Showing posts with label copyright holders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright holders. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 22, 2023

Her Music Fell Into Obscurity. Now It’s Back at the Philharmonic.; The New York Times, November 20, 2023

Garrett Schumann, The New York Times; Her Music Fell Into Obscurity. Now It’s Back at the Philharmonic.

"When Perry died, she had no children and only a few published works. Although scholars have identified about 100 of her manuscripts and scores, dozens cannot be performed or recorded because there is no established copyright holder. As Christopher Wilkins, the music director of the Akron Symphony, said, “all the work is protected; it just hasn’t been licensed, and can’t be until whoever controls it negotiates that.”

Wilkins first found Perry’s compositions in 2020, and marveled at what he saw. She, he said, “may be the most accomplished and celebrated composer ever to emerge from Akron.” He then asked the soprano and scholar Louise Toppin, who leads the African Diaspora Music Project, to help him explore Perry’s output and edit some of her manuscripts...

The Akron Symphony has also engaged a local lawyer to help resolve the copyright ambiguities that ensnare many of Perry’s compositions — a barrier to overcome for those interested in her music, beyond historical practices of exclusion among American institutions."

Saturday, September 30, 2023

Supreme Court to Clarify Copyright Infringement Limits in Case Against Warner Music; The Hollywood Reporter, September 29, 2023

Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter; Supreme Court to Clarify Copyright Infringement Limits in Case Against Warner Music

"The Supreme Court will clear up how far back copyright holders can recover damages for infringement in a case involving a Florida producer who sued Warner Chappell Music after Flo Rida sampled a song he owns.

The justices agreed on Friday to review an appeal from Warner Music and Artist Publishing Group of a lower court’s ruling that recovery for damages that occurred prior to the three-year window to sue is allowed. The decision may clarify uncertainty over whether there is truly open-ended copyright liability, as two federal appeals courts have recently held."

Friday, June 16, 2023

Commentary: Warhol decision’s implications for creators, artists; Minnesota Lawyer, June 16, 2023

 Jack Amaral and Jon Farnsworth, Spencer Fane LLP, Minnesota Lawyer; Commentary: Warhol decision’s implications for creators, artists

"Impact on artists and copyright holders

This decision is a victory for copyright holders. Although copyright infringement and analysis of the Fair Use Doctrine is a case-by-case factual analysis where a judge determines whether fair use is a valid defense based on the four factors above, this decision sends a clear message that commercial uses of copyrighted works might be less likely to be considered fair use. This decision could have a significant impact on photographers, artists, and other creators such as software engineers.

Creators who build off copyrighted works should be aware of this decision and know the potential consequences of building off of other’s work. This decision will likely make it more difficult to show a work is “transformative” while leaving an artist open to liability...

Takeaways for creators and businesses:

  • If you have current works that are protected under copyright law, keep your eyes peeled for potentially infringing works. Speak with an experienced intellectual property attorney to see if you may have a valid infringement claim.
  • If you build off of other creator’s work to create your own, speak to an intellectual property attorney who will walk you through the four factors of the Fair Use Doctrine and help determine if your work could be considered infringement and open you up to potential liability."

Friday, December 9, 2022

YouTube and content creators clash over the platform’s automated copyright tool; Marketplace, November 4, 2022

Marketplace; YouTube and content creators clash over the platform’s automated copyright tool

"Every minute, people upload more than 500 hours of video to YouTube — cat videos, music videos, even videos of people recording their audio podcasts.

And some of those clips include content the people uploading them don’t own, like clips of music from popular songs.

YouTube, and its owner, Google, have an automated technology called Content ID that regularly scans for copyrighted material — including music — and flags it for copyright holders.

Marketplace’s Kimberly Adams spoke about this with Marketplace’s Peter Balonon-Rosen, who explained why the system has some musicians frustrated."

Monday, July 20, 2020

Twitter disables video retweeted by Donald Trump over copyright complaint; The Guardian, July 19, 2020

Reuters via The Guardian; Twitter disables video retweeted by Donald Trump over copyright complaint

"Twitter has disabled a campaign-style video retweeted by Donald Trump, citing a copyright complaint.

The video, which included music from the group Linkin Park, disappeared from the president’s Twitter feed late Saturday with the notification: “This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner.”

