Copyright Infringement Lawsuits Research Articles

Perceptual and automated estimates of infringement in 40 music copyright cases

Music copyright infringement lawsuits implicate millions of dollars in damages and costs of litigation. There are, however, few objective measures by which to evaluate these claims. Recent music information retrieval research has proposed objective algorithms to automatically detect musical similarity, which might reduce subjectivity in music copyright infringement decisions, but there remains minimal relevant perceptual data despite its crucial role in copyright law. We collected perceptual data from 51 participants for 40 adjudicated copyright cases from 1915–2018 in 7 legal jurisdictions (USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan). Each case was represented by three different versions: either full audio, melody only (MIDI), or lyrics only (text). Due to the historical emphasis in legal opinions on melody as the key criterion for deciding infringement, we originally predicted that listening to melody-only versions would result in perceptual judgments that more closely matched actual past legal decisions. However, as in our preliminary study of 17 court decisions (Yuan et al., 2020), our results did not match these predictions. Participants listening to full audio outperformed not only the melody-only condition, but also automated algorithms designed to calculate musical similarity (with maximal accuracy of 83% vs. 75%, respectively). Meanwhile, lyrics-only conditions performed at chance levels. Analysis of outlier cases suggests that music, lyrics, and contextual factors can interact in complex ways difficult to capture using quantitative metrics. We propose directions for further investigation including using larger and more diverse samples of cases, enhanced methods, and adapting our perceptual experiment method to avoid relying on ground truth data only from court decisions (which may be subject to errors and selection bias). Our results contribute data and methods to inform practical debates relevant to music copyright law throughout the world, such as the question of whether, and the extent to which, judges and jurors should be allowed to hear published sound recordings of the disputed works in determining musical similarity. Our results ultimately suggest that while automated algorithms are unlikely to replace human judgments, they may help to supplement them.

챗(Chat) GPT의 이용과 저작권 쟁점 고찰

The development of big data analysis and deep learning technologies triggered by the 4th industrial revolution created an opportunity to expand the scope of application and application of artificial intelligence to our lives. Beyond the level where conventional artificial intelligence was merely a means of assisting human decision-making or action, it has reached a stage where it analyzes vast amounts of data to identify problems on its own, create optimal answers, and even self-examine errors. A representative example is the Chat GPT service. Recently, however, copyright infringement disputes have been reported in this regard. For example, in January 2023, Getty Images filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Stability AI, the developer of 'Stable Diffusion', and in April 2023, Twitter CEO Elon Musk also announced its intention to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft (MS). In this regard, in this paper, first, as an issue derived from data use, chat GPT does not disclose how to learn data, so it is difficult to confirm whether scrolling and scraping are prohibited information has been collected, and chat GPT service is fair. It was pointed out that there are elements that are difficult to see as use, that the scope of TDM exemption is different for each country, and that TDM exemption regulations have not yet been introduced in Korea. Then, as a way to determine and protect copyright infringement of chat GPT products, first, in relation to authors and rights attribution, the contribution of artificial intelligence and humans to creation is divided and marked by stages (by year), and rights attribution must be different accordingly, second, in relation to the judgment of substantial similarity, refer to the criteria for functional works, but in the case of artificial intelligence products, there is a limit to determining whether or not copyright infringement is caused only by human feelings, so plagiarism verification or copyright infringement prevention programs must be developed and applied. Third, in relation to copyright protection institutions, it is appropriate to stipulate the protection period of artificial intelligence products at 5 years, but a two-dimensional approach must be taken so as not to reduce the incentive for human creation. Fourth, in relation to civil and criminal legal responsibilities, the Product Liability Act Referring to the provisions of the Senate Civil Act, it was proposed that artificial intelligence developers and users jointly and jointly take responsibility in principle, but that responsibilities should be assigned differentially depending on whether there was a violation of the duty of care or negligence. Based on the contents examined in this paper, it is necessary to actively seek rational and systematic ways to regulate generative artificial intelligence services.

Photographs in court: copyright adjudication as a contextual element of a photograph’s meaning

In this study, the courtroom is examined as a discursive space of photography and it is argued that copyright infringement lawsuits introduce a unique frame for photographs that alter the meaning of the images. As a case study, Tony Gentile’s iconic photograph of the Italian judges Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino is used, it was the subject of the Rome Court of First Instance’s 2019 judgment. Relying on the contextual studies of photography, the shift in the image’s spectator, its surrounding, and its significance is examined. Eventually it is argued that as the eyes that see the image change from the Italian public to the Judge, the purpose of looking changes too.

