Hello:
I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday. This time of year is always busy for me because clients want to wrap up legal issues before the end of the year and I have a family that demands my attention with all the Holiday hoopla!
Currently, I am working on a very interesting story about what does copyright case law say about proper linking and quoting in regards to copyright infringement. What is Fair Use and what is not? As copyright owners, we do not want individuals quoting our work without our permission. However, service providers and news organization want to be able to provide 'snippets' or a portion of copyright protected material and links without always having to go to the copyright owner for permission. So I will explore in my article what does the law say about this delicate balance between copyright infringement and Fair use? Stay tuned, it will be a very informative and interesting piece.
Also, next week I am speaking to a momprenuer networking group about Intellectual Property 101! Yes, these ladies have some pretty genius products and business ideas and they want to know how to protect them. So I will explain the difference between patents, trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights; how to properly protect these types of intellectual property and the benefits of licensing and royalty income. I love educating individuals on Intellectual Property and am I am looking forward to it.
Thanks for reading!
Showing posts with label Copyrights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyrights. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Senate Bill Cracks Down On Online Infringement
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?
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?
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.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Do's and Don'ts of Twitter!
Hello Everyone:
Here is a copy of an article I posted on Black Web 2.0 regarding legal pitfalls Twitters find themselves in using Twitter.
Let me know what you think.
In light of the recent Library of Congress archive of all of our “tweets”, Twitterers need to be more cautious and cognizant of what they discuss or tweet on Twitter. Now most of us keep it simple and don’t engage in legal pitfalls such as defamation, terrorist threats, pornography, disclosure of private information, or intellectual property infringement. However there are others that treat Twitter like the wild wild west of social media networks. Defamation, pornography, and threats of Presidential assassination are rampant. There have been lawsuits filed and legal action taken against Twitters who engage in this type of behavior.
When using any social media network, anything you say or promote, good or bad is forever in cyberspace waiting to reward or punish you. And now that the federal government via the Library of Congress has all of our tweets, we should be more cautious and strategic about what we say on Twitter. Here is a list of Twitter dos and don’ts to assist Twitterers in avoiding legal liability or jail time.
1. Don’t threaten to kill the President or anyone else for that matter. Terrorist threats are a felony crime and you will go to jail.
2. Don’t engage in conversations or make statements about a person’s character or reputation unless they are 100% true, already known to the public, and are made for news reporting purposes and not to maliciously ruin a person’s reputation. Translation: Stop the Twitter fights!
3. Sending links to porn sites and posting porn is never a good idea. Links could potentially link to child porn sites and child pornography is a federal crime.
4. Although Twitter does not claim in ownership in Twitter’s content which may include intellectual property, other Twitter users may infringe or use your content for their own purposes. If you are tweeting copyright material, please do put a © sign behind the tweets to put others on notice of your ownership. This includes original thoughts, quotes, phrases, ideas, pictures, etc.
5. Never discuss company trade secrets or reveal your own private identifying information on Twitter.
Remember when using Twitter or any other social network, use common sense. Don’t engage in behavior that can cost you your freedom, job, or family.
Here is a copy of an article I posted on Black Web 2.0 regarding legal pitfalls Twitters find themselves in using Twitter.
Let me know what you think.
In light of the recent Library of Congress archive of all of our “tweets”, Twitterers need to be more cautious and cognizant of what they discuss or tweet on Twitter. Now most of us keep it simple and don’t engage in legal pitfalls such as defamation, terrorist threats, pornography, disclosure of private information, or intellectual property infringement. However there are others that treat Twitter like the wild wild west of social media networks. Defamation, pornography, and threats of Presidential assassination are rampant. There have been lawsuits filed and legal action taken against Twitters who engage in this type of behavior.
When using any social media network, anything you say or promote, good or bad is forever in cyberspace waiting to reward or punish you. And now that the federal government via the Library of Congress has all of our tweets, we should be more cautious and strategic about what we say on Twitter. Here is a list of Twitter dos and don’ts to assist Twitterers in avoiding legal liability or jail time.
1. Don’t threaten to kill the President or anyone else for that matter. Terrorist threats are a felony crime and you will go to jail.
2. Don’t engage in conversations or make statements about a person’s character or reputation unless they are 100% true, already known to the public, and are made for news reporting purposes and not to maliciously ruin a person’s reputation. Translation: Stop the Twitter fights!
3. Sending links to porn sites and posting porn is never a good idea. Links could potentially link to child porn sites and child pornography is a federal crime.
4. Although Twitter does not claim in ownership in Twitter’s content which may include intellectual property, other Twitter users may infringe or use your content for their own purposes. If you are tweeting copyright material, please do put a © sign behind the tweets to put others on notice of your ownership. This includes original thoughts, quotes, phrases, ideas, pictures, etc.
5. Never discuss company trade secrets or reveal your own private identifying information on Twitter.
Remember when using Twitter or any other social network, use common sense. Don’t engage in behavior that can cost you your freedom, job, or family.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Are News Stories Copyrighted Material?
Hello!
This week I wrote an article on whether news is copyrighted material. Specifically, can the Associated Press claim copyright protection for factual information? The article is posted here. Please leave a comment!
This week I wrote an article on whether news is copyrighted material. Specifically, can the Associated Press claim copyright protection for factual information? The article is posted here. Please leave a comment!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)