Above is a temporary tattoo that's on sale at Hot Topic. Here's some art by Ms. Matsumoto:

The tattoo was spotted by a guy who had the original art tattooed on his leg. Here's what the artist had to say about the incident:

As I've said countless times before, I don't consider reposting my artwork somewhere else to be art theft... When someone takes my art without permission and makes any sort of profit from it, that's when something should be done.

Yikes. Sounds like a job for your friendly neighborhood lawyer.

Space Coyote [DeviantArt] (Thanks, Brandon!)

Melanie at All About Content has the entire story, from the original office prank that went viral thanks to sites like Digg and BoingBoing, to 3M's attempt to appropriate it, to their shabby treatment of the owner of the photo and their subsequent workaround.

Michelle, the "eMarketing Supervisor" who was negotiating with Scott, comes across as particuarly disingenuous in her email to him:

We were quoted about $750-$1000 to shoot our own, but if you could allow us to use yours on a couple in-store displays for 6 months within that range, we could arrange for that instead.

Really, Michelle? Only two displays throughout the entire country? Are you a really bad eMarketing manager, or lying to Scott about how much you'd use the photo? [We think mmmsoap makes a good point about how this was probably meant.]

We guess what's most offensive about this is 3M can surely afford to pay a legitimate licensing fee to the owner of the photo, which would have also served as a goodwill gesture to the community that most likely gave it the campaign idea to begin with. As Melanie puts it in her article:

But let’s pretend the legality of this move wasn’t even a question for now, and focus on this: Social media marketing campaigns rely on the social media community to carry them. As a marketer, you have to respect the community and its members. Ripping off community members and then turning around and asking that same community to generate buzz for your campaign is just ballsy... or stupid.

The irony: The YouTube contest rules say “Remember, creativity and true brilliance will get you noticed.”

Is that part of the rules, or a threat from 3M?

"3M Carjacks the Post-It Note Jaguar" [All About Content] (Thanks to Craig!)
(Photos: 3M display and original Post-It car by Scott Ableman)

If you're going to scan old photos at Walmart, you may want to brush up on copyright basics, since clearly Walmart isn't bothering to train its employees.

As a general rule of thumb, if the work was made before 1989 and doesn't have a copyright symbol on it, it's probably in the public domain. For works created after 1989, the symbol isn't required to enforce copyright. The "Is it Protected?" tool at librarycopyright.net is a simple way to determine the most likely state of a published work. We're not sure how much of that applies to photos (any lawyer-types want to weigh in?) but the U.S. Copyright Office seems to indicate that the photo would have to have a permanently-affixed or printed copyright notice on it if it was created before 1989.

Or, you could take the advice of some Boingboing readers, and either find yourself a scanner to use at home, or write your own copyright notice on the back of the photos before bringing them into the store. We wonder: is it breaking copyright law to put a fake copyright on a public domain photo for the sole purpose of asserting your right to make a copy of it? Discuss!

Update: As rubinow notes in the comments below, bring the proper form with you when you go to Walmart. This gives them the legal protection they want, and then they won't refuse to print your photos.

"Wal-Mart: you can't scan century-old photos of your ancestors because copyright lasts forever" [Boingboing]
(Photo: Getty)

Here's Joanna:

I was personally contacted by an executive at Viacom, who explained how my film got mixed into their system. Juxtaposer was in a film festival that was presented by Nicktoons, which is of course a Viacom company. They offered selections of the festival as downloadable content, and Juxtaposer was one of them. They just forgot that Viacom's rights to those films were all nonexclusive. He personally assured me that Viacom is no longer making a claim to my film and YouTube should be sending me documents affirming that shortly.

I don't think this would have been over with nearly as fast if not for the publicity I got from your post. This could have been a nightmare, but it wasn't. Count this one a success!

Score one for the little guy.

Viacom Apologizes! [Channel Federator Raw]
PREVIOUSLY: Viacom Fraudulently Claims Ownership Of Indie Filmmakers' YouTube Clips

Joanna is, of course, disputing the claim.

The video is still up, but now Viacom gets access to her video statistics. The worst part is the fear Joanna has that something she slaved and sweat over could be taken away from her. "I'm just a scared that my little film will be lost in the shadow of the hulking monolith...," she wrote on her blog. Also on her blog is a comment by another filmmaker indicating Joanna isn't the only filmmaker Viacom has fraudulently targeted in this manner.

