Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

copyright owner. The plaintiff alleged that he used a software script to automate addingcopyright notices and information regarding the license and uploaded the files on the Internetthrough Source-Forge.net, and that the defendants downloaded the files and removed the namesof the authors and copyright holder, title, reference to the license, where to find the license andthe copyright notices, and instead, renamed the files and referred to their own copyright noticeand named themselves as author and copyright owner. The court denied the motion to dismiss.It cited the IQ Group case’s holding that the statute should be construed to protect CMIperformed by the technology measures of automated systems, but found that the complaintalleged there had been some technological process engaged to protect the information insertedinto the files. Thus, absent further discovery, the court found it inappropriate to dismiss the CMIclaim. 938 (v) Associated Press v. All Headline News Corp.In this case, the defendant gathered news stories on the Internet, including those of theAssociated Press, and prepared them for republication by its customer sites under its own banner,either rewriting the text or copying the stories in full. It instructed its reporters to remove or alterthe identification of the AP as author or copyright holder of the articles. AP brought a claim forcommon law “hot news” misappropriation and for violation of Section 1202. The defendantbrought a motion to dismiss the claims, which the court denied. With respect to the CMI claim,the court rejected the IQ Group court’s definition of CMI as limited to copyright managementperformed by the technological measures of automated systems. The court found that definitionto be inconsistent with the text of the statutory definition, which makes no reference to “thetechnological measures of automated systems.” Accordingly, the court denied the motion todismiss the CMI claim. 939(vi) Silver v. LavadeiraThe plaintiff published certain news reports on her web site and placed her name withinthe reports. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant copied certain information from her reportsand violated Section 1202 by omitting her name from the copied material. The court ruled,based on IQ Group, that CMI is limited to components of technological measures functioning asautomated systems, and that the plaintiff’s name did not constitute CMI because she had notalleged that an automated technological system was responsible for the inclusion of her name inthe news reports. 940(vii) Fox v. HildebrandIn this case, the court rejected the Ya Ya Brand and IQ Group cases, ruling that CMI isnot limited to notices that are digitally placed on a copyrighted work. The court found that the938939940Id. at 934.Associated Press v. All Headline News Corp., 608 F. Supp. 2d 454, 457 & 461-62 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).Report and Recommendation, Silver v. Lavandeira, No. 08 Civ. 6522 (JSR) (DF) at pp. 2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7,2009) (recommendation of magistrate judge), adopted in its entirety by the district court in Silver v. Lavandeira,2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15491 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2009).- 209 -