Publishing (non-commercially) a video-interview with a celebrity online, without written consent Suppose that several years ago a non-profit organization made a short video-interview with one of the most famous US performers, who very rarely gives interviews. Suppose that it was recorded in Switzerland after one of his performances. The organization did not collect any written consent. Now the organization (which is based in Switzerland) would like to publish this recording online to make it publicly available. The organization is strictly non-profit and for public benefit (in the US it would be a 501 (c)(3) ). Suppose that there is a delicate part in the interview where the performer mentions his religious beliefs. Since the performer lives in the US, US law is applicable. Given that the interview was made with implicit consent (he was in front of a camera), and will not be commercially exploited, does the organization have a right to publish it? What legal actions could the performer successfuylly take in response?
This is a surprisingly complex question, with several aspects. There is the question of what jurisdiction's law to apply, there is the question of copyright, and there is the question of personality rights, also known as a right of publicity. Whose Laws The question says: Since the performer lives in the US, US law is applicable. This is generally incorrect, or at least oversimplified. If there were an agreement between the performer and the organization, that agreement might specify what jurisdictions law applies. In the absence of such an agreement, the law of the place of publication will most likely apply. But since the intent is to publish on the internet, it is in effect published everywhere that an internet connection is available, which is almost all of the world. Legal action might be brought in any country with an internet presence. Particularly likely is the location of the organization, which seems to be Switzerland, and the residence of the performer, the United States. If the interview were to be published in a print publication circulated primarily in a single country, the law of that country would be the normal choice. Most of the discussion and caselaw I have been able to find is about US law, but some applies to UK or EU law. Copyright Fixation In all countries adherent to the Berne Copyright Convention, works are protected by copyright as soon as they are &quot;fixed in some material form&quot; (article 2 of the convention). In US law 17 USC 102 provides that: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression Interviews have sometimes been denied copyright protection on the grounds that they were not fixed, but where an interview is recorded in audio or video form as it is made, it is clearly fixed in a tangible form, and protected by copyright. Ownership of Copyright in an interview The general rule is that copyright initially belongs to the &quot;author&quot; of a work (Articles 3 and 5 of Berne, 17 USC 201 But courts have been divided on who is the &quot;author&quot; of an interview. Most often the view has been taken that the interviewer (or the interviewer's employer) is the author, and holds initial copyright. Some cases have considered the interview to be a compilation with the interviewer holding copyright on the questions, and the subject of the interview (interviewee) holding copyright on the answers. And in some cases an interview has been treated as a joint work by the interviewer and the subject, making them joint owners of the copyright. Cases Falwell v. Penthouse Intern In the case of Falwell v. Penthouse Intern., Ltd., 521 F. Supp. 1204 (W.D. Va. 1981) a claim by the interview subject, the Rev Jerry Falwell, for copyright in an interview, was denied (along with claims for false light, defamation, conspiracy, and violation of personality rights, all of which were also denied). Judge Turk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia wrote on the copyright claim in an interview: Plaintiff's claim of copyright is not founded on any existing principle of law, nor is it even analagous to any of the circumstances which heretofore have been contemplated by the courts. Plaintiff's claim of copyright presupposes that every utterance he makes is a valuable property right. If this were true, the courts would be inundated with claims from celebrities and public figures ... Plaintiff cannot seriously contend that each of his responses in the published interview setting forth his ideas and opinions is a product of his intellectual labors which should be recognized as a literary or even intellectual creation. Although the general subject matter of the interview may have been outlined in the reporters' minds prior to their meeting with plaintiff, the actual dialogue, including the unprepared responses of plaintiff, was spontaneous and proceeded in a question and answer format. There is no defined segregation, either by design or by implication of any of plaintiff's expressions of his thoughts and opinions on the subjects discussed which would aid in identifying plaintiff's purported copyrighted material. ... In the case at bar, plaintiff willfully and freely participated in the interview. An interview with members of the media is not a private conversation. Like a press conference, plaintiff in this action responded to questions in a spontaneous manner and not from a carefully prepared text or even from notes. Moreover, plaintiff was aware that his comments were not made in the context of a private conversation but rather were destined expressly for dissemination to the public. Plaintiff is free to pursue a breach of contract action against the journalists. But he is trampling upon fundamental constitutional freedoms by seeking to convert what is essentially a private contractual dispute into a broad-based attack on these principles of freedom of speech and press which are essential to a free society. Taggart v. WMAQ Channel 5 Chicago In Taggart the court held that an interview subject (a prison inmate) had no copyright in teh answers given. I have not