January 8, 2018 saw the publication of the latest in a series of highly questionable decisions on the question of “transformative use.” The case, Philpot v. Media Research Center, held that by merely changing the context in which a photographic image is displayed, this constitutes a “transformative use” leading to a conclusion of fair use. In doing so, the Court has effectively rendered the Creative Commons license ineffective and unenforceable. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines the bad and the worse of this truly head-scratching decision.

Back in July of 2016, The U.S. Department of Justice announced that going forward, performing rights organization ASCAP and BMI would have to end their practice of offering “fractional licenses,” and instead must offer 100% licenses for the song, even though they owned only partial shares. How did they come to this conclusion? They made it up. Now, the Second Circuit, in addition to the Federal District Court, have ruled that the consent decrees say no such thing. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., highlights the essential points of the two rulings, agreeing with what this blog said back in 2016: You can’t make this stuff up.

Many people sound off on all manner of issues on the internet. Many people also use either phony names or blog anonymously to prevent pushback from the targets of their posts. There is no question that the First Amendment protects anonymous speech. But what if the speech itself is not protected? What if it’s libel? Or in a recent court case, what if it’s copyright infringement? Should the blogger be allowed to remain anonymous? Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines this important ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On November 4, 2017, H.R. 1, the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” was introduced in the House of Representatives. Buried within the 429 pages are several important changes which can have an impact on the career of a musician or composer. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., explains what the changes are and how they will affect your career as a musician or composer.

On the eve of Halloween, October 26, 2017, to be precise, the Supreme Court of Florida handed down its advisory opinion in the case of Flo and Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM. It concluded that the State of Florida did not recognize performance rights in sound recordings made prior to February 15, 1972. For Flo and Eddie, this is more “trick” than “treat” because once again, $5 million dollars goes “poof” out of their hard won settlement with Sirius XM.

Sampling of musical compositions came into mainstream music with the rise of rap music as a genre. Due to a recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals over the Madonna hit Vogue, the practice still has uncertain legal ramifications. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., takes a legal tour through the history of sampling, both of musical compositions and sound recordings, and explains where we stand nearly 40 years after “The Rapper’s Delight” hit the airwaves.

Beyond the hot topic of “fake news,” two recent controversies highlight the important distinction between what’s true and what’s fiction: it’s a lot easier to sue for copyright infringement if you made it up. Both the movie "The Conjuring" and "All Eyez On Me" supposedly depict true events. But, now, the authors of the underlying works say they made up the facts, making the works fictional and want to sue for copyright infringement. Can they really do this? Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines the cases of where fact becomes fiction, and reveals how the courts feel about this rather unique form of “gotcha.”