Copyright Lessons We Might Learn from Carmen Electra

Nearly everyone with access to any type of entertainment media during the 90s and 2000s probably knows who Carmen Electra is. She is a woman familiar to us as a dancer, model, actress, and even singer. What many people don’t know is that the pop culture icon has a penchant for going to court.

Not because of her multiple divorces or her presence courtside watching her former boyfriend and NBA star Dennis Rodman. What we are referring to is her string of lawsuits against strip clubs all over the country.

Together with several other plaintiffs, Carmen Electra is going all out and lawyering up against strip clubs. According to the claims, various clubs are violating their rights by using photos, likeness, and other personal identifiers to promote not only their business but also for other such commercial uses for the benefit of the strip club.

This crusade led by Electra has been going on for years. The famous celebrity recently went after a renowned New York strip club for having used her photographs, allegedly without her consent.

Electra’s legal pursuits against strip clubs can provide a valuable opportunity to look at some legal issues surrounding her claims. Most of the lawsuits involve the right to publicity and copyright.

The Carmen Electra Lawsuits in Brief

Electra’s lawsuits involve allegations that the clubs have violated her rights to publicity and the Lanham Act, which is trademark law.

Electra alleges that by using her photos, images, or likeness, a given strip club makes it appear that she either works there, is employed or contracted by them, or is part of the club’s business or operations.

Electra is essentially alleging that the clubs use her photos and images for commercial use without her consent.

What is the Right of Publicity?

The right of publicity or personality right refers to the individual right of ownership concerning the commercial use of your own person.

Specifically, this means active control over identities, such as their likeness, name, and other identifiers, which, if taken together, are specifically unique to them.

In legal terms, this means no person or entity may use such likeness or identity of another without first seeking their permission or consent. The situation is similar to how copyright infringement cases work. You can’t use something that belongs to someone else without permission or license.

It is important to understand that copyright and personality rights are two distinct legal rights despite their similarities. In the case of Toney v. Oreal USA, Inc, the court made sure to acknowledge these distinctions.

What is the Lanham Act?

The Lanham Act or Trademark Act is a law that refers to the protection of trademarks, in general, and service marks and other acts involving or relating to unfair competition.

In the strip club lawsuits, Electra is alleging that using her name despite her not being involved in the club’s operations or primary business is akin to false advertising and constitutes unfair competition.

Does Electra Have a Copyright Issue?

To answer this question, a brief refresher on copyright law is helpful.

Copyright infringement involves using copyrighted works without first obtaining the consent or permission of the copyright owner or holder. A copyright is considered registered if it is applied for like so with the US Copyright Office. Often, photographs, artwork, books, films, and videos are the subjects of copyright cases.

The right of publicity, as previously discussed, involves the use of a person’s likeness, image, or other identifying marks without the said person’s consent or permission.

In one of the strip club cases pursued by Electra in the state of New York, the court made it a point to distinguish the two legal rights.

In its pronouncements, the court noted that Electra and some of the plaintiffs signed a comprehensive release with some licensees who did business with the strip clubs. In deciding in favor of some plaintiffs, the court noted that the plaintiffs’ proprietary rights regarding the photographs were a copyright issue. Still, their statutory right to the unauthorized use of their likeness was a right of publicity issue.

The court said that, while it is true that the comprehensive releases may have absolved the club of some copyright infringement–releases sometimes being a perfect defense to such a case–the same concept might not apply to cases involving publicity rights.

The court also noted that the clubs were not necessarily parties to the releases signed by the plaintiffs and the licensees and, as such, might not actually be covered by the legal provisions and repercussions of the same.

Electra’s legal actions towards strip clubs have indeed shined some new light on copyright law, the right of publicity, and the need to protect your legal rights when someone uses your image without permission.

Contact Our Copyright Lawyers Today For Help Filing Your Infringement Claim

At Sanders Law Group, our copyright infringement lawyers are dedicated to helping creative professionals collect damages when someone violates copyright law. To learn more about how we can protect your rights, call us today at (800) 979-3707 or 516-233-1660 for a free copyright consultation.

Source:

• https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/advertising-marketing-branding/1040092/carmen-electra39s-crusade-against-strip-clubs continues-right-of-publicity-and-written-consent-under-new-york-law

Call of Copyright: Modern Infringement Warfare

Activision Blizzard (Blizzard) is best known for three things in the world of video games: It is the creator of some of the best video games available today, the “Do you guys not have phones?” meme, and copyright lawsuits.