YouTube used to be cool but the site allowing actions like this show how much it's become just another co-opted drek-hole... all because they're too cheap to hire enough people to vet either the uploads or the corporate takedowns.

Below, a screenshot of the creepy and baseless stake-claiming.

Viacom Wants To Steal My Film [Channel Federator Raw]
Juxtaposer [YouTube]

Viacom is arguing that it needs the data to prove that its copyrighted material is more popular than user created videos.

Wired says:

Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling (.pdf) described that argument as "speculative" and ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four tera-byte hard drives.

The judge also turned Google's own defense of its data retention policies — that IP addresses of computers aren't personally revealing in and of themselves, against it to justify the log dump.

The EFF has responded to the ruling, calling it "a set-back to privacy rights," that "will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube. "

Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom [Wired] (Thanks, Everyone!)
Court ruling will expose viewing habits [YouTube]

Among other things, ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books), and crack down on things like region-free DVD players. All of this is taking place out of the public eye, presumably with the intention of presenting it as a fait accompli just as the ink is drying on the treaty.

Wikileaks points out that the U.S. politician behind ACTA is Howard Berman from California, a Democrat whose top four campaign contributors for 2006 were Time Warner ($21,000), News Corp ($15,000), Sony Corp of America ($14,000), and Walt Disney Co ($13,550).

So what can you do, other than shake your head in disgust? Well, here's a list of members of the subcommittee overseeing the U.S. side of things, so you could start by seeing if your rep is listed and contacting him or her directly. One Boing Boing reader suggests contacting your representative regardless of committee membership—you can find the correct contact information here using your zip code or address.

"Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007)" [Wikileaks via Boing Boing]
(Photo: Getty)

In March, a court told EMI it couldn't demand that MP3tunes turn over all the music stored by customers on its servers. Robertson writes on his corporate blog that the request is absurd:

Files are not MP3tunes' possessions any more than the contents of a safety deposit box are owned by the bank that houses them. The storage provided by MP3tunes is the user's own space. A Locker is empty when someone opens an account and that customer decides what files are placed into their Locker. All files are stored at the request of the user. People who choose to utilize remote storage should be guaranteed the same level of privacy they have for the files stored on their local hard disk.

As you may be aware, the major record label EMI has sued MP3tunes, claiming our service is illegal. You can read about the case here. Much is at stake — if you don't have the right to store your own music online then you won't have the right to store ebooks, videos and other digital products as well. The notion of ownership in the 21st century will evaporate. The idea of ownership is important to me and I want to make sure I have that right and my kids do too.

"Court Ruling Denies EMI Access to Millions of Personal MP3 Files" [MIchael Robertson]

The defendant, Troy Augusto, is an eBay seller who sells promotional CDs that he finds at used record stores. UMG, a member of the reigning Worst Company in America, sued, claiming that Augusto was distributing their material in violation of UMG's copyright, and that any transfer, even to a garbage can, is unauthorized. August and EFF have counterclaimed that UMG is attempting to restrict Augusto's "first sale" rights. In their brief, they argue that the first sale doctrine allows Augusto, as owner of the CDs, the right to sell or transfer them as he sees fit. In establishing that UMG's distribution of promotional CDs is an effective transfer of ownership, EFF points out that UMG sends the CDs unsolicited and does not keep records of who receives the discs, nor do they typically attempt to have the CDs returned or warn recipients that they might try to:

In short, those to whom UMG mails "promo CDs" enjoy all the principal hallmarks of ownership: their possession is unlimited in time, they are under no obligation to return the CDs, and there is no penalty to them should the CDs be lost, damaged or destroyed. UMG, for its part, also behaves as though it has parted with ownership: it does not keep records regarding the whereabouts of the CDs, nor has it ever sought their return from the recipients.

Lawyers who have represented artists such as The Rolling Stones, Van Halen, and Christina Aguilera say artists and managers are upset that they haven't seen any of the settlement money the RIAA received after suing the popular file-sharing services. According to the New York Post, the artists are "girding for battle with their music overlords," who respond that they have "started the process" of figuring out how to share the money, most of which was received seven years ago in a settlement with Napster. The RIAA also claims that there isn't actually that much money available after subtracting legal fees. Whoops.

