Generic Fair Use

... where pop culture meets intellectual property law

Tag: twitter

“You Really Think You Can Fly That Thing?” On Donald Trump, Independence Day Deepfakes, and the Copyright Defenses of Parody and Satire

May 21, 2020 / / Comments Off on “You Really Think You Can Fly That Thing?” On Donald Trump, Independence Day Deepfakes, and the Copyright Defenses of Parody and Satire

On Saturday evening, May 16, 2020, Donald Trump shared a cartoonish deepfake video to his Twitter account. Trump’s 80 million followers saw an edited video of the famous speech from the 1996 movie “Independence Day,” only with the faces of the characters being edited to reflect certain individuals in politics and pop culture, namely with Trump’s face superimposed over Bill Pullman’s face (but not his voice).

While this predictably led to outrage from various corners of the internet, including from Bill Pullman himself, the most common complaint seemed to be “isn’t this copyright infringement?” The answer to this question, as always, is: well, maybe.

Trump is unlikely to have acquired permission to use this clip from Disney[1], including any right to create or share derivative works,[2] but whether or not Trump’s uses constitute copyright infringement is not an easy answer. Copyright is not absolute. There are always defenses to allegations of infringement. Trump could assert the defense of fair use, specifically the right to use the work as part of a parody – which the Supreme Court has held is a fair use of copyright.

If this use is considered a parody, legal precedent holds that Trump did not infringe any copyrights. What if Trump’s use is instead considered satire? Yes, there is a difference between “parody” and “satire” and these distinctions are significant in a copyright fair use analysis.

Continue reading

Coronavirus: Copyright Law and Revisionist History on the Internet

April 5, 2020 / / Comments Off on Coronavirus: Copyright Law and Revisionist History on the Internet

The only relevant thing in the news these days is information about COVID-19, the novel coronavirus. More formally known as coronavirus disease of 2019 and the underlying virus causing it: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). There has not been much else worthy of writing about or reading about for a couple of months now. This is for good reason. COVID-19 is deadly serious and not to be underestimated.

Someone did not get this memo to multiple talking heads on television and the internet. Truth be told, I am not here to litigate the underlying science of the coronavirus. But I am absolutely here to dunk on those who initially went out of their way to downplay the pandemic only to later engage in lazy revisionist history. There are too many to name, but one in particular caught my attention. Because this person brought the law into it; thus bringing it directly into my area of expertise.

Hello, Dr. Drew. Please take a seat while we discuss “copywrite” laws.

Continue reading

Seeing “Red”: Taylor Swift and the Dueling Copyrights in a Song

November 18, 2019 / / Comments Off on Seeing “Red”: Taylor Swift and the Dueling Copyrights in a Song

Taylor Swift is one of the most prominent and successful musical artists of this decade. She has registered over 100 song copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office.[1] Of course, Swift was a teenager when she first entered the music industry. The stories of exploitation within the industry by record companies, managers, agents and representatives are vast. It appears not even Taylor Swift was immune from a rather nasty dispute with the entity that produced her first six albums.

Over the weekend, Swift sent out a tweet to her 85 million Twitter followers.

While I am very familiar with who Taylor Swift is (though I prefer Tool), there are enough stories about her ongoing dispute with Scooter Braun, Scott Borschetta and Big Machine Records. I will let someone else explain the gossipy details involved there. Nor will I perform any deep dives into the private equity acquisition of Ms. Swift’s former record company that led us to these contractual impasses. Elizabeth Warren and AOC have already dipped their toes into that murky water.

Instead, I immediately realized this topic has copyright law implications. Did you know that most recorded songs have at least two separate copyrights associated with them? That is partially why there is such drama between Taylor Swift and Big Machine’s new owners. Ms. Swift, for one, very much does not welcome these new corporate overlords.

Continue reading

President Donald Trump and Intellectual Property: what can he claim as his?

April 20, 2017 / / Comments Off on President Donald Trump and Intellectual Property: what can he claim as his?

