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

Here is a link to ask Congress NOT to reduce music royalty rates paid to musicians by Pandora Reply

–> http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/ <–  Tell Congress: Don’t Slash Music Creators’ Pay

As a follow up to my post yesterday [http://wp.me/p10nNq-p8] it’s easy to reach out to your Congress reps at the link above and speak out against Pandora’s push to slash royalty rates paid to creators.

Musicians push back as Pandora lobbys Congress to reduce royalty rates Reply

Three cheers for musicians defense against Pandora’s Congressional lobbying efforts to reduce royalty rates that it pays to musicians. Currently Pandora pays a fraction of a penny to musicians each time a song is played on its internet radio service. …Pandora wants to make more money (don’t we all)… but taking a bigger cut from musicians is low. In protest of Pandora’s proposal, Rihanna, George Clinton, Billy Joel, Bonnie Raitt, The Doors, Katy Perry, Pink Floyd, Alabama, Sheryl Crow and other artists have written a letter opposing the Pandora-backed legislation that aims to reduce royalty rates.

THE LETTER: A MUSICIAN’S PERSPECTIVE ON PANDORA

We are big fans of Pandora. That’s why we helped give the company a discount on rates for the past decade.

Pandora is now enjoying phenomenal success as a Wall Street company. Skyrocketing growth in revenues and users. We celebrate that. At the same time, the music community is just not beginning to gain its footing in this new digital world.

Pandora’s principal asset is the music.

Why is the company asking Congress once again to step in and gut the royalties that thousands of musicians rely upon? That’s not fair and that’s not how partners work together.

Congress has many pressing issues to consider, but this is not one of them. Let’s work this out as partners and continue to bring fans the great musical experiences they rightly expect.

This letter is running in Billboard Magazine and with any luck has gone viral and is gaining momentum and support. A congressional hearing is scheduled for tomorrow in Washington D.C.

For more information: the proposed legislation – Internet Radio Fairness Act; Battling Rihanna Puts Pandora in Box on Lower Music Royalties at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-26/battling-rihanna-puts-pandora-in-box-on-lower-music-royalties.html; From Alabama to Rihanna, Starts Fight Pandora on Royalties at http://www.billboard.com/news/from-alabama-to-rihanna-stars-fight-pandora-1008016162.story#/news/from-alabama-to-rihanna-stars-fight-pandora-1008016162.story; and the letter at http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/sites/default/files/Artist%20Letter.pdf; @iplegalfreebies 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.

Digital royalties waiting? Register before October 15, 2012 1

SoundExchange is the organization that collects and distributes digital royalties to musicians and record labels.  Just last month,dollar sign SoundExchange released a list of over 50,000 recording artist and record label names who are owed tens of millions of dollars in unclaimed digital performance royalty payments.  [Registration with SoundExchange is required in order to collect these unpaid and ongoing digital royalties].  The list released by SoundExchange also includes more than $31 million in royalties that are three or more years old.

**AN IMPORTANT NOTE** Any unclaimed royalties that are over three years old may be forfeited (and lost) if the artists and labels who are entitled to the $$$ do not register with SoundExchange by OCTOBER 15, 2012.

If you think that you, or someone you know may have digital royalties waiting to be collected from SoundExchange CHECK with SoundExchange.  You can check this out by searching through the database of unpaid artists and labels  on the SoundExchange website… or you can email SoundExchange at: connect@soundexchange.com.

Just a note about searching the on-line database, try searching by your full name and also by each part of your name individually.  For some quirky reason, I have found that this can change the search results.  For example, on a whim I decided to search for the Native American Artist, Floyd Red Crow Westerman…. and searching “Westerman” didn’t return any results; however, searching for “Red Crow” found: FLOYD RED CROW WESTERMAN.  (I sent an email to the contact on Mr. Westerman’s website… hopefully they will reach out to SoundExchange asap!)

