Navigating Copyright Law for Creative Types

If you are sitting at a restaurant and the waiters arrive carrying a desert and singing “Happy Birthday” to a patron nearby a few thoughts may run through your head. Perhaps you think it’s sweet or even embarrassing, but the question you may want to ask is: is it legal? Copyright issues surrounding the song are vague and contradictory, but for many other works copyright law is the be-all, end-all in a question of whether something is legal. In The Creative Artist’s Legal Guide: Copyright, Trademark, and Contracts in Film and Digital Media ProductionBill Seiter and Ellen Seiter detail ways to ensure that your works won’t get caught in the copyright debate, the difference between copyrights and trademarks, and what you need to know about contracts. The book is informative both to those interested in going into film, music, or television production, but also those interested in the politics and history behind much of what we see and hear on a daily basis providing a great resource and additional reading suggestions for those looking to learn more.

Copyright law is a complex and changing set of legislation that has undergone four major updates since 1909. Under original copyright law in the 1700s the term of protection was 14 years with a 14 year renewal possible. Now, after the passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1988 (also commonly referred to as the Sonny Bono Act or the Mickey Mouse Protection Act), the term is the authors lifetime plus 70 years or 120 years for material under corporate ownership. The corporate ownership term garnered the act the Mickey Mouse Protection Act nickname by ensuring that iconic Disney characters like Steamboat Willie would not be part of the public domain until 2023. Disney was among the companies that asked copyright to be extended to protect their intellectual property. Copyright law is also complex for those materials that would be under copyright, but the record of who owns the copyright has been lost. There may be millions of pieces of art, literature, and music that have been orphaned after records were lost or their creators passed away. These orphaned works remain a question mark for those practicing copyright law, but in today’s fast-paced digital world it is not the only question mark.

What is almost as common as seeing a Disney or other trademarked character, hearing a song from a well-known musical, or watching a movies is dealing with the terms and conditions of a website. Terms and conditions exist in most websites that contained copyrighted content or have social media platforms. For the most part, people do not pay much attention to these terms, but when they do they might be surprised at what they find, and what they have agreed too. As Seiter and Seiter note, “sites change their terms of service from time to time, in furtherance of their business models and in pursuit of their content streams and revenue streams that feed them.” You have to look no further than social media behemoth Facebook to see what can happen when companies change their terms and conditions–leading to negative responses from users. Facebook was forced to remove the stipulation in their terms and conditions stating that they owned any content (videos, photos etc.) posted by users after widespread protest and media coverage.

Copyright law applies to such a diverse collection of works that it may not seem as if there is a connection between them all, but one day you might just get a letter from Universal (who owns the copyright to Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho)  or Warner Music Group (who owns the copyright to Happy Birthday) telling you to cease and desist. It might just be helpful to know what laws you should follow and what is stipulated in the terms and conditions you were supposed to read.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Business, Film, Internet, Law, Literature, Music, Popular Culture, Publishing, Television

Follow Yale Press

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

One Comment on “Navigating Copyright Law for Creative Types”

  1. PGJK
    August 27, 2012 at 12:02 am #

    The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violates the very laws its sought to protect. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) seeks to protect the intellectual property claims to material long since own or created by others A simple note or pitch change does not significantly given the newer creator exclusive right or claim to that with was clearly created before they got their sticky fingers on it. Nor does a slight variation in a storyline change the context of the original script biet written composition or play or movie rights. Just how many versions of Romeo & Juliet are there out there wherein Shakespeare recieves no royalty. Just how many tunes out there use a blues riff in “B” or ‘C’ for that matter, each of which was written by a poor black man in Mississippi who recieve no monies for his effort. How many times has “Happy Birthday” since 1893. Did Patty and Mildred J. Hill ever receive adime for this little ditty sung a least 365 days a year by countless millions of people on this planet. Did Tesla ever recieve recognition or payment for his inception of the antenna or radio wave, No this notable achevement was give to Marconi instead simply because he made use of this technoogy. I could go on but YOU get the idea. The very notion of the ‘copyright’ comes into question thus similarly falable as does ownership therefore the ridiculous notion or conception of any such Digital Millennium Copyrights are simply a joke. Legal mumbo-jumbo for which the goverment has no stake. Any individual who seeks to obtain such copyright are made well aware of these risks when they apply for said copyright. It is not a guarantee that their work(s) will be protect under the law, but merely a vehicle of which to pursue justice in the event of violation the copyright. Again no guarantee that their claim is just, simply a benchmark for which to stage said claim or right. In other words if you created something and seek to copyright it then you are registered, hence benchmarked, however if another earlier claim or right supercedes yours then yours is dismissed or invalid …period.

    Too many arguements could be made about where copyright infringements and intelectual property loses it validity …Isn’t it just the initial viewing, broadcast or recording that applies, since everything thereafter constitutes just a duplication or copy thereof. Therefore should not the weight of the original copyright become negligible upon subsequent replication of the original. At which point does it lose the right to call itself intellectual property thus not a shared property. Does a mere club owner have to pay royalties for publically broadcasting music for its clients to dance or listen to (I’d love to see the RIAA argue this one). Does this re-broadcasting process also apply to televised media, or TV subscription where as its subscribers already pay for this privileged rebroadcasting (I love to see MPAA or Disney argue this). Disney is already the biggest proliferator of stolen or borrowed material in Hollywood. Walt owned just what he, himself created and never the storylines or scripts according to DCMA or general copyright law. This process will inevitably bite of the hand that feeds it, mark my words.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers

%d bloggers like this: