New trend of Phone-Free Concerts has many benefits Reply

Fans are required to place their cellphones into Yondr’s form-fitting lockable pouch when entering the show, and a disk mechanism unlocks it on the way out. Fans keep the pouch with them, but it is impossible for them to snap pictures, shoot videos or send text messages during the performance while the pouch is locked.  (quote from NY Times article titled, Your Phone’s on Lockdown. Enjoy the Show)

Not surprisingly performing artists reportedly enjoy playing phone-free concerts.

When the rocker Axl Rose reunited with his former Guns N’ Roses bandmates, Duff McKagan and Slash, for the first time in 23 years, the concert was phone-free. “God, it was wonderful,” Mr. McKagan said of the first reunion show in April, at the Troubadour in Los Angeles. “It was the old-school feeling, where people were dancing and getting down. It was really cool.”

In addition to increasing the fun “old-school feeling” at a phone-free concert, decreasing the likelihood of intellectual property infringement may be a hidden benefit of a phone-free concert. While it’s not uncommon for audience members to record and post concert clips, this can infringe a bundle of intellectual property rights including:

• Copyright in the music compositions and lyrics (often controlled by the publisher or sometimes the artist)
• Copyright in the performance (often controlled by the label)
• Trademarks of the band, club or venue

I haven’t met a Yondr case yet; although, I’m looking forward to using one sometime soon at a phone-free concert.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

See also: Previous blog post Recording and Posting Concert Clips: what’s legal… what’s not at http://wp.me/p10nNq-os; The New York Times article titled, Your Phone’s on Lockdown. Enjoy the Show. by J. Morrissey at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/your-phones-on-lockdown-enjoy-the-show.html?_r=0; Yondr website at http://overyondr.com/; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

 

SELMA: Bravo for the Movie & Creative Script (mixing original text & public domain works) 1

Two enthusiastic thumbs up for the movie SELMA and the creative script that uses accent, aura, scripture, lyrics of gospel songs and original text instead of historic speeches.  Before seeing the movie, SELMA, I read that the speeches given by Dr. King in the film were written by [the talented writer, producer, director and distributor] Ms. DuVernay and were not the historical speeches given by Dr. King.

Dr. King’s heirs did not grant permission for his speeches to be quoted in “Selma,” and while this may be a blow to the film’s authenticity, Ms. DuVernay turns it into an advantage, a chance to see and hear him afresh. Mr. Oyelowo, a British actor of Nigerian background, has mastered the Southern inflections and preacherly cadences that have become part of the permanent soundtrack of our educational system, and the script offers credible paraphrases of his character’s unmatched eloquence.

[–BRAVO, Ms. DuVernay, for turning this into an advantage].

It is not uncommon for permission to use famous copyrighted works, like Dr. King’s famous speeches, to be unattainable or denied.  (Obtaining permission to use a famous copyrighted work is often cost prohibitive).  Whatever the reason that permission to use a famous work is unattainable or denied, creating an original work is a brilliant solution.  After seeing the movie SELMA this past weekend, I was impressed with the use of bible verses and gospel lyrics in Ms. DuVernay’s script.  Bible verses and gospel lyrics are often in the public domain and free to use.  Intermixing public domain material and original text in a movie script works.  For example, Ms. DuVernay’s script uses the lyrics of the “Battle Hymn of The Republic” in a final scene with Dr. King.  The lyrics of this old hymn (written in the 1860’s and now in the public domain) were a powerful, spoken finale.

“Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord…”

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: An earlier blog post on Copyright Law & Dr. King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech at http://wp.me/p10nNq-3R; Free tickets for 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students at http://selmastudenttickets.com; the SELMA website at www.selmamovie.com; www.paramount.com/movies/selma; www.avaduvernay.com/about; movie review by Kenny Miles at http://themovieblog.com/2015/ava-duvernays-masterful-selma-is-the-timely-movie-america-needs/; quote above is from the NY Times article titled, “A 50-Mile March, Nearly 50 Years Later. In ‘Selma,’ King Is Just One of Many Heros” by A.O. Scott on Dec. 24, 2014 available at www.nytimes.com; NY Times article titled, “The Man Who Would Be King.  David Oyelowo’s Pivotal Role in ‘Selma’ by Felicia R. Leedec on Dec. 18, 2014 available at www.nytimes.com; information on the Battle Hymn of the Republic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_Hymn_of_the_Republic; NY Times article titled, “An Unsettled Chapter in Martin Luther King’s Legacy” by Richard Fausset on Jan. 12, 2015 at http://mobile.nytimes.com; Wikipedia photo credit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Female Watson: Great for many reasons including Copyright Reply