John Maxwell’s Copyright Disputes: Manufacturing Cheap Fiction in the Welcome Guest and the Shilling Volume Library

In his early twenties, John Maxwell entered the London publishing scene as a scrappy and ambitious Irish immigrant with a strong desire to make a name for himself. What Maxwell lacked in gentility he made up for with his willingness to take risks and flaunt convention. Within a decade he had become one of the leading magazine entrepreneurs of his age. Between 1860 and 1862, a period in which he was frantically launching new periodicals and solidifying his partnership with Mary Elizabeth Braddon, Maxwell regularly appeared in the Court of Chancery as a party to copyright infringement lawsuits, some of which stemmed from his attempts to republish works by contributors to his magazine the Welcome Guest without seeking explicit authorial permission. This essay investigates what these disputes tell us about conceptions of the often vague laws pertaining to reprinting in the periodical press and examines how the outcomes of these cases shaped the development of Maxwell’s publishing business as well as his bourgeoning relationship with Braddon.

Fighting Image Piracy or Copyright Trolling? An Empirical Study of Photography Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

Fighting Image Piracy or Copyright Trolling? An Empirical Study of Photography Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

Foreing and domestic experience in protecting intellectual property right to jewelry and jewelry

Key words: copyright, jewelry, bijouterie, unfair competition, trademark, litigation
 Fedorova N. Foreing and domestic experience in protecting intellectual property right to jewelry and jewelry. The article focuses on studying the issue of protecting the design of artistic jewelry and bijouterie. The concept of “functionality” for jewelry is analyzed, namely, it is determined that the «functionality» notion is the quality of servicing the useful purpose. For example, a chair manufacturer cannot claim the four legs of a chair as a copyright. These four legs are a useful and functional aspect of this chair. If a competitor also manufactures a chair with 4 legs, it does not infringe any manufacturer's right, since these legs are for functional purposes only. The concept of«functionality» in jewelry means that the last cannot be protected as a normal work, since it is purely utilitarian. For example, the hands or numbers on the dial of a watch are considered as functional because the exclusive use of these aspects seriously impedes healthy competition in the watch industry. On the other hand, unique jewelry design cannot be considered functional as it has the exclusive use of its particular elements’ combination.The analysis of European legislation and US judicial practice is carried out. Under applicable US copyright law, jewelry is a subject to copyright. Under normal circumstances, the law does not require prior registration of jewelry copyright. However, in order to protect jewelry or bijouterie under the US Law on Copyright, it must meet certain conditions. The complaining party must provide evidence of illegal copying of the work and prove copyright infringement. In case of violation of copyright for jewelry, the author or the jewelry house must prove:•the originality of design;•the uniqueness in the elements combination in the process of jewelry design development.The object of an industrial design can be a shape, pattern, color, or their combination that determines the appearance of an industrial product. The main criterion for the industrial design patentability is its novelty. However, in practice, an examination for novelty when registering a designation as an industrial design, according to Alexandra Odinets, is not carried out, and the patent is issued «under the responsibility of the applicant».With regard to unfair competition in the jewelry market, according to the US jurisprudence, it is more often an offense in this context than a violation of trademark rights or copyright infringement. It is unfair competition that misleads a consumer. A competitor, by assigning a good name and an reputation established, is trying to get profit. The definition of unfair competition is carried out in a comprehensive manner, here the court will not focus on one feature of a piece of jewelry but would consider all its inherent features. In particular, it is a combination of unique elements that provide the originality of the product.The article provides recommendations for jewelry and bijouterie authors on copyright protection.
 1. Pro avtorski i sumizhni prava : Zakon Ukrainy.
 URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3792-12#Text.
 2. Tomarov I. Fashion Law: kopiiuvaty ne mozhna zaboronyty! Yurydychna hazeta Online. 2017. № 25(575). URL:https://yur-gazeta.com/publications/practice/zahist-intelektualnoyi-vlasnosti-avtorske-pravo/fashion-law-kopiyuvati-ne-mozhna-zaboroniti.html.
 3. Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971).
 4. Dyrektyva Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu № 98/71.
 URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_a88#Text.
 5. “Designer” Jewelry vs. “Inspired-by” Jewelry: Intellectual Property Infringement and Unfair Competition Considerations, 34.
 6. Davis v. Gap, Inc. - 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001).
 7. Trifari, Krussman & Fishel, Inc. v Charel Co., 134 F Supp 551 (1955, DC NY).
 8. Copyright Law of the United States §102, at 68 (2000).
 9. Cprava Vacheron I Constantin-LeCoultreWatches, Inc. proty Benrus Watch Co., Inc. URL: http://saperlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/cba-fashion-presentation-final.pdf (last visited April 19th, 2008).
 10. Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, CV08-02074 R (C.D. California); Los Angeles Copyright Attorneys File Jewelry Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Over Copying Protected Jewelry Design, available at: http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2008/04/copyright-attorneys-jewelry-los-angeles-protected-jewelry-design-lawsuit-copying-copyrights-la.html (last visited April 19th, 2008).
 11. Saper Law. “Designer” Jewelry vs. “Inspired-by” Jewelry:
 Intellectual Property Infringement and Unfair Competition Considerations. 2008.

