Group items tagged

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

I thought this was interesting because whoever wins no longer has the right to his own face. I thought it would be an interesting case study considering the interplay between life-rights, copyright of the Ken doll, and any other contractual restrictions that would go with winning this kind of competition.

Suing just to figure out who has the rights…

Really interesting potential retaliation against unfair U.S. trade practices with less enforcement of U.S. IP rights.

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 "supposed" author is suing the licensing company that sold the rights of his song to sports teams on the basis that he hasn't been paid royalties. Also note that this song has possibly been a part of the the USC marching band's repertoire since the 1950s. How can this situation be addressed?

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?

Because Facebook does not have extensive copyright preferences, artists who share their work on this website are not guaranteed what will happen to their art down the line. As more people choose to use Facebook as a media sharing website, Facebook will have to re-evaluate what rights they grant to you as a user.

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

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?

Who has rights to the Superman franchise?

As a follow up to my blog about potential lawsuits from high-end designers against fast fashion stores, like Zara and Forever 21, it seems as though J. Crew is now being sued over a print design. However, the author rightfully points out that Wilkinson is not suing over the leopard print, per se, because no one has IP rights to that.