DreamTeamDownloads1, FTP Help, Movies, Bollywood, Applications, etc. & Mature Sex Forum, Rapidshare, Filefactory, Freakshare, Rapidgator, Turbobit, & More MULTI Filehosts

DreamTeamDownloads1, FTP Help, Movies, Bollywood, Applications, etc. & Mature Sex Forum, Rapidshare, Filefactory, Freakshare, Rapidgator, Turbobit, & More MULTI Filehosts (http://www.dreamteamdownloads1.com/index.php)
-   Piracy/LEGAL/Hackers/SPIES/AI /CRYPTO/Scams & Internet News (http://www.dreamteamdownloads1.com/forumdisplay.php?f=276)
-   -   TRUMP Loses AGAIN-Court Rejects His Pres.Immunity Claim on Copyright Infringement (http://www.dreamteamdownloads1.com/showthread.php?t=1345882)

Ladybbird 13-04-19 03:56

TRUMP Loses AGAIN-Court Rejects His Pres.Immunity Claim on Copyright Infringement
 
Twitter Flags President TRUMP for Copyright Infringement, >
Again and Again....

When Trump took office in early 2017, copyright holders hoped to have found a new ally in their fight against piracy.



Posted: TF 12 APR 2019


The Copyright Alliance made this very clear in a public letter stressing that few presidents, if any, have had a more sizable and diverse copyright portfolio.

In the two years that followed not a whole lot has changed in terms of U.S. copyright policies. However, Trump himself has made headlines on a few occasions, being accused of copyright infringement.

This happened again yesterday when the US President posted, what many believed to be, a 2020 campaign video on Twitter. “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump’s tweet reads, with the video made up of a variety of news clips underneath.

The video in question has been floating around on YouTube for a few days and doesn’t appear to come from the White House, as some suggested. In fact, it was posted by a Reddit user “knock-nevisTDF,” last week, who says he made the clip himself.

The President appeared to like it though and was happy to share it via Twitter. However, what he may not have realized is that the video in question was set to music from “The Dark Knight Rises”, something that wasn’t well received by Warner Bros. Entertainment.

The movie studio saw it as a clear case of copyright infringement and set its legal team on the ‘case.’

“The use of Warner Bros.’ score from ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ in the campaign video was unauthorized,” a Warner Bros. spokesperson said in a statement quoted by Variety. “We are working through the appropriate legal channels to have it removed.”

Shortly after this statement, Twitter did indeed take the video down, as can be seen below. The copy that was posted on YouTube and shared on Reddit has been removed as well, although it remains available elsewhere.

It’s an understatement to say that the President’s actions are being followed closely, so the removed video made headlines all over the world. Some reports even claim that the Warner Bros. is filing a “copyright infringement suit” against Trump over his “2020 campaign video.”

We haven’t seen any evidence of a pending lawsuit, nor is this an official campaign video, so this may just be another case of what President Trump would call ‘fake news.’

The reality is, however, that this isn’t the first time the President has been called out for sharing copyright-infringing content on Twitter. Just a few weeks ago, a video the R.E.M’s song, ‘Everybody Hurts,’ in the background, was removed by Twitter.

Twitter reportedly took this action after Mike Mills, the bassist for R.E.M., complained about the unauthorized use of the track.

And just last week Electronic Arts reported one of President Trump’s tweets for using copyrighted audio from a Mass Effect 2 game trailer without permission. That is now ‘withheld’ from the public.


...


And that’s not all. There is also a copyright claim on a tweet about a beautiful evening in El Paso, posted a few weeks ago. While more detail is not available, we assume that the President used copyrighted material without permission, again.

If that’s not enough, there are trademark issues as well. HBO didn’t like it when President Trump used a photo containing the Game of Thrones font and a play on the “Winter is Coming” message in a political context.

The company said in a statement that it “would prefer our trademark not be misappropriated for political purposes,” hinting at trademark misuse, but it’s unclear whether it took any action in response.


https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/pr...sanccoming.jpg


.For now, none of the complaints are affecting the status of President Trump’s Twitter account.

