Interessante caso di violazione di diritto di autore su personaggi animati in 3D, regolarmente registrati (come da diritto usa) deciso dal Distretto nord della California, 25.02.2022, Case 3:21-cv-06536-EMC, Moonbug c. Babybus. La sentenza riporta esempi grafici a colori messi a paragone.
La domanda di violazine viene contrastata con l’eccezione di fair use e conseguemente di abuso dello strumento di notice and take down (misrepresentations), previsto dalla norma di cui al titolo.
La somiglianza dei personaggi è notevole.
Il fair use non è concesso: <In sum, none of the four fair use factors tip in Babybus’s favor. Indeed, the first, second and fourth factors weigh decisively against Babybus. And, as to the third factor, despite the fact that Babybus already amended its affirmative defenses once and the Court provided Babybus with two opportunities to supplement the record with examples of videos that support its fair use defense after this motion was fully briefed and argued, Babybus still has not presented any arguments and allegations that tip the third factor in its favor. Even if the Court were to overlook Babybus’s failure to do so despite multiple opportunities, and assumed arguendo that Babybus could allege facts indicating that its copying was insubstantial, that would merely demonstrate one factor tips towards Babybus. Any such hypothetical showing would still be outweighed by the fact that the other three factors weigh conclusively against Babybus. Accordingly, the Court strikes Babybus’s fair use defense because it is implausible
Di conseguenza pure l’illecito da misrepresetnations a Youtube è negato, pur dopo approfondito esame delle allegazini del convenuto: Babybus fails to allege any specific misrepresentations in Moonbug’s DMCA takedown notices in its supplemental filings and identification of six exemplary videos. Cf. Docket No. 56,
63. It simply relies on the argument that Moonbug’s DMCA notices fail on the merits of their assertions of infringement because “there are no protectable similarities in protectable elements between these videos and the videos in Moonbug’s catalogue.” Docket No. 63 at 3. The claims of copyright infringement were not frivolous. Thus, Babybus’s allegations do not plausibly demonstrate the first element of its § 512(f) counterclaim — that Moonbug made material misrepresentations in its DMCA takedown notices filed with YouTube