INFORMATION FOR READERS:
This resource aims to give a brief overview of developments in Intellectual Property law and other areas of law relevant to the music and entertainment industries. Each item is categorised according to relevant areas of the music or entertainment business, and by the date of uploading. Uploads are undertaken regularly and are organised on a monthly basis. These updates are designed to give general information for music and entertainment industry professionals and students interested in these areas. These Law Updates are not law reports or detailed references. Users who would like further information should research the relevant area thoroughly. Relevant references and links are therefore provided.
Law Updates also provides hyperlinks to other sites which may be of use or interest to students and those involved in the music industry. These are provided at the end of Law Updates under 'Music Business Law Links'.
This resource is compiled by Ben Challis. Ben is a UK lawyer specialising in entertainment law and a graduate of London University and The City University. Ben acts as General Counsel for 3A Entertainments and is Executive Producer for television of the Glastonbury Festival. Ben is a visiting Senior Lecturer in Law at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College in England.
We are interested in your views on the Law Updates resource. Please forward any comments to : musiclaw01@aol.com
CONTRACT LAW
Record Labels, Artists
-Maverick Records Launches Legal Action Against Warner Music-
Madonna's Maverick Records label has filed a legal action against Warner Music Group and Time Warner Inc. for breach of contract accusing the record company and its former parent of mismanagement and improper accounting that cost the singer and her partners millions of dollars. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, is the latest chapter in a long-running dispute between Madonna and Warner over Maverick, a joint venture the singer and record company launched in 1992. In the suit, Beverly Hills, California based Maverick accuses Warner Music and the other defendants of "engaging in acts of self-dealing and profit-taking, falsely accounting for receipts and expenses of the partnership ... and secretly attempting to seize partnership opportunities for their own benefit." Maverick claims Warner violated the venture agreement by failing to pay for "guaranteed" services like radio promotion, marketing and sales meant to support Maverick artists. The suit also contends Warner obscured label profits by using "artificial and improper accounting methodology to create the false impression of losses." Madonna and her partners own a combined 60 percent stake in Maverick, whose artist roster includes Alanis Morissette and Michelle Branch. Warner owns the remaining 40 percent : Madonna's Tadpole Records Inc. and companies owned by her label partners, Guy Oseary and Ronnie Dashev, are also named as plaintiffs. The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the three partners have the right to end the joint partnership agreement and do business with other companies. Madonna and her partners also seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Maverick asserts in the lawsuit that the label has generated more than $900 million in sales and profits of more than $100 million for Warner Music Group since Maverick was formed. Warners have filed a sealed lawsuit in Delaware, asking the court to affirm that Maverick's claims are baseless, according to the court documents filed Thursday in Los Angeles. In a statement, Warner Music Group called Maverick's claims "baseless, unsubstantiated and without merit."
See : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3570563.stm#
COMMENT :Whilst this is an action by one label against another label it contains some of the elements common to actions brought by artists against labels. Record contracts are notoriously complicated and some accounting provisions often contain (a) standard accounting terms whose main purpose is to delay payments to artists and (b) numerous royalty reduction clauses whose main purpose is to reduce the normal royalty otherwise payable to the artist. One of George Michael's complaints in his 1994 UK law suit against Sony was that his CD royalty was artificially reduced by a clause which meant he was only paid 75% of his normal royalty on all his CD sales. Michael Jackson is currently embroiled in a dispute with Motown; even the Beatles brought action against their then label Capitol to secure proper accounting. The Recording Artists' Coalition has been lobbying for change in the way labels account to artists (see below for a link). But Madonna and Maverick's action is very high profile and of course brought at the time when new owners are taking over at Warner Music. It will interesting to see if the Warners attempt to settle the law suit or move towards (public) litigation.
