As many of you know, Mike Tyson, the famed boxer, has a very distinct tattoo on his face that surrounds his eye.  Apparently, the man who created the tattoo art, S. Victor Whitmill, is suing the Hangover Two movie for copyright infringement.  In the movie, Ed Helms’ character gets the same tattoo on his face during a crazy night.  Whitmill claims that he, in fact, did copyright his art and is justly suing over infringement.

This brings me to the question: should tattoo art be copyrighted? I know we have discussed this, and it is practically art, but I feel as though the only reason he is suing is because the original is on the face of a celebrity.  Would a tattoo artist sue if the tattoo in the Hangover movie was one that he inked on some average joe?  I would say, probably not.  I get that the artist is mad because producers ripped-off his work in their movie and did not compensate him for it, but I think he is just aiming to monetize from the situation, which could be an obvious statement.

Another thing I find interesting about this case is the fact that apparently Whitmill has not let anyone use the image since he tattooed it to Tyson’s face.  Due to this, he is suing Warner Bros. and he wants to make sure that the studio does not show the tattoo in the movie at all.  This, I believe, is a tad extreme.  However, I do not think he would benefit from it being in the movie at all.  People already know him and his art, and viewers will only connect the tattoo to Mike Tyson and not to the artist.

Tattoo Comparison

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/mike-tyson-tattoo-artist-sues-183716

What really drives an infringement lawsuit? Do people really care about their ideas, inventions or materials so much that they would compare them to [their] children? Or is it fortune and/or fame that cultivates an infringement lawsuit. It is truly hard to say, or it is hard to blanket this issue with one specific answer I should say. One thing is for certain that recognition is the underlying motivator. If people accomplish something that makes a difference not only to them but to others as well, they would want the recognition. This is understandable, and so is wanting compensation for that accomplishment. If people want to receive a profit for their work that is understandable as well, but in some cases it the arguments appear to be so far fetched that they not only lose the case, but their lust for profit becomes salient. Especially in the cases involving celebrities.

For example Oprah Winfrey recently defeated a lawsuit against her for copyright infringement. According to a CBS news article, author Charles Harris wanted to sue Oprah for $100 million for allegedly releasing information about his book on her show without permission. The hefty sum was to cover the market damage that the leaked information caused. First of all $100 million dollars is a little high for a book even if it was a bestseller. Second Oprah did not copy or read over the allotted amount of the book that is provided under the fair use clause. Lastly she was using the information as a promotional tool. The only thing that Oprah revealed that was from the book was a fact, according the article and as Oprah stated “facts can not be copyrighted”. With that Oprah won her case.

Recognition alone was clearly not the issue in this case because he was receiving it. Oprah never claimed anything as her own thoughts. It is cases like this that I feel can be used as a counter argument when it comes to copyright law provisions. One factor that seems to be neglected in the deliberation is people’s greed. Fair use was an excellent addition to the law because it seems that people will try to look to get paid for every little thing that is apart of their copyrighted material even facts! Celebrities appear to be the ultimate copyright infringement targets. You get the recognition and the money, and this seems to be all that matters in these cases; not the property itself, but the money making potential of the property.

This reminds me of the case Field v. Google. The courts ruled in favor of Google because the plaintiff Blake Field was aware of the cache system and the possibility of infringing activity on Google’s behalf but he just sat back and let Google cache more of his pages to amend his previous complaint and add to the statutory damages.

