'Weird Al' Yankovic wants to 'bring sexy back' to the accordion; Fresh Air, NPR, November 16, 2022

Terry Gross, Fresh Air, NPR; 'Weird Al' Yankovic wants to 'bring sexy back' to the accordion

"GROSS: What kind of permissions do you legally need now to do a song parody, the kind that you do where often it's, like, musically note for note from the original recording but, you know, the lyrics are different? So, you know, you're satirizing the lyric, but the music isn't really - the instrumentation isn't really a satire. It's the thing. It's the - sounds like the original thing.

YANKOVIC: It's a gray area in terms of legally what I need to do especially in cases like "Smells Like Nirvana" because, again, that's satire. And that's considered free speech and fair use. And if push came to shove, if it went to the courts, generally, that's - you know, the courts rule in favor of the parody artist. But I - you know, I don't go by just what's legal. I go for what I think is right. And what's right to me is always getting permission from the original songwriters and get their blessing. Because if an artist doesn't want me to do their song, I will back off. I mean, no matter what, you know, the courts or the law says, it's like, I just want to, you know, do good by them because I respect artists. And I don't ever want them to feel like I'm, you know, stepping on their toes."

A.I.-Generated Art Is Already Transforming Creative Work; The New York Times, October 21, 2022

Kevin Roose, The New York Times ; A.I.-Generated Art Is Already Transforming Creative Work

"These programs use what’s known as “generative A.I.,” a type of A.I. that was popularized several years ago with the release of text-generating tools like GPT-3 but has since expanded into images, audio and video.

It’s still too early to tell whether this new wave of apps will end up costing artists and illustrators their jobs. What seems clear, though, is that these tools are already being put to use in creative industries."

Who Owns the Copyright in A Tattoo?; Lexology, October 17, 2022

McKee Voorhees & Sease PLC - Brandon W. Clark, Lexology; Who Owns the Copyright in A Tattoo?

"In this, the first ever case of its kind to reach a jury, the jury found in favor of Alexander. However, the decision was something of a hollow victory for Alexander as the jury only awarded damages of $3,750. This case illustrates many of the issues with putting a copyright case in front of a jury as the court removed many of Take Two’s potential defenses from the jury’s consideration including de minimus use, an implied license, and waiver.

While the issues are novel and some of the case specific facts are fascinating, the outcome of the case could have a significant impact on copyrights and licensing for video games, television, motion pictures, and photographs. It is too early to tell what specific impact the result could have, and the minimal damages award will likely prevent an onslaught of similar cases, but the result does indicate a potential increase in risk when using someone’s name, image, and likeness, and will likely change the way these licenses are drafted in the future.

From a practical perspective, since copyright rights can only be transferred via a signed writing, the one sure way to avoid this risk is to ensure that tattoo artists sign a copyright assignment at the time the work is completed."

The Supreme Court meets Andy Warhol, Prince and a case that could threaten creativity; NPR, October 12, 2022

Nina Totenberg, NPR ; The Supreme Court meets Andy Warhol, Prince and a case that could threaten creativity

"You know all those famous Andy Warhol silk screen prints of Marilyn Monroe and Liz Taylor and lots of other glitterati? Now one of the most famous of these, the Prince series, is at the heart of a case the Supreme Court will examine on Wednesday. And it is a case of enormous importance to all manner of artists...

However the Supreme Court rules, its decision will have rippling practical consequences. So it is no surprise that some three dozen friend of the court briefs have been filed arguing on one side or the other, and representing everyone from the American Association of publishers and the Motion Picture Association of America to the Library Futures Institute, the Digital Media Licensing Association, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, the Recording Industry Association of America and even the union that represents NPR's reporters, editors and producers, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.

The outcome could shift the law to favor more control by the original artist, but doing that could also inhibit artists and other content creators who build on existing work in everything from music and posters to AI creations and documentaries."

AI Creating 'Art' Is An Ethical And Copyright Nightmare; Kotaku, August 25, 2022

 Luke Plunkett , Kotaku; AI Creating 'Art' Is An Ethical And Copyright Nightmare

If a machine makes art, is it even art? And what does this mean for actual artists?

"Basically, we now live in a world where machines have been fed millions upon millions of pieces of human endeavour, and are now using the cumulative data they’ve amassed to create their own works. This has been fun for casual users and interesting for tech enthusiasts, sure, but it has also created an ethical and copyright black hole, where everyone from artists to lawyers to engineers has very strong opinions on what this all means, for their jobs and for the nature of art itself."

Most. Important. Copyright. Fair. Use. Case. Ever! JDSupra, April 13, 2022

Bruce Ewing, Dorsey & Whitney LLP; JDSupra; Most. Important. Copyright. Fair. Use. Case. Ever!

