Author Sues Google For Copyright Infringement For Copying His 'Philosophy' In A TV Ad
from the living-life-to-the-max dept
Yeah, by now, we get it. The legacy copyright folks have spent decades beating into the minds of the public that every idea and concept and philosophy is "owned" and that you need to get permission for just about everything that it's no surprise to see crazy, nutty copyright lawsuits pop up every here and there. At least, usually, the really nutty ones are filed pro se (i.e., without a lawyer) and quickly dumped. However, it's doubly amazing when you get a lawsuit that feels like a pro se lawsuit, but is actually filed by a real lawyer. In this case, the lawyer is Joel D. Peterson, whose website lists "intellectual property" as one of his specialties. If that's the case, he may want to demand a refund from his law school.Peterson has filed a lawsuit on behalf of author Erick DeBanff, who appears to be trying to build some sort of "self-help" empire around living your life "to the max." The lawsuit is against Google for copyright infringement, because it appears that Google used a kind of trite message in a commercial about making every moment matter -- and it was the same way that Debanff subtitled his book. DeBanff's book is called "Vie Max" which also seems to be the name of the movement/fad/concept/something that he's selling. But the subtitle is "How to live the next 2 billion heartbeats of your life to the max."
And that according to DeBanff/Peterson (and basically no one else) is copyright infringement:
These words are essentially a direct copy of the words and philosophy in Mr. DeBanff's book and is a violation of the U.S. Copyright Act.Except they're not. Yes, it sort of marginally conveys the same idea -- that there are ~2 billionish heartbeats in a standard lifetime and that that number means something, but... uh... that's not copyrightable. It's an idea and as any first year law student should have learned, ideas and philosophies are not copyrightable. Just the specific expression of the idea and a throwaway line that barely has any detail at all is not going to cut it. The fact that there are ~2 billionish heartbeats in a lifetime is also factual information and you can't copyright facts (also kind of something you're supposed to learn early on about copyrights).
In short, there is nothing here that is even remotely copyright infringing, and suggesting that there is is laughable. Such a lawsuit should get tossed out quickly.
Anyway, no, just because multiple people come up with the same kinda sappy/kinda silly concept around the same time (and express it in very different ways), that's not copyright infringement. And a lawyer with any knowledge in "intellectual property law" should know that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copying, copyright, erick debanff, heartbeats, joel peterson, philosophy, vie max
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well yes, but...
At the same time, anyone with any knowledge in 'intellectual property law' is also likely well aware that with the insane fines in the wings for copyright infringement(not to mention how much it costs to go to court on it's own) most people and companies settle rather than fight back, which means it doesn't matter how strong or weak your case is, because a lot of the time it never even makes it that far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well yes, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well yes, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I must admit, I never would have thought of that. Now I'm wondering what else his book can teach us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now I'd like to read that book so I'll know what not to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
- Scan the newswire for recent lottery winners.
- Wait until they repeat some vapid pseudophilosophy like "Wherever you go, there you are!", or "Live the next 2 billion heartbeats of your life to the max!" that you've written down ahead of time.
- Sue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Super Power Men
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You might be hiring Joel D. Peterson to defend against a copyright suit yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ok Erick debanff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Refund Required, Compensation on its Way...
Therefore, in my opinion, he knows about copyright, his professors taught him how to mine copyright to its depth, and he know how to represent a client, do what your told and send a bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My thoughts
And does this lawsuit even allege that damage was caused? Are people going to see this ad and then not buy his book? I guess they could still go for statutory damages.
"Defendant Google has created a national commercial and ad campaign for Google Play, Google's online electronics and digital media store, that is confusingly similar to excerpts from Mr. DeBanffs book."
You know what else is confusingly similar, at least to this attorney? Copyright law and trademark law. Unless that's some weird theory of actual damages.
"Mr. DeBanff believes that using the idea, words and philosophy of his book in the Google Play advertising campaign infringes the Copyright Act."
What is this, some sort of weird way for the lawyer to get in a legal claim without actually claiming it? Like, the lawyer knows that copying a "philosophy" isn't infringement, but the statement that his client believes this is technically true so he can say that? Why else would you mention what your client believes about a legal conclusion about infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I propose the filing lawyer be strapped into a chair and be beaten on the head with a long green vegetable until he understands the essential difference between a cucumber and a pickle. Or, at the very least, the meaning of the word "essential" in a legal setting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"How to live the next 2 billion heartbeats of your life to the max"
vs.
"There are about 2 billion 5 hundred million heartbeats in a lifetime. You should feel every one of them."
Gee, I guess it wasn't a direct copy. The only words copied are "2 billion" (which doesn't even really count because 2 billion 500 million is not the same as 2 billion), "heartbeats", and "of".
And why specify "copied" and "duplicated"? Do those words mean different things? Surely he's not being paid by the word; the complaint is only 4 pages long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: beating the lawyer with a long green vegetable until he learns the *essential* difference between a pickle and a cucumber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... I'll see myself out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if there are 2,500,000,000 heartbeats in a lifetime and the book is for your future 2,000,000,000 heartbeats, does that mean it's a children's book? That cover doesn't look like it would draw too many five year olds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My idea, my copyright
And since I came up with this idea, I have now copyrighted it and I'll sue anyone who uses this trademark without my permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My idea, my copyright
There needs to be a penalty for lawyers who do these stupid things as well as the copyright holders who twist and stretch to try and find a way to make people pay them. Copyright has become this amazing thing that can do anything, its time we outline the actual limits and force them to work inside the lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the max
Shouldn't IMAX corporation be interested in someone copying the sound of their name?
http://www.yamaha-motor.eu/eu/products/motorcycles/sport-heritage/vmax.aspx
http://www.vim.org/s cripts/script.php?script_id=300
etc to the max. It's not like anyone was using the phrase "to the max" in the 1980s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do the math
Push it out to 76 years, and you have 2,500 million beats @ 60 beats/minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do the math
For simplicity, let's ignore that the heart rate increases with exertion and pretend that everyone maintains the average resting human heart rate at all times. This means that my new estimate will still be far too low, but at least within the realm of physical possibility.
The average resting human heart rate for someone in average physical condition is considered to be 60-100BPM, with a skew toward the higher end. Let's call it 80BPM for simplicity. Also, I'll ignore leap days in my calculation for the same reason.
76 * 365 * 24 * 1440 min/hr * 80BPM = 76,695,552,000 beats in a lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do the math
76 * 365 * 24 * 60 min/hr * 80BPM = 3,195,648,000 beats in a lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]