Amad Arabiyah Wins Injunction and Damages from 13 Bootleg Distributors.

June 24, 2015

Arab Music

Amad Arabiyah Music Management and Distribution LTD sued 13 different shops in the Nazareth District Court. The shops had sold Music CDs and had stocks of bootleg disks and were accused of contributory copyright infringement. Due to the similarity of the cases and the common plaintiff, the cases were combined into one case.

The original production of the disks was by Digital Sound LTD and Aalem en-Fan LTD, both Egyptian companies, who transferred the rights to the plaintiff. The logos and names of the Egyptian production companies appeared all over the compact disks and their packaging. In the original case as filed, the Egyptian production companies appeared as formal complainants, but the judge ruled that their names could be deleted.  Amad Arabiyah Music Management and Distribution LTD had an exclusive license to distribute the compact disks and to sue for copyright infringement.

Amad Arabiyah Music Management and Distribution LTD sent a couple of investigators who purchased fraudulent disks in each shop and testified that the shops had stocks of such disks. They claimed 100,000 Shekels in statutory damages against each shop.

Amad Arabiyah Music Management and Distribution LTD considered that the full statutory damages should be awarded as the infringement was widespread knowing commercial infringement over a 35 year period that was profitable for the defendants.

The shops considered the charges trivial and unsubstantiated and denied the standing of the plaintiff.

The court found the defendants guilty ruling that the recording company that produces a music disks enjoys copyrights independently of the singers and composers. In this instance, the recording company transferred its rights to the plaintiff. The defendants sold copies of these disks from a company that was not authorized to distribute them, and so the disks are infringing copies. In the circumstances, the defendants knew or should have known that the disks infringed copyright, or at least should have made inquiries. Consequently an injunction has issued against the defendants that requires them to destroy and forbids them from selling these disks. Each of the thirteen defendants has been fined 10,000 Shekels and has to pay 7500 Shekels in legal fees.

Civil Action 33968-05-11 Amad Arabiyah Music Management and Distribution LTD vs. Ahmed son of Mustafa Anbatawi et al., 13 Judge Atrash, 6 May 2015.             

COMMENT
I can see the sums awarded being appealed but the infringement seems open and shut. Although this particular proceeding relates to Egyptian music sold in Arab shops, I think that similar offenses occur in the Jewish sector, including Hassidic music traded in ultra-Orthodox areas. I am publishing this ruling in the hope that it will encourage others to enforce their rights and that those who do not see this as a kind of stealing because they are not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of rights in the abstract, should think again.


Justice in the Eye of the Beholder

June 2, 2015

multifocals   Optika Halperin

This decision relates to parallel importing, to slander and to inequitable behavior.

Luxvision is the licensed importer of Zeiss lenses. Optika Halperin, a national chain of opticians in Israel (founded by a Rabbi who was a boxer, a world freestyle wrestling champion and bodybuilder, and then a Karate expert who introduced and promoted the sport to Israel) advertised multi-focal lenses that they sold as being Zeiss lenses.

Luxvision ran a vicious campaign of letters and advertisements from 2010-2011 arguing that Optika Halperin’s lenses were not original Zeiss lenses. Optika Halperin sued Luxvision, its CEO Erez Avner, and Ami Lapidot, who is the director of the Lapidot Group which owns Luxvision, claiming that this campaign caused then damages of 10 million shekels including cancellation of contracts with ELAL (Israel’s national airline) and with HaMashbir (Israeli department store), and had unjustly enriched the defendants. Luxvision counter-sued for 200,000 in 2011, as maximum statutory fine for willful slander without proof of damage, concerning four advertisements by Halperin, which they alleged were slanderous, defaming and insulting.

