27. April 2011
…The collection is, in a word, historic. “It is a wonderful addition to our knowledge of a great period in jazz,” says Dan Morgenstern, director of the Institute of Jazz Studies at Rutgers University in Newark, N.J. And, Morgenstern says, “the sound quality of many of these works is amazing. Some of it is of pristine quality. It is a cultural treasure and should be made widely available.”
The question, however, is whether that will happen anytime soon. And if it doesn’t, music fans might be justified in putting the blame on copyright law. “The potential copyright liability that could attach to redistribution of these recordings is so large—and, more importantly, so uncertain—that there may never be a public distribution of the recordings,” wrote David G. Post, a law professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, on the Volokh Conspiracy blog.
ABA Journal (full story)
12. July 2009
No one enjoys clearing rights. Checking that you may use content (whether on your Web site, in a publication, or for a performance) and won’t be sued over it takes time and effort. And, for e-commerce counsel clients, that means more money.
© 2009 E-Commerce Law & Strategy (full story)
10. December 2008
It was well after midnight and Jay-Z was presiding over a private dining room at Katsuya, the Philippe Starck–designed Los Angeles sushi restaurant, following a sold-out show at the nearby Hollywood Palladium. The concert marked the historic 1940 venue’s reopening, after a yearlong, $18 million renovation—it is now operated by concert-promotion giant Live Nation.
© 2008 The Wall Street Journal (full story)
17. November 2008
…In the late 1990s, Hyde began extending his lifelong project of examining “the public life of the imagination” into what had become newly topical territory: the “cultural commons.” The advent of Internet file-sharing services like Napster and Gnutella sparked urgent debates over how to strike a balance between public and private claims to creative work.
14. November 2008
Celebrity spokespeople are expensive and risky, and they don’t always pay off.
31. October 2008
Jeff Jampol has written a brilliant response to a Lefsetz Letter criticizing The Doors’ licensing deal with Converse. If you have any interest in the thought processes involved in the licensing of iconic band imagery, or the way licensing works or doesn’t work, this is a must read.
According to Jeff:
…we see the music and the name somewhat differently – they are BOTH important to us, but to me, there are degrees of sanctity, if you will, when it comes to marketing and promoting The Doors’ legacy: the most sacrosanct thing that exists is the music. Next in this hierarchy is Jim’s poetry (which is owned by the Morrison successors), then the name “The Doors,” followed by the photos and images, and last but not least, the individual members themselves.”
The Doors decided long ago (way before MY time) that apparel was an acceptable category in which to license The Doors’ name, and acceptable to market, sell and promote, not only to enhance their legacy, but to make a profit as well (we like to do that – we are not a nonprofit organization).
One of The Doors’ Chuck Taylors:
1. October 2008
I’m in Brazil, just finished with a lecture, about to get on a plane back to the states. When I arrived last night, my inbox was full with a bunch of emails about an anti-Obama remix video that had been taken down from YouTube for copyright-related reasons by an pseudonymous user on YouTube named TheMouthPiece. I tried to follow the links to get to see it, but couldn’t. Finally, I was able to locate it, and make it available here for the purpose of demonstrating just what’s so wrong with the law of fair use and why it has got to change. (I’m forced to host this myself because of course no video site will not carry it, and I don’t want to further complicate the .torrent debates.)
13. September 2008
Was Marilyn Monroe a Californian or a New Yorker at the time of the death? That question might seem trivial, but the answer seems to be worth $7 million per year.
22. August 2008
He is the world’s most famous personality, better known in this country than anyone living or dead, real or fictional. Market researchers say his 97% recognition rate in the U.S. edges out even Santa Claus. He is the one — and, for now, only — Mickey Mouse.
19. August 2008
And why is an article about virtual worlds in a supplement on corporate law? Because the business lawyer who ignores the potential impact of virtual reality on global commerce is the same as the lawyer who, 15 years ago, ignored the pervasive potential of the Internet to transform business, commerce and life as we know it.
11. August 2008
When C-Life Group Ltd. found itself facing tough competition in the late 1990s, the T-shirt maker turned to some famous names for help: Spider-Man, Betty Boop and G.I. Joe. At the time, rivals were duplicating the company’s printing technique, making its shirts seem less distinctive. So, to get an edge, C-Life licensed well-known characters and put them on its shirts.
21. July 2008
This new effort has a different name. It goes by “best practices.” I watched in awe and amazement as the Center for Social Media and American University’s Washington School of Law rolled out the first effort, the Best Practices for Documentary Film Making. Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi orchestrated this coup and are to be roundly congratulated, for they have followed it up with another feat — Best Practices for Fair Use in Online Video.