Review: Adventures of a Jazz Age Lawyer: Nathan Burkan and the Making of American Popular Culture, by Gary A. Rosen

Review: <i>Adventures of a Jazz Age Lawyer: Nathan Burkan and the Making of American Popular Culture</i>, by Gary A. Rosen

Opinion: CASE Act will Harm Researchers and Freedom of Inquiry

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (CASE Act) was swept into law during the final days of 2020 as a part of the 5,500 page federal spending bill. In theory, the CASE Act aims to provide a venue for individual creators (such as photographers, graphic artists, musicians) to address smaller copyright infringement claims without spending the time and money required to pursue a copyright infringement lawsuit in Federal court. In reality, however, this additional bureaucratic structure created outside of the traditional court system is fraught with problems that will mostly incentivize large, well-resourced rightsholders or overly litigious copyright owners to take advantage of the system. At the same time, it will confuse and harm innocuous users of content, who may not understand the complexities of copyright law, and who do not know whether or how to respond to a notice of infringement via this small claims process. From our perspective, it will chill users who rely on crucial statutory exceptions to copyright, such as fair use, in their research and teaching activities.

Considering the Private Animal and Damages

Since 2018, private law damages claims seeking to place animals in the role of plaintiffs have, in dramatic fashion, moved from academic debate to high-profile litigation. Focusing on two recent cases, this short article asserts that lawsuits seeking to make animals plaintiffs in damages actions are much more than flashy news fodder; they raise profound policy issues that courts will struggle with into the foreseeable future. The most recent prominent case, Justice v. Vercher, is ongoing litigation seeking to designate a severely neglected horse as the plaintiff in a tort damages lawsuit against the horse’s owner. The second case, Naruto v. Slater, unsuccessfully sought to designate a monkey as the plaintiff in a copyright infringement lawsuit. Both cases illuminate significant implications in seeking to designate animals as plaintiffs in private law damages lawsuits. Thankfully, societal concern over animal welfare is rapidly increasing, and more needs to be done to protect animals. But efforts like Vercher and Naruto represent a societally harmful approach to animal protection. Such cases will probably continue to fail in the short term, but analogous lawsuits are nevertheless likely to proliferate over time because the stakes are so high – success could be a back door to breaking down legal barriers between humans and animals. Further, as societal views regarding animals quickly evolve, the potential for misguided rulings creating dangerous animal legal personhood through such lawsuits is real.

Courts React

Over the past few years, the rise in popularity of a genre of You- Tube videos known as “reaction videos” has resulted in controversy for various reasons. The United States District Court in Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, a landmark case for the genre, described the “reaction videos” as “a large genre of YouTube videos . . . [that] vary widely in terms of purpose, structure, and the extent to which they rely on potentially copyrighted material.” According to the Hosseinzadeh opinion, “[s]ome reaction videos. . .intersperse short segments of another’s work with criticism and commentary, while others are more akin to a group viewing session without commentary.” Essentially, reaction videos are exactly what the name suggests: a video showing a person or group of people reacting to the work of another, which by nature requires the incorporation of the work being reacted to for the viewer’s reference. The first time that controversy arose out of the “reaction” genre was in 2015 when the Fine Brothers, the creators of a popular YouTube channel known for its “Kids React” series along with several other “reaction video” series, applied to trademark the term “react.” The brothers did so with the intention to create a program called “React World,” through which they would license out the “reaction video” format to other video creators. This endeavor came not long after the Fine Brothers criticized Ellen DeGeneres for allegedly using their “re- action” format in a segment on her television show, suggesting the brothers’ belief that they were the sole owners of what is, in reality, a widely-used format. As a result, YouTube viewers became distrustful of the Fine Brothers’ intentions in trademarking the format, and viewers criticized them to the point that they issued a public apology in February of 2016 in which they announced their decision to “[r]escind all. . .‘React’ trademarks and applications” and “[d]iscontinue the React World program.” Later in 2016, reaction videos would again become the subject of controversy when Ethan and Hila Klein, the husband-and-wife creators of the popular YouTube comedy channel H3H3 Productions, were sued by Matt Hosseinzadeh of the decidedly less popular You- Tube channel, Matt Hoss Zone, for copyright infringement. Hosseinzadeh alleged copyright infringement for the use of segments of his video, “Bold Guy vs. Parkour Girl,” in a humorous reaction video made by the Kleins.8 What resulted was the aforementioned Hosseinzadeh v. Klein opinion, which set a precedent that will hopefully allow future reaction video creators to produce and share content without their creativity being stifled by the looming risk of copyright infringement lawsuits. Hosseinzadeh alleged that a video, which was part of a series of videos, starring himself as “Bold Guy,” “in which the Bold Guy flirts with a woman and chases her through various sequences” was infringement. Hosseinzadeh alleged that the Kleins’ video entitled “The Big, The BOLD, The Beautiful,” infringed upon “Bold Guy vs. Parkour Girl,” as it featured the couple “comment[ing] on and criticiz[ing] [his] video, playing portions of it in the process.” Accepting the Kleins’ motion for summary judgment, which pleaded the fair use defense, the court held that its “review of the. . .videos makes it clear that [the claim] in which plaintiff alleges that defendants in- fringed plaintiff’s copyrights, must be decided in defendants’ favor.”

