This Inner Richmond Bar and Club Could Face A $30,000 Fine for Copyright Infringement; Eater San Francisco, February 21, 2023

 Paolo Bicchieri , Eater San Francisco; This Inner Richmond Bar and Club Could Face A $30,000 Fine for Copyright Infringement

"Neck of the Woods, a Clement Street haunt for college students and fans of lowkey shows, is being sued by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). That makes it one of 12 such nightclubs throughout the country the group is taking to task over allegedly not paying ASCAP licensing fees, for which fines could reach up to $30,000. Hoodline writes the fee is a relatively small payment bars throughout the country commonly pay to play songs on jukeboxes, at open mics, and at events of that nature.

A prominent bar owner in San Francisco, who chose to remain anonymous, told the outlet the fee is somewhere in the range of $1,000 a year. The San Francisco Examiner reports Neck of the Woods kept a license with the ASCAP from 2009 to 2015 but, even then, failed to pay its dues and had its license with the ASCAP terminated. The payment is compensation for musicians who are, ever more so in the digital age, often paid poorly for their talents."

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

Bulgarians Listen to Classics Thanks to Copyright War; Balkan Insight, 1/5/17

Mariya Cheresheva, Balkan Insight; Bulgarians Listen to Classics Thanks to Copyright War

"At 00.01 am on January 1, 2017, instead of hearing the official Bulgarian anthem, as they do every year, listeners to Bulgarian National Radio, BNR, were surprised to hear an alternative version performed by BNR’s own choir and symphonic orchestra.

This was not an independent decision of the music editors of BNR. It turned out that they had been banned from playing the official national anthem owing to a decision of Musicautor, Bulgaria’s non-profit society of composers, lyricists and music publishers, which exists to collectively manage copyright issues.

Musicautor, which hold the copyright to over 14,000,000 songs of Bulgarian and worldwide artists, suspended its contract with BNR from the beginning of the new year, demanding higher fees.

It has banned BNR from playing much contemporary Bulgarian and foreign music until the fee issue is resolved."

Milton Glaser Still Hearts New York; New York Times, 7/29/16

John Leland, New York Times; Milton Glaser Still Hearts New York:

"The original scrap of paper is now in the Museum of Modern Art. The logo, for which he received a $2,000 fee — less than the cost of producing the mock-ups, he said — now generates more that $1 million annually for the state in licensing fees, and keeps a bevy of state lawyers busy writing cease-and-desist letters for its unlicensed use...

Mr. Glaser’s touch has not always been so golden. When he tried to recapture the magic for the State of Rhode Island this year with the slogan “Warmer and Cooler,” people complained that the design was trite and overreaching, ultimately forcing the state’s chief marketing officer to resign.

“There was an explosion of negativity on the internet,” Mr. Glaser said, still marveling at the depth of the rancor."

Publisher Seeks to Overcome Copyright Suit Over Famous Civil Rights Song; Hollywood Reporter, 7/18/16

Ashley Cullins, Hollywood Reporter; Publisher Seeks to Overcome Copyright Suit Over Famous Civil Rights Song:

"A documentary filmmaker, suing as the We Shall Overcome Foundation, filed a putative class action in April against Ludlow Music and the Richmond Organization, seeking a judgment that the song isn't copyrightable and that licensing fees collected for it must be returned. The lawsuit came after the filmmaker was denied a synch license to use an a cappella version of the song. In June, Lee Daniels' The Butler entered the fray, joining the suit because defendants had tried to charge $100,000 for use of the song in that film.

Plaintiffs argue "We Shall Overcome" is an adaptation of an African-American spiritual which is virtually identical to a 1948 composition called "We Will Overcome," the copyright for which expired in 1976. Therefore, they argue, that's when the unofficial anthem of the civil rights movement became part of the public domain."

A Little Understanding Motivates Copyright Abusers To Pay Up; Forbes, 5/23/16

Michael Blanding, Forbes; A Little Understanding Motivates Copyright Abusers To Pay Up:

"Obtaining an image from the Internet is as easy as right-clicking and downloading. We’ve all done it—or, ahem, know someone who has. We rarely think about who created these images or whether we have the rights to use them. This leaves the owners of those images with a conundrum: Should they pursue the violators?

