Got any suggestions for the 3 Count. Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, video site Veoh has prevailed in its lawsuit against Universal, which had sued claiming the site was a haven for copyright infringement and was liable for damages.
However, the judge in the case ruled in favor of Veoh, ruling that the site had complied with the DMCA safe harbor regulations and was protected from liability due to it. This ruling could have a major impact on the YouTube/Viacom case, which is ongoing in a different circuit, as the facts are very similar (though court rulings are non-binding across districts).
Universal has vowed to appeal the case.
Next up today, did you pirate a copy of Arkham Asylum on your PC? If so, there’s a pretty good chance your copy is no longer as a copyright protection system in the game has rendered it virtually unplayable.
Though it doesn’t lock out pirates completely, the system disables the “glide” function in the game, making it impossible to get past certain points.
This new protection system was discovered after a player posted on Eidos’s forums, the makers of the game, about the “bug” only to be told that they had encountered a “hook” in the copyright protection system and that it was a “bug in their moral code”.
Gamers who want to want to play Arkham Asylum, complete with Glide function, on their PC will have to wait until next week when the game is released.
Finally today, freelance artist and former New York University student Ariel Fleurimond is suing her alma mater for copyright infringement after, she says, a logo she drew was used without her permission as the new mascot.
According to Fleurimond, she was working as a clerk in the athletics department when she was asked to draw a new version of the mascot. After several tries she came up with one but was surprised when she found it plastered on the gymnasium floor sometime later.
NYU says that Fleurimond was compensated for her time through her job in the athletic department and calls the suit “baseless”. However, Fleurimond’s attorney says she was not paid to create logos, but rather, to “pick up dirty towels”.
The case will be an interesting study in work-for-hire law and definitely one to follow.
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.