The IFPI Digital Music Report 2014 shows a changing landscape for the recorded music sector

The IFPI have published their downloadable Digital Music Report 2014 - which shows that music fans’ growing appetite for subscription and streaming services has helped drive recorded music revenue growth in most major music markets in 2013, with overall digital revenues growing 4.3 per cent - and Europe’s music market expanding for the first time in more than a decade. Subscription services’ revenues were up 51 per cent in 2013, and it is estimated that more than 28 million people worldwide now pay for a music subscription, up from 20 million in 2012 and just 8 million in 2010. That said, and on a negative note, in the world's second biggest recorded music market, Japan, a sharp drop in sales meant that overall global industry revenues declined by 3.9 per cent. Global revenue excluding Japan fell by 0.1 per cent. Physical format sales still account for a major proportion of industry revenues in many major markets.  They account for more than half (51.4%) of all global revenues, compared to 56 per cent in 2012.  Although global physical sales value declined by 11.7 per cent in 2013, major markets including Germany, Italy, the UK and the US saw a slow-down in the rate of physical decline.  France’s physical sales grew by an estimated 0.8 per cent, helped by a local repertoire boom. 

World market revenues by format: 2012 & 2013 (US$ millions)

	2012 share	2012 value	2013 share	2013 value	% value change
Physical	56%	8,752	51%	7,730	-11.7%
Digital	36%	5,637	39%	5,872	+4.3%
Performance Rights	6%	929	8%	1,106	+19.0%
Synchronisation	2%	334	2%	322	-3.4%
TOTAL MARKET		15,652		15,029	-3.9%

As for piracy - well, the IFPI had this to say

"IFPI estimates, based on comScore/Nielsen data, that 26 per cent of internet users worldwide regularly access unlicensed services.  This estimate applies only to desktop-based devices: it does not include the emerging and as yet unquantified threat of smartphone and tablet-based mobile piracy as consumers migrate to those devices.  

Digital piracy is the biggest single threat to the development of the licensed music sector and to investment in artists.  It undermines the licensed music business across many forms and channels – unlicensed streaming websites, peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks, cyberlockers and aggregators, unlicensed streaming and stream ripping and mobile applications. 

IFPI’s report highlights five key areas where the recording industry is focusing its fight against piracy:

- Internet service providers (ISPs) have a demonstrable effect on reducing copyright infringement, when required to act.  European countries where ISPs are required by courts to block access to infringing sites saw Bit Torrent usage fall by 11 per cent during 2013 (comScore/Nielsen).  Countries without the block saw Torrent usage rise by 15 per cent over the same period.

- Search engines remain the largest referrer of traffic to unlicensed services and a recent study by MillwardBrown for MPAA showed that 74 per cent of people using unlicensed services for the first time found them through search engines.  Google’s policy to demote results from unlicensed services in results has not been effective. IFPI is pressing the case that search engines have both the technical expertise and a social responsibility to help tackle the problem.

- Litigation has played a key role when required. Recent litigation against isoHunt, Megaupload, Rapidshare and Hotfile has seen those companies either close or put in place measures to reduce the illegal use of their services.

- Legislation is the foundation of the industry’s operating environment. Priorities highlighted include proposed laws to introduce performance rights in markets such as China and Singapore; and the industry’s campaign  on copyright reform initiatives in Europe and Australia in order improve online copyright enforcement.


- Advertising is a major source of funding for unlicensed music services worldwide: a recent study by the Digital Citizens Alliance suggested that unlicensed services earned US$227 million in 2013 from piracy.  A successful project in the UK to tackle the problem led to the City of London Police launching a permanent programme to curb advertising on pirate sites.  Voluntary discussions based around codes of conduct are taking place in several other markets. "

Costly copyright litigation? Blame the litigants

Football Association Premier League Ltd v Berry is a Chancery Division, England and Wales, decision last week from Richard Spearman QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge). The claimant in these copyright infringement proceedings was the Football Association Premier League Ltd (FAPL) and the works infringed were the FAPL's logos and graphics -- mere incidentals to the much-desired broadcasts of Premier League football matches which were shown in Berry's pub. These proceedings were not about infringement but about a rather more technical issue -- whether the FAPL was entitled to an interim payment on account of costs following Berry's concession that the FAPL was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability for copyright infringement.

