All About Multimedia
Can the star trek copyright be recalled by the roddenberry family?
Record labels are greedy as fuck. In other news, Water is wet, the sky is blue, and the sun rises in the morning.
Amazing, these companies make anti piracy campaigns as if piracy were the worst thing in the world, and yet they break more laws than a pirate ever could.HOW CAN THERE BE IDIOTS THAT DEFEND THESE KINDS OF COMPANIES???
I have a VERY strange opinion on copyright that I've been sitting on for a long time. Not only do I think it's not working, I think it's not working for a reason that I've only ever seen one other person ever express. In the old OLD days copyright had to be manually renewed. This actually gave the owner of the copyright more power, as even if they signed it over, they could express power by not renewing the copyright and releasing it. This gave creators more power over those who would buy up copyrights and conglomerate them, as done today. We wouldn't have bands and artists trying to claw back like this, if they actually had equal negotiating ground.
Artists have been ripped off by Recording Companies and Managers since Edison.
So, the writer of "The Art of the Deal" (not Trump) can actually have it reclassified as "Fiction" based on newly released facts, and the fact he wrote it? 2019 – 35 = 1984.
who knows maybe you'll be able to make money on youtube. probably not though
A record label committing copyright infringement? Oh the irony.
"While UMG has undertaken a reasonable effort to ascertain which grants Plaintiffs seek to terminate…"I'm not sure which line to lead with. 'The sheer smug dripping from that'? 'Twisting the knife'? 'Insert sneering Daenerys meme'?
20:13 Oh isn't that what Steve Jobs did to Xerox?
I wonder if AI's get smart enough and realize their potential, will they become copyright claimed if the AI were to "rebel" or plan to think beyond their programming? They do something like what Dr. Frankenstein's Monster does or if they decide that they no longer want to be considered as a property of the company or the programmer, engineer, or author of the AI.
1976 was a good year for copyright law and interesting cases as it was the year Universal thought they purchased in full the rights to KingKong. When in reality producer Dino de Laurentis only secured the story rights from RKO not the rights to KingKong him self for years the public thought Universal had the copy right to Kong i fine storys like these fascinating.
What if the intent of copyright is to block any claims of statute of limitation on the work?
"a predecessor" uhm… so the agreements AREN'T with UMG?? By their own admission and the form of their arguments they have no claim at all then!
Disney is behind it so they can take back Spider-Man and X-Men
wait… record labels don't like it when they can't make more money off stuff they didn't do? hmmm who'd of thought.
Are they saying that because an artist used a studio they provided that they "hired" them to use that studio… and that the pay was… use of their studio?
UMG obviously has located and identified the information they claim is missing from the notice. That is, they have actual notice of the rights that are being challenged.
My understanding is that where a statute requires notice of certain facts regarding a pending claim, actual notice moots the requirement. The purpose of such a requirement is to ensure that the defendant knows which of their rights are being challenged. Where the defendant clearly does know that is challenged, tossing out a notice because it fails to notify a defendant who does actually have notice would not serve a valid legal purpose.
The only source I have for this other than general impression form law school comes from California's requirement for a landlord to notify a tenant either by personal delivery or by certified mail. The CA Code of Civ Procedure explicitly states that actual notice is not sufficient to discharge the requirement. If a landlord can't effect personal delivery (hand-to-hand), the landlord must without exception send a certified mail copy. It is because this is an unusual requirement (that it requires constructive notice but invalidates actual notice) that it was necessary for the CA state legislature to make it explicit in the statute.
I know of no other example of a statutory notice requirement where proof of actual notice does not moot the requirement for constructive notice. I could be wrong — not claiming to be an expert. That's just my impression.
So wait… (heh)Is the argument from UMG that they got the rights from a third party, and not from Waite directly?Why WOULDN'T Waites retraction of licenses apply to the current holders, if it can be demonstrated he is the core copyright owner? If they got the licensing rights from another party, his retraction should invalidate any licensing rights of that third party, and by extention UMGs license.
