Group items tagged

I think Mr. Gordon may have a good chance of winning the lawsuit. If you look at the original picture he drew, you can see that it was more than just an idea that was taken and used to make Kung Fu Panda. He even titled his own drawings "Kung Fu Panda Power." When comparing this to Rihanna's infringement for her S&M music video, I feel that Rihanna has a better chance of escaping charges for infringement than does Dreamworks, because Rihanna was able to take photos and recreate them originally into a different form of media. Kung Fu Panda, on the other hand, is an animated film, which means that these photos weigh more heavily because they were not really originally transformed, they are the same pictures, just moving. This will be an interesting case to follow.

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?

Lady Gaga's new single has already reached the top of the charts, but avid listeners and fans are debating whether or not her work is completely original. Although some claim that it's possible to hear the similarities, others claim that "Born This Way" and Madonna's "Express Yourself" are completely different creative works. Either way, there's a possibility for an infringement suit. The article mentions that an Arizona band sued Daughtry for copying an original tune called "Tonight," while Coldplay was sued for "Viva La Vida," which was allegedly ripped off of the title of another album.

On Leno, Gaga notes that Madonna approves of the song. This brings forth an even more interesting question. If an artist doesn't press charges for copying, then can it still be considered copyright infringement?

the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has filed a copyright infringement suit against Hotfile (a file hosting service) on behalf of Disney Enterprises, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal City Studios, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros, claiming that it promotes piracy. This suit is reminiscent of the music industry's attack on Limewire which resulted in it being shut down. Read the original Associated Press article on the Wall Street Journal Website: http://online.wsj.com/article/APba256b5b302d4d9c9e8af569d017dba6.html

My roomates know this guy and he mentioned that he is talking to the original creators of the film. I wonder if they will take any legal copyright action against him.

After reading the article it's interesting to see how his classmates/fellow filmmakers have reacted to this. We haven't heard anything about legal action being taken by the original creators, but it seems that this guy has been taken to the people's court!

Does Guetta have the right to artistic expression, even if it means distorting an iconic image he does not have rights over?

"Guetta used the photo specifically for this reason, it was already iconic, very well known and he used it in his artwork because of that. He wasn't just referencing Run DMC, he was referencing the most famous photo of them." This is really interesting. Does this rationale mean that he isn't committing copyright infringement? A friend of mine at RISD is toying with using frames from the (iconic) opening scenes of Woody Allen's "Manhattan" for a school printmaking project, does she need to pay Woody or the city of New York royalties even if she credits her (famous) original source? Does a deal need to be struck when such a famous work is reproduced or reinterpreted. Can't anyone parody or pay homage without asking for permission first?

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...

Should Google be doing more to protect original content that is made available on YouTube?

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.

NY federal judge ruled against google last week in their copyright case, having  "[tossed] out a 165-page settlement reached in 2008 between Google and authors and publishers groups". This article discusses Google's 2009 plan for a global digitized library and the lawsuits that have surrounded it.

The article is recent from March 25th (LA Times, Business Section). It's discussing Google's history regarding the e-book controversy. Judge Chin's decision forces us to think about what an online digital library might look like without infringing parties, like Google. As noted in the article, Google was attempting to use "orphan works," whose right holders could not be found. As a result, Google would be using the works without being held accountable under copyright law. Here's the original document, filed by the U.S. Supreme Court, on 3/22/2011: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/74854-chin-ruling

This report from Business Week highlights some recent developments in intellectual property news. Chrysler is actually suing a Detroit clothing company for trademark infringement on the slogan "Imported from Detroit." The saying was introduced in a Chrysler commercial that aired during the Super Bowl this year, featuring Eminem. Chrysler brings the case to court with the justification that the phrase is intended to indicate "luxury" to customers, in addition to the fact that millions were invested to produce the commercial. As a result, t-shirts with the slogan are misleading to the public, the automaker claims. Do you think Chrysler has a strong case? Here's the original commercial, if you haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI6puP3cClM

In contrast to an article I posted on February 14th, it seems as though Madonna has finally come around and noted that Gaga's new single, "Born This Way," sounds like her original music. This change of perspective is surprising.