"What makes Warhol Foundation arguably the most important fair use case of all time is that the holdings of Campbell and Google have been characterized as being limited to parody and software, respectively, and sometimes not applied in other contexts. But Warhol Foundation is a case in which one artist made alterations to the work of another to create a new work with a concededly different message. If that new work is deemed to be a fair use of the prior work as a matter of law, then the fair use defense is likely to be broadened significantly across a wide range of artistic categories and fact patterns."

Neal Adams, Comic Book Artist Who Revitalized Batman and Fought for Creators’ Rights, Dies at 80; The Hollywood Reporter, April 29, 2022

Borys Kit, The Hollywood Reporter; Neal Adams, Comic Book Artist Who Revitalized Batman and Fought for Creators’ Rights, Dies at 80

"Adams also worked tirelessly to promote better working conditions and, radically at the time, creators’ rights, especially for their work. He early on recognized the value of creators and was a thorn in the side of publishers, demanding compensation for himself and others when their characters were adapted off the page.

He, along with Stan Lee, formed the Academy of Comic Book Arts, hoping to start a union that would fight for benefits and ownership on behalf of writers and artists. Lee wanted an organization that was more akin to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and the two parted ways.

In the late ’70s, when a new federal work-for-hire law was being enshrined, Marvel and then editor-in-chief Jim Shooter distributed contracts that stated freelancers could not assert copyright over their creations. As detailed in Reisman’s 2021 Lee biography, True Believer, Adams sent around a copy of the contract, scrawling on top, “Do Not Sign This Contract! You Will Be Signing Your Life Away!” While it caused a ruckus and awareness, the effort didn’t have its intended effect as Marvel flexed its muscle and threatened anyone who tried to unionize with a drying up of the freelance well."

The Freewheeling, Copyright-Infringing World of Custom-Printed Tees; Wired, March 16, 2020

Roger Sollenberger, Wired; The Freewheeling, Copyright-Infringing World of Custom-Printed Tees

"So, how can this model evolve without shortchanging IP owners or upending an industry with so much to offer? Do we need a new DMCA—and one for trademarks? Will anything change without new laws?"

How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits; The Rolling Stone, January 9, 2020

Amy X. Wang, The Rolling Stone;

How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits

 "Artists, songwriters, producers, and labels are now awaiting the next Zeppelin verdict, with many hoping that a judgment in Page and Plant’s favor could unwind some of the headache-inducing ambiguity introduced by the “Blurred Lines” ruling. Others see the case, which has a chance of going all the way up to the Supreme Court, as a reopening of Pandora’s box. Will the latest ruling clarify the scope of music copyright — or muddy it even further? “At what point is an element of creative expression protectable?” says media intellectual-property attorney Wesley Lewis. “Litigators are all hoping for more clarity.”"

Ludacris, Tom Luse, More to Speak at Intellectual Property Master Class; Georgia State University, November 6, 2019

Kelundra Smith, Georgia State University;

Ludacris, Tom Luse, More to Speak at Intellectual Property Master Class

"Entertainer and entrepreneur Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, and Tom Luse, former executive producer of “The Walking Dead,” will participate in “Intellectual Property Essentials for Creatives: It’s All About Content” presented by the Entertainment, Sports and Media Law Initiative and the Creative Media Industries Institute (CMII) on Nov. 16.

This full-day master class aims to teach students, attorneys, artists and industry professionals the particulars of intellectual property protection with a focus on content development and the distribution of music, television and film in the digital world...

“The expansion of Atlanta’s entertainment industry made this the perfect time to focus on content,” said Mo Ivory, director of the Entertainment, Sports and Media Law Initiative. “Understanding how intellectual property laws apply in music and television versus on social media is critical in the digital age. As more content developers move to Georgia, we need attorneys who know how to advise clients and artists who know how to advocate for themselves.”"

Peloton owners are pissed about bad music after copyright lawsuit; The Verge, April 24, 2019

Natt Auran, The Verge; Peloton owners are pissed about bad music after copyright lawsuit

"The changes in music selections resulted from a lawsuit Peloton faced last month, when the company was sued by members of the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) for failing to obtain a sync license to use some labels’ musical work in their exercise videos. Peloton customers now say they have noticed a significant downgrade in music quality, with remixed versions of a popular song instead of an original, or limited song variety from an artist. Users also note that classes they’ve favorited have disappeared from the catalog, since they contain songs that were named by the lawsuit as having violated copyrights...

