Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

How to protect copyrights in choreography: Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office

Intellectual Property ("IP") is not my practice interest, but I was helping a non-profit with a project and wanted to share some of the bigger chunks of information I found. The non-profit is a dance company that wanted to know how to protect the IP rights of their performances.

The IP involved with choreography, or more broadly performing arts, is protected by copyright under the Copyright Act of 1976. Copyright owners have the (mostly) exclusive right to perform, display, and publish their work. A copyright owner could be the individual author, a separate claimant by agreement or employment, or an organization. Although copyright attaches at the authorship of a work, registration with the U.S. Copyright Office ("Office") is required prior to the pursuit of any infringement litigation. Unless a copyright is a work made for hire, a copyright endures for the life of the author plus seventy years. Unless a copyright is renewed, when the copyright period comes to an end the work will enter the public domain and will be available at anytime to anyone be used in anyway (without permission and without paying fees).

Published and unpublished dramatic works can be submitted for registration via electronic process at eCO. eCO's interface is enormously user friendly and has advantages over paper filing: quicker turnaround (approximately nine months contrasted to twenty-two), cheaper ($35 contrasted to $50), and allows the user to track the status of the application for registration. During the electronic application a copy of the work must be sent to the Office. In the case of choreography, the copy should either be a video or precise description of the work. If the work is published, two physical copies must be sent to the Office after submitting the electronic application for registration (eCO will produce a shipping slip to be included with the physical mail). If the work is unpublished, only one copy is necessary and can be submitted electronically via eCO.

After the application is submitted, the fee is paid, and a copy of the work (or copies in the case of a published work) is appropriately submitted to the Office, the Register of Copyrights ("Register") reviews the application and work. The applicant will either receive a certificate of registration with an official seal, or a notice of refusal. If the applicant receives a certificate, the registration is effective the day the application, the fee, and the copy of the work were received in acceptable form to the Office.

"Publication" vs. "Performance." While a dance recital with a public audience is a performance, it is not a publication. "Publication" in this regard requires the performance to be released in a medium to the general public without any knowledge of what that public's intent is as regards the distribution. So for example, if performances were to be placed on a DVD and sold online; this is publication. "Publication" is not satisfied, however, by releasing the performance in a medium to a known group of limited size which has a known and limited purpose for that distribution (that, in fact, is called a "limited publication").

A "Work Made for Hire." The duration of the copyright is slightly different, but who owns the copyright is completely different. To determine if a work is made for hire, first determine if the author is an employee or an independent contractor. An author might be an employee if the employer has control over the work and over the author. If the author is an employee, you must determine if the work was created within the scope of the author's employment. If you answered yes to both inquiries, then the work is probably a work made for hire. Alternatively, the author may be an independent contractor whose work was especially commissioned under an agreement where the work is exchanged for compensation, etc. If so, it must be determined if the work satisfies one of several statutory categories: "for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas." Again, if both inquiries are satisfied, then the work is probably a work made for hire. Unless an agreement exists saying otherwise, works made for hire give the both the authorship and the copyrights to the employer. Works made for hire are protected by copyright for ninety-five years from the date of publication or one hundred and twenty years from the date of creation (whichever occurs first).

The U.S. Copyright Office help line is accessible at (202) 707-3000 (M-F, 830a-5p EST).

Library of Congress ("Library"). Among the published works sent to the Office for registration, the Library has discretion over what it will include in its collection. The Library does not take unpublished works. Any published works accepted by the Office for registration that are not chosen by the Library will be retained on file with the Office for the life of the copyright.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Google Books - Satan's Library...

...or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Internet.

The Google Book Project has been controversial since it first began in October, 2004. My intention with this post, my last guest blawging here, is to give a very brief synopsis of the issues that are causing such consternation and to point out some of the more interesting arguments that are being presented. If it seems that I am in anyway biased towards Google that's because I am, I'd love to work in Google's legal department, and I love it when stuff is free (I have a long held belief that if you're paying for anything online then you're being robbed). Also, in 2007, while I was a student in University College Cork, I authored a paper entitled "Don't Be Evil - The Google 'Book Search' Project". The paper dealt with an examination of Google's "Book Search" Project and whether it would pass a "fair use" copyright test. I was pretty proud of my work, and it was even shortlisted for the prestigious Matheson Ormsby Prentice Undergraduate Prize in Information Technology Law. As a result, I have tried to keep an eye on the Project.

