Buzz
Copyright law has become extremely convoluted with the rise of the Internet. Companies are growing increasingly paranoid about safeguarding their intellectual property. Some would say their fears are warranted, considering the vast amounts of pirated material circulating online. However, at times, these corporations go overboard with their actions.
10. The Purring Cat Video
In 2015, a YouTube user received a notification from the platform informing him that one of his videos was being removed. EMI Music had filed a formal complaint accusing him of copying one of their tracks—which was quite puzzling, as the video was simply a looped recording of Digihaven’s cat purring for an hour, uploaded the previous year.
It’s unclear why EMI Music or YouTube’s algorithms decided that a cat’s purr resembled a summer dance anthem, but they were confident enough to take down the video and demonetize the entire channel. This was a major setback for Digihaven, as it meant he could no longer earn money from uploading videos—a legitimate source of income for many in today’s digital age, even though it’s hard to believe for those of us who are over 30.
Digihaven's situation was resolved swiftly once the news broke, but he’s far from the only one to face legal consequences for animal noises. Another YouTube user found themselves receiving a copyright claim from the record label Rumblefish after the chirping of a bird in the background of their video was found to closely resemble one of their tracks.
9. A Photograph of a Star Wars Action Figure
The action figure this individual had purchased turned out to be one that wasn’t meant to be sold until the following day. Disney wasn’t ready for the public to see the toy’s design just yet. They filed a complaint accusing the person of leaking an unreleased product, preventing the world from discovering what a children's toy looked like just a little ahead of its official launch.
Fans weren’t exactly pleased. One pointed out, “It’s not unreleased if you can walk into Walmart and buy the damn toy!” The Electronic Frontier Foundation also stepped in, with their legal team clarifying that Disney had no legal authority to demand the image be removed.
The couple running the fan group, however, adopted a more diplomatic stance and kindly asked Disney for permission to repost the image. Disney responded positively, allowing them to put it back up and advising their followers that it was proof of how “taking the high road” pays off.
It turns out, maybe it doesn’t really pay to take the high road after all.
8. Photographing Your Food
If you’re one of those people who can’t enjoy a meal until it’s shared on Instagram, Germany might not be the place for you. Over there, if you snap a photo of your dish, the chef has the legal right to sue—and they’re likely to win.
The law only applies if the chef puts some effort into the dish's presentation. So, you’ll probably be fine taking a picture of a McDonald’s hamburger, but if they add a sprig of parsley, it becomes legally considered “art,” and you’ll need the chef’s permission to take a photo.
No one has actually tested this law yet, likely because of the public outrage that would surely follow, but many people have considered doing so. Several chefs have voiced complaints about people photographing their food, claiming that these images steal intellectual property from the restaurant. Plenty of restaurants have posted signs banning pictures, and if anyone ever tried to sue over it, the court would likely rule in favor of the restaurant.
7. Creating A Playlist On Spotify
Ministry of Sound, a British record label, sued Spotify in 2013 over their user-generated playlists. They didn’t own the copyrights to the songs, they didn’t represent the artists who’d written them, and they couldn’t claim that Spotify didn’t have the legal right to stream them. They just didn’t like how people had organized their playlists.
The Spotify users had made playlists that had the same songs as some compilation CDs Ministry of Sound had released in the past. Even though they didn’t own the songs, they felt that they’d had come up with the very creative idea of listening to those songs in that order.
Spotify ended up settling the case out of court, and while it’s not clear exactly what deal was made, it seems like Ministry of Sound got their way. Any playlist that seemed similar to their compilation CDs was removed from Spotify’s search engine.
Ministry of Sound still wasn’t satisfied, though. They went one step further and made their own app, meant to blow Spotify out of the water. It might take a while before their app puts Spotify out of business, though. One reviewer, after repeatedly trying to use it, wrote: “Nothing would play and both times the app promptly shut down.”
6. A Woman’s Middle Name
In 2014, a UK woman named Laura Elizabeth Skywalker Matthews was denied when she tried to renew her passport—because her name violated a copyright.
In fairness to the passport office, “Skywalker” wasn’t her birth name. She added the extra middle name in 2008 for what she called “a bit of a laugh.” Her name change was approved, though, and she’d already been sent a new driving license, bank card, and everything else imaginable showing her new name.
The passport office alone refused to give her a new passport, telling her that they “will not recognise a change to a name which is subject to copyright or trademark.” And they continued to refuse until she had a lawyer sue the office and force them to give her one.
It’s an odd case, but not the only one where someone’s been sued for their name. Dr. Dre once attempted to sue a gynecologist named Dr. Drai, claiming that their similar names could confuse people into thinking it was him. The lawsuit even went to court, where a judge had to explain to Dr. Dre that it was highly unlikely that anyone would mistake a former NWA member who switched from rapping to gynecology.
5. Attempting to Repair Their Own Tractors
Farmers have been challenging John Deere over the right to fix their own tractors. The newer tractors come with built-in computers that monitor the engine, and they prevent owners from performing repairs on their own.
These computers are equipped with a digital lock that requires a key to be entered before any repairs can begin—even if the issue is something as simple as a loose belt. If a farmer’s tractor breaks down, they must either visit a licensed John Deere dealer or wait for a technician to come and enter the key, which incurs an initial fee of $230 plus $130 for every additional hour spent.
Farmers can bypass the digital lock using programs found online, but John Deere is prepared to take legal action against anyone who does so. They view using code-cracking tools as intellectual property theft and are willing to threaten fines up to $500,000 and five years in prison for anyone who dares to fix a tractor without paying the required fees.
4. Teaching People How to Fix MacBooks
Louis Rossman makes a living by teaching people how to repair electronics on YouTube. However, when he posted a video demonstrating how to fix MacBooks, he almost lost everything.
In 2016, Apple sent Rossman a letter filled with subtle threats, accusing him of breaching their copyrights by showing viewers the schematics of their computers. The full contents of the letter have never been made public, but Rossman strongly hinted that Apple had threatened to raid his repair shop, shut down his YouTube channel, and put him out of business.
"We have the right to repair your junk," Rossman ranted in a furious blog post. "We have the right to fix what you messed up, without charging customers $650 just because we had to buy the part from you."
In the end, Apple decided to drop the charges, probably due to the massive publicity Rossman gained. However, Rossman was lucky—Apple has gone ahead with suing other, smaller iPhone repair businesses over the same issues.
3. A YouTube Video Stolen by Family Guy
The show Family Guy included a full one-minute segment in one of its episodes that was essentially just the characters talking over a YouTube video someone had uploaded.
The video was footage from an old video game called Double Dribble, showing how to make a corner shot that would always result in a three-pointer. The video was left mostly untouched, with the only change being that Family Guy added running commentary from their characters—without seeking permission to use it.
You might expect this story to end with Family Guy facing a lawsuit, but that’s not what happened. Instead, after taking the video, Fox filed copyright claims against the person who originally uploaded it—the one they had plagiarized.
The YouTube video had been online for seven years before the Family Guy episode aired, but somehow Fox succeeded in getting it removed, replacing it with a notice saying: "This video contains content from FOX, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."
The video creator didn't cause much of a stir. Even though he had a strong case for a lawsuit, he simply requested that they restore his video. He expressed gratitude toward Fox for using his content, seeing it as free publicity, and told them: 'All I wanted was my own video back.'
2. A Photographer Protecting Her Own Image
In 2016, Carol Highsmith received a cease-and-desist letter from Getty Images, warning her of legal action unless she removed a photograph (shown above) from her website. This was puzzling, as she had taken the photo herself and placed it in the public domain.
A few years earlier, Highsmith had donated 100,000 of her photos to the Library of Congress for anyone to use freely, without royalties. The Library of Congress considered it 'one of the greatest acts of generosity in its history'—while Getty Images, it seems, viewed it as an opportunity to profit from someone else's benevolence.
Getty took control of 18,755 public domain photographs from Highsmith and began issuing cease-and-desist letters to people using them—Highsmith included. In retaliation, she sued for $1 billion. Unfortunately, the outcome of this saga doesn’t bring any satisfaction.
The court sided with Getty, arguing that: “Public domain works are routinely commercialized, and original creators have no power to prevent this.” Essentially, even though Highsmith’s donation gave the public free access to her photos, Getty was still allowed to force people to pay for using them. Although the letter sent to Highsmith was acknowledged as a mistake, Getty faced only a minimal consequence.
Anyone is free to demand payment for things in the public domain, even though no one is legally required to comply. However, there’s no obligation to inform people about this fact.
1. Publishing The State Of Georgia’s Laws
The laws of Georgia are copyrighted. If you wish to access them, you’ll need to purchase a physical copy for $1,207.02 or a digital version for $1,259.41. Otherwise, they’re not available to the public for free.
Many have tried to challenge this situation. Carl Malamud, an information activist, believed everyone should have access to the laws of their home state. He bought a copy, scanned it, and posted it online. However, the state of Georgia disagreed and sued him for copyright infringement in 2015.
To be fair to Georgia, the version Malamud uploaded included annotations from a private company called LexisNexis. However, LexisNexis offers a free, unannotated version of the state laws on their website.
The free version available online is unofficial. The official version of the laws includes annotations, and Malamud believes that, in the event of a contradiction, the version no one can access would be the one that holds up in court.
Georgia went beyond just suing him. They labeled his action of making the laws publicly accessible as “terrorism.” And they won. The court decided that publishing the annotated laws “negatively impacted LexisNexis’s ability to profit from selling the annotated code.”
So, this is why you can’t read Georgia’s state laws for free—it would harm the financial interests of a private company.