Twitter removed the video, which Trump had retweeted from the White House social media director, Dan Scavino, after it received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice from Machine Shop Entertainment, according to a notice posted on the Lumen Database which collects requests for removal of online materials."

Sunday, May 10, 2020

The Copyright Lawsuit in Tiger King Is an Outrage; Slate, May 7, 2020

Joshua Lamel, Slate; The Copyright Lawsuit in Tiger King Is an Outrage

"Copyright is the perfect vehicle for SLAPP suits. First of all, copyright is a government-granted, exclusive right to speech. There is no better way to prevent someone from publicly criticizing you than to use copyright law. Copyright lawsuits are expensive and place enormous costs on defendants. Fair use has to be raised once you are sued, so defendants will likely have to spend more. The potential damages are extreme: For every violation of a copyright, you can get $150,000 in statutory damages. Additionally, copyright law has injunctive relief—you can actually stop the speech from happening.

One would think that Congress would recognize this and specifically include copyright in federal anti-SLAPP efforts. But that is not happening anytime soon. Instead, thanks to their lobbying and fundraising, copyright holders have been successful in convincing senior members of Congress in both parties to exclude copyright. These members have told federal anti-SLAPP advocates that they need to be willing to give up copyright for a chance of being successful. There is not a single good policy argument to exclude copyright. Copyright litigation abuse is exactly what anti-SLAPP legislation should be designed to prevent. This type of abuse is the reason we need a federal fix.

In my dream world, the saturation of Joe Exotic’s story will help everyday Americans understand the relevance of copyright law in our daily lives—maybe even spur federal lawmakers to introduce and pass anti-SLAPP law without a special carve-out for copyright."

Monday, April 6, 2020

Online Teaching During Pandemic Raises Copyright Concerns; Bloomberg Law, April 3, 2020


Matthew Bultman, Bloomberg Law; Online Teaching During Pandemic Raises Copyright Concerns

"The sudden shift to online teaching is raising a host of copyright questions for educators...

Allaying Teacher Fears

Hoping to provide guidance, a group of copyright specialists at colleges, universities and other organizations last month wrote a statement on fair use that was signed or endorsed by more than 200 experts. It has circulated among grade school educators as well. 
Making course materials available to students during the pandemic will “almost always be a fair use,” the group wrote in the statement. Showing full-length movies or television shows can be more tricky, and the group encouraged instructors to use video through licensed services whenever possible. 
“One of the reasons that this statement was put together was to address and allay some of the fears that faculty, students, and librarians are facing when rapidly shifting to moving their courses online,” said Sara Benson, a copyright librarian and assistant professor at the University of Illinois.
The group also put together a list of video and other content that publishers have made available for free—called “Vendor Love In The Time Of Covid”—during the outbreak. Copyright specialists have also held informational “Virtual Copyright Office Hours” on Zoom. 
“We want to make copyright the least of your concerns,” Courtney said. “Be worried about your students, their health, their welfare, because that’s most important.”"

Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Music Copyright Infringement Is Beginning To Make Sense Again; Forbes, April 1, 2020

Bobby Owsinski, Forbes; Music Copyright Infringement Is Beginning To Make Sense Again

"But finally there is some indication that sanity may be returning to the courtroom when it comes to music copyright infringement...

This is a feel-good story if I ever heard one, except for the mental anguish and time that the people of Burbank High School had to endure. I get it that a copyright holder is trying to protect its rights. Publishers and songwriters deserve to get paid, and I don't think anyone questions that. Suing a school over a fundraiser is not going to make you many friends, however.
The bottom line is that common sense now seems to prevail when it comes to music copyright infringement cases, and it’s about time. May it continue this way for a long time."

Saturday, February 8, 2020

A pub played ‘Conga’ — and now it must face the music with a copyright lawsuit; Miami Herald, February 6, 2020

Theo Karantsalis, Miami Herald; A pub played ‘Conga’ — and now it must face the music with a copyright lawsuit

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/south-miami/article240040773.html#storylink=cpy

"Though the lawsuit does not specify an amount in damages, Pub 52 could be on the hook for up to $150,000 per song, or up to $1,050,000 for seven songs. Penalties for copyright infringement can range from $750 per work infringed up to $150,000 in damages if it is found to be willful infringement, according to the U.S. copyright Law.