For more information in this area of COPYRIGHT on Law Updates see:
Law Updates October 2003 Jackson falters in suit against Motown and Universal
Law Updates June 2003 US Court hammers Majors accounting practices
Law Updates June 2003 Michael Jackson launches action against Motown
Law Updates June 2003 California Senate to consider draft law to oblige record labels to calculate royalties
You can see the Recording Artists' Coalition comment on 'Recording Industry Practices' at http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/rip.html
Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Limited [1994] WLR 241, EMLR 229 (the 'George Michael' Case)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Internet, Record Labels, Music Publishing
-First Finnish Claim Against Private File-Swapper-
A Finnish court has ordered a 24-year old man to pay claimants, including Canadian rock star Alanis Morissette, 7,000.00 in damages for spreading unauthorised recordings of her concerts on the Internet. The judge found that between 1999 to 2003, the defendant swapped over 1,900 copies of unauthorised concert recordings ('bootlegs') for private use. Legal action in Europe has so far been limited to prosecuting people who have tried to make profit rather than those who swap for personal use and has been brought by record labels for use of sound recordings sold as CDs (rather than bootlegs). The Tampere District Court, some 170 kilometres north of Helsinki, ordered the defendant to pay the damages for copyright infringement to various artists and organisations. The Defendant was also fined the limited amount of 408.00 as a criminal penalty reflecting the fact that he had not engaged in the online bootleg swapping for profit and had not made the illegal recordings himself. On his website, the defendant posted lists of bootleg recordings he wanted and what he had to offer in return, as well as his detailed contact information.
See : http://entertainment.iafrica.com/news/302448.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Internet, Record Labels, Music Publishing
- Canada Follows RIAA Model Despite Legislative Hurdles-
The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) has filed court requests that seek identifying information for subscribers at five Canadian Internet service providers. The information gained from those requests would be used to file copyright infringement lawsuits against people who had made large amounts of music available for upload, the group said. The Canadian record label group had previously warned that it was likely to follow its US counterpart's legal example, but decisions by copyright authorities had clouded the file-swapping picture in Canada. In December, the Copyright Board of Canada, the country's top copyright regulators issued a ruling in which they said downloading from file-swapping services such as Kazaa under Canadian law, since the songs were intended for non-commercial personal use (see Law Updates February 2004). However uploading, or sharing with others would not merit the same legal shield.
At the time, CRIA lawyers said they disagreed with the regulators' decision, which came in the context of a ruling on what level of fees to place on blank recording media.
Like the Recording Industry Association of America, the CRIA will only be seeking judgements against the most "egregious" examples of piracy. The US lawsuits have drawn the world's attention, as the RIAA has tried to halt massive online file trading with copyright infringement lawsuits against individuals. More than 900 suits have been filed since September. In January, RIAA executives said 233 suits had been settled, for an average of about $3,000 (89) in damages. Courts have forced the American group's strategy to change somewhat, however. In its initial suits, the RIAA used an unconventional process to obtain subpoenas for ISP subscribers' identities before any case had been filed. That process was subsequently blocked by an appeals court, and in its latest round of suits, the RIAA was forced to sue hundreds of anonymous "John Doe" individuals, with the promise of obtaining their identities later though more conventional legal means. There have been a number of recent legal challenge to these process and the CRIA may also run into some difficulties in its requests as ISPs argue that any attempt to identify its subscribers will breach recently passed Canadian federal privacy law. A woman in New Jersey has filed a lawsuit against the Recording Industry Association of America alleging violations of the Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organisations, or RICO Act. Michele Scimeca has filed the suit based on the recording agencies 'extortion' tactics. She claims that the RIAA is using racketeering against the public. Scimeca's case appears to be the first use of federal racketeering laws in the music copyright wars. Scimeca is seeking unspecified damages from Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings and Motown. Most defendants in the actions are paying music labels $2,000 to $10,000 to avert costly trials, said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet advocacy group. Scimeca is claiming that the same practices used by the mafia are being employed by the RIAA and its member recording companies. Scimeca claims that the company's "scare tactics amount to extortion".
