When I started these weekly posts it was a means to keep me blogging during a hectic schedule.
And there was no definitive structure as to what I would cover. But I can see that Cooyright issues keep appearing.
And here is another week devoted to that beautiful term. Copyright. Which was designed to give the creator a limited monopoly on their works so they could create more works.
Ed Sheeran can’t get a break. Last week, the case against him from the daughter of Ed Townsend was dropped.
But this week, an organization called “Structured Asset Sales”, (SAS) have started their own litigation.
They control a different one-third stake in Townsend’s copyrights. They “own” the basic notation (musical score) filed at the Copyrights Office decades ago.
When the original case was happening, (SAS) was also a part of it, seeking a “monopoly over a basic musical building block.”
Their case was also thrown out.
But they are appealing their part. Because hey, they created nothing and believe they should be paid for creating nothing. And they want a monopoly on a feel and style.
A big reason why Copyright had expiry terms initially was to stop all this crap. Politicians had a foresight back in the early 1900s to see this coming.
And that changed in the 60s when the labels and book publishers started to amass intellectual property and then started to lobby politicians to change laws and bring in new laws to give these corporations a monopoly on the works.
It’s funny now, how the labels are also getting sued from the very laws they sponsored to benefit them.
In April 2021, UFC fighter Jake Paul knocked out Ben Askren in less than two minutes.
Soon after, the popular H3 Podcast on YouTube commented on the fight and showed a clip of the fight.
Event promotor Triller wasn’t happy and issued a copyright infringement lawsuit demanding $50 million in damages.
H3 opted for a fair use defense.
The case is now in its 124th week.
The clip of the fight was 119 seconds long.
Who are the real winners here?
The Uruguayan Government has a bill in motion which would allow artists to go direct to internet platforms like Spotify and social media sites like Facebook for compensation.
Spotify would still need to pay the existing licensing agreements and if this bill goes ahead could be forced to pay again to the artists direct.
I’m all for artists getting paid but the problem lays with the entities who hold the rights to the songs. They get the majority of the streaming pool and they don’t distribute it back to the artists.
This is a perfect example.
Spotify still needs to honor the licensing agreements with the labels and publishers so these organizations will receive their cut.
And if they are aware of the artist going direct, I am sure that some creative accounting will take place to hold back any payments to the artists.
Anyway. Spotify isn’t happy with the bill and unless it’s changed they will pull out of Uruguay.
As a byproduct, the local music industry which has been growing 20% from streaming revenue will have this source of income come to zero.
Albert Namatjira died in 1959. He was an Aboriginal artist, painting the Australian landscapes in watercolors.
The copyright in his art is due to expire in 2029, 70 years after his death.
This means the works will be part of the public domain and anyone can use them in their works moving forward.
But lawyers for the family are arguing that Copyright should last in perpetuity. Forever. Never expire.
And they are pissed.
The issue here is that the family were getting royalties for his art up until 1983. At that point in time, the government trust that administered the rights sold them to a private organization and the royalties ceased.
It took the family 34 years to get the rights back in 2017, with the proviso they need to relinquish them again in 2029.
Furthermore in the last 5 years, Namatjira’s art has exploded in popularity and has become a valuable intellectual property.
But Copyright was never meant to be a reversionary pension fund.
destroyerofharmony 