Amazon Studios, Simon Tolkien and the Tolkien Estate copied characters, storylines and images from plaintiff Demetrious Polychron, alleges a Friday copyright infringement lawsuit (docket 2:23-cv-02831) in U.S. District Court for Western California in Los Angeles. Polychron, a Los Angeles resident, asserts the defendants infringed his copyrighted work in the TV series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (ROP). Polychron received a copyright for his work, The Fellowship of the King (TFOTK), Nov. 21, 2017, alleges the complaint. The copyright infringement suit, which also names then-Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and “Does 1-100,” alleges Polychron made several attempts to reach J.R.R. Tolkien’s grandson Simon Tolkien, asking for review of his manuscript but received no response. Two years later, Polychron retained counsel to contact the Tolkien Estate and related entities, giving detailed descriptions of his book “with request for review and collaboration.” Defendants’ counsel “rebuffed any attempt at collaboration” the next day. A few weeks later, Polychron delivered a copy of the TFOTK manuscript, identified with a copyright symbol, to Tolkien’s Santa Barbara, Calif., home, “hoping he would review the manuscript and reconsider collaboration,” the complaint said. About three weeks later, he requested return of the manuscript and advised Tolkien he would publish it, plus six more books in the series. Amazon Studios and The Tolkien Estate agreed to create ROP in November 2017; the Tolkien Estate paid Amazon Studios $250 million for rights to the series “that ultimately copied Polychron’s book” and has earned defendants more since its release, the complaint alleges. Despite inspiration from Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, Polychron developed “a wholly original book and concept” for his works that “compose as much as one-half of the 8-episode series as release and published by Defendants.” In addition, defendants “copied images that match the book cover and descriptions as created in the book as authored by Polychron,” it said. Defendants have since, “in blatant disregard for their infringing use of Polychron’s creation,” registered seven copyrighted works in the ROW series, it said. Plaintiff seeks an injunction against alleged copyright infringement, abandonment of cited copyright registrations, damages due to unfair trade practices, profits and advantages not less than $250 million, plus legal costs.
Plaintiffs “failed to establish a single adequate, common question of fact or law applicable to each member of either putative class,” said defendants in a Tuesday response (docket 22-cv-01213) to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and for leave to file their third amended complaint in Missouri v. Biden. The court should deny both motions, they said.
The complicated series of transactions in the Standard/Tegna deal and the companies’ own submission of “narrowly crafted” concessions at a “late stage” of the process led to the protracted review of the purchase and subsequent hearing process (see [Ref;2304040063]), said the FCC in a partially redacted response filing Tuesday (docket 23-1084) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The broadcasters' response is due Friday.
The Feb. 13 class action alleging publisher Macmillan negligently let cybercriminals infiltrate the personally identifiable information of more than 19,000 current and former employees (see 2302140045) added two named plaintiffs who are asserting harms from the June 16 data breach, said the amended complaint Monday (docket 1:23-cv-01217) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York. The original plaintiff, Victoria Batchelor, lives in Tulsa, and wasn’t notified of the breach until Dec. 1, it said. She worked for Macmillan for five years, but left the company six years ago, it said. A new second plaintiff, New York resident Diana Griffin, worked for Macmillan for two years but also left there about six years ago, and she didn’t learn about the breach until January, it said. The third plaintiff is another New Yorker, Jaime Ariza, who left Macmillan two years ago after working there 12 years, it said. Ariza also didn’t know about the breach until Macmillan notified him Dec. 1, the complaint said. Since the breach, he has suffered from “an increasing flood” of spam texts, phone calls and emails, and a fraudster tried to open a Chase bank account in his name, it said. All the plaintiffs allege they suffer from the risk of “imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft.”
U.S. District Court Judge William Conley for Western Wisconsin granted Google’s motion to dismiss a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lawsuit brought by BlueType and its Gelbooru/Gelcom anime creator website, said a Friday opinion and order (docket 3:21-cv-00320) in U.S. District Court for Western Wisconsin in Madison. Plaintiffs claimed Google’s wrongful “interference with business contracts” affected Gelbooru revenue. Google received multiple DMCA takedown notices from defendants “Does 1 and 2” claiming certain contact on Gelbooru infringed their copyright, and Google forwarded the notices to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege Google failed to comply with Rule 512 strictures by redacting contact information from the original notices, failing to restore the disputed content within 10 to 14 business days of receiving plaintiffs’ counter notices, and failing to forward their counter notices to senders. Plaintiffs have until April 28 to file an amended complaint meeting certain requirements, including exhibits to the amended complaint with takedown notices they allege are false, said the order, or the court will dismiss the case. “Even if Google did not follow the procedure entitling it to a safe harbor defense in this case, the effect is disqualifying it from that defense,” not creating liability under Section 512 of the DMCA for violating plaintiffs’ rights, the order said.