See also: an earlier post  http://www.soundexchange.com/2012/08/15/soundexchange-releases-list-of-recording-artists-and-record-labels-with-unclaimed-digital-performance-royalties/, http://www.soundexchange.com/2012/08/17/royalties-waiting-find-out-in-our-new-database/, http://www.soundexchange.com/performer-owner/does-sx-have-money-for-you; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

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

vk@kasterlegal.com

 

What happens to your photos once posted to Facebook? Reply

Facebook thrives because people want to connect and share photographs and other content. However, connecting and sharing content on Facebook means that Facebook makes the rules for how the content is shared, used, copied and made available to others. (Facebook also has the privilege of changing these terms of use at anytime and is known for making significant policy changes frequently. For the current Terms of Service see –>; http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms).

Here are three significant components of Facebook’s current policy concerning photographs that you post to Facebook (these are the terms as of today… and may change tomorrow):

  1. …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. (Subject to how you set the privacy and application settings on your account).
  2. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
  3. Facebook respects the intellectual property rights of others and is committed to helping third parties protect their rights. Our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities prohibits users from posting content that violates another party’s intellectual property rights. When we receive a valid notice of IP infringement, we promptly remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing content. We also terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances.

What can happen to your photographs when you post it to Facebook under these Terms? The short answer – ALMOST ANYTHING… especially if you have left the default settings on your Facebook page to allow public access to the content you post on Facebook.  If however, someone else posts a photograph that you took and own the rights to… then you have a bit more muscle and can request that Facebook remove or disable access to the photograph by reporting a copyright infringement to Facebook.

To report a copyright infringement on Facebook go to –>; https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=190268144407210 …you will see that there is an online form as well as a contact email [ip@fb.com] and mailing address.

See also: http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms, https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=190268144407210; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

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

vk@kasterlegal.com

“I won’t sell my songs for no TV Ad” – Adam Yauch’s will states how his image and music may be used after his death. Reply

I won’t sell my songs for no TV Ad”… not only did The Beastie Boy’s Adam Yauch, also known as MCA, rap these lyrics… but he also showed that he meant it to be true after his death too… by including a similar statement in his will. Evidently, Yauch’s will (which was filed in Manhattan Surrogate court earlier this month) states:

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in no event may my image or name or any music or any artistic property created by me be used for advertising purposes…” (His will also reportedly leaves his estate and rights to his music to his wife and daughter).

This statement in Yauch’s will is one example of how creative works can be accounted for and passed on in a will. Stating who inherits music and other creative works (beneficiaries), how the works may be used, and even passing on instruments to specific family members, friends or charity programs are important components of an artist’s Last Will and Testament.

(While the excerpt from Yauch’s will speaks to his own image and music, it is unclear how this impacts the Beasty Boys’ legal rights to license the group’s music for advertisements.)

See also: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/adam-yauchs-will-prohibits-use-of-his-music-in-ads-20120809; http://www.allmusic.com/album/hello-nasty-mw0000598994; http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/aug/10/beastie-boys-adam-yauch-will-advertising; http://www.metrolyrics.com/putting-shame-in-your-game-lyrics-beastie-boys.html; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

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

vk@kasterlegal.com

Copyright: composing new music intertwined with Schubert fragments Reply

Copyright automatically vests in original music compositions.  Originality is key to copyright and the music composed by Maestro Luciano Berio to complete an unfinished symphony, in D major, by Schubert is a fantastic work that offers an interesting opportunity to take a closer look at copyright, copyrightable works and the public domain.

Franz Peter Schubert (1797-1828) was a prolific composer who composed numerous masterpieces including sketches of a symphony, in D major, that would have been his 10th symphony.  Schubert died before completing the symphony and left behind the sketches of the unfinished piece, including notes on instrumentation, which are in the public domain and free to use, copy, perform and create derivative works of.

Over a century later, the maestro and composer Luciano Berio (1925-2003) undertook the task of completing Schubert’s unfinished symphony.  Berio composed original music that weaves together Schubert’s sketches into a completed work that can be performed and enjoyed by us all.  (Berio referred to his work as “the cement-work”).  Back to our copyright analysis… Berio’s original composition that pieces together Schubert’s sketches is copyrightable because it is an original music composition.  Because Berio’s music is copyrighted, permission is required to use, copy, perform and create derivative work of his work. (…Schubert’s sketches are still fair game).