Indeed, Blizzard is no stranger to copyright lawsuits. In some of the lawsuits, Blizzard sued others for infringements involving World of Warcraft, Warcraft, and Overwatch. For the most part, Blizzard was victorious.

Now, Blizzard faces allegations that it has committed copyright infringement.

Last month, renowned photographer and writer Clayton Haugen sued the video game giant for copyright infringement. His lawsuit contains allegations that Blizzard stole his copyrighted images when it introduced a downloadable character named Mara for one of their flagship video game shooters. The video game? Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.

According to Haugen, Mara’s likeness to that of one of his models by the name of Alex Zedra is undeniable. Haugen claims that Blizzard deliberately modeled and created the characteristics of Mara in Zedra’s image.

Haugen’s allegations are interesting, and the outcome of his claim could have lasting and significant implications for photographers, writers, and creators in the future. Did Blizzard infringe on the photographer’s copyright?

What is at The Heart of Copyright Lawsuits?

A copyright lawsuit usually involves a situation in which a registered creative work such as a photograph or piece of art gets used by someone else without the creator’s permission or consent.

Registered means the forms have been submitted to the US Copyright Office and acknowledged. Not registering your work can have serious consequences if you want to seek legal remedies for copyright infringement.

How Does Copyright Law Apply to Creators of Video Games?

At their core, video games are creative, original pieces of work.

The laws and copyright protections surrounding them, however, can be confusing and complicated.

Why so complicated? Part of the reason is the complexity and the number of stages it takes for a video game to go from an idea to an actual usable product. Most video game productions will almost always include identical game assets, engines, musical scores, images, and scripts or phrases. Applying clear, uniform rules and standards to protect video games and their components from copyright infringement can be tricky.

The US Copyright Office has this to say for video games:

“Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game.”

What does this mean for the photographer suing Blizzard for copyright infringement?

Haugen’s Claims Against Blizzard

In the copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Haugen, what is the specific allegation against Blizzard?

According to Haugen, he holds the copyright to a set of photos (taken by him) of model Alex Zedra. Haugen alleges that he created a specific set of photos of Zedra in various types of full military gear. Haugen states that the sole intention of this photoshoot and the resulting pictures were to draw interest from movie studios.

Haugen claims that Blizzard intentionally used these copyrighted photos to create and design the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare character of Mara.

Zedra herself is not involved in the lawsuit, nor has she commented on it. But she does appear to relish being the basis of a character in the game. She has been known to brag that Mara was created in her image.

Some of the issues the court may consider in this case might include:

• Does Haugen have copyright over the images in question?
• Did Blizzard copy the images to create Mara?
• Did Blizzard create Mara’s character on its own?
• If Blizzard used Zedra’s image to create Mara, did they need Zedra’s permission or Haugen’s?
• Did Blizzard violate Zedra’s right of publicity?

Time will tell how the court decides this case if it makes it that far. Many copyright infringement lawsuits brought by photographers settle out of court. Will Haugen collect damages from Blizzard? We will have to wait and see.

Contact Our Copyright Lawyers Today!

At the Sanders Law Group, our copyright infringement lawyers are dedicated to helping creative professionals collect damages when someone violates copyright law. Are you a photographer in need of copyright help? Did someone use your pictures without permission? Is someone violating a license agreement to use your work? If the answer to any of these is “yes,” call Sanders Law Group today.

Call or copyright lawyers today at 516-233-1660 or (800) 979-3707 to schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help you collect damages for copyright infringement.

Source:

• https://screenrant.com/activision-blizzard-sued-copyright-infringement-character-mara/
• https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/blurred-lines-final-verdict-copyright-case-court-robin-thicke-pharrell-marvin-gaye-payout-a8681381.html

Photographer Is Suing Kat Von D for Copyright Infringement

On February 7, 2021, a relatively well-known photographer, Jeff Sedlik, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D. Sedlik alleges that she used his copyrighted photograph without consent or permission.

According to the photographer, Kat Von D published an image of herself giving someone a tattoo to her Instagram page. The tattoo strongly resembled a photograph he took more than 30 years ago.

Dubbed as the Miles Davis photograph, the iconic image depicts a black gentleman holding his pointing finger over his lips as if to indicate or suggest a request for silence. For close to three decades, the image has been seen worldwide on covers and in magazines. The picture even graced the cover of Life Magazine. It is an image that is very familiar to most artists and creative professionals.