The district court’s dismissal of choreographer Kyle Hanagami’s claims that Epic Games stole his copyrighted dance moves for its Fortnite franchise (see 2301310037) was “consistent” with the Copyright Act, 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court case law and Copyright Office regulations, said Epic’s answering brief Friday (docket 22-55890) in Hanagami's 9th Circuit appeal.
As the removing party invoking federal jurisdiction, it’s the burden of defendant Amazon Web Services to establish subject-matter jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago over plaintiff Cynthia Redd’s Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act claims, said Redd’s reply Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-06779) in support of her motion to remand her case to Cook County Circuit Court where it originated before AWS removed (see 2303160070). Establishing subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court includes demonstrating Redd’s Article III standing, “a necessary component of federal jurisdiction,” it said. That means AWS must show Redd has Article III standing, but it “fails to carry that burden,” it said. AWS misrepresents Redd’s procedural 15(c) allegations and adds language that Redd didn’t plead, it said. Redd, for example, doesn’t allege AWS’ Section 15(c) violations resulted in her loss of the right to control her biometric data, it said. She rather alleges AWS’ actions in violating the BIPA “disregard her and other users’ rights to biometric privacy and control over the collection, use, and storage of sensitive biometric data,” it said. AWS also tries to take a second bite of its “motion to dismiss apple” by improperly rearguing the issue of personal jurisdiction, said Redd’s reply. AWS admits subject-matter jurisdiction “should be addressed first and foremost,” it said. Yet it nonetheless cites “irrelevant and inapplicable cases” to argue the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction in the present case is too complex and novel here that personal jurisdiction “should be decided first and in its favor,” it said. “That’s simply untrue.” Numerous courts within the Northern District of Illinois “addressed the same remand issue and have found remand appropriate,” it said.
AT&T seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on the denial by Kootenai County, Idaho, of AT&T’s June 15 application for a conditional use permit to build, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunication facility in the northwest corner of the state near the Washington border, said the carrier’s complaint Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00124) in U.S. District Court for Idaho. The proposed facility includes a 150-foot-tall lattice tower with a five-foot lightning rod installed at the top of the tower and related ground equipment on a seven-acre undeveloped parcel of land that's zoned “agricultural suburban,” it said. The tower would be fashioned from galvanized steel, “with an anti-glare finish to best blend with the surrounding area,” it said. AT&T needs the proposed facility to close a “significant” wireless service gap in the county, and it’s “the least intrusive means” to remedy that gap, it said. The local board of county commissioners approved AT&T’s application Oct. 27, but the board granted reconsideration and reversed the approval Feb. 28, concluding that the original approval was made in error, it said. The denial “is not supported by substantial evidence,” in violation of the Communications Act’s Section 332, it said. The county “has effectively prohibited AT&T’s installation of telecommunications and personal wireless service facilities,” also in violation of the statute. The denial also came more than 150 days after AT&T’s submission of a complete application, in violation of the FCC’s shot clock, it said. AT&T seeks an expedited review of its complaint as federal law requires, it said. The county didn’t comment.
T-Mobile’s Tuesday sur-reply to plaintiffs Craigville Telephone and Consolidated Telephone’s reply in support of their motion for appointment of a pretrial master for discovery was necessary to address “numerous new misleading (if not false) assertions and new arguments,” said the filing (docket 1:19-cv-07190) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago.
The plaintiffs who won summary judgment March 8 against defendants Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman for their roles in the threatening and intimidating robocall to suppress Black citizens' mail-in votes in the 2020 election (see 2303090003) plan to seek compensatory and punitive damages, statutory penalties, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees and costs, they wrote U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in a letter Tuesday (docket 1:20-cv-08668). Marrero had ordered the plaintiffs to file a joint letter by the Wednesday deadline on the “prospective relief sought.”