Comments on: A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! 👀–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/12/a-512f-plaintiff-wins-at-trial-%f0%9f%91%80-alper-automotive-v-day-to-day-imports.htm Thu, 25 Aug 2022 19:25:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: hat4rain https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/12/a-512f-plaintiff-wins-at-trial-%f0%9f%91%80-alper-automotive-v-day-to-day-imports.htm#comment-3381 Thu, 25 Aug 2022 19:25:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=23348#comment-3381 Where do you get that “the copyright registrant is the target of takedown notices from a licensee”? Happy to be corrected, but I don’t think that’s accurate. As I read it, there was a copyright registrant (Harold Thomas Walters, not a party to this case); a licensee (Day to Day Imports, the DJ defendant) that didn’t bother to determine the scope of the registration; and a third party (Alper Automotive, the DJ plaintiff) that was targeted by the licensee’s flawed DMCA notices. The notices were flawed because DDI mistakenly assumed (or was willfully blind to the possibility) that its license covered non-creative, unprotectable portions of Walters’s registered design.

]]> By: King Charles I https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/12/a-512f-plaintiff-wins-at-trial-%f0%9f%91%80-alper-automotive-v-day-to-day-imports.htm#comment-3177 Sun, 26 Dec 2021 04:39:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=23348#comment-3177 p.p.s. the title of this blog post includes the eyes emoji. That’s fine, but the platform that your blog is running on has put the emoji in the ‘slug’ of the URI for this post. That is more problematic as some sites (incorrectly) just won’t accept the URI in their systems.

]]> By: King Charles I https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/12/a-512f-plaintiff-wins-at-trial-%f0%9f%91%80-alper-automotive-v-day-to-day-imports.htm#comment-3176 Sun, 26 Dec 2021 04:25:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=23348#comment-3176 Thank you for this summary. What a nutso case. Two sides arguing over something that is either not copyrightable at all, or is blatant copyright infringement. Registrant should have licensed the design from GM in the first place. (I just compared the registrants stickers to the OEM panel in the vehicles, and to any layperson they are essentially identical, as you would want and expect from a replacement)

And thank you again for all the 512(f) news. As someone launching a media site that will almost certainly be inundated with bogus DMCAs, just being able to cite to some – any – case law on this issue might cut the legs off a few miscreants before it ends in litigation.

p.s. I wish you had tags on this blog, not just categories. It would be nice to just follow a DMCA tag, or even a 512(f) tag.

]]>