For fifteen seconds of the song Imagine, Yoko and Julian and Sean sued the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Infringement or fair use is the issue.
Fair use factors? The purpose and character of the use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and the effect on the potential market. Not a hard case: although the purpose was commercial, and the song is a core copyright work, not much was used and it did not effect the potential market.
The court agreed with the defendants that it was highly transformative. Rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the use was not transformative because the excerpt was played in the film without any alteration, the court held that the selection of the particular portion of the song was made for purposes of social commentary, namely, to criticize the song’s diminution of religion. This selection, and the juxtaposition with video also supporting this criticism, rendered the use transformative.
Transformative? Judge Pierre Leval developed the term in his article "Toward a Fair Use Standard," 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1111 (1990):
"The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test; in Justice Story's words, it would merely "supersede the objects" of the original. If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original -- if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings -- this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society. Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses."
Judge Richard Posner, in the beany baby case, points out that "The defense of fair use, originally judge-made, now codified, plays an essential role in copyright law. Without it, any copying of copyrighted material would be a copyright infringement." Note that how good was Ben Stein in the movie matters not at all. As Judge Posner explains, "But the fair-use doctrine is not intended to set up the courts as judges of the quality of expressive works. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., supra, 510 U.S. at 582-83, 114 S.Ct. 1164. That would be an unreasonable burden to place on judges, as well as raising a First Amendment question."
What matters is that the first part of the four factors is not just about being commercial or non-commercial, but about the use. In the big case, the Supreme Court said that if the work "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message," then it can be protected as fair use. "The goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1171 (U.S.,1994)
Saturday, June 28, 2008
"Imagine" This . . .
For fifteen seconds of the song Imagine, Yoko and Julian and Sean sued the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Infringement or fair use is the issue.
Fair use factors? The purpose and character of the use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and the effect on the potential market. Not a hard case: although the purpose was commercial, and the song is a core copyright work, not much was used and it did not effect the potential market.
The court agreed with the defendants that it was highly transformative. Rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the use was not transformative because the excerpt was played in the film without any alteration, the court held that the selection of the particular portion of the song was made for purposes of social commentary, namely, to criticize the song’s diminution of religion. This selection, and the juxtaposition with video also supporting this criticism, rendered the use transformative.
Transformative? Judge Pierre Leval developed the term in his article "Toward a Fair Use Standard," 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1111 (1990):
"The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test; in Justice Story's words, it would merely "supersede the objects" of the original. If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original -- if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings -- this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society. Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses."
Judge Richard Posner, in the beany baby case, points out that "The defense of fair use, originally judge-made, now codified, plays an essential role in copyright law. Without it, any copying of copyrighted material would be a copyright infringement." Note that how good was Ben Stein in the movie matters not at all. As Judge Posner explains, "But the fair-use doctrine is not intended to set up the courts as judges of the quality of expressive works. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., supra, 510 U.S. at 582-83, 114 S.Ct. 1164. That would be an unreasonable burden to place on judges, as well as raising a First Amendment question."
What matters is that the first part of the four factors is not just about being commercial or non-commercial, but about the use. In the big case, the Supreme Court said that if the work "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message," then it can be protected as fair use. "The goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1171 (U.S.,1994)
Fair use factors? The purpose and character of the use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and the effect on the potential market. Not a hard case: although the purpose was commercial, and the song is a core copyright work, not much was used and it did not effect the potential market.
The court agreed with the defendants that it was highly transformative. Rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the use was not transformative because the excerpt was played in the film without any alteration, the court held that the selection of the particular portion of the song was made for purposes of social commentary, namely, to criticize the song’s diminution of religion. This selection, and the juxtaposition with video also supporting this criticism, rendered the use transformative.
Transformative? Judge Pierre Leval developed the term in his article "Toward a Fair Use Standard," 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1111 (1990):
"The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test; in Justice Story's words, it would merely "supersede the objects" of the original. If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original -- if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings -- this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society. Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses."
Judge Richard Posner, in the beany baby case, points out that "The defense of fair use, originally judge-made, now codified, plays an essential role in copyright law. Without it, any copying of copyrighted material would be a copyright infringement." Note that how good was Ben Stein in the movie matters not at all. As Judge Posner explains, "But the fair-use doctrine is not intended to set up the courts as judges of the quality of expressive works. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., supra, 510 U.S. at 582-83, 114 S.Ct. 1164. That would be an unreasonable burden to place on judges, as well as raising a First Amendment question."
