Showing posts with label federal copyright law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal copyright law. Show all posts

Saturday, December 17, 2022

Supreme Court asks for Biden administration's views in Google copyright case; December 12, 2022

, Reuters ; Supreme Court asks for Biden administration's views in Google copyright case

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked the Biden administration to weigh in on song-lyric website Genius' attempt to revive a lawsuit over Google's alleged theft of its work.

The justices are considering whether to hear ML Genius Holdings LLC's bid to overturn a U.S. appeals court's ruling that its case against Google LLC was preempted by federal copyright law.

The Supreme Court often asks for the solicitor general's input on cases in which the U.S. government may have an interest."

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

Sonny Bono’s Widow Strikes Back in Cher Copyright Fight; Billboard, December 9, 2021

Bill Donahue, Billboard; Sonny Bono’s Widow Strikes Back in Cher Copyright Fight

"Cher’s legal battle with Sonny Bono’s widow is heating up, with Mary Bono arguing that the legendary singer should not be allowed to claim that her divorce agreement trumps important provisions of federal copyright law.

Cher sued Mary Bono last month, seeking to block her from taking control of Sonny’s music. The case is one of several closely-watched music lawsuits over copyright law’s “termination right” — a provision that allows creators or their heirs to win back control of rights they signed away decades prior."

Friday, May 20, 2016

Do You Love Music? Silicon Valley Doesn’t; New York Times, 5/20/16

Jonathan Taplin, New York Times; Do You Love Music? Silicon Valley Doesn’t:
"Unfortunately, there is a sad history of undervaluing musicians in the United States. Terrestrial radio, a $17 billion industry, pays publishing rights (payments to songwriters) but has never paid artists or record companies for music. In addition, the satellite radio company, SiriusXM, pays below-market royalties, thanks to a giveaway it first wrested from Congress 20 years ago. Conglomerates like iHeartMedia (formerly Clear Channel Communications) and other online services like Pandora, which are required to pay artists for digital streams, have exploited federal copyright law to deny payments for work recorded before 1972 (songwriters are paid; performers are not). This means artists like Aretha Franklin, Ella Fitzgerald, Chuck Berry and John Coltrane never received a dime from AM/FM radio and or from many digital services for some of their greatest music.
The last meaningful legislation in this area was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, which was based on the idea that creators should monitor the Internet for illegal copies of their works and give “notice” to websites and services to take pirated material down. Under the act’s “safe harbor” provisions, any service or site that makes a minimal effort to address these notices is immune from liability for piracy or theft."

Monday, February 2, 2015

Law Firm Founds Project to Fight ‘Revenge Porn’; Deal Book, 1/29/15

Deal Book, Matthew Goldstein; Law Firm Founds Project to Fight ‘Revenge Porn’ :
"The litigation is the handiwork of a new initiative by K&L Gates, a Pittsburgh-based law firm. Begun in late September, its Cyber Civil Rights Legal Project has roughly 50 lawyers at the firm volunteering their time...
The K&L program not only advises victims as to what legal steps can be taken to sue for damages, it also works with victims to consider the pros and cons of reporting online abuse to prosecutors. In instances where the victims have taken nude selfies or videos of themselves, the K&L lawyers are using the protections offered by federal copyright law to demand that the websites take down the images or risk being sued along with the perpetrators.
More often than not, commercial pornography websites, especially those based in the United States, will comply with a request to avoid any further legal entanglement.
But if a victim wants to bring a federal copyright lawsuit, there is a catch. In many cases, she or he would first need to register any videos or photos to be protected with the United States Copyright Office. In other words, to use copyright law as a hammer, a victim must publicly register a photo or video that she or he would rather no one ever see."

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

At Stake in the Aereo Case Is How We Watch TV; David Carr, 4/22/14

David Carr, New York Times; At Stake in the Aereo Case Is How We Watch TV:
"Again and again, Aereo has been tagged as a Rube Goldberg-like invention. Some justices appeared to agree with that view, suggesting that Aereo was exploiting a loophole, a clever end run around federal copyright law...
Aereo is a hybrid of old and new, built on a legion of miniature antennas that grab programming out of the airwaves, as has happened since the dawn of television, but then storing that content in the cloud to be called down in an instant or at a time of the subscriber’s choosing. As arguments proceeded, you could see the justices grappling with the implications attached to the start-up: was it a cable company, was it a cloud storage enterprise, and most important, was it distributing the broadcasters’ programming to the public and if so, should it pay the price for doing so?"

Monday, March 30, 2009

Public-Domain Status of Early Sound Recordings Delayed Until 2067 According to Library Report, Library of Congress, 3/30/09

Via Library of Congress: Public-Domain Status of Early Sound Recordings Delayed Until 2067 According to Library Report:

"Sound recordings were not protected by federal copyright law until 1972. A Library of Congress report indicates that the miscellany of state laws protecting pre-1972 sound recordings will extend copyright protection until 2067, creating a situation where some recordings dating to the 19th century are not available in public domain.

The Library announced today the completion of a commissioned report that examines copyright issues associated with unpublished sound recordings. This new report from the Library of Congress and the Council on Library and Information Resources addresses the question of what libraries and archives are legally empowered to do, under current laws, to preserve and make accessible for research their holdings of unpublished sound recordings made before 1972.

The report, "Copyright and Related Issues Relevant to Digital Preservation and Dissemination of Unpublished Pre-1972 Sound Recordings by Libraries and Archives’ is one of a series of studies undertaken by the National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB), under the auspices of the Library of Congress. It was written by June Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at Columbia University. The report is available free of charge at http://www.loc.gov/global/disclaimer.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clir.org%2Fpubs%2Fabstract%2Fpub144abst.html."

http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2009/09-060.html