Lenz V. Let's Go Crazy

As an artist, the protection of all intellectual property created for distribution should be a priority. The type of protection this case focuses on is the protection granted by copyright. When a piece of work is copyrighted, the copyright grants the creator the exclusive right to use and distribute the piece for the duration of their life plus 70 years. As a creator, copyrighting completed art before disclosing the art with any other interests is very beneficial when proving ownership in a federal court proceeding. Devin Copeland v. Justin Bieber is a case that is based around the copyrights to a song entitled “Somebody to Love”. The facts will be introduced, followed by the issues that arose in court, then the courts analysis of those issues, closing with the lessons learned to be applied to the future of Planet Florida Artist Managements business ventures.

Art defines us, allowing us unleash our personalities and creative abilities through forms such as painting, sculpture, and, of course, music. For centuries, music artists in specific have exchanged ideas, embracing the culture of combining folk songs and tunes into their newer pieces of music. Today, some music artists wish to carry on with that tradition in what is now known as “rap sampling”. This method of sharing music has now interfered with the modern concept of copyright. With this relatively new legal action used to protect original works, ancient traditions of sharing music can no longer be practiced freely.

They recently made a parody of “Shake It Off” by Taylor Swift. The parody has the same beat and a similar music video, but a totally different meaning in the lyrics. It mocks Taylor Swift and everything she has accomplished. It mocks the meaning of the song, and also the music video itself mocks the original music video. The two songs and music videos are comparable and contrastable, but both songs send a very opposite message.

In July 1987, the Commission was contacted by one Mr. Arnold Spindler who accused Eddie Antar and Sam E Antar of committing fraud by inflating profits of the company.

If you examine the pop charts from 30 years ago, it is hard to identify many artists who’ve managed to stay relevant into today’s generation. Weird Al, is one artist that has been active in the music industry since the mid 1970’s and has been able to keep up with the times way before the dawn of social media, online media, and vlogging. For his most recent album, Weird Al designed a creative advertising strategy for the digital age with his #8videos8days experiment. This strategy included eight videos in eight days for eight songs from the new album — on a variety of sites ranging from

The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the important aspects of the case, Goss v. Lopez, and write a case brief using the FIRAC method.

In 1999, Shawn Fanning and his little program called Napster created quite a stir in society. Napster's software allows music listeners to open pieces of their personal hard drives to everyone using Napster, sharing whatever MP3 songs they have already downloaded or stored. At any time, thousands of people are online, sharing hundreds of thousands of songs, many of which are technically illegal to download without the permission of the copyright holders. [1] This led to a lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America, with the rock group Metallica as its frontman. In this case, several issues were brought up, one of which was the right of the creator of the music to control what happens with

MGM also warned of allowing “a copyright owner [to] si[t] still . . . waiting to see what the outcome of an alleged infringer’s investment will be.” Indeed here, Petrella admitted to waiting to file her lawsuit in light of Raging Bull’s questionable profitability. But Justice Ginsburg responded that under §507(b), in practice, “there is nothing untoward” about allowing copyright owners to assess the

Whether the circuit court erred in considering parol evidence to determine whether the B108 document was a contract.

A June 2014 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Limelight Networks v. Akamai reversed a 2012 decision by the Federal Circuit that had held Limelight liable for infringing an Akamai patent that covered methods for storing and delivering large files via the Internet.

Facts: Plaintiff (Bell) sued defendant (Legal Advertising Committee). Bell is seeking injunctive relief to utilize the advertisements that have been denied by the Committee, allegedly violating his First Amendment Rights.

Meehan v. American Media International, LLC, 214 N.C.App 245, 260, 712 S.E.2d 904, 913 (N.C.App. 2011) (citations omitted).

Music Copyright is a very important aspect of the music industry. The Copyright law was established to preserve the creativity and rights of authors, composers, performers of expression. Copyright is the law that protects the property rights of the creator of an original work in a fixed tangible medium. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright) A fixed tangible medium is something substantial like copying lyrics on paper or putting a song on tape or CD. Copyright can be seen every where in the music industry. Many music artist of our culture today have been involved in copyright issues. Recently, on MTV news it was stated that, "As the music industry becomes increasingly concerned about protecting the

To appeal the District Court's ruling that Williams has sufficient access to media, he needs to show there was not a public controversy in addition to showing this Court his nature and extent of involvement in the particular controversy. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974).

The court denied the motion with respect to lack of jurisdiction, stating that the determination of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction is so tied up with PhoneDog's claims that it could not be resolved in this early stage. Turning to the substantive claims, the court granted Kravitz's motion with respect to the claims of intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, finding that PhoneDog failed to assert essential elements of the claim, including the existence of economic relationships and a duty of care. The court denied, however, the motion with respect to the misappropriation of trade secrets and conversion claims.