been able to find a copy of the decision online, but it was cited and described in Michael G. Scott v. Scranton Greeting Cards, Co., No. 16-345 The opinion said in relevant part: Here, I follow Taggart v. WMAQ Channel 5 Chicago, No. 00-cv-4205, 2000 WL 1923322 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2000). The court in Taggart refused to allow a prisoner who had submitted to an interview with a television station to use the copyright law to force the station to destroy the tapes of their interview, on the ground that the interview responses were not copyrightable by the interviewee. The Taggart court gave at least three reasons for denying the plaintiff’s “singular and unjustified” attempt to claim copyright in the oral responses to the interviewer’s questions: (1) there is no copyright in the spoken word; (2) the interviewee is not the “author” of any published work; and (3) the responses were uncopyrightable facts. Although I do not find here that the interview responses consisted of uncopyrightable facts, I am persuaded that there is no copyright in the spoken word and, most importantly, Scott was not the “author” for copyright purposes of any copyrightable “work.” See 17 U.S.C. § 102 (providing that copyright subsists only in “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression”). I recognize that there is dicta that disagrees with this position. The district court in Swatch Group Management Services. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 808 F. Supp. 2d 634 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), for instance, refused to dismiss a case where the defendant alleged that the interview responses given during a corporate earnings conference call were not copyrightable. Likewise, the court in Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, Andrews &amp; McMeel, Inc., 803 F.2d 1253 (2d Cir. 1986), implied that authors of books containing interviews must get copyright assignments from the interviewees before the authors can sue for infringement based on use of the interviewees’ words. Book authors would only be required to obtain copyright assignments from interviewees if the interviewees held the copyright in their responses in the first place. Moreover, some academic commentary takes a different tack altogether and suggests that interviews should be considered “joint works,” where the copyright in the entire article is held jointly by the interviewer and the interviewee. The reasoning here is that “the questions and answers in an interview are contemporaneous” and so the resulting interview is a joint product of both parties. See Paul Goldstein, Goldstein on Copyright § 4.2.1.3 (3d ed. 2016). ... But these positions both run up against two fatal flaws. First, ..., granting any form of copyright ownership to interviewees is generally inappropriate, because they are not “authors” of their own “works.” Instead, they simply answer questions and leave it up to interviewers and publishers to create the published interviews, which often contain introductions and edits. It is the published interview that is the “fixed” work and therefore the proper subject of copyright. Interviewees typically have no control over that fixation nor any hand in the resulting work; they only take part in the conversation that led to the work. They thus have no authorship interest at all—joint, solo, or otherwise. Second, denying interviewees any copyrightable interest in interviews published in newspapers or magazines is the only way to maintain the delicate balance between the First Amendment and intellectual property protection that the Copyright Act demands. ... But there is no evidence that Congress ever meant to reverse the centuries-old understanding that publishers ultimately control the use and reuse of interviews and quotations that appear in their pages. Donoghue v Allied Newspapers In the case of *Donoghue v Allied Newspapers[1938] Ch 106 The UK high court denied the claim of an interview subject to control the republication of an interview. Donoghue, then a popular jockey, gave an interview to a journalist in return for payment. The journalist wrote and published a series of articles, apparently recasting Donoghue's words. Later the journalist wrote a separate article for a different publication, reusing the contents of the interview. Donoghue demanded additional payment, and sued for copyright infringement. Chloe Sevil (see sources) wrote: The court ... found that Donoghue did not own the copyright in the articles. If the journalist had substantially reproduced Donoghue’s own words or had copied them word-for-word in the articles, then Donoghue may have been able to claim copyright. As Donoghue had only supplied the idea for the articles, he wasn’t the author of the article and therefore not its copyright owner. This case cuts both ways, as it suggests that the subject may own copyright in the exact words of the interview. I have not found a copy of the opinion online. Rights of Personality In some jurisdictions a person, particularly a famous or well-known person, has a right to control the use of his or her name or likeness for commercial purposes, particularly including the promotion of any product, service, or business. This is true in some but not all US states, and is a matter of state law in the US. This is also known as the right of publicity. If an interview, or an except or an image from it were used to promote any commercial interest, this right might well require the permission of the subject. the right of publicity does not generally extend to the publication of the interview itself, even if it is a commercial publication. This is all the more true for a non-commercial publication. So rights of publicity would not affect the publication described in the question. Sources consulted &quot;Are interviews copyrighted?&quot; 1917 article by *New Media Rights &quot;Rights &amp; Permissions&quot; University of Iowa Press &quot;Who Owns the Copyright in an Interview or Social Media Post?&quot; by Chloe Sevil of LegalVision. &quot;Who Owns an Interview? Insights into Copyright Cases&quot; a 2021 article by Lloyd L. Rich (an attorney practicing publishing, cyberspace, and intellectual property law), published by the Independent Book Publishers Association. &quot;Who 'Owns' an Interview?&quot; by Mark Fowler , postesd on hius blog Rights of Writers Folwer describes himself as: &quot;an attorney in New York City with 29 years of experience working for media companies - book and magazine publishers, newspapers, broadcasters, and online publishers, among others. For eight years before going to law school I was a writer and editor...&quot; &quot;Retrospective - Authorship&quot; by Jani Ihalainen in IP Iustitia (I will be adding to this answer shortly. -DES)
