WebProNews

Tag: Copyright

  • YouTube Wins Major EU Copyright Ruling

    YouTube Wins Major EU Copyright Ruling

    YouTube has won a major copyright ruling in the EU, one that will have far-reaching impacts on internet platforms.

    The issue revolved around whether YouTube and other internet platforms are legally responsible when their users post copyright content. The EU has been working on copyright reform and Article 17, specifically, would have required online platforms to proactively block copyrighted content.

    The European Court of Justice’s latest ruling, however, keeps things largely the same, with platforms not responsible for what their users post…with one caveat. Platforms will need to promptly remove copyrighted content and block it once it becomes aware of it.

    “As currently stands, operators of online platforms do not, in principle, themselves make a communication to the public of copyright-protected content illegally posted online by users of those platforms,” the EU Court of Justice said, according to Variety.

  • US Supreme Court Sides With Google Over Oracle

    US Supreme Court Sides With Google Over Oracle

    The US Supreme Court has handed Google a decisive victory in its decade-long battle with Oracle over the Android operating system (OS).

    Google made the decision early on to make Android compatible with the Java programming language and libraries. The decision was a smart move, since Java is one of the most popular programming languages, and that popularity helped jumpstart Android’s application ecosystem.

    Sun Microsystems, the original owner of Java, was supportive of Google’s decision. That changed, however, once Oracle bought Sun and the rights to Java. Oracle immediately launched legal action against Google, claiming it illegally copied the Java application programming interfaces (API).

    Google responded by claiming (correctly) that programmers use other companies’ APIs all the time to ensure their software is compatible with other software and services. As a result, Google argued that a win for Oracle would have severely damaging repercussions for the entire software development industry.

    Major companies and organizations backed Google in the fight, highlighting the existential threat to the software development community that Oracle’s case posed. If Oracle won, everything from everyday software to the Linux operating system could be under threat.

    After a decade of court battles, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Google, 6-2. In writing or the majority, Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the following:

    In reviewing that decision, we assume, for argument’s sake, that the material was copyrightable. But we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use. Hence, Google’s copying did not violate the copyright law.

    The win is good news for Google, and even better news for the software industry.

  • YouTube Can Now Check For Copyright Issues During Upload

    YouTube Can Now Check For Copyright Issues During Upload

    YouTube is rolling out a major new feature designed to protect content creators, warning them of potential copyright issues during upload.

    Called “Checks,” the new tools is designed to save creators some headache and potential lost revenue by warning them of copyright issues before they go live with content. Many creators had previously resorted to uploading their videos as unlisted or private to check for copyright or monetization issues before going public.

    The company made the announcement in a YouTube Help post:

    Hey Creators! Today we’re rolling out a new step in the upload process on Studio desktop called “Checks” – which will automatically screen your uploads for potential copyright claims and ad suitability restrictions. This new step will help you minimize the number of videos uploaded with copyright claims and/or yellow icons and avoid surprises or worries.

    More information can be found in the Help Center. In the meantime, the new Studio tool should be a big help to content creators.

  • Security Firm Corellium Wins Copyright Battle Against Apple

    Security Firm Corellium Wins Copyright Battle Against Apple

    A federal judge has sided with Corellium in the case Apple brought against it, ruling the company’s software met the burden of “fair use.”

    Corellium was founded in 2017 by husband and wife Amanda Gorton and Chris Wade. The company’s product allows security researchers to run “virtual” iPhones, eliminating the need to buy iPhones in order to look for bugs and security flaws in iOS.

    According to The Washington Post, Apple initially tried to purchase Corellium, before switching gears and suing the company when the acquisition talks stalled. Apple claimed the company’s software broke its copyrights and violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by circumventing Apple’s security measures.

    While the DMCA claim has not yet been thrown out, Judge Rodney Smith sided with Corellium on the copyright issue, finding the company’s software qualified as fair use. In particular, Judge Smith called Apple out for its “puzzling, if not disingenuous” claims that Corellium posed a risk. Apple has said the company’s products could open the way for attacks on actual iPhones if it fell into the wrong hands, and even went so far as to say that Corellium was selling its software indiscriminately.

    Judge Smith found the Corellium had a sufficient vetting process in place to negate those concerns. What’s more, rather than circumventing Apple’s security measures to make a competing product, Corellium’s work benefits all of Apple’s iOS customers.

    Apple works hard to cultivate an image of maintaining the moral high ground, often putting morality above basic profit. In this case, however, Apple got it wrong and Judge Smith’s ruling is a clear win for security researchers and Apple’s own customers.