In his copyright infringement suit, Sedlick is demanding at least $150,000 in compensation.
He is also demanding that Kat Von D stop using his photograph in her work.

There is no denying that Kat Von D did use Sedlik’s photograph as a reference for the tattoo. At least at a glance, the completed tattoo has a distinct and highly similar likeness to the original photograph. But is this enough to hold Kat Von D liable for copyright infringement?

What Are Some Basic Rules of Copyright?

Copyright essentially bestows ownership over a creative or original work – especially when it comes to commercial endeavors. It is a “right to copy,” so to speak.

Copyright infringement refers to the act of using or replicating a protected, registered, or copyrighted work without first obtaining authorization or permission from the owner or holder of the same.

Under US law, a copyright is deemed registered when an application is filed with the US Copyright Office.

Understanding the repercussions of registration versus non-registration is crucial for enforcing your rights and obtaining compensation under copyright law. To protect your legal rights against infringement, consult with our experienced lawyers representing photographers.

What is Derivative Work Under Copyright Law?

Derivative work is essentially something that is based on a single or multiple set of preexisting works. In other words, if an original or existing image is recast, transformed, or adapted in a way that, as a whole, the new item represents the original, it may be deemed as a derivative.

Derivative works require authorization by the person who holds the copyright to the original work on which the derivative was based. By creating something derivative without permission or license, you might be committing copyright infringement.

But, determining what is and is not derivative and what is and is not infringement can be complicated.

Did Kat Von D’s Tattoo Violate The Photographer’s Copyright?

The outcome of the lawsuit, of course, remains to be seen. The case is still fresh and in its early stages. How it unfolds might change the copyright landscape for tattoo artists, photographers, and other creative professionals.

A tattoo itself has been the subject of copyright infringement. There was a case involving Mike Tyson’s face tattoo. His tattoo artist sued Warner Brothers for copyright infringement when a character in the Hangover 2 woke up with a replica of the tattoo he inked on Tyson’s face.
The parties resolved the case out of court.

The Kat Von D lawsuit is slightly different. Kat Von D is not being accused of copying an existing tattoo but a photograph. Transforming a photo into a tattoo takes special skill and artistry, but several things are not yet clear. Some questions the court might consider:

• Was the tattoo derivative of the original picture?
• Did she transform the picture into something completely original?
• Is creating a tattoo original in and of itself?
• Was the picture inspiration?

How the court decides to handle these questions might affect how we view copyright cases involving tattoo art in the future. With the popularity of tattoos, this case’s results might encourage an avalanche of copyright lawsuits involving tattoo art.

Contact Our Copyright Lawyers Today!

Here at Sanders Law Group, we pride ourselves on providing our creative clients with excellent legal services. Our experienced copyright infringement lawyers are committed to giving you outstanding legal support and services.

Contact us today at (800) 979-3707 or 516-233-1660 to set up a free copyright consultation without any commitment on your part. We are here to help ensure that your rights and your work are protected. When someone infringes on your copyright, we want you to collect the maximum damages you are entitled to. Call Sanders Law Group for copyright infringement help today.

Sources:

• https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/kat-von-d-is-being-sued-for-tattooing-a-photographers-image-without-permission#:~:text=Celebrity%20tattoo%20artist%20Kat%20Von,used%20his%20image%20without%20permission
• https://www.diyphotography.net/photographer-sues-kat-von-d-over-a-tattoo-of-his-30-year-old-photo/

Copyright Challenge For the New Administration

Holding the highest position in the country is not easy. But it is a great honor and steadfast commitment. Perhaps no one else can affect significant change or directly influence the momentum of history as the President of the United States.

Recently, Joe Biden was elected the 46th President. Just a few months into his presidency, US citizens, international entities, and lobby groups are already at his doorstep, calling for change.

One of those groups calls itself the Creative Coalition – an organization that works toward securing stronger protections for copyrighted materials.

If you are an artist, photographer, or another creative professional, you might be interested in what the Creative Coalition stands for and what they want from Biden’s administration.

What is The Creative Coalition?

The Creative Coalition is a self-proclaimed non-political, non-profit advocacy group consisting of people in the entertainment and creative arts industries. This Coalition primarily concerns itself with issues relevant to the American entertainment industry and, to some extent, general social issues.

At its core, The Creative Coalition advocates for the promotion of the arts and the preservation of free speech. The Creative Coalition also strongly supports quality public education and encourages others to embrace its importance.

What Does the Creative Coalition Want From President Biden?

