Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Tintin copyrights go to war against Tintin fans
Tintin copyrights go to war against Tintin fans
The British lawyer who married the widow of Tintin creator Hergé has successfully sued Bob Garcia ("a detective novelist, jazz musician and Tintin aficionado") for £35,000 for printing five short essays in appreciation of Tintin, two of which were illustrated with brief clips from the comic. The essays were distributedNick Rodwell, the plaintiff, was accused by Garcia of "a ruthless drive to kill off their harmless and not-for-profit passion in his bid to keep exclusive control of the Tintin brand."
Britain's "fair dealing" offers less protection to fans and scholars than does the US's "fair use" (itself a complicated doctrine). Combined with a litigious copyright owner, it's a recipe for disaster when it comes to free speech, scholarship, and fan activity.
Hundreds of Tintin fans have already backed Mr Garcia, who on Thursday called for a boycott of the film and claimed that many supporters were heeding his demand. More than 500 people have joined his page on the Facebook website which expresses "anger and disgust" over the issue. More supporters have also backed his cause on other websites.
Mr Garcia said: "We have nothing against Mr Spielberg even if there is a boycott threat against his film ... but are asking him to intervene in favour of not just me but all people who are being prevented from sharing their passion for Tintin..."
Stéphane Steeman, who ran the Hergé Friendship Club for 25 years, has just released a book in which he castigates Mr Rodwell for trying to kill off his organisation, called The Escalation.Tintin film boycott threat over row with Hergé widow's British husband (Thanks, Will!)
He recounts how Mr Rodwell in his blog implies that two Belgian journalists criticised him because they could not pass on their passion for Tintin to their children as they were autistic.
Pierre Assouline, Hergé's French biographer, wrote that he "knows only too well" the "methods" of Mr Rodwell with his "victims".
In New York, Universal Sues Grooveshark Over Oldies...
January 11, 2010
In New York, Universal Sues Grooveshark Over Oldies...
Courthouse News Service:
MANHATTAN – UMG Recordings claims an Internet site is ripping it off by distributing Golden Oldie music from UMG‘s catalogue for free, and using the mass copyright violations to attract advertising dollars to its site. UMG seeks punitive damages from Escape Media Group, which does business as Grooveshark.com.
UMG claims Grooveshark violates copyright by providing “free access to UMG‘s pre-1972 recordings,” which includes ” some of the most popular and successful recording artists of the 20th Century,” including Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Marvin Gaye, the Temptations, Cat Stevens, the Jackson Five and the Who.
It claims that Grooveshark “uses the lure of free access” to increase traffic on its Web site, which in turn drives its advertising dollars.
According to the complaint in New York County Court, Grooveshark stores UMG‘s “copyrighted sound recordings on its own servers… and then distribute(es) copies of those recordings to the users.”
Grooveshark not only refuses to pay UMG a license fee, it has even “boasted” about targeting “the very segment of users that are bringing the labels to their knees with illegal downloading,” according to the complaint.
UMG wants an accounting, an injunction and punitive damages for unfair competition and copyright violations. It is represented by Andrew Bart with Jenner & Block.
Digital Music News:
Grooveshark settled a major lawsuit involving EMI Group in October of last year. That development ostensibly paved the way for similar settlements with other majors, though another filing – this time from Universal Music Group – surfaced over the weekend. The state-based complaint, filed with the the Supreme Court of the State of New York (County of New York), specifically involves pre-1972 works controlled by UMG Recordings. The suit names Grooveshark owner Escape Media, based in Gainesville, Florida.
The pre-1972 catalog spans Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, The Carpenters, The Who, and Marvin Gaye, among others.
This is not a federal action, though a broader legal campaign could be underway. “UMG seeks redress in this litigation only for Pre-1972 Recordings,” the New York filing states. “Pre-1972 Recordings are subject to protection exclusively under state law (including the law of the State of New York) and are not subject to or governed by the federal Copyright Act.”
Courts to rule on fan-created music videos
Courts to rule on fan-created music videos
LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - More than a decade after the launch of Napster, the recording industry's complicated legal relationship with Web-savvy music fans seems no closer to resolution. But a number of cases winding their way through the courts may bring a bit of clarity in 2010 to one particularly fuzzy area of the law: fan-created online videos that contain music.
The major labels have all worked out deals with YouTube to split ad revenue with the site after a user uploads a music video. But considering that labels don't issue explicit licenses to users and YouTube continues to warn against uploading copyrighted material, it isn't clear whether the labels actually want fans to upload their music in the first place. Meanwhile, other copyright owners who don't have deals with YouTube, such as Viacom and music publisher Bourne, are still pursuing copyright infringement suits against the video-sharing giant.
The latest action taken by a major label against a video-sharing site -- and a key case to watch in the new year -- were suits filed in December by EMI Music imprints Capitol, Caroline and Virgin and EMI Music Publishing against Vimeo.com, a division of online media conglomerate IAC. EMI charges that the site infringes on its copyrights by allegedly encouraging users to upload videos containing professionally produced music. The EMI suit also focuses on "lip dubs" (a phrase EMI says was coined by Vimeo), homemade videos that feature fans lip-synching to professional recordings, including many from the major labels.
EMI's suit will likely revolve around two legal issues. First, are video-sharing sites -- which organize, categorize and profit from user-uploaded copyrighted content -- liable for copyright infringement? While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act includes "safe harbor" provisions for sites that promptly remove videos upon receipt of takedown notices from content owners, copyright owners claim that the DMCA, enacted years before video-sharing sites even existed, was never intended to protect sites that built businesses around rampant, unlicensed use of others' intellectual property, especially when they encourage users to upload copyrighted content. (EMI also alleges that Vimeo itself uploaded videos containing its music, activity that isn't covered by DMCA safe harbors.)
FEW PRECEDENTS
There is surprisingly little case law on this topic. In September, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled against Universal Music Group in its infringement suit against Veoh.com, saying the video-sharing site was protected by the DMCA. But that case isn't binding on a New York federal court, and UMG is appealing. And in a case involving peer-to-peer site isoHunt, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in December that safe harbors are simply unavailable to sites that "induce" infringement.
The other major legal question in the EMI suit is whether lip dubs and similar mash-ups of amateur and professional content are infringing. Copyright reform activists argue that they're examples of fair use tolerated under copyright law as an accommodation to noncommercial, transformative creativity. Of course EMI will point out that, whatever the motivation of the amateur lib-dubber, Vimeo is anything but "noncommercial."
Sources familiar with the labels' thinking on the issue acknowledge these videos' promotional value, but they also note that other video-sharing sites like YouTube have struck deals with the labels and dismiss the notion that copyright owners should forgo a revenue stream simply because it also promotes their artists.
Elsewhere, Stephanie Lenz is still battling UMG over its takedown of a video she had uploaded to YouTube of her toddler son dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." Lenz wants damages for the removal of a video she considers an obvious fair use; UMG maintains it acted in good faith to protect its copyright. And Don Henley's suit against U.S. Senate candidate Chuck DeVore (R-Calif.) over the use of "The Boys of Summer" and "All She Wants to Do Is Dance" in "parody" political videos is moving forward in federal court in Santa Ana, Calif.
U.S. courts have yet to provide clear guidance regarding the legality of pairing copyrighted music with amateur video and then broadcasting it to the world. That may finally change in 2010.
(Ben Sheffner is a copyright attorney who has represented movie studios, TV networks and record labels and now works as in the NBC Universal Television Group, which is 20 percent owned by Vivendi, the parent of Universal Music Group. He is the author of the Copyrights & Campaigns blog, copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)