  • Oracle’s Copyright Case Against Google Goes to Supreme Court

    Oracle’s Copyright Case Against Google Goes to Supreme Court

    Google’s Android is by far the most popular mobile operating system (OS) on the plant. According to Oracle, however, it’s built at least in part on stolen code. Oracle filed a copyright suit nearly a decade ago, claiming Google stole code for its mobile OS.

    Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, the creator of the Java Virtual Machine (VM) in 2010. The Java VM is an environment that runs on a wide range of platforms, such as Windows, Linux, macOS and embedded devices. Java developers then create programs that run within the Java VM, rather than having to create them specifically for each platform. The VM gives developers the ability to “write once, run everywhere.”

    Oracle has accused Google of copying 11,500 lines of Java code in its creation of Android. Two lower courts sided with Google, until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed Oracle a victory. Now, according to TheStreet.com, the Supreme Court “will hear Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., granting the case a write of certiorari, or an order to review the decision of the lower court that originally ruled on the case.”

    While one might think software companies would be rooting for Oracle, Microsoft and Mozilla are just two of a number of companies who have filed friends of the court briefs in favor of Google. Both have argued that copyright law must allow a reasonable amount of reuse of software’s “functional aspects,” especially to insure compatibility and interoperability.

    Whatever the outcome, tech companies throughout the U.S. will be watching the case closely to see what precedent is set.

  • Facebook Doesn’t Own Your Photos, But Someone There Thought It Might

    Here’s an interesting story of a Facebook rep not quite understanding the company’s policies (or understanding them perfectly … muahahahaha).

    After months of issues, while once again trying to get the Facebook page for her website restored, the blogger behind online photo theft-tracking site Photo Stealers received a rather interesting response from a Facebook sales rep.

    “…once something is posted or uploaded onto Facebook it becomes Facebook’s property. So if the original photographer uploaded the photo first onto Facebook and then others have taken it from there and uploaded it to their pages or profiles, this is legal and within policy, there’s nothing I can do about it unfortunately even if they are taking credit for the photos,” said the rep.

    Of course, this was a pretty shocking thing to hear Facebook admit. Facebook’s Terms of Service specifically states that “You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.” Facebook has been fighting off rumors and hoaxes about this very issue for years.

    So, this was pretty big news.

    Except it wound up being a case of someone getting their wires crossed.

    Facebook quickly responded to the Photo Stealers story, saying that the rep had it wrong.

    “The information given in these emails is incorrect. Our terms are clear that you own the content you share on Facebook, including photos. When you post something, you simply grant Facebook a license to use that content consistent with our terms, including displaying it to the audience you’ve shared it with,” said another Facebook spokesperson.

    “In addition, we prohibit people from posting content that violates someone else’s intellectual property rights. If a rights owner believes that content on Facebook violates their rights, they may report it to us. Upon notice, we stand ready to respond including by removing the content from Facebook.”

    What Facebook can do it use your name, likeness, check-ins, and activity in ads. It can’t take your photos and use them as they see fit. Other people sure can, and your only method of recourse is to report the photo as IP theft. Hopefully, Facebook will be able to rectify the situation. Hopefully.

  • Grooveshark Has Been Resurrected … For Now

    Earlier this month, Grooveshark shut down. A week after a judge ruled that the music streaming service made “willfull” copyright violations, the music streaming site gave up and offering a formal apology to the music industry.

    “Today we are shutting down Grooveshark. We started out nearly ten years ago with the goal of helping fans share and discover music. But despite [the] best of intentions, we made very serious mistakes. We failed to secure licenses from rights holders for the vast amount of music on the service. That was wrong. We apologize. Without reservation,” said a post on the site.

    And that’s still what’s up over on grooveshark.com.

    But if you head to grooveshark.io, you’ll see a strikingly familiar interface.

    So, what’s going on?

    “All the Mp3 Files listed on Grooveshark.io are property of their respective owners, are all derived from several internet resources and not physically located on Grooveshark.io servers. Grooveshark.io is a not-for-profit internet resource which is NOT generating revenue by selling or distributing Mp3 Files, it generates advertising revenue to maintain its server and personnel costs. Grooveshark.io does NOT endorse the distribution of copyrighted content. When you listen/download Mp3 Files from Grooveshark.io you do so with the understanding that Grooveshark.io and its operators will not be held accountable or responsible for violations of copyright or intellectual property laws that may occur as a result of your action,” says a disclaimer on the new site.

    It goes on to say you can only “download mp3 files supplied by Grooveshark.io search engine (“Grooveshark.io”) for preview purposes” and that you “you intend to delete Mp3 Files after previewing.”

