On information and belief, as much as 89% of the content of the allegedly copyrighted materials grew out of a multi-part series of fan fiction called Masters of the Universe based on Stephenie Myer's Twilight novels. On information and belief, this content was published online between 2009 and 2011 in various venues, including fanfiction.net and the person website of Erika Leonard. On information and belief, much or all of this material was placed in the public domain.

Moreover, their unsupported assertion that “as much as 89% of the allegedly copyrighted material is derived from previously published, public domain fan fiction based on Stephanie Myers’ Twilight novels” is both deliberately misleading and legally flawed. Defendants suggest that the Fifty Shades Trilogy is “derived from” works by authors other than Erika Mitchell. However, Defendants are in fact referring to an earlier version of the same story written by Ms. Mitchell, which they in their own improper deposition notice identified as “Master of the Universe.” ..... Defendants do not and cannot provide any legal authority for the proposition that an earlier version of Ms. Mitchell’s work is now in the “public domain.” They can hardly defend their infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the Fifty Shades Trilogy by claiming that it is substantially similar to Ms. Mitchell’s own earlier work.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

“In a similar case, the prosecution and the Helsinki Court of Appeals have found that a parody site can violate the moral rights of the original author. Changing the logo or making slight edits to the text are not enough to remove this liability,” they informed the police.

“It’s interesting to see, how the police reacts to Pirate Bay’s demands. On facts the case is indeed very similar to Matti Nikki’s case, in which the prosecutor decided to bring the charges on behalf of Save the Children.

“The law should be the same for everyone so now the objectivity of the Finnish police is going to be tested. Anyway as others have already pointed out, even if Pirate Bay loses the case, it’s a victory for their cause.”

• Finnish prosecutors do absolutely nothing, thus exposing their complete double standard in enforcing the law.
• A lawsuit happens, and TPB "loses" the case, as it's an obvious parody situation which should be allowed -- and thus, TPB reinforces the protections for parody.
• A lawsuit happens TPB actually wins the case, which most people would equally recognize as preposterous after seeing the initial press coverage of the story.

box for the First XXX Adaptation promotes the infringing work as "[b]ased upon" the Fifty Shades Trilogy and as "[putting] the kinky fantasies that you only imagined into vivid color." According to a Smash Pictures executive's interview with L.A. Weekly, the First XXX Adaptation is "very true to the book," with the script written "to be as close to the series as (director Jim PowersJ can get." Due to the popularity of the Fifty Shades Trilogy, Smash Pictures expects that the First XXX Adaptation "just might be our biggest film to date."

By lifting exact dialogue, characters, events, story, and style from the Fifty Shades Trilogy, Smash Pictures ensured that the First XXX Adaptation was, in fact, as close as possible to the original works. Beginning with the First XXX Adaptation's opening scene and continuing throughout the next two and a half hours of the film, Smash Pictures copies without reservation from the unique expressive elements of the Fifty Shades Trilogy, progressing through the events of Fifty Shades of Grey and into the second book, Fifty Shades Darker. The First XXX Adaptation is not a parody, and it does not comment on, criticize, or ridicule the originals. It is a rip-off, plain and simple.

Dear mr.smashy,

We have received a Notice of Infringement from The North
Face
VF Outdoor, Inc. via the Yahoo! Copyright/IP Team and
have removed the following photo(s) from your photostream:

"Hey Fuck Face":
www.flickr.com/photos/wmode/3239565297/
"hey fuck face":
www.flickr.com/photos/wmode/230342956/
"AR-15 A4 MWS":
www.flickr.com/photos/wmode/3466868577/
"Buttstock Mag Pouch":
www.flickr.com/photos/wmode/3274481679/
"BWUSA": www.flickr.com/photos/wmode/1425898484/

Subsequent Notices of Infringement filed against your
account will result in further action that may include
termination without warning.

Mr. Park denied praising the North Korean government and said his intention was to lampoon the North Korean regime. In a North Korean post that he tweaked and sent out on Twitter, he replaced a swarthy North Korean soldier's face with a downcast version of his own and the soldier's rifle with a bottle of whiskey.

In his ruling, the presiding judge, Shin Jin-woo, acknowledged that some of Mr. Park's posts were parody. But he said Mr. Park's overall acts were tantamount to "supporting and joining forces with an antistate entity." The justice said his court suspended the prison term, however, because Mr. Park promised not to repeat his act.

The United Nations and human rights groups have called on South Korea for years to repeal or revise the law, which the country's past military dictators had used not only against people suspected of being spies but also against political dissidents. But the law has proved resilient in a society where many fear North Korea, which has launched military provocations against the South in recent years.

The Twitter account whose posts Mr. Park forwarded is run by the North Korean government Web site, Uriminzokkiri, which the South Korean news media regularly cite in their reports.

"My local [CENSORED*] bakery has this new policy - not strictly enforced, but kinda enforced - NO PHOTOS in the bakery department. None, nada. Per an ex-employee there, upper management is afraid that one of that store's specific cakes will be posted on 'that bad cake site.' Per what they tell you in the store, their cakes are 'all copyright protected.'"

