Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Rich Calder at The New York Post Page Six is reporting that artist May Hayuk is filing a pair of lawsuits over the use of a mural she painted, entitled “Chem Trails NYC”, in advertisements and promotional material.
The first lawsuit is against singer Sara Bareilles, as well as her labels Sony Music and Epic Records. In that lawsuit, Hayuk claims that advertisements and videos promoting Bareilles concert tour featured the mural as a backdrop without her permission. The second lawsuit is against clothing designer Coach, who Hayuk claims did something similar, using the mural as a backdrop for advertisements.
Each of the lawsuits seek at least $150,000 in damages though Hayuk is claiming that both defendants profited significantly from the use of the brightly-colored mural.
Next up today, Jason Ubay at Pacific Business News reports that Tiki Shark Art Inc, an art and design studio based in Hawaii, settled its case with CafePress, bringing an end to a lawsuit that had been going on for nearly a year.
Tiki Shark Art brought the lawsuit against CafePress alleging that artwork owned by Tiki Shark was being sold on various items on the site. CafePress, however, claimed that, as a site that prints and sells products based on user-uploaded designs, it was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which protects intermediaries from legal liability so long as they remove infringements after notification.
The terms of the settlement were not disclosed by CafePress, in a statement, said that it “Highlights CafePress’ insulation from liability for copyright infringement by safe harbor defenses” under the DMCA.
3: Angelina Jolie Wants Author’s Plagiarism Lawsuit Against ‘In the Land of Blood and Honey’ Dismissed
Finally today, Anne Lu at the International Business Times reports that Angelina Jolie has hit back at an appeal in the ongoing lawsuit over the movie “In the Land of Blood and Honey”, which Jolie wrote and directed.
In 2011 author James Braddock sued Jolie claiming that the movie was based on a story he published in 2007. A lower court tossed the case, saying that the two works were not similar enough but, in March of this year, Braddock appealed saying that the lower court used both an incorrect translation and a flawed metric for deciding similarity.
Jolie’s team has now filed its response saying that the similarities are limited to ideas, which can not be copyright protected and those similarities go back centuries and are common themes in works from the genre.
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.