Sublime Band Members Banned from Using Name

On October 21, the Bradley Nowell estate and merchandising entity filed a trademark infringement against former Sublime band mates Eric Wilson and Bud Gaugh. Bradley Nowell was the lead singer of the 90's puck band Sublime. Nowell died in 1996 of druge overdose, but the remaining band members Wilson and Gaugh have continued to perform. After Nowell's death they began performing under the the cover name Long Beach Dub Allstars, however they just recently revived the bands name Sublime after recruiting a new lead vocalist.

Nowell's family claimed that "prior to his untimely passing, both Bud and Eric acknowledge that Brad was the sole owner of the name Sublime." And "It was Brad's expressed intention that no one use the name Sublime in any group that did not include him." The family also stated that Brad registered the trademark 'Sublime' under his own name. The Judge agreed with the family/estate and issued an injunction blocking the band from using the "Sublime" name and trademark for any performances, merchandise, etc.

Do you think the surviving band members should be blocked from using the band name 'Sublime'? What are your thoughts on the family refraining the remaining band members of using the Sublime name, in order to "protect and preserve Brad's musical legacy" ?

Click here for full story.

60 Minutes: The Movie Pirates

This past Sunday 60 Minutes had an investigation piece about the pirating of movies over the internet and through bootleg DVD's. The investigation explores the how people produce and distribute movies illegally. Furthermore, how the internet has made it very easy for people to distribute and access movies through programs such as Bittorent. File sharing programs allow users to upoad and download media of any kind. Bittorent files are very popular with movie file sharing because it allows big movie files to be uploded and dowloaded very quickley. Such easy accesiblity has created a new industry of conterfiet movies.

I'm sure many people in the class have some experience with file sharing and/or Bootleg DVD's. I have never copied a DVD to sell or make a profit but I admit that I commit copyright infringemnt on a regular basis. We have netflix and I burn the DVD's when we get them because we rarely have time to watch it plus why should I pay $25 for the DVD when I can get for almost at n/c. I'm sure that imost people think the same way as well., especially the younger kids. In the 60 Minutes piece, there was a coment that wen t something like, "It's so easy that it it can't be illegal" Right or Wrong, I personally don't think I'm doing any harm to Hollywood....I still pay my share at the theatre.

To watch the story click here: WATCH STORY
To read the story click here: READ STORY

Daily Mail insinuated Kate Winslet lied about diet and exercise; Winslet wins libel suit

Academy Award-winning actress Kate Winslet accepted $40,000 in damages from the Daily Mail after the newspaper published false information in an article.

Winslet, a longtime critic of excessive dieting and Hollywood's obesession with being thin, sued the paper for libel when an article disputed Winslet's claims that she only worked out 20 minutes each day at home. The paper claimed it was impossible for her to be as thin and muscular as she was by working out for only 20 minutes per day at home--insinuating that Winslet lied and secretly used other means to maintain her weight.

"I strongly believe that women should be encouraged to accept themselves as they are, so to suggest that I was lying was an unacceptable accusation of hypocrisy," said Winslet.

I found this article particularly interesting because it seems unusual (to me). Many celebrity libel lawsuits brought against newspapers or magazines involve more racy or sordid accounts of defamatory press: love affairs, divorce, sex tapes, criminal acts, etc. While the newspaper's claims did call Winslet's reputation into question, many celebrities deal with much more damaging and offensive claims by the media.

http://bit.ly/1QoSBx

You Really "Are What You Tweet"

Apparently, back in March of this year, Courtney Love had a libel suit filed against her by a fashion designer for defamatory comments she posted on Twitter. In recent news, a superior court judge stated that Love’s defense of right to free speech is not applicable in this instance and that the designer has a good chance of winning the suit. On a side note, I wonder why social networking sites aren’t held as responsible for the content users post on their site similar to a newspaper. Any thoughts? Well, here’s the links to the article concerning the suit.



http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSTRE52R00020090331?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews

DOL (Dead-On-Line)

Hi folks:

What happens to your online presence when you die? There's an interesting story in today's New York Times about that:

http://tinyurl.com/yz74nmp

Looks like you'll need, at the very least, something in your will that authorizes your survivors to get things like passwords, etc..

YouTube, You Take.......or do you?

Well, this case took place around July of 2009.  It is also one of many cases involving YouTube and the issue of copyright infringement.  It obviously addresses what we have discussed in Media Law class, but I also find it funny that YouTube dodged a bullet based on technicality of the law. 

So, here it is:  

It looks like there was  some footage of a Premier Football League game on YouTube, and of course the group suing wanted punitive damages.  However, because the footage of the Premier Football League was considered "foreign works", they were NOT covered by United States Copyright Law.  The judge that made the ruling also mentioned that the Copyright Act "bars statutory damages for all foreign and domestic works not timely registered" (Sandoval).

 

It is a clear that one of the main uses of YouTube is taking copies of other people's work and uploading them on this website, which is kind of how I came up with part of the title for this post "YouTube, You Take...".  And it only makes it okay if the copyright owner actually does the post, they grant permission by exercising the exclusive rights of copyright ownership and/or the copyright expires and becomes "public domain".  

I guess it would be fair to say that for future references, anyone who may have to sue a company such as YouTube needs to make sure they are covered in whatever court of law they choose to take their case.  It seems that sometimes the evidence is just not enough.

Any thoughts?  Check out the link:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10281571-93.html

Article:  "Judge sides with You Tube on several copyright issues"  By Greg Sandoval

Artists Sued for Copyright Infringement...again.

It seems as if "Birdman," aka Bryan Williams and rapper Lil' Wayne (or Dwayne Carter according to his birth certificate) are being sued for copyright infringement. Thomas Marasciullo, a Florida native, was asked in 2006 by the duo to record some mafia inspired speech, which apparantly he did and never received compensation or notice of the use of the recording. He is seeking unspecified damages against the rappers themselves, the recording company and various distribution outlets for the use of his voice on a total of nine tracks over two albums. Marasciullo discovered that his recording had been used when his daughter was trying to purchase a ringtone of "Respect" by Aretha Franklin and came across a song of the same name by Lil' Wayne. This is not the first time either artist has been sued for sampling recordings without permission, as there are pending cases for other songs they used without permission, but this is the first time an individual is seeking damages instead of a company. You can read more about the case using the links below:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7016869011?Lil%20Wayne%20And%20Birdman%20Hit%20With%20Copyright%20Infringement%20Lawsuit
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur57127.cfm