    Crafty, but that’s not a new sort of craftiness. That sort of maneuvering is commonplace with any service that even has the remote possibility of dealing with copyrighted materials.

    So who’s running the new, resurrected Grooveshark? According to BGR, it’s someone connected to the original Grooveshark team who’s built a new team to get it back online.

    From BGR’s Jacob Siegal:

    On Tuesday, I received an email from someone calling himself Shark — an individual connected to Grooveshark who has assembled a team to bring the site back to life.

    “How can I do this?,” he asks in the email. “Well, I started backing up all the content on the website when I started suspecting that Grooveshark’s demise is close and my suspicion was confirmed a few days later when they closed. By the time they closed I have already backed up 90% of the content on the site and I’m now working on getting the remaining 10%.”

    “It’s going to be a roller coaster and we’re ready for it,” he added.

    Yeah, that’s an understatement. We’ll see how long it stays operational. Your guess is as good as mine.

  • Grooveshark Shuts Down, Offers Apology to Music Industry

    Grooveshark is dead. You remember Grooveshark, right?

    Just a week after a judge ruled that the music streaming service made “willfull” copyright violations, Grooveshark is shutting down and offering a formal apology.

    “Today we are shutting down Grooveshark. We started out nearly ten years ago with the goal of helping fans share and discover music. But despite [the] best of intentions, we made very serious mistakes. We failed to secure licenses from rights holders for the vast amount of music on the service. That was wrong. We apologize. Without reservation,” says a post on the site.

    The move satisfies a settlement with Universal Music Group, Sony Music and Warner Music Group. Grooveshark is wiping its servers clean and handing over control of its website and apps.

    According to Re/code, compliance in this means Grooveshark’s parent company Escape Media will not be forced to pay the labels the $736 million that the judge proposed as a possible liability.

    Grooveshark not only apologized, but suggested that people go pay for Spotify, Beats Music, or some other paid streaming service.

    “At that time of our launch, few music services provided the experience we wanted to offer ­and think you deserve. Fortunately, that’s no longer the case. There are now hundreds of fan friendly, affordable services available for you to choose from, including Spotify, Deezer, Google Play, Beats Music, Rhapsody and Rdio, among many others.If you love music and respect the artists, songwriters and everyone else who makes great music possible, use a licensed service that compensates artists and other rights holders,” says the Grooveshark team.

    So long, Grooveshark.

    Image via Thinkstock

  • Cat Draws YouTube Copyright Claim with Its Derivative Purring

    Cat Draws YouTube Copyright Claim with Its Derivative Purring

    In this story, cats and lame copyright bullshit collide. It’s the perfect internet story.

    Have you ever heard a cat purring and thought, man this really sounds like that one song? Well, YouTube did. And it recently flagged one cat video with a copyright notice.

    In March of 2014, YouTube user Digihaven uploaded this hour-long video of his cat Phantom purring – you know, if you like that sort of thing for relaxation and such. The video existed on YouTube for nearly a year before Digihaven was hit with a copyright notice.

    According to TorrentFreak, Phantom’s looped purrs were deemed to have ripped off a musical track called “Focus”, which belongs to EMI Music Publishing and PRS.

    From TorrentFreak:

    The video was not removed by the false claim, but according to Digihaven monetization was disabled. Luckily he’s not going bankrupt due to the loss of income, but it’s baffling how easy it is to hijack legitimate videos.

    “I’m sure EMI/PRS made Phantom a sad kitty. It seems like companies such as EMI are pirating ads on people’s legit videos, so I’m wondering if they apologize to, or reimburse people for those false claims,” he tells TF.

    The claim has since been retracted.

    The real problem here is YouTube’s unreliable Content ID system, whose software can make musical connections where they don”t really exist. This causes quite the headache for YouTubers.

    We’ve seen YouTube flag videos in the past for musical copyright infringement and thought well that’s pretty dumb. But this is the first time we’ve seen a cat flagged.

    Godspeed, Phantom.

  • YouTube Shows What Will Happen To Your Video When You Use A Song

    YouTube Shows What Will Happen To Your Video When You Use A Song

    When you’re uploading a video with music on YouTube, you can now search the YouTube Audio Library to determine how using a specific song will go over in terms of visibility and monetization from a copyright standpoint. It will tell you if the video will stay live or if there are restrictions.

    “Let’s say you made a video with the new hit from Charli XCX. Search Boom Clap in the Audio Library and you’ll see the screen below, telling you what will happen if you upload a video with this song,” YouTube says in a blog post.

