Fair use – Lorenzo Albertini

Copyright e standards

La corte di appello del distretto di Columbia , 12.09.2023, No. 22-7063, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS, ET AL v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC., dà qualche interessante insegnamento sul tema (qui la pagina della corte mentre qui il link diretto al pdf).

Tre organizzazioni, che predispongno standard per certi settori di impresa, fanno causa a public.resource.org, per aver pubblicato centinaia di standards: il che violerebbe il copyright su di essi gravante.

Di questi la maggior parte era anche stata inserita (incorporate) nella legislazione usa.

La corte di appello dice che tale pubblicaizone da parte di https://public.resource.org/ costituisce fair use (per la parte incorporated).

I primi tre fattori del 17 us code § 107 sono a favore del convenuto.

L’ultimo (effetti economici sul mercato dell’opera protetta) è invece incerto: ma non basta a controbilanciare gli altri tre.

<<n ASTM II, we noted that Public Resource’s copying may harm the market for the plaintiffs’ standards, but we found the extent of any such harm to be unclear. 896 F.3d at 453. We noted three considerations that might reduce the amount of harm: First, the plaintiffs themselves make the incorporated standards available for free in their reading rooms. Second, Public Resource may not copy unincorporated standards—or unincorporated portions of standards only partially incorporated. Third, the plaintiffs have developed and copyrighted updated versions of the relevant standards, and these updated versions have not yet been incorporated into law. We asked the parties to address these issues, among others, on remand. See id.
The updated record remains equivocal. The plaintiffs press heavily on what seems to be a common-sense inference: If users can download an identical copy of an incorporated standard for free, few will pay to buy the standard. Despite its intuitive appeal, this argument overlooks the fact that the plaintiffs regularly update their standards—including all 185 standards at issue in this appeal. And regulators apparently are much less nimble in updating the incorporations. So, many of the builders, engineers, and other regular consumers of the plaintiffs’ standards may simply purchase up-to-date versions as a matter of course. Moreover, some evidence casts doubt on the plaintiffs’ claims of significant market injury. Public Resource has been posting incorporated standards for fifteen years. Yet the plaintiffs have been unable to produce any economic analysis showing that Public Resource’s activity has harmed any relevant market for their standards. To the contrary, ASTM’s sales have increased over that time; NFPA’s sales have decreased in recent years but are cyclical with publications; and ASHRAE has not pointed to any evidence of its harm. See ASTM III, 597 F. Supp. 3d at 240.
The plaintiffs’ primary evidence of harm is an expert report opining that Public Resource’s activities could put the plaintiffs’ revenues at risk. Yet although the report qualitatively describes harms the plaintiffs could suffer, it makes no serious attempt to quantify past or future harms. Like the district court, we find it “telling” that the plaintiffs “do not provide any quantifiable evidence, and instead rely on conclusory assertions and speculation long after [Public Resource] first began posting the standards.” ASTM III, 597 F. Supp. 3d at 240.
Finally, our analysis of market effects must balance any monetary losses to the copyright holders against any “public benefits” of the copying. Oracle, 141 S. Ct. at 1206. Thus, even if Public Resource’s postings were likely to lower demand for the plaintiffs’ standards, we would also have to consider the substantial public benefits of free and easy access to the law. As the Supreme Court recently confirmed: “Every citizen is presumed to know the law, and it needs no argument to show that all should have free access” to it. Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org., Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1498, 1507 (2020) (cleaned up)>>.

Sintesi sul quarto:

<<We conclude that the fourth fair-use factor does not significantly tip the balance one way or the other. Common sense suggests that free online access to many of the plaintiffs’ standards would tamp down the demand for their works. But there are reasons to doubt this claim, the record evidence does not strongly support it, and the countervailing public benefits are substantial.>>

Sintesi comlpèessiva: <<In sum, the first three factors under section 107 strongly favor fair use, and the fourth is equivocal. We thus conclude that Public Resource’s non-commercial posting of incorporated standards is fair use>>

La citazione in giudizio dell’associazione scrittori usa contro Open AI

E’ reperibile in rete (ad es qui) la citazione in giuidizio avanti il South. Dist. di New Yoerk contro Open AI per vioalzione di copyright proposta dalla importante Autorhs Guild e altri (tra cui scrittori notissimi) .

