Category: Licensing

Special Series: The International Art Community’s Annual Winter Bash, Art Basel in Miami

An (Unofficial) Art Basel Visitor Guide

After relocating to Miami this past summer, I’m looking forward to exploring a one of a kind art exhibition in Miami and the sandy white shores of South Beach: Art Basel. Actually, one of a kind is a bit of misnomer. Organizers also host annual Art Basel shindigs in its namesake city, Basel, (a European city on the border between Switzerland, France, and Germany) and Hong Kong at different times of the year. Art Basel/Miami Beach 2013 is the 12th edition of this art gala and has grown up into a sprawling maze of eye candy for connoisseurs of the visual arts and the curious.

What is Art Basel?

Art Basel traces its beginnings to three visionary art gallery owners in 1970. They created an event for artists and galleries alike to exhibit contemporary and avant-garde pieces from around the world. Throughout the years, the Art Basel production has grown from 90 involved galleries, 30 publishers of art from 10 countries, and 16,300 visitors to its present size across three cities. 50,000 visitors alone came to Art Basel/Miami Beach alone last year.

A truly international event, Art Basel 2013 will showcase contemporary art from across the globe. Art galleries from North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa are coming to town and have historical works from masters of Modern art and newly minted pieces by emerging stars in tow. Painting, sculptures, drawings, installations, photographs, films, and edited works of great quality are on the menu. Live performances and music are planned as well to create a fully immersive experience.

Things to See and Do At Art Basel

Art Basel Miami at Convention Center
Soon to be chock full ‘o contemporary art

The invitation only events begin December 4, 2013, and opens to the public from Thursday, December 5 through Sunday, December 8. Doors open, figuratively speaking, at noon each day and close at 8pm (6pm on Sunday).

The main event will take place at the Miami Beach Convention Center (MBCC) and will be divided into eight different areas:

  • Galleries – Art works from undiscovered artists through museum quality pieces.
  • Nova – Individual galleries showcase new works from the past 3 years from 1-3, hand selected artists from around the world.
  • Positions – A single artist presents one major project.
  • Edition – Special presentations of editioned works, prints, and multiples (think Andy Warhol) by renowned artists
  • Kabinett – Curated exhibitions of art that have their own space to showcase specific themes.
  • Public – Outdoor sculptures, interventions, and live performances. No ticket required!
  • Film – Films by and about artists.
  • Magazines – Art publications from around the world.

Public artworks are located at nearby Collins Park and nearby beaches. Video works will be presented inside the MBCC and also in the outdoor setting of SoundScape Park.

Art Basel will also organize three different series for visitors to go beyond just viewing artworks.

  • Conversations – Morning discussions by prominent members of the international art world.
  • Salon – Short presentations that include artist talks, panels, lectures, and performances with the artists, academics, curators, collectors, architects, art lawyers, critics, and others.
  • Video Archive – Videos of archived “Conversations” from Art Basels in years past.

Art Basel will be offering more specific details, including a show guide and floor plan when they become available. You can that information here.

Art Basel Creates a Synergy in Miami

The Beach doesn’t get to claim the entire event. There will be “satellite” art fairs going on before, during, and after Art Basel citywide. A large part of it will be take place across the causeways in Midtown and the Wynwood Arts Districts of Miami. Three large structures in Midtown will be home to the works of contemporary artists from all over the world, further cementing this area’s place as the go-to arts center of the city.

Here are some of the satellite art fairs that have got my attention:

  • New Material Art Fair – This 1st edition fair features experimental works that push the boundaries of traditional contemporary art. Eva Hotel, December 5-8.
  • Brazil Art Fair – A showcase of art works from Brazilian galleries. Midtown, December 4-8.
  • Interactive Art Fair – A fair that focuses on immersing the onlooker with the artworks. 1035 N Miami Ave, December 3-8.

 

Just getting to all the shows could become a full time job!

Certainly these events show Miami as a hub for artistic expression, visual and otherwise. AB/MB also brings light that there is more to the art scene than just creating. It is about the experience.

