Hello!
Last week, Senator Leahy along with a host of other co-sponsors, introduced SB 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. This Bill gives the Attorney General authority to seize domains of infringing websites if it is proven the sites are totally dedicated to Intellectual Property infringing activity. The Bill defines infringing activity as: websites that provide access or offer for sale unauthorized copies of copyright protected material or any website that sells or distributes good or services bearing a counterfeit mark in violation of a trademark's owner exclusive right to use the mark. Specifically this Bill is targeted to websites that sell counterfeit goods for luxury items such as designer purses, watches, jewelry and shoes.
This Bill also gives Internet Service Providers (hosting companies, domain registrar, etc.) the right to shut down the infringing site and provides immunity to the ISPs for doing so. The Bill also allows the Attorney General to prevent a website that is non-domestic from conducting business in the U.S. and prevent the importation of infringing goods and services. The Attorney General will also keep a list of infringing websites or domains available to the public via online.
Results?
As evidenced, Intellectual Property Infringement is rampant on the Internet. Intellectual Property owners spend considerable amounts of money defending their Intellectual Property through DMCA take down requests, cease and desist demand letters, TROs and IP Internet Monitoring Services. However, sometimes these efforts may stop infringers for a moment, but if they are highly organized, they re-group and infringe again. This is particularly relevant when it comes to counterfeit goods. This bill allows the Attorney General to combat online infringement at the source.
The Bill has been referred to Committe and should be up for a vote soon.
Do you think this is a step in the right direction in stopping online Intellectual Property Infringement?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Are Recording Contracts Works Made for Hire?
Hello:
In light of the recent decision in the Fifth-Six Hope Road Music Ltd (Estate of Bob Marley) vs. UMG Recordings, many Artist are worried that all of their sounds recordings are going to be classified as "works made for hire." Basically, the judge ruled in the Bob Marley case that all of his recordings with Island Records from 1973-1977 were "works made for hire" and Universal Music Group is the rightful owner of the copyrights to five recordings Marley recorded. Specifically, the judge determined that despite Marley's artistic control over the recordings, both parties had a contractual agreement that clearly indicated the Marley sound recordings were "works made for hire."
A work made for hire is defined as a work created by an employee within the scope of the employee's employment. A work made for hire can also be created by a contractual agreement between two parties. Because most recording contracts are classified as independent contractor relationships and not employer-employee relationships, recording contracts are not usually deemed as works made for hires. However, record labels are now adding work made for hire clauses into recording contracts and artists and artists rights organizations are up in arms.
Work made for hire clauses in recording contracts have serious legal implications for artists. If the sound recording is classified as a work made for hire, the record label can retain the copyright to the work and the Masters in the recording. As a general rule, the Artists retains the right to have the Masters returned after a ten year period. This gives the Artist control over licensing and other revenue that can be obtained from the Masters. In addition, there is also "termination of copyrights" to consider. Termination of copyrights assists artists who may have signed away their copyrights. After 56 years, the artist can recapture the copyright for the last 39 years of the 56 years. For example, a contract signing away copyrights entered into in 1950 can be terminated in 2006 and the copyright can revert (artist has to give proper notice of termination) back to the artist or original author of the work. However, termination of copyrights is not applicable if the work is specifically a "work made for hire."
It is evident that both record labels and artists have a lot of stake when it comes to work made for hire clauses. Artists should hire good legal representation to ensure their works are not classified as works made for hire. Especially if the artist has created the work indepedently and not as an employee.
I welcome your thoughts.
In light of the recent decision in the Fifth-Six Hope Road Music Ltd (Estate of Bob Marley) vs. UMG Recordings, many Artist are worried that all of their sounds recordings are going to be classified as "works made for hire." Basically, the judge ruled in the Bob Marley case that all of his recordings with Island Records from 1973-1977 were "works made for hire" and Universal Music Group is the rightful owner of the copyrights to five recordings Marley recorded. Specifically, the judge determined that despite Marley's artistic control over the recordings, both parties had a contractual agreement that clearly indicated the Marley sound recordings were "works made for hire."
A work made for hire is defined as a work created by an employee within the scope of the employee's employment. A work made for hire can also be created by a contractual agreement between two parties. Because most recording contracts are classified as independent contractor relationships and not employer-employee relationships, recording contracts are not usually deemed as works made for hires. However, record labels are now adding work made for hire clauses into recording contracts and artists and artists rights organizations are up in arms.
Work made for hire clauses in recording contracts have serious legal implications for artists. If the sound recording is classified as a work made for hire, the record label can retain the copyright to the work and the Masters in the recording. As a general rule, the Artists retains the right to have the Masters returned after a ten year period. This gives the Artist control over licensing and other revenue that can be obtained from the Masters. In addition, there is also "termination of copyrights" to consider. Termination of copyrights assists artists who may have signed away their copyrights. After 56 years, the artist can recapture the copyright for the last 39 years of the 56 years. For example, a contract signing away copyrights entered into in 1950 can be terminated in 2006 and the copyright can revert (artist has to give proper notice of termination) back to the artist or original author of the work. However, termination of copyrights is not applicable if the work is specifically a "work made for hire."
It is evident that both record labels and artists have a lot of stake when it comes to work made for hire clauses. Artists should hire good legal representation to ensure their works are not classified as works made for hire. Especially if the artist has created the work indepedently and not as an employee.
I welcome your thoughts.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Twitter TOS: Does It Apply To Celebrities?
Hello Everyone!
I hope all is well.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post on Black Web 2.0 about Twitter's Terms of Service Agreement and whether it applied to Celebrity Twitters. The article spread like wildfire on the web and I was kind of surprised. Read the full article below and tell me what do you think.
Over the past week Hip-Hop artist, 50 Cent, took control of his Twitter account and went on a tweet rampage. He threatened to kill people, posted pornographic images, issued defamatory statements against other artists, and also made racist statements. His Twitpic account was suspended due to the pornographic images. But his Twitter account is still up and running.
If that weren’t enough, last Sunday, Denver Nuggets forward, Carmelo Anthony and his wife Lala got into a Twitter fight with exhibitionist Kat Stacks. Allegedly, Carmelo offered $5000 cash to anyone who would physically harm Kat Stacks. He also allegedly threatened her with physical harm. As a result Stacks has filed charges against Anthony.
Is Twitter becoming the wild, wild west of social networks? Twitter does have “Twitter Rules” in their Terms of Service Agreement that outlines Rules of Content for posted content. Specifically Twitter prohibits:
1. Impersonation
2. Trademark Infringement
3. Violation of Privacy
4. Violence and Threats
5. Copyright Infringement
6. Promotion of Illegal Activities
7. Spam Abuse
But considering 50 Cent’s Twitter account is still up and running and other Tweeters are also guilty of violating Twitter’s Rules of Conduct, does Twitter actually enforce these rules? Twitter states “we do not actively monitor user’s content and will not censor user content, except in the above limited circumstances.” Twitter basically covers themselves with this statement and considering the millions of users on Twitters, it makes sense. But is Twitter motivated to take action against violaters, especially if they are celebrities and have millions of followers like 50 Cent? The rapper even bragged that @ev (Evan Williams), co-founder of Twitter, gave him a call and said he was the best thing that happened to Twitter. This may or may not be true, but it is an interesting statement.
Carmelo Antony’s Twitter account was deleted but we don’t know if Twitter deleted his account or the NBA forced him to delete his account. His statements to Kat Stacks are a federal crime and if proven he did in fact make the statements from his computer or mobile device, he could potentially face jail time and suspension from the NBA. Carmelo and his wife are now claiming his Twitter account was hacked and he did not send the criminal tweets.