In the substantive action, the FAPL alleged that the copyright in its logos and graphics had been infringed on a number occasionsv over a two-year period by the unauthorised showing of its football matches in Berry's public house, even though the matches per se were not themselves subject to copyright. The FAPL sought regular and additional damages in respect of the flagrancy of the infringement.  While Berry conceded that the FAPL was entitled to summary judgment in respect of some of those broadcasts, he wanted to run some legal arguments based on competition law and EU law.

No, it's not the logo of the Intellectual Property
Enterprise Court -- but it would be great if all our
courts had more user-friendly names and logos

What recoverable costs might the FAPL expect? The FAPL maintained that the expected recovery of more than £25,000 in damages justified the commencement of the action in the High Court, this being the right court in which to proceed given the complexity of the issues. Added the FAPL, its claim for additional statutory damages was not unlikely to succeed. Moreover, Berry had made the litigation a lot more expensive than it need be, It was he who had argued that the copyright issues were intertwined with issues of competition law and EU law. If Berry had wanted the matter to be heard in the cheap-and-cheerful Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), he could have said so earlier. What's more, case law indicated that cases like this were either heard in the High Court throughout or ended up substantially heard there even if they started in the IPEC. All in all, if the FAPL's costs were high, it was due to the way in which Berry had conducted the claim, having conceded the FAPL's entitlement to summary judgment only at a late stage, by which substantial costs had been run up.

Berry disagreed. In the first place, he said, this claim -- which was only for infringement of copyright in logos and graphics -- was not worth a lot. Secondly, the figure of £25,000 was unjustifiable and the proceedings ought to have been commenced in the IPEC, where the amount of recoverable costs would be greatly reduced.

In an extempore judgment, Richard Spearman QC granted the FAPL's application.  In his view:

* As far as the quantification of the claim was concerned, it was obvious that the rights were valuable and important, and that the copyright works conveyed interesting and useful information to viewers, which Berry chose to use when he broadcast material which contained that information without permission.

* It was entirely reasonable that the payment of a monthly licence fee of approximately £1,200 would add up to more than £28,000 over the relevant two-year period; it was also difficult to appraise whether it was likely that the claim of additional damages was likely to come home.

* When the FAPL had enough material to make an informed decision, it would elect between an account of profits or damages in the usual way.

* It was very difficult at this stage to estimate what the result of an account of profits would be; however, it was likely that £25,000 would be exceeded.

* More significantly, this litigation was part of a wider battle between publicans and copyright holders such as the FAPL as to whether the claims of copyright holders were untenable in light of EU and competition law --  the importance of these rights being reflected in the fact that both sides had used well-known leading and junior counsel.

* In this action, since Berry had taken the stance of defending the case across the board, putting the FAPL to proof of its substantive rights and the ownership of copyright and the alleged infringing use, it was reasonably foreseeable that substantial costs would be incurred; the FAPL had no other choice than to put in relevant evidence in order to obtain judgment. Berry had not suggested that this evidence submitted by the FAPL had been excessive or disproportionate, and there had not been anything disproportionate about the costs the FAPL incurred.

* It was hard to claim that the FAPL had gone about pressing its claim in a wrong or disproportionate way in bringing it in the High Court, and there was authority that an order for the payment of costs of £65,000 within 28 days in comparable circumstances was not wildly inappropriate (citing Football Association Premier League v Luxton [2014] EWHC 253 (Ch), which is not on BAILII).

* When assessing the award of an interim payment, the question was not what was the irreducible minimum that would be awarded, but what a reasonable estimate would be. On this basis the FAPL was entitled to an interim payment of £65,000, which represented under half of the total bill of £148,000, payable within 28 days.

This blogger was always taught, and indeed has always taught, that it was dangerous to put the claimant to proof of the entitlements covered by statutory presumptions unless you were pretty certain that the claimant lacked the necessary credentials to sue.  He's also curious to know how the value of the infringed logos and graphics has been assessed: he has wandered into the occasional pub in order to enjoy the footie while supping a pint or two, but can't recall ever popping into his local in order to catch a big-screen glimpse of the FAPL logo and graphics ...