Very similar to how MySpace done it all those years back.... MySpace did it differently back then because they got sued for copyright violations for the music their users were uploading and streaming. https://www.google.com/search?q=myspace+lawsuit+music These days, you can upload music to MySpace, but they have licenses and agreements with music publishers, and are clear to their users what can be legally uploaded: https://help.myspace.com/hc/en-us/articles/202591770-Music-Upload-Requirements And remember.... By uploading any content to Myspace, you hereby certify that you own the copyright in or have all the necessary rights related to such content to upload it. Don't step on someone else's hard work. And Myspace is are clear on how they handle copyright violations: https://help.myspace.com/hc/en-us/articles/202055394-Copyright-FAQs Myspace will respond to allegations of copyright violations in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). The DMCA provides a process for a copyright owner to give notification to an online service provider concerning alleged copyright infringement. Now, with your question: you are allowing users to both upload music and stream it. Streaming is legal in the UK; see an older question here on LSE Is Streaming Copyrighted Content Illegal in the UK But the hosting - storing the actual files - of copyrighted material is not legal. But my app knows no detail of the song uploaded. Could be anything.... This doesn't matter; the files are on your server. You run the risk of legal action being taken against you for the actual .mp3 file of copyrighted music on your server. You are the owner of the webserver, and thus control the files on it, along with your knowledge of building an App that allows users to upload the files. Even if you claim to know nothing about what users upload with the App you built, the music files are on your server. What happens also depends on where the server with the music files is located, i.e. in the UK (action against you legally possible), or elsewhere (legal action against depends on the country and their laws and agreements with other countries). If your server is in a third-party country and can't be taken down, but you are a UK resident, the music companies can still go after you in other respects, as the paying owner of the server, the owner of the domain registration, even possibly as the creator of the App itself.
No, bare possession is not illegal under US law Nothing in Tile 17 of the US code (which is the copyright law) makes it illegal or even actionable to simply posses a single physical object (such as a game or a book) which constitutes a copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement is defined in 17 USC 506 and is limited to people who: Infringe for &quot;purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain&quot;; and Create infringing copies &quot;which have a total retail value of more than $1,000&quot; in a six-month period; or Infringe &quot;by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.&quot; However, in practice, the US Department of Justice only brings criminal copyright cases when infringement is carried on as a business, on a bulk or mass basis, and only when infringing copies are in fact distributed to the public. In practice the vast majority of copyright enforcement (both in the US and in other countries) is done by private suits by copyright owners or rights-holders. In the US such suits are generally to enforce the rights guaranteed in 17 USC 106. This protects six core rights (summarized): To make copies or phonorecords; To prepare derivative works; To distribute copies or phonorecords; To perform the copyrighted work publicly; To display the copyrighted work publicly; To perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. The copyright owner can do any of these or authorize other to do them. Anyone doing any of these without such permission is an infringer unless one of the exceptions or limitations in sections 107 thru 122 applies. There are also the &quot;moral rights&quot; specified in section 106A. These apply only to works of visual art in the US, and grant the artist the right to: Claim authorship of the work; Prevent the use of the person's name on any work s/he did not create; Prevent the use of the author's name on any work that has been changed so as to possibly harm the author's reputation; Prevent any &quot;intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation&quot;; and Prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature. Note that none of the six rights from sec 106 or the five moral rights from sec 106A covers possession of an infringing copy. One caution: so-called &quot;first-sale rights&quot; (from 17 USC 109) do not apply to an infringing copy, and it is infringement to knowingly sell, lend, rent or otherwise distribute an infringing copy. But the purchaser is not an infringer. Also, to play an infringing copy of a game might be a violation of the right to &quot;publicly perform&quot; the work, but not if done in private. However, in running a game it is likely that one or more temporary copies would be made. This is lawful if done from a lawful copy, but not if the person does not posses a lawfully-made copy. So playing an infringing copy of a game might well constitute an act of infringement, although a suit over a private act is unlikely.
