Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
File Date: March 2007
Case Summary
Bill Clinton signed a copyright law in 1998 with the help of congress that would help move the United States forward into the digital age. Less than a decade later, that act would supply the legal provisions that would be the basis in which YouTube and parent company Google to protect itself against the global media conglomerate, Viacom International.
The name of that act is called The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and had a primary intent to limit the liability of the Internet service provider’s from copyright infringement from users.
In this case, Viacom filed a $1 Billion dollar suit to YouTube for the copyright infringement of its users claiming that the video-sharing site allowed users to access over 160,000 Viacom-owned videos without permission.
File Date: March 2007
Case Summary
Bill Clinton signed a copyright law in 1998 with the help of congress that would help move the United States forward into the digital age. Less than a decade later, that act would supply the legal provisions that would be the basis in which YouTube and parent company Google to protect itself against the global media conglomerate, Viacom International.
The name of that act is called The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and had a primary intent to limit the liability of the Internet service provider’s from copyright infringement from users.
In this case, Viacom filed a $1 Billion dollar suit to YouTube for the copyright infringement of its users claiming that the video-sharing site allowed users to access over 160,000 Viacom-owned videos without permission.
Conclusion
As a personal user of YouTube, this case sets a precedent for protection of the producer or the distributor of video content. If I am a producer of content that host my videos on YouTube I am in favor of the protection of the DMCA, just in case I use copyrighted material that I may not have known about.
I think in most cases users are not trying to violate any copyright infringements, they are just using the videos for entertainment value. However, YouTube, must be mindful on how to protect themselves of this type of infringement.
References:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/viacom-v-google-decision
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html
Emeco Industries, Inc. vs. Restoration Hardware, Inc.
File Date: October 2012
Case Summary
Emeco Industries is the home to the 68 year old Navy Chair that has been a staple in its furniture business from the very beginning. Over the decades the chair has been a symbol of that timeless American spirit of quality craftsmanship.
One chair sells for $495 and goes through a process of 77 steps from beginning to end. Recently, Restoration Hardware, a leading luxury furnishing retailer, "knocked off" the Navy Chair with a version of their aluminum chair that is of lesser quality and sells for only $169.
According to Emeco's press release, they filed for a preliminary injunction in US District Court, that blocks RH from,"manufacturing, marketing, advertising, and selling" their version of the iconic chair.
Conclusion
One aspect of my business will be creating physical objects that help become a staple in the brand that I am helping to build. This case is a classic example on making sure that I do due diligence in the beginning to file for all trademarks surrounding the product. I personally believe Restoration Hardware was fully aware of their version of the Navy Chair.
In my opinion they should have went directly to Emeco to get licensing rights to the chair or just do a collaboration of a similar chair at a lower price point.
References:
Emeco's CEO, Greg Buchbinder
http://vimeo.com/52378321
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2012cv05072/259495/
Penguin Group, Inc. vs. American Buddha, Inc.
File date: January 2011
Case Summary
According to its website, American Buddha online library, "makes available selected artistic and literary works under a system of voluntary, free online lending, under the fair use exclusion from copyright liability." They make these works available to 50,000 members for free. However, Penguin Group, who is an independent book publisher based in NYC who found four of their books that were uploaded to the site without permission and filed a copyright infringement suit against them.
Conclusion
This case got a little messy, because American Buddha was banking on the copyright implications only on "printed literary works" and thought that its users would be protected the DMCA. This is a lesson in making sure when producing and publishing literary works to make sure that the same legal ramifications and protection is applied to the print and the online version of any work to ensure protection.
References
http://www.american-buddha.com/abol.toc.htm
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9b9dd03e-3ac7-4457-b7ec-8215ad39adde