This decision has been noted on the Lawtel subscription-only service.

Art forgery: the original and the authentic

Van Meegheren: original, authentic, fake?

One of the most interesting art exhibitions of the year is also one of the strangest: a show entirely dedicated to forged paintings. The exhibition, entitled “Intent to Deceive: Fakes & Forgeries in the Art World,” brought paintings from worldwide locations to Springfield, Massachusetts for a three-month long exhibition (running until April 27 and travelling to museums in Florida, Ohio, and Oklahoma; pictures of the fakes can be viewed here). Extraordinary precautions were taken to protect these works and, curiously, they were insured on terms that seem comparable to those surrounding the works of the original masters themselves (see here). By a delicious irony, it has become very nearly as difficult to get close to a van Meegeren as to a Van Gogh.

The entire exercise raises the question of originality, a foundational concept in copyright law, and what it means for the art world. In a sense, the originality of an artwork means something very simple: it is a true product of a “master hand.” This quality is key to the value of any given work; even a work “from the studio of” a master will command special value because of the association and all it implies. And yet, the question of establishing the originality of artworks leads to its own peculiar problems – as, indeed, it always has. The fame of artists has led to infamous forgeries. Forgers are often skilled enough to mimic the art of the master, and recreate the context of his (or her) times, convincingly. Separating original from forged works is important. However, art experts who are qualified to comment on the authenticity of works are increasingly under pressure to refrain from exercising their craft. The reason is simple: purchasers who have paid millions for artworks may ultimately discover that they have purchased fakes, leading to the loss of small and large fortunes according to the verdict that falls from an expert’s lips. Since it is in the nature of these things that certain facts may never be known with absolute certainty, experts face the threat of liability for their opinions, even when offered in the purest spirit of science and good faith.

It is difficult to explain what exactly causes the escalation in the value of artworks, but the phenomenon of forgery provides some tantalizing clues as to how human psychology works on this problem. Of course, the painting itself is of some value, but that value, however great, is still limited: after all, a good forger can paint something “like” the original, too. But the painting appears in a context: it represents the vision of the artist (who would think to paint sunflowers over and over again?), his or her development (from a blue period to a rose period and then in new directions again...) and, ultimately, the historical moment that produced both artist and work. These factors can never truly be “re-created,” and this is why each generation must seek its own “original” forms of expression.

On a more prosaic level, these issues boil down to a single, crude factor: sheer notoriety. And that is exactly what great artists and forgers have in common. It is not only necessary to protect Van Gogh; van Meegeren, too, has earned his value, not as an “original” but as an “original fake.” Paradoxically, the art market values forgery, too. It does so on terms that are perhaps more familiar to trade mark lawyers than to practitioners of copyright – van Meegeren, like van Gogh, has become a brand name in his own right, and, apparently, a highly saleable one. The notoriety associated with forgery translates into economic value, leading to the need to “protect” forged works and “insure” them against theft or mishaps.

As usual, copyright law is behind the times. In recent years, the concept of originality in copyright law has undergone its own upheavals, largely under the pressure of new technologies that make it increasingly difficult to distinguish “original” from “unoriginal” products. Common law countries are moving away from a labour-based, “sweat of the brow,” standard of originality, in decisions like Canada’s CCH (2004), India’s Eastern Book Co. (2007), and the landmark United States case of Feist (1991), and Europe’s recent Infopaq decision (2009/2013) confirms the harmonization trend towards higher-level requirements such as “skill and judgement,” a “modicum of creativity,” and “intellectual creation.”

Similarly, copyright law has traditionally protected the form in which creative works are expressed, rather than the ideas on which they are based – a requirement known as fixation or the “idea-expression dichotomy.” The dogma of a split between expression and idea – in practice, as difficult to separate as body and soul – received fundamental reconsideration in the Designers’ Guild case (2000) where, thanks to Lord Hoffmann’s courageous reasoning, it emerged that “original” ideas may also be susceptible to protection (though not in the United States).