Berio has been praised for completing Schubert’s composition (titled Rendering) in a style and manner that sounds “Schubertian”.  (Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-76EhKzEsPM&feature=related)

See also:  Conductor David Robertson talks about Schubert & Berio’s Rendering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NfoOAm7Fvoa US copyright registration for a sound recording of Rendering; http://www.bachtrack.com/review-mostly-mozart-festival-2012-malkki-berio-rendering-ohlsson-beethoven; http://composers21.com/compdocs/beriol.htm;  http://www.classicalarchives.com/composer/3308.html#tvf=tracks&tv=about;iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

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

vk@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

 

Newly Discovered Jazz Archive in a Copyright Tangle Reply

You might have heard that an archive of historic jazz recordings was discovered and donated to the National Jazz Museum in Harlem last year. Accompanying the hundreds of donated discs containing recordings of legendary jazz musicians of the late 30’s and 40’s… is a tangle of legal copyright issues.

THE MUSIC – This newly discovered jazz archive exists due to the technical genius of William Savory who was both a jazz aficionado and a technical wizard. Mr. Savory developed ways to make superior, longer and more durable sound recordings and recorded historic jazz performances during the golden era of American Jazz. Among the treasures in his collection are never released recordings of: Benny Goodman, Billie Holiday, Count Basie, Bobby Hackett, Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong, Coleman Hawkins and Lester Young.

This historic collection is currently being restored and digitized by the National Jazz Museum and can be heard in eight short clips on the museum’s website and by making an appointment to visit the museum’s listening room. (http://www.jazzmuseuminharlem.org/savory/index.php or by calling 212-348-8300).

THE BIG QUESTION – is whether this historic collection will be made available to the public once digitized.

COPYRIGHT ISSUES ABOUND – Copyright law has changed and morphed over the years and the legal protocol for using, distributing, copying and making these digitized recordings (or any copyright protected work) available… requires identifying the musicians and copyright owners of the recordings and getting their permission to use the works. As you might guess, this is no small task. It can be difficult to identify and locate copyright owners especially since decades have passed since the recordings were made. Most of the musicians are no longer living and the business entities and companies that may hold ownership interests in the works have likely morphed and changed too.  (Note that copyright protection lasts for longer than the life of the owner.  The duration of copyright protection has changed over the years.  Currently, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author + 70 years and if owned by a corporation it lasts for 95 years from publication.)  If an organization wishes to use copyrighted works, but the copyright owner cannot be located… the organization has two choices: 1) not to use the work or 2) to use the work without permission, which is a risky gamble.

HOW BIG OF A GAMBLE IS IT TO USE A COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION? The short answer – Big. Using a copyrighted work without permission can put the user at risk of owing treble damages to the owner for willful infringement AND can prevent any further use of the work via an injunction. The risk of potential copyright liability for using works without permission is generally too high for most museums, filmmakers and libraries to take.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW? Evidently the National Jazz Museum in Harlem is in the process of restoring and digitizing the Savory collection. It will be interesting to see how the museum decides to use the works. Hopefully, tracking down the copyright owners and getting permission to use (and make available for distribution) at least some of the works will be possible. (I would like to hear these recordings!) Alternatively, legislation could change the penalty for using the works by reducing the fee from treble damages to ‘a reasonable licensing fee’ payable to the copyright owner retroactively once they resurface and make a demand for payment. These types of legislative changes to the current Copyright Law have been proposed but have not been adopted. For now, making an appointment to visit the National Jazz Museum in Harlem’s listening room is the way to hear these historic jazz recordings.

See also: http://www.jazzmuseuminharlem.org/; http://jazzmuseuminharlem.org/the-museum/collections/the-savory-collection/; http://www.copyright.gov/; Orphaned Treasures: A Trove of Historic Jazz Recordings has Found a Home in Harlem, But You Can’t Hear Them, by S. SeidenbergFor more information on works in the Public Domain, see http://wp.me/p10nNq-ft and http://wp.me/p10nNq-gn; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

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

vk@kasterlegal.com