Category Archives: Legal

Politicizing copyright use

Posted on by

Various outlets are reporting that former Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued a YouTube apology to Talking Heads’ singer David Byrne for using the song “Road to Nowhere” without permission as part of Crist’s 2008 senatorial campaign.  Quoting from the ABA Journal:

In a written statement [dated 11 April 2011], Byrne said he had been surprised to learn that such unauthorized use of a song isn’t all that unusual, and said that he was "feeling very manly" about having protested rather than simply let the issue go.

"Other artists may actually have the anger but not want to take the time and risk the legal bills. I am lucky that I can do that," he stated. "Anyway, my hope is that by standing up to this practice maybe it can be made to be a less common option, or better yet an option that is never taken in the future." [emphasis added]

Such explicitly political use of artists’ music certainly has a long history.  Just a few weeks ago, the ABA Journal published an article by L.J. Jackson titled “Musicians Chafe at Politicians’ Misappropriations of Their Work” which demonstrates that

Crist’s legal problems are not unique.

In 1984, Bruce Springsteen made headlines when he objected to President Ronald Reagan’s use of his hit "Born in the U.S.A." as an anthem for his re-election campaign. The rock icon accused Reagan of subverting the true meaning of the song and playing it at rallies without his consent.

Those were the good old days, when an artist’s biggest campaign concern was a candidate using their tunes to pump up the crowd (permitted with a blanket performance license). But times, they are a-changing, and the proliferation of viral videos, YouTube, and Facebook has opened a Pandora’s box of copyright problems for politicians seeking pop-culture cred. [emphasis added]

Jackson doesn’t elaborate on the “blanket performance license” point, but it’s a major one that bears unpacking.  If a politician has the relevant blanket performance licenses from the relevant performance rights organizations (PROs), (s)he is allowed to play recording artists’ music at campaign rallies.  It doesn’t matter if the artist dislikes that particular politician any more than if (s)he dislikes a particular local radio DJ:  the politician (and the DJ) still have permission to play.

I think there are solid policy justifications for allowing such blanket licenses (and thus largely foreclosing artists’ ability to object to particular uses).  Aside from the enormous transaction costs that would be involved with case-by-case negotiation and approval, music clearly lies at the center of mainstream American culture.  Given music’s powerful emotional resonances which often extend well beyond the intent and control of the original artists, allowing artists to withhold public performance of their recorded music by particular non-profits, schools, businesses, or political campaigns seems perverse at best.  In extreme cases, such denials may even be tantamount to private censorship.

Whether you agree with my policy justifications or not, however, the fact remains that blanket performance licenses for live events already exist.  Thus, the question really is this:  why is the Internet any different?  What makes “viral videos, YouTube, and Facebook…a Pandora’s box of copyright problems” where none exist in the physical world of live campaign rallies, sporting events, or trade shows?

I submit that there really is no difference.  The same transaction cost and First Amendment justifications for blanket performance licenses apply with equal weight to Internet media.  To me, any policy difference appears to be simply a historical artifact.

A blogger at Clancco asks:

I wonder what the “free culture” lobbyists have to say about fair use, free culture, and the world is our public domain oyster when it comes to a Republican politician using an artist’s song without the artists permission? We certainly know what Byrne thinks…and it’s not good for Republicans.

I don’t know what “the ‘free culture’ lobbyists” would say, but my response is this:  the political affiliation of the music’s user should not matter one iota.  We can certainly have a policy debate, but that doesn’t mean the debate must (or should) be political.

Lessig keynote at ABA’s Techshow

Posted on by

Yesterday, Larry Lessig gave the keynote at the American Bar Association’s Techshow 2011, available on YouTube here.  (ABA Journal write-up here.)

I’m watching it right now and will post additional thoughts when I’m done…

Update:  Much of Lessig’s presentation covers the same material he presented before WIPO last November.  However, the last part of his speech (direct link) talks a little bit about why Lessig thinks that IP policy in America is so wrong.  In brief, Lessig argues that special interest content providers have essentially “bought” Congress’ support of draconian enforcement.

Two steps for lower taxes

Posted on by

With taxes due in less than a week, Derek Thompson over at The Atlantic has some solid advice for “beating the Tax Man at his own game”:

First, be self-employed. Second, be very rich.

Among other reasons that the article notes, “money buys access to the smartest accountants and tax attorneys, who have scoured the labyrinthine tax code for the best nooks and crannies to shelter income.”

It may not be the most efficient allocation of overall resources, but it sure does offer a compelling individual ROI.

