We're not naming names, but many bloggers quote liberally from Associated Press stories. Sharing news from the mainstream media, and then digesting it and editorializing on it, is a big part of what we do. And the AP is a big part of the mainstream media.
So our ears perked up when we read that the AP is meeting with the Media Bloggers Association to discuss "standards for online use of AP stories." We imagine there will be quite a few lawyers at the meeting, and an extensive conversation about fair use of copyrighted material.
Wendy Seltzer, a legal scholar and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, said it was encouraging that AP wanted to find an arrangement with bloggers to facilitate a mutually agreeable way for them to use AP content.
It sounds like the AP is looking to the future. The AP is likely thinking about new sources of revenue, and charging online outlets for use of their stories could offer the AP a way to make up for cuts from shrinking newspaper budgets.
But [Seltzer] cautioned that the news organization, a not-for-profit cooperative owned by its member newspapers and broadcasters, should not try to go beyond what's legally permissible.
"If they take those guidelines and start using them to refine the way they make complaints, and if they closely match the law, then it's helpful -- it's a restraint on their own legal department," Seltzer said.
"If they were on the other hand to say, you may use 10 words only and any time you use 11 we'll send a takedown notice, that wouldn't be helpful," Seltzer said.
Wendy, next time, could you tighten up your quotes to 10 words or less?
The Wall Street Journal has been writing about Mattel's lawsuit against Bratz and has a rundown on the upcoming trial on the WSJ Law Blog. Bratz, "the only girls with a passion for fashion," knocked Barbie from her throne when they hit stores in 2001. At issue in Barbie's suit is whether the man behind the Bratz concept was at Mattel when he dreamed up the attitude-laden dolls.
Allegedly, the person who broke the news to Barbie about the designer's possible betrayal is now a blogger at Jezebel. In 2003, when she broke the story, she was writing as Maureen Tkacik at the Wall Street Journal. Now, she's Moe at Jezebel and she's ignoring her summons for the trial!
Her Jezebel post starts off, "I'm supposed to be in court in Riverside County, California right now." She's totally got the Bratz spirit:
[Mattel] finally convinced me and seven or eight lawyers to show up in a conference room someplace downtown for a few hours of grilling about a story about which I couldn't have ethically provided any information even if I remembered it, which I of course did not. As we left, my lawyer, the in-house counsel of Dow Jones, marveled at the billable hours that had been assembled for our presence alone. It was enough to fund a reality show-worthy bar mitzvah. And they'd been at this case for years!
Today the case is supposed to go to trial and I am apparently, according to an email from the Gawker office manager, to be there, although I am not, because I don't leave my house to buy toilet paper if there is perfectly decent newspaper lying around, and the thing is going down in California.
Last year, Viacom filed a $1 billion suit against Google-owned YouTube, asserting widespread copyright infringement. We predicted a smackdown, and that day has come.
Viacom filed an amended complaint [PDF] last month, saying it had found over 150,000 unauthorized clips of copyrighted material on YouTube. In its answer [PDF], Google says YouTube responds properly when made aware of copyrighted content, and said Viacom's suit threatens our way of life... pretty much. From the Associated Press:
A $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit challenging YouTube's ability to keep copyrighted material off its popular video-sharing site threatens how hundreds of millions of people exchange all kinds of information on the Internet, YouTube owner Google Inc. said.
Google's lawyers made the claim in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the company responded to Viacom Inc.'s latest lawsuit alleging that the Internet has led to "an explosion of copyright infringement" by YouTube and others.
The back-and-forth between the companies has intensified since Viacom brought its lawsuit last year, saying it was owed damages for the unauthorized viewing of its programming from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks, including such hits as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."
It's sad that MTV no longer has the spirit of rock-and-roll rebellion and has officially become The Man.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:30 PM - By David Lat
Do you have a Scrabulous problem? Are you addicted to the online version of Scrabble, which you can play via Facebook?
We had a Scrabulous addiction for a while, until we forswore the game. We're finishing up current games; in fact, we just scored a bingo right before posting this ("OPERATED" -- see board at right). But we are not starting or participating in new matches.
If you've been finding your own productivity impaired by Scrabulous, however, you may not need to give up the application. It may be taken out of your hands, over your protest. From the BBC:
Facebook has been asked to remove the Scrabulous game from its website by the makers of Scrabble. The Facebook add-on has proved hugely popular on the social network site and regularly racks up more than 500,000 daily users. Lawyers for toy makers Hasbro and Mattel say Scrabulous infringes their copyright on the board-based word game.
The move has sparked protests by regular fans of Scrabulous keen to keep the add-on running. Scrabulous is currently one of Facebook's ten most popular applications - little programs that Facebook members can add to the profiles they maintain on the site....
The Scrabulous add-on was not created by Facebook but was built for the site by Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla - software developers based in Kolkata.
