Law on Mass Media Advance Post, 5th Exercise, Deadline March 8

Law on Mass Media Advance Post, 5th Exercise, Deadline Friday, March 8, 2019 at 5pm

    This is an advance post: We will discuss copyright this week yet but class members may submit their work anytime on or before the deadline.

   The 5th exercise is: Search for any news report or news feature from January 2018 to the present date to illustrate infringement of  intellectual property rights in any medium or media and of any intellectual property (literary and artistic works including: Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings; periodicals and newspapers; lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations; Letters;
plays, films, Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; dances, choreographic works ; songs, musical compositions; drawings, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography; original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, works of applied art; Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional works related to geography, topography, architecture or science; drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character; photographs or photographic works; lantern slides; music videos, short filsm, audiovisual works and cinematographic work; pictorial illustrations and advertisements;computer programs; and other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works. News reports or news feature of infringement of the following related rights may also be included:
Trademarks and trade names; Service Marks; Patents; Layout designs; 

 Geographic Indications;

 Industrial Designs; etc.

      (bonuses will be available in the sixth to eighth exercises).

 

14 thoughts on “Law on Mass Media Advance Post, 5th Exercise, Deadline March 8

  1. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/the-script-james-arthur-sue-copyright-infringement-say-you-wont-let-go-a8364681.html

    The Script sue James Arthur for copyright infringement over ‘Say You Won’t Let Go’ — May 2018

    In an article dated May 23, 2018, Independent reports on the filing of a copyright infringement case by the Irish band The Script against James Arthur, a British singer-songwriter. Arthur’s hit song released in 2016 entitled “Say You Won’t Let Go” is accused of having lifted elements from The Script’s hit track “The Man Who Can’t Be Moved”, which was released in 2008. This accusation stemmed from both songs sharing the same 4/4 meter, a similar tempo, four-bar guitar intro, and usage of similar vocal melodies and harmonic structures, as noted by Billboard.

    In the United Kingdom wherein the case took place, this violates the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, wherein the original authors or makers of any literary, artistic work, sound recordings, films, broadcasts, musicals, typographical arrangements of published works, and dramatizations are given the rights to control the usage of their material, as taken from the UK Copyright Service.

    In our local law, this violates Chapter V, Section 177.2 of Republic Act 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines), which states that the “dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or other transformation of the work” is in the exclusive right of the owner to authorize, prevent, and/or carry out.

  2. Nintendo ‘wins’ £9.3m from ROM-hosting sites for copyright infringement – November 13, 2018

    https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066249/nintendo-wins-gbp93m-from-rom-hosting-sites-for-copyright-infringement

    LoveROM and LoveRETRO, websites that were deemed notorious for being a hub for downloading pirated copies of Nintendo’s video games, allowed people to download and play these games without paying, and by extension, without Nintendo’s permission.

    Video games not only made by Nintendo, but also those that were made to be played on Nintendo video game systems, were shared by the aforementioned websites.

    Following legal action from Nintendo, LoveROM took down Nintendo games from their website, while its sister website, LoveRETRO, was shut down.

    This was not the only effect of the websites’ blatant infringement on intellectual property. The owners of the websites, a couple based in Arizona, were also ordered to pay Nintendo up to $12 million, after admitting to direct and indirect copyright infringement.

    The ruling punished the site’s owners even further by prohibiting them from using, sharing, and distributing copies of Nintendo video games, and requiring them to return the copies they possessed to Nintendo, along with their site’s domain name.

  3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellekaminsky/2019/02/27/nicki-minaj-bang-bangs-back-in-tracy-chapman-copyright-infringement-suit/

    Nicki Minaj Bang Bangs Back In Tracy Chapman Copyright Infringement Suit

    In California federal court, Tracy Chapman has complained that over half the song’s lyrics and vocal melody of Nicki Minaj’s “Sorry” is taken from Chapman’s “Baby Can I Hold You.” In defense of a copyright infringement complaint on a song, artist Nicki Minaj reasons Tracy Chapman’s for a lack of registration for copyright.The song is filed under publishing companies SBK April Music, Inc. and Purple Rabbit Music which Tracy Chapman was signed under. However, Chapman’s complaint states that the copyright has been transferred back to her in 2016. An argument of “fair use” in Nicki Minaj’s defense would matters of extent, such as that “fair use” has not yet reached the point of “copyright infringement.”