In theory, Twitter reserves the right to suspend accounts that repeatedly receive copyright complaints. This is clearly stated in the company’s copyright policy.

“If multiple copyright complaints are received Twitter may lock accounts or take other actions to warn repeat violators. These warnings may vary across Twitter’s services. Under appropriate circumstances we may suspend user accounts under our repeat infringer policy,” the policy reads.

How many “offenses” are needed to warrant a suspension is not mentioned, however.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the “Dark Knight Rises” score, titled “Why Do We Fall?” was composed by Hans Zimmer. He previously shared the track on his YouTube account, but the video in question was recently removed, likely by himself.

That said, the same music is used in hundreds if not thousands of other YouTube videos, and it’s widely shared on Twitter as well.

Apparently, copyright takedowns have priority when the President is involved....
:censored:
.

wildhoney66 16-04-19 02:46

re: DMCA & Twitter Take Action Against TRUMP
 
i heard about this and i LOVED IT!

Ladybbird 04-10-19 16:06

re: TRUMP’s Sons/Attorney & Social Media Chief All Got DMCA Notices
 
DMCA Notice Confirms Trump Tweet Was Taken Down By Warner Music

Posted: 6 Oct 2019 .TF


President of the United States Donald Trump is well-known for his love of Twitter.

He currently has well in excess of 65 million followers and regularly uses the platform to promote himself and attack his critics.

Earlier today, Twitter erupted when a tweet by the President, which contained a video attacking the integrity of political rival Joe Biden, received some serious editing thanks to Twitter.

While the words “LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH!” remained, the actual video had been removed following a copyright infringement complaint.
No photograph to see…

Trump’s tweet contained a video that has been doing the rounds featuring a photograph central to the recent Biden/Ukraine controversy. However, the photograph itself wasn’t the reason the video was taken down by Twitter.

The viral video contains a clip from Nickelback’s 2005 video ‘Photograph’, prompting speculation that the band itself was behind the takedown sent to Twitter. While they may have had a hand in it, the actual DMCA served on Twitter and obtained by TorrentFreak reveals that the notice was sent by Warner Music.


https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/pr.../image-127.png

The DMCA notice sent to Twitter by Warner Music (Lumen Database)



The cited source material for the takedown indeed points to the ‘Photograph’ video on YouTube, confirming the Nickelback link to the takedown.

Unfortunately, if Trump wanted to legally use the track in a political context, this would usually mean requesting permission from not only the publisher but also Nickelback, who may or may not wish to be associated with the effort. The copyright takedown suggests that the required pieces probably weren’t in place.

Perhaps the most interesting thing when one ignores the political angle of Trump’s tweet is that the President has been in this and similar positions several times before.

The Lumen Database, a repository to which Twitter sends its takedown notices, currently lists at least seven DMCA complaints filed against Trump this year alone, all of which have resulted in the removal of content.

On the other hand, people receiving DMCA notices from the IFPI, which acts as a copyright enforcer for Warner on Twitter and elsewhere, get their accounts terminated for fewer strikes. Perhaps there’s a presidential exemption from the DMCA repeat infringer policy at Twitter.

Update: The same video was uploaded to The White House YouTube channel. It was also taken down following a copyright complaint.


Notices filed against Trump on Twitter in 2019 can be found here 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (pdf)
.

Ladybbird 12-10-19 19:23

re: TRUMP Loses AGAIN-Court Rejects His Pres.Immunity Claim on Copyright Infringement
 
TRUMP’s Sons/Attorney & Social Media Chief All Got DMCA Notices Over ‘Photograph’ Meme

Posted: 11 Oct 2019 TF



https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/pr...es/trump-1.png



Last week, US President Donald Trump made headlines when he tweeted a short video meme aimed at discrediting political rival Joe Biden.

It contained a clip of Nickelback’s video ‘Photograph’ which resulted in the tweet being taken down for copyright infringement.

Soon after, a copy of the DMCA notice that caused the takedown was published on the Lumen Database, which revealed that the sender was Warner Music Group. However, TF has learned that wasn’t the only takedown notice to target Trump and his supporters over the now-controversial clip.