L’allenamento della sua AI infatti pare determini riproduzione e quindi (in assenza di eccezione/controdiritto) violazione.

Nel diritto UE l’art. 4 della dir 790/2019 presuppone il diritto di accesso all’opera per invocare l’eccezione commerciale di text and data mining:

<< 1. Gli Stati membri dispongono un’eccezione o una limitazione ai diritti di cui all’articolo 5, lettera a), e all’articolo 7, paragrafo 1, della direttiva 96/9/CE, all’articolo 2 della direttiva 2001/29/CE, all’articolo 4, paragrafo 1, lettere a) e b), della direttiva 2009/24/CE e all’articolo 15, paragrafo 1, della presente direttiva per le riproduzioni e le estrazioni effettuate da opere o altri materiali cui si abbia legalmente accesso ai fini dell’estrazione di testo e di dati.

2. Le riproduzioni e le estrazioni effettuate a norma del paragrafo 1 possono essere conservate per il tempo necessario ai fini dell’estrazione di testo e di dati.

3. L’eccezione o la limitazione di cui al paragrafo 1 si applica a condizione che l’utilizzo delle opere e di altri materiali di cui a tale paragrafo non sia stato espressamente riservato dai titolari dei diritti in modo appropriato, ad esempio attraverso strumenti che consentano lettura automatizzata in caso di contenuti resi pubblicamente disponibili online.

4. Il presente articolo non pregiudica l’applicazione dell’articolo 3 della presente direttiva>>.

Il passaggio centrale (sul se ricorra vioalzione nel diritto usa) nella predetta citazione sta nei §§ 51-64:

<<51. The terms “artificial intelligence” or “AI” refer generally to computer systems designed to imitate human cognitive functions.
52. The terms “generative artificial intelligence” or “generative AI” refer specifically to systems that are capable of generating “new” content in response to user inputs called “prompts.”
53. For example, the user of a generative AI system capable of generating images
from text prompts might input the prompt, “A lawyer working at her desk.” The system would then attempt to construct the prompted image. Similarly, the user of a generative AI system capable of generating text from text prompts might input the prompt, “Tell me a story about a lawyer working at her desk.” The system would then attempt to generate the prompted text.
54. Recent generative AI systems designed to recognize input text and generate
output text are built on “large language models” or “LLMs.”
55. LLMs use predictive algorithms that are designed to detect statistical patterns in the text datasets on which they are “trained” and, on the basis of these patterns, generate responses to user prompts. “Training” an LLM refers to the process by which the parameters that define an LLM’s behavior are adjusted through the LLM’s ingestion and analysis of large
“training” datasets.
56. Once “trained,” the LLM analyzes the relationships among words in an input
prompt and generates a response that is an approximation of similar relationships among words in the LLM’s “training” data. In this way, LLMs can be capable of generating sentences, p aragraphs, and even complete texts, from cover letters to novels.
57. “Training” an LLM requires supplying the LLM with large amounts of text for
the LLM to ingest—the more text, the better. That is, in part, the large in large language model.
58. As the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has observed, LLM “training” “almost
by definition involve[s] the reproduction of entire works or substantial portions thereof.”4
59. “Training” in this context is therefore a technical-sounding euphemism for
“copying and ingesting.”
60. The quality of the LLM (that is, its capacity to generate human-seeming responses
to prompts) is dependent on the quality of the datasets used to “train” the LLM.
61. Professionally authored, edited, and published books—such as those authored by Plaintiffs here—are an especially important source of LLM “training” data.
62. As one group of AI researchers (not affiliated with Defendants) has observed,
“[b]ooks are a rich source of both fine-grained information, how a character, an object or a scene looks like, as well as high-level semantics, what someone is thinking, feeling and how these states evolve through a story.”5
63. In other words, books are the high-quality materials Defendants want, need, and have therefore outright pilfered to develop generative AI products that produce high-quality results: text that appears to have been written by a human writer.
64. This use is highly commercial>>

Plagio di lettera da parte di un breve saggio: “The Kindest” in Larson v. Dorland Perry

La corte del Massachussets 14.09.2023 n. Case 1:19-cv-10203-IT, larson v. Dorland Perry, (segnalato e linkato dal prof. Edward Lee su X ).

