Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

+91-80-26860414

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Media and Entertainment Law

BananaIP Counsels > Media and Entertainment Law (Page 19)

Copyright: Copyright Regulation to allow private copying; To face ire of UK Music Industry

Following recommendations given in an independent report by Professor Ian Hargreaves in 2011, the UK Government had come up with several changes in the Copyright Law, covering aspects of fair dealing for accessible formats for the disabled, research and education, public administration, parody and personal copies for private use. Of these, regulations allowing personal copies of legally-bought music to be made for private use under exceptions to copyright are facing strong resistance from the UK music industry. Having come into force on October 1, 2014, the law was one of the two delayed statutory instruments on the matter passed on July 29, 2014.

The exact legal document can be seen here, and the Intellectual Property Office has released eight guides to explain the changes in simple terms. Of these guides, the one for consumers explains that these changes “allow you to make personal copies of media (ebooks, digital music or video files etc, [except computer programs]) you have bought, for private purposes such as format shifting or backup” on any of devices even the online cloud space that a consumer owns personally, though it remains “illegal to make copies for friends or family” and the electronic media used for distribution such as DVDs and e-books “can still be protected by technology which physically prevents copying and circumvention of such technology remains illegal”.

Intellectual Property: Weekly Warm up with Sinapse!

This image reads Weekly warm up with Sinapse. This post aims to be a quick capsule of all the IP related activity of the past week. Click on the image to read the full post.

INDIAN GOVERNMENT TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST GOOGLE FOR ‘INCORRECT MAP OF INDIA’

… The Indian Government has called upon the Department of Electronics and Information Technology and Survey of India to initiate “appropriate” legal action against Google for wrongly depicting India’s international boundaries.

ACTIVISION’S COPYRIGHT SPARKS OUTBURST AMONG CALL OF DUTY GAMERS

… Gamers play some of the most popular games while copyrights over such games are reserved with developers. They often face allegations of copyright infringement. YouTube has come to the rescue by introducing “copyright strikes”. This news was brought up when Activision Publishing, Inc., a video game developer, flagged videos featuring glitches or bugs in its latest game Call of Duty: Advance Warfare.

Copyright: Emancipation of Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson

The image is from the BBC television show depicting Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. The post is about the expiry of copyright over Sherlock Holmes which is now in Public Domain. Click on the image to read post.

Here is the next post in the series of Student Blog Contest. This post is authored by Nitish Chaudhary.

One might ask, how do 127-year-old immortal characters of Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson achieve emancipation? The answer is simple: Sherlock’s free for all now, as a direct result of Leslie Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate Ltd[i]. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, US, vide Order dated June 16, 2014, clarified that the characters of the Sherlockean World, creations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, are in the public domain now, as their copyright expired as early as 1997. With the exception of 10 Sherlock stories written between 1923 and 1927, the copyright has expired on all other 46 stories and 4 novels concerning the very characters of Sherlock Holmes, Watson and the crew, constantly the target of condescension by the duo.

After the death of Sir Conan Doyle, the Conan Doyle Estate took charge, and ownership, of the characters of the Sherlockean world. Therefore, if any author wished to use a character that originated by Conan Doyle’s pen, they had to either seek a license to use the copyrighted work or seek permission from the Estate. The Estate would usually allow the use of Sherlock Holmes and the crew, for a license costing US$ 5000.

Digital Rights Management

Laws alone cannot eliminate copyright infringements. For the Copyright Law to take its course, there have to be effective detection of infringements and identification of infringers. Furthermore, as with any property rights, owners of copyrighted content have to take certain measures to protect their copyrights before expecting law enforcement to aid them. DRMs and ETMs are such measures a copyright owner is expected to take in order to protect his copyrights in the digital world. The term Digital Rights Management (DRM) broadly refers to a set of policies, techniques and tools that guide proper use of digital content. Simply put, a DRM system manages the appropriate use of content.

The major functionalities of this system are numerous. They include facilitating packaging of raw content into an appropriate form for easy distribution and tracking, protecting content for tamper-proof transmission, protecting content from unauthorized use and enabling specifications of suitable rights, which define the modes of content consumption. DRM systems also facilitate the delivery of content offline on CDs and DVDs; deliver content on-demand over peer-to-peer networks, enterprise networks, or the Internet; and provide ways of determining the authenticity of content and of rendering devices. Some of the popular controlled access techniques in use are encryption, electronic signature, digital watermarking etc.

Reverse Engineering is Legitimated by Reason: Sega v. Accolade

This image depicts two person trying to put the puzzle together. This image is relevant as it was decided in the case of Sega vs Accolade that Reverse Engineering is limited by Reason. Click on the image for more information

In one of our recent posts on reverse engineering, we discussed fair use for intermediate copying. Today, we will look into another landmark case that legitimizes copying based on a justifiable reason! In Sega v. Accolade, Accolade used a two-step process to create video games compatible with the Sega Genesis game console.