See : http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39146225,00.htm
and http://www.ilmc.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record Labels, Live Event Industry
-Shanghai Karaoke Bars Face The Music-
The Shanghai Daily News reports that local karaoke bars are paying close attention to a court case that could force many clubs to close their doors in the near future. The Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court has begun hearing Sony Music Entertainment ( Hong Kong) Ltd's lawsuit against Cashbox Karaoke Bar for screening musical video discs without permission. Sony Music is seeking 350,000 yuan (US$42,169) in compensation and a public apology. It is also asking Cashbox to be banned from screening the discs in public. Sony Music said it discovered on March 7 2003 that the outlet of Cashbox Karaoke Bar in Fuxing Park was screening videos of Hong Kong pop star Leon Lai. Few, if any, local karaoke bars pay royalties to foreign music companies to screen their video disks, meaning a ruling against Cashbox could devastate the local industry. Sony wants local bars to pay the same royalties karaoke clubs pay in Hong Kong, which is between HK$50,000 and HK$500,000 per song for unlimited use. Cashbox argued that it pays licensing fees every year to the Music Copyright of China, an association that acts on behalf of composers and writers.
Last year, courts in Beijing ordered karaoke bars in the capital to pay compensation to music companies for illegal use of their video disks.
See : http://english.eastday.com/epublish/gb/paper1/1181/class000100005/hwz181753.htm
and http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-02/17/content_306572.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record Labels, Music Publishers, Internet
-Australian Federal Court Allows the Use of Anton Piller Orders in Record Company Raids-
The record industry in Australia has retained the right to use Anton Piller court orders to seize evidence in cases of alleged illegal file swapping and piracy. Sharman Networks, the owner and distributor of the Kazaa file-sharing application, is considering appealing the Federal Court's decision (04/03/04) which upheld a ruling allowing the record industry to conduct raids on its premises last month. Justice Murray Wilcox upheld the validity of use of Anton Piller orders by which a court empowers a party, that has alleged wrongdoing, the opportunity to enter premises and search for evidence. In his ruling, Justice Wilcox acknowledged that Sharman has complied with legal proceedings in the past and that the company would conduct itself in the same manner in Australia.
COMMENT: In accepting that Sharman had complied with court directions and orders in the past, Justice Wilcox went some way further than the classic test when allowing the Anton Piller order to be used. In Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes (1975) Ormrod J held that the claimant must be able to show (a) a strong prima-facie case and, (b) very serious actual or potential damage and (c) that there must be clear evidence that the defendants have, in their possession, documents or objects and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such materials. In Columbia Picture Industries v Robinson (1986) it was held that the claimant must show a strong case from infringement and the potential for serious damage. In this case, whilst accepting Sharman's past compliance with legal proceedings, the Judge seems to feel that Mr Justice Ormrod's third point is not as critical in the decision to allow the use of the order as the first two points, which the Judge has accepted the claimant made out.
Anton Piller AG v Manufacturing Processes (1976) Ch. 55 [1976] 1 All E.R. 779
Columbia Picture Industries Inc v Robinson (1986) 3 All E.R. 338
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Music Publishing
-Japanese Orchestras Refuse To Pay Increased Live Performance Fees-
The Association of Japanese Symphony Orchestras has refused to pay musical royalties to the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC) after the copyright protection body raised fees for music performed during concerts. The intentional failure by a musical organisation to pay musical copyright fees set by JASRAC is rare and is likely to spark a debate on the use of musical copyrights. According to JASRAC, music royalties in Japan have been below international standards. The institution said it had received complaints from rock groups including U2 and the Rolling Stones, that the fees for performing their music in Japan were insufficient. JASRAC began discussing royalty issues with concerned organisations in 1999 in an attempt to bring its royalties in line with international standards. In October 2003, JASRAC implemented its new provisions, including one that stipulates a new royalty system. Under the new system, royalties are decided in accordance with admission charges and the seating capacity of the venue. The fee was previously fixed regardless of the size of the venue. The new system has contributed to lowering copyright fees for music performed at small venues. However, the system has increased financial burdens on orchestras, which use large concert halls with greater seating capacity. In the United Kingdom, moves by the Performing Rights Society to raise the levy on live concerts from 3% of Box Office towards 6% (over a period of time) for classical concerts has resulted in a referral to the Copyright Tribunal.
