We've already noted that numerous heritage recording artistes are are filing to reclaim the copyright to their recorded works in the USA, as the "magical" 35-year mark triggered by Section 203 of the US Copyright Act is finally arrived at in 2013 (for works created in 1978). And no doubt each passing year will bring with it another batch of recordings that artists can reclaim from their current and former labels - and the labels will resist - primarily claiming the copyrights are works made for hire and thus excluded! Now Dan Rogers at Gamasutra has pointed out that the next few years might see the same sort of defensive activity from video game companies as the termination date rolls up on some old classics - in the next five years titles including Asteroids, Galaxian, Frogger, Donkey Kong, Missile Command and Mario Brothers will all be over 35!
And on that very topic, Former Village People member Victor Willis (the 'policeman', right) who wrote the lyrics for many of the band's biggest hits, says that he is close to regaining control of his share of the copyright in the 33 songs he had reclaimed in 2011 under US law - having defeated arguments that the songs were written on a 'work for hire' basis.Willis told the Times: "I'm hoping that other artists will get a good lawyer and get back the works that a lot of us gave away when we were younger, before we knew what was going on. When you're young, you just want to get out there and aren't really paying attention to what's on paper. I never even read one contract they put in front of me, and that's a big mistake". An appeal is expected, as is further litigation over the share of the copyrights Mr Wills is entitled to.
Harper Lee and literary agent Samuel Pinkus have reached an “agreement in principle” to settle the copyright lawsuit the famed author of “To Kill a Mockingbird” brought against Pinkus in May. "The parties reached a mutually satisfactory resolution and everybody would like at this point to put it behind them,” said attorney Vincent Carissimi of the firm Pepper Hamilton, who acted for the defendants. Dismissal papers were seemingly filed in Manhattan federal court by Lee’s lawyer removing both journalist Gerald Posner and Lee Ann Winick, Pinkus’ wife and another defendant, of any liability in the matter except for their own legal costs. The claim by Harper Lee against Pinkus and the other defendants was that after Harper Lee's literary agent Eugene Winick of Mackintosh & Otis fell ill in 2002, his son-in-law (Pinkus) diverted several clients to a new company, formed with Posner, “and then engaged in a scheme to dupe Harper Lee, then 80 years old and with declining hearing and eyesight” into signing over her copyright for “no consideration.”
Marvel Comics has agreed to settle a lawsuit with Gary Friedrich who sued the publisher over the copyright to the flaming-skulled character Ghost Rider. The agreement, disclosed in a letter filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, if finalized would resolve five-years of litigation brought by former Marvel freelancer Friedrich, who claimed he created the motorcycle-riding vigilante and that the rights to Ghost Rider automatically became his after the initial copyright term expired in 2000.
The settlement follows the June decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to revive the lawsuit. A trial judge had previously dismissed the lawsuit, finding the rights to the character belonged to Marvel, owned by Walt Disney Co.
Fashion designer Jeremy Scott has settled a case with NHS Inc., owner of the iconic Santa Cruz Skateboards graphics: Scott was accused by skaters of poaching artwork from the brand's famed father-and-son illustrators, Jim and Jimbo Phillips with Scott saying "I regret that certain pieces of my February 2013 Fall Winter fashion line incorporated imagery that was similar to images owned by NHS and Messrs. Phillips" adding "I now recognize my mistake and out of respect to their work and their rights, the clothing and handbags at issue will not be produced or distributed."
Over on the IPKat Birgit reports that The Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe (case reference: 6 U 72/12 of 3 June 2013) has recently confirmed that domestic premises, such as an apartment building, can attract the copyright protection under German law, saying that domestic premises can attract copyright protection, provided the building in question 'stands out' when compared to the majority of buildings. More here.