Celebrities are not only the ideal targets; they make the most interesting cases, such as Charlie sheen. He is attempting to copyright content from his ramblings. He may very well be successful, if so then these are the cases that I feel should be reviewed and taken into consideration as counter arguments when looking to give so much power to the authors of materials. They are locking certain things down and expecting to get paid for things that are said and done all of the time. The sad thing is that they (not just celebrities but copyright authors in general) are protected for such a long time. Integrity seems to be lacking in these cases. Maybe the case of “Tiger Blood” may open our eyes and make us rethink how we perceive copyright and construct copyright law.

referenced:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20048723-504083.html

“Happy Birthday to You” is a song that is known throughout the world as the birthday song. Yet this song is not sung in many instances, such as in private and company owned/franchised restaurants or at least not this particular version. This is due to the fact that the ‘original’ birthday song; “Happy Birthday to You” was copyrighted by Preston Ware Orem and R.R Forman, according to Wikipedia. Since they were the first to actual print the song they received the copyright, which was estimated at $5 million dollars in 1990. The article also said that this copyright would not expire (in the United States) until 2030, which raises the question is copyright getting out of hand?

I think that 2030 is a bit too long for a copyright especially on material that can benefit the public. Every time you go out to a restaurant your otherwise peaceful dinner is disrupted by the screech of a generic remake of a song that we have grown up with and (sung of course within the private sanctity of our homes) recognize from anywhere. The reason for this is because someone (Warner Chappell) obtained the company that owned this copyright and extended the copyright.

Ironically enough the song derives from a song by Patty Smith Hill titled “Good Morning to All”, a song she sung to her class. This song outdates the “Happy Birthday to You” song over forty years from its copyrighted date. The irony is that the song is strikingly close to that song from the lyrics to the melody. When the two songs are sung back to back the resemblance is uncanny. Yet Patty has never received any compensation, just minor recognition years later. Is the song that is in the Guinness Book of world record as “the most recognized song in the English language”, a case of intellectual property theft?

It appears so and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer actually contested the legitimacy of the song’s existing copyright. I feel that this is cold case that needs to be solved. For a song that is possibly a derivative of original content and no fair use practices were exercised by the authors to be protected for so long and furthermore granted an extension is ludicrous. What is even more insane is that the song benefits the public. It is a staple in most homes for a birthday and the fact that it cannot be sung outside of home unless that establishment compensates the company that owns the copyright is outrageous.

Lastly it is possible that the song’s existing copyright legitimacy hangs in the balance, due to the fact that copyright issues are so complicated. It is any man’s guess, but this is an issue that I feel should be dealt with no further delay. Not just because it is the birthday song, because it s an issue that regards public. I am personally tired of hearing the different variations to a classic song because no one is certain if it is okay to be used in public. Copyright law needs provisions but I feel that the areas to target first are areas like this, where the material directly effects the public sphere and not just to artists and authors of content.

For my final project I think that I will attack the issue of Google and copyright. Google is a totally innovative Internet company that has proven to staying true to the company’s slogan, which is ‘organizing all of the world’s information’. Accompanying their slogan is their motto which is “don’t be evil”. This motto derives from the world-bettering atmosphere at Google’s headquarters in Silicon Valley, California. Though the company has been successful in many different ways when it comes to making the world’s information accessible via their search engine, they have also been successful in gaining a reputation for themselves. Amongst their users, Google is the best thing to happen to the Internet and on the opposite end of the spectrum there is the competitors of Google, who feel that in Google’s attempt to do it all, they infringe on not only the rights of a competitive market, but media copyright as well. Google is facing a number of lawsuits. Most of which come from old or traditional media companies which believe that Google is unlawfully uploading, scanning and digitizing their content without any remorse. These companies feel that this is done deliberately to damage the market potential of this content and eliminate all competition; both internet and traditional media companies. Google’s claim in many cases is fair use.

Google claims that by digitizing information, they are making the works more accessible. Google never takes the credit for the works; they only take credit for the search results. Whether Google is digitizing this information and content deliberately to affect the markets is an issue that is deliberated in the courts. I plan to look closer at the court cases and apply the material from the class to reach a conclusion or better understanding of Google’s motives, intentions and speak on their actions for the future. Lastly there is the issue of compensation
.
Though Google does not get directly compensated for the works, they receive a portion of the money through their search engine. There was also an issue as to whether Google was compensating these companies for the products that they used arose circa 2006. Whether Google pays these companies or found a legal loophole is another issue I will incorporate into my research. For resources I plan on using a book by journalist Ken Auletta titled Googled. Googled is the best most in depth analysis of Google as a company and cultural staple. I also plan on using research databases and University law libraries to gain access to the lawsuits against Google.

