Hip-Hop vs. Blues, User vs. Provider, “Termageddon” * and other Copyright Issues Plaguing the World Today

“ It’s mine! Just admit it!”

In Gardner’s article (2011) about the case between Kanye West, Jay-Z and Syl Johnson, it’s all about the loopholes in the legal system regarding copyright.   Mr. Johnson created a sound recording of his work Different Strokes in 1972.  A sample of that song is supposedly included within the Watch the Throne album collaboration between Kanye West and Jay-Z. Johnson claims that he did not,at any time, give written permission for either artist to use any portion of his work on any project. He says that although it was requested for one of West’s earlier projects, that permission was not granted.  According to Gardner (2011), copyright law did not include sound recordings until after 1972; therefore Johnson’s work would not be protected under that law. This is a very tricky situation because Different Strokes is publicly known as Johnson’s work. Whether or not it was officially registered, shouldn’t he be given some legal protection? I think that this is a very valid argument since the author of the work is still alive and able to prove the similarities between the two projects. Whether they admit to using the sample or not, regardless of the projects, Johnson should at the very least be credited. But I suppose that is for the judge to decide.

Ignorance is Bliss

If one person infringes on a copyright by uploading unauthorized work to a website, is the provider liable? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says, “yes”. Seems very cut and dry, no? Except when you read through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In his article about the lawsuit between Universal Music Group and the website Veoh, Gardner (2011) explains the minutiae of the act. Veoh, a video sharing site, falls under the safe harbor clauses of the act, which only makes them liable if they are aware of infringing items on their site. The clause also requires the owner of the work to notify the provider of the crime and require them to remove it before the site can become liable for knowledgeable infringement. (Gardner, 2011) These provisions put the responsibility solely on the part of the owner of the work to monitor their creations on the Internet rather than have a provider screen and research every item uploaded to their site. This court ruling is huge. Because of the safe harbor, the court rules that Veoh is in the clear and UMG doesn’t have a foot to stand on. They based their decision on the precedent set by the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios case, “which helped legitimize the VCR, and finds that so long as the product was ‘capable of substantial non-infringing uses’, the Supreme Court ‘refused to impute knowledge of infringement.’” (Gardner, 2011).  I believe that it is both parties’ responsibility to regulate work that is protected by copyright.  Providers could set up a screening process including a 24-hour wait time for approval before allowing a user's item to be visible on their site. The battle wages on as an appeal on a similar case is expected in the near future.

The end is near….

In the case between EMI and the J. Fred Coots estate, the issue is as iffy as a one-time use disposable camera. Coots, co-writer of the holiday classic Santa Claus is Coming To Town, motioned to terminate his publishing rights with publisher Leo Feist in 1981. After a couple of transfers of ownership, EMI became owners of Feist's company. After Coots’ death, his estate tried to reinstate the termination in 2004. Apparently songwriters have a one-time right to terminate a work only after it has been published for 35 years (Gardner, 2011), which the courts ruled, Coots had already done. His estate wants to deem that 1981 termination as “invalid and unenforceable and that the 2004 notice is in force. The plaintiff is also seeking compensatory damages.” In my opinion, this lawsuit is ridiculous. The estate is just looking to get money that they are not entitled to. If Coots motioned to terminate in writing back in 1981, then he exercised his right. I can see how the family would like to have a copy of a valid notice for their records; however, asking for compensation for everything that has occurred between 1981 and now is ludicrous.

References

1.  Gardner, E. (2011, December 19). Kanye West, Jay-Z respond to "watch the  

t            throne”illegal sampling lawsuit. Retrieved from 

             http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/jay-z-kanye-west-watch-throne-lawsuit-275270

2.  Gardner, E. (2011, December 20). Ninth circuit court of appeals makes

             landmark ruling in copyright case. Retrieved from

           http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/copyright-case-universal-music-veoh-275779

3.  *Gardner, E. (2011, December 21). Songwriter's estate wants control over

             'Santa Claus is comin' to town’. Retrieved from

          http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/songwriters-estate-wants-control-santa-275899