3 Count: Public Access

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: DC Circuit Decision is Victory for Public-Access Group that Posts Technical Standards Online

First off today, Debra Cassens Weiss at ABA Journal reports that Public Resource has won a key court decision that rules their publication of legal standards that were first developed by private parties is not an infringement of copyright.

Public Resource is a site that hosts and shares documents pertaining to the legal code for public access. However, sometimes, the law itself is not first written by legislators but starts out life as a standard created by a private company or organization. Three such trade organizations filed a lawsuit against Public Resource alleging that, by republishing those standards, Public Resource had infringed their copyright.

However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled against the trade organizations, finding that the publication of such standards is a fair use. As such, the court found that Public Resource is not liable for copyright infringement, effectively bringing an end to the case barring an appeal to the Supreme Court.

2: Gagosian Wins an Initial Victory in a Long-Running Lawsuit Brought by a Photographer Who Claims Richard Prince Appropriated His Work

Next up today, Annie Armstrong at Artnet News reports that the Gagosian Gallery has secured a small victory in their longrunning battle against photographer Donald Graham, who sued the gallery for copyright infringement of his work.

At issue was a series of “paintings” created by artist Richard Prince and shown at the gallery in 2014. Those works included a photo taken by Graham featuring Instagram-style comments at the bottom. Graham sued both Prince and the gallery, alleging that the work infringed his copyright.

The case is ongoing, but the Gagosian Gallery can claim a minor victory, as the judge ruled that the gallery is not liable for profits or sales of photos from the series. According to the judge, in the case of the gallery, such claims were “not sufficiently connected to the alleged infringement and overly speculative.” That said, the case is ongoing against both parties as, in May, the judge rejected a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants.

3: Bungie’s Copyright Infringement Claim Against AimJunkies Fails to Convince Court

Finally today, Ernesto Van der Sar at Torrentfreak writes that cheatmakers AimJunkies have won a small victory in their ongoing lawsuit against Bungie games over the development of various cheating applications.

Bungie sued AimJunkes in June 2021 alleging that they were unlawfully making and selling cheating tools for Bungie-created games, including Destiny 2. The two sides initially moved toward a quick settlement, but when that fell apart, the case began to progress in court.

Bungie, for their part, recently filed for a motion of summary judgment on copyright and trademark grounds. However, the judge has denied that motion, saying that there is no direct evidence of copyright infringement and there was inadequate evidence of confusion to sustain the trademark claims without a jury. As such, the case is heading toward a trial on those issues.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.