Apparently Hasbro and Mattel don't look kindly on outsourcing to India -- unlike, say, lawfirms. We'll keep you posted about the fate of this game.
Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:35 AM - By David Lat
Sometimes it seems like we talk about the same handful of general practice Biglaw shops again and again. So let's mix things up a bit. Here's a suggestion from a loyal reader:
I'm in the field of patent law. It might be interesting to post a Fall Recruiting Thread that discusses both patent boutiques (Finnegan Henderson, Fizpatrick Cella, Kenyon & Kenyon) and general practice firms with a strong IP practice (Kirkland, Irell, MoFo, Jones Day, Ropes & Gray).
Yes, it might. So here's that post -- an open thread in which people can talk about firms that specialize in or excel at intellectual property law.
(Last month we had a post dedicated to discussion of compensation issues at IP firms. But this open thread is intended to be broader, to go beyond pay to discuss quality of life, strong practice areas, type of work, etc. Enjoy.)
(In preemptive response to those of you who are sick and tired of this story: relax. It's on its last legs. But if the New York Times writes about us, of course we're going to acknowledge it. Capice?)
For those of you were on vacation last week -- and we know many of you were, based on all the "Out of Office AutoReply" messages we received -- you missed a fun story here at ATL.
But don't worry. If you don't have time to read our voluminous coverage of the Nixon Peabodytheme song, here are some cheat sheets.
You can read this New York Times story, by Michael de la Merced, which nicely summarizes the saga. Or this post, by Peter Lattman, over at the WSJ Law Blog.
Best of all, for those of you who can watch videos -- some of you can't, 'cause you don't have a private office -- check out this awesome video. It appeared over the weekend, but we're reposting it, because many of you don't visit ATL on the weekend (and it would be a shame for you to miss it).
Sadly, the humorless crew over at Nixon Peabody has had their fabulous law firm song -- which, mind you, is NOT a theme song -- pulled from YouTube. See here.
Even if it's gone from YouTube, you can still access "Everyone's A Winner" as a plain-vanilla MP3 file. Just click here. We incorporate by reference all of our prior commentary on the song.
This memorable tune will also live on in the blogosphere. Numerous fine websites and blogs picked up on the story of the Nixon Peabody song controversy. Here are a few links:
We've been in touch with representatives of the Nixon Peabody law firm about the musical composition that we posted (mp3) and wrote about this morning. First they sent us a statement by email:
"This song was put together in celebration of Nixon Peabody's Fortune100 'Best Places to Work' recognition. Nixon Peabody aims to be the best law firm to work with and the best law firm to work for. Fun is not prohibited here."
Fair enough. But then we spoke with two firm spokespersons by telephone. They called us.
It wasn't a very "[f]un" conversation. They weren't happy campers. Even if they may be winners, since "everyone's a winner at Nixon Peabody."
They emphasized that the song was internal to the firm and is protected by copyright. They also insisted that it is NOT a "theme song" -- in any way, shape or form.
They demanded to know who sent the song to us. We informed them that we don't reveal our sources, unless served with a subpoena (and maybe not even then -- a Judy Miller-style jail stint might be good publicity for ATL).
They asserted copyright over the song and asked us to take it down, from our site and from YouTube. We stated our view that posting and commenting on the song constitutes fair use. It also falls within our newsgathering mission as a media organization.
We explained that our site is all about law firms and the legal profession. They said: "We know what you're about."
They claimed the person who leaked this song is "in a fight" with Nixon Peabody, and menacingly stated that they (meaning NP) "don't intend to let this thing lie." We informed them that we have no desire to get involved in the firm's purported dispute with this unnamed individual. And that's where we left things.
Seventies power-pop band the Rubinoos sues Avril Lavigne, claiming her cheerleader-rock song "Girlfriend" sounds like their 1978 track "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend." Curiously, neither Toni Basil nor the Ramones, both of whom the song gloriously does rip off, are party to the suit.
Wondering if the Rubinoos' suit has merit? You be the judge:
In our opinion, other than the "hey hey you you" part -- words that, of course, appear in 27 percent of all pop songs -- we don't think the two works sound that similar. But that's just our opinion.
In addition to handing down some big opinions, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a number of cases. As noted by SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston, the Court denied certiorari in a significant antitrust case, as well as a pair of test cases raising constitutional issues in the immigration context.
But the most important cert denial was surely Aisha v. Madonna, No. 06-1389. A blurb about this battle of the mono-monikered musicians, from a reader:
Why nothing about this crazy diva? Her case is discussed by Marty Lederman over at SCOTUSblog.
Aisha Goodison seems right up your alley. She's more than a little nutty, "strong," fearless, and with a bad attitude. (Gotta love the pictures of Madonna and Gwen Stefani on her website).
I glanced over her cert petition and she's pro se. Does that mean she wrote her own complaint? If not, who is helping her out? Just how crazy is she?