Whether Twitter enforces its Rules of Conduct are debatable. However, when Tweets are written and sent, they are forever in cyberspace regardless of whether the user deletes the tweet or their Twitter Account. Tweets are public records and can be used as evidence in any civil or criminal litigation. I previously wrote a post on the Do’s and Dont’s of Twitter. Many of those Do’s and Dont’s included several of the above Twitter Rules. But regardless if Twitter kicks violators off Twitter or not, engaging in “Dont’s” can get you sued, jail time, and fines.
So be careful what you tweet. When in doubt, just don’t.
Category: Featured, Social Networking | Tags: 50 Cent, black web 2.0, Civil Litigations, Criminal conduct, Defamation, Federal Crimes, IPLAW101, Kat Stacks, La La and Carmelo Anthony, NBA, Phillips Givenslaw, Pornography, terms of service agreements, Threats, twitter, Twitter Rules of Conduct, Violence
I hope all is well.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post on Black Web 2.0 about Twitter's Terms of Service Agreement and whether it applied to Celebrity Twitters. The article spread like wildfire on the web and I was kind of surprised. Read the full article below and tell me what do you think.
Over the past week Hip-Hop artist, 50 Cent, took control of his Twitter account and went on a tweet rampage. He threatened to kill people, posted pornographic images, issued defamatory statements against other artists, and also made racist statements. His Twitpic account was suspended due to the pornographic images. But his Twitter account is still up and running.
If that weren’t enough, last Sunday, Denver Nuggets forward, Carmelo Anthony and his wife Lala got into a Twitter fight with exhibitionist Kat Stacks. Allegedly, Carmelo offered $5000 cash to anyone who would physically harm Kat Stacks. He also allegedly threatened her with physical harm. As a result Stacks has filed charges against Anthony.
Is Twitter becoming the wild, wild west of social networks? Twitter does have “Twitter Rules” in their Terms of Service Agreement that outlines Rules of Content for posted content. Specifically Twitter prohibits:
1. Impersonation
2. Trademark Infringement
3. Violation of Privacy
4. Violence and Threats
5. Copyright Infringement
6. Promotion of Illegal Activities
7. Spam Abuse
But considering 50 Cent’s Twitter account is still up and running and other Tweeters are also guilty of violating Twitter’s Rules of Conduct, does Twitter actually enforce these rules? Twitter states “we do not actively monitor user’s content and will not censor user content, except in the above limited circumstances.” Twitter basically covers themselves with this statement and considering the millions of users on Twitters, it makes sense. But is Twitter motivated to take action against violaters, especially if they are celebrities and have millions of followers like 50 Cent? The rapper even bragged that @ev (Evan Williams), co-founder of Twitter, gave him a call and said he was the best thing that happened to Twitter. This may or may not be true, but it is an interesting statement.
Carmelo Antony’s Twitter account was deleted but we don’t know if Twitter deleted his account or the NBA forced him to delete his account. His statements to Kat Stacks are a federal crime and if proven he did in fact make the statements from his computer or mobile device, he could potentially face jail time and suspension from the NBA. Carmelo and his wife are now claiming his Twitter account was hacked and he did not send the criminal tweets.
Whether Twitter enforces its Rules of Conduct are debatable. However, when Tweets are written and sent, they are forever in cyberspace regardless of whether the user deletes the tweet or their Twitter Account. Tweets are public records and can be used as evidence in any civil or criminal litigation. I previously wrote a post on the Do’s and Dont’s of Twitter. Many of those Do’s and Dont’s included several of the above Twitter Rules. But regardless if Twitter kicks violators off Twitter or not, engaging in “Dont’s” can get you sued, jail time, and fines.
So be careful what you tweet. When in doubt, just don’t.
Category: Featured, Social Networking | Tags: 50 Cent, black web 2.0, Civil Litigations, Criminal conduct, Defamation, Federal Crimes, IPLAW101, Kat Stacks, La La and Carmelo Anthony, NBA, Phillips Givenslaw, Pornography, terms of service agreements, Threats, twitter, Twitter Rules of Conduct, Violence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)