In a letter signed by at least 350 people from the US entertainment industry, The Creative Coalition has essentially asked the President to support more robust copyright laws that protect and preserve the arts and the people who contribute their time and talent to creating original work.

Part of the purpose of their request for action, according to the Coalition, is that people are spending more time at home. This, they claim, has resulted in the resurgence and propagation of digital piracy.

The Coalition reports that digital piracy costs the economy billions in losses for creative professionals and others who lose revenue from such piracy. The Coalition encourages the administration to take decisive action against organized, criminal enterprises in particular. These groups that deliberately use and promote digital piracy for profit are sometimes tied to more serious illegal activities such as drug dealing and sex trafficking.

In their calls for action, the Coalition mentions three copyright laws that it wants Biden’s administration to bolster and support. The Protect Lawful Streaming Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

What is the Protect Lawful Streaming Act?

The Protect Lawful Streaming Act was signed by former President Donald Trump last December 2020. It was part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.

In essence, the Protect Lawful Streaming Act seeks to protect the ownership and copyright of people who create “streams “or streaming content. The law prohibits streaming copyrighted material without authorization, consent, or permission of the copyright holder or owner.

What makes this law somewhat unique is that it contains criminal penalties that the court can impose on those who violate the Act.

It bears stressing that the Protect Lawful Streaming Act seeks to hold accountable primarily larger enterprises such as internet platforms and websites. It does not necessarily intend to impose criminal penalties on individuals who perform or use streaming content in other platforms such as Twitch, for instance.

What is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a copyright law that was implemented in 1998.
It is the result of treaties between the US and other members of the World Intellectual Property Organization.

The DCMA focuses on managing digital rights and holding parties responsible for removing content on the Internet when it violates copyright law.

Because the DCMA is already 20 years old, the Coalition wants President Biden to support much-needed revisions and bring it up to speed with new technologies and services.

The Creative Coalition Seeks Commitment to Protect Copyright

In pursuit of support for the arts and creative professionals, the Creative Coalition seeks to provide better protection for copyrighted works. It recognizes that the act of producing original, creative work is not only a difficult process but a unique and extraordinary method of expression. The people who do this work deserve the right to control how their work gets used and receive compensation.

With hundreds of members from various segments of the entertainment industry, The Creative Coalition can be a very influential and powerful advocacy group. Their letter to President Biden re-enforces their evident commitment to ensuring the protection and enforcement of creative professionals’ legal rights.

Contact Our Copyright Lawyers Today

At the Sanders Law Group, our copyright infringement lawyers are dedicated to helping creative professionals collect damages when someone violates copyright law. Our lawyers take pride in representing photographers, artists, videographers, and writers and ensuring that creative artists receive the compensation they deserve.

To learn more about how we can protect your rights, call us today at 516-233-1660 or (800) 979-3707 for a free copyright consultation.

Source:

• https://thehill.com/policy/technology/539865-creative-industries-coalition-urges-biden-to-strengthen-copyright

Tracy Chapman v. Nikki Minaj: Copyright Infringement Involving Unpublished Minaj Song

The music industry is, without question, one of the most copyright lawsuit-ridden industries in the US. For the past couple of years, the legal world had seen some exciting–and most likely, frustrating–legal developments in the industry, so much so that one industry expert is beginning to claim that copyright lawsuits are now scaring away new hits. Whether real or not, the fact is that we are currently more likely to lean on the former than on the latter and the case of Nicki Minaj versus Tracy Chapman works to further bolster this point.

In 2018, Chapman filed a copyright lawsuit against Minaj, claiming that the song “Sorry” written and recorded by Minaj with the rapper Nas, copied portions of Chapman’s famous song “Baby Can I Hold You.” The case reached its end with Minaj paying Chapman a handsome fee to the tune of $450,000, including all costs and attorney fees. But the more interesting and juicier bit of this case was not the issue of copying or any similarities between the songs but rather this one crucial fact: the song “Sorry” was never officially released by Minaj to the general public.

Settlement Involving Defendant’s Unpublished But Leaked Work

Are you scratching your head yet? How an unpublished, creative work can become the subject of copyright infringement case is not only baffling but also frightening. Could this translate itself to the idea that a creator’s “creative process” is also within the law’s grasp? If so, how can a creator protect himself or herself?

Our experienced copyright lawyers believe that you, as a creator, should be protected at all costs. As such, we want to share with you relevant information so that you may arm yourself accordingly. Below are just some of the things you might want to know about copyright infringement cases in the music industry.