Trawling through the latest notices sent to Lumen by Twitter we can see that not only were some of Trump’s closest allies also sent takedowns for copyright infringement, but also that other music companies got in on the act too.

The original complaint against Trump’s account (here) was quickly followed by another against the account of his attorney, Rudy Giuliani. The notice was sent by Nickelback’s management at Union Entertainment Group on behalf of Roadrunner Records, which in turn is owned by Warner.

As the DMCA notice below shows, the cited copyrighted material is “The Master Recording of ‘Photograph’ by Nickelback and the accompanying music video.”



https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/pr.../image-128.png



Two other DMCA complaints were also filed at Twitter detailing a pair of allegedly-infringing tweets posted Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr. and Dan Scavino, the White House Director of Social Media and Assistant to the President.

These were sent on October 3, 2019 by anti-piracy company GrayZone on behalf of Warner Music. In common with the complaint filed against their father’s account, YouTube was cited as the source of the material.

Finally, the second son of Donald Trump, Eric, also received an additional notice from Union Entertainment Group, again on behalf of RoadRunner Records.

While plenty of other people tweeted and retweeted the allegedly-infringing video, a flood of additional takedown notices doesn’t appear to be in the archives at Lumen. That doesn’t mean to say they don’t exist, however, since it’s certainly possible Twitter doesn’t pass everything on.

Interestingly, there is an ongoing debate as to whether the use of the video in the clip was actually fair use, with many Trump supporters claiming that as a parody, it should be protected from takedowns. Countering firmly, former RIAA executive vice president of communications Jonathan Lamy believes otherwise.

“This one was a clear cut no-brainer,” he said on Twitter. “On copyright grounds and also perhaps falsely implied endorsement.”

Since Giuliani also got a notice and presumably a strike against his Twitter account, it would be very interesting if – as an attorney – he decided to send a counter-notification. As fair use battles go it might get a little messy but things are pretty messy already.


Ladybbird 04-10-21 13:21

Re: TRUMP Loses AGAIN-Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit for Copyright Infringem
 
Court Rejects TRUMPs’ Motion to Dismiss ‘Electric Avenue’ Lawsuit on Fair Use Grounds


T.Freak 4 OCT 2021.


https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/17116...lamo-texas.jpg


With the 2020 United States presidential election campaign in full swing, then-President Donald Trump seized every opportunity to paint Democratic opponent Joe Biden in an unfavorable light.

Trump’s platform of choice was invariably Twitter, where in August 2020 he posted an animated video of a speedy train carrying his campaign logo ahead of Joe Biden on a railroad handcar, struggling to keep up. In the background played the 1982 hit ‘Electric Avenue’ by Eddy Grant.

The furious British singer-songwriter responded by filing a lawsuit in a New York court, arguing that since Trump had not obtained permission to use the song, its use was an act of blatant copyright infringement.


Trump’s Attempts to Have Lawsuit Dismissed


In a motion to dismiss, Trump’s lawyers argued that use of the song was allowed under the doctrine of fair use, claiming that Grant created the work for the purposes of ‘musical entertainment’ and Trump used the work for ‘political commentary’. As such, the animation had a “fundamentally different and new purpose” and character from that of the song, meaning that any use was transformative.

Trump’s team further argued that the quantity and quality of use of the song in the animation was de minimus since only 17.5% of the track was used. The motion further argued that since no licensing payments were generated, the animation posed “absolutely no threat” to Grant’s licensing opportunities or use of the song in derivative markets.
Purpose and Character of the Use

In an opinion and order handed down Tuesday by U.S. District Judge John Koeltl, it is revealed that the Court reviewed the animation and finds the arguments of Trump’s legal team largely unconvincing. First up, the purpose and character of the use.

“The defendants argue that the video’s use of Electric Avenue was transformative as a matter of law because the video and the song serve different purposes. But the defendants’ argument misapprehends the focus of the transformative use inquiry,” Judge Koeltl writes.

“While it is true that the animation is partisan political commentary and the song apparently is not, the inquiry does not focus exclusively on the character of the animation; rather, it focuses on the character of the animation’s use of Grant’s song.”

