• • Plaintiff: Prince...
    In this case Prince filed a lawsuit stating that 22 fans committed numerous counts of copyright infringement when that posted unlicensed copies of Prince's concert.  The case was voluntarily dismissed but Prince has the right to refile his complaint at any time.  These individuals removed the unauthorized posts and will be watched to make sure they done repeat the instance.

• LexisNexis® Academic

   

   

   
• • Yes this case shows the power that an artist has to protect themselves. but is the price way too large?
• • This is a good example of how with certain conditions an artist can protect their own work.
• • I see when this protection is necessary for uneducated artists who might have signed a faulty contract upon first entering the entertainment business, but I still argue that the fees are a bit extravagant. 

3 more annotations...

• Prince and the Copyright Revolution
• According to the complaint, each of the defendants had committed multiple instances of copyright infringement by posting links to unlicensed copies of Prince’s concerts
• the offending posts had been removed
• Prince is free to refile his complaint at any time
• intentionally infringing on a copyright can be a very costly mistake
• statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504 can be as little as $200 per work for unintentional infringements, damages can be as high as $150,000 per work if the infringements are willful
• the fairness of the award in the Thomas-Rasset case is certainly subject to debate
• enforcement of copyright laws is inarguably vital to the well-being of society
• any income derived from their creations must be protected
• This protection comes from copyright laws, which provide a shield for creators by giving them a limited monopoly to decide how, when, where and by whom their work — their property — is to be used
• Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976 is an example of the protection that copyright laws afford to creative artists
• allows the author of a work (or their survivor) to unilaterally cancel the underlying grant of a transfer or license of a copyright, provided certain conditions are met
• purpose of this section of the Copyright Act is to protect authors who may have lost the rights to their own work when they entered into unfair contracts, perhaps when they were new to the business and had little negotiating leverage
• Recording and publishing companies must now either renegotiate contracts — this time on a much more level playing field — or they must be willing to fight hundreds, or even thousands, of lawsuits

12 more annotations...

• a paradigm shift is underway as entertainment companies could soon lose control of some of their most valuable hit songs, bestsellers and other core assets
• Jan. 1, 2013, marked the first year grants could be terminated under Section 203
• the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 — derisively referred to by some as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act.”
• provides that copyright terms last for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years
• authors get a second bite at the apple and can reclaim copyrights after waiting only 35 years
• reclaiming the rights to their works does not automatically translate into more profits
• business plan that will capitalize on, and protect, their new ownership rights will be needed
• Therefore, the best idea may be to simply renegotiate a new contract — using termination rights as a bargaining chip
• where agreements cannot be reached amicably, no company in the entertainment industry will give up property they believe to be rightfully theirs without a fight
• Arguments against eligibility
• Works created by employees, as opposed to independent contractors, are not eligible for termination as the rights for such works vest in the employer, not the employee
• even though the author was an independent contractor, the grant cannot be terminated because the work was “specially commissioned.”
• Argument #2: Timely notice was not given
• no less than 2 years and no more than 10 years prior to the expected date of termination
• media companies may believe that the best course of action is to simply wait and hope that authors do not become aware of their right of termination until this window of opportunity has closed and it is too late

13 more annotations...

• Argument #3: The grant was executed prior to Jan.1, 1978
• authors transferred the rights to a work prior to Jan. 1, 1978, but did not actually complete the work until after that date
• authorship can be a very complex issue
• artists that reclaim the rights to their works will still face the same threat of online infringement and internet piracy that the media industry is confronting today
• ome measures that might be taken to better protect copyrights in this ever-advancing digital age

3 more annotations...

• Copyright law must be brought up to speed with rapidly advancing technology if it is to remain effective
• If the DMCA is not upgraded, copyrights will become increasingly vulnerable to infringement
• The DMCA immunizes online service providers (OSPs) from infringement litigation as long as they promptly remove unauthorized material upon receipt of a “takedown notice.”
• The purpose of this safe harbor provision is to balance the interests of copyright holders with the right of society to have access to information
• The safe harbor provision, for example, only requires that a website remove an infringing work after an OSP receives a specific, individualized takedown notice
• once a file or URL is removed in response to a takedown notice, it may immediately pop right back up in multiple new locations
• The OSP is not obligated to remove these subsequent postings until it receives separate notices for each new instance of infringement
• increasingly relying on automated programs to scour the internet for infringements
• there is no longer a clear, bright line that marks an acting role as a “work for hire.”
• Netflix, the International Documentary Association, Adobe Systems, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Association of California Broadcasters, Internet law professors and intellectual property law professors have all filed amicus briefs asking the 9th Circuit to reconsider this ruling
• Upgrading the current takedown system under the DMCA will require that OSPs, tech companies and the entertainment industry work together to formulate a workable plan

9 more annotations...