Copyright As An Online Reputation Management Tool: A Round Hole For A Square Peg

Celebrity endorsements on social media: 7 tips for navigating the right of publicity

Google Vividown sets new rules on Internet liability

Quentin Tarantino’s Lawsuit Against Gawker: Enjoy!

<iframe src="http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=5049ff86-194f-4c0e-96cb-f776af0c86f1&height=720&width=581" width="600" height="720" frameborder="0" style="border: 2px solid #ccc;"></iframe>

Patents In A 3D World: The Challenge of the Second File-Sharing Revolution

20,000 porn-watchers' addresses mistakenly released in German court: lawyer

By Alexander Smith, NBC News contributor

About 20,000 people who watched pornography on a U.S.-based website have had their names and addresses mistakenly released by a court and are now being ordered to pay fines, a lawyer said Friday.

Cease and desist letters were sent to people whose IP addresses were detected on the porn site Redtube after a German court released their personal details in a copyright infringement case.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/13/21891592-20000-porn-watchers-addresses-mistakenly-released-in-german-court-lawyer

Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, John Does 1,26, and Leaswweb B.V. - Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property,

On February 7, 2013, defendants/counter-plaintiffs Marques Gunter (doing business as myVidster.com) and SalsaIndy, LLC (collectively, "myVidster") filed an amended answer to the Sixth Amended Complaint as well as affirmative defenses and a two-count counterclaim. Plaintiff/counter-defendant, Flava Works, Inc. ("Flava"), had moved to dismiss the original counterclaim, to which the amended counterclaim is largely identical.  Count I of this counterclaim is a state-law claim for tortious interference with contract. In Count II, myVidster asserts that Flava violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"), 17 U.S.C. § 512(f),(Limitations on liability relating to material online) by knowingly and materially misrepresenting that certain content that allegedly infringed copyrights was available on myVidster's website.

Count I of the counterclaim alleges that Flava tortiously interfered with myVidster's contractual relationships with three companies—Server Beach, Voxel Dot Net, Inc., and FDC Servers— whose servers hosted myVidster's web site. The claim was based on two types of conduct. MyVidster alleges that Flava (1) "improperly filed this lawsuit" and (2) in notices sent pursuant to the DMCA, misrepresented to the three companies the extent of infringing material that appeared on myVidster's site, in order to "intentionally and injustifiably induce" the companies' terminations of their contracts with myVidster. 
In Count II of the counterclaim, myVidster alleges that Flava violated the DMCA, 15 U.S.C. § 512(f), by knowingly and materially misrepresenting that allegedly infringing content was available on myVidster, despite myVidster's previous expeditious removal of that content and despite Flava having received correspondence from myVidster confirming that the content had been removed.
Flava argued that myVidster fails to state a § 512(f) claim because it pleads knowledge in only a conclusory manner. The Court disagreed. MyVidster alleged that Flava knowingly misrepresented that certain infringing content was available on myVidster's web site despite having received notification from myVidster that the content had been removed and that Flava did so purposefully, in an effort to "improperly exaggerate the actual amount of infringing content available on the myVidster.com website." 
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of plaintiff/counter-defendant Flava Works,Inc. to dismiss the counterclaim was granted in part as to Count I, which was dismissed with prejudice, but only to the extent that the claim was based on the alleged wrongful filing of this lawsuit. The motion was denied as to Count I to the extent that the claim was based on the alleged misrepresentation of intellectual-property infringement, and as to Count II.

FLAVA WORKS, INC., Plaintiff,

v.

MARQUES RONDALE GUNTER d/b/a myVidster.com; SALSAINDY, LLC d/b/a myVidster.com; JOHN DOES 1-26; and LEASEWEB B.V. d/b/a LeaseWeb.com, Defendants.

No. 10 C 6517.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

September 3, 2013.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11024300013053343596&q=FLAVA+WORKS,+INC.,+Plaintiff,+v.+MARQUES+RONDALE+GUNTER&hl=en&as_sdt=400006, last viewed 10/22/2013

Vincent PETERS, professionally known as Vince P v. Kanye WEST, et al. -- Copyright Infringement, Hip Hop