Fabulous, smart, strong, witty, problem solving female characters are always great.  Recently, Hollywood has been recasting some traditionally male characters like Watson (from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous Sherlock Holmes stories) as women.  Additionally, Hollywood has been developing new central characters from the Doyle’s classics.  For example, Watson’s wife (barely mentioned or developed in Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories) is becoming a featured charter in the new BBC series based on the literary classic.  Also Lucy Liu is featured as Dr. Joan Watson in Elementary, a new series set in NYC.  This is a great trend for developing new, dynamite leading ladies.

Interestingly, this tend also has potential copyright advantages for the creative folks writing these new leading ladies based on traditionally male roles.  The “copyright advantage” is that creating new original characters by definition creates new character traits, storylines and crime solving adventures which the owners of the new TV series can potentially own, control and monetize to a greater degree than if the stories, characters and adventures are taken from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s books.  This is because some of the original story elements and characters from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s books and stories, like Holmes and Dr. John Watson, have entered into the public domain and others are still under copyright protection and must be licensed from Doyle’s Estate.  (See this earlier post,  http://wp.me/p10nNq-z8 , for more information on this topic).

I love Lucy Liu as Dr. Joan Watson!  How about a lady Holmes, next? 

Happy Halloween!

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: earlier blog posts on the topic of “public domain,” https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/public-domain/; other copyright and public domain resources, http://www.copyright.gov, http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

FIRST KISS viral video (the music was used with permission) 2

The FIRST KISS video that went viral earlier this month is a digital advertising phenomenon that uses music with permission! Giving a shout out the folks involved for doing it right! Here, the clothing company Wren created a three-and-a-half-minute video featuring pairs of strangers kissing for the first time accompanied by the musician Soko’s song, “We Might Be Dead Tomorrow,” which was licensed for use in the video. Within days of being released on YouTube, the video went viral… and over 73 million views later, both the clothing company and the musician are selling more and making more money.

According to a recent NY Times article, “there has been a ‘significant bump’ in sales on Wren’s online store since the video made its debut. And the song accompanying the video, Soko’s ‘We Might Be Dead Tomorrow,’ sold 10,000 copies in North America on Tuesday and Wednesday [following the video’s release].”  It’s also reported that sales for Soko’s album featuring the song went up too and that the video was made on a modest budget of about $1,300.

Three cheers for the entrepreneurial ladies (clothing designer, musician and video director) for their successful collaboration on the FIRST KISS viral video phenomenon.   Gotta love a happy ending.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: YouTube video link at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpbDHxCV29A; The NY Times Article by J. Koblin, “A Kiss Is Just a Kiss, Unless It’s an Ad for a Clothing Company” at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/business/media/a-kiss-is-just-a-kiss-unless-its-an-ad-for-a-clothing-company.html?_r=0; Wren’s website at http://wrenstudio.com/clothing/; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Getting Paid for… Co-Creating awesome stuff like the game Twister and Superman Reply

Getting paid for creating wildly successful stuff can take many forms and is an important part of the creative process. Often stuff that becomes wildly successful (like the Superman comic and the game Twister) start out as humble creative endeavors created by two co-creators. For example:

• SUPERMAN was created by Seigel and Schuster who created a comic book out of four weeks worth of comic strips that they couldn’t sell. They sold the comic book along with their rights to the creation for $130. (long-running litigation has ensued regarding the existence, validity and scope of an agreement transferring the rights to Superman).
• TWISTER was created by Foley (a game designer) and Rabens (an artist) who were awarded a US Patent (No. 3,454,279) for their invention of an “apparatus for playing a game wherein the players constitute the game pieces.” Evidently Foley did not receive royalties for the game; however, he did negotiate a buyout and sold his rights. (According to a Mr. Foley’s obituary this past week, he accepted about $27,000 in a negotiated buyout).

It’s interesting to compare these deals. Did the creators have any idea that their creations would become iconic? Probably not. At least not in the case of Superman. If Superman’s co-creators had known how famous their creation would become, they probably would have negotiated a higher price, residual rights, royalties and possibly reserved merchandising rights.

Personally, I am a big fan of both Superman and Twister! I am in awe of the creative minds who created these gems… and I encourage folks to negotiate creative deals to maximize revenue from their creations. You never know…. your creation could become a cultural icon.

