After many years of litigation and lobbying expenses, the battle over pre-1972 music rights has finally been ended. On October 11, 2018, President Trump signed the Music Modernization Act
Continue Reading MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT
The Supreme Court today struck down the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act as facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of…
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Rules Trademark Act Disparagement Clause is Unconstitutional
By Holly Pearlman, Sam Churney, Katherine Mullally
The Court of Appeal recently ruled on the ownership of the copyright in the music and lyrics (the “Copyright“)
Reposted from Sports, Media and Entertainment Online
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan (“METI“) recently revised the Interpretative Guidelines on Electronic Commerce and Information Property Trading (“Guidelines“), which apply to all online business operations in Japan and clarify how the Civil Code, which governs Japanese commercial contracts, and other relevant laws, such as the Act on Special Provisions to the Civil Code Concerning Electronic Consumer Contracts and Electronic Acceptance Notice (Act No. 95 of 2001) (“Electronic Contract Act“) and the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions (Act No. 57 of 1976), are applied to various legal issues relating to electronic commerce and information property trading.
Repost from SPORTS, MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT ONLINE
By Mary Mullen
1 November 2013 sees the Copyright and Duration of Rights in Performance Regulation 2013 come into force. The UK Law implements EU Directive 2011/77/EU which
A UK High Court claim filed this week by the Ministry of Sound record label against music streaming site Spotify raises some interesting issues around the originality threshold for copyright works.
The claim, which was reported in the Guardian, alleges that the Ministry’s track listings (each a compilation of tracks by different artists) are copyright works in their own right. The Ministry allege that such copyright is infringed by playlists made available by Spotify which reproduce their compilation track listings.
By James Stewart
Madonna is the center of attention again regarding alleged misappropriation (remember the “Express Yourself” debate?). The “Material Girl” is once again en vogue on the copyright docket in the Ninth Circuit. According to IPLaw360, record label VMG Saloul LLC has sued Madonna, her record label, and a co-composer (collectively, “Madonna”) with whom she worked to compose and produce the smash-hit “Vogue” for copyright infringement.
VMG alleges that Madonna covertly incorporated pieces of their late-seventies disco track “Love Break” into the infamous 1990 hit single “Vogue”. In an attempt to bypass the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations, VMG argues that it was unable to detect such copying until new technology was developed in 2011.
Madonna quickly denied that any copying took place. However, most interesting about the Material Girl’s motion is her observation that VMG’s “new technology” argument effectively wipes out any chances of success in this infringement suit.
Peter Frampton filed a suit on 23 December 2011 against record label Universal Music for half a million pounds worth of unpaid music royalties and unspecified damages, making him the latest artist to make a claim against a record label in respect of digital royalties.