We do not, of course, suggest that a parody may not harm the market at all, but when a lethal parody, like a scathing theater review, kills demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the Copyright Act.

Michael Gerber already had some published parodies under his belt (most recently the Barry Trotter series, from Gollancz, which also publishes spoofs like Bored of the Rings) when he was approached by a major publisher for his take on TV drama Downton Abbey. The writing was complete and the contracts were almost signed—but as he puts it:

And then somebody in New York started… thinking.

“What if [Downton Abbey creator] Julian Fellowes gets mad?”
“What if they hire another company to publish the official Downton Abbey Calendar/Tea Cozy instead of us?”
“What if I make the wrong decision and get fired?”


So even though Downturn Abbey is the most fun I’ve ever had writing a spoof, Mr. Big Publisher changed his mind and offered me a couple bucks to shred the manuscript.

The hell with that! I like this book too much to kill it.

So, rather than accept the kill fee, Gerber is trying to self-publish the book with crowdsourced funds—and with over 50% funding only a few days into the campaign, it looks likely that he'll hit his (relatively modest) goal of $3,500. It's interesting to see a publisher's legal panic serving as the prime motivation for a Kickstarter project. In the "Risks And Challenges" section that Kickstarter now requires on all projects, Gerber directly addresses the legal question, and takes an admirably principled stance:

Now, some of you might be thinking, "Won't he get sued?" I've been doing this professionally since 1991, and so far, so good. Parody — particularly print parody — has a very robust precedent, and I've specifically written Downturn Abbey to fall within it.

...

A right only exists if you exercise it, and one of the biggest reasons I'm crowdfunding this project instead of taking the kill fee is to assert the right to critique our shared culture via parody. Media corporations will extend their rights relentlessly, so if you like parody — in any medium — it's important to support it in print, because this is where it is most vulnerable. Nobody's suing Jon Stewart, but if parody gets rolled back, that's the logical next step. Downturn Abbey is a harmless bit of fun for fans of the show and the era, but if it can be suppressed out of corporate risk-aversion, sooner or later that attitude will have a chilling effect on the rest of comedy.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of copyright lawsuits and fair use defenses, it would cost a lot more than $3,500 to defend his stance in court. Hopefully, though, it won't ever come to that—the creators of (and anyone else with a copyright stake in) the show would hopefully realize that there's little point (and less honor) in trying to squash out parodies of this nature. However, Gerber's move also highlights the associated problem: even when something is as well-protected as parody, copyright law can have a huge chilling effect by making publishers nervous. Kickstarter and other tools for creators are, at least, helping to combat this—for a publisher, standing behind a parody is just another risk factor in the spreadsheet; for Gerber, it's a matter of standing up for his rights.

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that his satirical website does not infringe the trademark defendant has in his own name. Prior to filing a complaint, plaintiff's counsel was in contact with defendant via email. After filing the complaint, defendant and his wife publicly discussed the pending litigation. Plaintiff's counsel mailed defendant a request for waiver of summons to his address in Tucson, Arizona, which defendant did not execute. Instead, the entire envelope was mailed back to plaintiff, unopened, inside a second envelope. This same sequence of events was repeated after plaintiff filed an amended complaint. At plaintiff's request, the Court issued a summons, and plaintiff hired an Arizona process service company to serve the summons at the residential address. On the first visit, the server announced himself and was told “No thank you,” and left with the papers. On the second and third visits, nobody answered. The process service company then tried to serve the summons and complaint by certified mail, but the package was never claimed.

During this time, defendant contacted the general counsel of Walgreens, plaintiff's employer, stating plaintiff had used Walgreens' computer equipment or internet access to create the allegedly actionable website, and implying he might make Walgreens a party to the litigation under a theory of respondeat superior. The demand letter sent to Walgreens contained the same Tucson, Arizona address and email address that plaintiff had been using to attempt service on defendant.

The process server could easily wait outside the fence for defendant to enter or leave the residence and could then leave the papers in the defendant's presence. Alternatively, the process server may choose to wait near a location defendant is thought to frequent, such as an office or grocery store. If the defendant still refuses to accept the papers, it will be considered sufficient if the “server is in close proximity to the defendant, clearly communicates intent to serve court documents, and makes reasonable efforts to leave the papers with the defendant.”

The trademark lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan said the sale of hardcore and exploitive pornographic DVDs and related goods is tarnishing Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.'s name by creating an association with pornography. It said the claims arise from the distribution and sale of a series of DVDs containing "exploitative, hardcore pornographic films" featuring titles and themes based on "well-known and iconic" Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavors as well as packaging that contains key company features such as a grazing cow, green grass and large white puffy clouds.

It identified some of the X-rated names similar to its own as "Boston Cream Thigh," "New York Fat & Chunky" and "Peanut Butter D-Cup." Ben & Jerry's has ice cream flavors titled: "Boston Cream Pie," "New York Super Fudge Chunk" and "Peanut Butter Cup."

What is your main goal for this use?

In your original enquiry you have noted that you intended to make a video for the song but have said "maybe" in your request form. Is this principally for release as an mp3 single?

To be honest, my main intention is to make the song for my own amusement.