US Copyright Laws and Infringement in the Music Industry

US copyright laws protect owners of creative and original works by granting them the right of exclusive use to such works save for certain exceptions. An important condition for full protection is copyright registration, which is the process of obtaining a certificate of registration from the US copyright office. Once protected, the public will become unable to generally use such registered works without the creator’s permission.

In the music industry, the word “use” has been historically given much leeway compared to other industries, as you will see below.

The Chapman Lawsuit in Brief

Before the case’s very inception, Minaj had approached Chapman several times in the past to get permission to use the famous song in question, to which the latter had rejected every time. Minaj then recorded the song with Nas and had it shelved. Unfortunately, court records show that the song was allegedly leaked and was played on the radio studio of celebrity DJ Funkmaster Flex. How that came to be was a matter of dispute in court. Flex stated that he received the song from one of his bloggers, and Minaj denies ever leaking it to him.

But before the issue was resolved, Minaj’s lawyers offered to settle, stating that the only reason they were doing so was that it would have been too costly to see the case through.

Time can only tell us how this case will shape the legal landscape in the industry. But if you think that was scary, then this next case could be even more concerning.

The Blurred Lines Copyright Case

Everyone remembers the very famous–not to mention titillating–song “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. But what most people don’t know is that in 2013, the song had become the subject of a copyright battle involving Marvin Gaye and his 1977 song “Got to Give it Up.” Blurred Lines neither copied the song’s lyrics nor the notes or riffs of any instruments played therein. The heart of the issue? Blurred Lines copied the “vibe” of Gaye’s song.

Yes. “Vibe.”

As you may have guessed, this case sent shockwaves across the industry. Aftershocks in the form of copyright lawsuits came crashing about in a fury, which have cost artists millions since then.

And yet, the world is round, and indeed, things have a way of returning to the way they were. What happened next is somewhat of a testament to that.

The Zeppelin and Perry Copyright Cases

In 2014, Led Zeppelin, the famous rock band, was accused of copying parts of the 1968 song “Taurus” by the band Spirit and putting it in their signature song “Stairway to Heaven.” In a 73-page decision, the court ruled in favor of Zeppelin, stating that, in works involving generic or common elements, only a minimal or “thin” level of copyright applies and that to show infringement, the works in question must be “virtually identical.”

On a similar note, bubbly singer Katy Perry was also sued in 2014 for her song “Dark Horse,” which was claimed to have copied another song’s “hook” – a total of eight notes, to be exact. The court’s decision, in this case, would later come after Zeppelin’s, therein stating that the said eight notes were “not a particularly unique or rare combination” and, therefore, could not be protected by copyright law.

These two cases clearly changed the industry’s landscape, once again, with one expert claiming that the conclusion in these matters “have quickly reset the balance of power in music copyright cases.” Perhaps, but one has to wonder how or where the Minaj copyright case fits into the picture.

Where is the Line Drawn?

The case between Minaj and Chapman is a special one because of several facts:

1. It was a settled fact that Minaj approached Chapman for permission several times.
2. It was barely denied that there was copying of the famous song.
3. The song was never officially published but was only allegedly leaked.

Had the case gone through a trial, we might have seen some exciting positions and arguments. Still, the fact is that the Minaj case could open the doors to some very interesting copyright lawsuits in the near future.

As it currently stands, the lines to be drawn are still blurred, and, as creators, you can only hope for the best.

Contact Our Copyright Lawyers Today!

Copyright law is, without a doubt, one of the most important laws created by Congress. These are confusing times for everyone, including creative professionals, and 2021 might be even more confusing than the previous year.

At Sanders Law Group, our copyright infringement lawyers are dedicated to helping creative professionals collect damages when someone violates copyright law. We can also help you learn about these copyright issues to arm you with knowledge to help you in the future.

To learn more about how we can protect your rights, call us today at (800) 979-3707 to schedule a free copyright consultation.

Source:

• Kim, A. (11 March 2020). Led Zeppelin wins major copyright battle for ‘Stairway to Heaven.’ Retrieved at https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/10/entertainment/led-zeppellin-stairway-heaven-lawsuit-trnd/index.html on 4 February 2021
• O’Connor, R. (13 December 2018). Blurred Lines final verdict: Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams to Pay $5m to Marvin Gaye family. Retrieved at https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/blurred-lines-final-verdict-copyright-case-court-robin-thicke-pharrell-marvin-gaye-payout-a8681381.html on 4 February 2021
• Savage, M. (8 January 2021). Nicki Minaj Pays Tracy Chapman $450,000 after copyright case. Retrieved at https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55591957 on 4 February 2021

Copyright Issues that may Change Copyright Law as We Know It

Without a doubt, we are at the precipice of a digital and internet revolution. The year 2020 gave us a pandemic that not only changed our lives and the way we usually do things but also paved the way for the internet to transform in ways we could not have imagined.

