All The Birds Will Be Singin'

Willie Nelson, "flipping the bird" (i.e., giving his middle finger) in a photograph, is the center of a copyright infringement suit filed in Sacramento. Spencer's Gifts, of shopping-mall fame, has been selling T-Shirts at its physical outlets and online that have a copyrighted image of Nelson imposed thereon. (Article at MSNBC).







Does W. Nelson have any claims of his own? Privacy, name and likeness etc?

R(ather) I(nteresting) A(rticle) A(ttached)

The New York Law Journal has an interesting article today about the RIAA chasing student infringers on college campuses. The article examines the University/Student relationship (in terms of privacy), and outlines policy concerns over both (i) the RIAA's actions, and (ii)the willingness of academic institutions to comply with discovery requests issued by the RIAA in John Doe infringement suits.

Also, the author draws a parallel between the RIAA's accusations against students for infringement (in their demand letters) and the Debtor/Creditor relationship. The article examines New York, California, and Federal law governing creditor practices.

[Donald N. David, "Privacy Needs Key Despite Music Piracy on Campuses"]

'Steada Kisses, We Get Kicked / It's a Hard Knock Life

Shawn Carter a/k/a Jay-Z sued in New York Supreme Court (NY County/Manhattan) for employment discrimination on the basis of gender and disability. Folake Ogundiran (plaintiff) was a former sales associate for Jay-Z at his 40/40 Club, but was allegedly fired after she became pregnant. Apparently, pregnancy doesn't fit the "unattached and 'sexy'" image the 40/40 Club allegedly embraces. Now THAT'S Baller.

Climbing Up on Salisbury Division (eh, Solsbury Hill)...

Maybe it's because OTCS is still a rookie covering the beat, but it sure seems like there are a lot of copyright suits against pubs/bars/taverns/places of business for public entertainment for infringement of the public performance right.

Again, the publishers are just upset that the Defendants haven't obtained an ASCAP license. (Compl. 15(a)-(b) "Defendants have not sought or obtained a license agreement from Plaintiffs of [ASCA]...Despite numerous letters and other contacts by ASCAP representatives informing the Defendants of their liability...") Scaring them with statutory damages should do the trick (17 U.S.C. 504(c)).

Mark another one on the docket, WB Music et al. v. K Carlson Enterprises, Inc. and Karen Reeder Carlson, 1:07-cv-00797-WO-PTS (Mid.Dist. N.C.). Looks to be rather cookie-cutter, with an attached spreadsheet outlining each Plaintiff's copyrighted work (e.g., who owns, registration no.), which performance/version was infringed, and the date of such infringement.

Ramble On...

Robert Plant asserts that the upcoming Led Zeppelin performance (Ahmet Ertugen Tribute Nov. 26 in London) will NOT be the launching ground of a Led Zeppelin tour.

I suppose when you make enough money on album sales (exclusively in the physical realm, no less!), public performance on the radio (what city doesn't have a Led Zeppelin/Pink Floyd channel? WNCX baby!), & merchandise etc....AND you haven't recorded new material as a band since at least 1982's "Coda"... you can turn away a gold-mine...?!

This Is What You Get, When You Mess With Us...

More Radiohead news: the band, in its post EMI days, continues to shun major labels. Among other news outlest, the New York Times reports:

Under the proposed deal, Radiohead would license the album, “In Rainbows,” for a specified period of time but retain ownership of the recording.

Take that "360 degree" deal! A band, retaining its copyright ownership in its work? What? What?! What?!?

Of course, it appears that the Licensee will be a traditional label, so not much new in terms of distribution and earning revenue off traditional products like CDs and mp3s. The #1 candidate on the radar right now for a US licensee is ATO Records, and though not a "major" US label, ATO certainly has its share of high-profile artists (e.g., David Gray, Ben Kweller).

After the Show it's the Afterparty, After the Party it's the...Wafflehouse

OTCS is not a gossip blog. In fact, OTCS focuses mostly on civil litigation and private deals in the music business. But, to everything turn, turn, turn...to the world of criminal law.

Kid-Rock (and members of his entourage) arrested in the early morning hours (5 AM; 10/21/07) for brawling at a Waffle-House Restaurant after his performance in Atlanta on Sunday.

SonyBMG-MySpace Licensing Deal

SonyBMG is licensing its artists materials to MySpace for a cut of the sponsorship & ad-revenue generated from the music videos and profile pages.

What does this mean to you, the consumer? Nothing really. OTCS suspects that a very small % of bands on MySpace are signed to a SonyBMG label, and those that are, OTCS suspects were already putting their music/video online anyway.

But mazel to SonyBMG for figuring out a way to monetize this avenue of communication. Of course, the financial terms of the deal were not disclosed...so whether or not it is successful, only time will tell.

Wannabe...Our Distributor?

OTCS can't believe we missed this one:

Victoria's Secret, the women's lingerie retailer, will be the EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTOR of the Spice Girl's soon-to-be-released (Nov. 12) "Greatest Hits" compilation (EMI).

Not sure this is as ground-breaking as last week's Madonna/Live Nation deal, or the Radiohead In Rainbows name-your-own-price model, but an interesting example of a major label seeking revenue from alternative sources. However, OTCS questions how many men will walk into a Victoria's Secret just to buy the album? How will EMI promote this to customers (e.g., men) who do not regularly shop - for either apparel or music - in Victoria's Secret? Victoria's Secret clearly is not the same type of retailer as Starbucks, who draw in a much more diverse demographic of customers to purchase albums on their HearMusic label.

Also interesting, what cut is Victoria's Secret taking on album sales? Or maybe they get their cut on the up-coming Spice Girl's tour? Talk to me people...

Nate Dogg and Warren G Came to Regulate...

ASCAP IS WATCHING.

OTCS has to wonder whether the defendants in the following two related cases would even be subject to an infringement suit had they never even obtained an ASCAP license for the public performance of copyrighted works (music publishing) in the first place? It appears that, AS A RESULT OF THEIR FAILURE TO RENEW THEIR LICENSES, Defendants were sued for infringement of the 106-public-performance right.

This "jukebox" case seems to just be a strong-arm tactic to get the venues (defendants) to re-sign their ASCAP licenses: suit was brought on ONE SONG by each plaintiff/publisher, for ONE PUBLIC PERFORMANCE occuring on one of two days in June 2007. [OTCS has a place in its electronic-heart for the songs selected: "Puff the Magic Dragon", "Hello" performed by Lionel Ritchie, and "Bad Bad Leroy Brown".]

Of course, with statutory damages, this suit should scare defendants into signing their ASCAP licenses; but, aren't there bigger fish to fry (instead of just polling a tavern on a single day)? Maybe not in Arizona...?

EMI Mills Music, Inc. et al v. Kim Dar Enterprises, Inc. et al. 2:07-cv-02030-HRH (filed 10/19/2007, District Court Arizona)
Criterion Music Corp. et al v. Vagabundo Inc. et al. 2:07-cv-02036-DGC (filed 10/19/2007, District Court Arizona)