to sue her, a position Righthaven seems to have agreed with. Angle’s camp has not commented on the suit and this brings the confirmed number of Righthaven lawsuits filed to 117.

2: Police Swoop On 6,000 Song File-Sharer

Next up today, in a case that was overlooked due to yesterday’s raids against ISPs all across Europe, police in Sweden arrested an unidentified man who was, according to prosecutors, was sharing some 6,000 songs as part of a piracy ring. The person in question was using Direct Connect to share the files, which makes it easier for the police to detect mass online infringement. To date, prosecutors have largely ignored those who share files via Bittorrent.

3: Lessons In Smart Trademark Management: Free Licensing Of The Mark From Twitter

Finally today, TechDirt is highlighting Twitter’s trademark policy as an example of how to protect your trademarks while still encouraging widespread use. As the site points out, if trademarks are undefended, they can be lost so companies often times vigorously litigate trademark issues to avoid that risk. However, Twitter has offered a free license to use its “Tweet” trademark so long as it is used correctly and by those promoting the brand, thus limiting the need to litigate while still providing a means for developers to use the mark.

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: Best Buy Takes on Priest for Copyright Violation Over ‘God Squad’ Mobile

First off today, in a story that has much more to do with trademark than copyright, Best Buy has sent a cease and desist letter to a Wisconsin-based church claiming that their “God Squad” vehicle was violating their trademark in “Geek Squad”, their well-known computer repair service. The matter seems to have been peacefully resolved with the pastor removing the logo, but a controversy has been kicked up nonetheless with many wondering if Best Buy went too far.

2: Pirated Video Sellers Close Shop Ahead of New Copyright Law

Next up today, in Kenya, where an estimated 90% of all movies sold are alleged to be pirated, a new law is taking effect that requires DVDs to be sold with a hologram to prove authenticity. This has already forced some shops to close though it is unclear what the long-term impacts the new legislation will have in a region widely viewed as a piracy haven.

3: Why Android Developers are Losing Money, and It’s Not Due to Piracy

Finally today, even as Google prepares to introduce DRM into its Android app store, Pingdom hypothesizes that the reason Android developers are not making money is not due to piracy, but due to the fact that Android developers can only sell apps in 13 out of 46 countries, compared to 90 countries for iPhone developers. Pingdom, which is based in Sweden, one of the countries left out, vented frustration as it seeks to capitalize on the Android platform, which is growing in popularity there.

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.