It may seem silly to lament over music selections in an exercise class, but it’s an issue that fitness companies may increasingly face as they transform from traditional health companies into media publishers. Let’s face it: working out can be boring, and people are willing to pay top dollar to have someone yell at us while sweating to the latest Migos track. Combine that with the flexibility to exercise in your own home on your own time and it’s a revenue strategy that has helped brands like Equinox, Pure Barre, SoulCycle, and Physique 57 tap into a demographic that previously found the studios inaccessible. Even companies like ClassPass and Fitbit have also expanded beyond their initial product of a subscription service and fitness trackers, offering their own guided fitness sessions for $8 to $15 a month.

But as fitness companies dabble in media creation, they’re also navigating into the pains of becoming an entertainment company."

What does copyright infringement sound like?; The Washington Post, March 4, 2019

Daron Taylor, The Washington Post; What does copyright infringement sound like?

"Most music copyright infringement cases are settled out of court with shared writing credit — and royalties — as it’s extremely rare for these types of cases to make it to a jury. When it gets to that point, determining fault can be tricky.

In the video above, we explore how experts tell the difference between infringement and inspiration, and what that means for the music industry."

How Aretha Franklin’s ‘Respect’ Became a Battle Cry for Musicians Seeking Royalties; The New York Times, August 17, 2018

Ben Sisario, The New York Times; How Aretha Franklin’s ‘Respect’ Became a Battle Cry for Musicians Seeking Royalties

"It was Aretha Franklin’s first No. 1 hit, the cry of empowerment that has defined her for generations: “Respect.”

But for the roughly seven million times the song has been played on American radio stations, she was paid nothing.

When Ms. Franklin died on Thursday at age 76, fans celebrated the song all over again as a theme for the women’s rights movement. But in the music industry, “Respect” has also played a symbolic role in a long fight over copyright issues that, advocates say, have deprived artists like Ms. Franklin of fair royalty payments...

[Aretha Franklin] also added what became the song’s signature line: “R-E-S-P-E-C-T / Find out what it means to me.” 

Ms. Franklin’s reinvention of Mr. Redding’s song has continued to fascinate critics. Peter Guralnick, the author of books like “Sweet Soul Music: Rhythm and Blues and the Southern Dream of Freedom,” noted that she transformed the original meaning “not so much by changing the lyrics, as by the feeling that she imparted on the song — so that ‘Respect’ became a proclamation of freedom, a proclamation of feminism, a proclamation of an independent spirit.”"

Music Modernization Act Gains Momentum in Senate; Variety, May 15, 2018

Ted Johnson and Paula Parisi, Variety; Music Modernization Act Gains Momentum in Senate

"[Smokey] Robinson spoke forcefully on behalf of the MMA and particularly the CLASSICS Act, sharing how a few years ago, he audited the digital services playing his music and found they owed him $250,000. After confronting them, he was offered $12,000 and told, “If you don’t like it, sue us.” Robinson noted there are few artists with the economic means to take on that sort of battle, concluding “We need your help!’”

The legislation passed the House unanimously last month, and it also includes sweeping changes to the licensing regime for digital music services. A Senate version was recently introduced.

The Senators seemed inclined to provide that help."

Law Professors Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Reject or Amend CLASSICS Act; Public Knowledge, May 15, 2018

Press Release, Public Knowledge; Law Professors Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Reject or Amend CLASSICS Act

"Yesterday, more than 40 intellectual property law professors sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and all members of the committee, urging them to reject or, at a minimum, amend the CLASSICS Act to ensure that its provisions are in line with existing federal copyright law.

The Senate recently combined the Classics Act, a flawed bill that hurts consumers, with the Music Modernization Act, a bill that creates a database of songwriters and performers to ensure that creators receive fair compensation for their work. Public Knowledge supports the Music Modernization Act, but agrees with these law professors that the CLASSICS Act harms the public interest. Public Knowledge contends that the CLASSICS Act fails to provide full federal protection for pre-1972 sound recordings, making it out of sync with the rest of copyright law. 

The following can be attributed to Meredith Rose, Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge:

 “The expert consensus is clear: The CLASSICS Act is a problematic attempt to shortcut full federalization of pre-1972 copyrights. At best a half-measure, at worst a ploy to avoid difficult but necessary conversations about artist and consumer rights, CLASSICS complicates the status of legacy recordings without any countervailing benefit to protect nonprofit users and archivists. We welcome the insight of the more than 40 professors on this letter and look forward to working to bring true reform and harmonization to these works.”  

You may view the letter here. You may also view Meredith Rose’s testimony from today’s hearing on “Protecting and Promoting Music Creation for the 21st Century” for more information on the CLASSICS Act and why it should be amended or rejected from the Music Modernization Act."

‘Remix’ or plagiarism? Artists battle over a Chicago mural of Michelle Obama.; Washington Post, April 24, 2017

Derek Hawkins, Washington Post; ‘Remix’ or plagiarism? Artists battle over a Chicago mural of Michelle Obama.

"Devins’s mural had only been up for a matter of hours when word got back to Mesfin. She objected to the use of her work without permission in a widely circulated Instagram post that triggered a wave of outrage online, saying she felt like Devins stole her piece.

“I was very disheartened when he did that,” Mesfin told The Washington Post. “There’s a common code among all artists that you can get inspired by someone’s work but you have to pay homage and you have to give credit for it.”...

Devins said he never intended to take credit for Mesfin’s creation, which itself was based off a portrait in the New York Times by photographer Collier Schorr. Mesfin credited Schorr’s work on her Instagram post...

Devins said he came across Mesfin’s drawing on the sharing site Pinterest and was unable to track down the artist. He explained his decision to use the image without permission in an analogy, saying he was creating a “remix” of a piece of art in the way that a DJ remixes songs."

T Bone Burnett Delivers Scathing Message to Copyright Office, Urging Reform: 'Our Culture Is At Stake'; Billboard, February 21, 2017

Dan Rys, Billboard; 

T Bone Burnett Delivers Scathing Message to Copyright Office, Urging Reform: 'Our Culture Is At Stake'

"T Bone Burnett today submitted a five minute video to the U.S. Copyright Office that issued a scathing critique of current copyright laws, taking aim at "mega corporations and web moguls" that "are enriching themselves off the artistic, cultural and economic value everyone else creates," and urging Congress to fix a copyright system that he says threatens the ability of artists and creators to make a living.

At issue is section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) signed in 1998, which includes the "safe harbor" provisions that protect digital service providers such as YouTube from copyright infringement litigation by outlining a system to deal with illegal copyrighted material uploaded to its platform. Burnett, who serves on the advisory board of the Content Creators Coalition (c3) and submitted the video on behalf of the organization, says the current safe harbors provision has failed, allowing the internet to become a "digital black hole.""

[Excerpt from transcript of T Bone Burnett remarks]

The false prophets of the internet may have imagined an egalitarian, open source, creative wonderland, but what we got instead was an exploitative digital black hole that benefits a handful of mega corporations and web moguls. They are enriching themselves off the artistic, cultural and economic value everyone else creates."

Was ‘Weird Al’ the real star all along?; Washington Post, February 16, 2017

Geoff Edgers, Washington Post; Was ‘Weird Al’ the real star all along?

"As his friend Miranda has reminded him, he doesn’t have to get permission from artists. Parody is protected by the First Amendment. But Yankovic has built his reputation on respecting artists’ wishes.

“I don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings,” Yankovic says. “I don’t want to be embroiled in any nastiness. That’s not how I live my life. I like everybody to be in on the joke and be happy for my success. I take pains not to burn bridges.”

Prince never agreed to let him parody one of his songs, so he didn’t. Paul McCartney dissuaded Yankovic from turning “Live and Let Die” into “Chicken Pot Pie.” The former Beatle, a vegetarian and animal rights activist, suggested “Tofu Pot Pie.” Somehow, that didn’t have the same ring to it."

Why Unreleased Marvin Gaye, Supremes, Beach Boys Tracks Are Suddenly Appearing: EU Copyright Law; Billboard, 1/10/17

Robert Levine, Billboard; Why Unreleased Marvin Gaye, Supremes, Beach Boys Tracks Are Suddenly Appearing: EU Copyright Law:

"On Dec 30th, without much fanfare or marketing, Universal Music Group put out Motown Unreleased: 1966, a digital-only collection of 80 previously unavailable tracks by Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, and lesser-known performers like the Underdogs. It’s one of a few recent archival releases of music from 1966 that may appeal to hardcore fans – and they have the European Union to thank.

In 2011, the EU updated copyright law in a way that means officially unreleased material could fall into the public domain 50 years after it was recorded. That would mean any company would be free to release it. In order to keep the copyright to such recordings – the law applies to live as well as studio material – artists and labels have been releasing them in what some fans call “copyright collections.”"

Local attorney presents class on copyright law for artists and authors; Missoulian, 11/27/16

Ira Sather-Olson, Missoulian; Local attorney presents class on copyright law for artists and authors:

"Artists and authors who want to learn more about copyright are invited to join Sarah J. Rhoades, an intellectual property attorney with Missoula’s Sherwood Law Offices, for a presentation about copyright and copyright registration that occurs at noon on Wednesday, Nov. 30, in the Large Meeting Room. After her presentation, Rhoades will be available to help artists and authors complete a copyright application form, and to answer questions. Attendees are encouraged to bring their own laptops to fill out copyright applications during this class."