Is The Contract Cast Members Sign To Be On Survivor Covered By Copyright? CBS Thinks So...

from the copyright-survivor dept

Eric Goldman points us to the news that CBS sent a DMCA takedown to Scribd after the reality TV site RealityBlurred.com uploaded a copy of the contract castmembers sign before being able to go on the show Survivor, as well as a copy of the "rulebook" they receive. CBS apparently claimed that both of these were covered by copyright. Thankfully, RealityBlurred filed a counternotice, claiming fair use due to its use for reporting and commentary -- leading to a scary two week period where CBS would have to sue if it wanted to keep the document offline. However, the two weeks passed and CBS did not respond to notification from Scribd, meaning that the Survivor Contract and the Survivor Rulebook are back online. And, of course, in true Streisand Effect tradition, this attempt at taking down this info has only served to generate even greater interest in what's in the contract and the rulebook. As an aside, while I can see the copyright claim on the rulebook, I think CBS might have more trouble getting a court to recognize copyright on a contract that contains little creative work.

Filed Under: dmca, survivor
Companies: cbs, scribd

Oscar Winner Sues BBC & CBS For Copyright Infringement Of His Photo

from the something's-missing dept

THREsq has an interesting story about how the guy, Louie Psihoyos, who won an Oscar for best documentary this year for The Cove, apparently has a pretty quick legal trigger finger against anyone using a photograph he took 15 years ago. He's sued a bunch of companies over the years, and the latest is the BBC and CBS. He claims that it cost him $100,000 to create the photograph, which can be seen here: And, yes, THREsq is showing the photo as well. In these two cases, it seems like clear fair use, since we're both reporting on the photo itself. However, where the BBC potentially got into trouble is in using the same photo to illustrate an article about Intel betting on TV and video content. What's odd, however, is that the reason CBS is being sued is "that CBS Marketing appropriated it for commercial display at the 2009 Intel Developers Forum." This makes me wonder if CBS Marketing used the image at the event that the BBC was reporting on, leading the BBC to believe it had the ability to use that image. That could make the legal fight a bit more interesting.

However, the article also notes that Psihoyos has sued a bunch of times in the past over this photo as well. For example, a year ago, he sued Apple for the second time over this photo. While that lawsuit was eventually settled, the details suggest that Psihoyos was barking up the wrong tree on that lawsuit. It wasn't a case of Apple using the image, but a random iPhone app developer. You would think that Apple would have a clear DMCA safe harbor response, which would protect it from such a lawsuit, so I'm a bit surprised they ended up settling.

Filed Under: copyright, louis psihoyos, photographs
Companies: bbc, cbs, intel

CBS Demanding Much More Than It Deserves In Dispute With 48HR Magazine

from the give-it-up dept

In May, we covered the dispute between CBS and the magazine 48HR. It was one of the rare situations where it really did seem like CBS had a legitimate claim that there could be some level of confusion among some between 48HR's magazine and CBS's television news magazine program, 48 Hours. We had hoped, however, that things could be quickly worked out amicably. Instead, it looks like CBS is being ridiculously overbearing in trying to negotiate an agreement. The 48HR folks have tried to be accommodating, but CBS keeps demanding more:

• CBS wants to be able to vet the magazine's new name.
• CBS wants to own the magazine's existing URL, 48hrmag.com.
• It's unclear how long the network would be willing to allow that URL to redirect to the magazine's yet-to-be-created new website, which Honan said would be the only way to ensure continuity between the debut issue, created the weekend of May 7, and the second issue, which they're planning for the end of August.

This is too bad. It still seems like the initial reaction of too many folks these days is to lawyer up, when a straightforward discussion that doesn't involve "we control everything" could come to a reasonable and amicable solution.

Filed Under: 48 hours, 48hrs, magazines, trademark
Companies: cbs

48 Hours (TV Show) Gets Upset At 48 HR (Magazine)

from the hipsters-vs.-old-people dept

I have to admit that I followed the entire 48 HR Magazine event last weekend with lots of interest, just from a "fun/funky idea for publishing a magazine" standpoint -- and not once did I think about the CBS TV magazine show 48 Hours. The 48 HR magazine was an idea put together by some of San Francisco's usual crew of creative hipsters, with a plan to create an entire (physical) magazine in, yes, 48 hours. They announced a topic (for the first issue, it was "hustle"), and people submitted a ton of stuff in the first 24 hours, which was reviewed, edited, etc. Then in the next 24 hours, the magazine itself was put together. Kind of a neat experiment. It wasn't a company or a business. Just an experiment.