It is important for me to look into these lawsuits closely and carefully because as a student, I do not see the harm in Google, but I do suppose that some issues could be raised such as copyright infringement and market damage whether it is done intentionally or not. I also plan on addressing the issue that was brought up in class: what gives a private company the right to archive information at this magnitude? Why not the government? Furthermore I will explore what stops other private companies from doing this, when they can encapsulate information and release it for a profit (not to say this is what Google odes or will do).The challenge of this assignment is to remove my bias and look at the issue neutrally and deliver a paper the covers the copyright issues that Google cause.

Many iPad users know the convenience of getting the news directly onto their devices, anytime, anywhere. IPad news apps make it easy for users to find the news they are looking for quickly and in the case of Zite, offer users customizable and personalized news based on ones interests and behaviors.

Launched on March 9^th, the Vancouver based news app Zite is a free app offered in Apple’s App Store. Zite’s description in the App Store claims, “Zite is a personalized magazine for your iPad that automatically learns what you like and gets smarter as you use it. Zite gives you personalized news, articles, blogs, videos and other content from a variety of both mainstream and niche publications and sites.” With over 1,400 five star ratings in the App Store, it seems to be a hit.

It’s anything but a hit though for news organizations such as The Washington Post, Dow Jones, and Time Inc. who were just some of the news organizations who sent Zite a cease-and-desist letter. In their letter, the news organizations said Zite “intentionally and pervasively infringes on our copyrights”. They claim this is done by the way Zite presents the news to users: instead of directing a reader to a news organization’s website, where they display online advertising, many of the stories appear on Zite reformatted in a pop-up window without ads. The companies suing Zite claim “By systematically reformatting, republishing and redistributing our original content on a mass commercial scale without our permission in your iPad application, Zite directly and adversely impacts our businesses.” The go on to claim that Zite deprives their websites of traffic and of business they gain due to ads.

The CEO of Zite claimed that displaying the articles in a pop-up rather than a web view was a “design decision in order to give users a better reading experience.” He also claimed that Zite was more than willing to work with the publishers and change the app to redirect users to the website the articles come from.

I downloaded Zite to my iPad to do a little investigating myself. The way the news organizations made it sound was that Zite was not giving them any credit for the articles, hence the copyright infringement. But as I searched through the articles, I saw that they said which organization they were from and who wrote it. I also notices that when you tapped on an article to read, a pop up to the article on the news organizations website came up, but only for some articles. (It looks like Zite took care of the complaint a little). Maybe it’s because the format has been changed but I’m kind of confused as to why it was a copyright issue. To me it personally seems more like a money issue; the organizations were not getting the revenue from their ads because of less traffic. The credit had always been there but it was more of a question of where the users got their news. What do you think? Was this a copyright issue or just big businesses wanting more money?

Read the Article

Rebecca Black has been the source of public scrutiny since she burst onto the mainstream music a few weeks ago. The public has criticized everything about her, from her overly produced singing voice to her lyrics and legitimacy as an artist. Love her, hate her, or simply love to hate her, no one can deny that Rebecca Black has become a success. She partnered with ARK Music Company and her parents purchased the song “Friday” for $4,000.

Ark claimed they have every intention of turning over the masters to Black. But according to the Blacks, Ark has yet to follow through with that promise. Ark has attempted to build their reputation within the music industry by creating tween superstars. They do this by handing kids prewritten songs and attempting to build a fan base for them. Many question how Ark intends to profit.

