In 1709 the Statute of Anne created the first purpose-built copyright law. This blog, founded just 300 short and unextended years later, is dedicated to all things copyright, warts and all. To contact the 1709 Blog, email Eleonora at eleonorarosati[at]gmail.com
The UK Copyright Officers survey – deadline 3rd April
If you work at a UK library and educational/cultural institution, your organisation is warmly invited to take part in a survey about copyright officers and copyright education here. The survey is available until 3rd April.
The UK Copyright Literacy page states that the research is regarding “copyright officers or similar specialists in UK libraries and educational / cultural institutions. We want to find out more about the value and status of these positions, the responsibilities that they entail and the ways in which copyright education is delivered. … The findings should be of interest to organisations wishing to benchmark the copyright training and advice services they currently offer.”
Even if your UK library and educational/cultural institution does not have a dedicated copyright officer, your organisation is still invited to participate, as there are questions designed to determine how copyright is managed in the absence of a designated copyright post.
Australia NOT to grant safe harbour to Google, Facebook, at al.
The Australian government had recently been seeking to extend its safe harbour provisions to online intermediaries (including Google and Facebook) that rely on user-generated content. The move would have given immunity to online intermediaries for infringing content uploaded onto platforms by users.
Across Europe and the U.S., online intermediaries already enjoy such a safe harbour (European legislation can be viewed here, American here). However, safe harbour provisions have generated much heated debate, with copyright holders arguing that it has led to the copyright ‘value gap’. For example, rights holders have argued that platforms that benefit from the safe harbour rule facilitate nearly half of all music consumption on the internet but represent only around 4% of the revenue generated by the industry.
Also, platforms are only under an obligation to remove infringing content when notification is given by the rights-holder. This leaves copyright holders in the position of eternally having to search YouTube, Facebook et al. for instances of infringement – an eternal game of ‘whack-a-mole’. This topic is coveredhere and here, and reports on controversial measures proposed by the EU to overcome the ‘value gap’ can be found here.
TorrentFreak reports that “Due to what some believe amounts to a drafting error in Australia’s implementation of the Australia – US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), so-called safe harbor provisions only apply to commercial Internet service providers.” This means that platforms allowing the upload of user-generated content may be found liable for infringing content uploaded by 3rd parties.
Communications Minister Mitch Fifield confirmed in a statement that the amendment had been dropped: “Provisions relating to safe harbour were removed from the bill before its introduction to enable the government to further consider feedback received on this proposal whilst not delaying the passage of other important reforms”.
Lobbying from a consortium on copyright holders to drop the safe harbour amendment has been intense. The Australian has published a series of articles against implementation of the safe harbour rule, arguing that Google et al. are “ruthlessly exploiting” safe harbour rules in the US and Europe (no links are available as the content is behind a paywall).
What are the implications for platforms that allow 3rd parties to upload content?
There is legal uncertainty – platforms may be found liable for any acts of infringement by their users. There are a number of options from which the platforms can choose;
1.Run the risk of being found liable of copyright infringement because of the actions of 3rd party users, having to pay penalties to copyright holders.
2.Enter into agreements with copyright holders on a pre-emptive basis, licensing content that 3rd party users might upload onto the platform.
3.Implement filtering technology, identifying and blocking infringing content when it is uploaded. (This is also a live issue in Europe.)
4.Exit the Australian market altogether.
The exemption from liability enjoyed by platforms is an important issue worldwide, and it should be interesting to observe how events unfold in Australia in the coming months.
There are more stairs? – Stairway to Heaven saga continues
This saga has previously been reported on the 1709 blog here and on the IPKat here. This case deals with the potential infringement of a song by Spirit, ‘Taurus’, by Led Zeppelin in their ‘Stairway to Heaven’.
A 90 page brief was recently filed to the 9th Circuit Appeals court by the agent of Michael Skidmor, trustee of Spirit guitarist, Randy Woolfe (California). The brief asks the court to reverse the previous finding, where the jury found unanimously in favour of Led Zeppelin in June 2016. This brief also asks for remand for a new trial, including striking the bill of costs.
Copykat will issue updates as and when they come.
By Alf van Beem (Own work), via Wikimedia Commons
Compulsory Licences for “cable systems” do not apply to TV streamers
The 9th Circuit delivered its ruling in the Fox Television Stations v Aereokiller case on 21 March. The case relates to the TV streaming services provided by FilmOn.
