This might be an interesting example for moral rights in the French droit d´auteur system. Even if the band has been paid by the UMP via the author´s collective SACEM, they might still disagree with being associated with a conservative political party.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/feb/24/nicolas-sarkozy-party-compensates-mgmt
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Trade Dress/Trade Secrets in Restaurants - NYC lawsuit
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/nyregion/27pearl.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=dining
I confess I haven't checked to see how it came out, but this article about a lawsuit wherein a restaurant owner charged a former employee-turned-competitor with copying her restaurant’s concept (and a key dish) ties into the discussion in today's class.
I confess I haven't checked to see how it came out, but this article about a lawsuit wherein a restaurant owner charged a former employee-turned-competitor with copying her restaurant’s concept (and a key dish) ties into the discussion in today's class.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Remix Culture
"Artists have gotten no more money, businesses have not gotten more profit, and our kids have been turned into criminals."
This quotation is sums up the core of Lessig's problem with US Copyright law in its current form. The link leads to a review of his latest book, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. A relevant example of the disconnect between the goals and outcomes of copyright law can be found in the experience of Stephanie Lenz. In 2007, Universal Records sued her for uploading a video to YouTube of her toddler dancing to a Prince song in the background. Mr. Lessig points out that it is inconceivable that people would use this YouTube video in lieu of purchasing a Prince album.
While a good point, it misses an important issue - copyright is not just about money, but about controlling one's own artistic creation. Perhaps Prince has a deep-seated aversion to toddlers and opposes the use of his music in such a fashion. While that may sound silly to most, it is Prince's song and Prince should control how the song is broadcast. Anyways, a thoughtful book by a thoughtful man.
This quotation is sums up the core of Lessig's problem with US Copyright law in its current form. The link leads to a review of his latest book, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. A relevant example of the disconnect between the goals and outcomes of copyright law can be found in the experience of Stephanie Lenz. In 2007, Universal Records sued her for uploading a video to YouTube of her toddler dancing to a Prince song in the background. Mr. Lessig points out that it is inconceivable that people would use this YouTube video in lieu of purchasing a Prince album.
While a good point, it misses an important issue - copyright is not just about money, but about controlling one's own artistic creation. Perhaps Prince has a deep-seated aversion to toddlers and opposes the use of his music in such a fashion. While that may sound silly to most, it is Prince's song and Prince should control how the song is broadcast. Anyways, a thoughtful book by a thoughtful man.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
E-Book reader copyright issue
This from the WSJ: The text-to-speech (i.e. read aloud) experimental feature of Amazon's Kindle 2 bookreader is running into trouble with the Author's Guild (of Google Books copyright case fame). Why? The read-aloud feature is argued to be an audio right distinct from the literary right under copyright law.
More here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123419309890963869.html
-Ben
More here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123419309890963869.html
-Ben
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Is a car in a movie copyrightable subject matter?
For Herbie the Love Bug, the answer is yes! For “Eleanor” the Ford Mustang from Gone in 60 Seconds, maybe....
The 9th Circuit recently discussed copyright protection for characters in Halicki Films LLC v. Sanderson Sales and Marketing, 547 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. Nov. 12 2008). In this case, the owner of rights to the original 1974 film filed suit against famed Mustang manufacturer, Caroll Shelby, for merchandising activities resulting from Disney’s 2000 remake with Nicolas Cage and a pre-Brangelina Jolie.
The “original Eleanor” was a 1971 Fastback Ford Mustang, while “remake Eleanor” appeared as a 1967 Shelby GT-500. While the primary issue before the was whether the licensing agreement for the remake included merchandising rights, the court was presented with a secondary question of whether or not a car is a copyrightable character.
Applying the test of whether the character is the story being told, the Halicki court suggested copyright protection may be available for Eleanor. In particular, the court noted that in both the 1974 and 2000 remakes, the main character referred to his routine difficulties in stealing Eleanor the Mustang. Furthermore, the court highlighted the similarities of Eleanor to copyrightable comic book characters, where features are “consistent, and widely identifiable”. Speaking more to Eleanor’s penchant for avoiding theft, cosmetic differences between the two automotive models appeared to be of less consequence. The court remanded to the district court, emphasizing examination of “physical and conceptual qualities [and]… unique elements of expression”.
In summary, Herbie the Love Bug is the story being told and certainly copyrightables, while Eleanor may just barely qualify.
