Pages

Friday, August 8, 2014

Copyright or Wrong?

Legal issues can plague any company, but they can be easily avoidable with proper paperwork and permission. The first article I want to bring up is a recent lawsuit against the website MP3Tunes. MP3Tunes was an online music distributer that sold MP3s of many songs without permission from the publishers. The case, found here, stated “More than 2,100 copyrights were at issue in the liability phase” (Reuters, 2014). The case centered on the infringement of rights for sound recordings, compositions, and cover art. The copyright infringements based around the copyrights owned by recording companies along with the publishers that were part of EMI Group Ltd.

The main issue that was centered on this lawsuit was that MP3Tunes selling these works without the permission from these companies for their own financial gain and not paying any royalties to the content owners. This could have been avoided if the proper steps would have been taken by MP3Tunes to secure partnerships to sell this music, then the lawsuit may have been avoided. For example, iTunes secured deals with the publishing companies to pay royalties and secure profits for themselves. If MP3Tunes took the time to strike deals with these companies and split the profits, then they could have avoided the shutdown of their site.

The next article I would like to discuss in the article about Pandora possibly losing recorded music that was released before 1972. In this article, “major music companies are suing online radio service Pandora for what they claim is a major case of copyright infringement” (Venturebeat, 2014). As of today, and with any online streaming service, every time a song is played that is copyrighted the music service pays out licensing fees to the copyright owners. Federal law for pre-1972 recordings was not available for musical recordings. As of now, pre-1972 recordings are protected via state/common law; which as we know are not at a federal level and do not qualify for many benefits of a federal level registration.(Plagiarism Today, 2014).  In my opinion, it’s hard to say how this case will pan out. There is possibility that Pandora may be able to settle with the major music companies to pay them the money owed for songs played, or be safe and pay the royalties to the company regardless of their protections. Although, the claim by the company is filed as a violation of New York law, and is a case of common law copyright infringement. The case can go one of two ways, either Pandora must remove these recordings from their library, or that Pandora agrees to pay royalties from now going forward and possibly back pay for royalties.

Lastly, a very recent event in the copyright realm is the now trending “Monkey Selfie.” It all stems from a photographer named David Slater who in 2011 “Traveled to Indonesia to take pictures of the crested black macaque, a snouty primate with reddish, somewhat possessed-looking eyes” (Slate, 2014). The website Wikimedia has posted his famous Selfie picture from the primate, but not only on the website but in its public domain collection. The website refuses to take it down due to Slater’s demands claiming that Slater doesn’t own the copyright because he didn’t actually take the picture; the monkey took the picture. To get an opinion outside of the knowledge of copyright I asked my wife her opinion on who would own the copyright. She stated “Well, even if he didn’t take the picture it’s still his camera, equipment, software, and everything so he should own it” (Lauren Myers, 2014).

I would have to agree with her statement, and it was Slater’s equipment that took the photo then he should own the copyright. Although, the argument can come up that if I took a picture with a friend’s camera that sold for 1 Million dollars, then does he own it or me? Chris Sprigman, a law professor at New York University stated, “The photographer doesn’t own it. And the monkey doesn’t, either. It’s in the public domain”(Slate, 2014). I think this situation may end up with a redefinition of what constitutes as conceptual art work that can be copyrighted. Although, in my opinion I believe Slater will be awarded the copyright if this were to go to trial due to the public opinions I have read and heard from people around me.


References:




No comments:

Post a Comment