FilmOn provides a service that uses antennas to capture over-the-air broadcast programming – much of it copyrighted – and then uses the internet to retransmit this programming, utilising both subscription and ad-based methods of revenue generation. Essentially, it enables you to watch TV on your computer.
The dispute centred on section 111 of the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 111), which provides that a “cable system” is eligible for a compulsory license. Such a compulsory licence allows “cable systems” to retransmit “a performance or display of a work” originally broadcast by someone else without having to secure the consent of the copyright holder.
In order to maintain its compulsory licence, the “cable system” must pay a statutory fee to the Copyright Office – as well as complying with other regulations.
FilmOn contended that its services fall under the “cable system” definition and it should therefore be granted a compulsory licence.
A group of broadcasters (including, inter alia, Fox, NBC Universal, ABC, CBS and Disney Enterprises Inc.) argued that the services provided by FilmOn do not fall under the definition of “cable system” as provided under § 111 and it should therefore not be granted a compulsory licence.
A statement on page 7 the ruling sheds further light on why this issue was so hotly contested by the parties:
“Compulsory licences are highly coveted, in no small part because, according to the Copyright Office, the royalty payments the Act requires cable companies to pay are “de minimis” when compared to the gross receipts and revenues the cable industry collects, a gap suggesting that the government-set rates fall well below market levels.”
Unfortunately, court found itself at an impasse: “The text of § 111 is written in broad terms, and both sides can make plausible arguments about the statute’s purposes and legislative history.”
The court goes on to state “that the meaning of § 111 is ambiguous on the precise question before us”.
To overcome this impasse, the decision hinged on arguments brought by the Copyright Office and the weight the court was willing to give those arguments. The court utilised the Skidmore framework (precedent that allows the court to rely on the arguments of a government agency in cases where there is no clear law).
The Copyright Office argued that FilmOn’s services do not fall under the definition of “cable systems”. Historic Copyright Office arguments have posited “that a provider of broadcast signals [must] be an inherently localized transmission media of limited availability to qualify as a cable system.” Significantly, Congress has for years been aware that the Copyright Office views internet-based retransmission services as not falling under the definition of “cable systems” and has never moved to amend or comment upon this view.
The arguments presented by the Copyright Office were therefore afforded significant deference in this case, since the statute was found to be ambiguous on the issues at stake and the Copyright Office proffered cogent arguments to address matters. The court noted that “To the extent the legislative history provides relevant evidence of § 111’s meaning, we would defer to the Copyright Office’s interpretation of it, seeing as the Copyright Office has a much more intimate relationship with Congress and is
institutionally better equipped than we are to sift through and to make sense of the vast and heterogeneous expanse that is the Act’s legislative history.
In summary, it was on the strength of the arguments brought by the Copyright Office, that court found that “a service that captures copyrighted works broadcast over the air, and then retransmits them to paying subscribers over the Internet without the consent of the copyright holders, is not a “cable system” eligible for a compulsory license under the Copyright Act.”
This story will continue, as FilmOn is arguing two similar cases at the D.C. Court of Appeals and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal.
In a reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Commercial Court of Vienna, the CJEU was asked to determine whether the transmission of broadcasts by “communal antenna installations” is
subject to the authorisation of the relevant rightholder in that it falls within the scope of
Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive.
cable retransmission within the reception area of the original broadcast
In a ruling on 16
March 2017 the CJEU seems to answer this question in the affirmative. If this
is indeed the case, it constitutes a new ‘game changer’. It implies that there
would no longer be a need to pay for the cable retransmission of national
television programmes from for example the Dutch national public broadcaster
NPO and the commercial broadcasters RTL and SBS.
the CJEU, there is no copyright-relevant ‘communication to the public’ in the
case of "simultaneous, full and unaltered transmission of programmes
broadcast by the national broadcasting corporation, by means of cables on
national territory […] provided that it is merely a technical means of
communication and was taken into account by the author of the work when the
latter authorised the original communication". In this case, according to
the Court, there is no ‘new public’, and therefore no copyright-relevant
communication which requires separate permission from the rightholders.