See : http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=2315
and http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040215wo31.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Film, Television, Internet, Record Labels, Music Publishing
-European Parliament Passes Tough New IP Enforcement Directive-
The European Parliament has passed a controversial Directive on intellectual property rights enforcement that give rights-holders 'incredibly powerful tools' in the fight against intellectual property infringers. The Electronic Frontiers Foundation commented that whilst this might sound like a good idea at first, a closer look reveals that the directive doesn't distinguish between unintentional, non-commercial infringers and for-profit, criminal counterfeiting organisations. If this directive is adopted, a person who unwittingly infringes copyright - even if it has no effect on the market - could potentially have her assets seized, bank accounts frozen and home invaded. The EFF had encouraged its European supporters to write to their Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to urge them to limit these harsh enforcement measures to cases in which infringement is undertaken intentionally and for commercial purposes and MEPs finally softened and the vote on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive took place in the European Parliament on 9 March and the directive was passed by 330 votes to 151. The law was drawn up to target professional pirates, criminals and counterfeiters who make copies of goods such as football shirts or CDs. During the debates, the directive was widened to cover any infringement of intellectual property. The directive allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen. But late amendments added to the law limited who intellectual property owners could take action against and what penalties they could apply. One amendment said action should not be taken against consumers who download music "in good faith" for their own use. Proposals to jail counterfeiters were also dropped from the Directive.
See : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3545839.stm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Technology
-US Court Endorses Ban on DVD Copy Technology -
Whilst the MGM Studios v Grokster appeal is still being heard, the Electronic Frontiers Foundation suggested that consumers had suffered a setback to their digital rights when, on the application of a coalition of Hollywood movie studios, the District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction prohibiting 321 Studios (321) from selling versions of its DVD duplication software. The Court found that 321's "DVD Copy Plus" and "DVD X Copy" violated 1(a)(2) and 2(b)(1) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), given that each of the above programs was primarily designed, produced, and marketed to the public to circumvent embedded DVD copy protection. Both programs came equipped with an unlicensed de-scrambling component to allow users to decrypt the CSS (Contents Scrambling System) encoding and make a copy of the decrypted DVD. In making its findings, the Court ruled that the DMCA does not infringe fair use or constitutional rights of users and does not otherwise exceed the scope of Congressional powers the court ordered 321 Studios, creator of DVD backup tools, to stop selling its DVD Copy Plus and DVD-X COPY products within seven days. 321 Studios plans to appeal the ruling. "In passing the DMCA, Congress certainly did not intend to eliminate all consumer copying," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "This court's reading of the statute in the 321 Studios case allows a ban on any tool that enables consumers to copy their DVDs."
"The great popularity of 321 Studios' products demonstrates a legitimate consumer desire to use DVDs with the same rights they have had with earlier technologies," added EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "The court decision in the 321 Studios case underscores the need for DMCA reform as proposed in the Boucher-Doolittle and Lofgren bills."
The EFF COMMENT: EFF encourages the public to speak out for fair use rights by participating in the week-long campaign led by 321 Studios, makers of the popular DVD backup software recently enjoined by a California district court. "The public's rights to fair use of copyrighted works should not disappear in the face of technological restrictions," said EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer. "To bring back copyright's balance, we encourage individuals to write to Congress and the entertainment industry about their expectations when purchasing movies and other media."