Where does this leave forgery? Copyright law wrestles with the problem of forged art, skilfully executed expression that, quite deliberately, shows no originality whatsoever at the level of concept or vision. Indeed, it seeks to be as unoriginal as possible, as the forger's personality is utterly dissolved in, and subsumed by, the personality of the master. In effect, the forger seeks to impersonate the artist. Moral rights demand that the association between artist and work be maintained, and the forger’s goal is to disrupt that association. As such, the forger’s activities, which seek to achieve the false attribution of works to an artist, could certainly be construed as a violation of the right of attribution. However, the movement of experts towards maintaining purely private opinions on authenticity is a further threat to the moral right of attribution (and, potentially, integrity).

This leaves us with the interesting question of what represents an “original” artistic expression for our own time. Notoriety matters nearly as much fame, and economic value is built on maintaining the consistency of belief rather than truth. Copyright is indeed behind the times, pushing towards higher standards of originality just as, paradoxically, true “originality” may matter less and less in today’s art world. As Helene Hegemann, a young writer who initially achieved notoriety (fame) by combining the “original” words of other writers to make her “own” work, asserted, it is “authenticity” that matters, not “originality” at all. Is an authentic fake the same thing as an original artist? Copyright law says “maybe not”; but the market, emphatically, says “yes.” Could it be that the representative works of our time may be the pastiches made possible by technology rather than “original” works of art?

If you’re travelling to Springfield any time soon, enjoy the show.

Researched and composed by Mira T. Sundara Rajan; posted by Jeremy.

Creating, infringing, sharing and helping yourself: two tempting events

The Copyright Clearance Center’s OnCopyright 2014 takes place on 2 April, 9:00 am – 4:30 pm on the 40th floor of the NY Academy of Sciences at 7 World Trade Center. You can learn all about it from its web page here.  According to information supplied,

"It’s a one-day symposium where we bring together people who create, publish, re-purpose and re-invent content to answer the question everyone’s asking: what’s next? From disruptive innovation to legislative evolution, the copyright conversation is getting interesting… "

A bevy of participants, including the driven, the inspired, the well-informed and the distracting, will be chaired by Robert Levine, journalist and author of Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back. Apart from food and drink, there's a 3D printing demo by MakerBot and an original song composed and performed in real-time with “One Hundred Songs in a Day” artist Matt Farley. Those who can't attend in person can stream it here.

The lovely location of Stationers' Hall is the venue of 11 April 2014, 3-6 pm, for a CREATe Report Launch: ‘A review of the causes and impacts of unlawful file sharing’, starring Steven James Watson, Daniel John Zizzo and Piers Fleming [they must have run out of middle names by the time they got to no.3].  According to the registration bait:

"Using systematic reviewing techniques drawn from the medical sciences, a team of behavioural economists and psychologists from the University of East Anglia has undertaken a scoping review of all evidence published between 2003-2013 into the welfare implications and determinants of unlawful file sharing. Articles on unlawful file sharing for digital media including music, film, television, videogames, software and books, were methodically searched; non-academic literature was sought from key stakeholders and research centres. 54,441 sources were initially found with a wide search and were narrowed down to 206 articles which examined human behaviour, intentions or attitudes. 

Whether unlawful file sharing confers a net societal cost or benefit to welfare remains unclear based on the available evidence, with both of the approaches employed – (1) looking at the association between sales and unlawful file sharing, and (2) examining people’s willingness to pay with and without the possibility of unlawful file sharing – suffering from serious limitations. This conclusion casts doubt on approaches which strengthen the civil enforcement system to meet the challenges of the internet revolution, at least without clearer evidence of demonstrable benefits of specific measures". 

The programme also features a panel response with speakers from creative economy sectors as well as intermediaries, users and policy makers. Full details and registration can be sorted out by clicking here.