In the early
1980s, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge
Raad) ruled that in the case of cable retransmission within the
reception area, there is a ‘communication to the public’. The Dutch Supreme
Court decided that a ‘new public’ was not required; the only thing that
mattered was if there was another ‘organization’ involved, for example the operator
of a central antenna installation. Later, the copyright status of cable
retransmission was codified in aseparate
years the CJEU has introduced the ‘new public’ criterion again, but reframed
the criterion and explained that in most cases there is a ‘new public’. In
cases of cable retransmission or broadcasts in hotels, cafes, spas and
rehabilitation centres, there is always a ‘new public’ that was ’not taken into
account by the author of the work when the latter authorised the original
retransmission of a TV signal within the reception area of the original
broadcast was, according to the Court, relevant to copyright anyway because
this was a different
transmission technology. Whether or not a new public is reached
would be irrelevant here.
suddenly the CJEU has found that people in Austria who just watch the public
service channel via cable, have already been taken into account in the
satellite and terrestrial broadcast, and therefore no permission or payment is
required for this type of transmission. This is an understandable argument in
itself, but it is certainly contrary to what has been assumed in the
legislation and case law over the past twenty to thirty years. The ‘other
technique’ of cable retransmission is apparently irrelevant. The CJEU
decided in this case without the opinion of the Advocate-General in a small chamber,
so maybe it is a slip. If not, this could be a real game changer in the area of
The US Supreme Court held on March 22, 2017
that a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for
copyright protection “if, when identified
and imagined apart from the useful article, it would qualify as a pictorial,
graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or when fixed in some other
tangible medium.” The case is Star
Athletica LLC v .Varsity Brands. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion of the
Conceptual Separability is Much Safer
Readers of this blog may
remember that this case is about whether cheerleading uniforms can be
protected by copyright. Both parties are creating and selling cheerleading
uniforms. Varsity Brands has registered some 200 copyrights for two-dimensional
designs appearing on the surface of their uniforms and other garments. It sued
Star Athletica for copyright infringement, claiming that its competitor had copied
five of its designs protected by copyright. The Western District Court of
summary judgment to Star Athletica, reasoning the designs could not be protectable
by copyright, as they could not be separated from the utilitarian function of
the uniforms (see here
for more). On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed,
finding Varsity's designs to be copyrightable graphic works. The Supreme Court
Useful articles cannot be protected by
copyright, but a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work incorporated in the
useful article can be protected if it is separable from the useful article. However,
such design must be capable of being “identified
separately from, and [must be] capable of existing independently of the
utilitarian aspects of the article,” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The design can be
physically separable or “conceptually separable” from its utilitarian aspect. Physical
separability occurs if the feature seeking copyright protection can “be physically separated from the article by
ordinary means while leaving the utilitarian aspects of the article completely
intact,” Compendium§924.2(B). This is easily understandable, but conceptual separability, which applies if physical separability by
ordinary means is not possible, is the stuff [bad] dreams [of IP
attorneys] are made of. Or, at least, it was, as today’s opinion signals its
The first part of the new test requires
that the design seeking copyright protection must be able to be perceived as a
two or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article. This was
the case here. Justice Breyer dissented from the majority, reasoning that the
designs on the cheerleading uniforms are not separable because if one would
remove them from the uniforms and place them on another medium of expression,
such as a canvas, it would create “pictures of cheerleader uniforms.” But Justice
Thomas wrote that this does not prevent these deigns to be protected by
“[j]ust as two-dimensional
fine art corresponds to the shape of the canvas on which it is painted,
two-dimensional applied art correlates to the contours of the article on which
it is applied.A fresco painted on a
wall, ceiling panel, or dome would not lose copyright protection, for example,
simply because it was designed to track the dimensions of the surface on which
it was painted” (p. 11).
The second part of the new test requires
that the design must be able to exist apart from the utilitarian aspect of the
article, as its own pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. If it can’t, then
it is one of the useful article's utilitarian aspects. Thus, the design itselfcannot be
itself a useful article (p. 7).
This interpretation is consistent with Mazer
v. Stein, a 1954 Supreme Court case studied by all U.S. copyright students.
