Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off Today, TMZ is reporting that lawyers for YouTube celebrity Michelle Phan have spoken with them and explained that the makeup artist felt she had permission to use the music of Kaskade, Deadmau5 and more in her videos.
Phan, who is well-known for her makeup tutorials on YouTube, was sued by Ultra Records, a company that holds the rights to many popular DJs’ music, alleging that she was using the music without a proper license. Phan is claiming that she received permission from Ultra and the artists directly and that her legal team plan to file a lawsuit of their own.
Kaskade, one of the DJs whose music is being sued over, took to Twitter to show his support for Phan, saying that Ultra is not his lapdog and that there is nothing he can do about the lawsuit.
Next up today, Ernesto at Torrentfreak writes that Google has changed the results pages on some searches for infringing content to include prominent ads for legal alternatives, such as Netflix and the Google Play store.
If one searches for torrents, DVDrips or other common piracy related terms related to a movie or TV series, Google will sometimes display prominent advertisements for legitimate platforms where the content can be found. For example, a search for “Breaking Bad Torrent” showcases Netflix and the Google Play store, both of which have the series.
Google hasn’t commented on the new ads but the move comes as copyright holders across the world are pressuring Google to do more to steer users away from pirated content and toward legitimate alternatives.
Finally today, Chris Roberts at NBC Bay Area reports that the San Francisco law firm Bornstein & Bornstein has filed a DMCA takedown notice with YouTube to have a protest video removed from the site.
The firm is known in the area for being heavily involved in eviction lawsuits and holding boot camps to teach other lawyers about the process. During one of those boot camps on Jan. 16, a volunteer filmed as several protestors burst into the event and shouted at the lawyers.
The video was disabled after the firm made a copyright claim on the video. However, given that copyright in the video is applied to the person making the video, not the people in it, the claim is likely dubious, especially considering that none of the firm’s material was featured in the protest video.
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.