Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Ali Breland at The Hill reports that Oracle has filed an appeal in its long-running lawsuit against Google over the inclusion of Java APIs in Google’s Android mobile operating system.
When designing Android, Google included the Java APIs to make it easier for Java programmers to write and develop for Android. Oracle sued for copyright and patent infringement but was initially told that APIs could not be copyright protected. That was overturned on appeal but then a jury ruled that Google’s use of the code was a fair use and non-infringing.
However, the battle, which has been raging for 7 years, will be continuing with Oracle filing a notice that it will appeal that decision, likening Google to a plagiarist that takes the most recognizable part of a novel.
Next up today, Kurt Schlosser at GeekWire reports that the real estate website Zillow has been ordered to pay $8.3 million in damages to image management company VHT Inc. in a dispute over photographs that Zillow shows on its Zillow Digs website.
The lawsuit was originally filed in July 2015 and VHT attempted unsuccessfully to expand it to inovlve Zillow’s main real estate listing site. The trial began in late January and recently concluded with VHT being awarded $79,875 in actual damages and $8.24 million in statutory damages.
Zillow continues to say that the lawsuit is without merit and has said that they will continue to litigate the case, looking at all of their options moving forward.
Finally today, Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter Esquire reports that members of Blind Melon have reached a settlement in their lawsuit against the musician Mandy Jiroux over her song Insane.
The case was an unusual one because Jiroux openly admitted to copying Blind Melon’s 1993 hit No Rain. However, she claimed that Insane was a cover of No Rain where the band felt it was a derivative work. This is a crucial point because U.S. copyright law provides for a compulsory license for cover songs but not derivative works, meaning that a cover would not have been infringing.
However, the settlement comes before any substantive rulings and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. This means that these are issues that will have to wait for another day.
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.