On Saturday evening, May 16, 2020, Donald Trump shared
a cartoonish deepfake video to his Twitter account. Trump’s 80 million
followers saw an edited video of the famous speech from the 1996 movie “Independence Day,” only
with the faces of the characters being edited to reflect certain individuals in
politics and pop culture, namely with Trump’s face superimposed over Bill
Pullman’s face (but not his voice).
While this predictably led to outrage from various corners
of the internet, including
from Bill Pullman himself, the most common complaint seemed to be “isn’t
this copyright infringement?” The answer to this question, as always, is: well,
Trump is unlikely to have acquired permission to use this
clip from Disney,
including any right to create or share derivative works, but
whether or not Trump’s uses constitute copyright infringement is not an easy
answer. Copyright is not absolute. There are always defenses to allegations of
infringement. Trump could assert the defense of fair use, specifically the
right to use the work as part of a parody – which the Supreme Court has held is
a fair use of copyright.
If this use is considered a parody, legal precedent holds
that Trump did not infringe any copyrights. What if Trump’s use is instead
considered satire? Yes, there is a difference between “parody” and “satire” and
these distinctions are significant in a copyright fair use analysis.
… and your own concert
video recordings on YouTube could be infringing, too
Prince has been gone for nearly four years. But his presence
still looms large over copyright law. Even in death, Prince’s estate continues
to keep a watchful eye over potential infringers of his musical works. The
latest dispute is a potentially haunting restriction of a popular feature on
YouTube: people posting video clips of live performances. On January 6, 2020,
the federal district court in Massachusetts determined
that Prince’s estate has the sole right to distribute video clips of his live performances
and that uploading certain song clips to a YouTube channel may even constitute
This case presents a multitude of legal issues to assess. Additionally,
this ruling leaves a potential to a technology-based philosophical conundrum for
future copyright cases as they intersect with YouTube style sites. I have a
YouTube channel. On this channel I have posted covers of songs that I play on
guitar. My videos are nothing fancy, but this recent case and others like it
have determined that these videos can actually be infringing works. This
article will try to address these legal landmines while exploring any
possibility for copyright law as it exists today to be reconciled with how
these personal camera-phone videos are treated by the law.
July 31, 2019
The music industry has been in the news a lot recently
regarding intellectual property rights and related disputes. Just this week, a
federal jury determined that Katy Perry was liable for copyright infringement.
This tracks with the ongoing
trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Gibson Brands, Inc., which
continues to fascinate me.
Though in my research of these various topics and the
feedback I have received from writing about these legal issues, I have learned
that the terms “trademark” and “copyright” are being used interchangeably by
the public. This is troubling because they are absolutely not the same thing. I
would therefore like to take the opportunity to explain the differences in
these two legal doctrines. Because not all “infringements” are identical acts.
January 2, 2019
On Friday, December 28, 2018, Nirvana, LLC sued Marc Jacobs International, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Nieman Marcus for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. The crux of the dispute is over a new line of clothing being introduced by Marc Jacobs dubbed “Bootleg Redux Grunge” that he intends to sell to the public at Saks Fifth Avenue and Nieman Marcus stores. In short, these “grunge” clothes are being marketed to a high-end socioeconomic demographic that is antithetical to everything Kurt Cobain and Nirvana stood for. Because of course they are.
The real dispute is over the appropriation of the iconic Nirvana “smiley face” logo and what Nirvana contends is a derivative, non-transformative use by Marc Jacobs. I will not go too in-depth on the specific claims other than to say: yes, this is an infringement and Marc Jacobs is most certainly trying to associate this clothing line with famous Nirvana trademarks and copyrighted works. It is shameless. Everyone involved should be embarrassed. Yes, including Nirvana’s own lawyers – for reasons I will address.
Of course, I am biased. Nirvana is my favorite musical group of all-time and hearing “Smells Like Teen Spirit” for the first time when I was 14 years old was nothing short of a life-changing experience. Like millions of others, I also own one of the famous “smiley face” t-shirts and other merchandise bearing that image. This is a blog about trademark and copyright law, meanwhile – so let us break down the claims made against Marc Jacobs.
On May 31, 2014, the estate of Randy Craig Wolfe filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against James Patrick Page, Robert Anthony Plant, and John Paul Jones, among others. The primary cause of action is copyright infringement. There does not appear to be anything special about such a lawsuit until you realize that the Defendants are famous musicians that performed under the name “Led Zeppelin” and the “among others” includes Warner Music Group. The alleged basis for copyright infringement? Stairway to Heaven. Yes, the 1971 song that continues to be a staple at every middle school dance. Suddenly this lawsuit seems like kind of a big deal.
How is such an iconic song subject to a copyright infringement lawsuit 45 years after its initial release? How was this suit not dismissed as frivolous right away? Does the judge not know about this little thing called a ‘statute of limitations’? This all seems highly unfair, right?
Well, a jury gets to decide all of these issues as early as next month. On April 8, 2016, the district court judge denied the relevant parts of Led Zeppelin’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the lawsuit is set to proceed to trial. In the meantime, a quick overview of this case and how 1970s copyright laws are still relevant today.