For more on 321 Studios' "Protect Fair Use" campaign, please visit their website: http://www.protectfairuse.org
For the full media release: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/MGM_v_321Studios/20040220_eff_pr.php
MGM v. 321 Studios case archive: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/MGM_v_321Studios/
And the article by Colin Adams at: http://www.dww.com/newsletter/archive.html
In a related area, a California appeals court has overturned as unconstitutional a 1999 trade secret injunction against Andrew Bunner that prohibited him from distributing the DeCSS DVD decryption computer code. The court found there was no evidence that the Content Scrambling System (CSS) encryption technology used in DVD movie disks was still a trade secret by the time that Bunner posted DeCSS code on his website. In effect the code had entered the public domain. The Court therefore held that the injunction violated Bunner's constitutional free-speech rights. "We are thrilled that the Appeal Court recognized that the injunction restricting Andrew Bunner's freedom of speech was not justified," said EFF Staff Attorney Gwen Hinze. "The Court's ruling that there was no evidence that CSS was still a trade secret when Bunner posted DeCSS vindicates what we have said all along: DeCSS has been available on thousands of websites around the world for many years."
For the EFF media release: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20040227_eff_pr.php
Decision by the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20040227_Decision.pdf
Also see Don't Shoot The Messenger by Ben Challis at: http://www.musicjournal.org/03dontshootthemessenger.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFAMATION
Internet, Artists, Television
-Harrods v Dow Jones (2004)-
Despite winning a High Court battle for the right to bring an action against Dow Jones to bring a lawsuit against Dow Jones in the United Kingdom, Harrods have lost their libel action against Dow Jones & Company Inc for Defamation. Dow Jones had compared Harrods to disgraced US energy giant Enron, but in the initial High Court action it was revealed that the publisher had only ten subscribers in the UK. Harrods now face estimated costs of ,000 after a jury found that the damage to the store was virtually non-existent and the article did not injure Harrod's reputation.
See Law Updates July 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVACY
Artists, Broadcasting
-Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Reaches the House of Lords-
Model Naomi Campbell brought her action against MGM after the Daily Mirror revealed that she had been attending Narcotics Anonymous. Her claim included actions under the right to privacy afforded by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the law of confidence and under the Data Protection Act 1998. The data in question, that of her addiction, was deemed to be sensitive as it related to her physical and mental wellbeing and was therefore within the DPA. Campbell claimed compensation under Section 13 for unauthorised publication including resulting distress (13[2]). Campbell won limited damages at first instance in the High Court. However, as it became clear that Campbell had lied about her addiction on previous occasions the Court of Appeal ruled that MGM had a valid defence under S32 where publication is justified within the public interest with regards to the Data Protection Act. The case has now reached the House of Lords where it is being argued that whilst The Mirror was entitled to publish the fact that Campbell was an addict, details of non-medical treatment and a photograph of her leaving Narcotics Anonymous were a breach of confidence and an invasion of privacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRADE MARK
Television, Broadcasting, Merchandising
-007 Brand protected in Canada: Danjaq Inc. v Spiridon Zervas & Dimitr Zervas in Partnership trading as 007(2004)-
The applicants Zervass had sought to register the marks 007 and 007 PIZZA & SUBS and Design for its restaurant business in Canada. The application was opposed by Danjaq as owner of the trade-marks JAMES BOND 007 and GUN Design based on the novels by Ian Fleming. Danjaq argued that the applicant was not entitled to registration on two grounds: firstly, because the trade-mark 007 had been previously used and made known in Canada and, secondly, that the applicant's marks were not distinctive. The Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the opposition on the basis of the wide disparity in the wares, services and businesses of the two parties. The opponent appealed to the Federal Court of Canada. On appeal, the Court considered new evidence filed by the opponent regarding the widespread distribution of films featuring the JAMES BOND character which are and were available through television broadcasts and video rentals and the publicity generated by the print media. In reviewing the evidence, the Court had little difficulty in concluding that the opponent's marks were used and made known in Canada prior to the applicant's first use. Next, the Court considered whether the marks were confusing. The Court rejected the Registrar's primary focus on the differences between the wares and services as being too narrow an approach. The Court held that the nature of the wares and services where the different marks are used ought to be a less important factor where the opponent to the registration has a strong trade-mark. Danjaq's trade-marks were strong and the Court re-stated the proposition that "the stronger the mark, the greater the ambit of the protection it will be afforded". This enhanced the likelihood of confusion, even if the parties operated in different businesses. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal and refused the applicant's applications.