Now it is 2021, and it seems like the surprises keep coming.

As copyright infringement lawyers and creative artists, we can try to prepare for some of the potential changes ahead, especially those that might affect our communities and clients. For people who create original work for a living, it is important to understand your ownership rights and the circumstances that allow other people to use your work. Here, we will share some exciting topics trending in Copyright law that might haves ramifications in the year ahead.

The CASE Act Becomes Law

Before 2020 ended, President Trump signed into law the CASE Act (Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement,) a law that modified US copyright laws to include a small claims court for smaller and “less significant” copyright issues.

The CASE Act essentially allows smaller artists and creators to pursue damages from a smaller, less formal, and less costly venue than US Federal Court. The CASE Act encourages smaller artists and creators to pursue copyright cases and dissuade infringers from preying on them.

But as with any new law, there are detractors and critics, and the CASE Act is no different. Some say that the systems and processes put in place by the CASE Act are useless and redundant. For example, the parties have the option to proceed with their matter in federal Court anyway. Yet, others praise it for its bold purpose.

Regardless, the CASE Act is still, in all respects, an infant law, and time will tell how it may or may not change the landscape of copyright cases in the future.

The Oracle v. Google Landmark Case

Landmark cases are rare, but Oracle v. Google might be one of them. Without a doubt, how the Court rules on this case can change many things in the digital property world.

For the unfamiliar, the case started in 2010 and involved the programming language Java, which Oracle owns. According to Oracle, Google used its programming language without undergoing the necessary procedure for obtaining permission for such use. Google, however, argues that there was no infringement. Google insists that it created the program from scratch and that any similarities are merely coincidental.

Why is this case so important? For one thing, the programming language involved in the case is an essential part of software development. What the Supreme Court decides might change the way individuals and corporations undertake the creation of software.

But, also important is the issue of fair use that was raised in the hearings. Almost all creators are familiar with the term fair use. Can the Court change our ideas of fair use practically overnight? Will its decision dampen the creation of original works? Or will it allow further exceptions to the term? Hopefully, we will get answers to these questions in the next couple of weeks.

The European Union’s (EU) Copyright Reform Laws

The US is not the only country with the power to change copyright laws. The EU has the implementation of new reforms underway.

One interesting thing to consider in these copyright reform laws is a proposal that service providers be responsible for filtering out copyright violations on their platforms and taking concrete steps concerning licensing and monitoring content. The EU is home to thousands of servers, most of which extend to the rest of the world, and this kind of arrangement will not only change how the continent accesses and views the internet but most likely the rest of the Asian continent, too. Of course, sovereignty also comes into play, and we will have to wait to see what happens after March of this year when all the EU member countries expect to implement the final reforms fully.

Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) Works Be the Subject of Copyright?

People are the source of creative and original works, yes, but what about robots with advanced artificial intelligence? Can AI “create” in every sense of the word? If so, can these creations be the subject of copyright?

According to the US Copyright Office, it will only consider registrations and applications from actual human beings. But where is the line drawn? If one creates an AI machine that can produce original works, can those works be registered by a human applicant?

It is hard to deny that AI is on the verge of becoming sentient. There are probably programs out there already that demonstrate AI’s ability to perceive and respond. AI machines can be programmed to create new and original works specifically. But, again, the question is, can these works be copyrighted?

Whichever the case, the next couple of years will probably provide us the answer. Another interesting thought to ponder is this: if AI can create original works, can that work be used as a measure of intelligence, sentience, and individuality? If so, can that qualify the AI as a human person? We will see what the answer is one day and what, if any, effect it has on copyright laws.

Copyrighted Works v. the Public Domain

Copyright protections expire. For many creative works already in existence, expiration is around the corner. When the dates expire, the pieces become part of the public domain, free for anyone to use.

Congress decided to extend the expiration date for 20 years, but the expiration date is near for many classic works. Between 1998 and 2018 no new works entered the public domain in the US.

What will happen when the copyrights on these masterpieces expire? Will there be new spinoffs? New adaptations and remakes? Commercial exploitation? Will cinema be flooded with various zombie films involving our favorite fictional characters?