The Unfortunate Fate of Copyright Blogs, and What That Tells Us About the State of Copyright Law
A couple of months ago Keith Henning, a prominent copyright blogger, (http://copywrite.org/2008/10/14/blog-ending/) recently quit blogging. This comes close on the heels of what was probably the most prominent copyright blogger, Bill Patry, also quitting his blog (http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/08/end-of-blog.html). Bill is lead copyright counsel for Google, and his ideas on the field of copyright reflected the progressive stance that is part of Google's business culture.
Both of these bloggers cited similar reasons for ceasing their blogging activities. These included the benign aspects of limited time and communication from weirdoes, and the more troubling aspect of the overall "depressing" state of copyright law. The trends in copyright law, as both bloggers attest, seem to be almost universally negative. We discussed the influence of major corporations, namely Disney, on the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in class. And if the opinions of these bloggers are to be believed, that influence is ubiquitous in copyright legal reforms. Mr. Henning cited the current example of the Pro-IP Bill, saying that "there is nothing in [it] to benefit actual people or even creators, only things to put the screws to anyone unlucky enough to get to in the way of a record label or large movie house." Based on the limited information that I have and my natural cynicism, I'm inclined to believe him.
The theme of corporate influence over copyright law is reinforced by Henning's fourth reason for quitting, which is how incredibly depressing it is to interact with victims of the RIAA's litigation campaign that contact him. The RIAA suits have been riddled with legal, factual and constitutional errors, and yet they have managed to extract over $300 million from thousands of defendants, many of whom are innocent, while only conducting a few trials that have actually made it to court. It is difficult to conceive of how such a Machiavellian scheme could succeed without the tremendous resources and influence of a multi-billion dollar industry.
Copyright law is fun. It has probably been the most interesting field of law that I have studies thus far, and my interest in it extends beyond classroom. But I share the opinions of the recently retired copyright bloggers that it is being destroyed by the influence of wealthy organizations. Perhaps that is part of what makes it so interesting, to see what the dirty old RIAA is up to next. It helps to have a definite villain in any good story, and the RIAA assumes that role in an almost vaudevillian fashion.
Despite my dismay with the direction of copyright law, I will continue to monitor it in the future, and hopefully will get to practice it someday. I will certainly be watching the first web-based simulcast of Harvard Professor Charles Nesson's oral argument against the RIAA. It is currently scheduled to be broadcast on Feb. 24 on Harvard's Law School website. The RIAA has opposed the broadcast, to which amici such as the AP, Hearst, PBS, NPR and the EFF have responded, so the date and time have not yet been finally determined. But they will soon and the information will be on the internet if you are interested. I'll bring the popcorn.
Both of these bloggers cited similar reasons for ceasing their blogging activities. These included the benign aspects of limited time and communication from weirdoes, and the more troubling aspect of the overall "depressing" state of copyright law. The trends in copyright law, as both bloggers attest, seem to be almost universally negative. We discussed the influence of major corporations, namely Disney, on the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in class. And if the opinions of these bloggers are to be believed, that influence is ubiquitous in copyright legal reforms. Mr. Henning cited the current example of the Pro-IP Bill, saying that "there is nothing in [it] to benefit actual people or even creators, only things to put the screws to anyone unlucky enough to get to in the way of a record label or large movie house." Based on the limited information that I have and my natural cynicism, I'm inclined to believe him.
The theme of corporate influence over copyright law is reinforced by Henning's fourth reason for quitting, which is how incredibly depressing it is to interact with victims of the RIAA's litigation campaign that contact him. The RIAA suits have been riddled with legal, factual and constitutional errors, and yet they have managed to extract over $300 million from thousands of defendants, many of whom are innocent, while only conducting a few trials that have actually made it to court. It is difficult to conceive of how such a Machiavellian scheme could succeed without the tremendous resources and influence of a multi-billion dollar industry.
Copyright law is fun. It has probably been the most interesting field of law that I have studies thus far, and my interest in it extends beyond classroom. But I share the opinions of the recently retired copyright bloggers that it is being destroyed by the influence of wealthy organizations. Perhaps that is part of what makes it so interesting, to see what the dirty old RIAA is up to next. It helps to have a definite villain in any good story, and the RIAA assumes that role in an almost vaudevillian fashion.
Despite my dismay with the direction of copyright law, I will continue to monitor it in the future, and hopefully will get to practice it someday. I will certainly be watching the first web-based simulcast of Harvard Professor Charles Nesson's oral argument against the RIAA. It is currently scheduled to be broadcast on Feb. 24 on Harvard's Law School website. The RIAA has opposed the broadcast, to which amici such as the AP, Hearst, PBS, NPR and the EFF have responded, so the date and time have not yet been finally determined. But they will soon and the information will be on the internet if you are interested. I'll bring the popcorn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)