"Music industry experts and copyright law attorneys say the cases, as well as Trump’s decision to continue playing certain songs despite artists’ requests that he desist, underscore the complex legalities of copyright infringement in today’s digital, streaming and licensing era — and could set an important precedent on the of use of popular music in political campaigns."
Associated Press via Politico; Trump campaign ordered to stop using classic R&B song; Associated Press via Politico
"A federal judge in Atlanta ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump and his campaign must stop using the song “Hold On, I’m Comin’” while the family of one of the song’s co-writers pursues a lawsuit against the former president over its use.
The estate of Isaac Hayes Jr. filed a lawsuit last month alleging that Trump, his campaign and several of his allies had infringed its copyright and should pay damages. After a hearing on the estate’s request for an emergency preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash ruled that Trump must stop using the song, but he denied a request to force the campaign to take down any existing videos that include the song."
Laura Heymann , Bloomberg Law; ‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark Case Morphs Into Free Speech Debate
"The US Supreme Court’s June 13 decision in the “Trump Too Small” trademark case revealed a potential rift among the justices on First Amendment jurisprudence but did little to advance intellectual property law...
Trademark law, the Supreme Court has said in prior cases, is primarily about two goals: preventing confusion among consumers by ensuring accurate source identification and preserving trademark owners’ reputation and goodwill. For these justices, the names clause passed muster because prohibiting the registration of personal names without consent was self-evidently reasonable in light of these purposes; no further analysis was required."
Colleen Barry, AP; A fight to protect the dignity of Michelangelo’s David raises questions about freedom of expression
SCIENCE NEWS STAFF, Science; Prominent journal editor fired for endorsing satirical article about Israel-Hamas conflict
"Michael Eisen, editor-in-chief of the prominent open access journal eLife and a longtime critic of traditional journals, says he is losing that job for publicly endorsing a satirical article that criticized people dying in Gaza for not condemning the recent attacks on Israel by the Palestinian group Hamas...
Eisen has previously been a frequent, feisty participant in debates about scientific publishing, doggedly supporting the development of free access to journal articles. In 2003, he co-founded the Public Library of Science (PLOS), whose journal PLOS ONE grew to become one of the largest open-access journals. Authors pay a fee so that their articles in PLOS journals are free to read when published. Eisen has criticized the paywalls still in place at many subscription journals as slowing the progress of science and the diffusion of useful findings. But critics of PLOS’s model have suggested author fees create an incentive for journals to maximize the number of papers published at the expense of adequate peer review and quality and can create barriers for authors with limited resources."
"While the Rogers decision was initially limited to movie titles, courts have variously expanded its application to books, songs, video games, and even commercial items such as dog toys, with particular expansion occurring in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The extent of its scope is now at issue at the U.S. Supreme Court. While virtual goods present issues different from physical goods, how courts determine the metes and bounds of the Rogers test will be determinative of how NFTs are analyzed."
 |
 |
"Today, together with the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression, EFF submitted an amicus brief in Lee v. Tam. Our brief discusses an unusual but important question: are registered trademarks government expression? It is important to get the dividing line between government and private speech correct. This is because, while the government doesn’t get to control what you say, it does get to control what it says. As we argue in our brief, categorizing registered trademarks as government expression would threaten speech in many other areas. The case involves a rock band from California called The Slants."
"Curiously, the United States remains possibly the only country in the world not to recognize an author’s right to be named as the creator of his or her own work, despite huge pressure from authors’ groups and legal experts to do so. American law provides for a limited “right of attribution,” as it is called in the U.S. Copyright Act, but only in relation to works of fine art. Writers, musicians, and creators working in other disciplines have no such right at all. Establishing one would bring the United States into line with the rest of the world—a good thing when creative works literally circulate without borders, and reputations must stand or fall on the global stage. In Italy, the copyright law says that a pseudonym will be treated as equivalent to the author’s true name, unless (and until) the author chooses to reveal his or her identity. Both the language of the law, and its silences, are arguably significant. In no way is any outsider empowered to reveal an author’s “true” identity when the author has chosen to publish under a pseudonym. Italian law wouldn’t seem to condone a concerted effort such as Gatti’s to uncover Ferrante’s identity."
"On this Election Day, as the presidential campaigns of two New York residents come to an end, another New Yorker — Rose Orbach — plans to do her civic duty and vote — again. The resident of Bayside, Queens, is 104. She’s voting in her 16th presidential election. (Stevenson. Kennedy. Johnson. Humphrey. McGovern. Carter, twice. Mondale. Dukakis. Clinton, twice. Gore. Kerry. Obama, twice. You may spot a trend.) Born in 1911, Mrs. Orbach emigrated from Poland shortly after World War II. She became an American citizen by 1955, and voted in her first presidential election here the following year. The idea of having and using her voice, without facing persecution, was novel. “In Poland, it was a whole different system,” she said. “Especially for Jewish people, who weren’t treated like everybody; they were always beneath.” When she stepped behind the curtain to vote in the 1956 race, things felt different. “I was one with the people: I was different, I was Jewish, but I pushed the button,” she said. “I had my idea, and I was treated nice no matter what. You had your privacy and you were allowed to think what you wanted to think.” In her nearly 60 years of living in New York, she has not missed a single presidential election — that’s at a time when more than 100 million Americans who can vote don’t vote. So exercise your right — it’s one that many people in this world do not have."
"Eva and Franco Mattes — married Brooklyn artists and “hacktivists” — use those ideas metaphorically, peeling back the surface of what they call the “sanitized” internet to reveal its murkier side: the world of content monitoring and the elusive individuals who are tasked with tracking and removing offensive material online. Their latest exhibition, “Abuse Standards Violations,” on view at London’s Carroll/Fletcher gallery until Aug. 27, is a journey into what Ben Vickers, a London curator at the Serpentine Galleries and fan of their work, called “the dark, morbid heart of the internet.”"
"The Wikimedia Foundation said the judgment eroded "the freedom of panorama that is a fundamental part of freedom of expression, freedom of information, and artistic expression." As Ars has reported, EU copyright is currently being updated, and one of the proposals of the European Parliament is for freedom of panorama to be enshrined in EU law. Referring to the Swedish court's ruling against Wikimedia Sverige, the author of the European Parliament's report on the proposed copyright reform, Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda, tweeted on Monday: "This is why we need EU-wide #FreedomofPanorama!""
"The Hong Kong government announced on Friday that it had dropped its long-running attempt to introduce new copyright legislation. Earlier this week the government said that if it could not get the draft law passed in the Legislative Council — Hong Kong’s mini parliament — that it would withdraw the bill... Much of the local film and TV industry had expressed support for the copyright amendment bill, arguing that the territory’s legislation was years out of date and allows widespread piracy. Opponents of the bill argued that it endangered freedom of expression and creativity, especially online, that the bill poorly drafted and would be out of date the moment it became law."
