In My View: The Human Cost of Comics Piracy; DownTheTubes.net, 8/28/15

Jay Gunn, DownTheTubes.net; In My View: The Human Cost of Comics Piracy:

"Piracy sites like the ones that are hosting my comic for ‘free’ hurt me – and yet I see sites are already hosting Issue Four only two days after release. If I search for my comic, the results for files (including images of the covers etc) come up pretty quickly.

I’ve had this debate many times with people – some say that piracy can actually be a positive element as it helps your work to reach a wider audience and some of those who ‘ripped’ your work may go on to actually buy future works. Maybe. Large corporate TV companies like HBO have even claimed that they can take the hit of piracy and that they are proud that their Game of Thrones show is the most pirated show on TV. However, I’m not HBO, I don’t have their vast finances. I don’t have the same clout, revenue streams or financial backing that HBO has. I’m simply a small first time comic creator that, some might say unwisely, decided to invest his own money into crafting a comic series."

The Turtles Win Class Action Certification In SiriusXM Copyright Lawsuit, Opening Door For Others; Forbes, 5/28/15

Nomi Prins, Forbes; The Turtles Win Class Action Certification In SiriusXM Copyright Lawsuit, Opening Door For Others:

"Legally, theses suits hinge on the demarcation between federal and state copyright laws. Under Section 114 of the federal Copyright Act, there is a statute of limitations on exclusive rights to recordings made on or after February 15, 1972. SiriusXM and others are operating legally under that law. Certain state laws, on the other hand, cover pre-1972 recordings. The Turtles have filed class-action suits against SiriusXM in California, Florida and New York, requesting more than $100 million in damages.

Granting this suit class action status leaves the door wide open for other artists with pre-1972 recordings to enter the class. The result could be substantial settlements, or many years of litigation, or both."

RESPECT Bill Would Put Golden Oldies Under Federal Copyright; Billboard, 5/29/14

Glenn Peoples, Billboard; RESPECT Bill Would Put Golden Oldies Under Federal Copyright:

"A new bill could help artists and labels collect royalties on the digital performance of older recordings while adding to the royalty expenses of the digital services that play them.

Revealed Thursday, the RESPECT Act was introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and co-sponsored by Rep. George Holding (R-NC) and several other members of the House. The bill would place pre-1972 sound recordings under federal law. Because the performance right for these older recordings currently falls under states' laws, digital music services such as Pandora and SiriusXM do not pay royalties on them. (These services do pay publishers for the performance of the compositions, however.)

Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake."

Questions Concerning Copyright Of Athlete Tattoos Has Companies Scrambling; Forbes, 8/14/13

Darren Heitner, Forbes; Questions Concerning Copyright Of Athlete Tattoos Has Companies Scrambling: "The ink issue is over who owns the copyright to the images depicted by the tattoos emblazoned on athletes’ bodies. According to sources speaking to FORBES on condition of anonymity, the issue of copyright ownership concerning tattoos on football players has very recently been labeled as a pressing issue by the NFL Players Association. One source said, “I don’t blame [the NFLPA], but they should have been on top of it earlier. It was something that was mentioned at the NFL Combine — that was the first I had ever heard them mention anything on the issue of tattoos. They advised agents to tell their players that when they get tattoos going forward they should get a release from the tattoo artist and if they can track down their former artists, they should get a release.” While it is just now garnering attention within the world of sports, copyright ownership of body ink was the subject of a contentious lawsuit between S. Victor Whitmill and Warner Bros. when the film studio placed a tattoo on the face of actor Ed Helms in “The Hangover Part 2″ that mirrored the popular tattoo Whitmill designed for the face of former undisputed heavyweight boxing champion of the world Mike Tyson. Before the case settled out of court, Whitmill alleged that he owned the copyright to the design of the face tattoo. This raised the question: does the person who receives a tattoo own the images that are tattooed on him or is the copyright owned by the tattoo artist? It is a question that has not been ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court... The question of whether a tattoo even warrants copyright protection is answered by Jeffrey Harrison, University of Florida Levin College of Law professor of Copyright. ”If it is copyrightable on paper, it’s similarly copyrightable on any medium that lasts, including skin,” said Harrison to FORBES."

Court Gives a Victory to Pandora Over Licensing Streaming Music; New York Times, 9/18/13

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Court Gives a Victory to Pandora Over Licensing Streaming Music: "Pandora Media won a battle in its continuing war with the music industry over royalties when a federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, which represents thousands of members, cannot prevent Pandora from licensing all the songs in its catalog. The ruling, by Judge Denise L. Cote of United States District Court in Manhattan, is a blow to music publishers, who have tried to get the best royalty rates for digital music by limiting the extent that performing rights societies like Ascap and Broadcast Music Incorporated represent their songs."