The first step was to reverse engineer the system and create a development manual. Accolade purchased a Genesis video game console and three game cartridges. Then the system was wired up so that the data moving between the cartridge and the console during game play could be examined. The engineers retrieved the code from the cartridges, disassembled it and studied it.

Is it Legal to Reverse Engineer the Engineered?

This image depicts the word Engineer written in the reverse way. This image is relevant as the issue here is whether is it legal to reverse engineer the engineered. Click on the image for more information

Shoppers would agree with me when I say that while purchasing something, I need to feel a connect with it. Once I have found that connection, a feeling of possession sets in and I know that the article, which until recently was only lying in a shop somewhere, is now mine. This feeling of possession of an inanimate article may lead us to believe that anything can be done to it, which would legally be termed as personal property rights. These include the right to take the product apart, measure it, subject it to testing and so on. A question now arises – Can we Reverse Engineer and use something that has been engineered by someone else?

The controversy between Atari and Nintendo lays down most of the pre-Digital Millennium Copyright Act framework for the legal analysis of Reverse Engineering. In the late 1980s, the 8-bit Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) was a major player in the video games market. The security mechanism on the NES, called 10-NES, prevented games from running on the system unless they contained a special chip and software. This security mechanism was used by Nintendo to push game developers into licensing contracts.

Open Source License Update – Case on GPL Version 2

The image is a power point slide containing the heading "The Business of Open Source". The post is a open source licensing case update. Click on image to view post.

[slideshareid=38957522&doc=thebusinessofopensource-ipseminar-140911014345-phpapp01]

The popularity of Open Source Software (OSS) has increased dramatically over the last five years. Initially propelled by extensive adoption of Linux, and now by Android, today OSS is an integral part of every organization that uses software in its multitude of forms. It is an undeniable fact that every piece of software includes OSS, directly or indirectly, giving it a 100% integration statistically.

GPL Version 2 was created by the Free Software Foundation in 1991, and it continues to be a very popular license. Before the emergence of Android, more than 60% of OSS was governed by GPL V2. Though it has now dropped to around 30%, the license still holds a very respectable status in the open source world. Though it is a stringent copyleft license, the instrument was happily adopted by proponents of the free software philosophy and businesses alike. Both benefited from the license in their own strategic ways.

A Peek into the Central Board for Film Certification

The image depicts a sign "Restricted -18 years and above"

What is the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)?

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, regulating public exhibition of films under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Films can be publicly exhibited in India only after they have been certified by the CBFC.

What is its constitution?

The Board consists of non-official members and a Chairman (all of whom are appointed by the Central Government) and functions with its headquarters at Mumbai. Leela Samson is the present Chairman of the CFBC. It has nine Regional Offices, one each at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram, Hyderabad, New Delhi, Cuttack and Guwahati. The Regional Offices are assisted in the examination of films by Advisory Panels. The members of the panels are nominated by the Central Government by drawing in people from different walks of life for a period of 2 years.

Mind your L’s and M’s: Licensing & Merchandising – Part 1

This Image depicts the images of various Merchandized Products. This Image is relevant as the article deals with the Licensing and Merchandizing in Entertainment and Sports Sector. Click on this Image for more Information.

Merchandising is an extension of a brand into new categories. Any merchandise is created by securing license of different Intellectual Properties such as themes, images, songs or dialogues of a film, characters etc. It is in the past decade that Movie Merchandise and Character Merchandise has gained popularity in India.

According to the industry reports, global licensing & merchandising is a huge business with its top 125 licensors accounting for sales amounting to more than US$ 184 billion. Disney is the largest global player and has generated sales of US$ 28.6 billion in 2010. The Major Baseball League was the biggest sports league in the sport-licensed merchandise segment with sales of around US$ 5 billion in 2010. Popular film franchises such as Star Wars, Harry Potter and Cars have generated licensed merchandise sales worth more than US$ 10 billion since their respective launches.

Fair Use vs. Copyright Infringement

The image has multiple copyright symbols in different colours. The post discusses some cases on fair use exception. Click on image to read post.

1. Cariou vs. Prince

Photograph: Patrick Cariou – 2000; Adaptation: Richard Prince – 2008(both via artnet

Richard Prince, the well-known appropriation artist – one who transforms the work of others to create new meaning in his work was sued by Patrick Cariou, a lesser-known photographer when Prince used several of Cariou’s photographs in a series of collages that were sold for tens of millions of dollars.