First off, the monetary amounts at stake are often small—tens or hundreds of dollars in licensing fees. Is it worth the time, cost, and effort to send a bunch of settlement request letters? Second, few of these types of digital copyright infringements wind up in court. So why bother if the ultimate enforcement mechanism seems so far-fetched?

Harvard Business School Assistant Professor Hong Luo looks at these questions in a 2015 working paper, “Copyright Enforcement: Evidence from Two Field Experiments,” co-written with Julie Holland Mortimer of Boston College and the National Bureau of Economic Research. The paper was updated earlier this year.

Their findings about how to motivate copyright violators to actually pay up are important not only for copyright holders, but also applicable to many disputes involving small amounts."

Happy Together' Copyright Dispute in NY Top Court; Associated Press via New York Times, 5/3/16

Associated Press via New York Times; Happy Together' Copyright Dispute in NY Top Court:

"New York's highest court has agreed to rule on a case pitting the owner of The Turtles' 1967 hit "Happy Together" against Sirius XM Radio.

The issue is whether the copyright owners of recordings made before 1972 have a common law right to make radio stations and others pay for their use."

‘We Shall Overcome’ Copyright May Be Overcome One Day; New York Times, 4/12/16

Ben Sisario, New York Times; ‘We Shall Overcome’ Copyright May Be Overcome One Day:

"Last year, a federal judge ruled that the long-claimed copyright to the song “Happy Birthday to You” was invalid. Now the same could happen for another iconic tune: “We Shall Overcome.”

On Tuesday, the We Shall Overcome Foundation, a nonprofit group that works with orphans and the poor, sued the music publishers who control “We Shall Overcome,” seeking a declaratory judgment that the song is not under copyright and is in the public domain.

The case, which was filed at Federal District Court in Manhattan and seeks class-action status, also asks for the return of an unspecified amount of licensing fees that the publishers, the Richmond Organization and Ludlow Music, have collected from the use of the song.

Like the “Happy Birthday” case, the “We Shall Overcome” suit tracks a famous piece of music through a murky early history and a complex paper trail of copyright registrations."

Rauschenberg Foundation Eases Copyright Restrictions on Art; New York Times, 2/26/16

Randy Kennedy, New York Times; Rauschenberg Foundation Eases Copyright Restrictions on Art:

"Images are vital in art scholarship and publishing, he added, and when they are not available, scholarship can be weakened or delayed or not pursued at all. The effects can filter down even to college art classes, where images necessary for teaching are sometimes too costly or complicated to obtain.

Whether other prominent foundations will follow the Rauschenberg’s lead remains to be seen. “In principle, I’m really for what” Ms. MacLear “is doing,” said Jack Flam, president and chief executive of the Dedalus Foundation, which represents the work of Robert Motherwell and has been active recently in public discussions about copyright issues. But Mr. Flam, an art historian, added that the current system still had a valuable role to play both in ensuring that the best images are used and in helping foundations and estates keep track of how those images are used. “It’s not a money issue; it’s a quality issue,” he said."

Katy Perry's Met Ball dress the subject of copyright infringement lawsuit; Guardian, 8/6/15

Tshepo Mokoena, Guardian; Katy Perry's Met Ball dress the subject of copyright infringement lawsuit:

"One artist is less than impressed with the dress that Katy Perry wore to this year’s Met Ball – and not for sartorial reasons. Brooklyn street artist Rime, born Joseph Tierney, has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against designer Jeremy Scott and design house Moschino, for making a dress that Tierney believes imitates a signature graffiti tag that he painted on a Detroit building."

"Happy Birthday" Lawsuit: "Smoking Gun" Emerges in Bid to Free World's Most Popular Song; Hollywood Reporter, 7/27/15

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; "Happy Birthday" Lawsuit: "Smoking Gun" Emerges in Bid to Free World's Most Popular Song:

"The filmmakers working on a documentary about the world's most popular song, "Happy Birthday to You," and currently suing Warner/Chappell for the right to use the song in the documentary without any license fee, filed court papers on Monday touting newly uncovered evidence that "proves conclusively that there is no copyright to the Happy Birthday lyrics."