    “If you plan to monetize your video, you can download thousands of songs and sound effects from the YouTube Audio Library to use in your videos without restrictions, for free, forever,” it adds. “Need the perfect Morning Walk song for your back to school video, or an Emergency Siren for your action scene? We gotcha covered.”

    YouTube’s ContentID system analyzes videos to find copyright music, and lets copyright holders block or mute the music in videos. With the new feature, YouTube uploaders will be able to get a better idea of what’s in store when they use a song.

    Image via Google

  • Yahoo Angers Photographers By Selling Their Work

    How would you feel if the photo storage service you use decided to start selling your photos, and not share the profits with you? That’s what Yahoo’s Flickr is doing, and it’s leaving a bad taste in the mouths of some.

    Assuming the provider is within its legal bounds to be able to do so, would you mind if they sold your photos and kept all the money? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Yahoo has upset Flickr users as it sells their photos and keeps all the profit, but at the same time is not actually doing anything legally wrong, according to the company and the EFF.

    It would seem that Yahoo is trying to make better use of the content it hosts in terms of turning it into a revenue stream. This stream should be at its peak during the holiday season.

    Last week, the company launched Flickr Wall Art, enabling users to turn their personal photostreams into prints, search from over 50 million “freely-licensed Creative Commons images, and order hand-selected collections from Flickr’s licensed artists.”

    “In addition, we’ve curated a gorgeous selection of Flickr Marketplace licensed photos in various popular categories — animals, food, abstract, landscapes, patterns, and travel,” the company said in a blog post. “With the option to use Creative Commons, licensed artist images, or a photo of your own, you have endless possibilities to create the perfect holiday gift.”

    For users, that sounds pretty good. Flickr is apparently the biggest Creative Commons content partner for photos. Some photographers supplying those photos, however, aren’t too thrilled about Yahoo using their work to make money without sharing any of the profits.

    The Wall Street Journal, which highlights some complaints from disgruntled photographers, reports:

    Yahoo says it is complying with the terms of Creative Commons by selling only images that permit commercial use. The licenses “are designed for the exact use case that we’re enacting through our wall-art product,” Bernardo Hernandez, vice president of Flickr, wrote in an email.

    …

    A spokesman for Creative Commons, a nonprofit group formed in 2001, confirmed Yahoo is in accord with its licenses. Legally, “it doesn’t appear that Flickr is doing anything wrong,” said Corynne McSherry, intellectual-property director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    It’s just that some of the photographers made their photos available under Creative Commons under the impression that they’d be used in articles or by other sources rather than Yahoo itself turning them into a source of revenue, much less one that leaves out the content creators. In fact, it’s entirely possible that the move could hurt Yahoo. If enough photographers feel that way, they could simply stop using Flickr, and take their photos to other sites that do share revenue with content creators in these types of scenarios.

    As one photographer the Journal spoke with pointed out, however, leaving Flickr isn’t that simple for those who have already invested so much into the service, and have massive amounts of photos on the service. That photographer, Devon Adams, had this to say in a Facebook post:

    I am very wary about Flickr’s new policies about selling CC images as mural art on their website. Biggest complaint is how rough it is to keep attribution with the image.

    Adams links to a blog post from Carter Law Firm, which says:

    Every Creative Commons license I’ve ever seen requires giving the copyright holder an attribution for their work. (Always give credit where it’s due!) I would hope that Yahoo would put the attribution on the front of the image – in a lower corner, so anyone who sees it can know who created the image. If that’s not possible (and good luck convincing me it’s not possible), at least put a non-removable label or notice on the back of who the copyright holder is and a URL to the original image on Flickr. If they don’t give an attribution as the license requires, they could be committing copyright infringement and could face a cease and desist letter, a bill, or a lawsuit.
    …

    I hope Yahoo is diligent about giving photographers the credit they deserve and respecting when a photographer changes the license on their Flickr account to only allow non-commercial uses. This won’t impact a person’s ability to own wall art of it prior to the license being changed; but Yahoo should stop selling it if the artist doesn’t want the company making money from it.

    This isn’t the first time Yahoo has tried to better monetize Flickr of late. It also started including ads in photo slideshows in another move that irked some of those photo providers.

    While some photographers are clearly not thrilled with Yahoo’s selling of their work, it’s certainly worth noting that the majority of the photographers the Journal spoke with were actually okay with it. 8 out of 14 indicated they were fine with the move, mainly because they’re happy to get the exposure and see people appreciating their work. It’s hard to say, based on this small data set, just how controversial Yahoo’s move is.