Copyleft referring to GPL-3.0 was cited as a defense method in Chinese Intellectual Property Court in Beijing

With the increasing use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in the world, the licensing issues and disputes regarding such licenses have been litigated in various jurisdictions. In the past, these lawsuits were concentrated in Europe and the United States, but less so in the Asia Pacific region. However, in 2018, the specialized Intellectual Property Right Court in Beijing, China, acting as a court of first instance, issued a decision in a software copyright infringement lawsuit related to FOSS. The defendant chose to invoke the copyleft mechanism in the GNU General Public License 3.0 (GPL-3.0) license as a defense against claims of copyright infringement. Although the court did not directly interpret the GPL license at this stage, the decision strongly implies that the GPL and the other FOSS licenses can be treated as valid in China. Even so, quite a number of details regarding the use of the GPL in China still require clarification, included as to how the license can substantially be enforced and implemented.

VidAngel: Consumer choice, media law and the future of content flexibility

VidAngel, a popular video streaming service that allowed consumers to edit out objectionable content, faced a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by several Hollywood film studios. The company was just beginning to gain traction when the studios filed a suit alleging that the VidAngel business model, which required modifications to the original work and subsequently filtered streamed content to viewers, violated US copyright law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998. The problems of growing the market for its services were sidelined by the serious managerial distractions related to fighting for survival in a David and Goliath-type struggle. The case lays out the basics of relevant copyright laws, details the business and marketing models and describes VidAngel’s efforts to provide a legal and profitable service to a public that demanded it. After an analysis of the legal issues, this paper concludes with some thoughts about reconciling streamed and filtered video content with applicable copyright laws.

The business of news in the attention economy: Audience labor and MediaNews Group’s efforts to capitalize on news consumption

This article analyzes the business of news in the early 21st century through a case study of the US newspaper company MediaNews Group. It examines the company’s efforts over the past decade to create sources of revenue while the US newspaper industry faced a growing financial crisis. This article argues it is necessary to rethink the political economy of news to see that power over news consumption is the foundation of the business of news. The concepts of an attention economy and audience labor are used to reframe the process of capitalizing on news as, fundamentally, a process of gaining power over attention in order to treat it as an exploitable form of audience labor and thereby generate revenue from news consumers or advertisers. This article then presents a study of the strategies for generating revenue used by MediaNews Group from 2006 to 2016, focusing on its clusters of newspapers in California. Ownership consolidation was the company’s key strategy until its debt and the industry’s crisis forced it into bankruptcy. The company then pursued a series of digital strategies: digital advertising, paywalls, mobile distribution, citizen journalism, copyright infringement lawsuits, and Google Consumer Surveys. None proved profitable enough, and in 2016, the company returned to ownership consolidation. MediaNews Group’s efforts over the past decade demonstrate the inescapable truth that power over attention is the key to the business of news: Capitalizing on news requires power over news consumption as a form of attention that can be exploited as news audience labor.

Beyoncc's $20 Million Copyright Infringement Lawsuit: Predicting the Likely Outcome

There is a long list of copyright infringement among musicians in the United States of America. The freshest and hottest of such lawsuits is one against Beyonce, the superstar musician, for allegedly misappropriating the works of late Anthony Barre. The Estate of Anthony Barre and its sole heir Angel Barre filed a lawsuit against Beyonce Knowles Carter and others for a four-count claim of (1) willful copyright infringement, (2) false endorsement, (3) unfair trade practices, and (4) unjust enrichment for infringement and wrongful appropriation of Anthony Barre’s voice, copyrighted works, and other intellectual property. The writers shall analyze this case in relation to the American copyright jurisprudence; see the possibility of relying on the fair use defense, and proffer suggestion as to the best approach to follow in this case.