For more information on the ongoing Superman litigation, see also, http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2004cv08400/166317/; http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2013/03/superman-legal-battle-isnt-over-yet-siegels-try-a-new-strategy/; http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-13/marc-toberoff-supermans-lawyer; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

Unleashing viral whiplash instead of a lawsuit 1

An online following of over 617,000 folks can be a powerful negotiation tool.  I read recently that a NY street-photographer leveraged his online following by “unleashing a viral whiplash” on DKNY for using some of his photographs in a Bangkok window display without permission.

Evidently, DKNY approached the photographer for permission to use some of his photographs… but the parties couldn’t agree on a price and the deal fizzled out.  Yet… some of the photographer’s photographs ended up being used anyway in the window display of a DKNY store in Bangkok.  Someone who happened to be familiar with the photographer’s work (possibly one of the 617,000 folks who follow the photographer online) saw the images in Bangkok and notified the photographer.

This is where it gets interesting!  In response, the photographer launched the following online campaign by posting this on Facebook at 9:01am on 2/25/13 [The Facebook page for HUMANS OF NEW YORK]:

I am a street photographer in New York City. Several months ago, I was approached by a representative of DKNY who asked to purchase 300 of my photos to hang in their store windows “around the world.” They offered me $15,000. A friend in the industry told me that $50 per photo was not nearly enough to receive from a company with hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. So I asked for more money. They said “no.”

Today, a fan sent me a photo from a DKNY store in Bangkok. The window is full of my photos. These photos were used without my knowledge, and without compensation.

I don’t want any money. But please SHARE this post if you think that DKNY should donate $100,000 on my behalf to the YMCA in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. That donation would sure help a lot of deserving kids go to summer camp. I’ll let you guys know if it happens.

The online campaign quickly transformed into viral whiplash.  The Facebook post garnered over 4,500 comments the same day that it was posted and was noticed and “liked” by over 41,000 folks and was shared over 30,000 times.  Within four hours, DKNY issued a prompt apology and pledged to make a $25,000 charitable donation to the YMCA in Bedford-Stuyvesant Brooklyn in the photographer’s name.  [Click to read DNKY’s statement issued at 12:52pm on 2/25/13 and the photographer’s response accepting the donation as a settlement issued at 1:18pm on 2/25/13].

Not the full $100,000 donation that was asked for… but a creative an interesting negotiation and resolution within FOUR hours.  In support of this creative negotiation I “liked” the Facebook page for HUMANS OF NEW YORK, becoming follower number 617,012.

See also, a creative resolution to a trademark infringement between Franklin & Marshall college and a hot European Brand at http://wp.me/p10nNq-lu; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

Summary for Photographers of IP Legal Freebies: Reply

• Copyright protection starts automatically for original works –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-7H
• Using the copyright © symbol –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-18
• Copyright registration –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-13 & http://www.copyright.gov/
• Copyright registration fee of $35 expected to increase –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-ke
• What if a monkey picks up your camera and takes a self portrait? –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-b5
• Photo releases –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-J
• Tracking unauthorized use of photographs –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-as & http://www.google.com/imghp
• Receiving a cease and desist letter –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-1B
• Sending a cease and desist Letter (stop Monkeying around) –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-b5
• What happens to pictures posted to Facebook? –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-ni
• Get agreements signed –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-2g

And a few lagniappe topics:

• Works in the public domain are free to use –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-ft
• Copyright and transformative use –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-dv
• Using someone else’s photos on your website, blog or promo materials –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-i9

This post is a valentine for my mom… who will be lecturing on this topic for other authors and photographers over the weekend.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

 

Viral Post Won’t Protect Copyright in US… Although Maybe in EU 2

If you use Facebook, I’m sure you have seen the viral post proclaiming copyright in posted content. While the proclamation sounds rather official…. it doesn’t actually mean anything (if you are in the US)… nor does it preserve any of your rights (including copyright) that are modified, abdicated,or terminated by the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy of the Facebook website. What this means is that by using the Facebook website the conditions listed in the Terms of Service (which speak to broad control and use of posted content by Facebook for virtual eternity) are consented to.

The Viral Post (or a modified version of it):

I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, professional photos and videos, etc. For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times! (Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place…them under protection of copyright laws).