The mixture of success in the  Hip Hop Music arena, coupled with the Internet, make copyright infringement and theft of intellectual property wide spread and easy. Defending a claim like this can be expensive and time consuming and is not for those without deep pockets. In a David versus Goliath type struggle, Hip Hop wannabe Vince Peters and SuperStar Kanye West were pitted against one another in a struggle facing many up and coming artists.  The Court found that Vince the Plaintiff's claim for copyright infringement failed as a matter of law and dismissed the case.
This case is notable since it appears in an Official Reporter in 2012, indicating it can be safely cited to - 692 F.3d 629 (2012).
Traditionally, these cases are published as SLIP Opinions, though the speed of the Internet and volume of cases is changing that rapidly. E-Discovery cases have been available for some time but Social Media is only now appearing. Therefore the Rules on what does and does not constitute good authority that can be cited are changing daily. Check with your Supervising Attorney or a member of your team to find out how these changes in Law are treated by your Court. 
In 2006, Vincent Peters, whose stage name is Vince P, wrote, recorded, and distributed a song entitled Stronger. The song's title comes from a key line in its "hook" (refrain or chorus). The line in turn draws from an aphorism coined by Friedrich Nietzsche: "what does not kill me, makes me stronger." Vince P believed his song could be a hit and his search led him to John Monopoly, a business manager and close friend of Kanye West, one of hip-hop's superstars. Vince P sent Monopoly a disc containing a recording of Stronger, and even secured a meeting with Monopoly, during which Vince P played his recording of Stronger for Monopoly. 
Shortly thereafter,  West released a song entitled Stronger. West's song also features a hook that repeats the Nietzschean maxim. Worse, according to Vince P, West's song contains several other suspicious similarities to his song. Vince P tried to contact West, but he was turned away by West's representatives. 
Vince P registered his copyright in his version of Stronger with the U.S. Copyright Office and filed suit against West. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Vince P describes himself in the complaint as an up-and-coming hip-hop artist and songwriter. In 2006, as he was beginning his career in music, he wrote and recorded a song entitled Stronger, which is about the competitive — indeed cutthroat — nature of the hip-hop and rap world. Vince P's search led him to John Monopoly, a well-known producer and — importantly for our purposes — a close friend and business manager to Kanye West. On November 12, 2006, Vince P and Monopoly met at the latter's home in Chicago, where Vince P played several of his recordings, including Stronger (VP). At the conclusion of their meeting, Vince P left a CD of some of his songs — including Stronger (VP) — with Monopoly. 
In July 2007, less than a year after the November 2006 meeting between Vince P and Monopoly, West released his own single titled Stronger. (We call this Stronger (KW).) It was a huge hit. The song earned the #1 spot in several Billboard charts, the single sold over three million copies, and it eventually earned West a 632Grammy for Best Rap Solo Performance. Vince Pnoticed what he thought were several infringing similarities between his 2006 song and West's more recent release. Vince P also saw that Monopoly was listed as a manager on the notes to West's album GRADUATION, on which Stronger (KW) appears. Vince P attempted to contact West, but he was rebuffed by West's representatives, and so he turned to the federal courts. After formally registering his copyright in Stronger (VP) with the U.S. Copyright Office, see 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 1241, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010) (copyright registration, while not jurisdictional, is a substantive requirement of infringement litigation), Vince P sued West in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. That court dismissed Vince P's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and he now appeals.

The Court reviewed the district court's order granting West's motion to dismiss de novo. Justice v. Town of Cicero, 577 F.3d 768, 771 (7th Cir.2009). We "construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff," and we therefore draw all plausible inferences in Vince P's favor. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir.2008). As a practical matter for the present case, this means that the Court assumed as true all of Vince P's allegations regarding Monopoly's early access to Vince P's song and his claims about the close relationship between Monopoly and Kanye West. The Court reviewed de novo the district court's determinations regarding the similarity between the two songs as well as its ultimate conclusion of noninfringement. Intervest Constr. Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., 554 F.3d 914, 919-20 (11th Cir.2008).

Vince P's complaint contaied only one claim: his allegation that Stronger (KW) infringes his valid copyright in Stronger (VP). Proving infringement of a copyright owner's exclusive right under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) (the reproduction right) requires proof of "(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original." Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991); JCW Invs., Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2007).

For the benefit of readers interested in coming to their own conclusions about these two songs, the Court included the full lyrics to each one in the Appendix to this opinion. For present purposes, however, it gave the two "hooks," which provide the backdrop to the discussion that follows:

Stronger (VP) [Hook] What don't kill me make me stronger The more I blow up the more you wronger You copied my CD you can feel my hunger The wait is over couldn't wait no longer 
Stronger (KW) [Hook] N-N-N-now th-th-that don't kill me Can only make me stronger I need you to hurry up now Cause I can't wait much longer I know I got to be right now Cause I can't get much wronger Man I've been waitin' all night now That's how long I've been on ya.
An undeniable sign of the times appears in the lyrics with "All these dudes in Chicago tried to diss me Cause on the low they girls they kiss me they miss me Check out my MySpace."
(The portion of lyric reproduced here has been abbreviated but appears in full in the Appendix of the Published Opinion)
The Court concluded that the songs are separated by much more than "small cosmetic differences," JCW, 482 F.3d at 916; rather, they share only small cosmetic similarities. This means that Vince P's claim for copyright infringement failed as a matter of law.  The judgment of the district court was AFFIRMED.
692 F.3d 629 (2012)

Vincent PETERS, professionally known as Vince P, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Kanye WEST, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-1708.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued March 26, 2012. Decided August 20, 2012. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8900792827566575991&q=MySpace&hl=en&as_sdt=4,14,112,127,268,269,270,271,272,314,315,331,332,333,334,335,377,378&as_ylo=2012, last visited 10/13/2013