Ari Good, JD LLM, a tax, aviation and entertainment lawyer, is the Shareholder of Good Attorneys At Law, P.A. He graduated from the DePaul University College of Law in 1997 and received his LL.M. in Taxation from the University of Florida.

Contact us toll free at (877) 771-1131 or by email to info@goodattorneysatlaw.com.

The Right to Digital Public Performance

The Six Rights of Copyright – Part VI: The Right to Digital Public Performance

 

The Bundle of Rights That Make Up Copyright

 

The digital public performance right is the sixth and final part in our series on what makes a Copyright. The prior five rights reviewed are linked below. To refresh, the six parts of copyright are:

We’re individually exploring each of these rights to get behind the opaque curtain of copyright. An understanding of each right and how they operate will allow you, the creator, to be in a better position to take advantage of your copyright.

There are a couple words of caution. First, the practical effect of these exclusive rights will depend on the type of copyrighted work (literary works, musical works, motion pictures, sound recordings, etc.). Second, these are exclusive rights. The law allows the copyright holder only to exercise these rights.

VI: The Right to Digital Public Performance of Sound Recordings

 

The right to digital public performance of sound recordings is an extension of the traditional right to public performance. Copyright holders have the exclusive right to publicly perform their sound recordings–a particular recording of a musical composition (e.g. master recording, masters)–via digital transmission (e.g. internet, satellite radio). The older right to public performance specifically excludes sound recordings. This right is limited because it does not cover analog transmissions such as traditional radio or television.

Why the Right to Digital Public Performance?

 

Digital Public Performance - Webcasting
Digital Public Performance: Webcasting

Congress created this copyright protection (DPRSRA legislation) because of advances in technology. High quality digital copies of sound recordings became easy and cheap to make in the 1990’s. Suddenly, people could readily profit from this practice and artists had little legal recourse. The digital public performance right creates a partial solution for this gap in copyright law. Groups that want to legally play sound recordings via digital transmission (think Spotify and Pandora) now must pay for that right. It was perfectly legal to not pay prior to this legal update. An organization called Sound Exchange currently administers the licensing of sound recordings.

There is a three-tier system that sets the licensing fee for sound recordings. The first tier doesn’t require certain broadcasters to pay any licensing fees. The second tier requires broadcasters to pay a “statutory” licensing fee set by the Copyright Board. The third tier requires broadcasters to negotiate the licensing fee directly with the copyright holders. Much of the highly publicized dispute over fees for sound recordings is about this second tier payment structure. Artists, broadcasters, and other interested groups vehemently disagree about the correct licensing fee amount and how to calculate that fee.

Limitations on the Right to Public Display

 

The most important limitation on copyright protection for sound recordings is that it only covers digital transmission. It’s business as usual for analog broadcasters in radio and television. The details of the digital public performance right also has many more nuances. It’s a fair complaint by sound recording copyright holders that they’re treated unfairly when compared to musical composition copyright holders. It’s also safe to say that no one (artists, broadcasters, and copyright holders) is actually satisfied with this copyright protection.

Ari Good, JD LLM, is a Miami entertainment lawyer and aspiring musician himself who represents DJs, live musicians, fashion models, and other entertainers in copyright, licensing, and contract matters.

Contact us toll free at (877) 771-1131 or by email to info@goodattorneysatlaw.com.

Image by Doug Symington

She & Them: Photographer Loses Copyright Battle Over Profits with Apple

She & Them: Photographer Loses Copyright Battle Over Profits with Apple

 

Apple’s Commercial Uses Copyrighted Image Without Permission

 

profits
She & Him Copyright Battle

A federal judge has ruled that Apple doesn’t have to share profits with a photographer over their infringing use of an image in an iPhone commercial. This lawsuit started when prominent fashion photographer Taea Thale snapped a promotional photo of the band She & Him. Hipster actress Zooey Deschenel (of TV and movie fame) is one half of the band duo and a former Apple endorser. Ms. Thale registered her copyright to the photo and then licensed it with Merge Media for band promotion. That license prohibited specifically the use of the photo to hawk other products.

