Group items tagged

The Country music duo the "Bellamy Brothers" are upset over Britney song title's resemblance to their 1979 hit but it seem they will not be suing the popstar.

I know that the Bellamy Brothers specifically mention the title, but I think they would have a much stronger case on the basis of "fixing" the double entendre within the song: the BB's lyrics are "If I said you had a beautiful body / would you hold it against me" vs. Britney's "If I said I want your body now / would you hold it against me." That's pretty startlingly similar, and even if you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright the expression of those ideas... and there's enough overlap between the two to be persuasive.

Now that I know copying a song title doesn't count as copyright infringement, I wonder what percentage of a songs lyrics must be exactly the same as another song in order for that to count as copyright infringement. And even if the lyrics happen to be the same, can an artist still avoid a lawsuit if his or her melodic line/ chordal progression/ instrumentation is different enough to make the song "original"? I'm guessing that its a case-by-case thing...

Personality rights, a subset of intellectual property/copyright, is a major issue among players in the NCAA.  

It appears that even professors often overlook the legality of distributing copyrighted materials. Although it's no question that fair use applies to a small excerpt or one chapter of a book, the legality of distributing multiple chapters or an entire work is, what this article calls, "cheating a legitimate economic interest." Students might disagree based on the cost of textbooks and course readers, though from the standpoint of the publisher and author, if an academic intends to use an entire work, it should not be copied, but purchased as the entire original work.

Viacom is maintaining its 2007 billion dollar lawsuit against Google (as it acquired YouTube in 2006), despite the latter continuous fervent denial. Though "Google argues that when YouTube promptly took down tens of thousands of videos after Viacom gave it notice, YouTube was within provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act." Viacom is stating that the infringement is taking the form of violating the 1998 Copyright Act. Which holds both content owners and systems operators responsible for the protection of copyrighted content online. After reading this article, a few questions come to mind: What can Google do to appease and keep the "integrity" of YouTube? and Isn't it interesting that Viacom only filed this $1 billion lawsuit AFTER Google had acquired YouTube? What can we say about interested parties possibly abusing copyright law?

"The internet titan was found guilty of infringing a patent related to the Linux kernel and fined " "The software is used by Google for its server platforms and could also extend to its Android mobile platform.The kernel is at the core of the open-source operating system meaning this verdict could be far-reaching" "The implication here is really that there is a huge number of Linux users who will be required to pay royalties if this patent holder knocks on their doors in the US. This is definitely a major impediment to the growth of Linux and makes companies, including Google, that rely on open source code particularly vulnerable to patent threats.

What can you do if that novel you've been looking to read isn't available as an e-book? Well, it turns out that Japanese companies are actually taking books and scanning them for their customers as PDF files compatible with iPad, iPhone, Kindle and Nook. In Japan, copyright agreements depend on the author, and in turn the secretary general of Japan Book Publishers Association suggests all of this activity may be legal. It would be interesting to see this service offered in the U.S. and the copyright infringement cases that might arise.

The web radio service's filings show that over half of its revenue (approximately $45 million) was used to pay copyright owners, an amount so high that it expects to have a virtually non-existent profit margin through to 2012. Though the company has grown in the past year and copyright fee expenditures don't represent as large a chunk of the earnings as last year (when it was 60%), concern remains over its ability to make ends meet. Royalty payments are principally made to: SoundExchange (which receive 45 of Pandora's revenue alone), BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC. The company is also looking to "go global" but has encountered problems, as its business model is based on US copyright laws. 

This is a few months old, but it shows how copyright issues can come up years after a work is created. The author of a biography of Fela Kuti sued the producers and creative team of Fela! the musical, even though the production had been shown Off-Broadway and on Broadway for a few years.

this film really puts forth some interesting thoughts and ideas about copyright law and its validity in today's cultural marketplace.

I love this article even though it's brief and not very technical. In class, we've been discussing where the lines are for imitation and copyright infringement, so what do you guys think of these examples?

