Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decision of Note: Songs in Karaoke Not Fair Use
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided that the unlicensed use of songs for karaoke recordings was not a fair use. Zomba Enterprises Inc. v. Panorama Records Inc., 06-5013. Panorama produces monthly karaoke CDs of re-recorded recent hits, with graphic displays of the songs' lyrics. After Nashville attorney Linda Edell sent cease-and-desist letters for Zomba to Panorama over the unlicensed use of Zomba compositions for the karaoke CDs, Zomba sued for copyright infringement. Panorama then agreed to a consent order to stop releasing karaoke recordings with Zomba songs, but breached the order within a few days. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee subsequently granted summary judgment for Zomba.
Affirming, the Sixth Circuit began by noting: 'Countless people have lined up at various venues to perform their favorite songs with, and in front of, their friends. But few participants (with the possible exception of IP lawyers) ever stop to consider the intellectual property regime governing karaoke.' The court also noted that 'Panorama Records, Inc. ('Panorama'), a purveyor of karaoke discs, resembles the majority of these participants. It entered the business of recording and selling karaoke discs without considering whether doing so infringed the intellectual property rights of others. Before long, this lack of foresight caught up with Panorama.'
On purpose and character of use, the appeals court found that 'Panorama's use of the compositions is only minimally, if at all, transformative. Although Panorama created its own recordings of these songs, [Panorama executive Laurindo] Santos admitted that the hired musicians did not 'change the words or music' ' The crux of Panorama's fair-use argument is its assertion that its use was transformative because its karaoke packages are used for 'teaching' ' [But] the record is bereft of evidence indicating that Panorama's products are used for teaching at all.'
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?