If I play it to few people who agree with me that it's fun and good, then I'll think seriously about making a video as cheaply as possible and releasing it on YouTube. I have a few people who are interested in helping with that, though they wanna hear it first.

If it gets any traction on YouTube, then I'll think about releasing it as an MP3 and via iTunes, etc ... I just wanted to clear everything properly first.

I just want to clarify with you that we are the licensing department of EMI Publishing, so we are quoting you on the synchronisation rights if you intend on using the work in a video clip. If you want to request approval to record and release this song you will need to get in contact with our copyright department.

Will you be getting a mechanical license from AMCOS before putting this song on youtube or will you be putting it on youtube before you get a mechanical license?

That depends on whether I am allowed to use Sony's backing music or whether I have to completely re-record it myself ... still no word from Sony.

My instinct is to clear everything before I do anything. If I know what it's all gonna cost me I can do up budgets and set targets and so on. I just figured that securing permission was the first step ...

So does this mean that you do not intend to release the song with a mechanical license prior to putting a video on youtube?

If you intend on getting a mechanical license first you will need to get approval to record and release an adaption but if you do not intend on releasing the song first you will need a synchronisation license.

We can not give you permission to do anything with the song until you commit to a sync license (internet video) or a mechanical license (release) so please confirm if and when you are ready to proceed.

OK, so let me get this straight: EMI will not contact the writer and ask for permission for me to make a parody unless I fork out $1000 upfront and possibly also a mechanical license ... for a song I might not be given permission to make and that might turn out to be unreleasable ...

Alternatively, they won't ask for permission for me to record the parody until ... I've recorded it and know what I'm gonna do with it. No wonder people are just breaking the rules and doing what they want with recorded music!

Here’s a rule worth following: Don’t sue your critics for copyright infringement.

IANAL, and certainly not a Swedish lawyer, so I've no idea if that's true, although it would be disturbing it if were, since parody is an important part of political discourse. In any case, it's troubling that copyright is being used in this way to shut down legitimate debate about important issues like energy policy and deforestation.

And there's another concern, which is highlighted in an interesting offer by the Swedish ISP Binero to host Greenpeace's parody site:

As a Swedish web host shut down the Greenpeace parody site Nestespoil.com after a law suit from Neste Oil, competitor Binero invited Greenpeace in, with the new site Nestespoilreturns.com. Binero considers the EU E-commerce directive 2000/31/EG and the consequent local laws to be absurd and that all sites must be allowed to have their legality tried by authorities. Current laws put web hosts, ISPs and other middle men at risk of being sued for damages unless they immediately shut down sites in unclear cases. Large corporations can stop sites simply by threatening middle men and we believe this is a threat to free speech.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

"It became clear to me at one point that I could not keep up with Charles," Modelista wrote. "His comments to the press were more damaging to his reputation than any Twitter parody account could ever be. You cannot mock someone who has such a low regard for his own reputation. Before the @Charles_Carreon account was suspended, I was simply linking to his interviews. Satire was not necessary at that point as Charles was providing it."

“It has come to our attention that you are causing public confusion through your use of Invisible Children’s copyrighted and trademarked property on www.kickstriker.com. This impermissible use is a blatant and egregious infringement of Invisible Children’s valuable copyright and trademark rights,” reads a letter Invisible Children sent last week and acquired by Danger Room. “[F]ailure to cease and desist your unlawful use of Invisible Children’s intellectual property will result in legal action.”

Among Invisible Children’s demands: “Confirm in writing that you have permanently deleted all electronic copies of the unauthorized and infringing materials from any computers, servers, or other distribution media”; take down any links to Invisible Children’s material; and declare “in a prominent location” that Kickstriker is “in no way associated with Invisible Children, Inc. or the Kony 2012 campaign.”

We noted during oral arguments that such a broad discovery request, surely entailing expensive e-discovery of emails or other internal communications, gives Brownmark the appearance of a "copyright troll."

...infringement suits are often baseless shakedowns. Ruinous discovery heightens the incentive to settle rather than defend these frivolous suits.

Moreover, the episode places Butters' WWITB video alongside other YouTube hits including, among others, the Numa Numa Guy, the Sneezing Panda and the Afro Ninja.

But after enduring two online attacks to my companies' reputation and databases, I've come to the conclusion that the protection businesses would get from the legislation is worth sacrificing privacy.

About a year ago, my company WebiMax was attacked by a person who stole our logo, created a mock Web site and misappropriated our tagline — Experience, Integrity, Results. He changed it to: "No experience, lack of integrity, no results." He posted commentary about WebiMax that was false and painted a negative image of us.

We got a preliminary injunction and the hosting company pulled it down. Three months later it popped back up on a hosting company in Ireland that works beyond the boundaries of the law. We believe we would not be going through this if the SOPA measure were in effect.

Opponents of the measures raise the privacy concerns stemming from the government’s proposed authority to monitor online activity and shut down Web sites that violate copyright laws.

I agree with that sentiment. I’d hate to have someone from the government reading my e-mails, too. But the reality is the protection the measures could offer businesses are worth the sacrifice in privacy to prevent another worst-case scenario.