Got any suggestions for the 3 Count. Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Noli Novak, a staff illustrator at the Wall Street Journal who creates many of the ink drawings the paper is famous for, has accused José María Cano, a Spanish artist well known in his country, of plagiarism.
According to Novak, Cano took a drawing she did of Barack Obama in 2008 and made it larger claiming it as his own art. To make matters worse, the item, through a series of owners, is now hanging in the White House as it was presented to the President as a gift.
Novak has said she has informed the Journal’s legal team of the issue and will update as things develop. However, given the international elements to the case, it could be very difficult for this matter to move forward.
Next up today, songwriter Paul Anka held scored a major victory in negotiations with the estate of Michael Jackson. The songwriter had collaborated with the King of Pop when he produced the new single “This is It”, which the estate began promoting on the Web earlier this week, but, due to an error on the part of the estate, had left off Anka’s name in the song’s credits.
After negotiations, the estate rectified the error and gave Anka 50% of the copyright in the song and along with it a good share of the publicity over the song’s release.
According to Anka, there are no hard feelings, he considers it a mistake that the estate quickly corrected. However, it is easy to see how this could have become a legal mess very easily.
Finally today, a Swedish appeals court has overturned a district court ruling that would have required broadband provider ePhone to turn over information about alleged file sharers. The company had been sued by book publishers who alleged that users of the site had been illegally sharing their books. However, the company did not turn over the information when it was requested, even though the IPRED act in Sweden was designed to force providers to provide such details.
The reason the Appeals court overturned the verdict was because the publishers had not proved that files were being shared publicly. Since they were on a password-protected server and there was no proof provided that the password had been widely shared, the court felt that it did not qualify under IPRED.
However, the court was sharply divided on the issue, 2-2, meaning the deciding factor was the additional weight of the court’s presiding judge. The matter can also be appealed to Sweden’s Supreme Court.
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.