The relevant details are as follows:

On 22 December 2010, Avner sent an email to ELAL, and without revealing that he was an employee of Luxvision, informed them that the advertisement of a discount between Optica Halperin and ELAL infringed intellectual property since the guarantee was not recognized by Zeiss. On 13 April 2011 the defendants contacted HaMashbir in writing and informed them that Zeiss International had canceled the manufacturing and distribution rights of the Indian company from where Halperin had purchased the Zeiss lenses mentioned in the discount, and that the lenses were not merely imported without a license, but that there was a question regarding the origin of the lenses. Luxvision also contacted Halperin’s employees with a letter titled “Notice of Cancellation of Agreements” ordering them to cease and desist from selling or purchasing Zeiss lenses. Luxvision further published misleading notices in newspapers and on Internet websites regarding the origin of Halperin’s lenses that stated “Zeiss importers: Optika Halperin together with ELAL sell lenses from India. The [Halperin] chain: they are original”, and in an article in the financial supplement of Idiot Achronot, 2 February 2011, “Zeiss Germany does not stand behind the special offer and the Guarantee is not authorized.” In the business paper the Marker on 13 April 2011 the defendants  allegedly planted an article titled “Optical Illusion, the German Company Zeiss: Optika Halperin sells Zeiss lenses that are not originals.”

In their defense, Luxvision denied any responsibility for articles published by newspapers and the alternative defense that the facts discussed in the articles were true. Luxvision further denied that they caused damage to Halperin and claimed that the damage was self-inflicted since they published false information regarding the source of their lenses, and this was self-risk or contributory damage to the extent that they were not entitled to any compensation or legal recourse. This was also the basis of their counter charges of 200,000 Shekels in compulsory compensation without proof of damage.

Both sides brought evidence regarding the relationship between Luxvision and Zeiss India, from which it seems that Luxvision had themselves purchased and sold Zeiss lenses from India. The relationship between Zeiss Germany and the Zeiss Middle East had apparently been broken however there was an agreement between them. Judge Ginat ruled that these details were not necessary to rule on the case in question.

The Ruling

Optika Halperin as an independent and private company that imports and sells optical equipment and eye-wear imported Zeiss lenses with the Zeiss logo from the Indian manufacturer, which is a factory established by Carl Zeiss Vision International Gmbh, the German mother company.

On 27 February 2008, Zeiss Germany set up a joint venture with GKB HI-Tech Lenses Private LTD, an Indian company set up to sell Zeiss lenses to the Middle East. Under the agreement, with GKB HI-Tech Lenses Private LTD would be allowed to sell lenses with the Zeiss label in the Middle East, including Israel. The Companies had their differences and went to court in India, after which the business relationship ceased as of October 2011. However, Zeiss continued to allow their name to be used on lenses from India that were sold in the Middle East.

On the basis of evidence filed, including affidavits, Zeiss never showed any reservation that lenses from the Indian company were being marketed as Zeiss lenses in Israel and elsewhere. Zeiss never complained to Halperin nor did they file suit in an Israel court. They are not a party in this dispute. Indeed, Zeiss India had initiated an action against Zeiss Germany and not the opposite. Judge Ginat therefore ruled that the evidence leads to the conclusion that the imported Indian lenses may be considered as ‘parallel imports’ and not as imports of the authorized Israel dealer. As with the Hilfiger case, this is perfectly legal.

Cancellation of the ELAL contract 

In 2009 and 2010, ELAL and Yaakov Halperin signed various agreements under which Business and First Class passengers on ELAL flights would receive vouchers for purchasing Zeiss lenses at Optika Halperin.  Luxvision wrote to ELAL claiming misrepresentation and the eventual upshot was that ELAL did not renew their contract with Optika Halperin who claimed damages of 2,515,000 Shekels in loss of contract and loss of future business.

Although eventually ELAL wrote to Luxvision that they were not renewing the contract with Optika Halperin so the charges were moot, Luxvision argued that this letter was not an indication that they canceled an agreement, nor was it an indication that the decision was the result of Luxvision’s campaigning.

What was clear was that Luxvision embarked on a media smear campaign against Optika Halperin, and the articles are available on line and still cause damage. Furthermore, they contacted third parties having contractual relations with Optika Halperin so Luxvision did do serious damage to Optika Halperin’s reputation.  The articles were unequivocal and there is a basis for bringing charges of Slander under Sections 1 and 2 of the Slander Act.

However, it will be appreciated that Section 14 of the Slander Act provides the defense that the allegations are true. This requires that the publication is true and is of public interest. The truthfulness defense is objective. It is important as it strikes a balance between Freedom of Speech and the right to one’s good name. The public interest consideration is subjective, and the court has to rule on each case according to its merits. Regarding the truthfulness of Luxvision’s allegations, the onus is on them, as defendant to establish that their allegations are indeed true.  However, Luxvision were within their rights to indicate that the lenses were not guaranteed by them and with multi-focals, there is a real likelihood of lenses being unsuitable and rejected as such.