April 20, 2017

In a world of fake news, clickbait, and alternative facts, there is a bit of comfort in knowing at least one undeniable fact. Donald J. Trump is enthusiastic about stamping the TRUMP name on most any goods or services and reaping the benefits of the ancillary trademark rights. He first sought trademark registration for a Trump-branded product in 1985 and has since sought to register in excess of 300 other trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including the now ubiquitous MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN® mark, which was registered on August 16, 2016.[1] While he often files applications through his various corporate entities, the fact remains: Donald Trump loves him some trademark rights.

This may elicit a few questions though. First, can a sitting POTUS own trademark rights? Also, what about other intellectual property rights: patents, copyrights, trade secrets? Can a U.S. President acquire, assert, enforce, or use with impunity certain types of intellectual property?

I shall do my best to answer these, though I will try to avoid addressing in detail the emoluments clause elephant in the room. For now.

Continue reading

Olympic Trademarks are Sacred. And Easily Infringed.

August 4, 2016 / / Comments Off on Olympic Trademarks are Sacred. And Easily Infringed.

August 4, 2016

The 2016 Olympic Games® in Rio are set to officially open this Friday, August 5, 2016.[1] Every four years, for a glorious 16 days, the world gathers in unison to watch athletes compete for the gold medal in a multitude of games in varying degrees of popularity. The world also gathers to sell you things. Lots and lots of goods and services will be offered through fancy advertising. Many of these ads will exploit the famous Olympic rings and pictures of the Games in association with certain products. “Official sponsor of the Olympic Games” being a key phrase.

Why is this? It is because the Olympic Games are serious business. Not surprisingly, the use of Olympic-themed trademarks is equally serious business. Even in the United States, these trademark rights supersede U.S. trademark law in many areas and are granted a “privileged status.”[2] The International Olympic Committee (IOC) owns most of these trademarks and it is hyper-vigilant in its enforcement of the uses of these marks.

What constitutes an Olympic trademark? Why are they given special privileges? Let’s explore!

Continue reading

Is “joke theft” tantamount to copyright infringement?

January 25, 2016 / / Comments Off on Is “joke theft” tantamount to copyright infringement?

In what seems to be a rite of passage for up-and-coming comedians, Golden Globe® nominee Amy Schumer was recently accused of “joke theft” by a series of fellow comedians. All puns aside, “joke theft” can be a serious matter and allegations of the same have negatively affected the careers of many comedians, including Denis Leary, Carlos Mencia, and Dane Cook.[1] While few jokes are truly original anymore, the blatant lifting of an entire comedic performance from another often subjects the alleged thief to public shaming. In the case of a comedian with the status of Amy Schumer, that shaming can be high-profile. Many have already taken to YouTube to create comparison videos.

But is joke theft a stand-alone basis for a legal claim of copyright infringement?

Yes, yes it can be.  Please allow me to explain…

Continue reading

The NFL will complain about your Vines (and GIFs)

November 8, 2015 / / Comments Off on The NFL will complain about your Vines (and GIFs)

[originally published on October 13, 2015 at www.law-dlc.com]

As a sports fan, Monday, October 12, 2015 was a strange and turbulent day.  USC fired Steve Sarkisian one day after asking him to take an administrative leave of absence (cue the employment lawyers).  Steve Spurrier, the head coach of the other USC – South Carolina – suddenly walked away and called it a career in mid-season.  Meanwhile, Texas Governor Greg Abbott congratulated the Astros on making the American League Championship Series when they were leading 6-2 in the eighth inning, only for the Royals to score five quick runs and turn me into a blubbering mess of a baseball fan.  Someone in the governor’s office forgot about Yogi Berra and “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.”

Yet the craziest sports story of the entire day might be something that happened over social media.  In the mid-afternoon, the Twitter accounts for Deadspin (@Deadspin) and SB Nation’s GIF-based sub account (@SBNationGIF) were suddenly suspended.  The initial reasons were murky, with media reports later suggesting that the National Football League used its influence with Twitter to suspend the accounts.  And why?  Because the Deadspin account and the SBNationGIF account both routinely posted or re-tweeted Vines and GIFs of highlight plays from NFL games. Which are copyrighted works.

Continue reading

Archives

© 2024 Generic Fair Use

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