Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>Decision of Note:</b> No Infringement In Broadcasting Commercials
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that radio stations weren't liable for airing commercials made by third parties that failed to obtain licenses to use the plaintiff's songs and sound recordings in the commercials. Freeplay Music Inc. v. Cox Radio Inc., 04 Civ. 5238 (GEL).
The district court noted that “the Broadcasters have a performance license from Freeplay, via BMI [to air the songs]. … [R]egardless of any violation of reproduction rights that may have occurred in the creation of a piece of programming, a party who has the right to perform the copyrighted work can perform it without itself becoming liable for the underlying infringement. It makes no difference whether the broadcaster has the right to perform the work because no exclusive performance right existed in the first place [ie, there is no performance right for airing sound recordings on terrestrial radio] … or because the performance right existed but had been licensed to the broadcaster (as with Freeplay's musical compositions here).”
The court added: “[A]ssuming arguendo that radio commercials using Freeplay's music would qualify as derivative works, the [Copyright Act] makes the creation of the derivative work an infringement of Freeplay's copyright … By broadcasting a putative derivative work created by a third-party advertiser, the Broadcasters did not prepare a derivative work.”
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?