Apple would later air a commercial for 2 weeks in 2010 that advertised its iPhone 3GS. The 30 second commercial was a montage of images showing the iPhone’s latest innovations, including including album cover art. 5 seconds of that commercial used Ms. Thale’s image of She & Him as part of the montage, despite Apple never getting permission to use it. When a royalty check never arrived from Apple, Ms. Thale sued the company for copyright infringement.

So What’s the Harm from Apple’s Infringement?

 

Ms. Thale’s lawsuit asked specifically for profits from Apple’s sale of iPhones that the infringing commercial promoted. The Court, however, shut this claim down. A copyright lawsuit typically complains of infringement that creates direct profits for the offender. A musician who rips off lyrics profits directly from album sales. An author who steals a plot from another writer profits directly from book sales. And a magazine that uses photos without permission profits directly from subscription sales. The facts of Ms. Thale’s case, on the other hand, could only support that Apple profited indirectly from its infringement. Apple didn’t profit by people viewing its infringing commercial (rather, it likely paid large sums to air the commercial), but could only have profited indirectly through the sale of the iPhone on the back end.

Ms. Thale’s copyright claim ultimately failed because she couldn’t prove Apple profited from its infringement. Apple’s copyright infringement was not an issue. In a claim for indirect profits, however, the plaintiff must offer concrete evidence of that profit. The Court decided in this case that the facts showed that Apple only hoped to generate iPhone sales from the commercial. Ms. Thale didn’t offer any actual proof of boosted profits and could only speculate that the commercial generated increased iPhone sales. The Court also noted a logical and reasonable argument (such as Ms. Thale’s) is still just speculation and does not add up to proof of profits. It’s not enough to show there is some relationship between the infringement and profits, there must be a cause and effect relationship between the two.

Does Apple Just Get Away with its Copyright Infringement?

 

Apple is not off the hook just yet. The Court only decided Apple doesn’t have to share profits. Ms. Thale can continue to seek damages for any actual harm that Apple’s infringement caused her (e.g. her lost profits!). This case teaches what’s necessary to make a claim when infringement creates indirect profits.

Join the discussion and leave a comment.

Ari Good, JD LLM, is an experienced Miami entertainment lawyer and aspiring musician himself who represents DJs, live musicians, fashion models, and other entertainers in copyright, licensing, and contract matters. For a free and confidential consultation to discuss your legal rights, contact Ari of Good Attorneys at Law, P.A., in Miami-Dade County at (239) 216-4106 or toll free at (877) 771-1131 or by email to info@goodattorneysatlaw.com. Visit goodattorneysatlaw.com for more information.

Image by Mindy Bond

Filmmaker Ungrateful About Claimed Copyright Infringement

Filmmaker Ungrateful About Claimed Copyrighted Infringement

 

The Back Story for the Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

 

Grateful Dead copyright infringement
Grateful for copyright law

A California filmmaker, Len Dell’Amico, is suing the Grateful Dead for copyright infringement over his allegation that the band leased documentaries and concert films that he created and owned. This long, strange trip begins in 1980 when Dell’Amico, a NYU film and television grad, first worked with the band on it’s live TV broadcast and home video ‘Dead Ahead.’ Dell’Amico would go on to be the Dead’s ‘film and video guy’ for the next 11 years, producing and directing their film projects from 1984 to 1991. Dell’Amico also claims in his lawsuit that they negotiated a deal for back-end compensation from the video release of these works. The years rolled along and, in late 2006, Grateful Dead Productions leased the films to Rhino Entertainment for 10 years. Rhino never credited Dell’Amico for producing and directing the films, nor paid him the promised back-end compensation (“royalties”). The lawsuit was on.

