This is daily column on Plagiarism Today where the site brings you three of the days biggest, most important copyright and plagiarism news links. If you want to offer your feedback on the column, use the contact form or just follow me on Twitter at @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Jammie Thomas plans on appealing her case, focusing on the constitutionality of the damages levied against her. She has said that she is not interested in any settlement that involves her admitting guilt or paying money and has decided, despite the $1.9 million judgment against her, to appeal the case in hopes of either getting the verdict tossed or the damage reduced.
However, as Ben Sheffner points out in a quote, Thomas has an uphill battle on this front as no Federal court has done what she and her attorneys are asking it to do.
After the first trial, there are reports she received an offer to settle the case for about $25,000, an offer that was passed up in favor of a retrial, where the current $1.9 million verdict was handed down.
Next up, Judge Deborah A. Batts has issued a preliminary injunction, barring the sale of “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye” in the U.S. saying that it is an unauthorized sequel of the book “Catcher in the Rye”, written by J.D. Salinger, and is thus a likely violation of Salinger’s copyright. This comes after the judge issued a temporary 10-day order late last month.
Fredrik Colting, the Swedish author of the new book, said his work was intended to be a parody and expressed disbelief at the “banning” of his book. He could still take this matter to trial but the book can not be published in the U.S. until the litigation is resolved.
However, the book is currently published in the UK.
Finally today, attorney Ronald S. Rosen, who successfully defended John Williams against claims he lifted musical elements when writing the score for E.T.: The Extraterrestrial, explained why he has not released video or podcast versions of his book to help laypeople understand the intricacies of music. Namely that he would need to obtain licenses to use the music, even short passages, in any talk, video or audio presentation he gave.
This highlights the issue with teaching music copyright to up and coming attorneys outside of the courtroom and classroom. It raises a slew of questions about how to educate attorneys and laypeople about these issues moving forward.
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.