What matters is that the first part of the four factors is not just about being commercial or non-commercial, but about the use. In the big case, the Supreme Court said that if the work "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message," then it can be protected as fair use. "The goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1171 (U.S.,1994)
Statutory Damages . . . . Register!!!!!
The Ninth Circuit, in Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corporation , falls in step with the rule that for any statutory damages, copyright registration must precede infringement.
In a clothing case, the alleged infringement began prior to the copyright registration date of plaintiff's "hang-tag", but continued after the copyright registration date. Section 412 of the Act mandates that in order to recover statutory damages, the copyrighted work must have been registered prior to commencement of the infringement, unless the registration is made within three months after first publication of the work.
The plaintiff did not register until two years after the first publication of its work, and the initial infringement occurred prior to the registration of the infringed work. But,individual acts of infringement occurred after the copyright registration date.
The Ninth Circuit explained that it would be peculiar to use the word "commenced" to describe a single act of infringement, rather than an activity beginning at one time and continuing or reoccurring thereafter. The Ninth Circuit held that the first act of infringement in a series of ongoing infringements of the same kind marks the "commencement" of one continuing infringement under Section 412. This decision is consistent with other circuits (2nd Circuit, 4th Circuit, and 5th Circuit) that have previously addressed this issue.
In a clothing case, the alleged infringement began prior to the copyright registration date of plaintiff's "hang-tag", but continued after the copyright registration date. Section 412 of the Act mandates that in order to recover statutory damages, the copyrighted work must have been registered prior to commencement of the infringement, unless the registration is made within three months after first publication of the work.
The plaintiff did not register until two years after the first publication of its work, and the initial infringement occurred prior to the registration of the infringed work. But,individual acts of infringement occurred after the copyright registration date.
The Ninth Circuit explained that it would be peculiar to use the word "commenced" to describe a single act of infringement, rather than an activity beginning at one time and continuing or reoccurring thereafter. The Ninth Circuit held that the first act of infringement in a series of ongoing infringements of the same kind marks the "commencement" of one continuing infringement under Section 412. This decision is consistent with other circuits (2nd Circuit, 4th Circuit, and 5th Circuit) that have previously addressed this issue.
Statutory Damages . . . . Register!!!!!
The Ninth Circuit, in Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corporation , falls in step with the rule that for any statutory damages, copyright registration must precede infringement.
In a clothing case, the alleged infringement began prior to the copyright registration date of plaintiff's "hang-tag", but continued after the copyright registration date. Section 412 of the Act mandates that in order to recover statutory damages, the copyrighted work must have been registered prior to commencement of the infringement, unless the registration is made within three months after first publication of the work.
The plaintiff did not register until two years after the first publication of its work, and the initial infringement occurred prior to the registration of the infringed work. But,individual acts of infringement occurred after the copyright registration date.
The Ninth Circuit explained that it would be peculiar to use the word "commenced" to describe a single act of infringement, rather than an activity beginning at one time and continuing or reoccurring thereafter. The Ninth Circuit held that the first act of infringement in a series of ongoing infringements of the same kind marks the "commencement" of one continuing infringement under Section 412. This decision is consistent with other circuits (2nd Circuit, 4th Circuit, and 5th Circuit) that have previously addressed this issue.
In a clothing case, the alleged infringement began prior to the copyright registration date of plaintiff's "hang-tag", but continued after the copyright registration date. Section 412 of the Act mandates that in order to recover statutory damages, the copyrighted work must have been registered prior to commencement of the infringement, unless the registration is made within three months after first publication of the work.
The plaintiff did not register until two years after the first publication of its work, and the initial infringement occurred prior to the registration of the infringed work. But,individual acts of infringement occurred after the copyright registration date.
The Ninth Circuit explained that it would be peculiar to use the word "commenced" to describe a single act of infringement, rather than an activity beginning at one time and continuing or reoccurring thereafter. The Ninth Circuit held that the first act of infringement in a series of ongoing infringements of the same kind marks the "commencement" of one continuing infringement under Section 412. This decision is consistent with other circuits (2nd Circuit, 4th Circuit, and 5th Circuit) that have previously addressed this issue.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Judge Wake Surprises -- Holds Back RIAA for the Moment
Judge Wake surprises. That is, he suprises me, at least. This is not surprising in the sense that Federal Court judges face imposing very terrible fines on individuals for copyright infringement in file sharing, and he statute provides little room for them to show any mercy.