    Do you see a problem with what Yahoo is doing? Let us know what you think.

    Image via Flickr

  • EU Court: Video Embeds Don’t Violate Copyright Law

    EU Court: Video Embeds Don’t Violate Copyright Law

    When it comes to the usage of media on the Internet, there has always been a lot of debate about what’s acceptable versus what’s unacceptable. Here we are in 2014 still trying to hammer out exactly what all falls into “fair use,” and who is ultimately responsible when copyrighted material is used in ways unintended by the copyright holder.

    It always depends on the scenario in question, but the state of the social, user-generated Internet makes it virtually impossible for content owners to truly control what happens to their product.

    The other day, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that it is not copyright infringement if someone embeds a copyrighted video on their website, even if that video itself was uploaded without permission in the first place. The basic logic behind the ruling is that embedding it isn’t making it available in a new way. If you embed a YouTube video, that’s still YouTube. It was on YouTube, and that’s still where it is, so someone embedding that video on their site using the code made available by YouTube doesn’t make that person responsible for infringement.

    TorrentFreak reports on the verdict after obtaining a copy (which here in German):

    The Court argues that embedding a file or video is not a breach of creator’s copyrights under European law, as long as it’s not altered or communicated to a new public. In the current case, the video was already available on YouTube so embedding it is not seen as a new communication.

    “The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology … does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [the EU Copyright directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication,” the Court’s verdict reads.

    As the publication points out, a previous case with a similar ruling about linking was used as the basis for this ruling. Essentially, the content is there whether a third-party webpage points to it or not. Pointing to it, even via an embed is not infringement, as far as the court is concerned.

    Image via YouTube

  • Google Settles Photographer Copyright Suit

    Google announced that it has settled with a group of photographers, visual artists, and affiliated associations over a lawsuit related to copyrighted material in Google Books.

    The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but Google said in a statement, “The parties are pleased to have reached a settlement that benefits everyone and includes funding for the PLUS Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping rightsholders communicate clearly and efficiently about rights in their works.”

    Plaintiffs included rightsholder associations and individual artists including: The American Society of Media Photographers, Inc., Graphic Artists Guild, PACA (Digital Media Licensing Association)., North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America, National Press Photographers Association, and American Photographic Artists. The individual plaintiffs are Leif Skoogfors, Al Satterwhite, Morton Beebe, Ed Kashi, John Schmelzer, Simms Taback and Gail Kuenstler Taback Living Trust, Leland Bobbé, John Francis Ficara, and David W. Moser.

    The case is American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. et al. v. Google Inc. in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

    “The agreement resolves a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Google in April, 2010, bringing to an end more than four years of litigation,” Google said. “It does not involve any admission of liability by Google. As the settlement is between the parties to the litigation, the court is not required to approve its terms.”

    As the company noted, the settlement doesn’t have any affect on its litigation with the Authors Guild. Late last year, that suit was dismissed, but the Authors Guild said it would appeal.

    Image via Google

  • Getty Images Sues Microsoft Over Bing Image Tool

    Getty Images is suing Microsoft over a tool the latter recently launched enabling people to embed slideshows of images from Bing Image Search on their websites.

    The tool is called the Bing Image Widget, which Microsoft describes in the following manner:

    Bing Image Widget enhances your web site with the power of Bing Image Search and provides your users with beautiful, configurable image collages and slideshows. What’s more, Bing Image Widget is easy to configure.

    You can get the code by going to the Bing Image Widget page or via Bing Webmaster Tools. Just copy and paste the code onto a page, and adjust the settings to meet your needs, and then you get a collage of images. I’d embed one here, but we wouldn’t want to get sued.

    It basically just looks like a group of image search results. It’s nothing spectacular, and I doubt that it’s being used very much. I know I haven’t been seeing it in use.

    Either way, Getty has deemed the tool a “massive infringement” of copyright images, according to Reuters, which reported on the suit earlier.

    As far as I can tell, if you click on any of the small thumbnail images that appear in the widget, it just takes you to the image search page. It’s not like you are clicking and viewing a full-sized photo on the webpage the widget is embedded on.

    The tool was just released on August 22nd.

    Earlier this year, Getty launched its own tool for users to embed some of its images on their sites.

    Image via Bing

  • Yahoo Complains About ‘Unconstitutional’ Copyright Law

    Yahoo has complained to Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court about a copyright law, which it says is unconstitutional. The law in question seeks to protect copyright of publishers, and is said to “amount to a tax on search engines.”

