Paragraph 1
Before- Currently many people on YouTube have
experienced theft of an idea from work they uploaded online, but there isn't
much we can currently do to prove it was stolen. The United States Code Service, consolidation and codification by subject
matter of the general and permanent laws in the United States, suggest that you
register your work within three months of uploading it onto the internet [1],
which may be nice for directors who have a big project they want to protect,
but isn't beneficial for many YouTubers who upload each week and are trying to
stay relevant. Ashlee Knuckey is an associate in Lock Lord's (an American law
firm) Business Litigation and Arbitration practice group and represents client
in state and federal court. Knuckey has focused her practices on complex
litigation and arbitration and also handles matters that involve fraudulent
business practices, state taxation issues, breach of commercial contracts, loss
sensitive insurance programs, regulatory and government enforcement issues, and
Medicare reimbursement issues. In the article YouTube--The Next Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can
Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters? Knuckey talks about the copyright
policies and how registering a video/idea within the three months before
uploading it will make that person eligible to sue for any sort of damages,
but "even if they register
their work within the three-month period, they would not be eligible to recover
damages for any infringement taking place prior to the copyright
registration." [2]. Meaning that even if someone was to register one of
their works that was stolen in the past, they would be protected, but couldn't
do anything about that incident since it was before the registration. And the
United States Code Services on Title 17, Copyrights Chapter 4 on Copyright
Notice, Deposit, and Registration it talks about the fact that with registering content, there
is a registration fee and yearly renewal that shall also cost money. And
Knuckey says even if content is registered, "
Direct proof of copying is often impossible for the plaintiff to show; thus,
copying must often be inferred from proof that the defendant had access to the
plaintiff's work, as well as that there are "substantial
similarities" between the two works."
After- Currently many people on YouTube
have experienced theft of an idea from work they uploaded online, but there
isn't much we can currently do to prove it was stolen. The United States Code Service, consolidation and
codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws in the United States
Paragraph
2
Before- With everything humans have created
so far and everything being a recreation of something else, how can we tell
when someone is stealing something? The rights that come with being a copyright
owner tells you all about what you can legally do with your product and what
others can not do with it, but no where does it say how to determine whether or
not someone is taking your idea/creation. With the Blurred Lines vs. Marvin
Gaye trial, a court had to decide whether or not Blurred Lines was just a
recreation of Gaye's song Got to Give it Up. And even after the trial said it
was, many people disagree saying they are two different songs. This situation
does not only happen with songs, in 2014 Disney and Deadmau5 had a similar
situation. Joel Zimmerman a.k.a Deadmau5 was filing for his trademark in the United States
of his well known Deadmau5 symbol. A trademark is made to protect words,
phrases, symbols, or designs identifying
the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them
from others. Copyright only protects original works of authorship. The problem
was Disney was preventing him from doing so, their argument being that it was
too similar to the Mickey Mouse icon (similar to Blurred Lines vs. Marvin
Gaye). Yes the two are both mouse icons, but the two are both greatly different
from one another. Just because it is a mouse, doesn't mean that it is a copy of
Mickey Mouse. This theory following many situations in the copyright
infringement world, just because two things have similar qualities does not
always mean one thing is copying another. Many copyright owners must understand
that before filing against someone for copyright infringement, if it is a grey
area situation (blurred lines vs. Marvin Gaye), that everything is inspired
from something else. Even their creation was inspired from something else and
for new ideas and creations to exist, old ones can not hold a grasp on
advancement.
After- The rights that come with being a copyright
owner tells you all about what you can legally do with your product and what
others can not do with it, but no where does it say how to determine whether or
not someone is taking your idea/creation. So who really is to judge when
someone's creation is not "original". With the Blurred Lines vs.
Marvin Gaye trial, a court had to decide whether or not Blurred Lines was just
a recreation of Gaye's song Got to Give it Up. And even after the trial ruled
in the favor of Gaye, many people disagree saying they are two different songs.
This situation does not only happen with copyrights, in 2014 Disney and
Deadmau5 had a similar situation. Joel Zimmerman a.k.a Deadmau5 was filing for
his trademark (A trademark is made to protect words, phrases, symbols, or
designs identifying the source of the
goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from others. Copyright
only protects original works of authorship.) in the United States of his well known
Deadmau5 symbol. The problem was Disney was preventing him from doing so, their
argument being that it was too similar to the Mickey Mouse icon. Ziad Ramley,
an associate editor for VICE news, writes on the topic saying, "The reason why Zimmerman wants to trademark his logo
is not because he wants to profit off his resemblance to Mickey Mouse. It's
because he wants to prevent other mau5 head-toting people from profiting
off their resemblance to him."