Failure to Register Copyrights Creates a Problem

 

But here’s the rub: Dell’Amico never applied to register any copyrights to the films until recently. The registrations are currently pending at the U.S. Copyright Office. Dell’Amico lacks definitive proof that he actually owns the right to the films. And this is exactly what the band is arguing. The Grateful Dead recall things differently from Dell’Amico and claim he was only a hired gun to produce and direct their films. The band owns all rights to the films because Dell’Amico was compensated for his work and their arrangement kept copyright ownership with the band. As it stands, without the clear proof of copyright registration, it’s a he said, they said matter.

Copyright Ownership Can Still be Proven in Other Ways

 

This doesn’t mean that Dell’Amico’s lawsuit is busted down on Bourbon Street. A 2002 agreement for a Grateful Dead documentary “So Far” gives Dell’Amico a 50 percent cut of the film’s revenue up to $25,000 and 15 percent of gross income over $750,000. This agreement does provide some proof that Dell’Amico created and owns the rights to the films that are the subject of his lawsuit. That agreement clearly came about because there was a belief Dell’Amico owned the copyright to the film. It may also show that he owns the copyright to the films that are the subject of his lawsuit.

Two Important Lessons from this Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

 

However the lawsuit plays out, the dispute highlights two important principles. The first is an overwhelming reason to register your copyrights. Dell’Amico likely would have a much easier time proving his allegations if he had taken the time to register any copyrights two decades ago. This lack of foresight could cost him big time. The second is over the issue of copyright ownership. If you are hired to create works that are covered by copyright law (music, film, television, dance, etc.), an important part of that arrangement is who keeps ownership of the copyright to the works.

Add a comment to share your own story or your thoughts on these issues.

Ari Good, JD LLM, is an experienced Miami entertainment lawyer and aspiring musician himself who represents DJs, live musicians, fashion models, and other entertainers in copyright, licensing, and contract matters.

For a free and confidential consultation to discuss your legal rights, contact Ari of Good Attorneys at Law, P.A., in Miami-Dade County at (239) 216-4106 or toll free at (877) 771-1131 or by email to info@goodattorneysatlaw.com.

Image by Gazerocker

The Six Rights of Copyright – Part IV: The Right to Publicly Perform

The Right to Publicly Perform is the fourth part in our series on what makes a Copyright.  The prior three rights reviewed are linked below for you to get up to speed.  To refresh, the six parts of copyright are:

  • The right to reproduce the copyrighted work
  • The right to prepare derivative works based upon the work
  • The right to distribute copies of the work to the public
  • The right to publicly perform the copyrighted work
  • The right to publicly display the copyrighted work
  • (sound recording only) The right to digitally transmit to publicly perform the copyrighted work

To try to get behind the curtain of copyright, we’re individually exploring each of these six rights.  An understanding of each and how they operate will allow you, the creator, to be in a better position to take advantage of your copyright.

There are a couple words of caution.  First, the practical effect of these exclusive rights will depend on the type of copyrighted work (literary works, musical works, motion pictures, sound recordings, etc.).  Second, these are exclusive rights.  The law allows only the copyright holder to exercise these rights.

IV.  The Right to Publicly Perform the Copyrighted Work

 

The right to publicly perform means only the copyright owners, or others they authorize, may perform their works publicly. 

 

This right prohibits would be thieves from performing a copyrighted work before the masses and profiting from that theft.  As an exclusive right, anyone wishing to perform a copyrighted work publicly must first obtain permission from the copyright owners.   Copyright owners, at least in the music industry, are often different from the people who created the work in the first place.  How far this right extends depends on answering two questions.

  1. What acts does a performance cover?
  2. When is that performance public?

The definition of performance under the Copyright Act goes beyond the usual examples of live works.  

 

Right to Publicly Perform
Live Public Performance

The term performance certainly covers situations when a person executes a copyrighted work live.  Examples of this include a band playing music in front of a crowd, a theater company performing a ballet before an audience, or people watching a film at the movie theater.  However, it also covers analog or digital transmission of performances by radio, television, and internet streaming.  Examples of transmitted performances include a song played on the radio, a recording of the ballet played on television, and a film screened for locals at a community park.  A performance occurs when the work is done live and when someone transmits a recording of the work.