"INFRINGEMENT!" [New York Post]
"RIAA Keeps Settlement Money, Artists May Sue" [TorrentFreak](Thanks to Smitherd and Jim!)
(Photo: D.S.B.)

The league has said that organizations that host public viewings of its games on television screens larger than 55 inches violate its copyright. Sports bars are exempted. Last year, the league sent letters to two churches advising them of the policy.

In response, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) proposed legislation that would allow houses of worship to show football games on big-screen televisions and raised the issue with Goodell at a meeting last week. Other congressional representatives threatened similar bills.

In its letter, the NFL said it would not object to big-screen viewings in the churches as long as the showings are free and are on premises that the church uses on a "routine and customary" basis.

NFL Reverses Call On Church Parties [Washington Post] (Thanks, Jim!)
(AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)

"There is a part of me that says, 'Gee, doesn't the NFL have enough money already?'" said Steve Holley, Immanuel's executive pastor. He pointed out that bars are still allowed to air the game on big-screens TV sets. "It just doesn't make sense."

The Super Bowl, the most secular of American holidays, has long been popular among churches. With parties, prayer and Christian DVDs replacing the occasionally racy halftime shows, churches use the event as a way to reach members, and potential new members, in a non-churchlike atmosphere.

"It takes people who are not coming frequently, or who have fallen away, and shows them that the church can still have some fun," said the Rev. Thomas Omholt, senior pastor of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in the District. Omholt has hosted a Super Bowl party for young adults in his home for 20 years. "We can be a little less formal."

The NFL said, however, that the copyright law on its games is long-standing and the language read at the end of each game is well known: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."

The league bans public exhibitions of its games on TV sets or screens larger than 55 inches because smaller sets limit the audience size. The section of federal copyright law giving the NFL protection over the content of its programming exempts sports bars, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said.

The issue came to a head last year after the NFL sent a letter to Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis, warning the church not show the Super Bowl on a giant video screen. For years, the church had held a Super Bowl party in its auditorium, attracting about 400 people and showing the game on a big screen usually reserved for hymn lyrics.

The letter "was really a disturbing thing," said Marlene Broome, a spokeswoman for the church.

NFL Pulls Plug On Big-Screen Church Parties For Super Bowl [Washington Post]
(AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)

Daniel Dean Thompson, 31, of Orem, was released from the Utah County Jail on bond Friday afternoon, according to the Utah County Jail Web site. Isaac R. Lifferth, 24, of Springville, is still in jail. Bail was set at $30,000.

Thompson, owner of the edited-movie retail store at 908 S. State St. in Orem, was arrested on two charges of forcible sexual abuse and two charges of unlawful sexual activity with a 14-year-old. Lifferth was arrested on two charges of forcible sexual abuse, a charge of unlawful possession of a prescription drug, two charges of aiding prostitution, two charges of unlawful sexual activity with a 14-year-old and two charges of patronizing a prostitute.

According to a report Thursday by John McCombs, an investigating officer with the Orem Police Department, Thompson told the girls that edited movies were sold at Flix Club as a front, but he and Lifferth actually made and distributed pornography.

Thompson, a former dealer of edited movies with CleanFlicks, started Flix Club at the same address after the dealership was terminated at a time when the Hollywood movie industry was bringing legal pressure on businesses that edited movies.

Flix Club was forced to close last year in the wake of a landmark federal court ruling that said several movie-editing businesses violated U.S. copyright laws when they altered movies to remove nudity, profanity and other offensive content and offered "sanitized" versions for sale.

Clean-film business was front for porn, police say [Daily Herald via Philmguy]

"Defendants' infringing dresses are 'wrap' dresses made of materials designed to look like silk jersey, a style consumers and the general public have come to associate with DVF," the complaint said.

Target stopped selling the dresses on its Web site on January 23 after the designer sent it a notice about it, according to the complaint, but the dresses are still available in Target stores.

