Copyrights

[Isgrimnur]

Hollywood Reporter

Paul McCartney has filed suit in New York against Sony/ATV and is looking to get a declaratory judgment that states he will soon regain his copyright ownership share to a treasured catalog of songs created as a member of The Beatles.

In what could become one of the most important legal battles in the music industry this decade, the iconic songwriter is looking to leverage the termination provisions of the Copyright Act.

In 1976, Congress increased the period that works are under copyright protection, and, in recognition of authors who had signed over their rights to publishers and studios without much bargaining power, allowed such authors 35 years hence to reclaim rights in the latter stages of a copyright term.
...
According to McCartney's complaint, he transferred rights to songs co-authored by him and John Lennon between 1962 and 1971 to various music publishers.

It's well known that in the 1980s, after getting advice from McCartney himself that the big money in music was tied to rights in song compositions, Michael Jackson bought songs including "Yesterday," "Hey Jude" and "Let It Be." Jackson then entered a joint venture with Sony/ATV, and last year, his estate sold the late pop singer's remaining interest to Sony.

The lawsuit notes that McCartney has been serving and recording termination notices for nearly a decade. Represented by attorneys at Morrison & Foerster, he now expects to recover copyright interests as soon as Oct. 5, 2018. "For years following service of the first Termination Notices, Defendants gave no indication to Paul McCartney that they contested the efficacy of Paul McCartney’s Termination Notices," states the complaint.
...
By filing this suit now, McCartney clearly is looking to have an American court rather than a U.K. one rule in the dispute. By doing so, the complaint hints that he will soon be bringing arguments that in the U.S., the statutory termination right supersedes any contractual right. Whether or not an English court recognizes such a decision will be something for down the road.

In the meantime, conversations between the parties, attached as an exhibit to the lawsuit, reveal that Sony has made arrangements with respect to John Lennon’s share and will retain its worldwide rights in his share of the compositions for the life of the copyright.

[stessier]

SCOTUS (via Ars)

The Supreme Court issued a 5-2 opinion (PDF) today allowing cheerleading uniforms to be copyrighted. The case, Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, is expected to have broad effect in the fashion world and beyond. A group of 3D printing companies had also asked the high court to take up the case, asking for clarity on how to separate creative designs, which are copyrightable, from utilitarian objects that are not.

...

The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by four others, holds that when a design can be "identified and imagined apart from the useful article," it is eligible for copyright protection. In their view, since the cheerleading designs could exist separately from the uniform—say, as a painting—it's fine to copyright them. The situation isn't too different from "a design etched or painted on the surface of a guitar" or "a fresco painted on a wall."

...

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, arguing that Varsity's design features could not exist "independently" from the utilitarian aspects of the uniform. If the design itself is nothing more than a picture of the useful article, then it isn't. Looking at designs like Varsity's design 078, pictured above, "they look like pictures of cheerleader uniforms, just like Van Gogh's old shoes look like shoes... I do not see how one could conceptualize the design features in a way that does not picture, not just artistic designs, but dresses as well."

If one were to "imaginatively remove the chevrons and stripes as they are arranged," and put them on a "painter's canvas," then one would have a painting of a cheerleader's dress, wrote Breyer. In Breyer's view, each Varsity design "is not physically separate, nor is it conceptually separate, from the useful article it depicts... They cannot be copyrighted."

When "form and function are one," as Frank Lloyd Wright said great industrial design is, then designers should get 15 years of protection through a design patent, Breyer suggested. But "Congress did not intend a century or more of copyright protection," he states.

Breyer is right - this should be a design patent rather than copyright. I dislike this decision very much.

[malchior]

Totally agree - 100 year protection for fashion designs are going to be clusterfuck. Congress will have to fix this eventually.