It turns out that the folks involved in the (physical) magazine weren't even aware that the TV show was still on TV (I didn't realize that either)... but CBS's lawyers decided it was time to step in and fill in the details in the form of a legal nastygram. The two are targeted at entirely different people, but this is one case where (even if I never made the connection myself), I can actually see CBS's reasoning. There is a clear overlap and there certainly could be a likelihood of confusion. Chances are, when the next issue comes out, it's going to have a different name.

But, the whole thing does speak to the difficulty of just doing a fun experiment these days without involving lawyers. It's not so easy:

"To be honest, none of us even knew that there was still a program called '48 Hours,' so it never crossed our mind," said Mr. Honan. "When we were finished, we all felt like we had accomplished something significant, that there was a magazine there. It is the thingness of it, the physical evidence of the weekend that is so great. But the unfortunate truth I guess is that unlike what we said in the editor's letter, you can't do anything really large scale in contemporary society without have a legal team and a corporation."

Also, to be fair, despite the initial letter being full of legalese and sounding threatening, CBS's lawyers seem at least willing to talk:

"We are missing a gigantic step here," he said. "They need to respond to our letter, which they have not done, about what they can do and are willing to do. We would like to work something out, but they'd have to be in touch for that to happen. Then we can begin talking and negotiating."

Hopefully something reasonable does get worked out, and perhaps 48 HR's (or whatever it's going to be called) next issue can be on something like the "likelihood of confusion."

Filed Under: 48 hours, trademark
Companies: cbs

CBS Would Rather Kill Off Classic Jack Benny Video Footage Than Let Fans Rescue And Digitize It

from the killing-culture dept

In the past, we've seen time and time again how copyright has been used to lock up culture and make it inaccessible. At times this is literally destroying culture, as content is left on degrading media, and those who can preserve it are blocked from doing so. The latest example of this, as sent in by an anonymous reader, involves the famous comedian Jack Benny. Apparently, a bunch of Jack Benny fans have been seeking the right to digitize old audio/video footage of Benny from CBS in order to preserve it. But, in a short-sighted decision, CBS has instead decided to lock up the content and let it disintegrate away (literally):

Late last week the International Jack Benny Fan Club got some very bad news: rather than allow the club with the Benny family's enthusiastic blessing to digitally preserve some unreleased public domain Benny show masters that CBS has in its possession, the network is giving a thumbs down to the idea -- thus sealing these shows' fate so they will never be seen again. In effect, it's a bullet through the head of this body of Benny work. And here is the most frustrating tidbit for comedy fans and those who study comedy: the Fan Club offered to do the preservation at no cost to CBS.

Yes, some of this content is public domain. Of course, that doesn't mean anyone has a right to access it, but it is rather ridiculous that CBS won't even bother to release the public domain material.

Update: In the comments, Ben pointed to this response which claims that there is more to this story, and that CBS just didn't want to give the content out to this particular fan group. I still don't quite understand what the problem is with that fan group, and why CBS won't allow it, but it gives a bit more perspective on the story.

Filed Under: archiving, copyright, jack benny, public domain, video
Companies: cbs

60 Minutes Puts Forth Laughable, Factually Incorrect MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy

from the no-sense-of-history dept

31 years ago, in 1978, the television program 60 Minutes put on an episode about the awful threat of "video piracy" to the movie industry. Featuring the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the episode focused on how the VCR was going to destroy the movie business because anyone could copy and watch a movie in the privacy of their own home. Of course, in retrospect, that episode is hilariously wrong. You would think that, given how wrong they got it thirty years ago on this particular subject, 60 Minutes would be a bit more careful taking on the same subject again.

No such luck.

CBS's 60 Minutes has made itself out to be more of a laughingstock than usual when it comes to "investigative reporting," putting on an episode about "video piracy" that is basically 100% MPAA propaganda, without any fact checking or any attempt to challenge the (all MPAA connected) speakers, or to include anyone (anyone!) who would present a counterpoint. The episode is funny in that it contradicts itself at times (with no one noticing it) and gets important (and easily checked) facts wrong. And, of course, it basically mimics that old episode that history has shown to have been totally (laughably) false.

The report opens with the claim that counterfeit movies is where organized crime is making its money these days. Fascinating. Except they don't show any proof whatsoever that organized crime has anything to do with movie piracy at all. They just claim it, talk about Mexican gangs, and then assume it must be true. But, of course, most of the report actually focuses on the internet and file sharing of movies -- which completely goes against the claim that organized crime is "making its money" off of video piracy. After all, reports have shown that online file sharing has actually been putting DVD counterfeiters out of business. You would think that the "journalists" at 60 Minutes might have noticed this contradiction.