Designer Von Furstenberg sues Target over dress [a wire service]

Talking About AT&T's Internet Filtering on AT&T's The Hugh Thompson Show [Boing Boing Gadgets]

I got some more info from the folks at cafepress and according to them, a law firm representing Ford contacted them saying that our calendar pics (and our club's event logos - anything with one of our cars in it) infringes on Ford's trademarks which include the use of images of THEIR vehicles. Also, Ford claims that all the images, logos and designs OUR graphics team made for the BMC events using Danni are theirs as well. Funny, I thought Danni's title had my name on it ... and I thought you guys owned your cars ... and, well ... I'm not even going to get into how wrong and unfair I feel this whole thing is as I'd be typing for hours, but I wholeheartedly echo everything you guys have been saying all afternoon. I'm not letting this go un-addressed and I'll keep you guys posted as I get to work on this.
I'm sorry, but at this point we will not be producing the 2008 BMC Calendar, featuring our 2007 Members of the Month, solely due to Ford Motor Company's claim that THEY own all rights to the photos YOU take of YOUR car. I hope to resolve this soon, and be able to provide the calendar and other BMC merchandise that you guys want and deserve! This thread will remain open for you to comment however you wish, and I'll update it as needed.

Ford: Car owners are pirates if they distribute pictures of their own cars [BoingBoing] (Thanks, Paul D!)
(Photo:morsteen)

The lawsuit claims that Blue Cross Laboratories is "distributing look-alike Herbal Essences shampoo and conditioner products under the name Herbal Passion to dollar stores," says Reuters.

We couldn't locate a photo of the supposedly infringing shampoo bottles on Blue Cross' website, but it's pretty obvious from some of their other products (left) that they're not above "improving" someone else's shampoo bottle design. Do these actually fool anyone into thinking they're buying brand name shampoo?

Blue Cross Laboratories
Procter & Gamble charges shampoo bottles copied [Reuters]

Our favorite line is one of their warning signs that you might be buying a pirated product: "Compilation CDs that could only exist in the dreams of a music fan." In other words, "A product you would actually want, that is equal in value to what we're charging you for it."

"RIAA Fake News!" [LiveLeak]

The authors, Dierdre Mulligan and Aaron Perzanowski, point out that unless Sony deliberately tried to harm its customers, it neglected to properly evaluate its third-party DRM solutions before releasing them to the public—or else it would have been aware of the programs' potential for damage. From pages 1179-80:

Prior to inking the deal to provide XCP to Sony BMG, First4Internet's business focused on content filtering, particularly the automated recognition of pornographic images. Aside from an earlier revision on XCP used by a number of labels on a smattering of pre-release CDs, First4Internet had no apparent expertise or experience in content
protection software.

SunnComm, the company that delivered MediaMax, offered even more cause for concern. The company began as a provider of Elvis impersonation services. After a change in management following a false press release announcing a non-existent $25 million production deal with Warner Brothers, the company purchased a 3.5" floppy disk factory in 2001, displaying a disturbing dearth of technological savvy.

"The Magnificence of the Disaster: Reconstructiong the Sony BMG Rootkit Incident" (PDF) [Berkely Technology Law Journal via BoingBoing]

RELATED
"Universal Music CEO: Record industry can't tell when geeks are lying to us about technology"
Consumerist posts on the Sony Rootkit debacle
(Photo: Getty)

In addition to strengthening both civil and criminal penalties for copyright and trademark infringement, the big development here is the proposed creation of the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER). This is a new executive branch office tasked with coordinating IP enforcement at the national and international level. To do this work internationally, the bill also authorizes US intellectual property officers to be sent to other countries in order to assist with crackdowns there. In addition, the Department of Justice gets additional funding and a new unit to help prosecute IP crimes.

Congress' copyright reform: seize computers, boost penalties, spend money [Ars Technica]

RELATED: Contact Information For 50 Politicians Who Take Campaign Money From The RIAA
Congressmen Who Took Money From The RIAA Send Chiding Letters To Universities

Copyright law says the RIAA can elect to seek statutory damages "instead of actual damages and profit." The law also says that $750 is the minimum amount per infringement if you go the statutory route, which explains where the RIAA came up with that ridiculous figure.

But the defendant is claiming that $750 per song counts as an unconstitutional violation of due process because the figure is unreasonably high when compared against the actual value of a downloaded song—and that she should pay the wholesale price per song, which she estimates at 70 cents. By her argument, the $750-per-song fee is 1,071 times higher than the actual damages suffered by the RIAA.

From the judge's order:

[Plaintiff] shall set forth with more specificity the categories of expenses they incurred in making the song recordings, such as, for example, royalties. Plaintiffs shall also state with specificity which categories of expenses, if any, (a) they are unable to quantify or (b) they cannot quantify without unreasonable burden or expense—and in the latter event, they shall explain why.

"RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download" [Slashdot]

RELATED
pdf of electronic filing of the judge's order [Pike & Fischer]
"§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits" [Cornell University Law School]
(Photo: Getty)

From Salon's Machinist blog:

In the past, Rowling has offered high praise for the HPL. "This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing)," she says on her site. She calls the HPL "a website for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home."

Thanks to such acclaim, Vander Ark recently landed a publishing contract with RDR Books to put out a printed version of the online lexicon. His book was to have gone on sale this fall.

You might suppose that given her appreciation of the online HPL, Rowling would have encouraged the book's publication and sale. But you'd be wrong. On Halloween, Rowling and Warner Bros., which produces the Potter movies, filed suit to stop Vander Ark and RDR from selling the book. Late last week, RDR agreed to halt publication of Vander Ark's Potter lexicon pending a federal judge's review.

In her suit, Rowling, arguably the most well-remunerated writer in history, asserts complete and total control over the Harry Potter creative universe — a stance that, if affirmed by the court, would strike a deep blow to the legions of fans who have added immeasurably to her work online. Her attorneys claim that Vander Ark's book will compete with Rowling's own planned Potter encyclopedia; the lexicon, they say, is thus nothing more than an attempt to "make millions of dollars off the back of Ms. Rowling's creativity."

In a statement, Rowling added: "It is not reasonable, or legal, for anybody, fan or otherwise, to take an author's hard work, re-organize their characters and plots, and sell them for their own commercial gain. However much an individual claims to love somebody else's work, it does not become theirs to sell."

Has J.K. Rowling ever been to a library? Seriously, I truly wonder. Because if she had, she might have seen many examples of exactly the sort of books she describes as "not reasonable." For instance, a list of the allusions in "Ulysses"; or a complete guide to all of the characters in William Faulkner's fiction; or a compilation and detailed analysis of Bob Dylan's lyrics; or a book containing the complete chronology of the events in David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest."

Hey, J.K. — can I call you J.K.? — these are known as "reference books," and, like the HPL, they are not mere "reorganizations" of characters and plots.

J.K. Rowling's Crucio curse on fan's Harry Potter book [Machinist]
(Photo:Getty)

From Ars Technica:

Under the terms of the act, which is cosponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), schools will have to inform students of their official policies about copyright infringement during the financial aid application and disbursement process. In addition, students will be warned about the possible civil and criminal penalties for file-sharing as well as the steps the schools take to prevent and detect illicit P2P traffic.

That's not all: schools would have to give students an alternative to file-sharing while evaluating technological measures (i.e., traffic shaping, deep packet inspection) that they could deploy to thwart P2P traffic on campus networks. Many—if not most—schools already closely monitor traffic on their networks, with some (e.g., Ohio University) blocking it altogether, and the bill would provide grants to colleges so they could evaluate different technological solutions.

The most objectionable part of the bill is the part that could force schools into signing up for music subscription services. In order to keep that beloved federal aid money flowing, universities would have to "develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property."

MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman is:

"Intellectual property theft is a worldwide problem that hurts our economy and costs more than 140,000 American jobs every year," said Glickman in a statement. "We are pleased to see that Congress is taking this step to help keep our economy strong by protecting copyrighted material on college campuses."

This is the funding that allows low-income students who would not otherwise have been able to afford college (like me, for example) to get a higher education. In a letter to Congress, the Association of American Universities wrote:

Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their Federal financial aid-including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st century economy. Lower income students, those most in need of Federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal.

New bill would punish colleges, students who don't become copyright cops [Ars Technica]
LETTER OPPOSING THE INCLUSION OF THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY PROPOSAL ON ILLEGAL FILE SHARING IN THE HEA (PDF) [AAU]
(Photo:George Miller [D-California, 7th Congressional District])

She has some interesting thoughts about DRM vs Downloading, and we're somewhat inclined to agree with her...

TF. Do you think its legal or illegal to copy a CD or DVD?

- Some men right, they sell you a DVD at the market but when you get home it doesn't play, that's illegal.

TF. Why is it illegal?

- Duh!! Because they tell you it works and when you get it home it's rubbish and jumps in the middle and its a waste of money!

Inside the Mind of a 9 Year Old File-Sharer [TorrentFreak via Kottke]

The two major issues in the unlocking restriction are:

• The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which "makes it illegal to break digital locks to get at copyrighted works." But last year, the librarian of Congress issued an exemption for unlocking for personal use:

As the librarian wrote, the locks "are used by wireless carriers to limit the ability of subscribers to switch to other carriers, a business decision that has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests protected by copyright."

• Your terms of service, which Apple claims you violate if you unlock the phone. The columnist's opinion here is a bit murkier—Apple has taken great pains to make their unlocking ban legally enforceable by lumping it under "reverse engineering," but "copyright allows reverse engineering for compatibility as a 'fair use,'" writes the author.

As readers pointed out in this post, maybe it's time we ban the practice of locking phones altogether, to prevent companies from engaging in anti-competitive behavior like this.

"The iPhone Freedom Fighters" [Slate]

RELATED
"Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" [Library of Congress] (look at Section 5 on page 5)
(Photo: Getty)

The Crimson speculates that the Coop may be reacting this way because of Crimsonreading.org, an online database that lets students search for the lowest prices by using ISBN. Harvard's Undergraduate Council President says he's spoken with an intellectual property lawyer and confirms that the ISBN-ownership claim is hogwash.

We understand taking severe measures to protect your business against cost-cutting competitors—especially when they have a business model that potentially gives them the upper hand against your traditional brick-and-mortar establishment. But we think it's pretty hilarious to invent copyright law. And we wonder, do they own the ISBNs of all books, or just the ones in their inventory? Does the publisher have any ISBN ownership rights? Maybe we should create some sort of international, standardized book numbering system so we can replace this proprietary one.

Anyway, so yeah, don't use ISBNs without writing to the Coop first and asking for permission.

"Coop Discourages Notetaking in Bookstore" [The Harvard Crimson, submitted by Joe—thanks, Joe!)

• Harry Potter and the Chinese Porcelain Doll
• Harry Potter and the Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon
• Harry Potter and the Chinese Overseas Students at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry

Here's a sample excerpt, which is short but so perfect that it's almost a koan:

Harry doesn't know how long it will take to wash the sticky cake off his face.

No word on when these will be made into movies, but maybe if Hollywood will step forward and do its part, then Turkish knock-offs can start appearing in market stalls everywhere.

Memo to the Dept. of Magical Copyright Enforcement [New York Times]

(Photo: lime*monkey)

Although the media frenzy over the last Harry Potter book has died down in the states, the French translation won't be released until the end of October, because the official French translator wasn't allowed to see the manuscript until the July 21st release date. Not content to wait that long, the unnamed teen and friends took care of the task themselves and posted it online.

In the Washington Post, a lawyer speaking on behalf of Rowling's agents said that they were "heartened" that French officials were taking steps to "avoid innocent fans being duped" (registration required). Aww, lawyer, why'd you have to go and say a jackassy thing like that? We were sort of on your side for once.

French Schoolboy held over Harry Potter translation [Telegraph]

(Photo: Getty)

But they did.

Now we're hearing rumblings a boycott of Regal Cinemas until they drop the charges against Ms. Sejas. From Free Culture @ NYU:

We demand that Regal Cinemas drop all charges against Jhannet Sejas, and that the entertainment group issue a full apology to the teen.
While the question of whether or not Jhannet's Transformers clip counts as fair use (it is our opinion that it does, as it is private, non-commercial use of an unsubstantial portion of the original), there is another question we should be asking, and that is whether or not we should be patronizing a corporation that insists on pressing charges against someone who is clearly not the intended target of anti-piracy laws. Regal Cinemas should be ashamed of itself and its silly zero-tolerance policy.

Boycott Regal Cinemas [Free Culture @ NYU]
Boycott Regal Cinemas: Teen Arrested for Recording 20 Second Movie Clip [Slashfilm]
(Photo:Andrew Ruess)

From the AP:

Sejas said the theater's assistant manager saw her holding up the digital camera and reported it to the general manager, who called police.

The Marymount University sophomore was charged with a misdemeanor and was banned for life from the Regal Cinemas Ballston Common movie theaters.

"I was terrified," Sejas said. "I was crying. I've never been in trouble before."

Arlington County police spokesman John Lisle said the theater wanted to prosecute the case, which is a first for the police department.