Issue

The primary issue that has everyone talking in recent months is Google's controversial deal to scan and digitize in copyright, but out of print works, including "orphan" works, i.e. works where it is almost impossible to identify the copyright holder(1). This has lead to investigations by the US government over their concern about the possibility of a Google monopoly over "orphan" works, and also generated a great deal of consternation amongst Google's rivals: Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo.

Arguments

Those against the deal argue that Google will have an inordinate amount of control over an enormous volume of information and that what is needed is strict regulation of this kind of activity(2). While those in favour of the deal are keen to point out that if Google has the resources and the capability to save "orphan" works then it should, even if the motivation is profit(3).

Conclusion

As I stated in the conclusion to my paper, "After all, as George Orwell wrote: “Who controls the past controls the future”, and Google could be said to be going a long way towards this end... Similarly it could be seen as creating the need for more responsibility from corporations such as Google, who are now effectively acting as the stewards of information for the public. But these worries might well be unfounded seeing as Google believes, at least informally, in the phrase: “Don’t be evil”.

Today, I would argue that more regulation is never a good thing (most governments aren't able to use the regulations already in place, let alone cluttering up the law libraries with even more). However, keeping a watchful eye on Google should be encouraged, and when I look at the debate that the deal has created I admit to smiling a little, because if Google does become evil in the future then thanks to the internet everyone is going to know about it.

You can find a copy of my paper HERE

Footnotes

(1) "Orphan" Works, Wikipedia Entry, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works
(2) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/28/google_book_research_corpus/
(3) http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=23506


Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Massive Tools become Industry Tools

What is the world coming to? Musicians everywhere are putting down their microphones/lip synching devices and squaring off against one another over the issue of punishing file sharers.

Following talk in Europe of disconnecting persistent file sharers from the internet, several artists, including Annie Lennox and Tom Jones, formed a group known as the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) and began to publicly oppose the major record labels' desire to punish individuals.(1) A rather brave move you would think and one that should have all major stakeholders (big labels, artists, government and consumers) reassessing their positions. In fact, in an ideal world this could have been the spark that ignited a flame of copyright reform.

Then along came James Blunt, whose soppy music and watery vocals would be enough to put out the Sun, and decided to throw in his two cents.(2) So now the debate has been obscured almost completely by the preening of various pro-Industry singers.

Lily Allen, the popular singer of "The Fear" and "Not Fair", showed her true colors when she piped in with a condemnation of file sharers, by plagiarising someone else's opinion!(3)

Essentially, the arguments on either side can be broken down into: Pro-Industry - every illegal download is equal to a lost sale and must be stopped at all costs because if no one ever paid then there's be no music by your favorite artist to listen to. Anti-Industry - the labels are being stubborn, downloads can do wonders for an artist when it comes to word of mouth publicity and severe punishment by the government of individuals just isn't groovy.

While the music world is divided today I'm sure that they'll all be best of friends again when it comes Christmas time and the world is looking for the next Charity Number One single. Until then, the final word has to go to Dan Bull. Watch the video. Amazing, something I would be willing to pay for online!



Footnotes

(2) James Blunt: Disconnecting Music Pirates is “Critical”
(LINK)
(3) File-Sharing Heroine Lilly Allen is a Copyright Hypocrite
(LINK)

A Treasure Trove of Frida Kahlo's Memories

There seems to be a large collection of Frida Kahlo’s possessions that will be soon up for sale, from her letters, jewelry, to sexual sketches she had made in a notebook. However, as the NYTimes reports, there is a big question of authenticity. While the artist’s copyright protected works may be in jeopardy, the bigger issue is fraud.

The New Yorker had an article a few years ago regarding Jefferson bottles of wine, wines that had belonged to Thomas Jefferson yet to be shipped to the US, that had been alleged to be found in a cellar in France. There were allegations that a famed wine collector was making counterfeit wines and bottling them in the original Jefferson bottles, for which people were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for.

While many people may not care that these wealthy art and wine enthusiasts are being scammed, to me it seems more important to point out that not only is fraud occurring, but that these fine names of artisans are being diluted with fakes. I seem to oscillate between copyright protection and reinventing copyright law [re: Girl Talk blawg]. However, there is a distinction between fraudulent reproduction for economic gain and a remixing, reincorporation of art to create new art. The latter is not attempting to pass off their appropriation as the original artist’s, but rather their own. So which is worse? The plagiarist or the imitator?