A big chunk of the episode is taken up by director Steven Soderbergh, who has come out in the past touting the MPAA's line before, so it's no surprise that he does so again. He claims that "piracy is costing Hollywood $6 billion a year at the box office." Does he mention that Hollywood has been making more and more and more at the box office every year the past few years? Oops. No. Did the reporters at 60 Minutes look into this fact and bring it up? Of course not. The entire story appears to be an MPAA press release, so you don't want to cloud it with pesky facts that prove they don't know what they're talking about.

Next up, Soderbergh claims that fewer movies are getting made thanks to movie piracy. Uh huh. Another checkable fact. Another one wrong. It was recently summarized, according to the movie industry's own numbers:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1177 Total Combined Gross: $7,596,626,766
(2009 figures incomplete, total movies scheduled to be released, gross to date)

So, actually, more than double the number of movies are being made today than just five years ago. Hmm. That's the sort of thing that a real journalist at a show like 60 Minutes might bring up to a biased director like Steven Soderberg, right? Nope.

The article mentions how to go to the movies these days, some people have to go through "airport-like security. Their bags are searched for cameras and they have to check their cell phones." Does it point out that this might be a pretty serious reason why people might not want to go to the movies? A reason why people might actually give less money to the industry? Nope. Why bother with details like that?

And then, 60 Minutes brings on our favorite industry spokesperson: Rick Cotton, NBC Universal's general counsel, the guy who warned that movie piracy put corn farmers at risk because people watching pirated movies eat less popcorn (never mind the fact that the corn industry is thriving, that people watching pirated movies still eat popcorn, and "popcorn" represents an infinitesimal part of the market...). Cotton was also the guy who thought it was a good idea to push people who wanted to watch the Olympics to pirate it rather than watch the crappy official online channel. Cotton is asked how many movies are released in the US:

"Ballpark, 400 to 500 movies are released in the United States."

Except, as we noted above, he's off by about 600 or 700 movies. Again, this is the sort of "fact" that a reporter, such as those employed by CBS and working on a television program like 60 Minutes might be expected to check, right? I would guess that most viewers of 60 Minutes expect the show's reporters and legions of other employees to do such basic fact checking. So, given that 1177 movies are going to be released in 2009, doesn't it make sense to, say, push back on Cotton's bogus number? Apparently not.

Random aside: I wonder how much money CBS makes from the big studios buying movie ads? That can't be important here, can it?

Most of the rest of the program is Soderbergh making a bunch of totally unsubstantiated statements, such as saying that no one would make The Matrix today. Why? No explanation. It's just that Sodergbergh says.

And, of course, beyond failing to fact check the most basic facts, no one at 60 Minutes thought to talk to anyone outside of the studio system to see if it made sense. It didn't talk to any one of the growing number of people who are making movies and embracing file sharing to help get those movies seen. It didn't talk to moviemakers who are embracing new business models. It didn't talk to copyright experts and consumer advocates who have shown how ridiculous the MPAA's claims are. In other words, it presented an MPAA press release as if it were news. Thirty years after it did the same exact thing and got the entire story wrong. It didn't even go back and note that earlier episode. It just repeated it with modern stand-ins.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, copyright, leslie stahl, movies, piracy, rick cotton, steven soderbergh
Companies: cbs, nbc universal

Making Magazines Worth Buying: Magazines That Play Video

from the neat! dept

Earlier this year, we talked about how some magazines were really making an effort to make the physical magazine worth buying by doing cool things with the physical product. Most of those were niche publications, but there's some evidence that much more mainstream magazines are experimenting as well. Last year, Esquire Magazine experimented with an e-ink cover. However, it looks like Entertainment Weekly is going even further, by allowing CBS to embed video within an ad in the magazine. Yes, you read that right. Basically, a small video screen is installed in between two pages, and seen through a cutaway. Apparently, it works pretty well, with full-motion video, including sound (apparently somewhat loud, with no volume control, which is a bit annoying). While a bit gimmicky (and probably quite expensive), it does get you thinking about some other possibilities for actually making physical magazines a bit more worthwhile.

Filed Under: business models, entertainment weekly, magazines, reason to buy, video
Companies: cbs, entertainment weekly

CBS Looks To Put Superbowl Online; Recognizes Online Doesn't Cannibalize TV Viewing

from the about-time dept

CBS has certainly taken a much more enlightened view to online content than NBC. While it's true that NBC is seeing a lot of success with Hulu, the company resisted online efforts for years, and has always resisted the idea of allowing people to watch content as they want to. Instead, the company has focused on limiting how, where and when you can watch its content. CBS, on the other hand, was an early believer in focusing less on control and more on just getting your content out there. For an example of this contrast, look at how the two networks are dealing with big sporting events.