In the United States, when you distribute a recording of a nondramatic musical work, the law grants a compulsory mechanical license allowing anyone to cover the song provided certain formalities are observed, and royalties are paid to the original artist. See 17 U.S.C. sec. 115. If your song falls under this section, then all that is required for your friend to cover it is to give you notice and to pay royalties as provided by the applicable statutes and regulations. Of course, you are free to negotiate other terms if you want to. But your song can be covered even if you don't.
Yes, a licensee of Sketchfab is only required to cooperate with this audit process because it was agreed to in a contract. Copyright law does not (in the US, or anywhere else that I know of) give a content creator such a right to demand proof that something is being used in accord with a license. If a content creator or copyright holder thinks that some content is being used without permission, or is an unauthorized derivative work, the holder has only a few possible courses of action. The holder can send a cease and desist letter. This has no legal force, but puts the alleged infringer on notice, makes further infringement clearly &quot;knowing&quot;, and may well cause an infringer to stop infringing for fear of an expensive suit. The holder can send a takedown notice if the content is online in a venue that accepts such notices. But there is not a legal obligation to honor such a notice, and a counter-notice may lead to the content being put back up. Finally the holder may sue for copyright infringement. This has significant upfront costs, and requires significant time from the holder or the holder's business. The holder may therefore be unwilling to bring suit unless significant recovery seems likely. Once suit is brought, the holder will have discovery rights to demand answers to relevant questions from the alleged infringer, including the source of the content in question.
This seems to be a mix of question about law and a meta-question about this site, but I'll treat it as an on-topic question about law. The author of a question, or answer, owns the copyright to their contributions, and they can re-publish to their heart's content. Any user who posts here grants a license to SE and other users to use content posted here, so I don't have to ask you permission to quote you. As part of the permission granted by SE to use this website, you have agreed to &quot;follow the rules&quot; set by SE. There are many rules, some spelled out more clearly that others. For example, if you post a question, you indirectly agreed that your content can be upvoted or down-voted. Certain content can be &quot;closed&quot; and deleted, when the content is deemed to violate the rules in particular ways (is spam, porn, abuse, or judged to be poor-quality). Judgment (on different matters) can be rendered by community managers, moderators, or other users. The agreement is here, see especially here. If we take the post that you linked to, it is quite possible that it was deleted because it is not a general legal question, in violation of the acceptable use policy. If you want a historical analysis of your particular case, it should be asked on Law Meta.
I am not a lawyer; I am especially not your lawyer; this is not legal advice; if you want legal advice, hire a lawyer. Idk. But probably not. The YouTube terms of service seem to prohibit this pretty clearly: You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube's prior written authorization, unless YouTube makes available the means for such distribution through functionality offered by the Service (such as the Embeddable Player)... You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate. Now, were YouTube itself licensing the videos in question under the CC license, they might be prohibited from enforcing that term: You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material. though I'm not sure if the language in question would apply. However, it seems likely that in most cases, YouTube is using the material in question under the license to which users agreed when they created their accounts, and therefore is not bound by the term in question. All that said, it's entirely possible that the clause in the YouTube ToS prohibiting downloading does not apply for whatever reason (unconscionable in a contract of adhesion, browsewrap agreement doesn't form a contract to begin with, it's superseded by either some other agreement (part of the API EULA, etc), it's contrary to some law in your jurisdiction, etc). Just to be very clear, though, there is no COPYRIGHT CONCERN preventing uses like the one you mentioned.
No, the musical composition itself (i.e., what you might express tangibly in sheet music) has copyright distinct from the copyright that exists on Led Zepplin's recording of the song. Your new cover will still be a derivative work of the musical composition. When you record a cover of a copyrighted song, you must get permission from the composer (or current copyright holder of the composition). In the United States, however, you can compel the copyright holder to grant you license under 17 USC §115. Under a compulsory license, you pay a fixed fee per copy of the cover that you distribute (currently 9.1 cents), and the copyright holder must allow you to distribute those copies. See the circular Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords from the U.S. Copyright Office. I am not aware of other countries that have a similar compulsory license scheme, so in those jurisdictions, you would need to negotiate a license with the publisher or an intermediary agency they use. However, even if you did get a compulsory license to distribute your cover song, you must get permission to synchronize the song with a video. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers describes the copyright holder's exclusive synchronization right: A synchronization or "synch" right involves the use of a recording of musical work in audio-visual form: for example as part of a motion picture, television program, commercial announcement, music video or other videotape. Often, the music is "synchronized" or recorded in timed relation with the visual images. Since the synchronization right cannot be acquired under a compulsory license, you will need to have the publisher (or whoever the copyright holder is) agree to license the synchronization right to you under whatever terms the two of you can agree upon.