This is where the issue of copyright infringement comes in. Rebecca Black and her parents are suing based on the fact that in addition to Ark not turning over the masters of Rebecca’s recording that they are exploiting Rebecca’s image on the internet. The Blacks also allege that Ark is claiming to have exclusive rights to Rebecca as an artist. Ark has responded that the agreement they entered was not court approved. They are claiming that if the Blacks attempt to copyright or licensing is committing copyright infringement against Black. Do you believe that the Blacks own the song? Or are they committing infringement against Ark by attempting to capitalize on Rebecca’s fame and license the song?

In 2008, Matell received $100 million against MGA Entertainment, claiming that MGA stole the idea for Bratz.

Yesterday, however, the 9^th circuit overturned that verdict. According to an article in AM Law Daily, the courts “found that Mattel does not own the rights to the Bratz dolls and MGA did not steal Mattel’s trade secrets.”  Also, according to an article on Perez Hilton, the courts “even found that the toy company stole MGA’s secrets through a campaign of corporate espionage, awarding them with $88.4 million in damages.”

I studied the original case last semester in an NYU Stern class, so I found this new verdict very interesting. It shows that an original verdict is not always the final decision. In fact, this decision came to the exact opposite conclusion from the original decision. It shows that the fight is not always over after one trial in court.

In November 2007, the Red Hot Chili Peppers filed a lawsuit against Showtime Networks over the name of their TV Show, “Californication”, which is also the name of the band’s 1999 hit song. The band noted many similarities between a character sometimes used in their music, “Dani California”, who is also a character on the TV show. They alleged, that under United States IP understandings, the series “constitutes a false designation of origin, and has caused and continues to cause a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, and/or connection in the minds of the public”[1].

In 1971, a Bollywood movie titled, “Hare Rama Hare Krishna” which is about a young man from Montreal who goes to Nepal in search of his hippie sister, featured a chart-busting song, “Dum Maaro Dum” (puff, take a puff). The video of the song shows images of the sister singing and smoking marijuana out of a pipe in Kathmandu with other people dressed in hippie outfits. Here’s the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXvvA7dRVtc

Two days from today, on April 22^nd, Bollywood is anticipating one of it’s biggest releases of the year. The movie, which features some of the biggest stars of the industry, is about six people who meet in the Indian state of Goa and get involved with the drug mafia. The movie is titled, “Dum maaro Dum”. Here’s the trailer to the movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvRBeWDh5dU

Even though the movie clearly seems to be inspired by the song, and is named after the it too, are the film-makers going to be sued by the record label owning the rights to the 1971 hit?

Probably not.

In fact, this practice of basing a movie on the message or story of an older song is very common in Bollywood (More examples here). Therefore, if Californication was to be a TV show in India, and the Chili Peppers a band from India. There would be little chance of their being a lawsuit.

While this might all sound very strange, one must understand the most basic difference between Hollywood and its Mumbai counter-part, Bollywood, to be able to comprehend the lack of legality involved here. In the United States, the movie industry is segregated from the music industry. In spite of songs being licensed in movies, both the industries exist independently. In Bollywood, the movie and music industry are integrated into one giant media business. Every movie has seven to eight songs written specifically for it. The lyrics talk specifically about the plot of the movie or the characters of the movie. Movie script-writers make sure they make room for a dramaticized and picturized song or two during the plot of the movie. Essentially, these full-length songs are vital to the story-line. The songs also work as advertisements for the movie itself. The movie stars in the music videos, act as promotion for the songs themselves. There’s no way one industry can exist without the other.

Arguably, this is why scripting movies based on older songs is acceptable in Bollywood. In class we spoke about the possible impacts of enforcing American and/or Western intellectual property understandings and laws on developing markets. This is a perfect example of why such enforcement would not work in India. In every country, laws are based on ethics, and morals. However, US IP laws are incongruent with some of the fundamental cultures and ethics of Bollywood. Therefore, if the ACTA was to be imposed on Bollywood, the industry would surely oppose it because it would compromise the ability of works to build off each other. It would compromise how creativity happens in Bollywood.