The "proverbial smoking gun," as the plaintiffs put it to a California judge, is a book of children's songs that comes straight out of Warner/Chappell's digital library.

Betsy Manifold and Mark Rifkin, attorneys for the plaintiffs, were only given access to these files just three weeks ago. They were told the documents were held back "mistakenly." What they found was a blurry version of the 15th edition of The Everyday Song Book, published in 1927. The book contained Happy Birthday lyrics. Intrigued by the discovery, and looking for a cleaner version, the lawyers started hunting down earlier editions, and in the archives of The University of Pittsburgh, they came upon the fourth edition, published in 1922, which included the famous Happy Birthday song without any copyright notice."

Filmmakers fighting “Happy Birthday” copyright find their “smoking gun”; ArsTechnica.com, 7/27/15

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.com; Filmmakers fighting “Happy Birthday” copyright find their “smoking gun” :

"t's been two years since filmmakers making a documentary about the song "Happy Birthday" filed a lawsuit claiming that the song shouldn't be under copyright. Now, they have filed (PDF) what they say is "proverbial smoking-gun evidence" that should cause the judge to rule in their favor.

The "smoking gun" is a 1927 version of the "Happy Birthday" lyrics, predating Warner/Chappell's 1935 copyright by eight years. That 1927 songbook, along with other versions located through the plaintiffs' investigations, "conclusively prove that any copyright that may have existed for the song itself... expired decades ago."

Even if the owner wasn't first, "Copyright law requires originality, not novelty." If the filmmakers' lawyers are right, it could mean a quick route to victory in a lawsuit that's been both slow-moving and closely watched by copyright reform advocates. Warner/Chappell has built a licensing empire based on "Happy Birthday," which in 1996 was pulling in more than $2 million per year."

Judge Hears Copyright Fight Over 'Happy Birthday To You'; National Law Journal, 3/23/15

Amanda Bronstad, National Law Journal; Judge Hears Copyright Fight Over 'Happy Birthday To You' :

"In a court battle involving perhaps the only song more popular than “Blurred Lines,” a federal judge is set to decide whether a Los Angeles-based music publisher has unlawfully been collecting licensing fees for the copyright to “Happy Birthday to You.”

U.S. District Judge George King of the Central District of California heard more than two hours of arguments on Monday on whether to declare Warner/Chappell Music Inc.’s copyright invalid and find that “Happy Birthday to You” should be in the public domain.

At stake are potentially millions of dollars in licensing fees to what the complaint calls the “world’s most popular song.”"

Pandora sued by record labels for copyright infringement; CNet, 4/17/14

Dara Kerr, CNet; Pandora sued by record labels for copyright infringement:

"Pandora has been hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit by major record labels, according to The New York Times. The labels contend that the music streaming service must pay license fees for songs recorded before 1972.

The suit was filed in New York state court by Sony, Warner, and Universal, according to the Times. The labels argue that even though older songs, like James Brown's "I Got You" and the Beatles' "Hey Jude," aren't protected under federal copyright law -- they are covered by state laws.

The record labels claim they lose millions of dollars yearly from Pandora, other streaming music services, and satellite radio companies for playing older songs. Many of these songs are played on streaming stations like "Golden Oldies" and "50s Rock 'n' Roll," and the labels say they should get royalties for these pre-1972 songs."

Filmmaker picks a copyright fight with “Happy Birthday”; ArsTechnica.com, 6/14/13

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.com; Filmmaker picks a copyright fight with “Happy Birthday” : "Filmmakers and TV producers have long been harassed by Warner/Chappell Music, a subsidiary of Time Warner that enforces the copyright on "Happy Birthday," probably the most popular song in the world. If that song pops up in any TV show or movie, the creators are sure to get a hefty bill. The makers of the critically acclaimed 1994 documentary Hoop Dreams had to pay $5,000 for a scene of one of the protagonists' families singing the song. By 1996, Warner/Chappell was pulling in more than $2 million per year from licensing. Now there's a new documentary about the song, and of course, the filmmakers had to pay the fee for a "synchronization license"—it was $1,500. But it sure didn't sit well with them. Yesterday, Good Morning To You, the company that made the documentary, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to prove once and for all that the copyright on "Happy Birthday" is long dead."