See : http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/1997/t-939-96.html
See the article by Hung Nguyen of Deeth Williams Wall LLP at: http://www.dww.com/newsletter/archive.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEALTH & SAFETY
Live Concert Industry
-New Regulations for Door Supervisors and Security Staff Introduced in the UK: The Private Security Industry (Licences) Regulations 2004-
In a move to take the image of door staff away from 'bouncers' and into the new millennium the UK Government have introduced The Private Security Industry (Licences) Regulations 2004 which are effective from the 01 March 2004. These Regulations make provision in relation to applications to the Security Industry Authority (SIA) for the grant of licences under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to engage in the activity of door supervision for public houses, clubs and comparable venues. The new Regulations prescribe the application form to be used for such applications and prescribe the forms of licence to be issued for that activity. A distinction is made between licences for people who carry out that activity themselves and licences for those who act as manager, supervisor, employer or director etc of people who carry out that activity. An obligation is placed on door staff to wear the appropriate identifying licence at all times when working, to notify the SIA of any conviction or caution and to produce the licence on demand to the SIA or the police. Appeals from SIA decisions, alongside appeals from Local Authority decisions on public entertainment licensing and alcohol licensing are to the Magistrates Courts. The Magistrates Courts are in the process of setting up new appeals panels for hearings.
Mick Upton from the United Kingdom Crowd Management Association adds the following COMMENT:
The introduction of a mandatory requirement for all door supervisors to be licensed was brought about in response to allegations of criminal activity by some night club door staff. On the plus side the new regulations will tidy up a chaotic situation brought about by local councils introducing their own schemes. Although the principle of licensing security staff is supported by the private security industry local schemes were criticised for having little to do with protecting the public and more to do with generating income for the council. A national system of affordable licensing is therefore much better.
On the downside, regulation has been introduced without consultation with the broad range of sport and entertainment interests that might possibly be affected. The United Kingdom Crowd Management Association (UKCMA) made strenuous efforts to be included in formulating sensible legislation but was sadly ignored. Consequently new legislation classified all staff involved in crowd management or crowd control operations both indoor and outdoor to be door supervisors and therefore required a licence. It is estimated by the UKCMA that this would have increased cost to the client of somewhere in the order of 600%!
The UKCMA has subsequently been more successful in negotiations with the Security Industry Authority (SIA), the body charged with administering the scheme, which has now agreed that event stewards do not require a security licence. The thorny problem of what constitutes a security function at an event remains unsolved however.
In an effort to moves things forward, the UKCMA invited interested associations and organisations to a meeting hosted by the Wembley Conference Centre in February this year. The meeting was well attended and the issue of event security was discussed at length. At the end of the meeting a committee was formed comprising of representatives from the UKCMA, Venue Operators, Football and Horseracing. The mandate for the committee is to agree with the SIA the specific functions that will be licensed and the introduction of national training systems to address those categories that have been identified. Unfortunately the Concert Promoters Association (CPA) failed to respond to the UKCMA invitation to the Wembley meeting and is not therefore represented on these committee negotiations with the SIA. In March another meeting between the UKCMA and the SIA took place where the SIA stated that they now wish to reconsider their decision not to include the event steward in the new license requirement program. As things stand at this time, stewards employed directly by a venue or football club will not need a license but those supplied by a private security company will. If this decision stands it would of course have a dramatic effect on the number of events that could take place and the cost to the organiser. It is now up to the industry to present evidence to the SIA to support a claim that stewards have a safety role not a security function.
