I recently wrote about Katz v. Chevaldina, where a real estate tycoon didn’t like a candid photo taken of him, so he bought the copyrights to the photo and sued a blogger to suppress the photo. The courts had no problem seeing the censorious overreach of the lawsuit, and a federal appellate court found decisively that the blogger qualified for fair use. Separately, the district court awarded the defendant over $150k of attorneys fees pursuant to copyright’s fee-shifting provision (17 USC 505). Though the plaintiff can surely afford it, the court’s message is clear: censoriously abusing copyright law doesn’t pay. A different court delivered the same message to the City of Inglewood, but instead of the fee award coming of a billionaire’s pockets, local taxpayers will bear the cost. UGH. A critic of the Inglewood mayor remixed videos from city council meetings to make his critical points and posted the remixed videos to YouTube. As we know, federal…
↧