In response to the viral post, Facebook has a statement on their website dispelling the rumor and directing folks to its Terms of Service which state (but are subject to change):

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

How did the viral post get started? One explanation is youthful optimism. Another possibility (and very interesting possibility) is that the post was started in the EU where organized challenges to Facebook’s Privacy Policy and Terms are Services are being made for non-conformance with EU laws. The EU has different policies (from the US) regarding the use of data including photo archives and EU laws may require different consent mechanisms. (Since Facebook is a US company, it is likely that their Privacy Policy and Terms of Service are written in American legalese). While surfing through the website for Europe-v-Facebook.org (which is a group in the EU that is challenging Facebook’s Privacy Policy and has threatened litigation for non-compliance with EU law) I read this: “We were just informed that Facebook is soon proposing a new change to its privacy policy…. Facebook said so far that if 7,000 users demand the same changes they would have users give the chance to vote on them.” If this is true… it could be interesting… it could have started the viral post or one like it… and it could possibly change Facebook’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service in the EU… and maybe other places too.

See also, http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html; http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57554497-93/viral-post-wont-copyright-your-facebook-updates/; http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms; http://newsroom.fb.com/Fact-Check; NY Times article: Law Students in Austria Challenge Facebook Policy on 12/5/12 and www.kasterlegal.com

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

Recording and posting concert clips: what’s legal… what’s not 6

Just because it is easy to use your phone to record a clip at concert doesn’t give you the right to do very much with the recorded clip. There are multiple sets of legal rights at play in every concert performance which include:

• Copyright in the music compositions and lyrics (often controlled by the publisher or sometimes the artist)
• Copyright in the performance (often controlled by the label)
• Trademarks of the band, club or venue
• Band’s right of publicity
• Contractual rights granting you the privilege to attend the performance (often on the ticket stub, or posted signs at the venue, or the terms and conditions of a website)
• License granted by ASCAP or other rights manager to the club or venue for the performance.

Each of these rights gives the holder a monopoly to do certain things or exclude others from doing certain things. Excluding others (ie you with the recording device) can be taken seriously by all the rights holders. For example, club or venue owners can exclude others from recording on their premises. This means they can confiscate your phone until the end of the performance or ask you to leave if you are caught recording a clip of the concert.

Technically speaking, recording a clip of a concert for your own personal use is probably considered fair use. If you post the recoded clip to a website, chances are that one of the rights holders listed above will contact the website and request that the clip be taken down. If this happens, the clip will come down and you may forfeit your right to access or use the website where you posted the infringing clip.

Rights holders generally try to maintain a balance when it comes to enforcing their rights; since, they don’t want to alienate their fans and patrons. Although, given the history of how aggressively the music industry went after folks who were targeted for illegally downloading music… this could change.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: Other posts on music copyright at https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/c-o-p-y-r-i-g-h-t/copyright-music-copyright/; Music Law 101: Legal Issues Surrounding the Recording and Posting of Concerts, by R. Friedberg; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Slicing up a copyright violation: Black Keys sues Pizza Hut & Home Depot over unauthorized song use Reply

The Grammy award winning band, Black Keys, has filed lawsuits in California against Pizza Hut and Home Depot for using their music in commercials without permission. Black Keys claims that a Pizza Hut commercial “prominently features significant portions” of their song “Gold on the Ceiling” and that a Home Depot commercial for Ryobi power tools uses parts of their song “Lonely Boy.”

Using portions of an original, copyrighted work requires permission from the copyright owner. Permission is required if part of the original sound recording is used, or if a section of the music is re-recorded. From what I was able to dig up on YouTube …it sounds like Pizza Hut used a recognizable portion of the song “Gold on the Ceiling” …the tempo and groove sound similar… there might be slight variations in the riff… although it certainly sounds like the jingle is trying to mimic the song (Take a listen: the ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkaGEgjWdNI and the band’s video of the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yCIDkFI7ew ). Facts about the portion of the song that has been used will play heavily into the development of this case and a possible settlement. This will include evaluating the originality, amount and specific portion of the misappropriated music. (Black Keys “wins/bargaining power increases” if, the music is original and has been copied). (Pizza Hut “wins/bargaining power increases” if, the music in question is not original or has not been copied).

As I’m sure you can guess, payment is generally a central issue in this type of dispute. Now that these lawsuits have been filed, it is likely that Black Keys and the two corporate brands, Pizza Hut and Home Depot, are already discussing a settlement payment and licensing arrangement for use of the music. (These types of cases often settle).

See also: The cases: Auerbach v. Pizza Hut, 12-05385, and Auerbach v. Home Depot, 2:12-cv-05386, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), http://www.theblackkeys.com/, http://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2012/07/02/pizza-hut-home-depot-sued-by-rock-stars/, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-22/black-keys-rock-duo-sues-pizza-hut-home-depot-over-songs.html, @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com