As we have seen before, nothing makes the internet spin faster than pictures of naked women. So much, that the Dutch website GeenStijl gleefully linked to pictures of Dutch model Britt Decker. Problem was, they belonged to Playboy and had not been published yet. Playboy kept getting the pictures taken down by the third parties that hosted them. Geenstijl kept linking to new sites hosting the files, taunting Playboy in the process. Playboy sued the website and the Court of Justice of the European Union has now ruled that the linking to known infringing material violated Playboy’s rights. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle J.D., explains the facts and the basis of the Court’s ruling and finds it’s not unlike what the Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled.
You can get my latest article in your email
If you only listen to extremists, you would think that website blocking will lead to the destruction of the internet as we know it. A year ago, this blog wrote how courts in three different countries had ordered website blocking, and yet the internet failed to spontaneously self-destruct. In the ensuing year, it seems that the internet does not behave any differently than it did before. Recently released is this study that shows that not only does site blocking work, but the internet remains unscathed. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines Website Blocking Revisited: The Effect of the UK November 2014 Blocks on Consumer Behavior by researchers Brett Danaher, Michael D. Smith, and Rahul Telang, which makes an in-depth analysis of consumer behavior in the United Kingdom following the court ordered site blocking of 53 websites.
Gossip Cop is a website that reports on celebrity gossip and opines on the veracity of celebrity news stories published by others. Along with stories critiquing the news reports, Gossip Cop also copied several photographs that illustrated those stories. When sued by the photo licensing agency, Gossip Cop responded with the all too familiar refrain of “but it’s a transformative use”! Not so fast, says the Court. What happened? Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., explains the Court’s reasoning and finds that maybe there are cracks in the walls of the “transformative use” defense.
We finally have the written statement from the U.S. Department of Justice mandating that ASCAP and BMI must engage in 100% licensing, and it’s a doozy. Start with the fact that no DOJ lawyer was brave enough to actually sign their name to this statement, but add in the fact that the statement contradicts the plain meaning of the consent decrees, takes quotes out of context from court opinions, and recommends that songwriters breach their own contracts. Plus, the DOJ acknowledges that because of their statement, some songs will become unavailable for public performance, making it clear this is a disaster that will cause chaos. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., takes apart the statement argument by argument to show the flaws in this terrible, horrible, no good, very bad decision.
They’re at it again. A few weeks ago, it was the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that pulled out of thin air a ruling that Section 301 didn’t really say what it plainly said, despite no authority to the contrary. Now, it’s the U.S. Department of Justice’s turn. They have informed songwriter representatives that from now on, each performing rights organization will have the obligation to license 100% of musical compositions rights, even though that PRO did not own 100% of the rights. Or 50%. Or 5%. How did the DOJ come to this conclusion? They made it up. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle J.D., examines the ins and outs of musical performance licensing and goes into the actual current consent decree and finds out that not only is 100% licensing not in the consent decree, the decree says the opposite of what the DOJ says it states.
One of the bedrock principles of the current Copyright Act was that it did not apply in any way to sound recordings made before February 15, 1972. But now, in a horrific decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the notice and takedown provisions of the Copyright Act do apply to pre-1972 sounds recordings, disregarding the clear directives of the Copyright Act and the clear opinion of the Copyright Office. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., analyzes the serious logical flaws in the Court’s ruling and highlights the dangers of what happens when a Court puts its opinion of “good policy” ahead of the “plain meaning” of a statute.
On May 30, 2016, a District Court in California dropped a bombshell. It ruled that the act of re-mastering a sound recording created a new sound recording copyright. This paves the way for a host of unintended consequences, including the elimination of termination rights and the possibility that sound recordings could in effect receive “perpetual” copyright. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle J.D., analyzes the decision from legal, musical and practical standpoints, and finds that when the Court decided that “everything old is new again” a host of problems was created.
For years, it’s been apparent that the internet proved two things: we’re all a bunch of thieves and we’re all a bunch of perverts. I just didn’t know how right this was, or that these two phenomena had merged, until I heard about Rule 34. Apparently, it’s internet shorthand for the proposition that “If it exists, there is porn of it – no exceptions.” And as it turns out, there are literally, no exceptions. If anything has ever been a popular form of entertainment, somewhere on the internet, there is a porn version. How is this legal? The porn producers claim it’s a “parody.” But what do the Courts say? Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., examines the long line of cases involving “porn parodies,” and once again, just because you say it, doesn’t make it so.
Two events popped up this week where persons argued that somehow copyright law is preventing them from being creative. The first was a reversal by the German Constitutional Court of a lower Court’s determination prohibiting the distribution of the 1997 song called "Nur mir" ("Only to me") because it included a sample of the 1977 song "Metall auf Metall" by the German electronic pioneers Kraftwerk. Next, a post on MTV’s website titled “Steal This Riff: How To Fix Copyright Law And Set Musicians Free,” called again for the passage of legislation forcing musicians to give up their rights to control derivative works. Both of these events suffer from the same illogical mindset: that musicians cannot be creative unless they can make note for note copies of something another composer has already done. Nova Southeastern University's Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., takes a look at the arguments advanced in both instances, points out what the U.S. Courts have already taken on issue, and determined, once again, that copying is not creativity.
A recent post to the website of “The Chronicle of Higher Education," titled “Colleges Shouldn’t Have to Deal With Copyright Monitoring” bemoaned the requests of book publishers for an injunction in the long running suit against Georgia State University. The post called the requests “onerous” and “costly.” Never mind the fact that injunction has not been issued yet, but a lot of what is being requested is what colleges and universities already do as a matter of policy, including Nova Southeastern University. NSU Copyright Officer, Stephen Carlisle, J.D., explains the process by which NSU examines fair use claims and shows how it’s not only good policy but the right thing to do.