And also on the IPKat you can catch up on where the French are with the demise of the HADOPI authority (Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur internet), created in 2009 to fight against on-line piracy - and the transfer of its remaining powers to the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA) - the French TV regulator. With internet piracy on the rise in France, TV, film and music company's remain concerned that a toothless regulator will do nothing so solve their problems - but the present French government remain equally convinced that suspension, throttling or termination of internet connections is disproportionate to the problem.
In the United Kingdom, a new report from Kantar Media for media regulator Ofcom shows that just under one fifth of internet users have accessed content online illegally, with 18% of television programmes viewed online being in breach of copyright laws. More than half of all internet users – 58% – downloaded or streamed at least one item of content over the year from May 2012 to May 2013. The report found that infringement was a “minor activity” during this period, with 17% of internet users consuming at least one item of “infringing content”. The report said this equated to around a third of all consumers of online content. In terms of volume, 22% of all content consumed online during the year was infringing. Of the TV shows watched online, 18% were done so illegal. 15% of filesharers would stop if they thought they would get sued - only 5% would stop if they were threatened with slower internet speeds when caught. 74% of copyright infringements were carried out by just 2% of internet users. However, the research also showed that those who pirate content were also likely to spend more money on legal downloads. Over a three month period pirates spent £26 on content compared to £16 from those who refrained from infringing copyright. Ofcom said that no single enforcement solution is likely to address online copyright infringement in isolation. Executive Summary here.
And finally - A federal judge in the USA has refused to dismiss a number of copyright claims against the Beastie Boys, relating to music they sampled in their first two hit albums in the 1980s. In 2012 TufAmerica alleged that songs in "Licensed to Ill" and the 1989 follow-up album "Paul's Boutique" illegally sampled the music of R&B group Trouble Funk, whose rights TufAmerica owned. The defendants in the case, the band, Universal Music Publishing, Brooklyn Dust Music and Capitol Records moved to dismiss on the ground that TufAmerica had failed to make an actionable case but U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan has now said that judging the issue of copyright infringement first required a determination of how to compare the song samples saying "The real question at this stage - more so than the question of how to label the relevant test - is whether (as to each sample) plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the sample is quantitatively and qualitatively important to the original work such that the fragmented similarity becomes sufficiently substantial for the use to become an infringement" holding that at least some of the claims could survive as the court could not conclude that the samples used in Beastie Boys tracks were "substantively insignificant" - or some of the samples were significant enough to survive the dismiss motion. Nicki Minaj is also facing claims that she used components of an underground record titled "Neu Chicago" on her 2012 chart topper "Starships." Chicago artist Clive Tanaka has brought the claim.
The House Judiciary Committee, which launched a “comprehensive review” of copyright law earlier this year - continues with it's epic task. The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet has now had a hearing on the role of copyright in innovation although commentators noted that the line up before the Committee was a little 'one sided' with the Washington Post noting "innovators are almost entirely absent from the list. The witnesses include the executive directors of the Copyright Alliance and the American Society of Media Photographers, and the general counsel of Getty Images. These groups represent established copyright interests that are likely to resist any serious reforms to copyright law. Slightly more innovative: the co-founder of an independent music record and distribution company (Yep Roc Records and Redeye Distribution), and the president of Stereo D, a company that produces 3-D versions of 2-D films. One website pointed out that completely absent were: representatives from the information technology industry, whose innovations have transformed the market for copyrighted works over the last two decades, and who have repeatedly argued that overly-broad copyright law has stifled innovation" as well as actual creators - who often end up with very little from the copyright pie but in whose name much is argued. More here and here and here.
Queensland Health Minister Lawrence Springborg has defended a letter from his Director-General threatening to sue the Nurses Union for breach of copyright if it failed to destroy anti-privatisation brochures which use an image of the Sunshine Coast University Hospital.