As recently discussed, NBC is working hard to make it as difficult as possible for you to watch the Olympics online, even when its own experience showed that online viewers didn't cannibalize TV viewers -- in fact the opposite happened. People who watched online watched more TV. So why are they trying to make it so hard to watch online?

Meanwhile, CBS, which had tremendous success webcasting the NCAA's March Madness basketball tournament is now working to see if it can get the permission to broadcast the Super Bowl online as well (thanks to MattP for sending this in), knowing that it will likely bring in a larger audience, and increase the opportunities for everyone.

Filed Under: super bowl, webcast
Companies: cbs, nbc universal

Two Companies That Should Know Better Shut Down Helpful 3rd Party Apps

from the bad-news dept

Having just pointed out how multiple train operators are using intellectual property laws to shut down helpful third party apps, we're seeing a number of stories about other companies doing something similar. First up is Last.fm, which has apparently started blocked a bunch of third party apps that had been using undocumented calls to stream content from Last.fm. Last.fm (now owned by CBS) was in a bit of a quandary, because its licenses with the major record labels (there they go again, blocking innovation) forbid streaming except in specific circumstances -- so these third party apps "broke" the agreement. But... that's not quite true, because the agreements are between Last.fm and the labels, not the third parties. Last.fm has now specific requirement to block others from creating apps. So, yes, Last.fm has every right to do this, and I'm sure the labels were demanding it do this, but it still doesn't make it a very smart move. Those third party apps were making Last.fm more valuable. Blocking them hurts the overall value and pushes people to go in search of other services that are more consumer friendly.

This move also comes right after Last.fm's recent decision to charge for streaming outside of the US, Germany or the UK. This also has folks up in arms -- and is driving away users in droves to other solutions. Last.fm has plenty of competitors out there, and working hard to make its own service less usable and less reasonable isn't going to help keep users around.

Meanwhile, a bunch of folks have sent in the story of how DVD rental kiosk operator Redbox has pressured a third party to takedown its Redbox iPhone app. The app was apparently pretty cool, making use of the phone's GPS to tell you where the nearest kiosk is, and letting you reserve the movie you want. There is some speculation that Redbox is upset that the app also pulls a list of promotional codes, allowing some people to rent movies for free -- but that's a misguided concern. If that's the real issue, then they should just change how their promotional codes work because (of course) the codes are still available for anyone to search and use online. Shutting down the iPhone app doesn't fix that at all.

Still, it seems that both companies should know better. Having third parties build apps that make your services more useful is a sign of success, and should be encouraged, not threatened and shut down. We live in an age where too many people focus on using intellectual property as a club to block any use -- even when those uses are helpful in making your core product even more valuable.

Filed Under: 3rd party apps, intellectual property, platform
Companies: cbs, last.fm, redbox

Ocean Tomo Patents Being Used To Shake Down Companies That Have Online Recommendations

from the ebay-for-patent-trolls dept

Ocean Tomo is a company that's been around for a few years, trying to establish itself as the auction house for patents. I've already made clear how troubling I believe its business model to be, but the company always tries to put a friendly face on it, claiming that it's not about aiding so-called "patent trolls" but actually reducing the problem of patent trolling. However, that (of course) isn't what's actually happening. A patent on personal recommendation systems ("if you bought x, you'll like y") was bought via Ocean Tomo by what seems likely to be a bunch of lawyers under the company name Quito (though, it's not entirely clear who's involved) and is now being used in a lawsuit against thirteen big internet companies that employ any type of rating system. The companies being sued are: Netflix, Amazon, Yahoo, RealNetworks, last.fm, Pandora Media, Slacker Inc., Veoh, Hulu, NBC Universal, CBS, News Corp., and Strands.

As you look through that list, you'll recognize that some have done significantly innovative work in taking the concept of an online recommendation system and actually making it useful. The simple idea of doing recommendations is pretty straightforward. Making it work well? Not so much. Hell, that's why Netflix is offering $1 million to anyone who can improve their recommendation engine by just 10%. The basic ideas expressed in the patent are not where the value in these recommendation systems lies. It's in the actual effort of figuring out how to make them work better. This patent has nothing to do with the actual success of a recommendation system, but the holders of it may now get a pay day just for holding the patent, thanks to Ocean Tomo's auctions. And, of course, this means that all of those companies that were actually innovating will, at the very least, now need to spend legal dollars defending against this massive innovation blocker.

Filed Under: patents, recommendations
Companies: amazon, cbs, hulu, last.fm, nbc universal, netflix, news corp., ocean tomo, pandora, quito, realnetworks, slacker, veoh, yahoo