Righthaven drops another case

Posted on by

Righthaven comes up a lot here at Legally Sociable, and I’ve mentioned their suit against Brian Hill, a 20-year-old blogger with autism and severe diabetes, before.  In another victory for defendants in Righthaven lawsuits, Ars Technica reports that Righthaven is dropping its suit against Brian, after the judge noted that enabling a cheap, easy settlement “is not my primary concern”:

Though the case was moving forward, Righthaven made clear it wasn’t actually interested in litigating the suit; it wanted to settle. “Righthaven is no longer willing to engage in settlement discussions over trivial issues while the Defendant and his counsel seek to extend this action for publicity purposes,” said the company. With settlement not a possibility, the company now just wants the suit to go away. [emphasis added]

Indeed, Righthaven’s lawsuits are starting to drop like flies.  It was just two weeks ago that Righthaven dismissed a suit against the freelance author of another Ars Technica article that covered Righthaven’s litigation antics.  In dropping the suit against Ars’ reporter, Righthaven claimed it was all just a mistake:

“We took immediate corrective action” after learning that Righthaven had just sued a reporter, said [Righthaven lawyer Shawn] Mangano. He added that, since reporters make use of copyright and tend to know a good deal about fair use, “It’s somewhat counterintuitive to sue a reporter for copyright infringement!”

While I certainly applaud Righthaven’s decision to drop these two particularly suits, I have to wonder about the outcomes in the other 260+ lawsuits they have filed over the past year.

Dictionary.com defines “bully” as “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.”  This definition appears to describe Righthaven perfectly; indeed, it is only when a defendant proves not to be “smaller or weaker” that they tuck tail and run.  Clearly, Righthaven didn’t think it was worth fighting a reporter backed by one of the largest magazine publishers in the U.S. or a highly sympathetic blogger with a clearly competent lawyer (PDF).  However laudatory in result, its dismissals in these cases seem to confirm that Righthaven is not truly defending a principled (if overzealous) view of copyright law.  Instead, Righthaven appears to be a garden-variety bully out to shake down the small and weak for four-digit settlements.

Copyright reform, anyone?

Update 4/12/2011:  Joe Mullin at paidContent has additional information about the Hill dismissal:

In a 3-page motion, Righthaven tries to let Hill off the hook but maintains a complainy sort of tone….Judge Kane responded to that by taking another extraordinary action—he actually ordered Righthaven’s “warning” to be stricken from the record entirely, along with all the company’s complaints about Hill’s bad behavior. That part of the filing was “immaterial and impertinent,” Kane wrote. That’s a strong suggestion that Kane has become quite annoyed by Righthaven’s tone and actions in this case.

Wow.  I think I’d be quite worried about sanctions if I were representing Righthaven in this case.

Further reading (hat tip to paidContent):

  • Order Denying Righthaven Extension, April 7 [Scribd]
  • Righthaven Notice of Dismissal, April 10 [Scribd]
  • Order To Strike, April 11 [Scribd]

Documenting fair use

Posted on by

Documentary.org has a wonderful write-up by Tamsin Rawady and Alex Buono about fair use in the documentary film setting.  As the writers/producers of Bigger Stronger Faster, a documentary about pop cultural influences driving performance-enhancing drug use, they grappled with how to tell their story legally:

The first problem we encountered is that it seemed like Fair Use was sort of an urban legend: Does it really exist? Can you really use archival clips without licensing them? And does anyone understand how this all works?

Fortunately, Rawady and Buono retained excellent legal counsel who were able to walk them through the issues and get them a highly defensible final cut, though even that wasn’t easy:

After the film has been released, expect to get calls from copyright holders upset about your use of their footage. Most copyright holders have never heard of Fair Use, and you should allow some money in your budget to have your attorney call and talk through the evidence you have. If you have been responsible in your Fair Use decisions, most complaints will only require one phone call from your attorney to make them go away. We encountered a handful of copyright holders from some very large corporations who were not pleased that their clips had been used in our film, but we were well prepared by our attorneys and had no problem avoiding any legal claims. [emphasis added]

I’m certainly happy that it worked out better for Bigger Faster Stronger than it did for Slaying the Dragon:  Reloaded.  Rawady and Buono’s story reminds us that, in law as in life, (1) an ounce of prevention is often worth a pound of cure and (2) the best (fair use) defense is a good (proactive) offense.

