Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Copyright Case Analysis
Charles Barton Bollfrass v. Warner Music Group Cor
Copyright infringement occurs when an individual or other entity uses another person's works without the proper authorization or licensing. Generally, infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, publically displayed, performed, or transformed into derivative works without the copyright holder's permission. In a recently settled court case brought against Warner Music by Charles Barton Bollfrass, Bollfrass alleged that Muse and Warner Music infringed upon the copyright he holds on a screenplay and storyboard art, and also accused Warner Music of engaging in unfair trade practices.
In the lawsuit filed on August 30, 2012 in which Bollfrass sued Warner Music for $3.5 million, he argued that Muse's song "Exogensis: Symphony," from The Resistance (2009), "was substantially similar to his screenplay, 'Panspermia/ExoGenesis," because the two works shard similar themes...
Allegedly, both Muse's song and Bollfrass's screenplay featured astronauts and space travel "in an attempt to spread human life to other planets" (McAfee, 2013). According to court documents, Bollfrass contacted the band in 2005 and 2006, requesting that the band compose the screenplay's score, however, after Muse and Warner Music acquired the screenplay, Bollfrass learned that they had to decided to pass on the project.
Additionally, Bollfrass alleged that The Resistance (2009) "contained three sequential musical tracts that infringed the copyright for his 'cinematic science-fiction rock opera'" and that cover art for the album featured an image "lifted from the storyboards of his screenplay" (McAfee, 2013).
Despite these allegations, U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed Bollfrass's lawsuit. Judge Stanton determined that Bollfrass's claims were insufficient and had "practically no legal or factual basis" (McAfee, 2013).…
References
McAfee, D. (2013, April 2). Warner Music escapes copyright lawsuit over Muse song. Law 360: A Lexis Nexis Company. Retrieved 9 April 2013, from http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/429520/warner-music-escapes-copyright-suit-over-muse-song
Copyright Basics Copyright law is designed and enacted to protect artists and other creators. Just as an inventor deserves to patent an invention, an artist deserves the right to own created material including but not limited to film, photography, music, and writing. Although copyright law in many cases ignores the rights of consumers to do as they please with materials they legally purchased, American federal and state statutes do the best
Copyright Law in Hong Kong Internationally, Hong Kong has been obligated to protect copyright pursuant to various international as well as domestic copyright conventions which apply to Hong Kong. Amongst the importance of intellectual property right, copyright as well has been recognized under Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and cultural rights (ICESCR) specifying that "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone… to
As technology and the capability of removing artifacts from recordings improve this area of the law will be likely to be revisited in the future. This last revision to copyright law raised more questions than it answered. For instance, was it acceptable to colorize black and white movies? Did this alter them from the original work, or was this an acceptable? Was it OK to alter pieces of work to
Copyright Laws vs. Peer-to-Peer File Transfer This paper presents a detailed examination of copyright laws, with a comparison to peer-to-peer file transfer. The author will take the reader on an exploratory journey, in which the details and outcomes of several well-known cases will be scrutinized. The author will also discuss the importance of copyright laws, and the elements of various cases that caused the rulings to go the way they did.
The student enters an illustration contest, and wins first place. The first place prize is a $5,000 check. The student is sued for copyright infringement. In this case, the use of the illustration was done as a commercial venture, yet was also done as a criticism, something quite obviously protected by Section 107. The use of the copyrighted material may have damaged the market in which the tuna company operated,
In order to take refugee from these invalid assertions, she made a fair use claim for all the material that had copyrights. The video was only twenty nine seconds long and the music was near to being audible for only twenty seconds. If these fair use claim wouldn't have been made an innocent women and her family would have been sued for doing something that they didn't do intentionally.