Copyright / Fair Use / Anti-SLAPP / etc.

[MojaveMike]

Creators Of Dance Moves Suing Creators Of Fortnite Over Copyright Infringement That Can't Possibly Have Happened
In order to sue for copyright something must first be something that can be copyrighted!

Here's the things about the lawsuits: while they all allege copyright infringement, no copyright infringement has actually occurred. This is an extremely difficult hurdle to leap when suing over copyright infringement.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181227/14361041301/creators-dance-moves-suing-creators-fortnite-over-copyright-infringement-that-cant-possibly-have-happened.shtml

[dilbert]

FORTNITE DANCE MOVES: My understanding is that probably there is no case here, but that there is some uncertainty. Also depending on what countries the lawsuits are filed in may mean that results will be mixed. That being said the concept of copyrighting dance moves is just plain stupid. So, I hope that no one succeeds in suing the creators of Fortnite.

[pcslim]

FORTNITE LAWSUITS: I seriously doubt that these lawsuits will go anywhere. However, the only point of the lawsuits may be to provide free publicity for those who filed them. That's often the entire point of a lawsuit nowadays and that's why there should be penalties imposed for filing frivolous lawsuits.

[drdesert]

DOJ/Copyright Office File An Amicus Brief In Support Of Led Zeppelin
The two songs in this case have passages which are similar, but even those brief passages don't amount to actual copyright infringement. Descending from a minor chord chromatically is quite common in music and so it seems bizarre to assert that there is infringement, but when there's money involved sometimes people will do crazy things, even if it's a bit of a stretch.

The case is so strange that even the RIAA and the NMPA stepped in to warn against overprotection by copyright. Let me repeat that. The RIAA argued to a court that you could go too far in protecting copyright. Really.

ARTICLE: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190816/23433742804/doj-copyright-office-file-amicus-brief-support-led-zeppellin.shtml
Interestingly, Bach (who obviously predated both Led Zeppelin and the other band) used the same musical pattern as we see here:

[CrustyOldFart]

There's always someone who is willing to make false claims to make a little money. Lots of songs sound a little bit like other songs, but that doesn't mean that anyone copied anyone else. Heck, there are probably hundreds of country songs that use the same chords and phrasing as each other. Definitely country music is the worst when it comes to this sort of thing, but there's a big difference between copying and just being unoriginal.

[BoraxBill]

Three notes? How many hundreds of thousands of songs would also use the same three notes somewhere in their progression of notes? This is beyond ridiculous. People have got to get in touch with reality at some point. Like CrustyOldFart said, there's a difference between plagarism and just being unoriginal. Most songs are unoriginal since almost by defnition pop songs must sound familiar enough to appeal to the ears of people who are not necessarily musically inclined!

[cactuspete]

'Baby Shark', Derived From A Public Domain Folk Song, Now The Subject Of A Copyright Dispute
No one is claiming to have written the song. But one guy released a version of the song on YouTube before the other guy and so the first guy thinks he deserves compensation. Which, obviously, makes it seem like "the real reason for the lawsuit is that only one of them became massively popular."

Yup, this is a song that is generally considered to be in the public domain. At the very least it's an "orphan work," in that there's no clear evidence of who the copyright holder is, and no one has stepped up to claim it in the past few years that's it's even charted.

LINK: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190829/09104342883/baby-shark-derived-public-domain-folk-song-now-subject-copyright-dispute.shtml

[desertrat]

This Law Makes It Easier Than Ever To Destroy Someone's Life With The Internet
Supposedly this lady is a lawyer, but she comes across as a total ditz! You don't sue the telephone company when someone uses their services to do something mean and so by that same logic you don't sue an internet site if someone does something mean using their service. That's why the law was written: TO MAKE THINGS OBVIOUS EVEN TO DITZES LIKE THE STUPID LADY IN THIS VIDEO!

[CrustyOldFart]

desertrat: Some things seem obvious to intelligent people which completely evade the understanding of unintelligent people. It's hard to account for the discrepancy, but you see it all the time. Once you get used to the idea that what is obvious to people with intelligence isn't universally obvious to everyone, you start to understand the underlying problem with civilization in general. There is no easy solution. We need menial laborers, but it's not clear why they should have voting rights. Just sayin....

[shadylady]

CrustyOldFart: Except that not all menial laborers are ditzes and not all people with white collar jobs are intelligent. The lady in the video is supposedly a lawyer. She doesn't seem very smart, but somehow she's managed to be labeled as a lawyer in this video. I suppose it can be argued that becoming a lawyer doesn't necessarily require intelligence, just a really good memory for illogical details.... Okay, come to think about it, maybe intelligence could get in the way of becoming a lawyer. I don't know anymore!