Further resources and reading:

A picture of civility

Posted on by

Carolyn Wright over at Photo Attorney has some good reminders for copyright owners who are contemplating filing lawsuits against infringers:

While most photographers will contact an infringer either directly or through an attorney to attempt to resolve an infringement claim before filing suit, the law doesn’t require it. Instead, you may file your copyright infringement lawsuit immediately after finding the infringement without ever contacting the infringer.  But it’s usually best to first contact an infringer for a variety of reasons…. [emphasis added]

Carolyn cites the expense of litigation, needless escalation of conflict, alienation of a former/future client, and (potentially) mistaken accusation as reasons to talk to a suspected infringer before filing a lawsuit.

As in so many areas of life and law, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.  An overly litigious, scorched-earth approach to copyright enforcement rarely results in good outcomes, even (especially?) for copyright owners.

I applaud Carolyn’s civil approach to resolving copyright conflicts.  I can only wish that everyone took her talk-first, file-later approach.

It’s Friday, I’m in Love (With Copyright Law)

Posted on by

You’re no doubt one of the multi-millions who’ve seen Rebecca Black’s viral video Friday.  Or the “Bob Dylan” cover.  Or the Colbert-Fallon cover.

Anyway, you’ve probably seen it in one form or another.

Writing for The Hollywood Reporter, Aaron Moss (partner at Greenberg Glusker) provides a thorough analysis of the copyright issues surrounding the song itself and a brewing legal dispute between Black’s family and Ark Music Factory.  Over the course of the article, Moss cites the following rights/licenses implicated by Black’s viral video and its subsequent marketing:

  • copyright in the sound recording
  • copyright in the composition
  • mechanical license
  • digital phonograph delivery license
  • synchronization license
  • master use license
  • public performance license (in the composition)
  • digital public performance license (in the sound recording)

Confused yet?  You’re probably supposed to be.  As Moss puts it in the section explaining that the copyright in the sound recording and the copyright in the composition are two completely separate rights:

This rather unintuitive concept, by itself, has been enough to pay countless lawyers’ salaries over the years.

Or as Moss notes as an aside when explaining the concept of digital performance licenses:

As a result of the way copyright law has developed — which is to say, ad hoc, aimlessly, in fits and starts, and with plenty of lobbyist influence…

I highly recommend reading Moss’ entire piece.  It’s a good reminder of just how convoluted contemporary copyright law is and just how many actors (artists, session musicians, engineers, label personnel, etc.) may have to agree in order to exploit an existing song in a new way.

The (statutory) damage is done

Posted on by

I covered the Tenenbaum case earlier in a few posts here earlier this week, but I decided to step back and do a bit a broader analysis in a guest post over at the Citizen Media Law Project blog.  Check it out.

Going rogue

Posted on by

Wired’s Nate Anderson has a great write-up over at Ars Technica of the “Legitimate Sites v. Parasites” hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee today, and it’s not looking good for Internet intermediaries:

[T]he general mood of the hearing was that tough new steps must be taken. As Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) asked [Immigration and Customs Enforcement director John] Morton during his questioning, “What change in the law would allow you to pursue everyone?”

In his written testimony before the committee (PDF), Kent Walker, Google’s Senior VP and General Counsel noted that such an all-inclusive approach would be impossible and counterproductive:

When it comes to offshore rogue sites, no one should think that imposing additional obligations on search engines, social networks, directories, or bloggers beyond the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] will be a panacea. If the site remains on the web, neither search engines nor social networks nor the numerous other intermediaries through which users post links can prevent Internet users from talking about, linking to, or referencing the existence of the site. These links or references will themselves appear in search results, and will enable users to reach the site. Simply put, search engines are not in a position to censor the entire Internet, deleting every mention of the existence of a site. If a rogue site remains accessible on the Internet, relying on search engines to try to make it “unfindable” is an impossible endeavor. [emphasis added]

I recommend reading Walker’s full comments for a robust defense of why the notice-and-takedown immunity provided by the DMCA is essential for innovation.

Additional coverage by Politico, Techdirt, CNET, TorrentFreak, RIAA Blog…

Tenenbaum oral arguments on YouTube

Posted on by

Having attended the oral arguments before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al v. Tenenbaum yesterday and analyzed my initial impression here, I was pleased to see that the court posted (MP3) the audio of the oral arguments on its website.

Unfortunately, it is often difficult to tell who is speaking given the bare audio.  Therefore, I have decided to post the audio on YouTube and annotate it so that listeners can know who is speaking when.  I hope many find this helpful.

Here are the links, in 5 parts:

The argument was before a panel of three First Circuit judges:

  • Sandra L. Lynch, Chief Appellate Judge
  • Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge
  • Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge

For even more fun, you can download the briefs here to follow along with the audio.  Happy analysis!