  4. WWE Hall of Famer Sues ‘Call of Duty’ Publishers for Copyright Infringement – February 2019

    https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/2019/02/16/sc-family-suing-kanye-west-copyright-infringement-charleston-federal-court/

    The publishers of “Call of Duty”, a video game franchise, received a copyright infringement lawsuit from WWE Hall of Famer Booker T. Huffman, declaring that the character “Prophet” from the game is nearly identical with “G.I. Bro” comic book action hero character he made and copyrighted.

    As claimed by Micah Dortch, who represented Huffman, the “Call of Duty” character was copied from “G.I. Bro”, from the hair, body, and clothing, to facial expressions, which are far too similar to be purely coincidental or accidental.

    This act made by the publishers of Call of Duty is in violation of the Copyright Act of 1976 of the United States, which prevents “the unauthorized copying of a work of authorship”. The Copyright Act also states that “Copyright protection extends to all ‘original works of authorship’ to take into account new kinds of media” (Hull). Such new kinds of media, thus, cover artistic works in video games and comic books.

    Additional resources:
    https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1072/copyright-act-of-1976
    https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/index.html

  5. [Please disregard my previous comment, thank you!]

    WWE Hall of Famer Sues ‘Call of Duty’ Publishers for Copyright Infringement – February 2019

    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wwe-hall-of-famer-sues-call-of-duty-publishers-for-copyright-infringement-300794596.html

    The publishers of “Call of Duty”, a video game franchise, received a copyright infringement lawsuit from WWE Hall of Famer Booker T. Huffman, declaring that the character “Prophet” from the game is nearly identical with “G.I. Bro” comic book action hero character he made and copyrighted.

    As claimed by Micah Dortch, who represented Huffman, the “Call of Duty” character was copied from “G.I. Bro”, from the hair, body, and clothing, to facial expressions, which are far too similar to be purely coincidental or accidental.

    This act made by Activision Publishing Inc., Activision Blizzard Inc., and Major League Gaming Corp. is in violation of the Copyright Act of 1976 of the United States, which prevents “the unauthorized copying of a work of authorship”. The Copyright Act also states that “Copyright protection extends to all ‘original works of authorship’ to take into account new kinds of media” (Hull). Such new kinds of media, thus, cover artistic works in video games and comic books.

    Additional resources:
    https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1072/copyright-act-of-1976
    https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/index.html

  6. US ‘Fearless Girl’ Artist Faces Court Over Copyright Infringement – February 22, 2019

    https://www.albawaba.com/editorchoice/us-fearless-girl-artist-faces-court-over-copyright-infringement-1256182

    Artist Kristen Visbal is being sued by the investment State Street Global Advisors over allegations that she breached her contract with them and committed copyright infringement by selling copies of her work originally under commission under SSGA, New York’s “Fearless Girl”, to Maurice Blackburn & Co. in Australia and The Grand Hotel Oslo in Norway. This also follows a case where she allowed a replica of the statue to be used a Women’s March in Los Angeles, back in January, despite the SSGA rejecting her written request to do so. Visbal and her counsel have been blocking attempts at contact, and so the investment firm continues to seek injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of its fees and costs.

    As Visbal was not a regular employee or artist under the firm, and was instead commissioned for the specific job, under Part IV, Chapter VI of RA 8293, while the original work standing in New York remains SSGA’s, the intellectual property, that is the image itself, belongs to Visbal, and thus, she remains both author and owner of the copyrights. Any replication and subsequent payment for replication, under Chapter V, is legal in her case, including the cases of replication outside of the U.S. This includes her allowance of the public display of another replica of her work in LA.