It could be an exciting time for artists of all types to recycle and reuse some of these precious pieces of original work with a modern spin. The big one to look out for in the coming months is The Great Gatsby.

Contact Our Copyright Lawyers Today!

Copyright law is, without a doubt, one of the most important laws created by Congress. As technology, digitization, AI, innovation, and creativity have evolved, so too must copyright laws. We will have to see what the next few years bring and how copyright laws “catch up.”

At Sanders Law Group, LLP, our copyright infringement lawyers are dedicated to helping creative professionals collect damages when someone violates copyright law. To learn more about how we can protect your rights, call us today for a free copyright consultation.

Source:

• Bailey, J. (4 January 2021). 5 Copyright Stories to Watch in 2021. Retrieved at: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2021/01/04/5-copyright-stories-to-watch-in-2021/ on 5 February 2021

Nirvana V. Marc Jacobs – A Copyright Infringement Battle and The Smiley Face That Started It

The ongoing copyright battle between designer Marc Jacobs and rock band Nirvana has yet to come to a close. Jacobs recently countersued Nirvana, LLC, claiming that the copyright it claims to hold, is invalid.

The original lawsuit in question was filed in 2018 by Nirvana against Jacobs. The lawsuit emanated from Jacobs’ “Bootleg Redux Grunge” clothing collection featuring a design that looks similar to what has become the iconic Nirvana X-eye smiley face. Jacobs replaced the eyes of said smiley with Jacobs’ initials and changed the text of the design from “Nirvana” to “heaven.” The text on Jacobs’ line of clothing appears in the same font as Nirvana’s.

The Creation of Nirvana’s X-Eye Smiley Face Is Subject of Copyright Lawsuit

In 1991, Nirvana hosted a party to commemorate its first major album Nevermind. The party’s printed invitation is the earliest depiction of the X-Eye Smiley Face, and the band has used it in various ways since then. Nirvana registered “Happy Face,” a t-shirt design with the X-Eye Smiley Face, in 1993, under Copyright Registration No. VA0000564166. Marc Jacobs released a “Grunge” clothing collection during the same year, while he was Perry Ellis’ creative director.

In November 2018, honoring the 25th anniversary of his “Grunge” collection, Marc Jacobs released “Bootleg Redux Grunge,” which featured a similar design to the X-Eye Smiley Face. The x-eyes were replaced by the letters MJ. The clothing items featuring the face were sold in Marc Jacobs stores, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Neiman Marcus.

Nirvana Filed Copyright and Trademark Lawsuit in 2018

In December 2018, Nirvana, LLC, filed a complaint against Marc Jacobs International, Saks Incorporated, and the Neiman Marcus Group, claiming that the Defendants violated copyright and trademark law by selling clothing items showing the X-eye smiley face design.

However, Jacobs raised questions as to who was the real creator of the design. In depositions, parties stated that they do not know who came up with the design, despite originally claiming that it was Kurt Cobain who created the original.

Marc Jacobs: There is No Infringement

Part of Jacobs’ legal strategy claims that the smiley copyright was not properly registered while also alleging the designs are not similar. In another argument, the defense claims that Kurt Cobain, Nirvana’s late lead singer, did not design the logo despite what the copyright itself claims.

According to Jacobs’ lawyers, the smiley was created by art director Robert Fisher, who was not an employee of Nirvana. Fisher, the defendant claims, worked as a graphic artist for Geffen Records, Nirvana’s music label.

Jacobs also alleges that the smiley face is not protectable since “it is a ubiquitous symbol that consumers do not associate it with plaintiff (Nirvana) or a single anonymous source.”

In court papers, Jacobs did acknowledge that the doodle used in his collection was “inspired by vintage Nirvana concert T-shirts from the 1990s – the era of ‘grunge’ fashion.”

Nirvana Filed Lawsuit Against Graphic Designer Who Claims Ownership of X-Eye Smiley Face

Nirvana has also filed a separate lawsuit against Fisher because he has been claiming ownership of the smiley face since 2019.

In August 2020, Fisher filed a copyright registration for the smiley face and said Nirvana has been using the smiley face under an ‘implied’ license. Fisher also claims that he will terminate the alleged implied license starting January 1, 2021, after which time he will consider Nirvana to be infringing on his copyright.

Nirvana seeks declaratory relief stating that its US copyright that was registered in 1993 is valid and that Fisher’s copyright registration is invalid.