Monday, September 21, 2009

Piracy - The Who, The How and the Y

“The average man will bristle if you say his father was dishonest, but he will brag a little if he discovers that his great-grandfather was a pirate.”(1)

For my first post I would like to shed some light on the topic of internet piracy. It is a topic that is surrounded by much controversy and misinformation and so this discussion may prove useful to people who would like to know, just how serious the "problem" of piracy is.

THE WHO

"Pirate" is a very subjective word. For some it conjurs up romantic images of adventure on the open seas, for others it means blood-thirsty criminality. The copyright industry has made very skillful use of the word in applying it to people who download music/film/tv via the internet. However, calling a teenager who sits in front of a computer and clicks on a mouse a pirate is ludicrous when you consider that an accurate definition of a pirate is "A robber on the high seas; one who by open violence takes the property of another on the high seas; especially, one who makes it his business to cruise for robbery or plunder; a freebooter on the seas; also, one who steals in a harbor"(2). The fact is that the whole copyright regime is predicated on using words in non-traditional ways. The word "theft" is another example, defined as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property"(3), and yet the copyright industry insists that theft of copyright needs neither a taking nor a removing (the original digital copy never leaves its server).

Regardless, subverting words is popular amongst lobbyists whose job it is to see that legislation enacted is favorable to their position. The system of government in the USA is designed for this to be the case. However, I would argue that the copyright industry may be going too far in their attempts to protect their rights, to the extent that blatant lies are being told.

One particular example is the recent news (LINK) from the UK that claimed 7 million British people engage in online piracy. A huge number for a country with a population of approximately 60 mllion. After an investigation by the BBC it was discovered that the 7 million figure was arrived at after relying on a previous study carried out on behalf of the British Music Industry, as well as a habit of drastically rounding up statistics. The most troubling aspect of this story is that the report was commissioned by the UK government.

So in answer to the first question, who are the pirates? They are an indeterminate number of people with internet access instead of parrots, but who do probably have scurvy from a lack of fresh fruit.

THE HOW

Internet piracy covers many acts, including but not limited to; downloading songs, downloading movies, downloading tv shows, circumventing DRM measures, uploading copyright material, etc.
As for the how? All you need is a computer, an internet connection and the ability to use a search engine.

On my own blog I give the following example:

"According to Nielsen ratings...the most popular cable television show in America is "The Closer, starring Kyra Sedgwick, with almost 7 million viewers. When you enter the search term 'watch "the closer" online free" in Google you return 963,000 hits. Clicking on some of these links will bring you to websites where full episodes have been posted by other individuals. You can watch these episodes, hosted on websites such as youtube and dailymotion, for free, without commercial breaks and whenever you choose."(4)

THE Y

I am 25 years old and so I have been lumped in with the geoup of people known as Generation Y, AKA the Millenial Generation, Generation Next and, my particular favorite, the Echo Boomers(5).

We are generally computer savvy but are more vulnerable to the present economic downturn (LINK).

Oh, and we're not actually stupid. Although the copyright industry's new approach (LINK) to the prevention of copyright theft would suggest that we had no idea that when you pay full price for an artist's album you are actually supporting them and the music that you love. Gone is the heavy hand of the copyright industry of old, the one that would have you arrested for "facilitating" the theft of copyright material(6), replaced it seems with a "oh you silly misguided fool, can't you see how your actions are hurting the ones you love?"

Of course the copyright industry has once again misrepresented the situation. Most profit is generated from ticket sales to concerts, not the sale of individual cd's (7). The copyright regime is not encouraging the creative talent of artists, instead it is devoted to ensuring massive payouts to the industry that is charged with distributing the final product (intended to recoup a cost that is now largely irrelevant since the internet makes it so much easier and cheaper to distribute digital material).

CONCLUSION

So there you have it. Internet piracy is whatever you want it to be. Provided you are the copyright industry. A true case of might makes right. It's enough to make you say "Aaargh".


Footnotes

(1) http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_average_man_will_bristle_if_you_say_his/331231.html

(2) http://define.com/pirate

(3) http://define.com/theft

(4) http://internet-televisionlaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/conspiracy-theory.html

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y

(6) http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9066/tvlinks_shut_down_owner_arrested/

(7) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031107/1134211_F.shtml

NOTE: My thanks go out to Stephanie for her patience while I got my act together, and for the opportunity to contribute to Our Forward Movement.