Judge Ginat was impressed that Zeiss Germany would have gotten involved if there was any truth that the Indian lenses were substandard. Zeiss themselves and not the importer owns the rights in their name. Furthermore, Luxvision contacted ELAL before contacting Zeiss Germany. Judge Ginat concluded that this case is not one where the lenses are not originals or are fakes, but is a case of parallel importing, and, as established in Dyson and in the Tommy Hilfiger  case, parallel importing is legal in Israel. Consequently, the defense that Luxvision told the truth is not a totally accurate reflection of reality and the defense is not available to them.

Contacting the media and Optika Halperin stores around the country does not seem to be a reasonable act that can be considered as equitable behavior as the publications were inaccurate and Luxvision was aware that the Indian company was authorized by the German company to produce Zeiss lenses, even if the relationship between the Germans and Indians was somewhat rocky. Consequently, Judge Ginat rejected the defense that the slander was unintentional.

Nevertheless, the estimate of 10,000,000 Shekels of damages was less than substantiated and consequently Luxvision was ordered to pay the maximum statutory damages of 50,000 Shekels for slander. The allegation of unjust enrichment was also not substantiated and was rejected.

Charges against Lapidot were rejected as any actions he conducted through the company were considered as the responsibility of the company and not personal responsibility.

Luxvision’s counter-claims of slander for Optika Halperin’s media campaign stating that ‘only companies that want to profit likes pigs sell expensively’, was rejected as Luxvision had started the smear campaign and the description seemed somewhat apt. Furthermore, there was nothing wrong with Optika Halperin showing the difference in price between themselves and competitors. In general, Optika Halperin’s campaign was considered acceptable. Luxvision, was, however, also ordered to pay 33,999 Shekels for causing the ELAL contract to be breached and they were also ordered to pay the court’s expenses including the cost of the court recorder, and 38,000 Shekels in legal fees incurred by Halperin.

28167-04-11 Optica Halperin vs. Luxvision LTD, by Gidon Ginat of Tel Aviv District Court, 29 April 2015


Israel Court Issues Injunction against ISPs and Recognizes Contributory Copyright Infringement

June 1, 2015

ISP

NMV Entertainments LTD (formerly NMC Music LTD) et al. records Israel music and represents some of the larger foreign music canneries. They have sued Bloomberg Inc. and various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) including Bezeq International, Partner, 013 Netvision, 012 Smile Telecom, Hot-Net Internet LTD and Aharon Perfori (then the owner of Unidown, which was subsequently transferred to Bloomberg).

Unidown is a limited company incorporated in the Seychelles. The issue in question is access to the Unidown and Downsong websites as found at http://www.unidown.co.il and http://www.downsong.net which serve as a supermarket of music that enable the public to download songs without any royalties being paid to the rights holders.

The plaintiffs applied for the websites to be closed down, 150,000 Shekels in statutory compensation without proof of damages (the amount limited to minimize the court fees), and legal fees to be carried by the defendant, and most significantly, that the various internet service providers (ISPs) block access to the websites.

The plaintiffs alleged that the primary infringing permitting website was a straw company and that closing it down would not stop the service being provided. For reasons of utility, the ISPs were a legitimate target. In addition to legally constructing cases of indirect infringement, the plaintiffs accused them of Unjust Enrichment.

Bloomberg Inc argued that the website was merely a search engine that operated worldwide in seven languages and that offered four features: (i) searching and direct listening to musical content from YOUTUBE, (ii) Finding relevant information from Wikipedia, (iii) Creating a playlist and (iv) searching for musical content and allowing consumers to locate and download such content from third party websites. Since three of the four features were not under challenge, they felt that the attack on their website was excessive.

Judge Gidon Ginat of the Tel Aviv District Court acknowledged that the infringer who accesses copyright infringing material via a website and downloads it to his computer is the actual infringer, but considered that the website owners are responsible for contributory infringement in that they enable end users creating copies and reproducing copyright material.

In this instance, the copyright owners have pursued the internet service provides arguing that where infringement is being conducted on two separate websites, the Internet Service Provider is responsible for encouraging or at least aiding abetting copyright infringement.