In short, the animation’s political purpose does not automatically render the use of any non-political work transformative under fair use. Furthermore, the Judge notes that the best description of the use of Grant’s song is “wholesale copying” to support a political ad campaign and there was no attempt to modify the song or comment on the song or its author.

“Moreover, the animation does not use Electric Avenue as a vehicle to deliver its satirical message, and it makes no effort to poke fun at the song or Grant,” the Judge adds, noting that the defendants have already admitted that the animation is satire, not a parody of Grant or the song, and have offered no justification for their “extensive borrowing”.

The disconnect is so great, the Judge adds, that the animation could have used almost any other song to serve its entertainment goals.

“The fair-use privilege under § 107 is not designed to protect lazy appropriators. Accordingly, the defendants cannot show that the video’s use of Electric Avenue was transformative as a matter of law,” he adds.

Judge Koeltl also casts doubt on the claim that any use of the song was non-commercial, noting that the “crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.”

Noting that there is a well-established market for music licensing, the Judge writes that the defendants chose to gain an advantage by using Grant’s song without paying a licensing fee, meaning that the use was indeed commercial, despite the use being political.

“Because the use was not transformative and appears at this stage to have been commercial, the first fair use factor favors the plaintiffs,” he concludes.


Nature of the Work, Amount of Use

Addressing the second fair use factor, where the Court is required to consider the nature of the copyrighted work, Judge Koeltl says that it’s clear that Electric Avenue is a creative work and therefore “closer to the core of intended copyright protection” and there is no dispute that the track is published and publicly available. When balancing both aspects, the nature of the song favors the plaintiffs.

In respect of the third fair use factor (the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole), the Judge notes that the song plays for the majority of the animation, the excerpt used is of central importance to the original song, and the defendants have not explained any purpose for the copying. As a result, this weighs in favor of Grant.


Effect of the Use on the Market for the Original


The final fair use factor asks courts to consider the effect of the use on the potential market for the work that was copied, which requires the balancing of the benefit to the public if the use is permitted and effect on the copyright holder if the use is denied.

Judge Koeltl concedes that the animation is no substitute for the song itself but acknowledges that the use of Electric Avenue may threaten Grant’s licensing markets.

“It is plain that widespread, uncompensated use of Grant’s music in promotional videos – political or otherwise – would embolden would-be infringers and undermine Grant’s ability to obtain compensation in exchange for licensing his music,” he writes.

Trump’s team argued that Grant offered no evidence that he intends to enter the market for licensing the music to promotional videos but according to the Judge, Grant bears no such burden – the plaintiffs do.

“It is the defendants who bear the ultimate burden of showing a lack of market harm, and they cannot do so based simply on the allegations in the Complaint,” his opinion reads.

Turning to the potential benefits to the public of allowing copying under fair use, the Judge notes that ridiculing and lampooning public figures is a rich part of the United States’ First Amendment tradition. However, denying Trump will not chill political satire, he simply needed to stay within the law.

“Creators of satirical videos like the one at issue here must simply conform any use of copyrighted music with copyright law by, for example: paying for a license; obtaining the copyright owner’s permission; or ‘transforming’ the chosen song by altering it with ‘new expression, meaning, or message’. The creator of the video here did none of that,” he concludes.

In summary, the Judge finds that each of the fair use factors weighs in favor of Grant.


“The creator of the video here made a wholesale copy of a substantial portion of Grant’s music in order to make the animation more entertaining. The video did not parody the music or transform it in any way. The video’s overarching political purpose does not automatically make this use transformative, and the other fair use factors also favor the plaintiffs at this stage.”

As a result, Judge Koeltl denies Trump’s motion to dismiss

Ladybbird 20-10-21 17:22

Re: TRUMP Loses AGAIN-Court Rejects His Pres.Immunity Claim on Copyright Infringement
 
TRUMP Invokes Presidential Absolute Immunity in Electric Avenue Copyright Suit



TRUMP: ' I Have Absolute Immunity'

The Judge said: It was “wholesale copying” to support a political ad campaign,


T.Freak 20 OCT 2021.





https://i.pinimg.com/originals/88/ec...36396fe107.jpg



During the 2020 US presidential election campaign, then-President Donald Trump took to Twitter to post an animated video of a speedy train carrying his campaign logo ahead of Joe Biden on a railroad handcar, struggling to keep up.