    Yahoo’s position in this is somewhat unique (compared to Google and Bing) as it is both a publisher and a search engine.

    Here’s Yahoo’s statement (roughly translated via Google Translate):

    Yesterday we filed a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court that provides the constitutionality of the regulated in § § 87f, 87g copyright law power protection law of the press publisher in question. Which entered into force in August 2013 related right forces search engines and news aggregators in Germany to obtain the consent of the publishers for the use of more than “single-word” or “smallest text extracts” from press articles and to pay royalties. Due to the vagueness of the law and thereby suffered border legal uncertainty we felt forced us to change the design of our search results in the German news search.

    Our goal is to provide our users search results as personalized and provide fully available as possible, no matter where in the world they are located. Results our news search in Germany are in contrast to those in other countries but now less comprehensive and informative. , we are of the view that the related right is an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of information of Internet users, as a targeted information obtaining on the internet without the help of search engines is not feasible.

    The Basic Law requires the State to protect the freedom of information and thus the structures that guarantee the information obtaining. Therefore, we consider the related right to the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Basic Law (Article 5 of the Basic Law), also the occupational freedom (Article 12 GG) and the principle of equality (Art. 3 GG) incompatible.

    Finally, we are of the view that the related right due to its vagueness violates the principle of legality and thus leads to an unacceptable legal uncertainty. Yahoo is particularly affected by the intellectual property right: As a digital media company and provider of a great editorial content, we are mainly also press publisher in sense of power protection law.

    Yahoo’s search engine providers so as required by law and at the same time “protected” as a press publishers. As a provider of content we feel a high-quality and market-driven journalism honoriertem just as committed to fair competition in the search market. since 1996 we offer our German users services with the aim to to provide them with the best possible user experience. We hope that the court will decide in our favor and thus shall ensure that German users can enjoy the same breadth of information online as users elsewhere in the world.

    The law reportedly gives publishers the exclusive right to the commercial use of their content, except when single words or “small” tex snippets are used. As Lorek Essers at PCWorld explains, “The exemption for small text snippets was added to allow search engines and aggregators to continue to show parts of news articles without infringing on copyright. However, publishers interpret the law differently and are demanding compensation from search engines.”

    Yep, that’s pretty much how it always goes.

    In similar news, a “Google Tax” law in Spain could lead to Google to end Google News in that country to avoid paying for the right to link to content. That’s a relatively new law, which still has to clear another house. The German law Yahoo is battling is a year old.

    Image via Yahoo

  • Google And Viacom Settle Once And For All

    Google And Viacom Settle Once And For All

    Google and Viacom have finally settled their lengthy legal battle over copyright once and for all. The companies both announced the news Tuesday morning.

    Here’s their joint statement: “Google and Viacom today jointly announced the resolution of the Viacom vs. YouTube copyright litigation. This settlement reflects the growing collaborative dialogue between our two companies on important opportunities, and we look forward to working more closely together.”

    Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

    The two companies have been battling for a long seven years. In 2007 (the year after Google acquired it), Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion claiming “massive intentional copyright infringement”. Viacom alleged that YouTube contained roughly 160,000 infringing videos, which had then accumulated over a billion and a half views.

    The battle raged on for years. In 2010, it looked like Google was victorious. Google even claimed a victory on its blog, as the court granted its motion for summary judgment, deciding YouTube is protected by safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

    Obviously Viacom continued to fight, and last year, YouTube scored another victory when a federal court rejected Viacom’s suit. Google called that an “important day for the Internet” (twice in the same announcement).

    But the battle continued. Until now.

    Stick a fork in it.

    Image via YouTube

  • You Can Now Use Millions Of High-Quality Pics From Getty On You Site For Free

    Getty Images, long known for suing people for using its photos on blogs, has surprised the Internet by making millions of them free to use. The photography giant announced that tens of millions of its photos are now embeddable, which means you can feel free to embed them on your blog. Just make sure you’re using the photos the way you’re allowed to.

    Do you intend to take advantage of Getty’s new embedded photo offering? Let us know in the comments.

    Here’s what it says about embeds in the terms of service:

    You may only use embedded Getty Images Content for editorial purposes (meaning relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest). Embedded Getty Images Content may not be used: (a) for any commercial purpose (for example, in advertising, promotions or merchandising) or to suggest endorsement or sponsorship; (b) in violation of any stated restriction; (c) in a defamatory, pornographic or otherwise unlawful manner; or (d) outside of the context of the Embedded Viewer.

    That last one is important. You can use these photos, but you better make sure they’re within Getty’s embed code.