The Court ruled that website UNIDOWN is nothing more than a platform for downloading copyright infringing copies that are discovered by search engines. Unidown converts YOUTUBE playable content into media that can be downloaded and saved as MP3 format files. Whilst it is certainly the case that the downloaders themselves are the primary infringers, the website owners that allow the links are contributory infringers in that they facilitate the downloads.

The Court concentrated on Unidown, also available as .com and with other parallel sites, after the plaintiffs abandoned Downsong after failing to show a link between them and Unidown. Additionally, the court was willing to act against the ISPs where the identity of the site owner was concealed, but with Downsong this wasn’t the case. Consequently Judge Ginat did not rule regarding blocking access to Downsong but did note that this ruling did not affect the plaintiff’s rights to take legal steps against that company.

As to Unidown, Judge Ginat ruled that the site should be taken down and that Bloomberg should pay 100,000 Shekels in statutory compensation.

Judge Ginat relied on UK precedents, including Judge Arnold’s rulings in Paramount Home Entertainment International Ltd & Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Others [2013] EWHC 3479 (Ch); Twentieth Century Fox and others v British Telecommunications plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch);Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch); EMI Records Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch); Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2013] EWHC 2058 (Ch) and Justice Birss’ ruling in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Sky UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 1082 (Ch).

Judge Ginat noted that in an Appeal to the Israel Supreme Court, (Appeal 447/07 Mor vs. Barak ITTT (1995) and Bezeq Benleumi P.D. 63 (3) 664 (2010)) the Supreme Court refused to fulfill the lacuna in the Law and to grant an injunction but called on the Knesset to legislate. However, since that case related to the rights of anonymity, it was different and wasn’t binding case-law, and since five years had passed without the Knesset addressing the issue, Ginat did not see fit to wait for the legislative to do their job. In addition, Bloomberg should bear legal costs of 50.000 Shekels, and, in an interesting wrinkle, it seems that as Partner argued that it was unjust to award legal costs against the defendants, Judge Ginat ruled that they alone should bear the legal costs of 34,000 Shekels, and the other defendants were not required to bear legal costs. However, should Partner choose to present coherent legal arguments, they would not be penalized for so doing and might even prevail.

Civil Ruling 33227-11-13 NMC United Entertainment LTD et al. vs. Bloomberg et al. Tel Aviv District Court by Judge Ginat, 12 May 2015

 

COMMENT

The responsibility or otherwise of ISPs to police the Internet is a hot issue. However, it seems reasonable to issue injunctions against them on a case specific basis.

Personally, I am in favor of a shorter and more liberal copyright regime, but think that Israel does have an obligation to uphold international standards. I am not sure, however, that Judge Ginat is correct that there is a lacuna for the Israeli legislative to address and their failure to do so authorizes him to judicially create contributory copyright infringement or aiding and abetting copyright infringement. The Israeli legislature passed a brand new copyright law in 2008. Even back then, the issue of ISPs was established and there was US pressure on Israel. See here for example. Israel was not and is not a signatory to the treaties that require forcing ISPs to police the web.  It seems that the Knesset intentionally decided not to include this lacuna in their legislation. Since CBS vs, Amstrad, providing the technology for infringing (back then, it was a tape to tape double cassette deck) has not been considered culpable in the UK.

Is this ruling a case of judicial legislation? It seems to be.  I am against judicial activism preferring that judges leave legislation to the democratically elected parliament. I note that even in the US, recent decisions have overturned the judicial doctrine of incitement to infringe or contributory infringement of patents.


Sony Strikes Again

May 31, 2015

need for speed

After recent successes against an Arab computer dealer,Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc, the manufacturers of Sony Play Stations are continuing to fight copyright infringement in the form of retailers of computer equipment selling rip off DVDs. Using the services of Gershuni Slymovezh, the partnership that includes former Deputy Patent Commissioner Noah Slymovezh, Sony has sued Einat Anu Rokahn (S.A.R. Electronics).

Sony sent a private investigator to S.A.R. Electronics, who bought four games for Playstation 2 selected from a wall display of disks. The four games cost a total of 50 Shekels, and the investigator was issued with tax invoice number 0898 which listed four Sony 2 games burned onto disks.

For those interested, the disks in question were:

  • Need for Speed Most Wanted
  • World Super Police
  • Stuntman
  • Sagan Om De TVA Tomen

(I can make a wild guess what the first four games are about, and suspect that the name of the fourth game is corrupted. This probably indicates that I am not a gamer).

