Entertainment Laws Protecting New Businesses

The Use Of Copyrights In Digital Media.

            This blog post structures around three video casts. This week I was able to watch the “TWIL” (this week in law) episodes on YouTube. The Internet show hosted by Denise Howell and Evan Brown invite different entertainment lawyers to discuss recent legal activities in the industry.

            The first episode, TWIL 123  (August 5, 2011) guest starred: Fred Von Lohmann, Trevor Timm, and Michelle Sherman. Lohmann is the senior copyright council for Google. Trevor Timm hosts’ lasisblog.com and Michelle Sherman is a lawyer from socialmedialawupdate.com.  The topic of discussion was Zediva. This company tried to make a business out of a DVD tower. To avoid the piracy law of streamlining movies, Zediva allowed people to rent the DVD players and watch in their own  homes.

            According to Fred Von Lohmann, “Zediva only received a preliminary injunction order from the court. They would be able to appeal using the Cablevision case.” (2011). Cablevision created a remote that would let people streamline movies with in the privacy of their home. Cablevision won the case because the court cannot define privacy rules. The copyright act does not control private performances (Lohmann 2011). As the issue was being discussed Michelle Sherman made a good point. The act of Zediva was to get around the law. They would not be able to appeal, with out a good cause.  In the end this company was pirating DVD’s.

            The Second highlight of the episode is about the new laws in the United Kingdom. The entertainment law was able to  have ISP block domain names from an off shore sight. When the company is not based in the country it is now able to block domain names. This way people will not be able to find them on the Internet. In the United States, According to Timm, the Protect IP act is pending in Congress. This act will allow companies to block domain names  here. The law was intended for child pornography and keeping children away from pornography. However, will the action become abused and cause an “arms race” for companies dealing with infringement?

            TWIL 124, August 12,2011.

The guest appearances are from Carolyn Write photoattorney.com, Matt Buchanan Ohio BNIP.com, and Wendy Seltzer Princeton’s center with technology staff attorney.

            The discussion here was Andy Baio and “Kinda Bloop.” It was an 8-bit remix to Miles Davis “Kind of Blue.” Baio made sure the all of the legal rights were in place for the music. However, he took the photograph for the cover art and pixilated it. After this Andy Baio found himself in a copyright infringement for photography. Some try to argue that Baio did not need licensing for the artwork, it fell under the fair use act. According to Carolynn, photograph artist do not get the same respect that others do. This was not fair use it was taking a photograph and changing it.

            Wendy believes encouraging artist to really think about fair use before they take another artists work. The use must be a parody or a complement to the artist. Baio should have asked the photograph artist for permission to use the picture as well.

            TWIL 125, August, 19, 2011

Invited Patent Lawyers Nipper and Matt Macari.

The discussion was Google purchasing Motorola for $12.5 billion dollars. This purchase included 24000 patents at half a million a piece. The lawyers agreed that these major corporations are beginning their own “nuclear arms race.” Because of the Android Litigation and the Oracle settlement. Companies are buying out others with good patents, which they can pull out later in a lawsuit. This does not include small businesses, mainly large corporations. In the end it’s the people that lose out. As the companies hold onto patents and spend large amounts of money on the portfolios.

I have learned in starting a new business it is important to watch out for all issues. The new IP laws that are being established for technology will effect the entertainment industry. It is important to remain current on cases and to protect any original work as well.

For more information:

http://www.bagandbaggage.com/

http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/

Intellectual Property Investigation: How is it working in entertainment?

            Many people believe justice is only served through hiring lawyers. However, the ordinary “man on the street” is able to stay knowledgeable about the law with educational help. Basic legal jargon teaches about Intellectual property and how people in the entertainment business have rights to keeping their work safe. All artists are taught that they do not have to “recreate the wheel.” But is always good to make sure your work is your own. There are many example’s in the entertainment industry right now discussing disputes on original work and I would just like to talk about a few of them.

The first example was May 24 2011. Everybody remembers the disruption the hangover part 2 cause right before it opened. According to Pop Eater.com “Mike Tyson’s tattoo artist Victor Whitmill, was suing the movie for stealing the creation of his tattoo.” (¶2).  Whitmill has the tattoo under copy wright law making his claim liable for Warner Brothers.  In their defense, Warner Brothers claims, “Using the tattoo in the movie was simply part of a joke. It’s also transformative . . . it’s in a scene that adds value to the original design” (Piazza, 2011). However, even with credit given to a star, as big as, Mike Tyson, Warner Brother’s will still have to pay Victor Whitmill some money due to copy wright laws.

The next two examples are the same star but different offenses. The first was Lady Gaga’s “Born this way.” The album appeared on February 11, 2011. The song became a hit right away. Many people noticed how closely the song sounded to Madonna’s 1989 hit, “Express Yourself.” According to John Mitchell, another writer for Pop Eater, “To us, Gaga's new tune feels like more of an homage than a rip-off. The 'Bad Romance' singer has made no secret of her respect for Madonna, and with that in mind, there's no way the thematic and musical similarities between 'Born This Way' and 'Express Yourself' were not purposeful” (Mitchell, 2011). It appears that when the artist has an utmost respect for another, the imitation is a compliment not a liability. In many ways, the two songs sound very similar but if two Pop Diva’s can respect that enough and claim their own title, then legal liability is not a problem.

The final example is a recent hit on Lady Gaga.  Rebecca Francescatti, an artist from 2005 is suing Lady Gaga for the song “Judas” on her newest album. In reading an article from Hot mamma Gossip, the case went to trial in Northern Illinois on August 3, 2011. Francescatti claims that Lady Gaga stole her song “Juda” and used it as her own. In referencing the article, “According to Francescatti, she recorded her song “Juda” in 2005 under the supervision of DJ White Shadow’s Brian Gaynor. The same group also worked with Gaga on “Born This Way” and that gives her claim more weight.” (¶4).  This claim is more intense for Lady Gaga right now because she had the same team of people involved. Right Gaga and her team are keeping quiet on the issue. Did Lady Gaga steal the song? That is for the court to decide. The song Juda is under copy wright law, and although Gaga added her own flare and personal style, there were still elements of stealing the song.

Legal issues in the entertainment world are just as serious. You hear all of the pirating commercials. The law is there so that artist, like everyone else, can have a fair claim to the work they have created so beautifully.