    To find something you can use, go to gettyimages.com, hover over an image in the search results or on the image detail page, and click the embed icon. The viewer includes the photographer and the image collection, as well as link to the image page on Getty’s site. There, those who wish to use it commercially can obtain the relevant licensing information.

    Here’s what the embeds look like:

    How about that?

    “With people increasingly turning to imagery to communicate and tell their stories online, the embed capability opens up Getty Images’ award-winning imagery for seamless sharing,” the company said in an announcement. “Through the embed tool, individuals can draw on Getty Images’ latest news, sports, celebrity, music and fashion coverage; immense digital photo archive; and rich conceptual images to illustrate their unique passions, ideas and interests. This innovation opens one of the largest, deepest and most comprehensive image collections in the world for easy sharing, thereby making the world an even more visual place.”

    CEO Jonathan Klein said, “Images are the communication medium of today and imagery has become the world’s most spoken language. Whether via a blog, website or social media, everyone is a publisher and increasingly visually literate. Innovation and disruption are the foundation of Getty Images, and we are excited to open up our vast and growing image collection for easy, legal sharing in a new way that benefits our content contributors and partners, and advances our core mission to enable a more visually-rich world.”

    Just to be crystal clear here, note that he said “blog, website or social media.”

    It is a definitely a new day.

    Of course you won’t be able to embed any photo of Getty’s, but as the pics above illustrate, the embed code is available on a wide range of photos, including celebrities.

    The new offering certainly has plenty of benefits for Getty. It will get plenty of links and branding out of this. It’s also great for the photographers, as it will get their names out there, and ensure that credit is given where it’s due.

    Getty says the embeds will provide people with a “simple and legal way to utilize content that respects creators’ rights, including the opportunity to generate licensing revenue.”

    “You have to adapt to survive,” said Kevin Mazur, celebrity photographer and director, and co-founder of WireImage Inc. “Evolving to embrace technology that encourages responsible image sharing is the way forward for the industry.”

    The embeds are supported anywhere HTML can be used. WordPress, which has 75 million users, is already telling users about the feature.

    “This new Getty Images embed capability will open users up to a huge new creative repository in a simple, legal way,” said Raanan Bar-Cohen, senior vice president of commercial services at Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com. “We look forward to seeing all the amazing ways that our users can take advantage of this new access.”

    WordPress says you can actually just grab the image URL from Getty, and copy that directly into you post.

    But it doesn’t matter what blogging platform you use. If it uses HTML, you can use the Getty embeds.

    Go ahead and go over to gettyimages.com, and search for something. There’s a good chance you’ll get some results, and good ones at that. This has the potential to significantly increase the quality of you blog posts.

    Was this a good move by Getty? Do you expect to use the embeds? Let us know.

    Images via Getty Images (Thanks, embed code!)

  • De La Soul Are Giving Away Their Music for 25 Hours

    De La Soul Are Giving Away Their Music for 25 Hours

    De La Soul are giving away all of their music–for free–for a limited time.

    The famed hip hip trio is looking to give fans access to many of their older albums–albums which have been missing from the world of streaming and downloadable music services for years.

    Everything is available on the band’s website. This Valentine’s Day gift from De La Soul allows you to download one or all of the following albums:

    3 Feet High and Rising; De La Soul Is Dead; Buhloone Mindstate; Stakes Is High; AOI: Mosaic Thump; AOI: Bionix; and Remixes, Instrumentals, and Rarities.

    The 25-hour giveaway began at 11 am EST today, and will run until noon on Saturday.

    “It’s about allowing our fans who have been looking and trying to get a hold of our music to have access to it,” De La Soul member Posdnuos told Rolling Stone. “It’s been too long where our fans haven’t had access to everything. This is our way of showing them how much we love them.”

    And why haven’t fans had access to the pioneering group’s music? Well, their use of samples. 3 Feet High and Rising, as well as a handful of other De La Soul albums, use so many samples (many not fully licensed) that they have been unable to appear on many music platforms (iTunes, et al.).

    De La Soul was formed in 1987 in Long Island, New York. Their seminal album, 3 Feet High and Rising, was released in 1989. Soon, the group will release You’re Welcome, their first full-length album since 2004.

    Image via WIkimedia Commons

  • Yelp Discloses Lobbying Efforts, CEO Sells 15,000 Shares

    A couple of interesting pieces of Yelp news have surfaced in that the company is lobbying for patent reform and copyright laws, and CEO Jeremy Stoppelman has sold nearly 15,000 shares of the company.

