Copyright Law in Entertainment

←Back • ↑Topics • ↑Categories

Copyright Law in the US

Copyright Law in Entertainment is a subsection of the larger protections given by the US Government with Copyright. Copyright is the power that grants people the power to protect intellectual property by monopolizing the use of such material as they deem acceptable for a certain time frame. The US Government lays this out in the US Constitution under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 (also known more commonly as The Copyright Clause). The US Constitution states that the US Government has the right to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. The Copyright Law in the US through the protection given in the constitution protects both companies and individuals intellectual property in the form of media such as films, videos, and music.

History

The first instance of laws protecting the intellectual property of their creators dates back to Ancient Greece. The Greek city of Sybaris around 500 BCE has evidence to show that it practiced an early form of patent laws. In modern times, copyright protection was introduced in the United Kingdom in the sixteenth century in the 1556 Charter of the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers and later expanded in 1710 under the Statute of Anne. The Copyright protections of intellectual property were first established in the United States under the Constitution through The Copyright Clause. Later the United States copyright law was subject to revision in the Copyright Act of 1976 outlined in Title 17 of the United States Code.

Music

Music Copyright Laws

The intellectual property in music is protected very thoroughly under copyright laws across the United States of America for music. Under US copyright law, the protection of the intellectual property of music is granted to the song no matter what the song is as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium. This means once a song is completed and published on a public channel the musical works and song recordings are protected by copyright laws. However, "sound recording and the music, lyrics, words, or other content included in the recording are separate copyright-protected works" are subject to different regulations. Additionally, any form of music can be registered despite already receiving copyright protection upon its conception for additional protections under the law. This registration requires an application, a filing fee, and a copy of the work to receive the benefits of a public record of your ownership and access to federal courts in the case of infringement. However, it is not impossible to not use another artist's work. According to US copyright law, you must follow 3 rules: Use work that is already in the public domain, get permission from the copyright holder directly or license the work according to the terms set by the licensing contract, and rely on a statutory limitation to the exclusive rights, such as fair use or the section 115 license for musical works. If these rules are not met and music is used unlawfully and outside of the statute of limitation of the music, one is given the right to pursue legal action (generally in federal court) under copyright laws.

Copyright Lawsuits in Music

Led Zeppelin Lawsuit

A picture of Led Zeppelin playing Stairway To Heaven in a concert.

In the United States, every year there are many copyright cases for the intellectual property of music even including Supreme Court Cases . Artists face lawsuits from other artists who feel that they have had their musical intellectual property infringed on by the artists. The artists that face these lawsuits range from both popular musicians or musicians without much fame. The threat of a copyright lawsuit has become a prevalent issue many artists. The court case against Led Zeppelin's hit song set a precedent for copyright law in the US Court System. In 2014, a lawsuit was filed by the household of the late musician Randy California against the family members of Led Zeppelin and its record label against the iconic "Stairway to Heaven" song . The Plaintiff alleged that the song "Stairway to Heaven" by Led Zeppelin infringed on the song “Taurus,” by the band Spirit in the 1960s. In the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the case against the "Stairway to Heaven" was found to be unsubstantial as Led Zeppelin told the media "here are zillions and zillions of songs that are carrying the same chord progression, so it was very unfortunate, and it was unpleasant for everybody". The Court System denied copyright protections against Led Zeppelin as the material in the question of copyright was common in many songs: a precedent set by the court systems.

Blurred Lines Lawsuit

Before the Led Zeppelin case, the Plaintiffs accusing other artists of infringing on copyright have been on a winning streak of cases. This trend was the result of the aftermath of a court case involving the song “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke. In this court case, Robin Thicke was forced to pay 5 million dollars to the Plaintiff the estate of Marvin Gaye for his 1977 single “Got to Give It Up”. Litigators and legal scholars saw the Led Zeppelin case as a case that “reset the balance of power in music copyright cases” from the lawsuit involving the song “Blurred Lines” which empowered a “series of lawsuits have focused on short phrases or chunks of generic musical elements in combination”.

Issues with Copyright in Music

Despite the Led Zeppelin case, a week later, a Jury forced Katy Perry to pay the plaintiff 2.8 million in a copyright infringement court case involving her song “Dark Horse”. However, other high-profile artists such as Vanilla Ice, Ed Sheeran, and Biz Markie avoided or won their copyright infringement lawsuits. As copyright lawsuits continue, two opposing viewpoints among individuals have formed. Some people state that the lawsuits are “focused on short phrases or chunks of generic musical elements in combination” and stifle creativity. These people believe that the legal precedent set in the Led Zeppelin case is a massive step in the right ethical direction for music. People with opposing viewpoint state such as Richard S. Busch (the lawyer who won the “Blurred Lines Case” for Gaye’s estate). Busch is known to have stated that is ridiculous that music is not protected by copyright laws due to stifling creativity claiming “It has never applied to music because there are literally an infinite number of creative choices in creating a song”. The question of whether it is ethical for an artist to have freedom of creativity vs the right to protect intellectual property will continue to ask in court cases involving copyright law in music.

Copyright in New Media

The Copyright Law in the US through the protection given in the constitution protects both companies' and individuals' intellectual property in the form of media such as films, videos, and music. The most prominent form of copyright law in the United States of America occurs on new social media platforms. Many videos, music, and films are regularly used without the owner’s permission; thus, many companies use copyright laws to take down these posts on new social media platforms. However, the rampant use of copyrighted posts leads to very tough enforcement of copyright laws, so many new social media platforms give companies the power to file their copyright infringement claims. This power leads to an abuse of the copyright laws in place, creating a discussion on at what point is Copyright Law still ethical.