    So, her replications of the work at first glance seem to fall within her rights as the author and owner. However, there is lacking information about the written content in her contract with State Street Global Advisors, so proper judgment of the issue depends on the provisions and clauses included focusing on copyrights and replication in the contract. Blocking of communication is also an issue as it may trigger Contempt of Court, thus revoking her strong chance of actually defending her rights to “Fearless Girl”s image.

  7. Ariana Grande sued over copyright infringement by Las Vegas artist – Feb 2 2019

    https://www.fox5vegas.com/news/ariana-grande-sued-over-copyright-infringement-by-las-vegas-artist/article_6adda84a-2703-11e9-b44b-83e5d084bd5e.html

    Artist Vladimir Kush files a federal lawsuit for copyright infringement against Ariana Grande, and her alleged use of the artists’ painting for her music video “God is a Woman”

    Kush claims copyright on a part of Grande’s music video wherein the singer is depicted as a candle wick while a bright flame is around her. The flame then radiates to a blue, cloudy sky and is seen in the video for over a minute.

    Kush’s paintings depict the same imagery wherein a silhouette of a woman serves as a wick of candle. Kush gained copyright for his paintings at around 1999 – 2000. Kush also claims that Grande’s team never really asked him about the use of his paintings.
    Rulings have not yet been made on this case.

  8. Jollibee to sue China restaurant for trademark infringement – January 24, 2019

    https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1076959/jollibee-to-sue-china-restaurant-for-copyright-infringement?utm_expid=.XqNwTug2W6nwDVUSgFJXed.1

    On January 21, 2019, a logo of a restaurant from Guangxi, China with the word, “JoyRulBee” went viral on Facebook. The logo bore significant resemblances to that of local fast food chain, Jollibee, such as the color scheme of red, yellow, and white, as well as the cartoon of a smiling bee. Representatives from Jollibee Food Corporation took notice and began taking measures to protect the trademark of the Jollibee brand.

    The release of such logo goes against R.A. 8239, a bill that protects intellectual property. Part III of this bill is the Law of Trademarks, Service Marks, and Trade Names, which is where this case falls under.

  9. https://www.rappler.com/entertainment/news/206059-ed-sheeran-sued-thinking-out-loud-song-copyright

    Ed Sheeran sued for copyright infringement for ‘Thinking Out Loud’

    Ed Sheeran is facing another copyright infringement lawsuit, this time for his 2014 song “Thinking Out Loud,” which allegedly copies from Marvin Gaye’s 1973 hit “Let’s Get It On.”

    According to the lawsuit, ‘Thinking Out Loud’ took many elements from Gaye’s hit, “including but not limited to the melody, rhythms, harmonies, drums, bass line, backing chorus, tempo, syncopation and looping.” In the local context, this violates some of the provisions of RA 8293, or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. In Section 178, the musical composition is owned by the composer. In this case, investment banker and Bowie Bonds pioneer David Pullman and his company Structured Asset Sales, who owns third of the shares of the song, holds the copyright.

  10. NEWS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Spotify hit with $1.6 billion copyright infringement lawsuit
    Written by: Lesley Messer
    Published on: January 3, 2018
    Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/spotify-hit-16-billion-copyright-infringement-lawsuit/story?id=52104636

    Wixen Music Publishing filed a copyright infringement complaint had been filed against Spotify for streaming their songs without license and compensation. Spotify allegedly used more than 10,000 songs improperly including Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You.” Wizen sought $150,000 for each song, and a total of at least $1.6 billion for all of the songs infringed. On December 2017, Spotify settled the $1.6-billion lawsuit.

    Over the years, Spotify has faced a number of lawsuits including the settled $43-million complaint back in 2017. The issue was about the Spotify’s usage of thousands of songs without proper licensing and compensation.