Public Domain, My Dear Watson? Lawsuit Challenges Conan Doyle Copyrights; New York Times, 2/15/13

Jennifer Schuessler, New York Times; Public Domain, My Dear Watson? Lawsuit Challenges Conan Doyle Copyrights: "Some 125 years after his first appearance, Sherlock Holmes remains a hot literary property, inspiring thousands of pastiches, parodies and sequels in print, to saying nothing of the hit Warner Bros. film starring Robert Downey Jr. and such television series as “Elementary” and the BBC’s “Sherlock.” But according to a civil complaint filed on Thursday in federal court in Illinois by a leading Holmes scholar, many licensing fees paid to the Arthur Conan Doyle estate have been unnecessary, since the main characters and elements of their story derived from materials published before Jan. 1, 1923, are no longer covered by United States copyright law. The complaint was filed by Leslie S. Klinger, the editor of the three-volume, nearly 3,000-page “Annotated Sherlock Holmes” and numerous other Conan Doyle-related books."

Music Film Is Delayed by Fees for Songs; New York Times, 4/25/12

Larry Rohter, New York Times; Music Film Is Delayed by Fees for Songs: "But there’s just one problem, and it has held up commercial release of “The Wrecking Crew” since 2008, when the documentary made its debut at the South by Southwest film festival. The film includes dozens of snippets from songs the Wrecking Crew played on, but the record companies that own the recordings want so much money from Mr. Tedesco, whose total budget was less than $1 million, that he has turned to a fund-raising campaign, including an event scheduled for New York in mid-June, to meet their demands."

Court Rules DC & WB Didn't Violate Superman Licensing Agreement w/ Siegels; ComicBooksResources.com, 7/9/09

ComicBooksResources.com; Court Rules DC & WB Didn't Violate Superman Licensing Agreement w/ Siegels:

"Another court decision has been made in the Siegel family’s tense relationship with DC Comics. By virtue of previous decisions, the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel have been co-owners with DC Comics of the Superman copyright from 1999 until now. In 2008, the Siegels alleged that DC, in licensing the Superman characters to Warner Bros. Entertainment for audiovisual projects including “Smallville” and “Superman Returns,” violated the terms of their profit-sharing agreement.

The plaintiffs felt that because Warner Bros. Entertainment and DC Comics are both part of the same corporate entity, the licensing fees paid to DC Comics in the period between 1999 and 2002 (for the aforementioned "Smallville" and "Superman Returns" projects) were below market value. Essentially, the Siegels argued that DC Comics gave Warner Bros. Entertainment a "sweetheart deal," which would result in DC (and due to their co-ownership, the Siegels) not receiving as much money as they would in a traditionally “fair market deal.”

In today’s decision, the court ruled that DC and Warner Bros. Entertainment did indeed participate in a “fair market deal,” and that the Siegels are not entitled to any payments beyond the terms of the audiovisual licenses as they presently stand."

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21944

Warner Music videos removed from YouTube, Los Angeles Times, 12/21/08

Via Los Angeles Times: Warner Music videos removed from YouTube:

"Warner Music Group's videos began disappearing from YouTube this weekend, the casualty of a contract impasse between the music company and the Internet's dominant video site

Negotiations broke down last week over licensing fees for Warner's music and videos, say people familiar with the discussions who were not authorized to speak publicly.

On its blog, YouTube alerted its audience to the collapse in talks, noting that professionally produced music videos and those that fans create using Warner songs would begin to disappear...

The stalled discussions suggest that Warner is dissatisfied with the revenue stream it gets from YouTube."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-warner-youtube21-2008dec21,0,6252484.story