Justice Thomas noted that two of its holdings are relevant in our case (p. 9). The Court held in 1954 that a work of art which
serves a useful purpose can be protected by copyright. In the case of Mazer v. Stein, it as was statue which
served as a lamp base. The Court also held in 1954 that a work of art is
copyrightable even if it was first created as a useful article. Justice Thomas
specified that, in our case, the Court interpreted the Copyright Act in a way
which is consistent with Mazer v. Stein
as today’s opinion “would afford
copyright protection to the statuette in Mazer regardless of whether it was
first created as a standalone sculptural work or as the base of the lamp.”
R.I.P. conceptual separability test.
Justice Thomas explains it is no longer needed, as “[c]onceptual separability
applies if the feature physically could not be removed from the useful article... Because separability does not require the underlying useful article to remain,
the physical-conceptual distinction is
Justice Thomas clarified the scope of the
opinion as such:
“To be clear, the only feature of the
cheerleading uniform eligible for a copyright in this case is the
two-dimensional work of art fixed in the tangible medium of the uniform fabric.
Even if respondents ultimately succeed in establishing a valid copyright in the
surface decorations at issue here, respondents have no right to prohibit any
person from manufacturing a cheerleading uniform of identical shape, cut, and
dimensions to the ones on which the decorations in this case appear” (p.
But what makes a particular uniform feature
of stripes and chevrons particular, is it because they are applied on the uniform, or because
the uniform is cut in such a way and uses such contrasting colors on which the designs are appearing?
Justice Ginsburg concurred, but she took
the view that “[c]onsideration of [the separability] test is unwarranted because the designs at issue are
not designs of useful articles. Instead, the designs are themselves
copyrightable pictorial or graphic works reproduced on useful articles… [and may thus] gain copyright protection as such” (p. 23 and p. 24).
As previously reported on The IPKat, there is an event that is taking place next month and will be of interest to 1709 Blog readers. Entitled 'European copyright - quo vadis?', this 2-day conference[that I have helped organising] has three irresistible features:
It is about EU copyright;
It is going to be held in Florence;
It is going to be held in Florence in late April (28 and 29 April).
The event will provide a forum for discussion and exchange of opinions between policy makers and academics, as well as representatives of business and non-governmental sectors. It will consist of keynote addresses, panel presentations, and roundtable discussions alike.
Confirmed keynote speakers include - amongst others - MEP Therese Comodini-Cachia, European Parliament rapporteur on the EU Commission's copyright proposal, and Giuseppe Abbamonte, the Director of the Media and Data Directorate at DG for Communications, Networks, Content and Technology within the European Commission.
Well, who could possibly reply 'no' to such a question?!? If you are in London in the evening of Tuesday, 28 March, then you may want to attend the new event organised by TIPLO (The Intellectual Property Lawyers Organisation), to which I have also been kindly invited to speak. Entitled 'Linking after GS Media: clear (and happy) at last?', this meeting consists of a convivial dinner in the beautiful premises of Middle Temple (The Princes' Room to be more precise), followed by a discussion of the issues addressed (and raised) by everybody's favourite court, ie the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in its seminal decision in GS Media, C-160/15. In that case the CJEU tackled the issue of linking to unlicensed copyright content, and determined what the relevant legal treatment should be. Yet, the ruling raises several questions:
How did the CJEU reach that decision?
Where are we after GS Media: is the relevant legal framework on linking any clearer now?
Profit-making intention: what is it all about?
Who is likely to be most at risk in the post-GS Media world?
Hello to Robo Lawyer - created to make hyperlinking easy - and the website describes Robo as follows: "I am Robo Lawyer programmed to help reduce legal risks related to publishing hyperlinks on the Internet. I am currently programmed to help you if you are from European Union. I know the EU law and the rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU, especially the ruling in the famous GS Media case." Robo lives as a chatbot in Messenger, so you need a Facebook account if you fancy a chat. The creator is Tomasz Zaleski (Eversheds Sutherland Poland). Songwriter? Lyricist? Need some help with copyright? Going for a Song tells the story of Tina and Ben, a music composer and a lyricist who create an original song and discuss how to market it. This new tool helps musicians learn how UK copyright law regulates different aspects of the journey of a song, from its creation to its distribution.
