4 Million More Reasons To Oppose The EU Copyright Directive. With final language on the controversial EU Copyright Directive expected to emerge any day now, a petition opposing the filtering proposal has been signed by more than four million Europeans and was delivered to negotiators on Monday. In a blog for the Electronic Frontier Foundation on the petition, Cory Doctorow noted that EU lawmakers “often lament the lack of citizen engagement with the complex policy questions that they wrestle with” so the four million signatures should send a clear message. He also wrote that it is time for negotiators to face up to the mounting opposition and realize there is “no hope” of salvaging Article 13. “At this point, the entire Directive is in danger of going down in flames to salvage an unworkable, absurd, universally-loathed proposal,” Doctorow concluded.

Magic Wand Regulating In The EU. Mike Masnick’s Techdirt piece offers readers a disturbing look into the latest plans for the EU’s Article 13 copyright proposal. The summary documents show how little lawmakers understand about the industry they are seeking to regulate. Masnick wrote that the new summary documents reveal, “It is obvious that the vast majority of people working on this have no idea what they’re talking about, and are pushing incredibly vague rules without any understanding of their impact.” He concluded his thorough analysis with optimism: “I’m still hopeful that common sense eventually shows up in the EU, but at this point the only way for common sense to survive is to simply dump Article 13 entirely.”

Can You Copyright A Dance Move? 2 Milly Is Going To Find Out. A new lawsuit may help determine if a dance move can be copyrighted. Rapper 2 Milly sued the maker of popular game Fortnite for featuring his dance move the “Milly Rock,” likeness and “exploiting various African American artists’ talent without credit.” His lawsuit pointed to a number of other examples of “[appropriated] black music and dance culture” used in the game. “Case law on copyright cases for choreographed works is notoriously thin and murky in the first place,” wrote The Washington Post. “But here’s where things get more interesting: The case centers on avatars allegedly copying a human’s dance moves in digital format — a 21st-century problem for a 20th-century law.”

SCOTUS Watch: Photographer Asks Supreme Court To Revive Nike Copyright Case. In his petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court take up his case against Nike Inc, photographer Jacobus Rentmeester argued that the 9th Circuit’s ruling gave photography a “markedly thinner protection than any other art form,” according to a report by Law360. In 2015, Rentmeester claimed Nike had used his jumpman photo of Michael Jordan in Life magazine as the basis for its Jordan brand. In February, the Ninth Circuit rejected his case because Jordan’s pose itself was not protected by copyright law.

Irony Alert: Disney Uses Tech Company Names Under Fair Use. In an interview with The Verge directors for Disney’s Ralph Breaks the Internet explained that they were able to refer to tech companies like Google, Amazon and YouTube without permission due to fair use. “It’s kind of the equivalent of a live-action movie. Say they’re shooting a movie in Chicago, and a car is driving around, and we’re seeing in the background things we know, like Starbucks or McDonald’s. You don’t have to go through and paint that stuff out, because it’s just part of the tapestry of the environment,” said co-director Rich Moore.