Archive

Archive for the ‘Infringement’ Category

Intellectual property issues and profit disparities for viral social media “stars” @ SxSW

March 7, 2017 Leave a comment

thumbnail_ImP x SxSW Facebook cover promo graphics SIMONE

Join me and this extraordinary panel of experts, Michael D. Armstrong (Viacom), Devin Johnson (Uninterrupted), and panel organizer, Simone Bresi-Ando (I’mPOSSIBLE) at SxSW on Tuesday March 14th at 11 AM: Gentrifying Genius: Urban Creators Stripped Bare.

The panel will explore themes around The Fader’s article: “Black Teens Are Breaking The Internet And Seeing None Of The Profits” in a solutions-focused manner that will not only discuss the ecosystem that maintains the inequalities but also ways to protect and monetize their creative genius on social media.

Simone Bresi-Ando of I’mPOSSIBLE explains:

Black and brown youth are missing out on fruitful and ultimately life changing opportunities and rewards from their intellectual property which remains wildly popular but unpaid and uncredited.

Intellectual Property and Social Media

thumbnail_ImP x SxSW 2017 panelist promo INSTAGRAM graphic PROF TONYA EVANSI will adjust the frame of reference by explaining what intellectual property is, how rights are created, what rights creators control and what they give up when they opt-in to social media platforms, and how creators of color, in particular, can better navigate disparities in what I call the “post-to-profit” pipeline.

This disparity, of course, is not new. Similar misappropriation pervades America’s history with creators of color. In the cinematic suspense phenomenon Get Out, Jordan Peele goes a step further beyond cultural appropriation to examine the ultimate misappropriation of black bodies themselves, genius and all.

This will be a rich, engaging, dynamic conversation. Hope to see you there!

Advertisements

Rachel Dolezal’s art: infringement, plagiarism, or fair appropriation of Turner’s work?

June 16, 2015 Leave a comment

Creative Commons License
Rachel Dolezal’s art: infringement, plagiarism, or fair appropriation of Turner’s work? by Professor Tonya M. Evans, Esq. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Follow me @IPProfEvans

The country is, unfortunately, transfixed on and fascinated and/or otherwise perplexed by the former NAACP Spokane Chapter president Rachel Dolezal controversy surrounding her declarations that she is black. Her statements and assertions include misrepresenting on the Chapter’s Facebook Page a black man as her father when, in fact, both of her parents are white.

Dolezal's art blog headshot.

Dolezal’s art blog headshot.

My interest in Dolezal’s story is not in the racial identity and misrepresentation morass. I’ll leave that to the Twitterverse (#RachelDolezal #AskRachel) and media. But the recent copyright infringement question about the origins of some of her artwork caught my eye.

As HuffingtonPost arts writer Priscilla Frank reported today, Dolezal, … is also an award-winning Mixed Media Artist, according to her art blog. But questions have been raised about whether Dolezal actually created all of her artwork or whether she misappropriated, in at least one instance, the work of another and presented it as her own.

Infringement? No. But there is a strong argument for plagiarism. Review the images and explanations below to understand why and share your thoughts about the issue.

The bio posted at Dolezal’s art blog reads:

“Rachel Dolezal is an award-winning Mixed Media Artist with over 20 exhibitions in 13 states, internationally, and at the United Nations Headquarters. Dolezal completed her Master of Fine Arts at Howard University, where she majored in experimental studio and minored in sculpture. She has over 10 years experience in community development, human rights education, and intercultural negotiations. She is currently an Art Instructor at North Idaho College, Adjunct Professor of African American Culture at Eastern Washington University, Advisor for the NIC Black Student Association, speaker, education consultant, and exhibiting artist.”

A Comparison of the Works

Below is the image under scrutiny that Dolezal claims as her original, copyrighted work:

8_Dolezal_R

Great piece–the second panel of a three-panel work–until someone like Twitter user Jolie Adams schools you on the noted and notable artwork of Joseph Mallord William Turner (English, 1775–1851).

Below is Turner’s “Slave Ship”:

JMW_SlaveShip

Twitter critic, Jolie Adams, created a side-by-side on Twitter in this post

In my humble opinion, they appear nearly identical. Dolezal’s work seems to be a tighter POV of Turner’s painting, with de minimis modifications of color and tone. Commenters knowledgeable about Turner’s work immediately questioned Dolezal’s claims that she created the work presumably without “inspiration”.

Dolezal_The Shape of our Kind_comments

But this isn’t a case of copyright infringement. And here’s why.

Read more…

Berklee College of Music explores just what “public performance” means in the age of ubiquitous music in @TheMBJ

December 16, 2014 Leave a comment

“All the world’s a stage,” wrote Shakespeare in As You Like It, and he said as much in other plays. The public performance of creative works, including the work of songwriters, has to be seen in that context today. The advent of the Internet and digital technologies has blurred the lines of demarcation between public and private places, placing an undue burden on those experiencing or performing copyrighted works as to when a particular performance of a work necessitates obtaining a public performance license from the copyright holder.”

Read more: The Music Business Journal, “Copyright in Public Places” by Brian Oliver

‘Dumb Starbucks’ parody shuts down but debate over trademark law & parody continues

February 18, 2014 3 comments

By Professor Tonya M. Evans

dumbstarbucks-cupsOn February 9th, The Huff Post and other media outlets reported the grand opening of a store in the Los Feliz neighborhood of Los Angeles, “Dumb Starbucks”. The clever prankish parody even caught the attention of Forbes:

‘Although it looks like Starbucks, smells like Starbucks and even acts like Starbucks (the super-friendly baristas asking for your name were hired off Craigslist), the whole thing is an elaborate goof on Starbucks culture. A list of Frequently Asked Questions posted on premises compared the place to Weird Al Yankovic’s homage to Michael Jackson’s “Beat It.” Dumb Starbucks, you see, is the “Eat It” of $6 coffee drinks.’ Source: Forbes.com

Amazingly, people stood in line for hours for the Dumb Starbucks java, which reportedly was whatever the local grocery store had on hand for the few days Dumb Starbucks remained open. The locals and media alike seemed to get a big kick out of the entire thing. Starbucks execs? Um, not so much. The Dumb Starbucks mastermind, Comedy Central comedian Nathan Fielder from Nathan for You, explained the method to his parodic madness and the Starbucks response to Jimmy Kimmel recently:

The store shutdown for reasons completely unrelated to the trademark vs. parody debate. It seems that Fielder not only caught the attention of the coffee giant, Starbucks, but also the local health department. The Health Department cited code violations for selling coffee without a permit. And there is no word on whether Fielder will attempt to secure the necessary permissions to re-open. But what is sure to re-open and remain so is the debate on whether the First Amendment and parody trumps trademark law. Read more…

London School of Econ & Policy Study Shows File-Sharing HELPS Creative Industries

October 3, 2013 Leave a comment

Source: TorrentFreak.com by Ernesto, Founder & EIC

“The London School of Economics and Political Science has released a new policy brief urging the UK Government to look beyond the lobbying efforts of the entertainment industry when it comes to future copyright policy. According to the report there is ample evidence that file-sharing is helping, rather than hurting the creative industries. The scholars call on the Government to look at more objective data when deciding on future copyright enforcement policies.”

Read the full article Piracy Isn’t Killing the Entertainment Industry, Scholars Say, at TorrentFreak.com

Blurred Copyright Lines Between Robin Thicke’s Tune and Marvin Gaye’s Estate?

August 27, 2013 Leave a comment

Billboard.com reported on August 15, 2013 that Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and Clifford Harris, Jr. (aka T.I.) filed a peremptory lawsuit in California federal court against Marvin Gaye’s family and Bridgeport Music, which owns some of Funkadelic’s compositions. At issue are complaints about similarities between “Blurred Lines” and Gaye’s “Got To Give it Up”.

Photo appears at potholesinmyblogIn the trio’s lawsuit of Williams, Thicke & Harris v. Bridgeport Music, Gaye et al., they argued: “Plaintiffs, who have the utmost respect for and admiration of Marvin Gaye, Funkadelic and their musical legacies, reluctantly file this action in the face of multiple adverse claims from alleged successors in interest to those artists. Defendants continue to insist that plaintiffs’ massively successful composition, ‘Blurred Lines,’ copies ‘their’ compositions.”

Billboard.com reports further on August 23rd that the defendants rejected a six-figure settlement offer that came shortly after the lawsuit was filed:

“According to sources knowledgeable with the lawsuit, the settlement offer came after Frankie Christian Gaye, Marvin Gaye III and Nona Marvisa Gaye accused Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” hit single of plagiarizing “Got To Give it Up,” written and composed by Marvin Gaye, who died in 1984.”

In the court of public opinion, many fans of both artists pick up the similarities. The legal question is whether similarities are “substantially” so as a matter of law and whether the trio copied from the original unlawfully.

Only time will tell. Most of these cases settle out of court. But in light of the bright line drawn in the sand by Thicke and his co-composers and the value of Marvin Gaye’s copyrights and family’s reaction both to the song and the lawsuit, this is just the type of suit that could actually play out in the courtroom.

What do you think about the song? Similar? Substantially so? Check out the video mashup and share your two cents in the comments section:

Link to the video mashup of Marvin Gaye & Robin Thicke at Vimeo.com

UPDATE 10/30/2013: New information about the legal wrangling between Thicke et al and the Gaye Estate

*Thanks to C. Zittle and T. Danon from my Copyright & Trademark class for this Hot Topic*

Illegal downloading can cost you $675,000 … ask Joel Tenenbaum!

June 28, 2013 Leave a comment
Protection or overprotection?

“Protection or overprotection?

“This week, the First Circuit affirmed a $675,0000 statutory damages award against college student Joel Tenenbaum for copyright infringement. The Court held that the damages award, based on Tenenbaum’s illegal downloading and distribution of 30 copyrighted songs, was not excessive or a violation of due process.”

Source: JDSupra.com Click here to read the full article about Joel Tenenbaum and statutory damage award

%d bloggers like this: