It’s not unusual for hit songs to attract copyright infringement lawsuits. It was, therefore, not unexpected that Dua Lipa’s 2020 hit “Levitating” attracted a copyright infringement lawsuit. What was unusual was that two separate lawsuits were filed within a week of each other. The first alleged that “Levitating” lifted from Florida reggae group Artikal Sound System’s 2017 song “Live Your Life.” The second alleged that the 1979 disco song “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” had been copied by “Levitating.” Have you ever heard these songs? No? For this is the real question to ask: how did these songs, in one case a 40 year old disco tune, get into the ears of the composers of “Levitating”? Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., explains the importance of the “access” requirement in copyright litigation, as well as performs a musical analysis of the songs in litigation.

Lots of headlines were created last week when the U.S. Copyright Office refused registration, for the third time, a piece of artwork in which the author of the work was identified as “Creativity Machine.” It is interesting to note that had the proposed author not admitted this fact, the registration probably would have issued. But what was more intriguing was the question of, if the work was copyrightable, how did the proposed copyright claimant obtain ownership? The claimant asserted that the copyright passed to him as a “work made for hire” because he “owned” the machine. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines the legal and practical questions that arise from this rather bold assertion.

Many headlines were generated on September 24, 2021, when Marvel Characters, Inc. filed a series of lawsuits against many former Marvel Comics illustrators. The suits, filed in New York and Los Angeles, all have the same basic fact pattern and asked for the same relief. The suits sought a declaratory decree that the termination notices served on Marvel by the authors and heirs of the former Marvel illustrators were invalid. At stake are the characters Iron Man, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Ant-Man, Hawkeye, Dr. Strange, Black Widow, Falcon, Thor and more. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., explains the law at the center of these lawsuits, and why “The Marvel Method” of how these iconic characters were created looms large over the ultimate outcome.

On September 28, 2021, a District Court denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit based on one of music composers pet peeves: use of their music in political campaigns. Many times, this occurs when songs are used at campaign rallies. The composers feel that this is an implied endorsement. The campaigns usually rely on a license from the performing rights organizations. However, sometimes the use is in a campaign video, and since this is a “synchronization” use, it absolutely requires a license and absolutely requires permission, even in the internet age. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines the latest dispute between songwriters and political campaigns, especially the claim that any political use is automatically “transformative.”

In the case of Allen v. Cooper, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the State of North Carolina had sovereign immunity from liability for copyright infringement lawsuits, and that Congress’ attempt to remove that immunity was unconstitutional. However, the Court did suggest that Congress could fashion a remedy based upon a legislative record which supported such an action. It suggested that Congress may validly abrogate sovereign immunity if it has a sufficient record of unconstitutional infringement by states. To this end, the Copyright Office filed a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) inviting public comments in an attempt to determine whether such a legislative record was possible. The full report was published August 31, 2021. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., analyzes the findings of the 110 page report, and finds that what the Copyright Office recommends is less than decisive.

On August 24, 2021, The Second Circuit Court of Appeals released its second opinion in the case of Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. It not only boldly affirmed its prior ruling in March of 2021, it flatly refuted the notion that the Supreme Court’s decision in Google v. Oracle had any impact on the case. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., presents an in-depth analysis of the Court’s ruling, and finds that at long last the question of whether a “transformative work” is really a derivative work in disguise is brought to the forefront.

An interesting story popped up last week. It seems an eagle-eyed reader noticed some great similarities between the gay erotic novel “Paid to Kneel” by Romilly King and a similar story posted on the internet. While the comparisons posted by the reader on Twitter are hard to read, it does seem like there was extensive copying, and a lot of it word for word. The original author was able to get “Paid to Kneel” removed from its listing on Amazon. But what was plagiarized was “fan fiction” based on the defunct TV series “Supernatural.” Since unauthorized derivative works are themselves infringements, Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., asks “can you infringe on an infringement?”