By Yayi Ding
The Crying Michael Jordan Meme has struck again! However, this time it has struck at the expense of Jordan’s own alma mater, the University of North Carolina (UNC). Earlier this month, the annual NCAA championship game ended in a dramatic fashion, as Villanova hit a buzzer-beating shot to end UNC’s title hopes. And almost immediately, the internet responded, with none other than the wildly popular Crying Michael Jordan Meme. The Crying Michael Jordan Meme has become an internet sensation in recent years, but can its use ever lead to legal troubles? Continue reading
By Andrew H. Fuller
There is little doubt that YouTube content creators have been causing waves in the copyright world since its inception. For example, in 2009, YouTube started to mute the audio tracks of any videos or streams posted by users that contained unauthorized copyrighted music. Another common and popular genre of YouTube content is remixes, where YouTube artists create content by altering and sampling from existing, copyright protected content. Most YouTube content creators are unaware and unconcerned about copyright laws or infringement claims until YouTube cracks down on them. Those who are vaguely familiar often assume that their use is within the bounds of Copyright’s Fair Use exception. Given the general (mis)understanding around Fair Use and the courts’ treatment and application of this exception, the Lanham Act would seem ripe for an update. While the technological landscape of media dissemination and user consumption has radically shifted, the laws around copyright haven’t changed. Continue reading
By Juliya Ziskina
Since its beginning, YouTube has been involved in battles over copyright infringement, and over the years, YouTube has increased its policing of pirated material. The most common cases of copyright infringement involve using songs in a film or video without permission of the copyright holder, or placing segments of movies or music videos on websites where it is easy for the public to download them. Therefore, the giants of the entertainment industry have begun cracking down on websites such as YouTube.
YouTube, in response to these accusations, started to remove videos that may use segments of music or film without the copyright owner’s permission. Fan videos that incorporate a celebrity picture slideshow using a song as the primary audio track and videos of musicians playing covers of famous songs are common examples of videos that have been deleted from YouTube as a result of alleged copyright infringement. However, a widely known example of proper fair use is, for instance, a segment by the TV host Stephen Colbert that rebroadcasts cable news clips for the comedian to react to. Continue reading
By Chike Eze
Gone are the days when only major studios had a monopoly on manufacturing “celebrities.” YouTube has ushered in a new category – the self-made “celebrity YouTuber.” Michelle Phan is an extremely popular YouTuber who is well known for her entertaining videos on how to put on different types of makeup. She currently has more than eight million subscribers, and her popular “Barbie Transformation Tutorial” video has over sixty million views. A far cry from Gangnam’s two billion views, but impressive nonetheless. Ms. Phan generates revenue by monetizing her videos and endorsing various products in her videos. And just like other famous YouTubers, she uses popular copyrighted songs as background music in her videos that are distributed to millions via YouTube.
In July 2014, Ultra Records, LLC (“Ultra”) brought a copyright infringement suit against Ms. Phan in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Ultra alleged that Ms. Phan had engaged in a “wholesale infringement” of Ultra’s musical compositions and recordings, citing 50 instances of Ms. Phan’s direct copyright infringement. Ultra further stated that Ms. Phan had profited from using its artists’ tracks and compilations. Consequently, Ultra sought $150,000 in statutory damages for each instance of copyright infringement, and demanded an injunction against Ms. Phan’s continued use of its copyrighted material. Continue reading
By Carlie Bacon
The technological age has transformed the once-useful volumes lining the walls of law firms and libraries into decorative dust-collectors. Just like this blog post, the information in those books can be accessed from anywhere that you can check your email. Law is widely regarded as a conservative profession, but even so, modern attorneys and law students conduct legal research online. Why turn page after page at a desk somewhere, when you can scroll through seamless documents from the comfort of, well, anywhere?
Companies like Westlaw and LexisNexis offer access to enormous electronic databases and handy research tools, but at a cost. Subscription fees can total millions of dollars annually for large firms. Like those shelves full of books, commercial databases’ days may be numbered too. Continue reading