You are on page 1of 12

Copyright Napster + Similar cases

Intellectual Property Group 8

The Copyright Act of 1976


The Copyright Act (Act) of 1976 provides basic rights to the copyright holder. This Act preempts all previous copyright laws of the U.S. The Act provides for certain rights to the copyright holder like: 1. the right to reproduce (copy); 2. the right to create derivative works of the original work; 3. the right to sell, lease, or rent copies of the work to the public; 4. the right to perform the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, motion picture, or other audiovisual work), and 5. the right to display the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, motion picture, or other audiovisual work).

A&M RECORDS VS. NAPSTER INC


The Plaintiffs Eighteen plaintiffs including "Big Four" record companies Defendant Napster - peer-to-peer file sharing service provider Infringements Fair Use The purpose of the use Use of music is not transformative Commercial Purpose The nature of the work being used Creative in nature The amount of the work used Wholesale copying The effect of the use on the market for or value of the original work Loss of sales of compact disks Barrier to entry by the music industry into the market for electronic delivery of music Sampling Space-shifting Permissive distribution

Shawn Fanning

A&M RECORDS VS. NAPSTER INC

Fair Use (Contd.) Direct infringement Contributory infringement Distributing copyrighted content without permission Vicarious infringement Benefited financially Supervising and controlling infringing conduct Other defenses Audio Home Recording Act Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor clause Scope of the injunction Overbroad Result Universal Music Group - $60 million Warner Music Group - $110 million EMI got an undisclosed amount National Music Publishers Association - $130 million

GM STUDIOS VS. GROKSTER LTD


Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1001 (2005) Defendant Defendants distributed free software that allowed private individuals to share copyrighted electronic files without authorization. Some of those files shared are movies and songs that MGM hold copyrights to

RULE OF LAW When a distributor takes affirmative steps to foster infringement


through the use of its product, the distributor will be liable for that infringement conducted by 3rd parties

Court Ruling the Court held that companies that distributed software, and

promoted that software to infringe copyrights, were liable for the resulting acts of infringement Grokster stopped the file sharing service Grokster Paid $50 million to settle music and piracy claims

THE PIRATE BAY TRIAL


PLAINTIFFS IFPI representing:

Sony BMG Music Entertainment Sweden AB Universal Music AB Playground Music Scandinavia AB Bonnier Amigo Music Group AB EMI Music Sweden AB Warner Bros. Music Sweden AB

Antipiratbyrn representing: Yellow Bird Films AB Nordisk Film Henrik Danstrup MAQS Law Firm Advokatbyr KB representing: Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc MGM Pictures Inc Columbia Pictures Industries Inc 20th Century Fox Films Co Mars Media Beteiligungs GmbH & Co Film produktions Blizzard Entertainment Inc Sierra Entertainment Inc Activision Publishing Inc

THE PIRATE BAY TRIAL

P2P File Sharing / BitTorrent The Verdict The four defendants were convicted on April 17, 2009. The crime committed was complicity in breach of the Copyright ACT from Status 1,2,46,53,57 and (1960:729) and Chapters 23 and 4 of the Penal Code. The sanction was of one year imprisonment. The damages compensation was that the defendants pay compensation to:

Sony Music Entertainment (Sweden) AB of EUR 41, 467; Universal Music Aktiebolag of EUR 73,783; Playground Music Scandinavia AB of EUR 28, 159; Bonnier Amigo Music Group AB of EUR 4,290; Emi Music Sweden Aktiebolag of EUR 162,988; Warner Music Sweden Aktiebolag of EUR 146,484; Yellow Bird Films AB of SEK 3,150,000; Nordisk films Valby A/S of SEK 225,000; Warner Bros Entertainment Inc of SEK 2,484,225; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Picture Inc and Columbia Pictures Industries Inc of SEK 5,579,325 in total, 25 percent payable to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Picture inc and 75 percent payable to Columbia Pictures Industries; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation of SEK 10,822500; Warner Bros Entertainment Inc of SEK 414,000 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Mars Media Meteilingungs GmbH & Co Film Productions SED 4,495,950 in total, one percent to Twentieth century Fox Film Corporation and 99 percent to Mars Media Beteiligungs GmbH & Co film Productions as well as interest in accordance to 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635) from 31 May 2006 until payment is made. (Stockholm Court Verdict, 2009)

VICTOR WHITMILL V. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.

Prices tattoo is identical to the one Mike Tyson has Tysons tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. Entertainment on April 28, just weeks before the movies May 26 opening He obtained a copyright for the eight-year-old artwork on 3-D on April 19 He claimed that the use of his design in the movie and in advertisements without his consent was copyright infringement. Warner Bros., of course, saw it as a parody falling under fair use On June 17, Warner Bros. and Whitmill hashed out an agreement of undisclosed terms

Associated Press vs. Fairey

Mannie Garcia for the Associated Press (2006)

Shephard Fairey (unofficially) for the Obama Campaign (2008)

Famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the Hope poster during President Obamas first run for presidential election in 2008 The photograph on which the design is based was revealed by the Associated Press as one shot by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didnt reduce the value of the original photograph. The artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work

Madhur Bhandarkar and Fashion

Yash Raj Films Vs India TV

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 http://www.library.ucla.edu/copyright/copyright-act-1976 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial#Parties http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/pirate-bay-verdict-english-translation.pdf http://rubiromero.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/the-pirate-bay-case-study/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZO.html http://www.cooley.com/files/tbl_s5SiteRepository/FileUpload21/492/A-Colorado%20LawyerPloegerBrownArmon.pdf http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_480 http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1410184/case-summary-mgm-studios-vs-grokster http://variations2.indiana.edu/pdf/AnalysisOfNapsterDecision.pdf http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/12/1207riaa-sues-napster/ http://copyright.laws.com/famous-cases http://casesofinterest.com/tiki/AM+v.+Napster http://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/what_are_major_criticisms_copyright_l aws_us

Thank You