Showing posts with label noncommercial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label noncommercial. Show all posts
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Copyright law and This Charming Charlie; Los Angeles Times, 9/26/13
Los Angeles Times; Copyright law and This Charming Charlie:
"Tumblr, the blog's publisher, responded by removing three of the mash-ups last week, prompting LoPrete to announce the blog's demise.
Then she changed her mind. As her attorney, Dan Booth of Cambridge, Mass., noted in a letter to Tumblr, LoPrete's parodic re-purposing of The Smiths' lyrics perfectly fits the definition of a fair use: She posts only snippets of the lyrics, puts them in a wholly new context and doesn't make any money off them or damage the market for the songs. In fact, the blog draws new attention to the long-defunct band.
Universal says that it's no longer pursuing the matter, so LoPrete's story has a happy ending...It's been 15 years since Congress set up rules for the use of copyrighted material online; it's past time for lawmakers to overhaul them so that they work better for both copyright holders and those who make fair use of their works."
Monday, March 23, 2009
As Rights Clash on YouTube, Some Music Vanishes, The New York Times, 3/23/09
The New York Times: As Rights Clash on YouTube, Some Music Vanishes:
"In early December, Juliet Weybret, a high school sophomore and aspiring rock star from Lodi, Calif., recorded a video of herself playing the piano and singing “Winter Wonderland,” and she posted it on YouTube.
Weeks later, she received an e-mail message from YouTube: her video was being removed “as a result of a third-party notification by the Warner Music Group,” which owns the copyright to the Christmas carol.
The law provides a four-point test for the fair use of copyrighted works, taking into account things like the purpose, the size of an excerpt and the effect the use might have on the commercial value of the actual work...
The body of law is ever-evolving, and each era and technology seems to force new interpretations. In the 1960s, for example, the Zapruder film, the home movie that captured the Kennedy assassination, was bought and copyrighted by Time magazine. But a judge denied that it could be a copyrighted work because of its value to the public interest.
Many of the offending videos of the user-generated variety like Ms. Weybret’s — as opposed to copies of music videos produced by Warner and its artists — would fall under fair use, according to Mr. von Lohmann, because they are noncommercial and include original material produced by the user.
Others, including Warner Music’s lawyers, might argue that the videos, while themselves created for noncommercial purposes, are nevertheless being shown on YouTube, which is a moneymaking enterprise."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/business/media/23warner.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=youtube&st=cse
"In early December, Juliet Weybret, a high school sophomore and aspiring rock star from Lodi, Calif., recorded a video of herself playing the piano and singing “Winter Wonderland,” and she posted it on YouTube.
Weeks later, she received an e-mail message from YouTube: her video was being removed “as a result of a third-party notification by the Warner Music Group,” which owns the copyright to the Christmas carol.
The law provides a four-point test for the fair use of copyrighted works, taking into account things like the purpose, the size of an excerpt and the effect the use might have on the commercial value of the actual work...
The body of law is ever-evolving, and each era and technology seems to force new interpretations. In the 1960s, for example, the Zapruder film, the home movie that captured the Kennedy assassination, was bought and copyrighted by Time magazine. But a judge denied that it could be a copyrighted work because of its value to the public interest.
Many of the offending videos of the user-generated variety like Ms. Weybret’s — as opposed to copies of music videos produced by Warner and its artists — would fall under fair use, according to Mr. von Lohmann, because they are noncommercial and include original material produced by the user.
Others, including Warner Music’s lawyers, might argue that the videos, while themselves created for noncommercial purposes, are nevertheless being shown on YouTube, which is a moneymaking enterprise."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/business/media/23warner.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=youtube&st=cse
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Free Music Downloads Without the Legal Peril - New York Times, 9/3/08
Free Music Downloads Without the Legal Peril : "It’s simple to get free music from online services like LimeWire, but it could also bring an unfriendly letter from a lawyer.
Dave Dederer feels your pain. As a songwriter and former guitarist for the Presidents of the United States of America, the owner of a record label and an Internet music entrepreneur, he is especially suited to assess the rights of artists, fans and distributors. After a close study of the laws that regulate his business, one thing is clear, he says: “It’s a swirling cesspool.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/technology/personaltech/04basics.html?ex=1378267200&en=5941bed8165f9d07&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Dave Dederer feels your pain. As a songwriter and former guitarist for the Presidents of the United States of America, the owner of a record label and an Internet music entrepreneur, he is especially suited to assess the rights of artists, fans and distributors. After a close study of the laws that regulate his business, one thing is clear, he says: “It’s a swirling cesspool.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/technology/personaltech/04basics.html?ex=1378267200&en=5941bed8165f9d07&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)