[11]. Yes the two are both mouse icons,
but the two are both greatly different from one another. Just because it is a
mouse, doesn't mean that it is a copy of Mickey Mouse. Just because two things
have similar qualities does not always mean one thing is copying another. Many
copyright owners must understand that before filing against someone for
copyright infringement that everything is inspired from something else. Even
their creation was inspired from something else and for new ideas and creations
to exist, old ones can not hold a grasp on advancement.
Paragraph
3
Before- Each of these rights helps the owner make sure they have full custody over
their product, and if any of these rights are broken by an outside person
without the copyright owners consent than it then can file for copyright
infringement. And that's what it all comes down to when it comes to copyright
infringement, if there isn't consent then it is copyright infringement. But how
can we tell when someone is breaking someone else copyright rights? Not all cases
that involve copyright infringement are black and white, majority of these
cases fall in the grey area where it is unsure if someone is taking from
someone else's idea.
After- Each
of these rights helps the owner make sure they have full custody over
their product, and if any of these rights are broken by an outside person
without the copyright owners consent than it then can file for copyright
infringement. And that's what it all comes down to when it comes to
copyright infringement, if there isn't consent then it is copyright
infringement. But how can we tell when someone is breaking someone else
copyright rights? On Standford University Libraries in Copyright and Fair
Use it says how there are four factors a judge takes in when judging a
copyright infringement, "the purpose and character of your use, the
nature and copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion
taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market." [12].
Paragraph
4
Before- Now a days nothing is original. With
the amount of people that have been on this Earth and the amount of ideas and
works that have been created, everything is inspired from something else, works
now are a imitation of something before that we adjust to make our own. But how
can we tell the difference between something that is inspired from something
else compared to something that is appropriated. One thing to look at is Marvin
Gaye vs. blurred lines case. A case where Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams
were accused of copyright infringement towards Marvin Gaye's song "Got to
Give it Up" because their hit single "Blurred Lines" sounded too
much like Gaye's song. When listening to the two songs, the melodies are
somewhat similar but the two songs differ greatly. Williams and Thicke ended up
having to pay $7.4 million to Gaye's family. I personally feel that the two
songs differ substantially, but this raises many questions with copyright
infringement. Music inspires more music, authors inspire more authors, movies
inspire more movies, and youtubers inspire more youtubers. So when does
inspiration and an homage to a certain work cross the line of copyright
infringement? What makes a certain work cross the line of having copy written
work? And with this trial will this open the door to more lawsuits that aren't
valid towards big hits, but will just end up being paid away. Then there is
Michelle Phan, a makeup tutorial youtuber with over 7.5 million subscribers,
who was sued for copyright infringement back in 2014 for using popular EDM
songs by artist such as Deadmau5, Kaskade, and Calvin Harris in her tutorial
videos without permission. But the problem isn't that Michelle Phan was using
these EDM artist's songs, the problem is that many people who make YouTube
videos use music all the time in videos without permission from artist or
record label and it goes unnoticed. The only time it becomes noticed is when
money and fame is involved. This goes for majority of all copyright
infringement suits, people only seem to get involved when someone else is
gaining money and/or fame for something that is "not theirs".
After- Now a days nothing is original. With the
amount of people that have been on this Earth and the amount of ideas and works
that have been created, everything is inspired from something else, works now
are a imitation of something before that we adjust to make our own. But how can
we tell the difference between something that is inspired from something else
compared to something that is appropriated. One thing to look at is Marvin Gaye
vs. blurred lines case. A case where Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were
accused of copyright infringement towards Marvin Gaye's song "Got to Give
it Up" because their hit single "Blurred Lines" sounded too much
like Gaye's song. When listening to the two songs, the melodies are somewhat
similar but the two songs differ greatly. Williams and Thicke ended up having
to pay $7.4 million to Gaye's family. Many people argue that the two songs
differ greatly and that Gaye's family should not have won. Then there is
Michelle Phan, a makeup tutorial youtuber with over 7.5 million subscribers,
who was sued for copyright infringement back in 2014 for using popular EDM
songs by artist such as Deadmau5, Kaskade, and Calvin Harris in her tutorial
videos without permission. But the problem isn't that Michelle Phan was using
these EDM artist's songs, the problem is that many people who make YouTube
videos use music all the time in videos without permission from artist or
record label and it goes unnoticed. Dylan Ruga
who is a litigates partner who focuses on property infringement claims in
courts all over the country that involve technology, music, photographs,
furniture, and fabric designs wrote an essay called The Role Of Laches In Closing The Door On Copyright Infringement Claims.
In it he brings up the idea of "what if the copyright owner, aware of the
infringement, remains silent and waits to see how successful the infringer's
work is before bringing his claim? Should the equitable doctrine of laches
preclude such a claim in order to protect a prejudiced defendant, even if
ultimately the claim is brought within the statutory period?" The
only time copied works become noticed is when money and fame is involved. This
goes for majority of all copyright infringement suits, people only seem to get
involved when someone else is gaining money and/or fame for something that is
"not theirs".
No comments:
Post a Comment