Qui la peculiarità fattuale è che il lavoro plagiario si è evoluto in tre versioni, sempre più lontane dal lavoro originale.

Sulla substantial similarity : <<“Substantial similarity is an elusive concept, not subject to precise definition.” Concrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600, 606 (1st Cir. 1988). The inquiry is a “sliding scale”: If there are many ways to express a particular idea, then the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show substantial similarity is lighter. Id. at 606-07. Here, there are many ways to write a letter, even one dealing specifically with kidney donations. Larson Mem. SJ, Ex. 8 [Doc. No. 189-8] (examples of sample letters from organ donors/family members of organ donors to recipients); Id., Ex. 1 ¶ 7 (Larson Aff.) [Doc. No. 189-1]>>.

Sulle parti non originali:

<<However, “[n]o infringement claim lies if the similarity between two works rests necessarily on non-copyrightable aspects of the original—for example, ‘the underlying ideas, or expressions that are not original with the plaintiff.’” TMTV, Corp. v. Mass. Prods., Inc., 645 F.3d 464, 470 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted). “[I]t is only when ‘the points of dissimilarity not only exceed the points of similarity, but indicate that the remaining points of similarity are (within the context of plaintiff’s work) of minimal importance either quantitatively or qualitatively, [that] no infringement results.’” Segrets, Inc., 207 F.3d at 66. “‘The test is whether the accused work is so similar to the plaintiff’s work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff’s protectible expression by taking material of substance and value.’” Id. at 62. “While summary judgment for a plaintiff on these issues is unusual,” it may be warranted based on the factual record. Id.; accord T-Peg, Inc. v. Vt. Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, 112 (1st Cir. 2006)>>.

Sui dati fattuali sostenenti il giudizio di accertato plagio nella prima versione:

<<The 2016 Brilliance Audio Letter.8 As Larson concedes, the undisputed evidence mandates a conclusion that the 2016 Letter is substantially similar to the Dorland Letter. The Dorland Letter is approximately 381 words long, Dorland Mem. SJ, Ex. C [Doc. No. 181-3]; of those 381 words, the 2016 Letter copies verbatim approximately 100, and closely paraphrases approximately 50 more, Larson Mem. SJ, Appendix I [Doc. No. 193-1]. Many of these verbatim or near-verbatim lines gave the Dorland Letter its particular character, including: “My gift…trails no strings”; “I [focused/channeled] [a majority of] my [mental] energ[y/ies] into imagining and celebrating you”; “I accept any level of involvement,…even if it is none”; “To me the suffering of strangers is just as real”; and “I [wasn’t given/didn’t have] the opportunity to form secure attachments with my family of origin.” Id. The 2016 Letter also follows an identical structure to the Dorland Letter: a paragraph introducing the donor, including information on race, age, and gender; a paragraph explaining how the donor discovered the need for kidney donation; a paragraph explaining the donor’s traumatic childhood; a paragraph expressing the donor’s focus on the future recipient; a paragraph wishing the recipient health and happiness; and a concluding paragraph expressing a desire to meet. Id. Based on the documents before the court, the 2016 Letter took “material of substance and value” from the Dorland Letter in such a quantity and in such a manner that the points of similarity outweigh the points of dissimilarity. See Segrets, Inc., 207 F.3d at 62, 66.>>

Con analitico esame ravvisa comunque fair use.

Il giudice esclude tortiuous interference nelle continue dichiaraizoni dell’asserito plagiato verso le contriopati contrattiuali dell’asserito plagiante

Esclude anche che ricorra diffamazione.

Fair use nel software: la sentenza di appello in Apple v. Corellium

L’appello dell’11 circuito 8 maggio 2023, Apple v. Corellium, Case: 21-12835, decide un interessante caso di fair use nel software.

Si tratta del sftw CORSEC per simulare il sistema operativo iOS di Apple anche su macchine android.

La corte di appello conferma il fair use, dati i benefici per la collettività di tale sftw.