    It clearly exemplifies copyright infringement because Spotify was gaining profits from the songs without the permission of the music publisher. Hence, Wixen has all the right to file a lawsuit against anyone who will use their songs, and gain money from it without proper compensation.

  11. NEWS EVENT ON INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Michael Jackson’s estate sues ABC for copyright infringement
    Written by: Joseph Ax
    Published on: May 31, 2018
    Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-michaeljackson-lawsuit/michael-jacksons-estate-sues-abc-for-copyright-infringement-idUSKCN1IV2KX

    Because of not requesting permission for the use of the King of Pop’s famous songs and music videos in its documentary entitled “The Last Days of Michael Jackson”, ABC and its parent company, Disney, were sued with copyright infringement by Michael Jackson’s estate.

    According to the lawsuit, the documentary that aired on May 24 showcased 30 copyrighted works, including classic MJ songs “Billie Jean” and “Thriller”.

    ABC’s lawyer tried to argue that the use of copyrighted music was of fair use because it was utilized in a documentary. However, the lawsuit stated that this claim was absurd, and that if this position were to be followed, anyone could make documentaries about Disney using their copyrighted footage without permission.

    This copyright infringement case is in accordance to the estate’s exclusive right to reproduce copies of Jackson’s work which is under copyright protection defined in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

  12. Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams to pay $5m in final Blurred Lines verdict – December 2018

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/dec/13/robin-thicke-and-pharrell-williams-to-pay-5m-in-final-blurred-lines-verdict

    According to the article, Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke are required to pay the family of Marvin Gaye a total of $5 million because the similarities of the songs Blurred Lines and Got to Give It Up.

    Earlier, Thicke and Williams first filed lawsuit to defend that their song did not infringe copyright. It was then countersued by the Gaye family who owned the copyright to Marvin Gaye’s song. In March 2015, the judge’s ruling was in favor of the family which ordered Thicke and Williams to pay $7.4M.

    Despite this, many saw that the rights on copyright infringement was used to abuse the two musicians. One judge who was against the decision, Jacqueline Nguyen, stated the two songs had different melody, harmony and rhythm. She described the verdict as ‘a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere.’

  13. US post must pay $3.5m for wrong Lady Liberty on stamp (July 5, 2018)

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44729770

    The US Postal Service (USPS) in 2010 accidentally used the wrong image of Lady Liberty on a stamp and used instead “sculptor Robert Davidson’s Las Vegas replica.” Despite learning in 2011 that the image in the stamp was not the original Lady Liberty, the USPS did not stop selling the stamps. Davidson’s first complaint came in 2013, where he cited the difference of his work from the original statue.

    According to BBC, the stamp with Davidson’s work made a profit of $70m during the time period when it was being sold by the USPS, which is a huge profit from the use of someone else’s work that they did not have permission to use.

    While the Postal Service reasoned out that Davidson’s work was “too similar to the original” and that “the government’s use copied nothing original,” the court said that the Postal Service still used Davidson’s “original work,” which they did not in any way credit to him. Thus, due to copyright infringement, it was found that the USPS must pay $3.5m for the misuse of Davidson’s image. This is an example of copyright infringement because the Postal Service had unauthorized use of another artist’s image for their stamps which they sold and profited from, and the artist whose work they used initially did not receive any profit from the stamps.

  14. https://www.plasticsnewseurope.com/article/20181109/PNE/181109909/lego-wins-another-intellectual-property-case-in-china

    This article is about the violation of four Chinese companies of the copyright of Danish toymaker Lego Group. According to the decision. the defendants are liable for copying the 3-dimensional artworks of 18 Lego sets, multiple Lego Minifigures, as well as for carrying out unfair competition.

    Copyright is a form of intellectual property protection provided by different laws in different jurisdictions and some international conventions. Copyright protection is available for original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible form, whether published or unpublished. The categories of works that can be protected by copyright laws include paintings, literary works, live performances, photographs, movies, and software. (https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/what-is-copyright.html)

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.