Copyright Commerce and Culture

It's not copyright per se, but it's an interesting use of creative commons.

The smart-phone is not only hardware, but software, which has already been patent-protected. In this competitive phone market, where Android takes the lead with 32% of the market, the onset of these legal battles began when Nokia accused Apple of infringing on its patents. The article maps out which companies are suing who and why.

Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver is going after individuals who have pirated films like last year's Oscar winner, 'Hurt Locker,' off of P2P file-sharing sites. Usually, the firm settles for a fine from $1,500 to $3,000. Do you think this fine range fits the crime?

Although China seems to be working to eliminate mass sales of pirated goods, especially counterfeit DVDs, this regulation seems to be rather inconsistent across regions.

A reference to Section 512 of Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbors" exception from my blog entry.

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?

another good article from PC Magazine: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384913,00.asp

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?

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.

Bronies

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.

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?

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.

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...

Cool blog about smaller infringements that go unnoticed.

Though this video is interesting, the comment thread gives a great look at people's thoughts on current copyright laws.

Really cool resource out of Stanford Law's "Copyright & Fair Use" Center - they're debuting a new case summary feature, all of which will be written by "experienced writers, all of whom are licensed attorneys." It looks like it's going to be super organized - with blurbs, summaries, full texts, and even "tags" to help navigate!

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 article I will be editing.

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.