How did he surprise? By taking on the difficult issue of proving infringement through deemed distribution. Some background first.
Copyright infringement requires actual distribution of the copryighted work. As Judge Wake notes, "[t]he general rule, supported by the great weight of authority, is that 'infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords.' Nat’l Car Rental Sys. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993). See also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701, 718 (9th Cir. 2007)" The buzz has been around the Fourth Circuit's library case, Hotaling, where, by placing the copyright works for use by the public was enough to prove distribution because they failed to keep records. The record companies wanted to analogize the library to a shared file on one's computer.
The crafty Judge Wake said no, though. Judge Wake noted that the Ninth Circuit, in Perfect10, agreed with the district court’s conclusion that distribution requires an "actual dissemination," consistent with the language of the Copyright Act. Judge Wake says the Ninth Circuit rejects Hotaling. Judge Wake emphasizes that Hotaling is inconsistent with the Copyright Act.
Further, Judge Wake discards the argument that an offer to distribute are not sufficient to meet the distribution requirement. Judge Wake says that "[t]he scope of the term distribution is only defined within § 106(3) itself, as a “sale or other transfer of ownership” or a “rental, lease, or lending” of a copy of the work. The plain meaning of that section requires an identifiable copy of the work to change hands in one of the prescribed ways for there to be a distribution." The record companies argued that the word "distribution" would be equated with "publication."
So? There were 54 copyrighted tunes in the Defendant's shared folder. The Plaintiffs downloaded only 12. The Court allowed these 12 as an investigative scheme. The Defendant has other defenses, but damages have been reduced from 54 times the minimum amount ($750) to 12 times that amount.
How did he surprise? By taking on the difficult issue of proving infringement through deemed distribution. Some background first.
Copyright infringement requires actual distribution of the copryighted work. As Judge Wake notes, "[t]he general rule, supported by the great weight of authority, is that 'infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords.' Nat’l Car Rental Sys. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993). See also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701, 718 (9th Cir. 2007)" The buzz has been around the Fourth Circuit's library case, Hotaling, where, by placing the copyright works for use by the public was enough to prove distribution because they failed to keep records. The record companies wanted to analogize the library to a shared file on one's computer.
The crafty Judge Wake said no, though. Judge Wake noted that the Ninth Circuit, in Perfect10, agreed with the district court’s conclusion that distribution requires an "actual dissemination," consistent with the language of the Copyright Act. Judge Wake says the Ninth Circuit rejects Hotaling. Judge Wake emphasizes that Hotaling is inconsistent with the Copyright Act.
Further, Judge Wake discards the argument that an offer to distribute are not sufficient to meet the distribution requirement. Judge Wake says that "[t]he scope of the term distribution is only defined within § 106(3) itself, as a “sale or other transfer of ownership” or a “rental, lease, or lending” of a copy of the work. The plain meaning of that section requires an identifiable copy of the work to change hands in one of the prescribed ways for there to be a distribution." The record companies argued that the word "distribution" would be equated with "publication."
So? There were 54 copyrighted tunes in the Defendant's shared folder. The Plaintiffs downloaded only 12. The Court allowed these 12 as an investigative scheme. The Defendant has other defenses, but damages have been reduced from 54 times the minimum amount ($750) to 12 times that amount.
Judge Wake Surprises -- Holds Back RIAA for the Moment
Judge Wake surprises. That is, he suprises me, at least. This is not surprising in the sense that Federal Court judges face imposing very terrible fines on individuals for copyright infringement in file sharing, and he statute provides little room for them to show any mercy.
How did he surprise? By taking on the difficult issue of proving infringement through deemed distribution. Some background first.
Copyright infringement requires actual distribution of the copryighted work. As Judge Wake notes, "[t]he general rule, supported by the great weight of authority, is that 'infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords.' Nat’l Car Rental Sys. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993). See also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701, 718 (9th Cir. 2007)" The buzz has been around the Fourth Circuit's library case, Hotaling, where, by placing the copyright works for use by the public was enough to prove distribution because they failed to keep records. The record companies wanted to analogize the library to a shared file on one's computer.
