Burnett Copyright Lawsuit - Status: Updated Saturday, May 26 2007 

Uncategorized valencianp01 3:49 pm

So here I am checking the latest headlines and catching up with current events when I see a headline stating that a Judge is dismissing Carol Burnett’s Copyright Infringment suit against Fox for the use of one of her characters in the Family Guy television show.  Since I recall discussing the case in class, it caught my attention.  The actual reasons as to why the suit is being dismissed would make for great study break conversation and it may serve to be pretty educational/informative too.  What the critics in IP land think about this one may be pretty interesting as well.  Here’s a link to the article: Burnett lawsuit to be dismissed.

 P.S. - I plan to continue this blog even though the class is over, unless I find out that I am not allowed to do so.  I MAY try to link this over to another personal blog when/if I ever figure out how.

 

Video Games…Expression…Perhaps! Wednesday, Apr 11 2007 

Uncategorized valencianp01 6:25 pm

Are video games a form of expression?  A subjective view would say that “it depends.”  It depends on what video games one is speaking of and in what context.  It depends on what type of video games one is speaking of.  Subjectively, an opinion can be formed which will conclude that if one is speaking of a video game in which the user is operating a vehicle or operating a character (i.e. a driving game or a fighting game), then the argument can be made that there is no expression inherint in the users operation of the game.  If there IS expression, it’s probably slight, in the sense that the user is controlling the usage of the vehicle or the individual portrayed in the game.  However, such expression is minimal because the user’s control of the game is based upon the programming of the game and the user is limited to such programming.  However on the contrary, if one were to speak of a simulation game in which the user not only controls the character or vehicle but also has input with regard to game design, then of course the argument would be that the user has utilized some expression, provided (and only provided) that the user takes advantage of the opportunity by the game designers to enhance the design/functionality of the game to his/her own preference.  However, with the advancement of technology wth regard to video games and video game censorship (probably a totally different topic altogether), perhaps it can be said that more video games are now becoming a form of expression because the games are giving users more options than ever before to add programming that allows the games to be ‘personalized’ in a sense.  Once again, this is a subjective view and there are probably a lot of other opinions that differ from this one.

 

I will now do my supermodel walk and exit stage…right.

 

Obscenity…PUBLIC POLICY? Tuesday, Mar 20 2007 

Uncategorized valencianp01 10:59 pm

Today’s discussion focused heavily upon obscenity.  More specifically we spoke about the Miller Test as well as primary and secondary effects.  However I couldn’t help but wonder that this is all about Public Policy.  Think about it…if a “gentleman’s club” were placed in a residential neighborhood, granted many would fight to have it removed due to the lowering of property values and the effect on children.  It seems as though the Miller Test and the Effects have one common implication - Public Policy.

 

Who Says A Name Isn’t Worth A Lot Of Money? Sunday, Mar 4 2007 

Uncategorized valencianp01 10:38 pm

Once again, celebrity pays off.  According to this news article (click here), Michael Jackson is reportedly having a party where admirers pay $3,500 to meet the star for 30 seconds.  Let’s think about that, $3,500 per every 30 seconds…that amounts to $7,000 per minute…WOWSERS, Mike is making (using fingers to do math…) $420,000 per hour…now THAT’S what I call using your name and your fame (aka your mark of the glittery glove, awesome dance moves, nice voice and amazing talent…okay, so it’s all subjective, it’s a matter of opinion) to make some ducketts…heck I’m not mad at him for it!  Do your thing Mike!

 

One Mark Can Equal Lots of “Ducketts” Sunday, Feb 25 2007 

Uncategorized valencianp01 9:45 pm

According to a hip-hop news site (linked to below), apparently P. Diddy and the name “Diddy” happen to be causing quite a stir these days.  The mark “Diddy” is not allowed to be used in some areas because another producer has already claimed the name as his famous mark.  If you’re going to break an agreement over a famous mark that has already been claimed, take a look at this article, it should make ya think twice!  Click here to read more…http://www.allhiphop.com/hiphopnews/?ID=6661.  Intellectual Property, Entertainment Law…does anyone see any commonality between the two?

 

Mashups Continued or Just More Legal Trouble? Saturday, Feb 3 2007 

Uncategorized valencianp01 5:20 pm

I found this article (here’s the link)…perhaps this is Part II of Mr. Wimberley’s Mashups postings or perhaps not.  Reason being is that when I read the article, of course I thought of the Mashups blog postings that we all did and then I was also reminded of other file sharing websites.  The basis of the story is that Viacom is demanding that YouTube remove some videos from their site.  YouTube basically said that they do cooperate with all copyright holders, so let’s just see how this one pans out.  Come to think of it, I was really excited about posting a blog relative to the Mashups article with regard to how stepshows use compilations of music in their shows…but given this article, I think i’ll wait.  Anyhow, very good article with regard to copyrights and file sharing.  Enjoy.

 

Entertainment Law 1-23-07 Wednesday, Jan 24 2007 

Uncategorized valencianp01 4:51 am

“I am Better Than Your Kids.”  One would begin by trying to imagine what this author was thinking about in taking the art work of little kids and grading all of the works with an “F” for fun and giggles.  The biggest issue here from what I can tell is whether the drawings by the kids are copyrightable material.  As we know, we need three elements for copyright protection - fixed; original; no idea, procedure process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery.  We know that the drawings are original - these kids obviously breathed life into these works and made them their own.  Furthermore, it is an expression, rather than merely an idea.  Additionally, if this is not a compilation of drawings arranged in such a way that it becomes the original work of the author/administrator of the site, there may be a copyright violation.  However, it can be argued that this site reflects a compilation - that there is some authorship in the sense that the author of hte site selected the drawings for the site and arranged them in a manner that would render the site an original work.  Additionally, if the drawings are rendered copyrightable material, the author of the site can defend under the Fair Use Doctrine (12 USC s. 107) by indicating that as a critic copyright law permits the copying of the drawings for comment and criticism, which is exactly what the drawings were posted on the website for - both comment and criticism.  In applying the four factor test under the Fair Use Doctrine, one could be inclined to conclude that the use of the drawings is for non-profit purposes, and the effect of the use does not effect the value of the drawings substantially, except for the fact that it could hurt the feelings of kids and their parents who view the site.  Therefore if there is a copyright violation in this instance, the Fair Use Doctrine may be a valid defense.

 

Hello world! Wednesday, Jan 24 2007 

Uncategorized valencianp01 4:19 am

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!