Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Creative Dilemma: Determining Authorship Rights in Studio Session Works
A recording session is generally a team effort, with artist, engineer and producer working together to create sound recording masters. However, unless set forth in written agreements, just who owns the rights in the works may not be clear. For example, what if an engineer with creative input claims to be a joint author? Even less clear may be who owns the rights if a visitor to a recording session becomes a contributor to a track.
Such situations may raise claims of joint authorship and/or copyright infringement, among other things. (A joint copyright owner can't sue a co-owner for infringement, but a court may recognize a joint authorship claim as a distinct alternative from an infringement claim in the same case.) Defendants in these actions may claim an implied license, that the visitor's contribution wasn't original enough to be copyrightable or that the contribution was a work-for-hire under that the defendants own.
These arguments were recently tested in a case involving a recording session for the popular hip-hop artist Jay-Z. Demme Ulloa had been invited to a recording session by Samuel Barnes, who served as a producer for Jay-Z. When Ulloa arrived at the studio, Jay-Z was recording the track “Izzo (H.O.V.A.)” (one not produced by Barnes) that was later released on Jay-Z's “Blueprint” album. The song was made up of a Jay-Z rap over an instrumental riff from the Jackson Five recording “I Want You Back.” While visiting at the studio, Ulloa came up with a countermelody to the instrumental riff that she spontaneously sang with the “Izzo” rap. Jay-Z then asked Ulloa to record the vocal phrase for possible use with the finished recording.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?