In addition to accusing the store of contributory copyright infringement (with maximum statutory damages without proof) of 100,000 Shekels, Sony accused the store of infringing their trademarks, and Unjust Enrichment. Despite claiming years of infringement with tens if not hundreds of sales of fake disks, Sony capped their claim at 150,000 Shekels.

The store owner claimed that there was one shelf with maybe 15-20 disks and further claimed he was innocent of all knowledge that the disks weren’t genuine.

The Haifa District Court ruled that computer programs are protected by copyright and that Sony owns the copyright. Although knowledge of the copyright is required, the burden of proof need only establish a legal construct of knowledge and not actual knowledge. The argument that the owner of a commercial retailer does not know what he is selling is unreasonable. The combination of the defendant being a seller of computers and electronics that sells disks at a greatly reduced price and the source of the disks being unclear is indicative that they did not originate from a licensed dealer; the fact that the disks were programmable disks written with the program rather than punched disks, when it was clear that the vendor had seen the disks prior to their sale, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the defendant either knew or at least should have known that the disks were not originals. Consequently, the vendor is guilty of indirect copyright infringement of the copyrights in the Sony Playstation software.

After taking into account the various legal and subjective considerations, Judge Orit Weinstein of the Haifa District Court ruled that the defendant knew or at least should have known that the DVDs with Playstation games thereon were not originals and that their sale was copyright infringement. Consequently, the defendants have to compensate Sony 16,000 Shekels in statutory damages, plus 1000 Shekels in legal expenses and 4000 Shekels in lawyers’ fees.  Furthermore, an injunction was issued against Einat Anu Rokahn (S.A.R. Electronics) to refrain from selling fraudulent CDs.

Civil Case Number 14-11-23739-28 Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc vs. Enat Abu Rokan, S.A.R. Electronics) Haifa District Court, Orit Weinstein, 26 April 2015


Software Rewrites

May 11, 2015

medical software

ICM is a software program designed for doctors, clinics and hospitals. A Mr Yehuda Ungar had the requisite skill set and experience to develop the program and signed a founders agreement with Yaakov Cashdi and others, the result of which was ICM Links Technologies and Information LTD, a company dedicated to creation of the ICM software for managing a medical database.

Cashdi, the other founders and ICM LTD claim that Yehuda Ungar copied and marketed the program to Bircon LTD, infringing their rights and becoming enriched at their expense.

The plaintiffs have sued for a declarative judgment that Ungar has infringed the founders agreement; an accounting regarding Bircon LTD’s use of the program and 750,000 Shekels compensation.

Statement of Case

The plaintiffs, Yaakov, Eli and Milik are shareholders of Ordan Computers and Data Systems which is a software developer that specializes in administrative software for clinics and medical chains.

Yehuda Ungar developed his ICM system that is complimentary to Ordan’s program and Ungar approached Yaakov, Eli and Milik to create a business partnership for the continued development, marketing and sales of ICM in Israel and abroad. Yaakov, Eli and Milik agreed and ICM Links Technologies and Information LTD was established.

Under the agreement, Ungar was to transfer all rights, source code and documentation to the company and to make his experience and medical file management available to the company.

Yaakov, Eli and Milik were to dedicate their resources, knowledge and experience to the program and eventually to market it.
The contract also included a non-complete clause for a minimum of three years and at least six months longer than any of the founders were serving as director, employee or shareholder in the company. The shares were divvied up and all share holders were to serve as directors for at least 24 months.

In 2003, Yehuda Unger met with a Mr Tenne, the manager of a chain of clinics who agreed that the chain could serve as a beta site for the software. The plaintiffs thought that the beta testing was going well, but in March 2004, Unger informed them that Mr Tenne had given notice to stop the trials. The plaintiffs failed to raise investment capital and further development stopped, freezing the company.

Yehuda Unger offered to resign and find alternative employment until a further opportunity would present itself. As a severage package Unger requested the right to compete, and to use ICM’s program whilst remaining a director and shareholder. Yaakov, Eli and Milik refused these conditions and contact between the parties was lost. In July 2008, Yaakov, Eli and Milik discovered that despite being an employee and shareholder, Unger had continued to develop the software together with Mr Tenne through Mr Tenne’s company Bircon LTD, which had marketed the product, earning money for both Unger and Tenne.