Updates in the 'Innocence of the Muslims' copyright saga

We had already reported how Cindy Lee Garcia had persuaded a split panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that she had rights to her performance in the 13-minute trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" - the "crude piece of anti-Islamic agit-prop": Chief Judge Alex Kozinski held that Garcia held a copyright in her performance despite appearing in only five seconds of the trailer, writing none of her own lines and even having part of her dialogue overdubbed by someone else. The dissenting judge in the case, N. Randy Smith, accused the panel's majority of writing new law saying "We have never held that an actress' performance could be copyrightable" but the majority held that "An actor's performance, when fixed, is copyrightable if it evinces some minimal degree of creativity ... no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be".  The video was taken down from YouTube - under protest. Now the Hollywood Reporter, amongst others, has revealed some updates in the case:

-  Almost immediately after the ruling, Google filed an emergency motion to stay the order pending a rehearing en banc saying "Under the panel's rule, minor players in everything from Hollywood films to home videos can wrest control of those works from their creators, and service providers like YouTube will lack the ability to determine who has a valid copyright claim". Judge Kozinski denied the motion, but in a rare move "that illustrates the tensions this decision has wrought" another 9th Circuit judge made a sua sponte request to have the Circuit reconsider the stay.

-  Facebook, Twitter, IAC and Pinterest have all requested permission to file an amicus brief supporting Google's position.

 - and media groups and publishers including The New York Times, Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are also weighed in to support Google.

-  It also transpired that Garcia has been trying to register as the sole author of a "dramatic performance fixed in tangible medium of expression" at the U.S. Copyright Office. In December, 2012, the chief of the performing arts division at the Copyright Office indicated that the registration would be refused because a "motion picture is a single integrated work."; On March 6, the Director of Registration Policy and Practices wrote a letter to Garcia's lawyer firmly refusing registration and noting how the Copyright Office's "longstanding practices do not allow a copyright claim by an individual actor or actress in his or her performance contained within a motion picture.

It seems the sequel is set to open soon!

ISPs and content owners square up in Oz iiNet battle

ZDNet carries a very readable review of some pithy comments made by Music Rights Australia's General Manager Vanessa Hutley, who was speaking at the Australian Copyright Council's Copyright Law and Practice Symposium in Sydney, and some equally forthright comments back from Australian ISP iiNet's chief regulatory officer, Steve Dalby

Australia, along with a recent appellate decision in Holland, has bucked the growing trend for courts to issue blocking injunctions forcing ISPs to block access to websites such as The Pirate Bay. Courts in the UK, Belgium and France have all granted blocking orders and in UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH und Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft GmbH the Advocate General's opinion was that Member States are to ensure that copyright holders or holders of related rights are able to apply for an injunction against intermediaries (including ISPs) whose services are used by a third party to infringe their rights that a specific blocking measure imposed on a provider relating to a specific website is not, in principle, disproportionate. But back in April 2012,  in the iiNet case, Australia's High Court, the nation's highest, gave a clear ruling that internet service providers are not liable for authorising copyright infringement by making their services available to people who do infringe copyright and case and the Court observed that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright in the appellants' films. In Holland the Dutch High Court overturned a lower court order forcing two internet service providers in the country - XS4ALL and Ziggo - to block their users from accessing The Pirate Bay. Calling the blocks "ineffectual", the court also stated that the blockades "constitute an infringement of [people's] freedom to act at their discretion". That case is now going to the Dutch Supreme Court. But in Australia - the iiNet decision stands.

Hutley's view is that the Australian government should undo what the High Court did. She said that although there has been an explosion in the availability of legitimate digital music services in Australia, such as Spotify and iTunes Radio, they are unable to compete on a level playing field with the likes of the Pirate Bay. ZDNet reports that she said that Music Rights Australia, which represents artists and music labels through the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), supports Attorney-General George Brandis' call for a review of safe harbour for ISPs. Hutley also said she supports blocking websites such as The Pirate Bay through a court order, and rejected criticism that it would lead to internet censorship - with some great quotes!

"The right to go to court and argue a case is not going to kill the internet. Here's a news flash: There were four orders today made in the UK against four major sites and last time I looked, friends of mine in the UK were sending me email," she said.

"Those orders are presently being made around the world, and the internet is not broken. Freedom of speech has not stopped. I think there needs to be a little more calm in this discussion."