The crafty Judge Wake said no, though. Judge Wake noted that the Ninth Circuit, in Perfect10, agreed with the district court’s conclusion that distribution requires an "actual dissemination," consistent with the language of the Copyright Act. Judge Wake says the Ninth Circuit rejects Hotaling. Judge Wake emphasizes that Hotaling is inconsistent with the Copyright Act.
Further, Judge Wake discards the argument that an offer to distribute are not sufficient to meet the distribution requirement. Judge Wake says that "[t]he scope of the term distribution is only defined within § 106(3) itself, as a “sale or other transfer of ownership” or a “rental, lease, or lending” of a copy of the work. The plain meaning of that section requires an identifiable copy of the work to change hands in one of the prescribed ways for there to be a distribution." The record companies argued that the word "distribution" would be equated with "publication."
So? There were 54 copyrighted tunes in the Defendant's shared folder. The Plaintiffs downloaded only 12. The Court allowed these 12 as an investigative scheme. The Defendant has other defenses, but damages have been reduced from 54 times the minimum amount ($750) to 12 times that amount.
How did he surprise? By taking on the difficult issue of proving infringement through deemed distribution. Some background first.
Copyright infringement requires actual distribution of the copryighted work. As Judge Wake notes, "[t]he general rule, supported by the great weight of authority, is that 'infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords.' Nat’l Car Rental Sys. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993). See also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701, 718 (9th Cir. 2007)" The buzz has been around the Fourth Circuit's library case, Hotaling, where, by placing the copyright works for use by the public was enough to prove distribution because they failed to keep records. The record companies wanted to analogize the library to a shared file on one's computer.
The crafty Judge Wake said no, though. Judge Wake noted that the Ninth Circuit, in Perfect10, agreed with the district court’s conclusion that distribution requires an "actual dissemination," consistent with the language of the Copyright Act. Judge Wake says the Ninth Circuit rejects Hotaling. Judge Wake emphasizes that Hotaling is inconsistent with the Copyright Act.
Further, Judge Wake discards the argument that an offer to distribute are not sufficient to meet the distribution requirement. Judge Wake says that "[t]he scope of the term distribution is only defined within § 106(3) itself, as a “sale or other transfer of ownership” or a “rental, lease, or lending” of a copy of the work. The plain meaning of that section requires an identifiable copy of the work to change hands in one of the prescribed ways for there to be a distribution." The record companies argued that the word "distribution" would be equated with "publication."
So? There were 54 copyrighted tunes in the Defendant's shared folder. The Plaintiffs downloaded only 12. The Court allowed these 12 as an investigative scheme. The Defendant has other defenses, but damages have been reduced from 54 times the minimum amount ($750) to 12 times that amount.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Good (or lucky) Drafting Wins: “Now or Hereafter Known”
Joey Ramone sued Walmart and Real Network over downloading songs he wrote. The problem? Mr Ramone had a recording agreement with Ramones Productions who licensed the works. Mr Ramone had authorized Ramones productions to use the works and exploit them in “forms of reproduction” which were “now or hereafter known.” The Court said that covered digital forms and was the most reasonable reading of the agreement. Sorry Joey. Punked. I should say Joey's estate: Joey died in 2001.
Good (or lucky) Drafting Wins: “Now or Hereafter Known”
Joey Ramone sued Walmart and Real Network over downloading songs he wrote. The problem? Mr Ramone had a recording agreement with Ramones Productions who licensed the works. Mr Ramone had authorized Ramones productions to use the works and exploit them in “forms of reproduction” which were “now or hereafter known.” The Court said that covered digital forms and was the most reasonable reading of the agreement. Sorry Joey. Punked. I should say Joey's estate: Joey died in 2001.
RIAA Sues Project Playlist
As one attorney said, "another day, another RIAA lawsuit." What is different about this one?
Project Playlist gives users the opportunity to find, play and share music with others for free, as well as allowing them to embed personalised playlists on their social networking homepages on sites such as MySpace and Facebook, according to the lawsuit. It's "Terms of Service" states:
The record companies claim that: "In short [Project Playlist's] entire business amounts to nothing more than a massive infringement."
