Copyright Infringement

September 30, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Removed to Federal Court

Evansville, Indiana – Responding to a complaint filed in Indiana state court by Indiana copyright attorneys, a defense lawyer filed a motion to remove the lawsuit to a federal court in the Southern District of Indiana – Evansville Division.

Plaintiff Professional Transportation, Inc. of Evansville, Indiana (“PTI”) is the former employer of Defendant Robert Warmka of Savage, Minnesota. Warmka worked for PTI from September 2012 to December 2013. PTI contends that this employment was governed in part by a trade-secrets agreement. Subsequent to leaving employment with PTI, Warmka began employment with Minnesota Coaches Inc. (“MCI”) d/b/a Crew Motion, a competitor of PTI.

PTI filed this copyright lawsuit in Vanderburgh Superior Court alleging that Warmka infringed its intellectual property by his use of Plaintiff’s copyrighted driver’s manual within MCI’s driver’s manual. PTI contends that multiple sections of PTI’s manual were reproduced nearly verbatim in MCI’s manual. PTI claims that this manual was filed with the U.S. Copyright Office “on or before 2012.” Plaintiff further contends that Defendant appropriated Plaintiff’s confidential material and trade secrets in violation of a trade secret agreement executed by both parties in 2012.

In this lawsuit, filed by Indiana copyright lawyers, the following counts are asserted:

• Count I: Indiana Trade Secret Violation
• Count II: Unfair Competition

• Count III: Copyright Infringement

Plaintiff alleges loss of business and profits and seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Copyright attorneys for Warmka filed a notice of removal, stating that federal subject-matter jurisdiction was proper on the basis of both federal-question jurisdiction and diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction.

September 28, 2015

Copyright Law: Important Win for Fair Use in ‘Dancing Baby’ Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

San Francisco, California – Federal court of appeals affirms that copyright owners must consider fair use in online copyright takedowns.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed that copyright holders must consider whether a use of material is fair before sending a takedown notice. The ruling came in Lenz v. Universal, often called the “dancing baby” lawsuit.

In 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted a 29-second video to YouTube of her children dancing in her kitchen. The Prince song “Let’s Go Crazy” was playing on a stereo in the background of the short clip. Universal Music Group sent YouTube a notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), claiming that the family video infringed the copyright in Prince’s song. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) sued Universal on Lenz’s behalf, arguing that Universal abused the DMCA by improperly targeting a lawful fair use.

September 24, 2015

Indiana Copyright Law: Court Will Not Reconsider Dismissal of Pro Se Litigant’s Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Southern District of Indiana denied Plaintiff Larry Philpot’s

motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 2014 lawsuit alleging copyright infringement.

Acting as his own copyright lawyer, Philpot, a professional photographer of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Music Times, LLC of New York, New York. He alleged that Defendant infringed his copyright on a photograph of Norah Jones taken during a performance in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The photo had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as Certificate No. VAu 1-164-648.

Prior to this motion to reconsider, Philpot had last taken on the case on December 15, 2014. He had then failed to prosecute the case further. On April 17, 2015, the court set an April 30th deadline by which Philpot must show good cause for his failure to take additional actions to advance the copyright infringement lawsuit. Philpot did not respond and, on August, 26, 2015, the court dismissed the litigation.

Plaintiff Philpot, upon being notified of the court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider. He stated that he had not received notice of the court’s April 17th order and that his failure to prosecute had been a result of being “completely overwhelmed” due to having filed “too many actions.” On these grounds, he asked the court to reverse its earlier entry of judgment against him.

The court declined to do so. Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e), a court is permitted to alter or amend its judgment “only if the petitioner can demonstrate a manifest error of law or present newly discovered evidence.” Because Plaintiff did not demonstrate either – and because his failure to do so would not be excused merely due to his pro se status – the court denied the motion to reconsider.

September 23, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Latitude 360 Indianapolis Sued for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Jacksonville, Florida – A copyright lawyer for Universal Music Corp., WB Music Corp., EMI April Music, Inc., Bovina Music, Inc., and B.I.G. Poppa Music, all members of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (“ASCAP”), sued in the Middle District of Florida asserting copyright infringement against Latitude 360 Nevada, Inc., Latitude 360 Jacksonville LLC, Latitude 39 Group LLC, Latitude 360 Indianapolis LLC and Brent W. Brown. ASCAP is headquartered in New York, New York. Among the Defendants is Indianapolis restaurant Latitude 360 Indianapolis.

ASCAP is a membership association. It licenses and protects the public performance rights of more than half a million members, including songwriters, composers and music publishers. Latitude 360 Indianapolis is a place of business that offers public entertainment and refreshment.

