Kamarag Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 composers wont look for abuses unless it's huge. the companies will look for every abuse no matter how small or large Plus, copyright law requires that the owner defend suspected abuses. If you do not defend suspected abuses, you can (and will) lose your copyright. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Plus, copyright law requires that the owner defend suspected abuses. If you do not defend suspected abuses, you can (and will) lose your copyright. Heard that one before. Also, if you do not wait 30 minutes after eating before you go into the water, you can (and will) have a cramp and drown. . Edited May 21, 2015 by skevinp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 composers wont look for abuses unless it's huge. the companies will look for every abuse no matter how small or large Exactly, since many of them borrow liberally from others I'm sure they don't care too much unless its egregious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Heard that one before. Also, if you do not wait 30 minutes after eating before you go into the water, you can (and will) have a cramp and drown. . One of the reasons MAD magazine won their case when they were sued for using the Alfred E Neuman face. It was the heirs of the copyright holder who sued and they knew of other cases when the "face" was used for various commercial use. But they went after MAD because MAD actually had money to get. Or at least more money than a dentist office (painless) or patent medicine seller (before image). Also didn't help that the "face" had been used by others before it was copyrighted so the copyright holder was not the originator. But ignoring past use by itself would have been a killer..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 One of the reasons MAD magazine won their case when they were sued for using the Alfred E Neuman face. It was the heirs of the copyright holder who sued and they knew of other cases when the "face" was used for various commercial use. But they went after MAD because MAD actually had money to get. Or at least more money than a dentist office (painless) or patent medicine seller (before image). Also didn't help that the "face" had been used by others before it was copyrighted so the copyright holder was not the originator. But ignoring past use by itself would have been a killer..... It's a 50 year old case whose rationale in that regard has not, to my knowledge, been signicantly adopted thereafter. This may be because the lower court's theory was not well founded, and indeed the appeals court in affirming the outcome declined to agree with the scope of the ruling, which had basis also in other things such as questionable originality (which should have been enough if convincing) and absence of notice (about which the laws have since changed.) If widespread enforcement were indeed a requirement now, we should see numerous modern day court decisions ruling against copyright holders because they didn't enforce their rights against others. That I would find more convincing but I am not aware of such being the case. If not, I think copyright holders worried about being required to engage in widespread litigation when their concerns are limited to a smaller number of abuses can safely adopt a bit more of a "what me worry" attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) OK, then what is the reason for rights holders scanning YT,etc and demanding unauthorized copies be removed? If not CYAing on protecting the rights then it's a profit loss considering what is spent. Edited May 21, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cf144 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 If widespread enforcement were indeed a requirement now, we should see numerous modern day court decisions ruling against copyright holders because they didn't enforce their rights against others. That I would find more convincing but I am not aware of such being the case. If not, I think copyright holders worried about being required to engage in widespread litigation when their concerns are limited to a smaller number of abuses can safely adopt a bit more of a "what me worry" attitude. I seem to remember a news story a few years ago where a private daycare center had been in the news for one reason or another and interior shots of the facility showed a painted mural of Disney characters on the wall. Shortly after the story aired, they received a letter from Disney's lawyers ordering them to paint over the mural or be sued for copyright infringement. Pretty sure the rationale given was the enforcement "rule" that said if they didn't pursue it they would lose their rights. I may be misremembering, but I think that is the gist of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I seem to remember a news story a few years ago where a private daycare center had been in the news for one reason or another and interior shots of the facility showed a painted mural of Disney characters on the wall. Shortly after the story aired, they received a letter from Disney's lawyers ordering them to paint over the mural or be sued for copyright infringement. Pretty sure the rationale given was the enforcement "rule" that said if they didn't pursue it they would lose their rights. I may be misremembering, but I think that is the gist of it. Well if it is really a rule, it must be locatable in a statute or decision that is actually being applied by modern day courts. And as many/most modern copyright plaintiffs will not have the resources to enforce their rights against every infringer, there should be plenty of modern cases where courts declared their rights to have been lost because they didn't enforce them against others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 It's a 50 year old case whose rationale in that regard has not, to my knowledge, been signicantly adopted thereafter. This may be because the lower court's theory was not well founded, and indeed the appeals court in affirming the outcome declined to agree with the scope of the ruling, which had basis also in other things such as questionable originality (which should have been enough if convincing) and absence of notice (about which the laws have since changed.) If widespread enforcement were indeed a requirement now, we should see numerous modern day court decisions ruling against copyright holders because they didn't enforce their rights against others. That I would find more convincing but I am not aware of such being the case. If not, I think copyright holders worried about being required to engage in widespread litigation when their concerns are limited to a smaller number of abuses can safely adopt a bit more of a "what me worry" attitude. If, even after the inflow of funds resulting from a possible positive verdict, one's wallet cannot support the economic strain of one's legal team to litigate the matter --- then the entire exercise becomes not only moot, but economically stupid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Always reminded of a local store owner who got sucked into a group court case from a state run sting operation. 2 or 3 owners were actually guilty but named other (innocent) owners to try to get out of jail time. Every time one of the wrong doers went to appeal something (a lot) all the innocent ones had to $how up al$o (show up also). Finally the innocents ones copped a plea deal. They plead guilty to take a fine and probation. As the one lawyer said "We know (my client) is innocent but he will go broke proving it. That includes losing the store, probably house and kids education money." IOW you can win a case and end up losing more..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.