Films by Hitchcock, books by Virginia Woolf and Picasso's Guernica--just to name a few--are some of the works that are no longer readily accessible to the public. In a new case, Golan v. Holder, orchestra conductors, teachers and film archivists, are fighting for the right to perform, adapt and distribute creative works that they relied on for years without having to consider copyrights and their respective fees. Should these famous works be returned to the public domain?

The A.P. and artist, Mr. Shepard Fairey settled on sharing the copyright to the famous photograph of Obama that became the iconic HOPE portrait of the then-presidential candidate. The amount of financial compensation agreed upon has not been disclosed, though in the future, their deal will apply to proceeds coming from any posters or other merchandise sold with the image. Originally, the A.P. sued in February 2009 for copyright infringement, but Mr. Fairey counter-sued, arguing that the HOPE image fell under the fair-use exception to copyright law. As our class has read thus far, regarding the exceptions of parodies to copyright law because of their transformative nature and in turn become a creative work wholly different from the original, the A.P.'s photograph was used in a similar capacity. The artist claimed "that he had effectively transformed the work into an idealized image 'that created powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message.'"

According to the Washington Post, although the case has been settled with Fairey, the Associated Press intends to go to trial in March with Obey Clothing, a clothing line selling apparel with the Obama image. Another apparel manufacturer, One 3 Two, on the other hand, settled because they did not want to give the appearance that their primary goal was to make a profit. In fact, One 3 Two initially began selling the t-shirt to retailers, such as Urban Outfitters, to ultimately raise funds for Obama's campaign. Do you think that the A.P. had the right to sue over this photograph? Why or why not?

A search engineer at Google claims that Microsoft's Bing is copying their search results. She reached this conclusion after having toyed with the Google search algorithm and seeing that Bing was still displaying identical results. If interested, also see articles on engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/01/google-responds-bing-recycles-search-results-and-wed-like-it/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/01/google-accuses-bing-of-cheating-piggybacking-off-its-search-r/

Interesting, but I think Google realizes there's nothing it can really do to protect itself; sort of like Feist vs. Rural in that Google just provides an organized directory, the way Rural provides an uncreative list of organized information.

I think the moms reason to get the picture down is interesting although I'm not sure how true it can be or how the actual argument would hold up. Also, this story is just kind of funny.

So the family owns copyright of the photo and the powerful Google is not obliged to submit? I wonder if there's anything poor Jack and his mommy can do short of tracking down this girl, finding concrete evidence that she did it and slapping her with an infringement suit... I'm with you Kristi, this IS kinda funny. Breaking up is so much scarier in the internet age.

Some claim that the digital music industry is not going to grow any larger than it already is--mostly due to piracy occurring online. Inspired by the U.S. Senate, which shut down LimeWire last year, other countries across Europe and Asia are looking to revisit copyright laws to crack down on piracy and promote growth in the digital music industry, as well as lead a shift away from monopolizing applications, like iTunes, and redirect sales to alternative subscription music service websites.

Since we were talking about band copyright a little last class, I figured I'd post this. Dave Matthews Band allows concert go-ers to record live performances/shows. Many DMB fans post these to different fan websites such as antsmarching.org for everyone to download. DMB feels that "tape trading will foster greater interaction within the fan community."

I'm absolutely with DMB on this. If the music is for the fans and the purpose is to have them relate to it, why not have them interact as well? Some cases of video removal for "copyright infringement" on youtube baffle me, because they not cut off publicity and forum discussions about musicians and their performances, but also occasionally cause resentment or negative feelings towards the artists. Those, in my opinion, are instances of copyright protecting so much that it becomes detrimental.

The author recounts when he and his wife used their camera phones to snap a few pages from a decor book in Barnes and Noble for ideas to show their contractor. Do you think it is possible to regulate this kind of copying and do you think a cell phone photo of a page or two from a book justifies legal punishment?

Rebuttal of Turow's op ed, referenced in Andrea's blog post last week.

The Twilight poster and album cover have an undeniable resemblance to each other, however, I think Summit's interference and influence on pulling his music from YouTube and iTunes was unnecessary. If Summit believed that the artist had stolen material for his album cover, then the company should have sued him instead. Also, if Twilight had inspired his music, then technically, this is not copyright infringement. I do not think that the music itself was a violation of intellectual property.