Mick Upton was the founder and until 2000 Chairman of ShowSec International Ltd. Mick is a senior music industry consultant on concert and event crowd management.
Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 255
The Private Security Industry (Licences) Regulations 2004
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040255.htm
For an Australian perspective on this subject area see "Getting Tough On The Muscle" by Padraic Murphy, The Australian, January 21, 2004
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8447141%255E28737,00.html
See Upton, M Crowd Safety Planning For Major Concert Events in Kemp C & Hill, I (Eds) Health and Safety Aspects In The Live Music Industry Entertainment Technology Press ISBN 1 904031 226
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK
Film, Television
-Owners of 'Lord of the Rings' copyrights and trademarks take action: The Saul Zaentz Company dba Tolkien Enterprises, Inc. and New Line Cinema Corporation, Plaintiffs v Kultur International Films, Defendants -
The companies that own the rights to the J.R.R. Tolkien "Lord of the Rings" books and related movies and merchandise have sued a New Jersey company for publishing a four-volume DVD set about the books. The suit filed by the Saul Zaentz Company, which has owned the trademarks and intellectual property rights since 1976, and New Line Cinema, allege that Kultur International Films has infringed on the Tolkien trademarks and copyrights by importing, making and selling the set "Inside Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings".
Each of the defendant's four DVDs focuses on an individual volume of the Tolkien books, the suit said. The defendants have created a 'mapped' Middle Earth where the Lord of The Rings fantasy is set and have included new original artwork and illustrations. Bonus features include an interview with the DVD illustrators and new music inspired by The Lord of the Rings performed by folk group Mostly Autumn. The plaintiffs seek to stop the defendants' alleged infringement and dilution of the Tolkien rights. They also seek damages, costs, legal fees and injunctive relief for the defendant's alleged violations of federal and state copyright and trademark infringement as well as unfair competition.
See : http://www.entlawdigest.com/story.cfm?storyID=314
For a brief article on the issue of copyright in fiction characters see Gary Scanlan's article at: http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~ra317/articles/IP.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record Labels, Music Publishers, Artists
-Tom Waits Wins His Action For Unauthorised Use of His Work in a Spanish Advert and Eminen Brings a Similar Claim in the United States-
Tom Waits has won the opening stages of a legal battle against a Spanish production company that adapted his music and impersonated his voice for a television commercial, despite Waits' refusal to allow his original version of the song, Innocent When You Dream, to be used for the advertisement. The court in Barcelona has ordered the company, Tandem Campany Guasch, to pay compensation to Waits' publisher in Spain, Hans Kusters Music, for violation of copyright. The commercial, for Audi cars, was screened in Spain in 2000. As well as having the same structure as Innocent When You Dream, the commercial's music was also performed in a Tom Waits' style. The court judgement thus recognises there has been a violation of Waits' moral rights in addition to the infringement of copyright. Waits first heard of the infringement from fans, many who believed it was Waits singing his own song. Waits has succeeded in a number of actions worldwide to prevent his music and image from being associated with commercial products.
See : http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040302/latu044_1.html
In a separate matter, Eminem is suing Apple Computers after the company used part of his song, Lose Yourself, in a TV commercial without his permission. It has not been made public how much money the rapper is seeking in damages, but Eminem has stated that if he were to endorse a product, he could earn more than $10 million. The copyright infringement lawsuit, filed in a Detroit court on Friday, also names the advertising agency TBWA/Chiat/Day and MTV because the commercial was aired on the music channel as well as on Apple's website. The lawsuit claims that the song was used in a television ad for Apple iTunes pay-per-download music store and featured a young boy with an iPod portable music player singing Lose Yourself, a song from the 8 Mile soundtrack.
See : http://www.thewhir.com/find/articlecentral/story.asp?recordid=786
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 Ben Challis