The copyright “case of the century” is now over. You would hope that after two trips to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and now the Supreme Court of the United States we would have a much clearer picture of what is fair use and what is not. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The opinion in Google v. Oracle is a cobbled together mess. For what the opinion really wants to do is rule the declaring code at issue not copyrightable, but does not have the majority votes necessary to issue that ruling. So instead, it leaps over the issue of copyrightability to shoe-horn that argument into a fair use ruling. The result is so scattershot that the Court itself had to issue a warning about its future applicability to items other than computer code. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., analyzes and explains this curious ruling.
The decision of Dr. Seuss Enterprises to no longer publish six books of the renowned children’s author created quite the controversy. But more bizarrely, this event caused the anti-copyright crowd to leap into action. They again suggested that DSE should not be allowed to “unpublish” the works, again pushing for the proposition that such a withdrawal should cause the instant creation of some “super fair use” right to publish the works without the consent of the copyright owner. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines the controversy, and finds that the decision of Dr. Seuss Enterprises to “unpublish” is more attributable to everyday business practices than “cancel culture,” and is a decision that they alone get to make.
The long considered, and long stymied, copyright small claims bill known as the CASE Act finally passed Congress on December 21, 2020. Since it was included in a “must pass” spending bill, it now has the signature of the President and is enacted into law. But is it really a Court? What, and how can an author effectively make use of this new tool? And lastly, it may be quicker, and more cost effective, but will it actually work? Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines the major points of this important and novel piece of legislation.
On December 19, 2020, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals definitively ruled that the Dr. Seuss-Star Trek “mash-up” titled "Oh, The Places You’ll Boldly Go" was not fair use. Specifically, the 9th Circuit ruled that Boldly was not a “parody” of multiple works of Dr. Seuss, was not a “transformative” use and that all four fair use factors favored Dr. Seuss. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., takes a detailed look at this important decision.
If someone copied your technical drawings, that would be copyright infringement, since drawings are protected by the Copyright Act. But what if they didn’t copy your drawings? What if they made devices based upon your design contained in the drawings? Would this be infringement? This was the question before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals last week. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines the law and the facts of this highly unusual case and finds that once again, in the realm of copyright, “it’s not what you said, but how you said it” that gets the necessary legal protection.
Why is there the constant push by anti-copyright forces to assert that regardless of the fact that a copyright is your personal property, and something you should absolutely control, that for various absurd reasons, you should not 100% control how it is used? The latest is a proposal from a Stanford Law Professor that argues that works that are not being actively exploited should be available to the public under the doctrine of fair use. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., reviews the case law on the assertion of “use it or lose it” as it applies to copyright, and asks how is the forced divestiture of rights by copyright owners congruent with the concepts of property rights and personal freedom?
The 9th circuit has come firmly down against one of copyright’s more curious dilemmas: namely, claiming that a purely “factual” work nevertheless contains some elements of fiction. This admission is necessary to sue for copyright infringement, since facts are not protected by copyright under 17 USC 102, but works of original expression are. The Court has now issued a bright line ruling: If the Work is held out as being true, the author cannot later claim the contrary. The Court calls this principle the “asserted truths doctrine.” Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines this controversy over the Broadway play "Jersey Boys," and finds that once you say "it's a fact," you're stuck with it.
Streaming was supposed to save the music business. It hasn’t. Fourteen years into the Spotify experience, music industry revenues are still stuck at half the amount they were in 1999. Spotify provides millions of songs at your fingertips, all for free. Is this why the public thinks all music should be free? Does the public know how much works goes into creating a great song? Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., tears apart a great song, Maroon 5's "Misery," track by track, to show why all this hard work should make the song valuable, not just a trifle.
You would think that an news organization as well known as BuzzFeed, and a reporter with over 1,000 stories to his credit, would know how to do something as simple as licensing a news photograph. For whatever reason, in one case they did not get a license, and removed the photographer's credit in the process. For its part, BuzzFeed contends that the portion of the DMCA that prohibits the removal of this information does not apply to them. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., explains this novel "case of first impression" and why the decision is important to artists of all kinds.
It's not often that a songwriter is accused of ripping off one of their own songs. But Grammy winning artist Lizzo is accused of just that. The case of Jefferson v. Raisen has brought the issue to the forefront, in a battle over who are the writers of the Grammy winning hit “Truth Hurts.” It is claimed that Lizzo co-wrote a song titled "Healthy," parts of which were later incorporated into the Grammy winning song "Truth Hurts," without crediting the original writers. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines this very unusual case, and the equally surprising ruling.