Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, DL Cade at PetaPixel reports that The National Press Photographers Assocation (NPPA) has joined 15 other groups in suing Google over it’s Google Books products.
The NPPA joins the ranks of The American Society of Media Photographers, The Graphic Artists Guild, The Picture Archive Council of America, The North American Nature Photography Association and others in suing Google, alleging that Google Books, which scans and makes books searchable, is a violation of their copyright.
The NPAA represents photojournalists and joins not just other photography organizations, but also the Authors Guild and Publishers in suing Google over this. Though the Publishers have settled their case with Google, many of the other cases continue.
Next up today, Andy at Torrentfreak writes that Finland’s largest criminal piracy case has come to a close and, of the six men standing trial, two were acquitted and four were convicted. However, the sentences on the convicted were suspended and the damages awarded were much lower than what copyright holders had hoped.
The case stems from a former “topsite” named “Angel Falls”. A topsite is a collection of servers where many pirated works are initially leaked before being available on traditional file sharing networks. The complaints were filed in 2007 and the trial just concluded, with the four convicted receiving suspended sentences between 50 days and 6 months. Also, the damages were reduced to 45,000 euros ($59,000), down from the requested 6 million euros ($7.9 million).
Though copyright holders involved in the case were happy with the conviction they seemed to be disappointed with the damages awarded. However, they did say that they are looking for “possible ways forward” with securing higher damages.
Finally today, the BBC is reporting that the Brighton and Hove City Council has been forced to pay an undisclosed sum for copyright infringement.
The out-of-court settlement comes after the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA), a licensing agency representing various rightsholders, accused the council of violating copyrights. The council had a license from the CLA, which covers photocopying, scanning and other activities, until a few years before the case started. However, according to the CLA, during the 2009-2010 the CLA proved that the council needed one, prompting it to enter into an agreement.
The settlement deals with alleged infringement during the time with the council was not licensed and, though the amount of the settlement was not disclosed, it is reported to be in the five figures and enough to cover the CLA’s legal costs.
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.