Another Win for Veoh

Veoh logoOn Friday, the district court in UMG v. Veoh granted summary judgement in favor of Veoh. Decision here, courtesy of Copyrights & Campaigns. UMG, a record label, had sued Veoh, a site hosting user-posted videos, claiming infringement of its music videos. UMG is the second decision to come down on the issue of the responsibility of site owners to deal with continual user infringement under Section 512 of the Copyright Act, and like Io v. Veoh, it’s a big win for site owners. The big one remaining, of course, is Viacom v. YouTube, pending in the Southern District of New York.

There’s bound to be some comment on how this is helpful precedent for YouTube, but I think the cases are importantly different. I’ve noted repeatedly that I think Viacom’s best fact—indeed, possibly the decisive factor in bringing the suit—is that YouTube at one point seemed to be selectively offering to filter uploaded content. See my analysis of this issue from earlier this year.

It doesn’t appear that UMG had anything like this fact to hang its case on.

Continue ReadingAnother Win for Veoh

More on Literary Characters and Copyright Law

CC_No_11_Don_Quixote3This blog has seen an extended discussion on the topic of literary characters and copyright law.  It began with my post here, discussing the ongoing court case brought by J.D. Salinger over the unauthorized use of his Holden Caulfield character from The Catcher in the Rye, (Salinger v. Colting) and using a comparison to the novel Don Quixote to argue that copyright protection for literary characters should be eliminated.  It was followed by Professor Bruce Boyden’s post here, defending the law’s grant of exclusive control over literary characters to the original author because it provides an economic incentive to the creative process.  Professor Gordon Hylton responded with a post here, supporting my argument against copyright protection for literary characters by pointing to the post-publication history of Edward Bellamy’s popular novel Looking Backward.  The discussion continued with Professor David Papke’s suggestion, in a post here, that the resolution of this debate may depend upon how we define what it means to be an “author,” and whether authorship is an individual act of creation or the collective act of an entire society.  Finally, Professor Rick Esenberg contributed this post, discussing the crucial role of the reader in attributing meaning to the text, and implicitly questioning the idea that any author can control how his creation is used.

 I would like to add to this discussion by sharing the comments of my brother, Jim Fallone, on the foregoing debate.  I am aware, of course, of the popular movie Adaptation, “co-written” by screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and his fictitious brother Donald.  In that movie, Charlie Kaufman takes the screenwriting process itself as the film’s subject, and plays with post-modern theories of authorship.  Let me assure you that, unlike Donald Kaufman, Jim Fallone is a real person.  Moreover, Jim Fallone has over 20 years of experience as an executive in the publishing industry, currently with Andrews McMeel Publishing in Kansas City, and is a published illustrator.  While this experience makes him dependent upon copyright law for his meal ticket, it also gives him some valuable insights into the creation and marketing of literary characters.

What follows, then, are the comments of Jim Fallone:

Continue ReadingMore on Literary Characters and Copyright Law

Lawyers & Social Networking

computer_with_scales3An article in today’s New York Times talks about what can happen when lawyers open up online.  The article begins with the story of Sean Conway.  Attorney Conway took to his blog to state exactly how angry he was with a Fort Lauderdale judge.  He said she was an “Evil, Unfair Witch.”  But because Conway is a lawyer, his online ranting resulted his being reprimanded and fined by the Florida bar.

Of course, lawyers aren’t the only ones whose livelihood is affected by their online postings.  There’s this, and this, and this.  Having one’s online activity be the basis of dismissal has increased so much that a new phrase – “Facebook fired” – has entered our lexicon. 

But being a lawyer means something more.  Lawyers have long been held to a higher standard of conduct than other members of society.  As the New York Times article points out, your “freedom to gripe is limited by codes of conduct.”  Thus, criticizing the court or revealing client details online – even if the lawyer thinks she’s veiled the true subject – can cause trouble for a lawyer because she runs the risk of violating rules of professional responsibility.

Continue ReadingLawyers & Social Networking