(An explanatory note for those of you who couldn't care less: Topshop is an H&M-esque retailer that rips off designs from everybody so that broke girls and boys can swath themselves in sweatshop-produced crap and still have money left over for cigarettes.)
* Power may be the great aphrodisiac, but in my experience, sexual harassers in the professional workplace are just pervs or losers who couldn't find a date in high school. Sometimes it's that simple. [Feminist Law Professors]
* In these violent times, "Red Asphalt" just doesn't do the trick in scaring the bejesus out of high school drivers. [Central Ohio]
* School lunches + biometrics = ACLU. Of course. [Turn to 10]
[Ed. note: ATL will be on a pretty laid-back publication schedule today. It's Good Friday, the markets are closed, and many folks are probably traveling for the holiday weekend. We will be posting, but not at our regular pace.]
* Surveillance laws outdated? He's probably referring to all of those pesky constitutional protections. [Jurist]
* Dude. You gotta make sure you're getting the right one when you're messing with the huevos. That's just not cool. Not cool at all. That guy deserves a bazillion dollars. [CNN]
* If you’re not spreading your music like herpes, then you’re just paying an extra 30 cents for the same product you’ve always been buying; as a side note, doesn’t Damon Alburn look dreamy these days? [New York Times]
* The SEC wants to be more like a friend than a parent, but watch out if you try to sneak out of the house after curfew on a school night. [FT.com via MSN]
* She may fight it until she regains her dignity writes another best seller, but chances are that I’ll get my groove back before she does. [New York Magazine’s Daily Intelligencer]
The legal ninjas of Cobra Kai Kobre & Kim are coming after our friends at DealBreaker. Yikes.
Good luck, guys! We're pulling for you.
P.S. Our esteemed colleague, DealBreaker editor John Carney, is also a lawyer (who practiced at Skadden for several years). So he's not as easily intimidated by scary lawyer letters as most other blog editors.
Update: Filing lawsuits against bloggers -- all the coolkids are doing it!
This was widely predicted as a consequence of Google's acquisition of YouTube. If you combine a website that allegedly engages in "massive intentional copyright infringement" with the deep pockets of one of America's largest companies, you're asking for lawsuits. From the AP:
MTV owner Viacom Inc. sued the popular video-sharing site YouTube and its corporate parent, Google Inc., on Tuesday, seeking more than $1 billion in damages on claims of widespread copyright infringement.
Viacom claims that YouTube has displayed more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon.
As noted by the WSJ Law Blog, Viacom is represented by Jenner & Block in DC. We're curious to find out who gets tapped by Google for defense. We're looking forward to an interesting fight -- which, in addition to supplying entertainment value, will hopefully also clarify the proper operation of copyright law in cyberspace.
Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:13 PM - By David Lat
More legal troubles for controversial celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton, aka Mario Lavandeira. The latest lawsuit against him, filed by Universal City Studios, asserts copyright infringement, arising out of Lavandeira's publication of a topless photograph of Jennifer Aniston (taken from allegedly stolen footage from "The Break-Up").
The complaint is fairly straightforward. The most amusing part of the filing is an exhibit to the complaint: the topless Jennifer Aniston pic, with a strategically situated "Redacted" stamp:
During our time in commercial litigation, we got to know the "Redacted" stamp very well -- perhaps too well. But we never saw the "Redacted" stamp used in quite such an interesting way.
We suspect that the Court will order an in camera examination of the unredacted photograph. Especially if the case winds up before Judge Manuel Real.
We're not naming names, but many bloggers quote liberally from Associated Press stories. Sharing news from the mainstream media, and then digesting it and editorializing on it, is a big part of what we do. And the AP is a big part of the mainstream media.
Continue reading "Bloggers Everywhere Are Quaking"
(10) Comments
Do you have a 
* Happy Birthday, Mrs. President! Scott Shrake conducts an astrological analysis of Hillary Clinton. [
Sometimes it seems like we talk about the same handful of general practice Biglaw shops again and again. So let's mix things up a bit. Here's a suggestion from a loyal reader:
Right now some of you are probably thinking: "Enough already about Alberto Gonzales and Michael Vick! Isn't there anything else you can write about?"
They emphasized that the song was internal to the firm and is protected by copyright. They also insisted that it is NOT a "theme song" -- in any way, shape or form.
In addition to handing down some 
* Like you, this attorney and concerned citizen opted for law school because science just wasn't her thing. [
[Ed. note: ATL will be on a pretty laid-back publication schedule today. It's Good Friday, the markets are closed, and many folks are probably traveling for the holiday weekend. We will be posting, but not at our regular pace.]
The legal ninjas of 
This was widely predicted as a consequence of Google's acquisition of YouTube. If you combine a website that allegedly engages in "massive intentional copyright infringement" with the deep pockets of one of America's largest companies, you're asking for lawsuits. From the 