"They were the victim in this case, and they felt strongly enough about it," Lisle said.

Teen Faces Charges For Recording 20-Second Movie Clip [NBC4] (Thanks, Ian!)
(Photo:Wikipedia)

The site is fairly entertaining and contains the sentence:

"Try as it might, the NFL does not have complete control over any pictures, descriptions, or "accounts" of football games. Despite what they tell you, your "account" of the game over the workplace watercooler is not a felony."

The site also contains the full FTC complaint, which we plan on reading later over tea and cookies.
(PDF)

Defend Fair Use
(Photo:Paul Keleher)

From the Wall Street Journal:

The group wants the FTC to investigate and order copyright holders to stop wording warnings in what it sees as a misrepresentative way.

"We look forward to receiving their complaint and reviewing it," said an FTC spokeswoman.

Many warnings "materially misrepresent U.S. copyright law, particularly the fundamental built-in First Amendment accommodations which serve to safeguard the public interest," the complaint alleges. CCIA President Ed Black said the warnings create a "chilling effect," dissuading consumers from using portions of the content in ways that are lawful.

The CCIA said copyright holders should let audiences know they may have a right to reproduce some of the work. They even provide examples of how it can be done, as in this warning in the John Wiley & Son's 2007 book "Hotel California." The warning says, "No part of this publication may be reproduced...except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act," referring to the sections that deal with fair use and reproduction by libraries and archives.

Google, Others Contest Copyright Warnings [Wall Street Journal] (Thanks, Roger!)
CCIA

From Ars Technica:

The video of Stephanie Lenz's 18-month old son Holden was uploaded to YouTube back in February; Universal filed a DMCA claim against the clip in early June. Lenz responded with a counter-notification of her own at the end of the month, but the clip was never reinstated. Now, she has joined forces with the EFF to recover damages after she "has been injured substantially and irreparably," according to the court filing. Lenz wants money to cover her legal expenses and wants an affirmative judgment that her clip is not infringing.

Universal demands takedown of homemade dancing toddler clip; EFF sues [Ars Technica]

Innovate! Technology shut down Colon's auctions because he wasn't complying with their minimum advertised pricing. Colon buys his stuff from authorized wholesalers. In responding to Colon v. Innovate! Technology, Inc., No. 07-21349 (S.D. Fla.) [big PDF], IT cited the recent Supreme Court decision, Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, which overturned an 80-year old law against price-fixing, saying, "manufacturers have the right to sell [their] products at the retail level at a minimum price."

In Merle Norman Cosmetics v. LaBarbera, No. 07-60811 (S.D. Fla.), eBayer LaBarbera says she buys the makeup at flea markets. Merle says she buys it from salons, which violates an agreement Merle made with the salons to not sell the makeup online. Merle asserts its right to "require dealers to charge certain resale prices to promote interbrand competition," and that "the law is well settled that manufacturers like [Merle Norman] have the right to control the manner of distribution of their products."

Both these suits are pretty ridiculous (come one, getting sued for violating someone else's contract??), but it just shows how the Leegin ruling gave succor to the crackpot forces of anti-competitive, anti-consumerism.

Companies Claim Right to Interfere with eBay Auctions for Charging Too Little [Consumer Law & Policy]
(Photo: Ryan Fanshaw Photography)

The RIAA has argued that it would suffer irreparable harm unless immediate discovery was allowed, but Judge Garcia didn't find that argument convincing. "While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian 'suspension of disbelief' to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation," wrote the judge. "On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful."

Judge Garcia also notes that there is "no reasonable way" to ensure that prospective defendants are made aware of the lawsuits and requests for disclosure—which is exactly how the RIAA wants it. He wants to ensure that the John Does are notified and "are given a reasonable opportunity to intervene in order to stop the disclosure of sensitive information."

This is bad news for the RIAA, because as Ars Technica puts it "the problem with the approach is that it allows the RIAA to do an end-run around the legal process, as the would-be defendant never gets an opportunity to answer during the John Doe lawsuits and fight the RIAA's subpoenas." This ruling should make the litigation process more expensive for the RIAA, as the targets would be able to participate in the legal process from the beginning, instead of having to wait until it was over and they were mailed a settlement letter. —MEGHANN MARCO

Judge deals blow to RIAA, says students can respond to John Doe lawsuit [Ars Technica]