Balancing in Light of the Purposes of Copyright: Whether Video Music Lessons Constitute Copyright Infringement

Faced with diminished sources of revenue, school systems in recent years have cut funding for music education. Looking for alternative ways to learn about music, budding musicians have turned to the Internet. On YouTube and other Web sites, visitors can view thousands of instructional videos on how to play popular songs, complex genres, and a seemingly unlimited variety of musical techniques. Despite altruistic motivations, creators of video music lessons routinely use copyrighted content during lessons. This article argues that the defense of fair use should protect the creators of video music lessons from liability in a copyright infringement lawsuit. Specifically, the author argues that it is the purpose of copyright law to promote knowledge and that video music lessons further this objective.

Just Travesties: TV Parodies of Hollywood Films and Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

This essay investigates Loew’s Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System and Columbia Pictures v. National Broadcasting Company, two copyright infringement lawsuits that Hollywood film studios brought against television production companies for parodies of their work that were symptomatic of the fraught relationship between the two industries in the early and mid-1950s. I show how competing theories of copyright, the particular form of sponsorship of American commercial television, and a lack of attention to the specific ways that film and television can generate parody shaped these early decisions and still, to a certain extent, haunt parody-as-fair-use jurisprudence.

How Copyright Affected the Musical Style and Critical Reception of Sample-Based Hip-Hop

In 1991, the first lawsuit regarding sample-based hip hop, Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Brothers Records, was decided in court, and this decision forever changed how artists and their record labels approached sample-based hip hop. Although several lawsuits had been filed before 1991, all of those were settled out of court. There was no established legal precedent until this particular case. After 1991, artists changed how they sampled, largely out of fear of copyright infringement lawsuits. Hip-hop artists adapted and modified their musical language to accommodate the reduced availability of samples. Considering the music of five hip-hop groups, all of whom released sample-based music before and after 1991, I have developed a typology to quantify how the sample-based music of the Beastie Boys, De La Soul, Public Enemy, Salt ’n’ Pepa, and A Tribe Called Quest changed after 1991. The typology, which is a classification system for every individual sample in a sample-based hip-hop track, is a concrete language for discussing the structural components in sample-based hip hop. As we will see, each group adapted their production styles in interesting and creative ways in order to accommodate fewer available samples. While some scholars such as Kembrew McLeod, Peter DiCola, Joanna Demers, and Siva Vaidhyanathan claim that the sample clearance system has only negative consequences for musicians, I would argue that these outcomes for the musicians are not necessarily positive or negative. The current scholarly conversation about sample-based music from this period is framed by rhetoric in which the hip-hop producers are the innocent bystanders who fall victim to the evil record labels, greedy copyright holders, and sneaky sample troll companies. A typological analysis of this music is a means of quantifying how the musicians adapted their production in light of fewer available samples. This is not to minimize the importance of copyright law and its effect on artistic and creative processes, of course. I agree wholeheartedly

Round One? Judge Issues Rulings in Long-awaited Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Georgia State University

The long-awaited rulings in the copyright infringement lawsuit provide the most specific guidance available to date on the fair use of certain types of materials in e-reserves systems and online course management systems. Unless successfully appealed or otherwise overturned, this case represents a significant victory for Georgia State University specifically and higher education in general. In addition to rejecting the 1976 Classroom Copying Guidelines for Books and Periodicals as an appropriate legal standard for fair use, the case holds that semester-to-semester use of the same material is permitted by fair use. Further, at least for non-fiction books, this case provides somewhat formulaic standards for evaluating fair use. Finally, the potential financial implications of this case are analyzed and suggestions for institutional due diligence are recommended.

Struggles and Solutions for Streaming Video in the Online Classroom

The upcoming round of exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 anticircumvention provision and the questions raised by the copyright infringement lawsuit filed against the against University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) for its streaming video practices illustrate the problematic state of the law concerning the digitization and streaming of video content by educators. This article reviews the current status of legislation and litigation and offers possible solutions for streaming video while librarians and educators await official instruction.

News Producers Often Prevail against ‘Fair Use’ Claims

This article examines federal court decisions since 1985 to determine how courts have treated fair use in claims in copyright infringement lawsuits over new content. Federal courts have more often than not denied the fair use defense and have ruled in favor of news producers.