Yaakov, Eli and Milik considered Unger’s behavior as breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud. They further considered Bircon LTD as guilty of unjust enrichment and copyright infringement and sued for:

  • A declaratory judgment that the program was the property of ICM that Yehuda Unger was in breach of contract and breach of trust as a shareholder and director
  • Copies of accounts regarding the software
  • An injunction against further use
  • 100,000 Shekels in statutory damages and
  • 750,000 Shekels in lost earnings resulting from the breach of contract.

Statement for the Defense
Yehuda Unger is a systems analyst with 30 years of experience in managing software projects. Via his wholly owned company Irit Model, he has been working since 1995 at developing the ICM medical record database platform.

Unger alleges that Yaakov, Eli and Milik approached him in 2002 and suggested that Ordan would market the ICM platform either as stand-alone software or together with their ‘Clinica’ program.

Following this approach, a marketing and joint venture agreement was signed in July 2002. Six months later, Yaakov approached Yuhuda Unger and offered that Yaakov, Eli and Milik would purchase his shares via Ordan.

Under the agreement, via Ordan, Yaakov, Eli and Milik would transfer 40,000 Shekels a month. However, they did not meet this, and in September 2003, they informed Unger that they did not have the resources to fund ICM.

According to Unger, at Bircon, he programmed from scratch using public domain code and his personal knowledge, without using ICM, its source code or other resources. Unger even filed a counter-claim but subsequently retracted it.

The subsequent case relied on testimony from the parties, software engineers of both Ordan and Bircon and Dr Matthew Golani as an expert witness to the court.

Ruling
Ordan marketed Clinica and Irit marketed an early version of ICM to the Eynayim chain of clinics that was under the management of a Dr Levinger. The sides realized that they each had complementary software products that were half a solution and they discussed working together. After negotiations, in July 2002, the parties signed a marketing agreement under which Ordan would market ICM. About six months later, at the beginning of 2003, the sides discussed Ordan purchasing ICM and a framework agreement was signed. Following this, Unger continued working on ICM, but as an employee of Ordan and the code was transferred to Ordan which allocated a programmer to the project and Milik undertook the marketing.

In parallel with the ongoing development work, the parties negotiated a full contract, under which Unger was to be paid “consultancy fees” and a new company was to be set up. The contract was signed in July 2003.

Judge Shwartz summarized the agreement and interpreted the lacuna. and the various parties’ actions in following signing of the agreement.
He found Unger’s programming for Bircon was unjust enrichment, breach of copyright and brach of contract, but held Tenne and Bircon innocent of wrong doing.In Conclusion, Judge Swartz ruled that:

ICM LTD was the right holder in the software.

  • Unger breached the founder’s agreement
  • Unger is forbidden to make any use of the software without permission from ICM LTD.
  • Unger has to pay ICM LTD 100,000 Shekels statutory damages.
  • Unger has to pay costs of 4500 Shekels and 25,000 Shekels legal fees.

47761-11-11 Cashdi et al. vs. Under et al., ruling by Judge Shwartz, 26 April 2015.

COMMENTS
To a large extent, the issue is factual rather than legal. Judge Shwartz has to rely on the agreement as signed to work out what the parties intended.


Madonna’s Apples

April 28, 2015

Madonna's apples

CNN broke a story over the weekend about a woman who has  had to copyright her breasts in response to revenge porn.

It seems that she enjoyed a long distance relationship and sent her significant other ‘selfies’ that would perhaps be best described as compromising. When the relationship petered out, she was aghast to discover that her significant other had uploaded the pictures to the Internet and they had gone viral.

Apparently, the constitutional right of ‘Freedom of Speech’ under the US Constitution may over-ride rights to privacy. The legal advice she got was to copyright the images.

Now, as the photographer of the selfies, she has rights in the image. If her boyfriend had photographed her, she would not have these rights. Copyright is automatic under International treaty, but to enforce in the US, registration is required. She dutifully, uploaded a hundred or so images to the Library of Congress, where apparently, the images are catalogued but restricted, so only one filing clerk there has seen the images.

Here is the problem. Let’s assume that Ms ‘Hozer B’Tzniyut’ discovers a compromising image on a website. She get’s a lawyer to send a Cease & Desist letter. The site owner may request proof, and will then be sent the full book of pictures. Now, whereas the individual image may come down, the others may be posted elsewhere. Very difficult to work out who has uploaded and to where. Oh, and there are video clips as well.

