Name:
Date:
Institutional Affiliation:
Copyright Case Questions
Question One
Issue
In this case, the issue is whether the use of the song Imagine by John Lennon in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed amounts to copyright infringement.
Rule
Section 1401 of the Copyright Law of the United States prohibits the use of unauthorized sound recordings made before 1972. Anyone who does so will be found liable for copyright infringement (Zimmerman, 2004).
Analysis
The song Imagine by John Lennon was released in 1971. The movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was released in 2014. The producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ought to have sought permission from John Lennon’s wife and sons, the copyright holders, before using 15 seconds of the song in the movie. The producers of the movie cannot use the defence of fair use in the copyright claim. Fair use requires that no more than 30 seconds be used by the party seeking to use the song. The one intending to use the song must also seek permission from the copyright holders. If any of the conditions is not met, the defence of fair use cannot hold up in court. The producers of the movie did not seek permission from the song’s copyright owners. They are therefore, liable for copyright infringement (Loren & Reese, 2019).
Conclusion
Before one uses a particular song in another media, they should seek permission from the copyright holders. Failure to do so will lead to liability for copyright infringement, as in the case above (Bahar, 2014).
Question Two
Issue
There are two issues in this case:
- Whether Rush Limbaugh is the singer of the version of the same music as the original but with lyrics that poked fun at President Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual misconduct with Paula Jones.
- Whether Rush Limbaugh committed copyright infringement by playing the later version of the song.
Rule
Copyright infringement occurs when someone uses another person’s media without seeking their permission (Bahar, 2014).
Analysis
Rush Limbaugh is a talk-show host who played the version with different lyrics from those in the original version. He is not the author of the song. Whether Rush Limbaugh infringed the copyright of the original song is dependent on whether or not he is the author of the later version of the song. If Rush Limbaugh is the song’s author, he will be found liable for copyright infringement. If he is not the author of the later version of the song, he will not be liable for copyright infringement. Rush Limbaugh is not liable for copyright infringement of the earlier song. This is because it is a different song from the one sang by the original song’s author. The later version is a different version from the original version. The later version’s author could be the one who infringed on the copyright of the original song but not Rush Limbaugh (Loren & Reese, 2019).
Conclusion
Those who use works of other people should seek their permission before doing so. Otherwise, that amounts to copyright infringement, and one may be found liable. In this case, Rush Limbaugh will not be held liable as he did not infringe on the earlier version copyright. This is because the later version is different from the other version. Rush Limbaugh may only be liable for the version he played, the later version (Zimmerman, 2004).
Question Three
Issue
The issue is who proves and what must be proven to win an infringement action.
Rule
He who alleges must prove. The plaintiff alleging copyright infringement must prove copyright infringement. The burden of proof does not shift.
Analysis
The first thing the plaintiff must prove is ownership of copyright. The plaintiff ought to have registered the copyright. Proof of registration is proof of ownership of the copyright. The plaintiff can only sue if it is their copyright has been infringed. The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant had access to the copyrighted material and that he had the opportunity to steal the plaintiff’s work. The plaintiff must also show the parts of the original work have been infringed upon (Zimmerman, 2004).
Not any form of copying is unlawful. Only copying of more than a set minimum amount of copyrighted work will constitute copyright infringement. This might require analysis to determine whether an ordinary person would describe the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s work as similar. This analysis is done by the jury (Bahar, 2014).
Conclusion
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. The standard of proof is whether the defendant has copied an amount of work more than the set minimum and whether an ordinary person would describe the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s work as similar. The analysis is done by the jury (Loren & Reese, 2019).
References
Bahar, R. (2014). The Copyright Infringement Test: A New Approach to Literary Misappropriation in Film. Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum, 529-558.
Loren, L. P., & Reese, R. A. (2019). Proving Infringement: Burdens of Proof in Copyright Infringement Litigation. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 661-680.
Zimmerman, M. (2004). Copyright Infringement Litigation With Some Asides on Software Copyright Litigation. Fenwick & West LLP, 1-25.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.