Ed Sheeran To Face The Gaye Estate In Court Over Copyright Lawsuit

Not lengthy after leaving a deflated Robin Thickein their wake, the Marvin Gaye property is trying to make quick work megastar Ed Sheeran. As you would possibly know, Sheeran has been entangled in a authorized battle with the Gayes, which initially stemmed on account of similarities between his “Thinking Out Loud,” and Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.” Now, it could seem that Sheeran’s destiny will likely be left as much as the whims a jury, because the case is ficially set to see trial. 

A report from MSNBC states that U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton has uncared for Sheeran’s efforts to dismiss the lawsuit, which could not bode effectively for the beloved singer. By this level, Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” has already secured two Grammy wins since showing on 2014’s X, and has solidified itself as a vital addition to the Ed canon. Yet Judge Stanton has deemed the similarities with “Let’s Get It On” to be notable sufficient for a extra thorough evaluation. 

With the trial set to go down within the close to future, Sheeran, Sony/ATV Music Publishing and Atlantic Records want to keep away from paying as much as $100 million in sought-after damages. Of course, music lawsuits this nature can ten really feel considerably divisive, as chord progressions merely can’t be copywritten. Yet ought to Sheeran take the L, it is seemingly bounce-back will not be troublesome. It’s truthful to dub him one the largest artists on the earth, and he is nonetheless within the course of plotting his subsequent transfer. Let’s see how this one shakes out.

Beyonce's Request To Shut Down "Feyonce" Knock-Off Products Denied By U.S. Judge

An organization put a spin on Beyonce’s identify to create attire and equipment. They altered it by merely changing the “B” for an “F,” as a play on phrases that remembers the time period “fiance.” Their witty capitalist try hit a pace bump in April 2016 when Queen Bey herself filed a lawsuit in opposition to them.

After roughly 2 years for the reason that submitting, Beyonce’s request to halt the manufacturing the corporate’s merchandise has been denied. Her criticism claimed that the merchandise infringed her trademark rights and would trigger confusion for customers. 

U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan thought in any other case. In the choice issued as we speak, the authorized authority identified that the San Antonio-based firm’s try and capitalize on the singer’s “exceedingly well-known” model wasn’t a transparent menace to her identify.

Nathan ordered each events to debate a doable settlement and trial dates. She additionally scheduled a standing replace convention for November 1.

YouTube Found Liable for Serious Copyright Infringement In Austria

YouTube Found Liable for Serious Copyright Infringement In Austria

The Vienna Commercial Court in Austria has ruled that YouTube is not a neutral host provider, and can be held partly liable for copyright breaches in videos uploaded by its users.

On Tuesday, the Austrian Commercial Court found that YouTube is directly liable for the copyright infringements committed by its users.  The court rejected the “neutral intermediary” defense that argues that the platform can’t be held legally responsible for the content it carries.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, a preliminary decision by the Commercial Court, which is not yet legally binding, could have a serious impact on the economy all online video platforms, such as Facebook, in Europe.

In 2014, Austrian commercial TV channel Puls4 filed a lawsuit against YouTube after copyright-protected content from its channels was posted on the video platform.  Puls4 and its lawyers said they had established YouTube’s complicity in spreading the content though a “painstaking” analysis how the site works.

YouTube argued that it was a technical service, a “host provider,” therefore it fell under the provisions the European Union’s E-Commerce Act, which specifies that technical service providers are mediators, and are not liable for the content posted by their users.

+ 83% All Music, Film & TV Piracy Is Motivated by a Lack Paid Options, Study Claims

In an initial ruling, the court disagreed, finding that YouTube’s activity in “sorting, filtering and linking” content on its platform, “in particular by creating tables contents according to predefined category” helps determine the surfing behavior users.

The court concluded that YouTube cannot be considered as a neutral platform.

YouTube made a statement to the Austrian media, saying, “It takes copyright protection very seriously” and it was “studying the ruling and holding all our options open, including appealing the decision.”

The European Union is discussing possible reforms to copyright law to ensure news publishers and artists are better compensated for their work when it appears on online platforms.

YouTube has four weeks to petition the court before it issues its binding rule, and if the preliminary ruling stands, it is expected the video streaming platform will appeal.



H&M Accused Of Copyright Infringement By Graffiti Artist

H&M has had a rough go recently, with one racially-insensitive photo at the centre the retail juggernaut’s fall from grace. The fast-fashion giant has now been accused copyright infringement by a graffiti artist for an illegitimate use his artwork in their latest campaign. 

The company’s promotional imagery for their “New Routine” sportswear line features a model in front a street piece by Jason ‘Revok’ Williams, which is located at the William Sheridan Playground handball court in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. 

New reports indicate that Williams has field a cease and desist order against H&M for their “unauthorized use his (Willaims) original artwork, and the manner in which it is using the work, is damaging and is likely to cause consumers familiar with his work to believe there is a relationship between the parties.”

However, H&M is refuting his legal claims by stating Williams has no “copyright rights to assert” mainly because his artwork “is the product criminal conduct.” The company argues that copyright protection is “a privilege under federal law,” which does not account for “illegally crated works.”

Furthermore, H&M had contacted the New York City Department Parks and Recreation to find out whether they needed Williams’ permission in order to shoot in front his artwork. They eventually reassured the retailer that “graffiti on the park handball wall was unauthorized and constituted vandalism and defacing New York City property.”

Since this revelation, the graffiti artist has called for a boycott the company, while also spearheading a debate as to whether or not street art should be protected by U.S. copyright laws.