<< Like Google Books, CORSEC adds new features to copyrighted works. CORSEC allows re-searchers to visualize in real time iOS’s processes, freeze those pro-cesses and study them for as long as they need to, step backward and forward in time at will to closely monitor system activity, and run multiple experiments from the same starting point. CORSEC also adds file and app browsers. There’s no dispute that these fea-tures assist researchers and enable them to do their work in new ways. Corellium has thus “augment[ed] public knowledge by mak-ing available information about [iOS].” Id. at 207; see also A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630, 639 (4th Cir. 2009) (finding that copying student assignments into a database to detect plagiarism was “transformative” because the database’s “use of [the students’] works had an entirely different function and pur-pose than the original works”); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding that Google image search’s “use of thumbnails [was] highly transformative” because the “use of the images served a different function” than the original pictures by “improving access to information on the internet ver-sus artistic expression” (cleaned up)); Sony Comput. Ent., Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596, 606 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that a PlayStation emulator was “modestly transformative” because the emulator “create[d] a new platform, the personal computer, on which consumers can play games designed for the Sony PlayStation”) >>.

Apple solleva tre obieizoni, rigettate dalla Corte.

<<Against all this, Apple advances three arguments—all unpersuasive.

First, Apple argues that “making verbatim copies of a cop-yrighted work and converting [those works] into a different format is not transformative.” Apple is right. In Patton, for example, we found no transformative use where “verbatim copies of portions of . . . original books . . . ha[d] merely been converted into a digital format.” 769 F.3d at 1262. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit held that it was not transformative to convert copyrighted songs from CDs to MP3 files for download because the “original work[s] [were] merely retransmitted in a different medium.” See A&M Recs., Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1015 (9th Cir. 2001).
But this isn’t a case in which the original is simply repack-aged in a different format. Corellium adds several features that are not normally available on iOS. These include (1) the ability to see and halt running processes; (2) the ability to modify the kernel; (3) CoreTrace, a tool to view system calls; (4) an app browser; (5) a file browser; and (6) the ability to take live snapshots. They also include, for example, the ability to modify the trust cache so that researchers can install new programs on the device that allow the user to perform fuzzing (a way to find bugs in a product’s code) or other types of security research. The record, in other words, shows that there wasn’t verbatim copying here. And even if there were, Patton itself recognized that “verbatim copying may be transform-ative so long as the copy serves a different function than the origi-nal work.” 769 F.3d at 1262. Here, Corellium used iOS to serve a research function, and not as a consumer electronic device.
Second, Apple contends that “[s]ecurity research is not a transformative purpose because it is one of the purposes already served by Apple’s works.” Apple says that “security researchers have long used Apple-licensed versions of iOS to do their work.” Corellium (in our view) rightly points out the flaw in this argu-ment: it’s “like saying Google Books was not transformative be-cause scholars could manually search books for keywords by going to the library.” In other words, there’s no dispute that CORSEC “adds features that are not available on retail iOS that are useful for security research.” These features make security research far more efficient. See Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., 883 F.3d 169, 177 (2d Cir. 2018) (noting “the transformative purpose of en-hancing efficiency”). They also make possible deeper insights into the software. The fact that iOS itself allowed for some security re-search before, then, can’t negate Corellium’s innovation (just like sifting through books at the library didn’t negate Google Books’s transformativeness).
Third, Apple asserts that “the district court was wrong to find—on summary judgment—that the purpose of [CORSEC] is security research.” For this, Apple mostly points to evidence show-ing that customers can use CORSEC for multiple purposes. For example, Corellium’s expert testified that security research wasn’t CORSEC’s “exclusive use.” But transformativeness does not re-quire unanimity of purpose—or that the new work be entirely dis-tinct—because works rarely have one purpose. In assessing whether a work is transformative, the question has always been “whether a [transformative use] may reasonably be perceived.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 582 (emphasis added) (finding that a parody was transformative even though both a song and its parody serve the same function of entertainment). We don’t ask whether the new product’s only purpose is transformative.
The Supreme Court made this point in Google. In that case, Google used Java’s code “for the same reason that [Oracle] created those portions, namely, to enable programmers [to use shortcuts] that would accomplish particular tasks.” Google, 141 S. Ct. at 1203. But, at a higher level, the purpose was to create a “new product [that] offer[ed] programmers a highly creative and innovative tool for a smartphone environment.” Id. This higher-order purpose was what made Google’s product transformative. Id. As in Google, the mere fact that some purposes overlap does not pre-clude a finding of transformative use >>

Editori contro Internet Archive: sentenza della corte newyorkese sul fair use relativo alla digitalizzazione di libri cartacei

Distretto Sud di New York 24 marzo 2023, 20-cv-4160 (JGK), Hachette ed altri c. Internet Archive ed altri.