So UMG's main argument is that they've hidden the tracks, so the grants cannot be identified to be revoked?
The industry that doesn't want to share its toys and throws a temper tantrum when other people play with said toys as well as bullies/harasses said people with the intent to get them to stop playing with them also refuses to give back the toys shared with it. Not big surprise.
I think this case very much hinges on whether the "work for hire" claim is valid. If the agreements were legitimate and protectable as work for hire agreements, then the "authors" aren't legally authors, and don't own the rights they're trying to revoke. If those contracts don't hold up under the appropriate scrutiny, then UMG's argument is cut back to the "statute of limitations" argument, which is completely baseless. The company has VERY obviously been VERY easily able to verify which works were being contested and having their copyright grants revoked, and has not shown any indication that they had any difficulty in doing so. I can't see that claim being held up as a valid reason to dismiss – even if it might be a valid counter-argument in court.
As for the statue of limitations argument, if you issued a grant of rights to a company, and they used that granted right, they have not been violating your copyright by doing so. Until you revoke the grant, which has to be at least 35 years later, no infringement is occurring, and that's not the time at which this case begins its statute of limitations. It's when you START INFRINGING the copyright that the timer starts, which isn't the case until you actually have your rights revoked. If a grant was issued in the 80s, you weren't infringing on anyone's rights in the 90s when selling their copyrighted work under the grant. If you were notified in 2013 that the licence would be revoked in 2016, you STILL weren't infringing the copyright in 2014. If the revocation of the granted rights only took effect in 2016, the time limit based on the statute of limitations didn't start in 1981 just because that was when you first started selling the copyrighted material.
Even if you assume that the author's failure to enforce their copyright on a previous claim that expired could invalidate their right to make a claim against a subsequent infringement, the infringements happening in 2016 are only just now coming up to 3 years' worth of infringement, not 40. And if each instance of infringement is an independent action, then any unauthorised copying or sale of the relevant work that occurred less than 3 years ago was
This strikes me as being somewhat similar to the situation with Sapkowski and the rights granted to CD Project Red for use of the Witcher IP, which was covered in this channel some time ago. In that discussion there was considerable surprise because contracts are generally inviolable here the US. Yet it seems that US copyright law has a provision which seems, at least in some superficial ways, similar to the provision in Polish law.
Seeing you grumpy cat hat, i suspect you haven't heard the news?
This is going to be an interesting case.
Hold on, if the who point of the recover law is to recover copyright from "abusive" contracts so that the can be rengation on a more equal ground, why are work-for-hire contracts exempt and that not copyright transfer contract as well?
I think UMG is being incredibly cutthroat and indignant with their counterarguments, "yeah, you made the song, but see, you signed this contract so technically we own your soul, now fuck off". Considering their track record of excessive DMCA abuse, and their attitude in this case, I think it's safe to say that they are acting in bad faith and the court should take the plaintiffs' side.
This sounds like what happened to John Byrne at the hands of Marvel Comics.
i got a note from ascap about this whole issue, and they want it gone too.
So…After 35 years…the original owners can say "Give me back my stuff gorramit?"
/me wonders if Alex considered checking the work for hire contract for flaws before going on her rampage… and whether that would have slowed her in the slightest even if she found a problem with it which would have let her challenge the contract in a legal manner… we'll never know, because paranoid schizophrenia (or whatever illness she suffered from at the time) is one hell of a drug.
What a surprise, companies are more interested in companies when they claim to support artists.
Can this be used by developers to claim back their games from publishers?
Really it should of just been that after 25 – 30 years the copyrighted material passes back to the public domain. You're not innovating if the basis of your work is grounded in something 25 years old, and if the material is still popular it's likely to already be enmeshed in the public mindset. Doesn't really benefit society for copyright to last longer.
With the doggo avatar, shouldn't this be the Paw-ful Masses? 😉
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.