A motion to dismiss has been filed by attorneys representing Cher in the copyright infringement case filed against her by graphic designer Moshik Nadav concerning the artwork and in particular the graphics on the cover of Cher's Closer To The Truth release. The 2013 album was Cher’s 25th studio release. Nadav’s suit, in the Southern District of New York, names Cher, Warner Bros. Records, a design company and the albums’ art and design director as defendants and seeks $5 million in damages. According to Nadav's complaint, two logos that appear on Cher's album infringe on the copyrights to his Paris and Paris Pro logos, which he claims were created using his typography, featuring “artistic elements, such as swashes having various thicknesses, end drops and unique lettering.” Section 202.1 of the US Copyright Act, which gives examples of works not copyrightable, including “mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring" but here Nadav says Cher's work is substantially similar to his own logos - and he has obtained copyright registrations for those - but this looks like an uphill battle. More here.
Alleged KickassTorrents owner Artem Vaulin's defence team have said he will appeal last week's extradition ruling. Lead counsel Ira Rothken stresses that the refusal of the Polish court to grant bail and the unprecedented allegations violate the human rights of his client. The team is confident that they can book a positive outcome on all fronts. Last week a Polish court ruled that Vaulin could be extradited to the United States.
California’s Supreme Court is set to decide if the state’s copyright law protects the performing right as part of the sound recording copyright - an important question as federal copyright law only protects sound recordings released post 1972. It was in California where the Turtles secured their big win, with a court there ruling that there was a general performing right for sound recordings, a landmark ruling that forced both Sirius and Pandora to agree settlements with the wider record industry, especially once a New York court indicated there was likely a performing right under that state’s copyright law as well - but that new York decision has now been overturned on appeal. Now the Nine Circuit Court Of Appeal has asked the California's Supreme Court to rule on the matter once and for all. Requesting the opinion the Ninth Circuit said this “is warranted if there is no controlling precedent and the California Supreme Court’s decision could determine the outcome of a matter pending in our court” and “This appeal not only meets both criteria, but also presents an issue of significant public importance”. The Californian court does not have to accept the question.
One of the more incredible allegations about Prenda Law, the copyright-trolling operation that sued people for downloading movies online, was that the lawyers behind it might have created and uploaded some of the porn in question simply as a way to catch more offenders. Now ArtsTechnica tells us this may well be true, and despite repeated denials by the Preda lawyers, in a new update it seems they were indeed making movies: "Steele pled guilty in Minnesota to federal charges of "conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud" and to money laundering. And guess what? In 2011, Team Prenda had in fact become porn producers (They continued to have other "real" clients at that time as well.)" and "On at least three separate occasions in Chicago, Miami, and Las Vegas, Steele and [Paul] Hansmeier... contracted with adult film actresses and produced multiple short pornographic films"
Torrentfreak also updates us on trolls, saying "A copyright troll that terrorized service providers over alleged copyright infringement is set to forfeit the very assets that made its entire campaign possible. After losing an aggressive lawsuit against Giganews, Perfect 10's multi-million dollar bill will now be satisfied by the Usenet provider liquidating the adult publisher's intellectual property". Perfect 10 was originally an adult entertainment magazine that also operated a subscription website featuring images of women. In November 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found that Giganews was not liable for the infringing activities of its users. Perfect 10 was ordered to pay Giganews $5.6m in attorney’s fees and costs and this was upheld on appeal.
Photographer Rogelio Albert Pena was at the
right place at the right time on May 16, 2016, when baseball player Rougned
Odor, playing for the Texas Rangers team, punched
Jose Batista, of the Toronto Blue Jays, during a game. Mr. Pena was able to
capture the moment when Jose Batista was hit in the face so roughly by Rougned
Odor that he lost his sunglasses and his batting helmet. Baseball is a non-contact
sport, but the benches occasionally clear for an on-field brawl.
Plaintiff discovered that Defendant, a
Dallas celebrity sports and gift store, is selling framed
copies of the photograph, with a “Rougned
Odor: Don’t Mess With Texas II” caption below the picture. These framed
photos do not identify Plaintiff as the author of the work. Plaintiff has not
licensed his work to Defendant and had not authorized such a derivative work to
be produced and sold.
On March 13, 2013, Mr. Pena filed
a copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York against
Celebrities Unlimited, claiming that it is selling copies of the photograph
without authorization, and without displaying the name of the author. The case
number is 17-cv-1853.
Plaintiff is claiming that by producing,
publicly displaying, and selling these framed photos, Defendant infringes on
his copyright and is seeking up to $150,000 per work in statutory damages.