Interne Archive , non profit, durante la pandemia digitalizzò 127 libri cartacei di 4 editori e li mise on line. Questi agiscono in giudizio per violaizone di diritto di autore.

La difesa di IA consistette solo nell’eccezione di fair use (17 us code § 107).

Eccezione rigettata però.

Tra i punti più interessanti:

i) la differenza rispetto al caso Google Books (che pure digitalizza libri cartacei), ove fu ravvisato transformative use, sub A.1, pp. 19-20.

ii) l’aver ravvisato profit indiretto, anche se l’associazione è non profit, sub A.2 p. 26 ss

Protezione del personaggio di fantasia col diritto d’autore: la sentenza di appello conferma il Tribunale nel caso Clint Eastwood c. Rango

Con post 2.6.2021 avevo dato conto della setnenza di primo grado Trib. Roma 16.04.2021 che rigettava la domanda del produttore de <Per un pugno di dollari>.

Ora è stata emanata la sentenza di appello App. Roma n. 5432/2022, RG 6935/2021, rel. Romandini, che conferma il primo grado , ricalcandone la motivaizone.

Conferma che nel famoso film, riprodotto in minima misura (un minuto o poco più) in particolare nel suo personaggio più noto <L’uomo denza nome> (C. EAstwood) , il personaggio non è tutelabile perchè non disgiungibile dall’attore che lo impersonifica (C. Eastwood appunto).

Il quesito centrale, secondo il tribunale cui aderisce la CdA, sarebbe questo: <<La questione, tuttavia, attiene nel caso di specie, come in modo condivisibile spiegato dal
Giudice di prime cure, alla verifica se il personaggio “l’uomo senza nome”, non più comparso in
alcuna ulteriore opera cinematografica al di fuori dei lungometraggi costituente la c.d. “trilogia
del dollaro”, presenti profili pur minimi della creatività o piuttosto non costituisca “la
rielaborazione personale e non evolutiva (bensì contestualizzata nel mondo western) da parte
di Sergio Leone di prototipi noti alla narrazione letteraria e cinematografica e non ha acquisito
una penetrazione ovvero una permanenza nel pubblico , nella critica cinematografica o nelle
successive opere, così da renderlo qualificabile come opera creativa ed identificabile come tale>>.

Non so se sia esatta la valutazione: bisognerebbe provare a realizzare un corto con altro attore, ma uguale tutto il resto.

In ogni caso, questo aspetto (disgiungibilità) nella disciplina della proteggibilità del personaggio è importante.

Errata invece l’affermazione per cui la risposta al quesito è questione di fatto (<<Il Tribunale ha optato per la seconda soluzione. Si tratta, dunque, di una valutazione in punto di fatto operata che appare alla Corte, peraltro,
sorretta da adeguata e coerente motivazione >>): solo i fatti storici rientrano in essa, mentre il loro inquadramento nel concetto di creatività è giudizio in diritto.

La corte qualifica la brevità di riproduzione come <pura volontà di citazionismo … più che altro per rendere omaggio all’attore ed ad regista Sergio Leone >>. Affermazione assai dubbia, parendo invece voler riprodurre per lucrare, anche se abilmente riducendo il tempo per ridurre i rischi di violazione (difettano i requisiti dell’art. 70 l. aut.).

Significativa anche la discussione sull’eccezione di citazione, condotta però con motivazione non molto appfofondita . E’ invece giusta la critica di uso poco o nulla sorvegliato del termine fair use da parte del Trib.

V. il collage riportato da Girardello con post in IpKat 12.09.2022

e poi il video di RAngo, con link sempre offerto dal medesimo autore.

Diritto d’autore violato da tatuaggio?

Il Centr. Dist. della California, 31.05.2022, CV 21-1102 DSF (MRWx) , Sedlick v. Von Drachenberg e altri, affronta la proteggibilità di una fotografia nei confronti di una sua riproduzione su corpo umano tramite tatuaggio.

