Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, John Ribeiro at PC World reports that actress Cindy Garcia has filed a motion of contempt against Google, alleging the at least one of the copies of the controversial “Innocence of Muslims” trailer remains on the site, despite a court order to remove them all.
Garcia sought removal of the video claiming that, since she didn’t sign over her rights to the performance, which she claims she was duped into giving, that she is the copyright holder of her 5-second appearance. However, when Google refused to comply, she filed suit against them. Though the lower court sided with Google and YouTube, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Garcia’s favor, further demanding that all copies of the film be removed.
Google is contesting that order but has removed some copies of the films on YouTube. However, Garcia is claiming that at least one copy of the video with her performance remains online and, thus, Google is in contempt to the court’s order.
Next up today, Quentin Tarantino has fired back at Gawker in the “Hateful Eight” case, saying that the company “fabricated” the story about the leak of his script in order to encourage widespread infringement of it.
The “Hateful Eight” was a script that Tarantino was in the process of working on. However, it was leaked to the file sharing site AnonFiles.com and Gawker covered the story on its Defamer blog, linking directly to the file as part of the story. Gawker had said their use was a fair one as part of reporting and that they should not be liable for any infringement of the work.
According to Tarantino, that is akin to a newspaper covering a piracy ring and listing the exact places one can buy pirated CDs or DVDs. Further, Tarantino alleges that there may be a connection between the uploader of the file and Gawker and that the users who viewed the script online likely did commit copyright infringement by downloading the script to their computers.
Finally today, Joe Mullin at Ars Technica reports that The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling that printer manufacturer Lexmark will have to stand trial over false DMCA claims that it made years ago.
The case began when Lexmark tried to use special microchips to prevent printer cartridges from being refilled. One company, Static Control Components (SCC) found a way to make their own microchips and sell refilled cartridges. Lexmark both threatened and sued them, alleging that the process was a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits the circumvention of digital rights management.
However, the courts ruled in favor of SCC, saying that their business was not illegal. SCC then countersued for false advertising but the courts have been unable to conclude if SCC should have standing to sue Lexmark over it. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that it does, sending the case back to the lower courts for a likely trial.
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.