The New Problem With Pinterest - Could it be Illegal?

Pinterest has more than 12 million users. And it’s the third most popular social media website behind Facebook and Twitter.

But could you get in trouble with each pin and repin?

“Pinterest is not illegal,” says Dallas intellectual property lawyer Casey Griffith. “The issue is that the users of Pinterest can clearly go on Pinterest and see that many users are posting content that is protected by copyright and therefore they are probably infringing copyright.”

“The law covers that the copyright owner may be able to cover their attorney fees and significant statutory damages and that could amount to tens of thousands of dollars,” says Griffith.

“In other words you’re saying because the photo has the watermark it indicates who the real owner of the photo is,” says Griffith. “No, that has nothing to do with whether you have the right to republish it or not.”

But with Pinterest, he says the free advertising and promotion means the chances of someone actually being sued for copyright infringement is slim because most people want their product pinned.

“So for the user realistically, even if they’re technically infringing on someone’s copyright, it’s probably not going to result in any kind of lawsuit or liability or damages,” says Griffith.

And Pinterest has taken steps to protect copyright owners. Pinterest has also recently changed its terms and conditions to make it easier to complain and have pictures taken down. Pinterest also introduced the “no-pin tag”

“The safest way is to pin images that were generated by you,” says W. Keith Robinson, Assistant Professor of Law at SMU. “So either photos you took or drawings you drew.”

Read More and See Video: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/10/31/the-new-problem-with-pinterest/

Viacom Sued Over Spike TV's 'American Digger'

The publisher of American Digger Magazine say the show has been bad for the image of the metal collecting hobby and want Spike TV to dig for another series title.

Spike's reality series, American Digger, isn't done causing grief among amateur archaologists who like to scavenge for historical artifacts.

Then in March, Ric Savage, the former professional wrestler who is the star of the series, was ousted as a columnist for the American Digger Magazine over his association with the show.

Now, the publisher of American Digger Magazine has gone another step, filing on Friday a trademark infringement lawsuit against Viacom for confusing consumers and damaging its mark.

According to a complaint filed by Greybird Publishers in Georgia federal court, "Immediately after the Defendants' show aired, the Holcombes began receiving a barrage of calls, e-mails and unfavorable comments on hobbyist forums from subscribers and hobbyists alarmed by the show's highly inflammatory and negative depiction of their hobby and the risks the show posed for the ability of hobbyists to continue their metal detecting activities, and believing that the show was related to the AMERICAN DIGGER magazine."

Greybird Publishers is demanding that the defendants be enjoined from using the American Digger mark and provide for destruction all video and other related items bearing the mark. The plaintiff is also asking for actual damages, Viacom's profits, and further legal fees.

In reaction, a Viacom spokesperson said, "This is a surprising lawsuit on a number of levels.  Primarily due to the fact that – although not disclosed in his complaint – we were issued a valid license from the plaintiff that permits our full use of the ‘American Digger’ trademark.”

Read More: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/viacom-sued-spike-tvs-american-384840

Agent of 'Hawaii Five-O' Creator Sues CBS

George Litto wants CBS to be paying a much bigger back-end to profit participants under an agreement for the original series made nearly 40 years ago.

Now, the 81-year-old Litto has a new plan for how he's going to collect what he believes is owed. In an amended complaint, he's added CBS as a defendant and wants the court to declare the 2010 agreement to be invalid. According to Litto's new attorney, Henry Gradstein, the development is a "game-changer" that could potentially put CBS on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.

Litto's boutique agency represented Freeman in 1966 when the writer-producer made his first deal with CBS for the original Hawaii Five-O, which lasted 12 years on the network. The deal entitled Freeman to 50 percent of the profits from the show. Litto got a 10 percent commission.

As the lawsuit states, "In effect, all revenue from exploitation of the Series in media and channels other than on CBS would be accounted for on a gross basis, without deduction or reductions for any costs."

But Litto says the Trusts weren't authorized to make such a deal -- that if any deal was to be made, it had to come from the joint venture that Litto and Rose Freeman established. Litto further alleges that CBS was fully aware of this, and couldn't "reasonably rely on the Trusts' warranty and representation" concerning the heirs' authority to make an amendment without Litto's participation.

So now Litto is seeking to void the 2010 amendment, which according to Gradstein, would mean that the 1974 amendment is still operative and require CBS to pay over much greater profits from the series.

"Plaintiff does not plead the existence of any actual controversy between it and CBS based on any cognizable legal theory," says the network's legal papers. "Plaintiff does not contend that CBS has failed to pay any money owed under the 2010 Amendment or otherwise owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff similarly does not plead any legal theory pursuant to which it may challenge the 2010 Amendment between CBS and the Trusts."

Another amended complaint is coming soon with more details about the 2010 deal as Litto attempts to revive the possibility of punitive damages.

A hearing on CBS' demurrer is scheduled for January, but Gradstein says he will be asking for expedited consideration due to his client's advanced age.

Read More: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/agent-hawaii-five-o-creator-384906

Angelina Jolie Lawsuit Heats Up as Lawyers Fight Over Private Information

Angelina Jolie 'Blood and Honey' Lawsuit Heats Up as Lawyers Fight Over Private Information

Forensic analysis of Jolie's e-mail, obeying the protocols of the Hague Convention, and figuring out protective orders are a few issues being discussed in an author's copyright lawsuit.

Attorneys for Angelina Jolie and Croatian author James Braddock have agreed to a 15-day trial beginning on January 29, 2014 in their dispute over whether the actress ripped off a 2007 book for her directorial debut, In the Land of Blood and Honey.

Attorneys for Angelina Jolie and Croatian author James Braddock have agreed to a 15-day trial beginning on January 29, 2014 in their dispute over whether the actress ripped off a 2007 book for her directorial debut, In the Land of Blood and Honey. If it goes to court.

Depending on how far this case goes, the dispute could get complicated thanks to Jolie's A-list status and the fact that the discovery process will happen both in the U.S. and in Europe.

Last December, Braddock sued Jolie, producer GK Films and distributor FilmDistrict weeks before In the Land of Blood and Honey hit theaters. The original complaint was filed in Illinois, but Braddock wasn't successful in showing why a federal court there had jurisdiction over the matter, so it was moved to California.

According to the original complaint, Braddock authored a book entitled The Soul Shattering. He says that on his travels to Sarajevo to promote his work and create awareness for Bosnian war victims, he met Edin Sarkic and allegedly discussed with him the possibility of creating a film adaptation.

According to a court document filed late last week in the case, Jolie's lawyer Harrison Dossick says, "The Parties recognize that discovery in this case will extend to information and witnesses located in Eastern Europe and elsewhere outside the United States, and therefore will require substantial planning, will necessitate service of process pursuant to the Hague Convention, and will be very costly and time consuming."

Jolie's attorney wants a strict confidentiality and protective order in the case.

Both sides say they haven't engaged in any settlement discussions as of yet. In fact, the lawsuit might expand before it goes away. Braddock's lawyer says he anticipates the need to add claims of unfair competition and false advertising. Jolie's lawyer believes there's no grounds to permit this.

Read More: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/angelina-jolie-blood-honey-lawsuit-384743

Kate Moss: I Spent Years Crying Over Johnny Depp

The supermodel reveals her broken heart, deep insecurities and lack of professional guidance in a revealing new profile.

During their romance (1994-1998), Moss says she finally felt taken care of.

“There’s nobody that’s ever really been able to take care of me," she says. "Johnny did for a bit. I believed what he said. Like if I said, ‘What do I do?,’ he’d tell me. And that’s what I missed when I left. I really lost that gauge of somebody I could trust. Nightmare. Years and years of crying. Oh, the tears!”

Depp and Moss were the It Couple and Moss was far more famous than the actor in those years.

Depp used to go backstage when she did fashion runway shows in New York, London and Paris. Asked by this reporter why he was backstage at a Calvin Klein show in those years, Depp smiled and said, “To be with my girl.”

Despite being a poster girl for Heroin Chic, the trend of skinny, debauched looking girls that was in fashion in the mid-'90s, Moss never did the drug and says her her low weight had to do with working so much.

Read More: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/fash-track/kate-moss-johnny-depp-posing-385234

ABC Looks to Kill 'Pink Slime' Lawsuit, Saying It's a Threat to Free Speech

Network lawyers are bringing a motion to dismiss, warning a judge that the 257-page pleading by a South Dakota-based boneless-lean-beef giant is filled with a slime against the First Amendment.

ABC has asked a South Dakota federal judge to dismiss a $1.2 billion defamation lawsuit over its "pink slime" reporting.

The original lawsuit was filed in September by Beef Products Inc., a boneless-lean-beef giant, which sued the network as well as news anchor Diane Sawyer and several correspondents for its coverage of pink slime, the popular term employed to describe the use of fillers, trimmings and bacteria-killing ammonia in ground beef.

After ABC made noise about pink slime in a March 7 World News program, a consumer backlash rose against the use of it in supermarkets, restaurants and school lunches.

BPI alleged that "false and misleading and defamatory" statements were made by ABC reporters and USDA officials in the report, causing people to believe the product was unhealthy and unsafe. As a result of the backlash, the company says it had to close three plants and lay off 650 people. The $1.2 billion represented the damage that had allegedly been incurred upon the company.

ABC argues that BPI's claims are insufficient to support its allegations that laws have been violated.

According to the network's legal papers, "ABC News did not state or imply that BPI engaged in unlawful or fraudulent conduct in connection with the USDA's approval of LFTB, or in connection with how others label the ultimate ground beef products that are sold to consumers."

The network attempts to dismiss BPI's other causes of action including tortious interference, but overall, ABC wants a judge to throw out the lawsuit because of the consequences of letting it move forward.

"It is vitally important that they be addressed at the outset, because libel claims directly challenge free speech, and the mere pendency of these cases threatens to inhibit additional speech," says ABC, represented by the law firm of Williams & Connolly.

Read More & see ABC's memorandum: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/abc-looks-kill-pink-slime-385236

MLB ALL-STAR Pascual Perez Stabbed to Death

Former Major League Baseball pitcher Pascual Perez was stabbed to death in a home invasion robbery in the Dominican Republic ... this according to multiple local reports.

Perez -- who pitched in the Majors for 11 years -- was reportedly stabbed in the neck during the incident. There is speculation Perez was killed for his MLB pension payment he received before the murder.

Perez played for a slew of MLB teams -- including the Pirates, Braves, Expos and Yankees. He made the All-Star squad back in 1983 -- the same year he had a 3.43 ERA.

It is unclear if anyone has been arrested in connection to the murder.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/11/01/pascual-perez-murdered-killed-home-invasion-robbery/#ixzz2B08bb5xZ