The definition of public under the Copyright Act means any group beyond family and close friends.

 

A performance is public when the work is performed: (1) in a place open to the public, or (2) at a place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances are gathered.  In plain English, music you play for your family (3rd cousins need not apply) or close friends (not everyone on your Facebook friends list) will be a private performance.  Putting out flyers for your upcoming rendition of Britney Spears’ greatest hits, however, would be a public performance.  A performance is also public when you transmit the copyrighted work to a general audience.  This happens when a radio station plays a song, a television show includes that song during a dramatic break up scene, or you stream the song from your internet radio station.  Transmission of a performance will be public unless you restrict it to only your family or close friends.  As a general rule, live or recorded performances that can reach more than a few people will be public performances.

The traditional right to public performance applies to musical works, but not sound recordings.

 

Copyright owners of musical works (songwriters and music publishers) gain the traditional right to public performance.  Copyright owners of sound recordings (record labels), however, are left out in the cold.  A musical work is the composition, arrangement, lyrics, and other details that embody a song.  A sound recording is a specific performance of that musical work.  A musical work results when a band gets together to create an album.  A sound recording results when that same band goes into the studio to record the album.  The practical effect of this distinction is that analog radio stations must obtain a license only for musical works before playing songs on the air.  They don’t need permission from the owners of sound recordings that they actually broadcast.  This is true even though radio stations would have nothing to play without these sound recordings.

Three U.S. Performance Rights Organizations (PRO’s) (BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC) handle the vast majority of licensing and royalty issues for musical works.  There is a vast sea of musical works out there.  PRO’s strive to organize this complex network by licensing musical works on behalf of songwriters and bands.  The PRO’s then collect royalties for the licenses and send checks to the songwriters and bands.  The PRO’s are certainly not charitable entities, however, and take a cut of the royalties to cover the expenses in managing the system.  Some would say too big of a cut.

This oddity of the traditional public performance right has its roots in the history of Copyright.  Copyright protection existed long before people could record music and sheet music (an example of musical works) was the standard.  Copyright protection for musical works was necessary at that time, but obviously not so for non-existent sound recordings.  Copyright law failed to keep up with evolving technology, however, when sound recordings emerged to provide people with a different way to access music.

Congress tried to fix the problem by passing the Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act (DPSRA).  This created the sixth right of Copyright: the right to perform publicly by digital transmission.  The DPSRA did provide relief for sound recording owners, but also created a volatile two-class system.  Internet radio stations like Pandora and Spotify now have to obtain licenses and pay royalties to copyright owners of musical and sound recordings.  Analog radio stations, on the other hand, continue to enjoy preferential treatment and only have to answer to copyright owners of musical works.  Analog radio stations have a huge financial advantage over internet radio stations as a result.

The right to public performance does have its limitations.

 

For every rule, there are exceptions.  The right to public performance is no different.  Charitable, non-profit, and educational groups may publicly perform copyrighted works without permission if it’s for a reason recognized by law.  Certain businesses may also play copyrighted music without permission for their customers if they play by the rules.

  • The business must receive the music from a licensed radio, cable, satellite, or television broadcast;
  • The business must be on the smaller side;
  • The business must play it only in their establishment;
  • The business cannot charge an admission fee.

A club that charges admission to listen to a recording of the latest, greatest pop album is not going to fall into this exception.  The ubiquitous Fair Use exception to copyright protection can come into play for the public performance right, too.

That’s a lot to go over!  Go ahead and ask questions if you have them, or leave a comment if have an interesting anecdote about the public performance right.

–          Ari Good, Esq.

Ari Good, JD LLM, a tax, aviation and entertainment lawyer, is the Shareholder of Good Attorneys At Law, P.A.  Ari Mr. Good received his BA, With Distinction, from the University of Michigan in 1993.  He graduated from the DePaul University College of Law in 1997 and received his LL.M. in Taxation from the University of Florida.  Ari represents DJs, live musicians, fashion models and other entertainers in copyright, licensing and contract matters.

Image by Wootang01