What does Project Playlist say about copyright?
Project Playlist gives users the opportunity to find, play and share music with others for free, as well as allowing them to embed personalised playlists on their social networking homepages on sites such as MySpace and Facebook, according to the lawsuit. It's "Terms of Service" states:
Project Playlist is an information location tool and social networking website that provides users with an integrated set of services to (i) enable users to locate music files hosted on websites controlled by third parties for promotional or other legal purposes, (ii) stream those legally posted music files using the Project Playlist music player (the “Player”) so the music can be heard, (iii) create hyperlinks to legally posted music files discovered by the user and add those hyperlinks to the Project Playlist search index, (iv) create and publish a series of such hyperlinks to form playlists on a member’s webpage, (v) share those playlists with friends and browse other members playlists on other members’ web pages by embedding the Player in other webpages, where permitted, (vi) purchase music found using the Project Playlist search engine or browsing other members playlists, (vii) obtain current information about new song releases from music blogs, (viii) obtain current information on the popularity of songs as measured by frequency of appearance on other members’ playlists, and (ix) network with other members through a variety of social networking and communications tools.
The record companies claim that: "In short [Project Playlist's] entire business amounts to nothing more than a massive infringement."
What does Project Playlist say about copyright?
Project Playlist is an information location tool intended to help you find and enjoy music legally posted by others on the Internet. Project Playlist intends to organize in its search index location information about music posted on the Internet for promotional and other legal purposes to serve artists and their fans. Project Playlist is also committed to respecting the legitimate interests of copyright owners. Therefore, where possible, Project Playlist negotiates reasonable copyright licenses that also respect the public’s legitimate interest in gaining access to public information and preserving the freedom and functionality of the Internet. Project Playlist pays performance royalties to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, the three performance rights organizations (“PSOs”) based in the Untied States.It appears that Project Playlist is used, like a VCR, for legitimate non-infringment purposes and purports to pay royalties. Stay tuned.
RIAA Sues Project Playlist
As one attorney said, "another day, another RIAA lawsuit." What is different about this one?
Project Playlist gives users the opportunity to find, play and share music with others for free, as well as allowing them to embed personalised playlists on their social networking homepages on sites such as MySpace and Facebook, according to the lawsuit. It's "Terms of Service" states:
The record companies claim that: "In short [Project Playlist's] entire business amounts to nothing more than a massive infringement."
What does Project Playlist say about copyright?
Project Playlist gives users the opportunity to find, play and share music with others for free, as well as allowing them to embed personalised playlists on their social networking homepages on sites such as MySpace and Facebook, according to the lawsuit. It's "Terms of Service" states:
Project Playlist is an information location tool and social networking website that provides users with an integrated set of services to (i) enable users to locate music files hosted on websites controlled by third parties for promotional or other legal purposes, (ii) stream those legally posted music files using the Project Playlist music player (the “Player”) so the music can be heard, (iii) create hyperlinks to legally posted music files discovered by the user and add those hyperlinks to the Project Playlist search index, (iv) create and publish a series of such hyperlinks to form playlists on a member’s webpage, (v) share those playlists with friends and browse other members playlists on other members’ web pages by embedding the Player in other webpages, where permitted, (vi) purchase music found using the Project Playlist search engine or browsing other members playlists, (vii) obtain current information about new song releases from music blogs, (viii) obtain current information on the popularity of songs as measured by frequency of appearance on other members’ playlists, and (ix) network with other members through a variety of social networking and communications tools.
The record companies claim that: "In short [Project Playlist's] entire business amounts to nothing more than a massive infringement."
What does Project Playlist say about copyright?
Project Playlist is an information location tool intended to help you find and enjoy music legally posted by others on the Internet. Project Playlist intends to organize in its search index location information about music posted on the Internet for promotional and other legal purposes to serve artists and their fans. Project Playlist is also committed to respecting the legitimate interests of copyright owners. Therefore, where possible, Project Playlist negotiates reasonable copyright licenses that also respect the public’s legitimate interest in gaining access to public information and preserving the freedom and functionality of the Internet. Project Playlist pays performance royalties to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, the three performance rights organizations (“PSOs”) based in the Untied States.It appears that Project Playlist is used, like a VCR, for legitimate non-infringment purposes and purports to pay royalties. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)