The first podcast I listened to was Episode 39 which dealt with a list of topics. To start off, they began to discuss the results of Ed Sullivan vs. Jersey Boys. The Jersey Boys (a musical play) used a seven second clip of Ed Sullivan introducing an artist. The copyright holders of the Ed Sullivan Show claimed that the Jersey Boys infringed on their rights by using during the play. However, the court found that just using a seven second clip was not infringement due to its short length. Also, the court said that since it is just a short clip that it could not harm the copyright holder’s means to distribute the Ed Sullivan’s Show. The ruling in the court case helps me in the long run because now I know that someone else can use one a short clip of my sound effects, as long as they do not plan to say that they created it or try to sell that clip.
Another case that was brought up in the podcast was that of a man in Thailand, Supap Kirtsaeng, was selling textbooks through eBay at a cheaper price. He would have his family buy textbooks; send them, and later resale. The copyright holders of the textbooks claimed that he was violating the copyrights by doing so, therefor harming their business of selling the textbooks. However, the court found that it was Supap’s right to do so since the books were already bought and he was just reselling them. A ruling like this is essential to know, especially if you are in the entertainment business. I know now that I can sell a sound recording to a client, and then he can go on and resell that if they wanted too, and I cannot go after them. I do plan to protect myself from this by including in contracts that under no circumstances can the client sell any sound effect or recording without my consent. Now, unless the sound effect was made directly for them, then I would have no problem if they intend to sell it since they contracted me to create the sound effect or sound recording.
The last discussion that I liked from the podcast is the Wizard of Oz and Oz the Great and Powerful, While, not a court case, they did bring up some points that I did not even know happened. I had forgotten that The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) is owned by Warner Bros, and just recently Disney released Oz the Great and Powerful as a prequel to Wizard of Oz. So to avoid any copyright issues Disney stayed away from any noticeable correlations to the 1939 film. Some examples are that there is no singing in the new film; the yellow road has sections that are broken and Disney even went to a different shade of green for the witches’ skin. This let Disney go on in making and releasing the film while avoiding legal issues with Warner Bros. After hearing them talk about this, I am glad I took to them time to listen. I can base my work off Company B for Company A, but change the sounds enough to where it is essentially a new sound without stepping into a legal battle. This is extremely valuable to know.
The second podcast I listened to was Episode 40. One of the first ones that caught my attention was a case about photographs and a private collection. A photograph William Eggleston created limited run of photographs that were number. Jonathan Sobel collected William’s photos for his private use. However, William Eggleston decided to reuse some of the photos in a new way and released them for sale. Jonathan Sobel then claimed that since William had done this, it has diluted his collections worth. The court ruled in William’s favor stating that since the new release of the photos where different from the prior release. William would have been held liable if the photos created by the same method in which they were released before. Hearing this has given me some insight on the limits I have when creating sound effects. If Company A hires me to record a car door closing, and Company B asks for the same, I can go ahead and recreate that recording without running into issues with Company A. Since I am essentially using a new method in the way I record the door closing, (different microphones, car, location etc…).
The last issue I would like to write about is the one involving another photographer and an artist. In this point of the podcast, the case was brought up and a photographer that had taken various images and later sold them in a book as part of a collection. The artist saw these pictures and used them as a base for his own works. What the artist did was use the photos and modify them in different ways, as in, placing them together in a collage or placing something else in the photos. The court found that some of the artist’s works were indeed transformative but remand the others back to the lower courts to make that decision. This final decision of this case can have a significant impact on the entertainment industry. As for my business, I can see that if I were to use someone elses' sound recordings to create a new recording, I will have to show that it is in fair use. I would have to modify it enough that it shows that it is transformative and that I am using it as a way to express something else.
I am certainly glad that I was able to listen to these two notable podcast from experts in the field of entertainment law. They gave their honest opinions on the outcomes of the case and were also able to break them down in a manner that I understood. I am looking forward to catching more of their podcasts as it allows me to have a better view on the law surrounding the entertainment industry. Entertainmentlawupdate.com is extremely useful, and I suggest those in the industry give them a listen. It never hurts to learn something new that can spare you from legal issues.
Check out the two podcasts below
Episode 39
Episode 40
No comments:
Post a Comment