![[self-portrait]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aph-FWKPAtw/Sb7dbBwgg0I/AAAAAAAAAAU/xefH94KcXQA/S220/LawShark5204a.jpg)
Scrivener's Error| null | |
|---|---|
|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
link to: 14:46 [GMT-6]
Today's late platter was waiting for a couple of anticipated items...
This particular case has several frustrating aspects. Leaving aside the ethical/moral dimension of the particular objectifying toys at issue — a problem on which there really can't be much, if any, agreement — this case represented an opportunity for courts to definitively rule on the propriety of "spare time creations belong to the employer" employment agreements/contracts/employee handbooks, as the Ninth Circuit found too many loopholes in Mattel's version; on whether the scenes à faire doctrine from the 1909 Act survives as an independent consideration for copyrightability under the 1976 Act, or whether (as I believe) is it properly considered as one of the ยง 107 fair-use factors and not an independent determination; and whether the appalling amount of money represented in both the toy lines themselves and the legal fees could, and should, have been allocated better to the benefit of the various shareholders in the respective corporations. As Mattel has already been told once when it overreached to "protect" Barbie's anatomically incorrect image, "The parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the song "Barbie Girl" does not infringe Mattel's rights).
Although explaining why is well beyond the scope of this blawg, this matter also has some interesting implications for Happy Days (may that misbegotten load of dreck be quickly and permanently forgotten). Let's just say that CBS sympathizes with Mattel's side in this particular dispute and leave it at that, ok?
Yankovic didn't actually need Gaga's permission, but he extends the mutually beneficial proposition as a courtesy — his parodies have always fallen under "fair use" in matters of copyright law.
(typography corrected) No, no, and yet again no. On the one hand, Weird Al's work almost always qualifies as fair use. However, "parody" has been a relevant consideration only since 1994, when the Supreme Court said that a parody could constitute fair use (not necessarily is fair use), and there are several Weird Al songs that — however much I love them — fall outside the bizarro definition of "parody" that holds in US copyright law, so they don't even have that much protection, although they should. And, amusingly enough, one of them just popped up at random on the playlist...
Of course, Lady Gaga has other legal problems right now, so jettisoning this one makes good strategic sense, too. And how often can one say that about anything in the entertainment industry?
Labels: arts, copyright, intellectual property, jurisprudence, mass media
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 2003–12 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.
Sausages?
Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.
I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.
Optimized for
at 1024x768.
