CopyrightNapster + Similar
cases
CopyrightNapster + Similar
casesIntellectual PropertyGroup 8
The Copyright Act of 1976The Copyright Act (“Act”) of 1976 provides basic rights to the copyright holder. This Act preempts all previous copyright laws of the U.S. The Act provides for certain rights to the copyright holder like:
1. the right to reproduce (copy);
2. the right to create derivative works of the original work;
3. the right to sell, lease, or rent copies of the work to the public;
4. the right to perform the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, motion picture, or other audiovisual work), and
5. the right to display the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, motion picture, or other audiovisual work).
A&M RECORDS VS. NAPSTER INC
The Plaintiffs• Eighteen plaintiffs including "Big Four" record companies
Defendant• Napster - peer-to-peer file sharing service provider
Infringements Fair Use
• The purpose of the use• Use of music is not transformative• Commercial Purpose
• The nature of the work being used• Creative in nature
• The amount of the work used• Wholesale copying
• The effect of the use on the market for or value of the original work
• Loss of sales of compact disks• Barrier to entry by the music industry into the market
for electronic delivery of music• Sampling• Space-shifting• Permissive distribution
Shawn Fanning
A&M RECORDS VS. NAPSTER INC
Fair Use (Contd.)• Direct infringement • Contributory infringement
• Distributing copyrighted content without permission • Vicarious infringement
• Benefited financially• Supervising and controlling infringing conduct
• Other defenses• Audio Home Recording Act• Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor clause
• Scope of the injunction• Overbroad
Result• Universal Music Group - $60 million • Warner Music Group - $110 million• EMI got an undisclosed amount • National Music Publishers Association - $130 million
GM STUDIOS VS. GROKSTER LTD
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1001 (2005)
Defendant• Defendant’s distributed free software that allowed private
individuals to share copyrighted electronic files without authorization.
• Some of those files shared are movies and songs that MGM hold copyrights to
RULE OF LAW• When a distributor takes affirmative steps to foster infringement
through the use of its product, the distributor will be liable for that infringement conducted by 3rd parties
Court Ruling• the Court held that companies that distributed software, and
promoted that software to infringe copyrights, were liable for the resulting acts of infringement
• Grokster stopped the file sharing service• Grokster Paid $50 million to settle music and piracy claims
THE PIRATE BAY TRIALPLAINTIFFS IFPI representing:
• Sony BMG Music Entertainment Sweden AB• Universal Music AB• Playground Music Scandinavia AB• Bonnier Amigo Music Group AB• EMI Music Sweden AB• Warner Bros. Music Sweden AB
Antipiratbyrån representing:• Yellow Bird Films AB• Nordisk Film• Henrik Danstrup
MAQS Law Firm Advokatbyrå KB representing:• Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc• MGM Pictures Inc• Columbia Pictures Industries Inc• 20th Century Fox Films Co• Mars Media Beteiligungs GmbH & Co Film
produktions• Blizzard Entertainment Inc• Sierra Entertainment Inc• Activision Publishing Inc
THE PIRATE BAY TRIAL P2P File Sharing / BitTorrent
The Verdict The four defendants were convicted on April 17, 2009. The crime committed was complicity in breach of the Copyright ACT from Status
1,2,46,53,57 and (1960:729) and Chapters 23 and 4 of the Penal Code. The sanction was of one year imprisonment. The damages compensation was that the
defendants pay compensation to:• Sony Music Entertainment (Sweden) AB of EUR 41, 467; • Universal Music Aktiebolag of EUR 73,783; • Playground Music Scandinavia AB of EUR 28, 159;• Bonnier Amigo Music Group AB of EUR 4,290; • Emi Music Sweden Aktiebolag of EUR 162,988; • Warner Music Sweden Aktiebolag of EUR 146,484; • Yellow Bird Films AB of SEK 3,150,000; • Nordisk films Valby A/S of SEK 225,000; • Warner Bros Entertainment Inc of SEK 2,484,225; • Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Picture Inc and Columbia Pictures Industries Inc of SEK 5,579,325 in total, 25
percent payable to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Picture inc and 75 percent payable to Columbia Pictures Industries;
• Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation of SEK 10,822500; • Warner Bros Entertainment Inc of SEK 414,000• Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Mars Media Meteilingungs GmbH & Co Film Productions
SED 4,495,950 in total, one percent to Twentieth century Fox Film Corporation and 99 percent to Mars Media Beteiligungs GmbH & Co film Productions as well as interest in accordance to 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635) from 31 May 2006 until payment is made. (Stockholm Court Verdict, 2009)
VICTOR WHITMILL V. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.
Price’s tattoo is identical to the one Mike Tyson has Tyson’s tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros.
Entertainment on April 28, just weeks before the movie’s May 26 opening He obtained a copyright for the eight-year-old “artwork on 3-D” on April 19 He claimed that the use of his design in the movie and in advertisements
without his consent was copyright infringement. Warner Bros., of course, saw it as a parody falling under “fair use
On June 17, Warner Bros. and Whitmill hashed out an agreement of undisclosed terms
Associated Press vs. Fairey
Famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the Hope poster during President Obama’s first run for presidential election in 2008
The photograph on which the design is based was revealed by the Associated Press as one shot by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia
Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didn’t reduce the value of the original photograph.
The artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work
Mannie Garcia for the Associated Press (2006) Shephard Fairey (unofficially) for the Obama Campaign (2008)
Madhur Bhandarkar and Fashion
The Associated Press vs. Fairey
Yash Raj Films Vs India TV
References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 http://www.library.ucla.edu/copyright/copyright-act-1976 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial#Parties http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/pirate-bay-verdict-english-translation.pdf http://rubiromero.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/the-pirate-bay-case-study/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZO.html http://www.cooley.com/files/tbl_s5SiteRepository/FileUpload21/492/A-Colorado%20Lawyer-
PloegerBrownArmon.pdf http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_480 http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1410184/case-summary-mgm-studios-vs-grokster
http://variations2.indiana.edu/pdf/AnalysisOfNapsterDecision.pdf http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/12/1207riaa-sues-napster/ http://copyright.laws.com/famous-cases http://casesofinterest.com/tiki/AM+v.+Napster http://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/
what_are_major_criticisms_copyright_laws_us
Thank You