"The Copyright Act needs to be amended to force ISPs to 'act reasonably' to prevent their users from infringing on copyright" she said. However, Hutley said she doesn't know what reasonable measures could be used against an ISP's customer, but did say:

"Just to be clear: We're not breaking the internet; it's not about filtering; it's not about censoring creative expression. It doesn't prevent free speech, we're not asking for anyone to be disconnected, we just sort of want them to be slightly educated about what it is they're doing and maybe ask them to go somewhere else to get the music they're using," she said.

"It won't result in a lot of litigation. It isn't about that; it's about giving the space to the genuine, fully-licensed, legal services to compete head to head and actually give consumers the music they want."

Hutley made it clear that suing customers is no longer a priority, and that MRA had no interest in individual customer's details, and admitted that she doesn't know how much it would cost ISPs to implement blocking orders or a 'three strikes' system, and said it never came up in the three years the ISPs were in discussions with content owners and the Attorney-General's Department although she did say "Every time [ISPs] do something that [they] have an obligation to do, based on that balance, [content owners] will pay". 

iiNet's chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby, who was a participant in the roundtable discussions before they came to an abrupt halt last year, told ZDNet that costs were repeatedly brought into the discussion, but it wasn't about the quantum so much as the principle of the liability for costs saying "The content owners' principle being that they want to stop what they described as losses, by having ISPs incurring costs by harassing customers" and "Our principle was that according to law, we have no obligation to incur costs by protecting third parties' rights" adding "It's not our industry's job to do their work for them, and that includes putting proposals forward to solve their problem" and rather bitingly commented on content owners actions as ""The only proactive steps they've taken is lobbying incessantly with cries of 'somebody do something' [and] failing miserably in the High Court to prove that ISPs are at fault for their failed business model."

For a TPP perspective and opinion see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bea-edwards/the-us-and-australia-prop_b_4956635.html "The US and Australia Propose an End to Free Speech on the Internet". 

The CopyKat - The Bat is back

The Hollywood Reporter tells us that the Batmobile will roll into a federal appeals court  this summer - with James Bond, Godzilla and Freddy Krueger along for the ride. The 9th Circuit is poised to consider whether Batman's car is a "character" protectable under copyright law. Arguing against that idea is Mark Towle, a Temecula, Calif., mechanic who in 2011 was sued by Warner Bros.' DC Comics for selling replicas of Batmobiles from the 1960s TV show and 1989 film. Towle is appealing a February 2012 ruling that found him liable for infringement. He argues that the Batmobile is merely functional - a "useful article," a utilitarian rather than artistic object. If Warners win, it will be another useful tool to protect the $150 billion in annual worldwide merchandise sales alongside trade marks and passing off - similar to the successful argument used in the UK Courts in the 2011 Lucasfilm case concerning replica Stormtrooper helmets from the inconic Star Wars series of films.

The Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office has announced that 450 people have been arrested for violating copyright laws. Officials told media that the arrests were made based on the reports of various researchers. The clamp down reportedly covered several states of Ethiopia, including Addis Ababa. Reports indicate that 423 computers, 336 memory sticks and 35,000 CDs were recovered from the suspects. In Adama town, four large sized CD duplication machines and two sticker machines were reportedly recovered.

Aereo, the controversial Internet-based television service that was ordered shut down in Utah pending a court battle over copyright law, will be turning off its service in Utah and Denver next Saturday morning for an unknown length of time. In an email to Aereo customers, the company’s founder and CEO, Chet Kanojia, apologized and said the service will be shut off at 10.00 to comply with the order of U.S. District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball. An interesting debate on this on Bloomburg here.


In Hong Kong,  the debate about a new exception for parody moves forward:  A government spokesman said that parodies that include "altered works, playful or parodic in tone, and works that are unlikely to be a substitute for the original, regardless of whether they are more popular" would be considered for the exception but that the "public posting of performances of copyright works including singing with or without rewriting the lyrics and based on the original melodies may be in breach of the law."The spokesman said the subject of the critique may be the original or some other copyright work, or the creator himself. The critique may often be humorous, mocking, sarcastic, ironic or satirical and might include altered pictures, videos, posters, songs with lyrics rewritten on original melodies and kuso that intend to make a comment in response to current events, which are usually presented with a political context, will be exempted. "Posting of performances of copyright works including songs, or unauthorized posting of translation and adaptation works without any parodic, critique, comic or imitative effects, or not related to any current events, are not exempted as proposed."  The proposal will be discussed at the Legislative Council's commerce and industry panel meeting on Tuesday.