Plaintiffs have asserted that Latitude Indianapolis 360 infringed multiple copyrighted works by permitting unlicensed performances of copyrighted works belonging to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim that, since November 2012, they have attempted to contact Latitude 360 Indianapolis and/or other Defendants more than 40 times to offer an ASCAP license but that these offers were refused. Four causes of action for copyright infringement have been alleged in this copyright lawsuit.

Plaintiffs ask for injunctive relief against Defendants ordering them to cease publicly performing Plaintiffs’ compositions; and a judgment for statutory damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

September 21, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: CelebrityCafé.com Dismissed from Copyright Lawsuit; Court Allows New Defendants to be Added

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Southern District of Indiana has granted a motion by Defendant The Celebrity Café.com, Inc. (“Celebrity”) to dismiss the copyright infringement complaint filed by Larry G. Philpot of Indianapolis, Indiana. The court also granted Philpot’s motion to amend his complaint.

Plaintiff Philpot is a professional photographer who photographs concert events across the country. He copyrights his photographs and licenses them to others. In December 2014, Philpot sued Celebrity of Oceanside, New York asserting that it had infringed his copyrights by posting two photographs that Philpot had registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The photos at issue are a 2009 photograph of Willie Nelson and a 2013 photo of Kid Rock.

An Indiana copyright attorney for Defendant Celebrity moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Indiana and that the Southern District of Indiana was an improper venue. A short time later, Philpot asked the court’s permission to amend his complaint to include additional defendants. By this order, the court granted both parties’ requests.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the court held that Philpot had failed to meet his burden to demonstrate the necessary minimum contacts between Celebrity and the State of Indiana. The court found Celebrity to be a New York business that “is not registered to do business in Indiana. It does not have any offices, paid employees, members, agents, or operations in Indiana. Celebrity has no telephone or fax listings in Indiana. It also has no bank accounts in Indiana, has never paid taxes in Indiana, and does not own, lease, or control any property or assets in Indiana. Dominick Miserandino, Celebrity’s sole member, has been to Indiana only twice in his life….”

Moreover, the court held that Celebrity’s use of its website, which it had owned and operated from January 2003 to December 3, 2014, was insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon an Indiana court. Quoting the Seventh Circuit, it stated:

Courts should be careful in resolving questions about personal jurisdiction involving online contacts to ensure that a defendant is not haled into court simply because the defendant owns or operates a website that is accessible in the forum state, even if that site is interactive. Beyond simply operating an interactive website that is accessible from the forum state, a defendant must in some way target the forum state’s market. If the defendant merely operates a website, even a highly interactive website, that is accessible from, but does not target, the forum state, then the defendant may not be haled into court in that state without offending the Constitution.

be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555, 558-59 (7th Cir. 2011) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

The court noted that, while it might appear that advertisements on Celebrity’s webpages were targeting Indiana residents due to Indiana-specific content, those advertisements were not the result of Celebrity’s actions to target Indiana. Instead, the advertisements were shown as a result of internet “cookies” that tracked the location of internet end users and then selected and displayed location-specific content from third parties, including content that was specific to Indiana.

Thus, an exercise of personal jurisdiction over Celebrity in Indiana was found to be improper. For similar reasons, venue in the Southern District of Indiana was also held to be improper. The court did, however, permit Philpot to amend his complaint, finding that his request to do so had been timely filed.

September 17, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Filing on his own behalf, copyright attorney and professional photographer Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana initiated litigation in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement by KG American Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“KG”) of Duluth, Georgia.

In 2000, Plaintiff Bell photographed the downtown Indianapolis skyline. Bell claims that the KG used this photo, U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA0001785115, without Plaintiff’s permission. Bell states that KG created “a website to promote and advertise its own real estate business” and displayed Bell’s copyrighted photo on that website. Bell further claims that this company “willfully and recklessly falsely claimed that it owned the copyrights of all images and photos” contained on its website, http://richliferealestate.com/location/indianapolis-metro/, including Bell’s photo of Indianapolis.

In this Indiana federal litigation, a single count is listed: copyright infringement and unfair competition. Bell asks for injunctive relief to prevent KG from using Bell’s copyrighted photo without consent as well as a judgment for damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

Practice Tip: Richard Bell has sued hundreds of defendants for copyright infringement in Indiana’s federal courts. Previous blog posts regarding his litigation include:

• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Base FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

September 15, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Former School Employee Sues Schools for Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Program

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Pro se Plaintiff Angela E. Brooks-Ngwenya, of Fort Wayne, Indiana has filed a copyright complaint in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that The Mind Trust, United Way of Central Indiana, Central Indiana Education Alliance, Phalen Leadership Academies, and Indianapolis Public Schools (“IPS”), all of Indianapolis, Indiana, committed copyright infringement.

Plaintiff contends that she piloted a program, Transitioning Into Responsible Students (“TIRS”) at Gambold Middle School in 2002. She claims that she filed for copyright protection on TIRS in 2006 and that she received a copyright registration in 2008 from the U.S. Copyright Office.

Brooks-Ngwenya claims that her copyrighted material has been infringed by several of Defendants’ programs, including Bridges To Success Education School Model and the Phalen Leadership Academies Education Model.

According to documents filed with the court, prior federal litigation between Brooks-Ngwenya and IPS, which included allegations by Plaintiff of race and gender discrimination, was concluded through a confidential settlement agreement between the parties. Brooks-Ngwenya asserts that these current claims of copyright infringement were excluded from that settlement agreement. Prior litigation between the parties in Marion County court included disability claims made by Brooks-Ngwenya.

Plaintiff drafted a cease and desist order for the court’s review as part of her filing and asked that the court enforce it pending a settlement. She also requested a mediation hearing.

September 9, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Court Allows Copyright Plaintiff to Add New Defendants

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Acting as his own Indiana copyright lawyer, Larry G. Philpot of Indianapolis, Indiana, filed a motion to amend his complaint in the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division in his ongoing intellectual property litigation against Mansion America, LLC and Oak Ridge Boys Theater of Branson, Missouri.

This lawsuit, which was filed in August 2014, alleges that Defendants Mansion America, LLC and Oak Ridge Boys Theater infringed the copyright of a photo that Plaintiff Philpot took of Willie Nelson during a 2009 performance in St. Louis, Missouri. A copyright to the photograph, Certificate Number VAu 1-132-411, was issued by the U.S. Copyright Office in 2012.

Mansion America filed a motion to dismiss the copyright litigation. The court granted Philpot leave to conduct limited discovery to assist him in responding to that motion. Plaintiff Philpot now indicates to the court that the discovery provided him with additional information, including the identities of additional parties who had been before been unknown to him. Philpot consequently asked the court for leave to amend his complaint.

The court noted that that, while the time for amending the complaint as a matter of right had elapsed, it was still within the court’s discretion to allow the amendment and that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court should “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Finding that there had been “no undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, undue prejudice, or futility of amendment,” and that Philpot had “diligently pursued discovery and prosecuted his case,” the court found that justice required that leave be granted to Philpot to amend his complaint.

August 24, 2015

Introduction to Criminal Copyright Infringement – Fourth Element: Commercial Advantage or Private Financial Gain

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The fourth element of a criminal prosecution for copyright infringement requires that the

government prove that the defendant engaged in an act of copyright infringement “for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” It is unnecessary that a profit be made as a result of the infringing activities. This interpretation was intended to exclude from criminal liability those individuals who willfully infringe copyrights solely for their own personal use, although those individuals may still be pursued by the copyright holder in civil court.

It is a common misconception that if infringers do not charge subscribers a monetary fee for infringing copies, they cannot be found guilty of criminal copyright infringement. While evidence of discrete monetary transactions (i.e., the selling of infringing goods for a particular price) provides the clearest evidence of financial gain, such direct evidence is not a prerequisite for the government to prosecute.

August 14, 2015

Introduction to Criminal Copyright Infringement – Second Element: Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The second element of a criminal prosecution for copyright infringement requires that the government prove that the defendant infringed upon the holder’s rights in its copyrighted intellectual property. Although the term “infringement” itself is not specifically defined in the copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) provides that: “[a]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by [17 U.S.C. §§ 106 to 118] . . . is an infringer of the copyright.” Thus, the concept of infringement is defined by reference to the exclusive rights conferred on a copyright owner by 17 U.S.C. § 106. Those exclusive rights include the right to display or perform the work publicly, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106(4)-(5), along with the right to reproduce and distribute copies of the work, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) and (3). The unauthorized exercise of these rights will constitute an act of infringement and will give rise to a civil infringement claim by the copyright holder and perhaps prosecution by the government.

Generally, infringement is established by evidence of copying. However, because copying often cannot be directly attributed to the defendant, copying can be established indirectly through evidence that the defendant had access to the original copyrighted work, and that the defendant’s work is substantially similar to it.

With regard to prosecution for alleged infringement of copyrighted computer programs, a court must also decide separately whether or not the copies at issue were lawfully made under 17 U.S.C. § 117, which authorizes such duplication in certain circumstances. Thus, unlike copies of other types of copyrighted works, copies of computer programs are not automatically presumed to be unauthorized.