Madonna, who has an interest in Kabbala, has published a retelling of a story by the Hassidic Master, the Baal Shem Tov, comparing retracting libel and slander with ripping open a pillow on a hill top on  a blustery day, and then trying to collect all the feathers. If Esther Madonna ever decides to try to remove compromising pictures of herself from the Internet, she will discover that the problems are similar.

There is probably a moral in this story somewhere….

Talking of modesty, I was somewhat appalled to hear the opening item on the Mid Day News on Israel National Remembrance Day that a headmaster of a Convent School  Ulpana had invited ex-students now serving in the army to attend the school’s remembrance ceremony, and since they turned up in uniform, wearing trousers, that he asked them not to attend. This story was worrying for a number of reasons. The fact that it got on the news means that the headmaster was set up, and should have known better. The girl soldiers could, however, have worn a skirt uniform. That said, the impressionable school girls are presumably aware both of the school’s policy and of the fact that after leaving school, some girls young women may, nevertheless, wear slacks.

Travelling home for the Independence Day Celebrations, just after hearing this storm in a tea-cup, I picked up a hitch-hiker by Eli. the hitch-hiker teaches in the religious, pre-army program in Eli. He felt that the headmaster was right and and that there was an issue of modesty. I countered that it was an issue of fashion. He noted that one can see the shape a woman’s lower anatomy if she is wearing slacks. I was tempted to point out that he was wearing trousers and one could see the shape of his lower anatomy as well.  He could, of course, wear the dishdash (also referred to as dish-dasha or even gandoora, gandurah or even tawb or taub), the long white robe favoured by our Moslem cousins in the villages around Eli, or Begged Ivri, the style of dress of 2000 years ago, worn by actors playing Jews in films about Masada and the Crucifixion, like Ben Hur, Life of Brian, etc. In other words, clothing is far more about fashion than modesty.

Proverbs 30: 18-19:  “There are three things which are too wonderful for me, Four which I do not understand: The way of an eagle in the sky, The way of a serpent on a rock, The way of a ship in the middle of the sea, And the way of a man with a maid“.

What these verses mean, is that there are things that don’t leave a trace.

In the picture of Madonna above, with her sheitel like haircut and long sleeves, she looks more like a balabusta than like a Sem girl Like a Virgin.

Whilst watching the Ceremony distributing the Israel Prize to notable worthies the following day, I noted that the one female honoree, and also the President of the Supreme Court, Miriam Naor, in her official capacity, representing the Israel Legal System, both chose to wear slacks. This is fairly conclusive proof that slacks for women are an issue of fashion and not modesty.

Then again, bugger it! As the Honorable Miriam Naor walked away from the camera, I remembered, Mr Bumble’s famous saying, “the Law is an Ass.”


Vanunu’s hand

April 15, 2015

learned hand

Zoom 77 A. Sh. LTD has sued Buzz Television LTD for copyright infringement in that Buzz Television broadcast the well known photograph of Israeli traitor Mordechai Vanunu’s hand pressed against the van Uno car window, with the information that he was abducted in Rome by Israel’s Secret Service.

Instead of arguing for informational, non-profitable purposes, de minimis fair use, I am not reproducing the offending image here. Those interested in it can type Vanunu hand into their search engines.

Buzz Television LTD included the image (Vanunu’s Hand, not Learned Hand) in a documentary called the Israel Connection that was produced for Israel’s Educational Television channel. They did not receive permission to include the image and Israel’s Education Television was sued and obliged to pay compensation. See Civil Case 9260-09-12 Zoom 77 A. Sh. LTD vs. Israel Educational Television, 16 January 2014.

(ת”א (מחוזי י-ם) 9260-09-12 זום 77 א.ש (2002) בע”מ נ’ הטלוויזיה החינוכית הישראלית (16.1.2014
Buzz Television LTD used a clip including the image on their website as well, also without permission and without indicating the copyright owner. This second usage is the basis of the current law suit in which Zoom 77 claimed 80,000 NIS compulsory compensation without proof of damage under Section 56 of the Israel Copyright Act 2007.
Buzz Television LTD accepted that the image was owned by Zoom and that displaying it on Buzz’ website was an infringing use. The point of contention was the appropriate compensation in the circumstances.

