Ideas worth protecting

-->

Many artist have ideas that fuel their desires to succeed The Entertainment Industry is no doubt a competitive environment. Seeing that this blog is created to review platforms that help artist jump-start their career in the entertainment industry, it could be helpful to share current topics regarding Intellectual Property IP. To facilitate the rights of innovations, IP laws are designed to grant the owner rights. Understanding more about those rights can empower creative minds.

To gain competencies in what rights exist, the following podcast were reviewed.

1) Entertainment Law UPDATE Gordan Firemark

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/8/4/2/8427221ff2390da9/EntertainmentLawUpdateEpisode040.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01c08733d8cb58eb16&c_id=5649002

2) “Intellectual Property Law Podcast Series” by Suffolk University

Deciding between Patent & Trademark Episode #82

https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/intellectual-property-law/id388454392

3) “Intellectual Property Law Podcast Series” by Suffolk University

Intellectual Property as a currency for Innovation EPISODE #76

https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/intellectual-property-law/id388454392

Information downloaded from these podcast can encourage some to invest in their own ideas. Dr. Cindy Trimm says, “money doesn’t rule the world, thoughts and ideas do.” [1] Attorney, Gary Ganzy promotes the protection of ideas in his helpful podcast, entitled Intellectual Property as a Currency. Some of the benefits afforded through obtaining legal protection include, but are not limited to the following:

·      creators are encouraged through being granted rights

·      owners of ideas have the right to exclude

·      owners have the right to monetize their ideas

·      owners have the right to practice the innovations

·      owners have the right to seek justice against infringements

Infringements occur when someone unlawfully uses the owner’s idea, without prior consent. The risk of an outside party infringing upon an idea is common. It is important to seek the right type of permission for the innovation. In the Intellectual Property Law Podcast Series” by Suffolk University, Episode #82 promotes some basic considerations to take when making these choices. An innovator has the choice between seeking permission for copyrights, patents, trademark, and trademark secrets. Along with the emergence of new technologies, are new ways to leak trademark secrets, and infringe upon the copyrights of others. An innovator must take careful considerations of some common concerns.

After discovering what subject matter is eligible for obtaining protection rights, being granted the rights of a patent can be a long process. During the wait for the government’s permission, the owner must enable the public or educate competitors about the contents of the idea. Contrary to patents, an innovator can be granted permission for a trademark in a much shorter period of time. The cost of guarding ideas in secrecy can be costly. Attorney Andrew Beckerman- Rodau warns about some areas of caution for the protecting of information.

·      when destroying paper records

·      when hiring staff to implement then idea

·      when sharing information on networks, through emails,

·      when storing on small portable hard drives, and

·      when replacing computer and disposing of the old unit

Attorney, Gordon Firemark shares valuable insight on more than 10 law cases in his podcast. The allegations of infringements occurred from transmission of information utilizing emerging technologies in 9 of the 10 lawsuits. Lawsuits have been filed against major corporations for video uploading, video sharing, and accessing broadcast areas by internet. When the technology is made available for access to the public, exposure to the risk of litigation occurs. One important factor that can affect the outcomes of the decisions made are the state in which the charges are filed. Some states are more supportive of the protection rights than others.

            In summary, it is positive to recognize the availability to monetized ideas through IP. This can inspire artist to invest in their dreams of sustaining a successful career. The options are subject to guidelines. It would benefit the innovator to seek legal advice as to making the proper choices. Upon receiving that counsel, innovations are a likely source of funding an artist career. Once the permission has been granted, careful steps must be taken to safeguard ideas.

Reference:

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/8/4/2/8427221ff2390da9/EntertainmentLawUpdateEpisode040.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01c08733d8cb58eb16&c_id=5649002

https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/intellectual-property-law/id388454392

https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/intellectual-property-law/id388454392

[1] Palmer, Gordan, Dr Cindy Trimm Watch ME, published September 12, 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIaDGSJHYX8

What is fair by Tina Fair

My Name is Tina Fair. As an Artist manager, I will be offering my services under the business name Fair Employment and Entertainment Opportunities. It would only be fitting that consumers expect me to have some knowledge around issues of what is fair in the Entertainment Industry. As a non - Attorney, it is important to recognize that I am not trained to give legal advice nor do I claim to have the vast education of an individual who has successfully obtained a juris doctorate degree.

To gain some insight on the legality of fair rights, this post will review contemporary challenges and strategies derived from three different podcast. Developed by Attorneys with specific training in Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, the following links, provide the full context of the podcast.

1) https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/intellectual-property-law/id388454392

2) https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/overview-intellectual-property/id388454392?i=88950050&mt=2

3) https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/entertainment-law-update-podcast/id313301718

From the first podcast, we learn about the importance of copyright to maintain a fair opportunity for the artist to drive sales of their work. This challenge overall has become more complicated as new technologies emerge. The specific development of the Internet has created the biggest threat to the sale of CD’s. The CD itself was created in 1989. Initially, the CD was celebrated because it replaced the cassette and its digital quality was more precise. According to the author, “The problem with the digital source like CD, is it created a perfect copy. It also made perfect generational copies/ (a copy of a copy).”[1]

Having listened to this podcast, there is a review of the problem with copyright as it relates to the Internet. What is revealed is the need to manage the fear that eroded in the recording industry. The Recording Industry Association has been designing models to limit the access and eliminate the threat of [RIA]’s unique value to the artist.

According to the podcast, the answer to the machine is in the machine,”

After the creation of Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) to appease [RIA], came [DNR]. Neither of the systems was completely effective. Consumers rallied for rights to freedom of information on the Internet without regulations.

