Articles Posted in INSD News

LogoIndiana Bible College has filed a lawsuit in federal court against Fred Bock Music Company, Dr. Rosephanye Powell, and up to 100 unnamed individuals or entities. The dispute centers on a piece of music titled “John 1,” which the college claims it composed independently. The defendants argue that “John 1” infringes on the copyright of Dr. Powell’s earlier musical work, “The Word Was God,” which is also based on the same passage of scripture from the Bible.  (Click on the links to hear renditions of each song.)

The conflict began when the defendants sent the college a cease-and-desist letter, asserting that “John 1” was a derivative work and constituted copyright infringement. Indiana Bible College denies these claims and insists that their composition is original and does not use any protectable elements of Dr. Powell’s work.

According to the complaint, the defendants went beyond legal demands by sharing statements online and with news outlets accusing the college of plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty. The college alleges that these statements were not only false but also harmful, damaging its reputation and disrupting relationships with students, musical collaborators, and organizations that had planned to perform or promote the piece. It also claims that the public allegations caused people to question the integrity of the composers involved and led to a loss of opportunities and trust.Logo2

Photographer Morgan Howarth has filed a federal lawsuit in Indiana against Angie’s List Inc., doing business as Angi, alleging copyright infringement. The complaint accuses Angi of copying and distributing one of Howarth’s registered photographs without permission to promote its home services business online. The case centers on a single copyrighted image titled “1881_Nash_Glickman_Bath_Shower_2_f.jpg,” created in 2015 and registered in early 2016.

PicHowarth, a Washington, D.C.-based photographer with over 25 years of experience, claims the image was used without a license on Angi’s Home Advisor website. According to the suit, he discovered the unauthorized use in June 2024 and attempted to resolve the issue with Angi later that year, but those efforts were unsuccessful.

The complaint, however, contains several noticeable errors, suggesting it may have been compiled using a copy-and-paste approach—likely due to the high volume of similar lawsuits Howarth has filed. Over the past 21 years, he has initiated 133 federal cases, nearly all involving copyright infringement. This places him among a small group of photographers who regularly go to court to protect their creative work.

BMI-300x158A group of music publishers and copyright owners—including Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), Howe Sound Music Publishing LLC, d/b/a Cypress Park Music, House of Cash, Inc., Showbilly Music, Muscle Shoals Sound Publishing Co., Peermusic III Ltd., Sony/ATV Songs LLC, d/b/a Sony/ATV Tree Publishing, Buffalo Prairie Songs, Fame Publishing Company LLC, and Southeastern Publishing LLC—has filed a lawsuit against That Place Bar LLC, and an individual named Scott Coyle. The plaintiffs have made claims of willful copyright infringement, alleging that the bar played or permitted the public performance of songs from the BMI music collection without obtaining the required license.

BMI manages the rights to over 22 million songs and is authorized to grant licenses that allow businesses to play these songs in public. According to the lawsuit, That Place Bar, located in Indianapolis, Indiana and operated by That Place Bar LLC, played music from BMI’s collection without getting the required license. Since March 2024, BMI says it contacted the bar more than 50 times—by phone, email, and mail—to explain the need for a license and to warn them to stop playing the music. These efforts included formal notices ordering them to stop, but the bar allegedly continued to use the music without permission.That-Place

The lawsuit includes seven separate claims of copyright infringement, each involving different songs owned by the plaintiffs. It also states that Scott Coyle, as the manager of the bar, had control over the business and a financial interest in its operation. Therefore, he is also being held responsible.

Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation has filed a lawsuit against Prime Engineering Industrial Solutions LLC and several people connected to the company. The lawsuit accuses them of using and copying SolidWorks software without permission. SolidWorks claims the company broke copyright laws, bypassed security features meant to prevent unauthorized use, and violated their contract under Massachusetts law.

Pic-1-1SolidWorks is a popular computer-aided design (CAD) software protected by several U.S. copyrights. The company uses special tracking tools that can detect unlicensed use based on device addresses (MAC addresses), location data, email activity, and IP addresses. According to the complaint, these tools found at least 403 instances of unauthorized use on computers tied to Prime Engineering’s offices in Indiana and Arizona. The lawsuit even lists specific computers and links them to named employees and company email addresses.

The complaint says the software was accessed using a tool called “SolidSquad (SSQ),”  which is designed to bypass SolidWorks’ licensing protections, allowing people to use the software without paying Pic-2-1for it. SolidWorks says the individuals involved downloaded, installed, or used the software in ways that clearly broke the license agreement, which doesn’t allow any unauthorized copying or use. The company also claims this wasn’t an accident—the defendants continued using the software even after being asked to stop through multiple cease-and-desist letters.

The following is the latest development of a closely watched patent case between Vandor Group, Inc. vs. Batesville Casket Company LLC. (Read background article here.)

Vandor Group, Inc. sued Batesville Casket Company and Batesville Services, saying that a product Batesville made—a cardboard cremation insert called the B-Insert—copied several of Vandor’s patented designs. Vandor’s invention was a foldable cardboard box used to temporarily hold a body. It could fit inside a rental casket for viewings and was designed to fold up for cheaper and easier shipping.