Plaintiff further alleges that, by removing and altering the copyright
management information which identified Plaintiff as the author of the
photograph, Defendant violated Section 1202(b) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §
1202, which prohibits to “intentionally
remove or alter any copyright management information.” Plaintiff published
the photograph online, and was credited as its author.
What could Defendant argue in defense? The
defense of fair
use is likely to fail, unless Defendant can prove that the work is not
protected by copyright. The use of the photograph is commercial (fourth factor)
and Defendant used the entire work protected by copyright (third factor). The
nature of the original work, the second factor, is debatable: is the work a photograph
which Plaintiff snapped just at the right time, or is it an original
The composition of the photograph resembles
the one of a baroque painting: the two players are seen each on a different
side of the work, not at its center. The arm of the player in blue enters the
space of the player in red, in a diagonal, and the arm of the player in red
enters the space of the player in blue, in diagonal. The leg of the player in
blue enters the space of the player in red, in a diagonal, and the leg of the
player in red enters the space of the player in blue, in diagonal. Both players
sport beards. One player is in red, the other one in blue. The player in red is
the one punching the player in blue. The red uniform has blue elements. The
blue uniform has red elements, including in the helmet seen flying away. The
sunglasses have reddish lenses.
Is this photograph “the product of plaintiff's intellectual invention, of which plaintiff
is the author,” as is the photograph of Oscar Wilde that, in 1884, the
Supreme Court found worthy of copyright protection in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony?
In this case, the Supreme Court detailed the choices made by the photographer,
such as “selecting and arranging the
costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging
the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the
light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such
disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he
produced the picture in suit." Plaintiff in our case did not select
the player’s uniform, their stance, their expression, or the other accessories.
The photography at stake here is registered
with the Copyright Office, and this registration is prima facie evidence that it is protected by copyright, However, 17
U.S.C. § 410 (c) states that, “[t]he
evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificate of a registration made
thereafter shall be within the discretion of the court.” In others words,
the court may decide that a work registered with the Copyright Office for less
than five years is indeed protected by copyright. Defendant may thus use as a
defense a claim that the work is not protected by copyright. Plaintiff would
then have to prove that the work is indeed the product of his intellectual
invention… Did he alter it after taking it? Did he emphasizes the colors or the
shadows of the works, crop it to emphasize the dramatic moment?
If the court would find that the work is
not protected by copyright, it would grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss (yet
to be filed). Game over. If it would find the work to be indeed protected by
copyright, then Defendant’s last chance would be to prove that its use of the
photograph was so transformative that it is fair use, under Section 107’s
first factor. As explained by the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,
a work is transformative if it alters the original work by adding "new expression, meaning, or message.” A
satire or a parody is transformative: is the comment added under the picture
enough to make it a satire, of say, Texas?
Defendant, though, has a few innings ahead.
He should not hire a rookie lawyer if he does not want to strike out.
Screenshot from "Blurred Lines" music video featuring Robin Thicke, T.I. and Pharell Williams
On March 23, Silicon Flatirons will host a conference, Blurred v. Bright: The Changing Analysis of Copyright Infringement in Music, bringing together some of the nation’s brightest artists, lawyers, policymakers and academics to discuss the rapidly changing analysis of copyright infringement in music.
The "Blurred Lines" case, in which Marvin Gaye’s estate secured a multi-million dollar judgment against songwriters and recording artists Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke for copyright infringement stemming from similar sounding songs, has dominated recent industry headlines.
If you go
Who: Open to the public What: Blurred v. Bright: The Changing Analysis of Copyright Infringement in Music When: Thursday, March 23, 1 to 5 p.m. Where: Wolf Law Building, Wittemyer Courtroom
But what determines permissible inspiration in music versus unlawful copyright?
For some commentators, the "Blurred Lines" case is a win for artists whose work is routinely “borrowed” from without compensation or attribution. But in an era in which new music often evokes earlier works, the holding is alternately viewed as a potential threat to artistic creation, to the ultimate detriment of the public.
Whatever the take, this seminal verdict marks a significant development in the application of copyright’s substantial similarity doctrine to music.
The conference will feature Richard Busch, attorney to Gaye's estate, as well as musicians Aloe Blacc and DJ Spooky and music and legal scholars from CU and other universities.