From Russia With Love

Well comrades copyright infringement is all good when you're the one doing the taking, but when the tables are turned you just get all red.

One of the world's biggest markets for counterfeit goods exists in Russia. For countless decades Russians have laughed in the face of international copyright law. The Russian people may have to wait in line for hours for bread, but they can get the new Jay-Z album on any corner. Russian copyright infringers have made millions selling copyrighted music, movies, and computer programs from around the world, and for the most part the Russian government has turned the other cheek.

But now the shoe is on the other foot and the Russians are mad. One of the nations most beloved national treasures is being illegally copied and mass produced in foreign facilities around the globe. The Russians are afraid that these knock-offs are hurting the reputation of one of its most successful products.

So what could this fine Russian product be you ask? Space Secrets? A designer vodka? Nope it's the 1947 model of the Kalashnikov assault rifle, commonly referred to as the AK-47. This Russian export has been a huge success for over sixty years. It is an incredibly versatile weapon that is sought after by fighting men throughout the world. Unfortunatley for the Russians it is also produced around the world now. Many countries, including China have been illegally producing counterfeit AK's for the black market for years. The Russians are cracking down and pulling out all diplomatic measures in an effort to protect the AK's good name and good profit potential.

Here's a link to the story. http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/1527814.html

Even Hope is Stolen

AP photo-left / Fairey's image-right






Yes We Can. Yes we can violate copyright law through the creation of campaign posters. The situation looked bleak for world renowned street artist Shepard Fairey this week when his copyright infringement lawsuit took a turn for the worse.

Mr. Fairey gained worldwide popularity after he created an iconic image of then presidential candidate Barack Obama. The artist took a photo of Mr. Obama which showed him with his head tilted skyward, enhanced it with some red, white, and blue highlights and posted the word HOPE underneath in bold letters. The now famous image has been used on thousands of campaign posters, tshirts, bumper stickers, and even stationary. The artist made a significasnt profit from the sales his image generated.


But followers of I Know My Copyrights must know that this tale of the American dream doesn't end happily. Seems Mr. Fairey used a copyrighted photograph to generate the image of President Obama that led to his new found riches. Unfortunately for him he used copyrighted material belonging to an organization who takes copyrights very seriously and has the resources to pursue would be infringers with great zeal, the Associatead Press.


Seems the AP found the hope poster image to be strinkingly similar to an AP photograph that showed candidate Obama seated next to George Clooney. The AP asked Mr. Fairey for credit and compensation for the use of their photo and he answered them with a lawsuit claiming that fair use exemptions gave him the right to use the photo. The AP countersued for copyright infringement.


Mr Fairey further compounded the matter by initially lying to his attorneys and everyone else about the true source photograph for the image. He initially claimed that he had in fact used a different photograph to create his poster and even produced evidence which he gave to his attorneys. This week Mr. Fairey admitted to falsely creating this evidence after the lawsuit had begun and deleting files from his computer which would have led investigators to the true source photograph, the one owned by the AP. Now Mr. Fairey's attorneys plan to ask the court permission to step down as his counsel because of his deception.


Let this be a two-headed lesson to us all, 1.Do not use copyrighted material to make a profit for yourself and 2. if you do, do not lie to your attorney about it.


Here are some links to the story:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/ap-says-shepard-fairey-lied-about-hope-poster/



http://www.examiner.com/x-8310-Trendy-Living-Examiner~y2009m10d17-Shepard-Fairey-lied-about-Obama-Hope-poster-image-Photo-Gallery--Video



http://www.theage.com.au/world/i-lied-poster-artist-admits-20091018-h2vw.html

French President Sarkozy- A Copyright Hypocrite?

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been an extremely vocal public advocate for those who hold copyrights. He has been the key supporter of a piece of French legislation which would mandate some of the world's most severe punishments for those found guilty of illegally pirating copyrighted material. The proposed law contained a "three strikes and your out" policy which would literally kick people off the Internet. If the law was in effect a French citizen who was proven guilty of copyright infringement three times would not be allowed back on the Internet. The French President championed the efforts which eventually got this bill passed, but it was later declared unconstitutional by the French Constitutional Council.

Unfortunately Mr. Sarkozy has now been twice accused of stealing copyrighted material himself. His first infringement came at the expense of the popular French music group MGMT. The President's political party UMP repeatedly used portions of the group's song "Kids" at some political rallies and in some web and television commercials. UMP party officials admitted to using the material because of its appeal to young people. The only problem was they never bothered to obtain permission from the band to use the song. The same party which was fighting to throw piraters off the Internet was pirating music.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/feb/24/nicolas-sarkozy-party-compensates-mgmt

Reasonable minds would believe that the incident with MGMT would have heightened the attention of the President, his staff, and other supporters of the "three strikes" law. I mean it must have been pretty embarrassing to be threatened by some French rockers in their early twenties. Maybe somebody should have sent out a memo. "Attention All Staff: Please Refrain from Stealing any Copyrighted Material, as it may serve to make us look like idiots"

That memo was never sent. Early this month the President had scheduled a conference with some French diplomats where he planned to distribute a short film about himself. He paid the distributor for 50 copies of the DVD but the conference was attended by about 400 diplomats. This situation did not present a problem for the president's competent staff however; they just made a few copies. When the story broke the president was caught holding the bag again.

Guess he only has one strike left.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091008/2344176470.shtml

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/nicolas-sarkozy-french-pr_n_313723.html

Hey, Get Your Hand Out of My Honeypot

U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper dismissed a pair of copyright infringement lawsuits against Disney this week. Disney was in court in an attempte to resolve its long running dispute with the heirs of Mr. Stephen Slesinger. Mr Slesinger purchased the rights to A.A. Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" characters in 1930 and later sold them to Disney in 1961 in a deal that promised Mr. Slesinger future royalties when Pooh Bear and his friends were used in the future.

The Slesinger family started a lawsuit against Mickey and pals in 1991 when they began to feel they were getting cheated out of their part of the agreement reached with Disney in 1961. The family felt that Disney was using unfair accounting procedures to reduce the royalty payments made to the family. The disputed amount involved a discreptency of $700 million. Disney claimed that they had legally acquired the rights to Pooh in 1961 and asked the judge to put an end to the royalty payments made to Mr. Slesinger's estate.

The case started in state court as a breach of contract lawsuit, but was thrown out after 13 years of litigation because of misconduct by private investigator hired by the Slesingers. Apparently the p.i. broke into a Disney facility and stole some documents that the Slesingers planned to use to support their claims. The courts do not accept breaking and entering as a legitimate form of discovery and as a result the breach of contract lawsuit was dismissed. The only avenue left for the Slesingers was a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court. Although Judge Cooper ruled that Disney held the rights to the loveable, pudgy bear, she said that royalty payments to the Slesingers would continue.

When I look around my house I get a sense of the value of a copyright. Without much effort I was able to find a stuffed Pooh bear and a stuffed Tigger, three childrens' books featuring Pooh and his friends, a Pooh blanket, and even a Pooh toothbrush. If my house is in any way representative of the typical home of a small child in America then this Pooh merchandising empire is a goldmine. Bloomberg News says that Pooh is Disney's single most profitable character (take that Mickey). I wish I could get ten percent of the Pooh action in my own home, so I can understand why copyright law is crucial when it comes to protecting assets like the Pooh franchise.

Here are two links to stories about the Pooh case:

http://www.kdvr.com/entertainment/la-fi-ct-disney29-2009sep29,0,3942585.story

http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSTRE58S08G20090929