    As first reported by The Hill, the company hired former House staffer Laurent Crenshaw as its first lobbyist a couple months ago. He is a former aide to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa.

    Crenshaw was quoted as saying at the time, “I’m extremely excited to be joining this fast-growing company and plan to continue working on issues I care about and love including Internet freedom, intellectual property, technology and telecommunications, along with a host of others.”

    This week, The Hill reported on the company’s first lobbying campaigns on the aforementioned issues, pointing to Yelp’s official lobbying disclosure form, where it says Crenshaw was lobbying on the Innovation Act, and is lobbying on the 998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He will also lobby on the “anti-SLAPP” bill,” which would prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation.

    Stoppelman’s stock sale was revealed in an SEC filing (via Ticker Report). He sold 14,705 shares of common stock on December 30th at $64.83 per share, and got $953,322 from the sale.

    Image: Jeremy Stoppelman (Twitter)

  • Lil’ Kim Took a Redditor’s Awesome Zombie Makeup Art and Used It to Promote Her New Song

    Lil’ Kim Took a Redditor’s Awesome Zombie Makeup Art and Used It to Promote Her New Song

    So, Lil’ Kim has a new album coming out and has been promoting a new song called “Dead Gal Walking.” It’s making a lot of news, but unfortunately for Lil’ Kim, the reason has nothing to do with the song itself.

    It’s the album artwork that people are talking about – mainly the fact that it’s totally not hers.

    Here’s the image that Lil’ Kim’s been using to promoted the new track. Pretty cool image, right?

    The only problem is that the image belongs to redditor and makeup artist Samantha Ravndahl, known online as Sssamanthaa. It serves as the finished product of a how-to guide she posted on reddit’s popular MakeupAddiction subreddit, HOW TO: Pop Art Zombie Tutorial. Not only that, but she’s been posting it on her other social accounts since October 9th.

    Ravndahl is the makeup artist, photographer, and subject of the image in question. She recently posted this to reddit’s legal advice subreddit, under the heading “Lil Kim took my photo and is using it as album art for her new shitty song”:

    So, this is a thing that’s been happening. Lil Kim took my photo and is using it as album art (might I add she took the liberty of adding her watermark over it on instagram). I have spoken with a lady on her team as well as her manager, which has done a whole lot of nothing. I’ve reported the photos on Facebook and Instagram multiple times, but they are continually posted. Anyone have any thoughts on what to do here? I live in BC, Canada.

    Despite speaking to Lil’ Kim’s team, the rapper continues to promote her new song with the image. She even put her own watermark on the image and posted it on Instagram:

    Sssamanthaa says that she has plans to consult a lawyer. After receiving some classy feedback from Lil’ Kim fans like “Fuck u and your artwork cracker bitch, You should be flattered Kimmy even noticed it!,” she just posted this little disclaimer on Instagram:

    I expect we’ll be covering this more in the future. I’m not an IP lawyer and uploading images to the internet comes with a ridiculously confusing set of rules – depending on which site you use – so I won’t venture into what I think will happen here. Stay tuned.

    Image via Samantha Ravndahl, Sssamanthaa, Instagram

  • Somebody Finally Figured Out How To Make A Halloween Game

    John Carpenter’s Halloween is one of the most fondly remembered and successful horror films ever made. It probably wouldn’t make a very good game though. Anybody remember that awful Friday the 13th game for the NES?

    Well, as it turns out, it seems that the guys over at Pig Farmers Productions have finally figured out how to make a successful game adaptation of Halloween. By focusing on low budget early 90s polygon models and controls ripped straight out of Resident Evil, the team has made a game that recreates the tension and fear that comes with surviving a night trapped inside a house with Michael Myers.

    Check it out:

    Unfortunately, it appears that the developers at Pig Farmer Productions were slapped with a Cease and Desist letter despite their Halloween game being freeware. On the developers official Web site, it says that “some games, images and videos have been removed recently. Not much more to say, just acknowledging that their gone.” This seems to be in reference to their Halloween game as it can no longer be found on the site.

    It’s a shame really that copyright can kill such a creative take on a beloved franchise. Instead of sending the hounds after people like this, those who own the rights should work with the developers to help make projects like this a reality. A great game based on a beloved property would actually help boost sales of the film thanks to people unfamiliar with the film checking it out after playing the game. Now people who loved the game will just avoid the film out of spite.

    Despite the Halloween game’s untimely demise, horror fans should check out Pig Farmer’s other games. They aim to successfully recreate games based on slasher flicks from the 80s, and that sounds absolutely delightful no matter how you stab it.

    [Image: GameNewsOfficial]