Youngsters from Downham Academy, in East Anglia, have had to call off their production of Flowers for Algernon due to a copyright wrangle between English and American companies. The 23 pupils were due to take to the stage to showcase the two months of hard work in rehearsal, and whilst the school had permission to perform the piece by the playwright – representatives of the original author of a short story on which it was based (Daniel Keyes) seemingly initially objected to the performances. Ironically, after calling off tour, which was due to take in Nordelph Village Hall, the Barn Theatre in Swaffham, and the Studio Theatre in Springwood before finishing at the Downham Academy, a text came through reversing that decision. But by then it was too late and only the final show could take place. Somewhat unsurprisingly the school said ““Next time, we will do a classic text, such as Shakespeare, which is out of copyright, to avoid these problems”. Hooray for copyright?
Copyright reform is back on the agenda in China with news that the Government will look at whether parodies should be exempt from legal liabilities, “as long as they do not make money or damage copyright owners' economic interest”. The South China Morning Post says “Unlike last year when both the government and legislature were due for a change, the current atmosphere is less politically charged. A three-month consultation can provide the platform for rational discussion” and looks to strike a balance between freedom of expression and copyright protection.
Here's something I didn't know but Bradford Brady and John Maron from On The Record did : Knowledgeable gentlemen! U2's live album “Under a Blood Red Sky” was edited intentionally and some 27 seconds from the middle of “The Electric Co.” were removed: On the original vinyl album, as the band falls quiet, Bono sings to the crowd to the tune of Stephen Sondheim’s “Send in the Clowns” from the musical “A Little Night Music.” When the vinyl album was first released, this use was without permission and it seems no royalty was paid: Sondheim asserted his rights, and the band had to pay over $50,000 and agreed to excise the clip from all future versions of the album.
UK cyber commentators are buzzing with the news that David Cameron's voluntary agreement with the leading ISPs to block pornography might also be used to block copyright infringing sites as well, and customers might (at least) be able to turn off links to file sharing sites.
Medical news: Does this worry you - not as a lawyer - but as a possible patient? "Doctors and medical researchers are seemingly scrambling to adapt to the recent assertion of copyrights in a popular screening method that has been used for decades to measure cognitive impairment. Although the assertion of this particular set of rights is relatively new, doctors are increasingly facing copyright claims in a variety of tests, including those for depression and for pain" and "Doctors and researchers are quietly acquiescing to the demands of those asserting copyright in medical tests, for fear of becoming entwined in lengthy and expensive legal proceedings" : hmmmmm - very interesting - as is the clash of copyright law and patent law - and there much more on the IPWatchdog here.
And turning to teeth - here's a salutary tale from ArtsTechnica of when legal agreements go horribly wrong: Dentist Dr. Stacy Makhnevich, the “Classical Singer Dentist of New York", reportedly made patient Robert Lee sign an agreement back in 2010 that included provisions that the patient would refrain from publishing any “commentary” online or elsewhere: The contract, created by a firm called Medical Justice, also specified that Lee should “not denigrate, defame, disparage, or cast aspersions upon the Dentist.” and if Lee did write such reviews, the copyright would be assigned to the Dentist. Of course you can guess what happened - Lee was a very unhappy customer and subsequently posted a Yelp review saying "Avoid at all cost!” and alleging “Scamming their customers! Overcharged me by about $4000 for what should have been only a couple-hundred dollar procedure.” In September 2011, staff members acting on behalf of Dr. Makhnevich sent DMCA takedown notices to Yelp and another website called DoctorBase to have the messages removed: In response in November 2011, Public Citizen, acting for Lee, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status (others had also complained about the Medical Justice 'Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy') arguing that Lee’s reviews were fair use and non-defamatory. The lawsuit also alleged that Makhnevich’s “don’t criticize me” contracts were violations of New York business laws and dental ethics rules. But somewhat quickly Medical Justice withdrew the Mutual Agreement from use, and Dr Makhnevich closed her practice and disappeared - it seems even her own lawyers don't know where she is, and US District Judge Paul Crotty has now held a case conference to decide if the dentist's lawyers should be allowed to withdraw from the case - although Lee is seemingly left nursing $3,000 in legal costs to date.