Clear Channel-Warner Music Deal Rewrites the Rules on Royalties; New York Times, 9/12/13

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Clear Channel-Warner Music Deal Rewrites the Rules on Royalties: "On Thursday, the company announced a deal with the Warner Music Group that would for the first time allow the label and its acts to collect royalties when their songs were played on Clear Channel’s 850 broadcast stations. In exchange, Clear Channel will receive a favorable rate in the growing but expensive world of online streaming...In an arrangement that has long irked record companies and led to many lobbying standoffs in Washington, terrestrial broadcasters are not required to pay royalties to labels and performing artists for the records they play on the air. On the other side, Internet radio services like Pandora, as well as broadcasters like Clear Channel through its station Web sites and iHeartRadio app, pay these royalties, but they have complained that the statutory rates for licensing music are too high. (Both terrestrial and online radio also pay music publishers, which control songwriting rights.)"

For a Classic Motown Song About Money, Credit Is What He Wants; New York Times, 8/31/13

Larry Rohter, New York Times; For a Classic Motown Song About Money, Credit Is What He Wants: "Unbeknown to Mr. Strong, who also helped write many other Motown hits, his name was removed from the copyright registration for “Money” three years after the song was written, restored in 1987 when the copyright was renewed, then removed again the next year — his name literally crossed out. Documents at the copyright office show that all of these moves came at the direction of Motown executives, who dispute Mr. Strong’s claim of authorship. Berry Gordy Jr., Motown’s founder, declined requests for an interview, but his lawyers contend that the original registration resulted from a clerical error, and that Mr. Strong passed up numerous opportunities to assert his claim. Mr. Strong said he learned of the alterations only late in 2010 and has been struggling ever since to have his authorship officially reinstated. At stake: his ability to share in the lucrative royalties from the song’s use. But his efforts have been blocked by a provision of copyright law that says he relinquished his rights by failing to act in a timely fashion to contest Motown’s action. Mr. Strong’s predicament illustrates a little-known oddity in the American copyright system, one that record and music publishing companies have not hesitated to exploit. The United States Copyright Office, a division of the Library of Congress, does not notify authors of changes in registrations, and until recently the only way to check on any alterations was to go to Washington and visit the archives personally."

Musicians win copyright extension to 70 years; Guardian, 9/12/11

Josh Halliday, Guardian; Musicians win copyright extension to 70 years:

"Thousands of music performers, from little-known session musicians to Sir Cliff Richard, will receive royalties from songs released in the 60s for an extra 20 years, under new copyright laws ratified by the EU on Monday.

The legislation – known as "Cliff's law" after its most high-profile campaigner – extends copyright on music recordings from 50 years to 70 years."

When Titans Clash: Comic-Book Creator Edition; New York Times, 6/16/10

Dave Itzkoff, New York Times; When Titans Clash: Comic-Book Creator Edition:

"Comic-book creators are generally better known for imagining and illustrating the larger-than-life conflicts of fearsome opponents, not for engaging in them themselves. So it was somewhat unusual to find Neil Gaiman, the best-selling fiction writer and comics author (“Sandman”), in a Wisconsin court on Monday, where he is suing his onetime colleague Todd McFarlane over royalties that Mr. Gaiman says he is owed from Mr. McFarlane’s Spawn comics series.

The Associated Press reported that both Mr. Gaiman and Mr. McFarlane gave testimony in a United States District Court in Madison, in the latest round of a dispute involving characters from Spawn, a series about a murdered C.I.A. agent who becomes a warrior for hell after selling his soul to a demon.

Mr. Gaiman said that a character called Dark Ages Spawn was essentially a copy of Medieval Spawn, which he had created for Spawn issue No. 9 in 1993, and that angel characters called Domina and Tiffany were copies of Angela, who also had first appeared in that issue.

Mr. Gaiman said, ”It looks like the same kind of thing,” after being shown an image from a Dark Ages Spawn comic book. ”It’s a knight-in-armory kind of Spawn.”

Mr. McFarlane said all the Spawn characters share certain features. The writer Brian Holguin, who was also involved with the creation of the Dark Ages Spawn character, testified that the similarities were unintentional.

”We were trying to sell comic books,” Mr. Holguin said, according to The A.P. ”We could have done Italian Renaissance Spawn, but I’m not sure it would have sold as well.”