Si tratta di un’iconica, come si usa dire, rappresentazione di Miles Davis operata da un -pare- assai noto fotografo, tal Jeffrey Sedlik, il quale si accorge dai social del tatuaggio (sub C, p. 5)

I convenuti sono la tattoist e le due aziende coinvolte nell’attività (non il cliente che ricevette il tatuggio).

La corte non decide in via sommaria ma rinvia alla giuria.

Non sono in contestazione la proteggibilità nè il copiaggio. Solo che i convenuti dicono che la loro ripresa ha riguardato elementi non proteggibili della fotografia.

La Corte affronta la questione adoperando i soliti due test (estrinseco e intrinseco, distinzione di assai dubbia esattezza logico-giuridica)

Circa l’estrinseco, ritiene che <there is a triable issue of substantial similarity under the extrinsic test>, p. 16.
Analoga, ma opposta, conclusione per il test intrinseco: <The Court finds a reasonable juror applying the intrinsic test could conclude that the works are not substantially similar in total concept and feel. See Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended on denial of reh’g (Aug. 24, 2004) (“subjective
question [of] whether works are intrinsically similar must be left to the jury”). Because there are triable issues as to substantial similarity under both the extrinsic and intrinsic tests, the Court DENIES Sedlik’s motion as to copyright infringement>, ivi .
Ancora, la corte ritiene che ci fossero ampi margini di espressività, per cui cocnede la broad proteciuon, p.14.

le due riproduzioni sono queste:

Incerta la corte anche per l’eccezione di fair use e in particolare per i suoi quattro fattoro: alcuni li ritiene a favore di attore o convenuto , altri invece allo stato non decidibili e meritevoli di esame da parte della giuria sub 2, p. 17 ss

Nessun cenno al peculiare supporto di esecuzione della riproduzione (corpo umano) nè a problemi di attuazione di eventuali ordini di rimozione o distruzione (si dice che i tatuaggi siano difficilmente cancellabili)

(notizia , link alla sentenza e link alle due immagini dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)

Riprodurre giornalisticamente uno screenshot di articolo di giornale e di fotografia ivi presente può essere lecito per fair use?

Dice di si la corte di appello del 2 circuito 29.03.2022, Yang c. Mic Network, 20-4097-cv(L), confermando il primo grado: ricorrono infatti i requisiti previsti dal 17 U.S. Code § 107.

Fatto: < Stephen Yang sues Mic Network Inc. (“Mic”) for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501. The copyright at issue protects a photograph of Dan Rochkind taken by Yang and licensed to the New York Post for its article Why I Won’t Date Hot Women Anymore. Yang alleges that Mic, without obtaining a license, used a digital screenshot of the Post article—including its headline and a
portion of the photograph of Rochkind—as the banner image of its article Twitter Is Skewering the ‘New York Post’ for a Piece on Why a Man ‘Won’t Date Hot Women’.>

Il diritto azionato è dunque quello di autore su fotografia.

Da noi tale riproduzine si collocherebbe probabilmente tra il diritto di informazione e la satira

L’articolo dell’editore Mic dovrebbe essere questo .

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman, ove pure riproduzione dello screenshot)

Copiare da un forum ad un altro threads, contenenti post diffamatori e soggetti a copyright, non preclude il safe harbour e costituisce fair use

Copiare post (anzi interi threads) da un forum ad un altro (in occasione ed anzi a causa di cambio di policy nel 2017) non impedisce la fruzione del safe harbour ex 230 CDA in caso di post diffamatori ; inoltre, quanto al copyright , costituisce fair use.

così il l’appello del primo circuito conferma il primo grado con sentenza 10.03.2022, caso n. 21-1146, Monsarrat v. Newman.

Quanto al § 230 CDA, il giudizio è esatto.

La prima piattaforma era LiveJournals, controllata dalla Russia; quella destinataria del trasferimento (operato da un moderatore) è Dreamwidth.

(sentenza a link alla stessa dal blog del profl Eric Goldman)

Copyright su personaggi in 3D, fair use e counterclaim per misrepresentations ex § 512.d DMCA

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