 As the power of individual access to Internet forged underground methods of acquiring and distributing music, the need for the artist to claim their Intellectual Rights is further increased. Steve Jobs showed the world in 2005 the answer to what was fair. He introduced the iPod. Steve Jobs introduced the iPod as a resolution to the challenge. Siding against DNR.

By the year 2012 rappers begin to design their own innovations to respond to the challenge of "the machine is in the machine,'  Rapper LL cool J launched his new studio like technology to create music in real time. As new inventions wrestle to explore what is fair in copyrights of sounds, it is important to seek permission of trademarks.

The second podcast discuss some of the risk and threats to trademark permissions when branding in social media.  

According to the podcast, if is an artist who is using the Internet should not only protect their name domain “one must take a multidisciplinary strategy” [2]. 

1. ·      There must be a squatter’s policy to detect the misuse of your site.” 
2. ·      The other way to protect the building of your brand would be
3. ·      It is also important to register your marks with trademark to prevent infringements

As social media becomes more than the primary method of accessing a business and the work of an artist, this information is helpful in learning strategies that can result in a fair practice. If an artist believes their rights have been infringed upon, these practices can improve the chances of a lawsuit that results in a winning case.

·      The final podcast from Entertainmentlaw.com Episode 37 reveals many areas of concern for artist across a large span of disciplines. Some hot topics include 

• ·      Fair Use of a word
• ·      Fair use of a name
• ·      Fair use of an image
• ·      Fair use of the definition Net Profit

Many cases are cited to demonstrate the increased need to be aware of the style of word used when seeking trademark permissions. One case cited a law suit filed by an artist who calls herself the “Persian Barbie.” Unable to win the case against the TV Show who uses the same name for a character, we learn that it was fair use because the trademark name was “ descriptive,” therefore more difficult to obtain an official trademark.

In summary the increased speed of information in real time creates increased needs to protect the rights of work by artist across disciplines. With so much freedom of information it is important to tap into the wisdom of professionals and Attorneys as in these podcast to be certain and aware of what is or is not fair.

References:

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/intellectual-property-law/id388454392

2) https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/overview-intellectual-property/id388454392?i=88950050&mt=2

3) https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/entertainment-law-update-podcast/id313301718

 Photos

[4] http://www.eurweb.com/2012/06/ll-cool-j-launches-new-studio-like-technology/

[5] http://www.bestpresentation.net/presentation-secrets-steve-jobs/

The Karma of copyrights

The Karma of copyrights

The importance of getting permission is increasing in the entertainment industry, as technology and financial opportunities emerge. As an artist manager, the need to offer sound advice on how to best protect your artist is essential for success. Today’s infringements upon another artist work can easily occur, as the interest in remix grow.  In the video seen above, the commentator says, “it only takes two seconds to catch a case.” [1]

In the New Zeland Herald, writer Shuman accuses Keyes of admitting to using two seconds of his song, “Hey There, Lonely Girl.” Apparently, the song begins in one form and became a hit under another title in 1970. “Songwriter, Earl Shuman has filed a suit, alleging that the songbird’s track borrows elements from Lonely Boy, a song he co-wrote in 1962. The song became a hit in 1970 for Eddie Holman under the title Hey There Lonely Girl. [2] Keys admits that she borrowed, confessing that it was only two seconds of the song.

Similarly, Kanye West has also been sued for the use of only two lines in one hook, “Get down Girl Get Down.” Featured in this video and number 1 hit, “Goldigger,” West has been accused of taking a line from an unknown hit that was originally called Bumpin’ Bus Stop. Two of the family members, David and Prior, asked the judge to stop the sales and compensate them for the use of the hook.  

Seen here in the video are the lyrics for the hit song, Goldiggers. The specific use of the words is clear, but the right for the Prior family to receive 1 million dollars for the use of such lyrics remains murky. Kanye refuses to pay.

Rather it’s two seconds or two lines that are borrowed, the idea of not recognizing another artist could come back to bite you. My advice would be to consider the loss that might occur when it’s royalties of your own work that is not being honored. Be aware of the a karma of copyrights. In a recent New York Times article, The Copyright Enforces, John Bowe points out the role of ASCAP to collect Billions of dollars each year from radio broadcasters to be paid out to the artist whose works are featured. [4]

   

Some arguments rely on the change in copyright rules over time. With the focus on 1972 Copyright act, Sirus XM is avoiding paying royalties, as well. The similarity of all three  law suits is the time of the original work created. Sirus XM profess to be within the rights of the law, “because sound recordings didn't fall under federal copyright protection until 1972, SiriusXM couldn't rely on statutory royalty rates for these older tunes.”[5]

 “The Florida statute provides that one is liable for theft if one "knowingly … uses the property of another with intent to … appropriate the property to his own use." [6] As an artist manager, my advice would be to access as much protection for your work as possible, seeking proper permissions.  An artist would better be safe than sorry. 

REFERENCES

[1] Stereotude, Alicia Keys Hit With a Copyright Lawsuit for ‘Girl on Fire.’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPo6K0ILRkg, Dec 18, 2012

[2] Sterotude, Kanye west Sued For $1milion Over copyright Lawsuit, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrkMAFUm_yk,  April 9, 2013

[3] Mathers, Rose, Kanye West – Gold Digger (feat. Jamie Foxx) Lyrics Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOxb_SW4Cfg  May 15, 2011

[4]BOWE, By JOHN. (August 8, 2010 Sunday Correction Appended ). The Copyright Enforcers. The New York Times, Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic

 [5] [6] Gardner, E., Sirius XM Hit With Fourth $100 Million Lawsuit in Past Month, Hollywood, Esq. the intersection of entertainment and law posted 9/14/2013 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/siriusxm-hit-fourth-100-million-620793