In the background played an unlicensed copy of the 1982 hit ‘Electric Avenue’ by musician Eddy Grant.

The British singer-songwriter objected to being associated with Trump and in response, filed a lawsuit in a New York court, arguing that since Trump had not obtained permission to use the song, any use was an act of blatant copyright infringement.

Grant had previously offered to settle the claim in August but with that offer apparently rejected, the case progressed with Trump’s team attempting to have the lawsuit kicked out.


TRUMP’s Attempt to Have Lawsuit Dismissed Fail


In their motion to dismiss, Trump’s lawyers said any use was protected under the doctrine of fair use. They claimed that Grant had created the track for entertainment purposes and Trump had used it for political commentary. This, they said, meant that the animation had a “fundamentally different and new purpose”, meaning that the use was transformative.

They also claimed that the quantity and quality of use of the song in the animation was de minimus since only 17.5% of the track was used, adding that the animation posed no threat to Grant’s licensing opportunities. U.S. District Judge John Koeltl was not convinced.


In short, the Judge concluded that the animation’s political purpose did not automatically render the use of any non-political work transformative under fair use.

It was “wholesale copying” to support a political ad campaign, the Judge said, and there was no attempt to modify the song or comment on the song or its author. Overall, each of the fair use factors weighed in favor of Grant.


TRUMP Responds With Answer to Complaint


In an answer to the complaint filed Tuesday, Trump admits that the venue is proper and court has jurisdiction. However, the majority of Grant’s allegations are either denied in full or on the basis of insufficient knowledge as to the truth of the allegations.

Specifically, the answer denies that the animation used Electric Avenue in breach of Grant’s copyrights and denies that the defendants benefited financially or politically from the distribution of the video.

Trump does admit that no license was obtained to use the track and also concedes that no separate permission was granted either.

“Defendants admit they did not have permission, license or consent of Plaintiffs to use the Composition in connection with the Animated Video,” the answer reads, adding that no license was needed.


Affirmative Defenses


Trump’s team begins by stating that Grant’s claims are barred, either in whole or in part, due to the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. This suggests that the defendant believes that the claimant failed to present sufficient facts to indicate that Trump’s use represented a violation of the law or that Grant is entitled to legal remedy.

The answer, without stating any specifics, further claims that the claims against Trump are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, laches, acquiescence, inequitable conduct and/or unclean hands.

It continues by categorically stating that Trump did not infringe Grant’s copyrights directly or indirectly and that if any use did take place, that was carried out under the doctrines of fair use and/or nominative use. Whether relying on a fair use defense is a good option given the Judge’s response to the earlier motion to dismiss is up for debate.

But the former president believes he has a TRUMP card up his sleeve.


As reported this week by NBC, Trump is currently defending himself in at least ten civil lawsuits seeking remedy for conduct relating to his time in office. In some of these cases he claims that as a sitting president, he is immune from civil lawsuits.

The copyright infringement lawsuit he faces against Eddy Grant is no different, according to his legal team.


“Plaintiffs’ claims against Donald J. Trump are barred, either in whole or in part, by Presidential absolute immunity,” Trump’s legal team write in their answer.

The suggestion here is that if there was any infringement of Grant’s rights due to the use of Electric Avenue in the campaign video, that was carried out as part of Trump’s official acts as president and not in a purely personal context. As such the lawsuit fails as a matter of law.


Grant’s legal team says it will continue the fight.

“Given the court’s recent favorable determination, there are very few issues that remain to be resolved,” attorney Brian Caplan told ABC News.

“We are confident that our clients’ rights will ultimately be fully upheld and look forward to Mr. Trump fully explaining his actions.”


Trumps’ answer to Grant’s complaint can be foundhere(pdf)


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:36.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2