Australia has reportedly recommended changes to copyright law that would allow Australians cheaper access to IT hardware, software and digital downloads after a parliamentary inquiry found no good reason for prices to be so high Down Under - prices for computer products are often 50 percent higher in Australia than elsewhere. Adobe has claimed that its products cost more because of local packaging and transports costs, while Apple cited copyright fees. The report suggests a handful of potential moves to rectify the problem, such as removing restrictions on imports and changing the Copyright Act to "secure customers' rights to circumvent technological protection measures." There is also mention of creating a "right of resale" for digital goods.
Six-time Grammy Award winner Toni Braxton has been unsuccessful in her bid to buy back ownership of some of her most famous hits - including 'You're Making Me High,' 'How Many Ways,' and 'Always' - after making an agreement to resolve her bankruptcy issues. As part of the agreement, Braxton was given the opportunity to buy back some of her personal property by paying monthly instalments and enter an auction to purchase the copyright of 27 songs for $20,000 when they were put up for sale on July 15 - as long as as no one out-bid her. However, buyer Ross M. Klein doubled the offer made by the 45-year-old singer and gained ownership.
Literary agent Samuel Pinkus, who was accused of engaging in a scheme to dupe Harper Lee, the author of To Kill A Mockingbird, out of the valuable copyright to her book, has indirectly answered criticisms in a defence filed in a separate action where he is being sued by literary agency of McIntosh & Otis, which is demanding almost $780,000 and asks to being appointed as a receiver of Pinkus' company's assets. According to a motion that was filed on behalf of Pinkus and his companies: "Ms. Lee's assignment of the Mockingbird copyright specifically retained to her 'all rights to any revenue, financial benefit, royalties, or any benefit whatsoever derived from the exploitation of the Property, now or in the future.' The inconvenient real facts make for a much less interesting story."
And on that very topic, Former Village People member Victor Willis (the 'policeman', right) who wrote the lyrics for many of the band's biggest hits, says that he is close to regaining control of his share of the copyright in the 33 songs he had reclaimed in 2011 under US law - having defeated arguments that the songs were written on a 'work for hire' basis.Willis told the Times: "I'm hoping that other artists will get a good lawyer and get back the works that a lot of us gave away when we were younger, before we knew what was going on. When you're young, you just want to get out there and aren't really paying attention to what's on paper. I never even read one contract they put in front of me, and that's a big mistake". An appeal is expected, as is further litigation over the share of the copyrights Mr Wills is entitled to.
Marvel Comics has agreed to settle a lawsuit with Gary Friedrich who sued the publisher over the copyright to the flaming-skulled character Ghost Rider. The agreement, disclosed in a letter filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, if finalized would resolve five-years of litigation brought by former Marvel freelancer Friedrich, who claimed he created the motorcycle-riding vigilante and that the rights to Ghost Rider automatically became his after the initial copyright term expired in 2000. 
In the United Kingdom, a new report from Kantar Media for media regulator Ofcom shows that just under one fifth of internet users have accessed content online illegally, with 18% of television programmes viewed online being in breach of copyright laws. More than half of all internet users – 58% – downloaded or streamed at least one item of content over the year from May 2012 to May 2013. The report found that infringement was a “minor activity” during this period, with 17% of internet users consuming at least one item of “infringing content”. The report said this equated to around a third of all consumers of online content. In terms of volume, 22% of all content consumed online during the year was infringing. Of the TV shows watched online, 18% were done so illegal. 15% of filesharers would stop if they thought they would get sued - only 5% would stop if they were threatened with slower internet speeds when caught. 74% of copyright infringements were carried out by just 2% of internet users. However, the research also showed that those who pirate content were also likely to spend more money on legal downloads. Over a three month period pirates spent £26 on content compared to £16 from those who refrained from infringing copyright. Ofcom said that no single enforcement solution is likely to address online copyright infringement in isolation. Executive Summary here.