To draw attention to "broken" copyright law, the editor of a popular news site in Germany has turned the tables on a leading German political party. Sebastian Heiser,  news editor at popular Taz.de site took a photograph of Manfred Stolpe, a politician from the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) back in 2005 and uploaded the shot under a creative commons licence. Finding the shot used without attribution by the SPD on two websites, he sent them a troll-style settlement demand - and received €,1800, which included legal fees of €1,104.

Now, before  I clock off .....

Time to face the music?

Danger - copyrighted ......

The iconic 1923 silent movie 'Safety Last!', which stars the late great Harold Lloyd in the romantic comedy, featuring one of the most iconic images from the era - Lloyd hanging perilously off a clock high above the broadwalk, is still in copyright - just - and a possible copy has now sparked a law suit - and some interesting information on how producers have protected the film:  Harold Lloyd Entertainment has now filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Cupecoy Home Fashion Inc., which allegedly has been selling a clock that is "a direct appropriation of the iconic clock scene." According to the Hollywood Reporter "Interestingly, the lawsuit says that the plaintiff has licensed rights to make derivatives of this famous scene to other filmmakers: "The 1985 blockbuster Back to the Future licensed the rights to create a derivative version of the clock scene when it obtained permission from HLE to feature a scene where star Christopher Lloyd dangled perilously from the hands of a giant clock says the lawsuit and goes on to say 'Martin Scorsese's critically acclaimed children's movie Hugo licensed the rights to create a derivative version of the clock scene when it obtained permission from HLE to feature a scene where star Asa Butterfield dangled perilously from the hands of a giant clock' ".  The suit says HLE would have preferred to have settled the matter, but could not engage with the defendants.  Copy or not? You decide!

Copyrightuser.org: a big resource for little folk

The textual account of copyright is complemented by graphics
that reflect the topic covered: this is "Criticism and Review" ...

"New online resource to make copyright law more accessible to creators and the public" is the title of a media release received yesterday from Bournemouth University which makes fascinating reading.  Here, in relevant part, is what it says:

" ... A new online resource aims to make copyright law more accessible for creators and the public, through sharing and presenting it in an engaging and easily understandable way.

Copyrightuser.org is an independent online resource that is meant for everyone who uses copyright works, such as small businesses and people working in the creative industries. It has been developed by the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University and the CREATe research centre, based at the University of Glasgow.

The site uses user-friendly texts produced by leading academics, as well as compelling illustrations, motion graphics videos and video interviews with creators to provide the often complex information in a balanced and accessible way. ...

“This is particularly true for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) as well as media professionals such as musicians, filmmakers, performers, writers, visual artists and interactive developers, amongst others. Our goal is to inform such creators and users of copyright about how to protect their work, how to license and exploit it, and how to legally re-use the work of others.”

... and this is "Parody and Pastiche"

Copyrightuser.org will also be updated regularly to reflect changes to UK copyright law, keeping users informed about what they can or cannot do under the current copyright legislation. ...

Bartolomeo Meletti, lead producer of Copyrightuser.org, said:

“Much of copyright is up to different interpretations with technology leading the debate and the law catching up on a case by case basis. Copyrightuser.org provides accurate and authoritative guidance on copyright law to help creators understand their rights.” ..."

This blogger has spent a bit of time sampling the text and must confess that he likes what he sees.  While no two copyright lawyers will totally agree on what the law means, this UK-based set of guidelines is drafted in a responsibly cautious manner. The text is refreshingly simple to understand, and the graphics are a delight. While its guidance is unlikely to land many people in court, Copyrightuser.org should keep plenty of them out of it, and it is also a handy thing for prospective small litigants to read ahead of any meeting they may have with their lawyers since it is designed to produce a positive and familiarising effect.  The site could do with a counter, since users will become more confident about consulting it if they see that lots of other people are doing likewise.