The fact that This Old Gal’s notice to Apple didn’t comply with 512(c)(3) just highlights its 512(f) deficiency.

The court says This Old Gal’s complaint to Apple was an allegedly false infringement notification. If Congress gets serious about 512 reform, the 512(f) conundrum needs fixing. This is one of the cruel ironies of 512(f): courts treat it as the exclusive remedy for wrongful 512 takedown notices, but 512(f) cases never win either, so victims of wrongful takedowns have no redress in practice. The court dismisses the tortious interference claim out because Section 512(f) preempts it. Copy Me That thus filed a declaratory judgment action in court, and it added a tortious interference cause of action. Apple did indeed kick it out and said it would reinstate Copy Me That only after it resolved the matter with This Old Gal.

Instead, This Old Gal filed complaints with Apple to get Copy Me That kicked out of Apple’s App Store. You’d think this fixed the problem, but apparently not. In response to This Old Gal’s complaint, Copy Me That removed This Old Gal’s recipes from the service and blocked future sharing. This implicates some tough issues about the copyrightability of recipes, but the opinion sidesteps all that. This Old Gal complained to Copy Me That that its users were copying its recipes. “This Old Gal” (again, who comes up with these names?) publishes recipes. “Copy Me That” (I’m pretty sure no IP lawyer recommended that name–it’s like a confession for copyright defendants) makes an app to help users manage recipes.

Copy me that app store