Section 56b of the Law brings various relevant considerations for setting the compensation including the scope of infringement, its longevity, its seriousness, actual damages, profits to the infringer, the defendant’s activities, the relationship between plaintiff and defendant and inequitable behaviour.

In the present instance, Judge Gideon Gidoni of the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court noted that the photograph has significant journalistic value and was used to market and promote the defendant’s activities. On the other hand, no evidence was given by the plaintiff regarding the traffic to the website in general and the clip in particular. The Defendant claimed that the clip was a minor component on the website and hardly watched.

No evidence was provided as to how long the image was displayed, but one can assume that the defendant was involved in the case against Israel Educational Television 18 months earlier, and could and should have taken down the clip. Buzz Television is a production company working in the media industry and should be aware of copyright issues and should consequently be highly aware of other’s creative rights. The cost of licensed use of the image was 1600 Shekels.

Judge Gidoni noted the damages paid by Israel Educational Television 18,000 Shekels for first infringement and then 50,000 Shekels for a second infringement last year, and that this was a repeat, albeit indirect infringement of the same product.

He also related to third parties reproducing other news images, including Rachmani v. Israel News 2011 (15000 Shekels for an iconic news image)  the learned, but perhaps not very analytic judge ruled compensation of 25000 Shekels. Civil Appeal Basketball League Management vs. Rachmani (the famous Tal Brody lifting the European trophy “we are on the tablecloth map” where 18000 Shekels was ruled and Kfar Blum Kayaks vs. Manara Cliff 2012, where 75000 Shekels was awarded for moral rights infringed by not mentioning the name of the photographer of the tourist attraction.

In another recent case, Zoom sued Tratkover and was awarded 22000 Shekels.

Judge Gidoni ruled 25000 Shekels compensation, 1000 Shekels costs and 3000 Shekels legal fees.

Sh-14-02-30214-730 Zoom 7 vs.Buzz television re Vanunu’s hnad photo, Judge Gidoni, Jerusalem Magistrates Court, 8 April 2015.

COMMENT

Vanunu set up the picture. The handwriting, font and content of the writing on his hand is his copyright. He was also responsible for positioning his hand on the car window and for his posture. Perhaps he deserves royalties as much as he is deserved his jail sentence?  The journalists that caught the image did very little artistic creation, and arguably whoever crops the image for insertion into a newspaper deserves as much credit and name recognition.

There is certainly a value in fidelity of the law, and levels of compensation for similar infringing acts by different parties should, perhaps, be similar. I would, however, like to feel that judges can analyze and reach sophisticated conclusions and not merely bean count.

I believe that there are iconic images, film clips, sound tracks and the like that have a place in any documentary or dramatization of significant history. I think it ridiculous that a birthday party in a film won’t include children singing Happy Birthday. A film of Martin Luther King couldn’t reproduce his “I have a dream” speech.

In Israel, Holocaust Memorial Day starts this evening. When looking for two rapper versions of Israel’s National ANthem, Hatikveh that were the basis of a copyright infringement proceedings, I discovered a BBC radio clip of the first Friday night Kabbalat Shabbat Service from Bergen Belsen after the camp was liberated. After singing the Hatikveh, one clearly hears the then British Chaplain, the Late Reverend Hardman announcing that the people of Israel live. I sent the clip to his grandson, Danny Verbov who thanked me, and told me that he;s sent the clip about one a month. He kindly sent me a copy of Rev Hardman’s sermons that he’d edited. (I am ashamed to say that I used to go out to play during the sermons).

Now, Danny (and presumably the BBC) could have sued me for downloading and copying or linking to copyright material. At one suing a month Danny would solve the problem of spam email and have a nice sideline. Thankfully he is a mensch and has more sense.

I’d like to see standard reproduction royalties for usage of these literary and artistic creations.

I have illustrated this post with a picture of the US judge who detailed the various considerations regarding compensation for patent infringement in Georgia Pacific vs. American Plywood. The reason for referencing this is not just that he found 15 Factors of relevance, which sounds like an extended family seder, or even that the judge is called Learned Hand. I think his analysis is of relevance when calculated copyright royalties as well as patent royalties.

As always, comments and feedback are welcome.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 565 other followers