A public performance of music includes any music played outside a normal circle of friends and family, according to U.S. copyright law.

Every business or organization must receive permission from the copyright owners of the music they are playing before playing it publicly.

“When we find out that a business is performing music and operating without a music license, we see this as an opportunity to educate business owners on the music licensing process,” Thomas said.


The cost of a BMI music license can cost as little as $378 per year of which 90 cents of every dollar collected from licensing fees goes back to songwriters, composers, and publishers in the form of music royalties, Thomas said."

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/south-miami/article240040773.html#storylink=cpy

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

YouTube reversed my bogus copyright strike after I threatened to write this; Mashable, January 28, 2020

Matt Binder, Mashable; YouTube reversed my bogus copyright strike after I threatened to write this

"“Your case is the most extreme I’ve heard about. Congratulations,” Electronic Frontier Foundation Manager of Policy and Activism, Katharine Trendacosta, said to me in a phone conversation on the issue. “This is the first time I've heard about this happening to something that didn't contain anything. And I have heard a lot of really intense stories about what's happening on YouTube.”...

“Your case is a really extreme example of a fairly common situation in which these major companies send DMCA takedown on a very broad basis,” she explained. “YouTube is far more afraid of being sued by Warner Bros. than being sued by you, so you end up with them being much more cautious and doing things like just allowing DMCA strikes on anything.”

So, what can be done? Apparently, not much."

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

A Tool That Removes Copyrighted Works Is Not a Substitute for Fair Use; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 20, 2020

Katharine Trendacosta, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);

A Tool That Removes Copyrighted Works Is Not a Substitute for Fair Use


"By making eliminating material flagged by Content ID so easy—just click here!—and making challenging matches so perilous, YouTube has put its thumb on the scale against fair use and in favor of copyright abuse. That thumb gets especially heavy given how few real alternatives to YouTube exist.

Hosting creative content should mean a robust commitment to fair use. Fair use enriches our culture and our understanding of it. It is what ensures that copyright doesn’t strangle free expression and creativity. Subtle reinforcement of anti-fair use ideas enacted by private companies, done by the largest players in the ecosystem, does real damage."

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

What the EU’s copyright overhaul means — and what might change for big tech; NiemanLab, Nieman Foundation at Harvard, April 22, 2019

Marcello Rossi, NiemanLab, Nieman Foundation at Harvard; What the EU’s copyright overhaul means — and what might change for big tech

"The activity indeed now moves to the member states. Each of the 28 countries in the EU now has two years to transpose it into its own national laws. Until we see how those laws shake out, especially in countries with struggles over press and internet freedom, both sides of the debate will likely have plenty of room to continue arguing their sides — that it marks a groundbreaking step toward a more balanced, fair internet, or that it will result in a set of legal ambiguities that threaten the freedom of the web."

Thursday, September 20, 2018

U.S. and Europe Regulators Make Some Waves Towards Copyright Protection; Forbes, September 19, 2018

Nelson Granados, Forbes; U.S. and Europe Regulators Make Some Waves Towards Copyright Protection

"It seems regulators are starting to make waves towards more effective regulations for media and entertainment professionals and creatives to be fairly rewarded. There will be opposition and hurdles to overcome. For example, the EU's Copyright Directive still has to be reviewed and endorsed by the EU Commission and EU member states. Nevertheless, some of the top tech companies like Google, which can play a key role in copyright enforcement, appear to be open to ride the wave with copyright holders. Suddenly, there is light at the end of the tunnel."

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Music Law 101: Who Owns the Copyright in a Song?; Lexology, August 29, 2018


"After your band has written and recorded a song, who actually owns the song? This simple question does not necessarily have a simple answer. How many people were involved in the writing process? Were there other people involved in the recording process? Did you hire a producer? Did you use other background vocalists or musicians in the studio? Did you use “work made for hire” agreements with individuals involved in the process? Do you have a band agreement? The answers to these and other important questions help determine who actually owns the copyrights in any given song."

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

A Presentation on Legal Issues for Podcasters - Who Owns What?; Lexology, August 3, 2018

Lexology; A Presentation on Legal Issues for Podcasters - Who Owns What?

