Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Kirsten Errick at Law Street Media reports that Apple is facing a lawsuit filed by Cub Club Investment, LLC (CCI) over alleged infringement of the company’s iDiversicons emoji collection, which features emoji in five different skin colors.
According to the lawsuit, CCI first released it’s emoji pack in October 2013, uploading it to the Apple App store. They then claim that, in 2014, that the two companies discussed a partnership though none ever emerged. In April 2015, Apple released its won diverse emoji collection, which CCI claims is significantly similar to their iDiversicons collection.
As a result, CCI is suing for both copyright infringement and trade dress infringement. They are seeking a declaratory judgment in their favor, an injunction barring apple from further infringement and a full accounting of Apple’s profits from the alleged infringement.
Next up today, Andy Maxwell at Torrentfreak writes that YouTube has hit back at a class action lawsuit filed against it and made striking claims about both of the lead plaintiffs in it.
YouTube was sued by both musician Maria Schneider and Pirate Monitor Ltd, who claimed that YouTube was not doing enough to discourage piracy and protect the works of “ordinary creators”. In particular, they complained that they were both denied access to YouTube’s Content ID system, which denied them the chance to prevent infringement.
However, YouTube has hit back with a counterclaim saying that the music Schneider is suing over is music that YouTube has already licensed through her agents. Still, the worst barbs were saved for Pirate Monitor, which was accused of uploading the very content that it filed DMCA takedown notices against in a bid to prove it needed access to Content ID. As such, YouTube is hitting Pirate Monitor with counterclaims that allege breach of contract, namely the YouTube terms of service, as well as abuse of the DMCA.
Finally today, Jake Kerridge at The Telegraph reports that, even as the new Enola Holmes film makes its debut on Netflix, a lawsuit continues to rage around it as the Conan Doyle Estate claims that the film infringes its copyright.
According to the estate, though most of the Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain, several of the later tales written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle remain in copyright and that the film uses elements of the Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson characters from those tales. The lawsuit also alleges violation of trademarks the estate holds in the Sherlock Holmes name.
The movie is based on a book published by Nancy Springer back in 2006. According to the lawsuit, the estate didn’t sue Springer then because they have a “soft spot for writers” but have included her as a defendant in this case. The case is ongoing despite the film’s release.