A jury found in 2002 that Mr. Gaiman was a co-copyright holder for the Medieval Spawn and Angela characters, as well as a third named Cogliostro, and was owed royalties. They have yet to come to an agreement on payment. Lawyers for Mr. Gaiman said the author will donate any money from the case to charity."

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/when-titans-clash-comic-book-creator-edition/?scp=1&sq=gaiman%20spawn&st=cse

Men at Work loses first stage of copyright lawsuit; Boston Globe, 7/30/09

Kristen Gelineau via Boston Globe; Men at Work loses first stage of copyright lawsuit:

"A music publisher that has accused Australian band Men at Work of stealing the melody to their 1980s smash hit "Down Under" from a campfire song won the first stage of its lawsuit on Thursday seeking royalties from the Aussie anthem.

A federal judge ruled that publisher Larrikin Music owns the copyright to the tune of "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree" -- a Girl Guide favorite from New Zealand to Canada. The judge's ruling clears the way for a further hearing about whether Men at Work is guilty of copyright infringement.

Larrikin claims the distinctive flute riff in "Down Under" was copied from the refrain of "Kookaburra," a song about the native Australian bird written in 1934 by a teacher named Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guides competition. Sinclair died in 1988.

Lawyers for Men at Work's recording companies -- Sony BMG Music Entertainment and EMI Songs Australia -- reject that claim."

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2009/07/30/men_at_work_loses_first_stage_of_copyright_lawsuit/

OP-ED: The Kindle Swindle?, The New York Times, 2/24/09

OP-ED, Roy Blount, Jr., Via The New York Times: The Kindle Swindle?:

"The Kindle 2 is a portable, wireless, paperback-size device onto which people can download a virtual library of digitalized titles. Amazon sells these downloads, and where the books are under copyright, it pays royalties to the authors and publishers.

Serves readers, pays writers: so far, so good. But there’s another thing about Kindle 2 — its heavily marketed text-to-speech function. Kindle 2 can read books aloud. And Kindle 2 is not paying anyone for audio rights...

What the guild is asserting is that authors have a right to a fair share of the value that audio adds to Kindle 2’s version of books. For this, the guild is being assailed. On the National Federation of the Blind’s Web site, the guild is accused of arguing that it is illegal for blind people to use “readers, either human or machine, to access books that are not available in alternative formats like Braille or audio.”

In fact, publishers, authors and American copyright laws have long provided for free audio availability to the blind and the guild is all for technologies that expand that availability. (The federation, though, points out that blind readers can’t independently use the Kindle 2’s visual, on-screen controls.) But that doesn’t mean Amazon should be able, without copyright-holders’ participation, to pass that service on to everyone."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25blount.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse

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

RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later - Electronic Frontier Foundation, September 2008

RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later:

"On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against the people that should be the recording industry’s best customers: music fans.1 Five years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals.2 These individuals have included children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers, college professors—a random selection from the millions of Americans who have used P2P networks. And there’s no end in sight; new lawsuits are filed monthly, and now they are supplemented by a flood of "pre-litigation" settlement letters designed to extract settlements without any need to enter a courtroom.3

But suing music fans has proven to be an ineffective response to unauthorized P2P file-sharing. Downloading from P2P networks is more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of lawsuits.4 And the lawsuit campaign has not resulted in any royalties to artists. One thing has become clear: suing music fans is no answer to the P2P dilemma."
http://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later

First Royalty Rates Set for Digital Music - New York Times, 10/3/08

First Royalty Rates Set for Digital Music:
"In a decision closely watched by the music industry, a panel of federal judges who determine royalty rates for recordings ruled on Thursday to renew the current royalty rate for CDs and other physical recordings, while setting rates for the first time for downloads, ring tones and other services.
The ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board — a panel of three judges appointed by the Librarian of Congress — applied strictly to mechanical royalties, which are paid to the songwriters and publishers of music, not the performers...
Some in the industry warned that the measures might not be enough to stem the losses suffered since the rise of illegal file-sharing a decade ago. Jonathan Feinstein, a music lawyer at the Krasilovsky & Gross firm in New York, said the ruling introduced needed flexibility and certainty.
“Whether these developments will be sufficient to return the music industry to health is not clear,” Mr. Feinstein said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03royalty.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse&oref=slogin

Apple Threatens iTunes Shutdown over Copyright Royalty Dispute - Wired.com, 10/01/08

Apple Threatens iTunes Shutdown over Copyright Royalty Dispute:
"Apple has threatened to shut down the iTunes music store if an obscure three-person board appointed by the Librarian of Congress increase the royalties paid to publishers and songwriters by six cents per song.
The Copyright Royalty Board is scheduled to hand down its decision on these rates by Thursday."
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/10/thursdays-copyr.html