Youtube

Youtube Copyright Laws

In 2008, the media site Youtube was purchased by Google for 1.65 billion dollars. The social media company Youtube has grown into an entity with its ecosystem over the last decade, forcing youtube to build its very own legal system. Due to this huge popularity, Youtube was overwhelmed with the legal issue that came with so many of its users creating videos on its site. Youtube copyright policy created a copyright policy based heavily on The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Passed in 1998, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act frees YouTube from liability when users upload infringing material without YouTube's knowledge, without requiring YouTube to actively patrol content for infringement. In exchange, Youtube would need to take down video content that violates copyright law. Youtube has a partnership program with its content creators that allows its content creators to share a portion of the ad revenue that they make from the video. Ad revenue can account for a large portion of the content creators' income. Copyright claim on a Youtube video leads to the Ad revenue of that video going to the claimer and gives the claimed Youtube channel a copyright strike. Each copyright strike significantly affects the partner’s channels and once a channel gets three strikes the channel will be terminated. To resolve a copyright strike there are three methods: Submit a Counter-notice ( a counter-notice challenging the copyright strike by proving the video does not violate DMCA), Obtain a Retraction (A retraction of the copyright strike by the copyright owner if there is an error), Wait for Expiration (the ninety-day period in which the copyright strike expires).

Problems for Youtube Content Creators

A Picture of Youtube Copyright Form.

Due to the Youtube Copyright System, Youtube became a platform ripe for copyright abuse. For instance, two small content creators on Youtube known as Kenzo and ObbyRaidz got a copyright claimed by a man. This caused the two YouTubers to get their videos taken down and gain a copyright strike. After this, the man who claimed the video blackmailed the two YouTubers demanding they pay him money for him to rescind his fraudulent copyright claim. This example happens to show experiences that many content creators face. Due to the large amounts of copyright claims Youtube can not effectively check all copyright claims to be legitimate. Thus, many content creators are abused by entities that fraudulently copyright claim videos for money through ad revenue and in some extreme cases blackmail. As concerns over copyright abuse continue to occur, the question of the benefits of protection of intellectual property and the abuse of such protections becomes more imperative. Are the protections afforded to inventors absolute or is the harm that resulted from such abuses too prevalent an issue is a question that will plague Youtube going forward.

Issues with Music on Youtube

Youtube content creators such as Kenzo and ObbyRaidz claim that the Youtube copyrights system is broken and needs to be changed. Similarly, Sam Rosenthal, a man who runs a small independent label named Projekt Records, holds the view that the Youtube copyrights system is broken and needs to be changed; however, the Youtube copyrights issues he noticed are very different from Kenzo's and ObbyRaidz's issues. Sam Rosenthal is a musician who has produced electronic music for over 30 years. Originally, Rosenthal was having a thriving business with over 11 full-time employees but now is left with only 2 part-time employees yes in large part due to Youtube Copyright regulations. He states an artist under him Steve Roach would regularly sell between 50,000 to 60,000 album copies; however, now, due to the accessibility illegally of music on internet sites including Youtube, Steve Roach sells only a fraction of their previous album copy total. Rosenthal makes the admission that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protects media companies from liability towards copyright is a problem. Rosenthal wrote a letter to Congress imploring them to make companies such as Google responsible to find unauthorized files and taking them down. A Youtube legal council counterclaimed that Youtube has a Google content ID program (a program when you register the song to Google after which Google will find uploads using their song and gives the creator the monetary value for the unauthorized files or takes down the unauthorized files), and the Google content ID program has made 2 billion dollars for the right holders. Despite this according to the Recording Industry Association of America, YouTube saw a more than 100 percent increase in the number of video plays last year, but the music industry saw only a 17 percent increase in the revenue sent to artists. The Government has hosted many musicians with similar viewpoints to Sam Rosenthal on Copyright and the DMCA Law for hearings . As the Government looks into these pleas for change from Sam Rosenthal, Steve Roach, and other musicians, the question is whether it is feasible for companies to able to take liability for Copyright. The US Government stares at the question of if the right holders should bear the brunt of the problems for major corporations' lack of ability to protect Copyright rights. Within these Government discussions, the US Government faces the problem of how would an increase in Copyright regulations on Youtube affects its content creators.

Film

Film Copyright Laws

The intellectual property of films is heavily protected by United States copyright laws. Under the United States, copyright law, similar to musical property, a motion picture's copyright rights are secured as soon as the motion picture is deemed created and fixed in a copy. Under United States Law, a motion picture is defined as “audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images that, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with any accompanying sounds” and fixed in a copy defined as a publication. A publication is required under United States law to have at least “one or more copies [distributed] to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending or when an offering is made to distribute copies to a group for purposes of further distribution or public performance”. Once the film is deemed a motion picture while having been created and fixed, United States copyright law protects “the expression fixed in a motion picture ”. This includes the camera work, the dialogue, and the sounds of the film. Copyright for a film does not include the protection concept of the story or characters included in the film.

Film Statute of Limitation

The Statute of Limitation protects the intellectual property of a film for 70 years under copyright law in The United States. However, an exception to the law occurs after 35 years. After 35 years the rights to the film can be recovered by the former owner of the rights to the film. The movie Top Gun Maverick is facing this scenario. The original owner of the rights and creator of the story of the film Top Gun Maverick Ehud Yonay sold the rights to the movie to Paramount films in 1986 which is longer than 35 years. Due to the Statute of Limitations expiring, Yonay remarks that he reclaimed the rights to the film. Now, Paramount films are facing a lawsuit about the distribution of the film. Copyright law in the United States in this scenario could affect the economic well-being of the film industry and the Paramount films company. The idea of protecting the original creator's right to intellectual property is being protected by the United States copyright law. The question of whether this protection of the creator's intellectual property impedes the copyright protection of the owner of the copyright through transactions is shown to be an issue through the statute of limitations of films.