"Last week, I spoke at Podcast Movement 2018 – a large conference of podcasters held in Philadelphia. My presentation, Legal Issues In Podcasting – What Broadcasters Need to Know, was part of the Broadcasters Meet Podcasters Track. The slides from my presentation are available here. In the presentation, I discussed copyright issues, including some of the music rights issues discussed in my articles here and here, making clear that broadcaster’s current music licenses from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and even SoundExchange don’t provide them the rights to use music in podcasts. Instead, those rights need to be cleared directly with the holders of the copyrights in both the underlying musical compositions as well as in any sound recording of the song used in the podcast."
 

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Infamous 'Dancing Baby' copyright battle settled just before YouTube tot becomes a teen; The Register, June 27, 2018

Kieren McCarthy, The Register; Infamous 'Dancing Baby' copyright battle settled just before YouTube tot becomes a teen

"In the Ninth Circuit ruling – which is the one that will now hold until another appeals court takes on the topic and/or the Supreme Court decides to revisit the issue in future – the court said that a copyright holder is obliged to consider whether the content they are planning to send a DMCA notice to is legal under the fair use doctrine.

 Which is great. Except the court also decided that the rightsholder is entitled to reach the decision of whether that is true or not entirely by themselves.

Which on one level provides a sort of equilibrium but on the other means that it is inevitable that there will be lots of future court cases as people argue all over again about what is fair use.

 In other words, this 11-year court battle has not really resolved anything and we can expect to see another one on the exact same topic soon."

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Why ‘Fahrenheit 451’ Is the Book for Our Social Media Age; The New York Times, May 10, 2018

Ramin Bahrani, The New York Times;  

Why ‘Fahrenheit 451’ Is the Book for Our Social Media Age


[Kip Currier: Looking forward to seeing this May 19th-debuting HBO adaptation of Ray Bradbury's ever-timely Fahrenheit 451 cautionary intellectual freedom tale, starring Michael B. Jordan as a book-burning-fireman-turned-book-preserver.]

"Burning books in the film posed a legal challenge. The cover art of most books is protected by copyright, and in most cases we were unable to obtain permission to display it — let alone burn it on camera. So the art directors for my film designed countless original book covers that we could burn."

Thursday, May 11, 2017

The tech industry is eroding copyright law. Here's how to stop it; Los Angeles Times, May 10, 2017

Jonathan Taplin, Los Angeles Times; The tech industry is eroding copyright law. Here's how to stop it

"The only way to get Internet companies to honor the widely accepted understanding of fair use is to make it law. Although the current legal definition makes one thing crystal clear — you cannot use a work in its entirety and still claim fair use — it leaves many aspects of the doctrine open to interpretation. The Registrar of Copyrights should codify a 30-second time limit for audio and video clips and require that content be used in a transformative or interpretive way.

With concrete guidelines in place, regulation would have to be built in. For instance, when a user asserts fair use for a work that YouTube identifies as being blocked by the copyright holder, the clip would have to be sent to a human screener for evaluation. If it is longer than 30 seconds or does not appear in a transformative work, the clip would remain blocked. YouTube already has this process in place for screening pornography, ISIS videos and the like.

The ambiguous definition of fair use allows for its continued abuse, and this abuse has become a gateway for the further eroding of copyright law. By now it is well understood that the rise of tech monopolies such as YouTube and Google has hastened the decline of publishing industries. If we don’t move to safeguard copyright law now, there will be no new content to remix."

Saturday, February 4, 2017

We Want a Copyright Office that Serves the Public; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 2/2/17

Kerry Sheehan and Mitch Stoltz, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 

We Want a Copyright Office that Serves the Public

"The Copyright Office, and those who lead it, should serve the public as a whole, not just major media and entertainment companies. That’s what we told the leadership of the House Judiciary Committee this week. If Congress restructures the Copyright Office, it has to put in safeguards against the agency becoming nothing more than a cheerleader for large corporate copyright holders...

We’re pleased to see both the Librarian of Congress and the House Judiciary Committee reaching out beyond the traditional players in copyright policymaking, to seek public input on decisions that impact everyone. But that’s just the first step – we need to make sure they’re giving the public’s feedback adequate consideration and that their final decisions represent the interests of everyone. We’ll be watching what they do, and speaking up to make sure that the interests of the public – including Internet and technology users, consumers, and independent creators – are protected."