Contact Sanders Law Group, to Find Out You Are Entitled to Copyright Damages

Did you see your photograph being used by another company? Has your work been used as someone’s inspiration? If so, call us to find out if you have a copyright infringement claim.

Call our copyright infringement lawyers at Sanders Law Group to schedule a free consultation and determine if you have a copyright infringement claim.

We can also ensure your copyrights are registered, and your work remains under your control with ironclad licensing agreements. Call Leibowitz Law Firm at (800) 979-3707 today.

Sources:

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2019/11/27/nirvanas-happy-face-logo-who-owns-it-the-bands-marc-jacobs-lawsuit-raises-questions/?sh=4cf052226163
• https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/arts-entertainment/marc-jacobs-says-nirvana-doesnt-own-their-smiley-face-logo
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/marc-jacobs-says-nirvana-doesn-160952461.html
• https://www.thefashionlaw.com/amid-marc-jacobs-suit-nirvana-is-suing-the-art-director-who-claims-he-created-the-bands-smiley-face/

Understanding Copyright Law and How You Can Protect your Work

On August 20, 2020, Professional Sports Photographer Howard Shatz filed a case against the sports website Bleacher Report for allegedly using his photographs without his permission. Shatz claimed that the website, through the persons, groups, or corporations comprising the same, copied and reproduced his exclusive photographs, putting them up on their website without any form of recognition or attribution as to his name or ownership. Shatz claimed that Bleacher Report also tried to conceal the fact that they violated his copyright. As of this date, Shatz’s case is still pending resolution in court.

In today’s world, where everyone owns a smartphone with a camera, it is very easy to take good pictures and publish them online for the whole world to see. But what if you take a great picture, post it on your website or social media page, and then find it on a popular website the very next day? What can you do?

The Copyright Act of 1976 exists to protect original, creative works of various kinds, such as photographs and graphic design work. But how does the law actually protect these works? And how can you invoke such protection when your work is taken without your knowledge or consent?

To answer these questions, we need to discuss the basics of US copyright laws. For aspiring photographers, knowledge of these basic concepts may one day serve you well.

What is Copyright?

A copyright is basically the legal right of an owner to original work. The very word itself is a “right to copy,” which is exclusive to the person who created the work. For others to “copy” and use their work, permission or consent of the owner must be obtained first.

Under US law, a copyright exists from the moment the original work is created. Simply put, the moment you take a photograph, that photograph is protected by copyright. Understand, however, that this protection is limited. To fully benefit from the protection of the law, you should register your work with the US Copyright Office.

What is a Copyright Registration?

Copyright registration is the process of obtaining a certificate of registration from the US Copyright Office and putting the subject work into the public record. As said earlier, the benefits of registration include the full protection and remedies afforded by copyright laws and the laws of other countries with whom the US has copyright relations.

The most common benefit afforded by registration is the right to pursue copyright infringement lawsuits against those who copy your work without your permission. In fact, the necessity of registration was highlighted by the Supreme Court in a 2019 decision, stating that registration-not pre-registration or a mere application-is required to commence an infringement action.

Shatz, being an esteemed and world-renowned photographer, registered his works and was able to file an infringement case against Bleacher Report properly.

What is Copyright Infringement?

Copyright infringement is what happens when another person uses your work without your permission. In other words, the exclusive rights granted to you by your copyright are infringed, thereby giving you the right to pursue legal action and remedies against the infringer.

It warrants stressing and repeating that copyright registration is essential for you to pursue legal action for damages against an infringer. Absent registration, you might only be able to seek and enforce a restraining order or take other actions to stop the infringement. To be safe, register!

What is False Copyright Management Information?

Copyright management information is essentially any and all information connected to an original work that identifies or describes the owner as the one who created it. It is considered false when the information is manipulated to remove all traces of attribution of the original work to the owner who created the same.

In the Shatz case, Shatz included a claim of false copyright management in his complaint, stating that the Bleacher Report was in the position to know the copyright information but used means to conceal it.

Contact Our Copyright Infringement Lawyers Today

Copyright law is, without a doubt, one of the most important laws created by Congress. What we have provided you here is just a bird’s eye view of US Copyright law.

To learn more about your rights and get assistance from experienced copyright lawyers, call Sanders Law Group, today at (800) 979-3707 or submit the form on this page.

We offer free copyright infringement consultations at no risk to you.

Source:

• https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/bleacher-report-sued-for-using-photographs-without-permission/