Tag: creators rights

United for Artists’ Rights: Amicus Briefs Filed in Vetter v. Resnik Support Global Copyright Termination for Songwriters and Authors: The Authors Guild, Inc., Dramatists Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Novelists, Inc., Romance Writers Of America, Inc., Society Of Composers & Lyricists, Inc. and Songwriters Guild Of America, Inc.

In Vetter v. Resnik, songwriter Cyril Vetter won his trial case in Baton Rouge allowing him to recover worldwide rights in his song “Double Shot of My Baby’s Love” after serving his 35 year termination notice on his former publisher, Resnik Music Group. The publisher appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case and currently is weighing whether U.S. copyright termination rights include “foreign” territories—a question that strikes at the heart of artists’ ability to reclaim their work worldwide (whatever “foreign” means).

Cyril’s attorney Tim Kappel explains the case if you need an explainer:

An astonishing number of friend of the court briefs were filed by many songwriter groups. We’re going to post them all and today’s brief is by The Authors Guild, Inc., Dramatists Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Novelists, Inc., Romance Writers Of America, Inc., Society Of Composers & Lyricists, Inc. and Songwriters Guild Of America, Inc.

We believe the answer must be yes. Congress gave creators and their heirs the right to regain control of their work after decades, and that promise means little if global rights are excluded. The outcome of this case could either reaffirm that promise—or open the door for multinational publishers to sidestep it entirely.

That’s why we’re sharing friend of the court briefs from across the creative communities. Each one brings a different perspective—but all defend the principle that artists deserve a real, global right to take back what’s theirs, because as Chris said Congress did not give authors a second bite at half the apple.

Read the latest amicus brief below.

Authors Guild et al Amicus BriefDownload
by thetrichordist

Sons of Anarchy’s Kurt Sutter Is A Rock Star for Creators Rights

We love Kurt Sutter’s unapologetic response to Google and Silicon Valley’s assault on creators. Below are links to Kurt’s two editorials that are essential reading for all creators to understand what the “internet economy” means for artists of all disciplines.

Kurt Sutter Attacks Google: Stop Profiting from Piracy (Guest Column) | Variety

Google is in the process of systematically destroying our artistic future, and more importantly, the future of our children and grandchildren. They’re spending tens of millions of dollars each year on eroding creative copyright laws. I believe that if the creative community doesn’t intervene now, and by now, I mean, fucking now — we will be bound to a multigenerational clusterfuck that will take 40 to 50 years to unravel.

The last time this happened was in the 1950s, when the tobacco industry spent millions to hide the truth, and convince everyone that smoking cigarettes wasn’t really dangerous to your health.

Earlier this year, Kurt took to writing a response in Slate to an editorial by Google Lobbyist Marvin Ammori (which lead to a later editorial disclosure of Mr. Ammori’s relationships).

Not-So-Zen and the Art of Voluntary Agreements | Slate

Every writer, producer, actor, musician, director, tech wizard, and fine artist working today needs to be aware of what this all means for our future—we will lose the ability to protect and profit from our own work. Every kid out there who aspires to be an actor or musician or artist: This is your future that’s at stake. More importantly, everyone who enjoys quality entertainment: This impacts you most of all. Content excellence cannot sustain itself if it loses its capacity to reward the talent that creates it. Consider this clunky analogy: If your local car dealership started selling your favorite luxury car for $1,000, then $100, then started giving it away, what do you think would happen to the quality of that vehicle? Before long, the manufacturer would be forced to let go of the skilled laborer, the artisan, and the craftsman, and eventually cut back on everything in the production process. And before long, that fabulous, high-end car you so enjoyed will be a sheet of warped plywood on top of two rusty cans.

Yep, it’s cheap, and it’s shit.

Among the arguments that Kurt brings to light are the use of Merchants Of Doubt tactics by Silicon Valley interests, the mechanics employed by Google and YouTube detailed by The Digital Citizens Alliance and the ability for creatives of all disciplines to join Creative Future for a unified voice against these forces of exploitation.

by Trichordist Editor

Congress moves against ad-supported piracy | The Hill

How surprised would you be if you went to your local Honda dealer and bought a car, but when you tried to register it you were told it was stolen property?

What if you went to Target and bought a blender, but when you filled out the warranty card you were told it already belonged to someone else?

Things like this don’t happen, right? Companies like Honda and Target are respectable merchants who would never encourage the distribution of stolen property. Right? Wrong. They do. So do companies like Kraft, Lego, and the makers of Claritin. Every day.

It sounds insane, but Honda, Toyota, Target, Kraft, Lego, and Claritin are spending gobs of money every day to finance theft – whether they know it or not.

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE HILL:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/209193-congress-moves-against-ad-supported-piracy

by Trichordist Editor

Intellectual property — Our forgotten constitutional right? | Fosters

This story originally ran on Constitution Day, but we just got hipped to it now. Worth the read.

Cyber-piracy increasingly costs the U.S. economy money that instead of creating and supporting jobs goes into the pockets of criminals. The government must act, and swiftly, by exercising its constitutional responsibility to ensure that this trend is reversed. This may require breaking some new ground and should be done only after careful, principled debate, with respect for liberty and adherence to our other, equally important, constitutional rights.

If the framers could understand this matter in the eighteenth century, we must believe the current Congress can grapple with it today. Previous efforts to update our intellectual property protection system were defeated in a flurry of misinformation. The proposed legislation may have been opaque and overly broad, but the concerns expressed by many conservatives and libertarians were overstated.

On this Constitution Day, let’s remember that even in the Founder’s concept of a limited federal government, it is the proper obligation of that government to secure the property of its citizens against lawlessness. Protecting intellectual property is a property rights issue. There is a difference between liberty and lawlessness: We should favor the former and oppose the latter. On Constitution Day we should think about the protection of intellectual property rights on the Internet as a logical, contemporary extension of the basic Constitutional rights of authors, scientists and inventors that our framers set forth so plainly two and a quarter centuries ago.

READ THE FULL STORY AT FOSTERS:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130919/GJOPINION_0102/130919239/-1/FOSOPINION

by Trichordist Editor

Why are Internet Freedom Fighters always fighting against the Internet Freedom of Artists?

We’re always a little amazed when site like Hypebot takes up the fight for internet freedom, as long as that freedom does not include artists rights. Recently the site has confused the difference between a $20 settlement for illegal downloading, versus a $9,250 per song judgement for copyright infringement.

It seems to us, that getting off the hook for $20 per song is a pretty good deal. Should a person downloading also be found to be uploading and distributing (you know, infringing copyright) than they might want to think twice before pushing back too hard or they could end up like Joel Tenenbaum and Jammie Thomas. Both of whom were found guilty of copyright infringement by a Jury of their peers and awarded damages upheld by the courts.

It’s troubling when sites that state they are trying to help musicians are actually making arguments to support the people who exploit artists and rip them off, but not the artists themselves.

by trichordist