I reviewed three stories from podcasts on EntertainmentLawUpdate.com, and I found each one very interesting and applicable to my own business endeavors.
First was the case of Viacom suing YouTube because of some videos uploaded by viewers may have been infringements of Viacom’s copyrighted material. In 2010, the district court ordered YouTube to remove the material. However, it is interesting to note something called Red Flag Provisions, which state that an Internet Service Provider should know about any illegal actions on its web site and take action. YouTube believes there is greater room for interpretation of these provisions, insisting that Viacom inform them which videos are the problem. Viacom insists the responsibility belongs to the ISP to search their content to remove any questionable material.
This situation speaks to the need to know what is being done in the name of a company; as with YouTube, even though they are not creating the content, they are being held accountable for action on their web site. This will be important to keep in mind when others are representing my business or when my business is representing others – the highest form of integrity is essential, just as is the need to be aware of what is done with the name of my company.
This podcast can be found @ http://traffic.libsyn.com/entertainmentlawupdate/EntertainmentLawUpdateEpisode026.mp3
The second case involves a screenwriter posting a treatment of a script online at Reddit.com, entitled Rome Sweet Rome, the story of what would happen if US Marines went back in time to fight the Roman soldiers. Warner Bros. saw it and bought it. Apparently, Reddit.com, not the writer, holds exclusive rights to the material. Conde Nast owns Reddit.com. The web site is designed as a discussion post for works in progress, but perhaps not as a marketing tool. But the problem is with the terms of service and the control that Reddit has.
The cautionary tale here is that if you’re going to share your work for comments from the public, be sure to read the terms of service for exclusive rights – be sure you own these rights before you post.
This one can be found @ http://traffic.libsyn.com/entertainmentlawupdate/EntertainmentLawUpdateEpsiode025mp3.mp3
The last case involves LimeWire (a peer-to-peer file sharing program), which is allegedly involved in piracy of music files. A settlement was reached between LimeWire and major record labels. However, when Merlin, a managing company for smaller independent labels, approached LimeWire, they said they did not know these smaller labels or the Merlin company, thus no settlement was offered. The question that arose is whether this third party, Merlin, has rights to represent independent labels in pursuing legal action against LimeWire.
This situation illustrates the need to be sure agreements are completely understood, especially when it comes to representation in legal matters. This will be important to my business as it will be involved with various outside vendors and third parties, so knowing exactly where my company stands with regards to all rights will be vital.
This podcast can be found @
No comments:
Post a Comment