Pic-1-300x208

Vandor

Premier Weight Loss, also known as Premier Weight Loss of Indiana, is facing a lawsuit from Eli Lilly and Company. The lawsuit claims Premier has been selling altered versions of Lilly’s FDA-approved drugs, MOUNJARO® and ZEPBOUND®. Lilly accuses Premier of repackaging these medications, removing them from their original packaging, and distributing them in third-party insulin syringes without proper labeling, patient instructions, or safety information. Lilly argues that these altered drugs are unsafe, as they lack essential information like batch numbers and expiration dates, and may not meet FDA-approved dosages or sterility standards.

Lilly points out that Premier’s practices, including splitting auto-injector pens into multiple doses, can result in inconsistent and potentially harmful concentrations. The company also says Premier’s marketing misleads consumers and healthcare providers into believing these altered products are authentic, when they are not. Premier’s use of Lilly’s trademarks in advertisements is also a violation of intellectual property laws, according to the lawsuit.

Lilly argues that these practices pose serious risks to patients, particularly those using the drugs to manage conditions like type 2 diabetes. They believe the unapproved alterations could lead to ineffective treatments or dangerous side effects. The lawsuit aims to stop the sale of these allegedly altered drugs and correct Premier’s supposed false advertising. Lilly is also seeking damages for the purported harm caused by Premier’s actions.

WormHoleRonald Satish Emrit, an alleged resident of Florida and Maryland, has filed legal complaints in both Northern and Southern Indiana courts against six defendants, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the U.S. Department of Commerce, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, the American Institute of Physics, Kennedy Space Center, and the National Science Foundation. He seeks $500 billion in damages, claiming interference with business relations and potential contracts has prevented him from securing patents for his scientific theories.

In his Complaint, Emrit also identifies himself as “Preidential Candidate Number P60005535 and Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Seperate (sic) Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America.

Emrit’s work involves concepts in quantum mechanics, astrophysics, and relativity, including ideas about black holes, wormholes, and higher-dimensional geometry. He claims these theories are unique and patentable but have been blocked by bureaucratic hurdles and lack of recognition from scientific and government bodies.

Evansville, Indiana – A legal dispute has emerged over a local fundraising event called “Woof Fest.” Allison Bush, an event organizer who has been planning and promoting fundraising events since 2019, claims her intellectual property has been used without permission by P.A.A.W.S., Inc.—a local animal rescue group—and its treasurer, Julie Frazier.

According to the complaint, in July 2024, Bush and Frazier began discussing a joint fundraising event to benefit local foster-based animal rescues. During those discussions, Frazier suggested the name ‘Woofstock,’ despite allegedly knowing it was already used by another organization. In response, Bush says she proposed the alternative name ‘Woof Fest.’

WoofFestFBCourt Documents state that Bush then moved forward with the idea, hiring an artist to create a logo using images of her own dogs. The case filings further report that Bush paid for the design, received full rights to it, and began promoting “Woof Fest” on social media and other platforms. Records note that she later registered the name, WOOF FEST, and logo with the U.S. Copyright Office and applied for federal trademark protection.

The Plaintiffs, House of Bram, Little Nemo Music, and Major Bob Music Co., through their lawyers, have filed a lawsuit claiming that their copyrights have been violated under U.S. copyright law. Their main argument is that the Defendants allegedly played the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted music in public without permission.

Pic-2Defendant Franklinsteins, LLC is based in Indiana and operates Bud’s Rockin’ Country Bar and Grill in Evansville, Indiana, where the music in question is said to have been played publicly. The other Defendants, Kerry Chesser, Chad Brady, and Mikala Daly-Shemwell, are individuals involved in managing Franklinsteins. The Plaintiffs claim that all Defendants had control over what happened at Bud’s, including the music performances.

The Plaintiffs are members of ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers), which protects the public performance rights for its members’ music. The complaint states that ASCAP has attempted to contact the Defendants more than 70 times through phone, mail, and email, offering them licenses to play the music. Despite these efforts, the Defendants allegedly refused to agree to the terms, and the Plaintiffs argue that the performances at Bud’s without a license are copyright violations.

Picture1August Image, LLC, a company based in New York that represents over 100 photographers, is suing Static Media Inc. (formerly 7Hops.com Inc.) for copyright infringement. The lawsuit involves two photographs owned by photographers Peter Yang and Benedict Evans, who are both represented by August Image. Yang’s photo features Eddie Van Halen and his son Wolfgang, while Evans’ photo shows gamer Tyler “Ninja” Blevins.

The company claims that Static Media used these images without permission on its websites, including Mashed.com and SVG.com, in 2021 and 2020. August Image says Static Media never reached out to get the proper licensing, even though the photos are professional work and not meant to be used freely.Picture2

August Image purports to hold the exclusive rights to these photos through agreements with the photographers and argues that Static Media’s actions were a clear violation of copyright. The company is asking for damages, any profits made from using the photos, and for Static Media to cover the legal costs. They also want a court order to stop Static Media from using the images again without permission.

Contact Information