Category Archives: Copyright

Copyright lawsuit filed over Chicago skyscraper photograph

20 Wednesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Here’s yet another photography copyright lawsuit, this one involving the unauthorized reproduction and public display of a photograph of skyscrapers in Chicago.

The defendant, a corporation based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, allegedly used a  registered skyscraper photograph of plaintiff, an Oregon-based photographer, on their website without authorization.

Other than the RooR counterfeit bong cases, photography cases are the only ones being filed lately. Although I don’t expect anything unusual in this case, and predict a quick settlement, I’ll continue to monitor the lawsuit to see how it might differ from the multitudinous Bell cases.

Iwasaki v. Apollo Design Technology, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-00094
File Date: Monday, March 18, 2019
Plaintiff: Rich Iwasaki
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard Liebowitz of Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC
Defendant: Apollo Design Technology, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Integrity of Copyright Management Information
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: TBD
Referred To: TBD

Complaint:

Supreme Court confirms that works must be registered before commencing copyright lawsuit

05 Tuesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Legislation, Litigation, Supreme Court

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 8.07.53 AM.png

The much-anticipated ruling for Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, et al. has arrived. Yesterday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court, confirming that a work must be registered prior to commencing a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Held: Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright. Upon registration of the copyright, however, a copyright owner can recover for infringement that occurred both before and after registration.

This ruling confirms the literal reading of 17 U.S.C. §411(a), which states that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until … registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.”

Fourth Estate, a news organization, had argued that, because “registration is not a condition of copyright protection” under 17 U.S.C. §408(a), then §411(a) should not bar a copyright claimant from enforcing that protection in court once they have applied for registration.

Now it is clear that registration must be obtained before commencing a lawsuit. This means that copyright owners must be even more diligent about filing applications for their significant works. The time spent waiting on an application to register would normally remove any option of quick, decisive action by a copyright owner against an infringer.

The best option for late applicants will be the Copyright Office’s Special Handling procedure, which allows for registration in less than a week for an additional $800 Special Handling fee.

Justice Ginsburg’s opinion acknowledged the current administrative delay of the Copyright Office, acknowledging that Congress is in the best position to protect copyright claimants, either by increasing funding to the Copyright Office or revising the language of §411(a).

True, registration processing times have increased from one to two weeks in 1956 to many months today. Delays, in large part, are the result of Copyright Office staffing and budgetary shortages that Congress can alleviate, but courts cannot cure. Unfortunate as the current administrative lag may be, that factor does not allow this court to revise §411(a)’s congressionally composed text.

This blog will begin to monitor the real-world impact of this decision and report back periodically.

Counterfeit Bongs dominate the February Indiana IP Litigation Docket

01 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Southern District of Indiana, Trade Dress, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Two photography cases, including one from serial filer Richard Bell, and a breach of franchise agreement lawsuit…other than that, the February Indiana IP litigation docket was totally dominated by filings by RooR International. RooR’s defendants are Indiana smokeshops and their alleged sale of counterfeit bongs.

RooR markets itself as “the premier manufacturer of glass water pipes by emphasizing the brand’s unwavering use of quality materials and focusing on scientific principles which facilitate a superior smoking experience.”

As you can see from the screenshot below, RooR International has gone on a recent filing spree to combat the sale of counterfeit products:

Screen Shot 2019-03-01 at 9.18.39 AM.png

RooR’s defendants, small smoke and vape shops from across Indiana, are accused of Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin and Federal Unfair Competition. Heavy stuff.

Sample RooR Complaint

The other non-bong, non-Bell cases involve the breach of a franchise agreement and the unauthorized use of a photograph of a New Year’s Eve fireworks display.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC, BR IP Holder LLC v. Big Scoops, Inc., David M. Glasgow Jr.

Bachner v. USA Halloween Planet Inc.

Carrington College accused of providing Personal Training students with copies of exams in advance

11 Wednesday Jul 2018

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff National Federal of Professional Trainers, Inc., headquartered in Lafayette, Indiana, brings this action to prevent, and obtain damages for, Defendant Carrington College’s unauthorized copying and distribution of NFPT’s proprietary Certified Personal Trainer (“CPT”) credentialing examinations. Carrington College is a for-profit educational institution headquartered in Sacramento, California.

The Complaint alleges that “Carrington had given students copies of confidential and proprietary NFPT examinations, and then quizzed students on the copied examination questions until students memorized the answers to each specific question.”

Stay tuned for updates.

National Federation of Professional Trainers, Inc. v. Carrington College, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:18-cv-00047-JVB-JEM
File Date: Monday, July 2, 2018
Plaintiff: National Federal of Professional Trainers, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Anthony E. Dowell, Richard T. McCaulley, Kenley Eaglestone of McCaulley Dowell
Defendant: Carrington College, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Breach of Contract, Fraud
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Referred To: John E. Martin

Complaint:

Copyright lawsuit to test transformative use defense for digitally manipulated images

05 Tuesday Jun 2018

Posted by in Artists, Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

First, go scroll through Exhibit A to the Complaint for this copyright lawsuit (starts at page 13 of Complaint, below). Besides displaying beautiful artwork, it also provides a nice visual set-up for what should be a really interesting case involving digital manipulation and transformative use.

The Plaintiff is a prominent visual artist primarily known for her original abstract art and mixed media paintings. She has sold over 1,500 original paintings worldwide.

The Defendant is an artist who creates his works by digitally manipulating existing images through computer programs such as Photoshop. Defendant sells his digitally manipulated artwork via the same online retailers as Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff made contact with Defendant, who had been provided as a reference by an online distributor, for the first time in 2014. Defendant responded with a pleasant “I just took a look at your art – wow! You have a new fan.” Apparently he wasn’t kidding. 

In 2017, Plaintiff discovered that 22 works for sale by Defendant were digitally manipulated derivatives of her own artwork. Photoshop had been used by Defendant to rotate, invert, stretch, filter, all the tricks…anyway, you can view the final results in Exhibit A, where Plaintiff sets forth a side-by-side comparison for all 22 works.

In a phone call between Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant stated that his intent was not to “copy anyone’s work in a fashion where it would be confused and cost another person a sale.”

Based on a review of Exhibit A, this blog post is going to assume that Defendant did in fact digitally manipulate Plaintiff’s images. The question then becomes whether the digital manipulation and subsequent commercial use was an infringing use or a fair use.

Defendant’s entire art style seems to heavily rely upon digital manipulation of other people’s artwork, so I would expect him to present a strong, well-reasoned argument for “transformative use.” Transformative uses take the original copyrighted work and transform its appearance or nature to such a high degree that the use no longer qualifies as infringing.

Arguing a “transformative use” defense will involve answering the following two questions in the context of Defendant’s style of digital manipulation:

  • Has the material taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
  • Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?

It will be interesting to see how both parties answer these questions as the lawsuit proceeds. Stay tuned for updates. 

Keck v. Lawrence et al.

Court Case Number: 2:18-cv-00250-RLM-DLP
File Date: Friday, June 1, 2018
Plaintiff: Michel Keck
Plaintiff Counsel: Matthew K. Higbee, Ryan E. Carreon of Higbee & Associates
Defendant: John Mark Lawrence dba Mark Lawrence Art Gallery; Does 1-25
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Robert L. Miller
Referred To: Doris L. Pryor

Complaint: