RSS
More Copyright Oddities: Why Does Yoko Ono Get To Hold Copyright On Lennon Videos Others Purchased
from the something's-missing dept
Michael Scott points us to a story about a copyright battle involving Yoko Ono and some video footage of John Lennon. I can only assume that the AP report summarizing the case is leaving out some important details, because otherwise the ruling doesn't make much sense. From the article, the timeline of events appears to be:
This seems incredibly backwards, with a touch of copyfraud thrown in for good measure. Why should WWV need to "reclaim" the copyright on something when they simply believed they held the copyright all along. Since, once again, copyright is not tangible property, it makes perfect sense that WWV would believe it still held the copyright in question, even if Ono thought she had purchased it. The fact that they didn't make a proactive effort to "reclaim" what they thought they already had doesn't seem to be a reason for Ono to now keep the copyright. It seems like evidence that WWV believed it properly held the copyright all along.
- 10 hours of video footage of John Lennon were shot at his estate in 1970 (when the Beatles were still together) by Anthony Cox (Yoko Ono's ex-husband, prior to her marriage to Lennon).
- In 2000, Cox sold the footage to World Wide Video for $125,000. Since he shot the video, it seems reasonable to assume the copyright did, in fact, belong with him -- unless there's some evidence of a work for hire agreement somewhere (not mentioned in the article). Thus, it would seem the sale would be legit.
- In 2001, a third party, Anthony Pagola, claimed to have copies of the same videos, and demanded that World Wide Video let him sell them. WWV claims that Pagola got the tapes from an ex-employee of WWV who stole them.
- In 2002, Pagola sold the videos and "the copyright" to Yoko Ono for $300,000. The owners of WWV claim that their signatures were forged on the sale sheet by Pagola
- In the intervening years, WWV created a documentary out of the footage, which it planned to release in 2008 until Ono sued them.
- WWV countersued, claiming that Ono was violating its copyright
- Ono asked the judge to declare the copyright was hers... and the judge agreed.
This seems incredibly backwards, with a touch of copyfraud thrown in for good measure. Why should WWV need to "reclaim" the copyright on something when they simply believed they held the copyright all along. Since, once again, copyright is not tangible property, it makes perfect sense that WWV would believe it still held the copyright in question, even if Ono thought she had purchased it. The fact that they didn't make a proactive effort to "reclaim" what they thought they already had doesn't seem to be a reason for Ono to now keep the copyright. It seems like evidence that WWV believed it properly held the copyright all along.
I have a business...
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
I’m looking for research...
The Growing App Market
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
I’m looking for policy...
Developers On Patents: Five Employees, Six Lawyers
Policy Resources: Data Privacy & Security
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
WWV had the copyright and didn't act, Ono didn't have the copyright and was ignorant. So Ono suddenly has the copyright because she was misinformed?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes, but good news! There is an easy way to fix this!
All WWV now has to do is act like it has the copyright and wait for a length of time in which Ono doesn't actively try to reclaim what wasn't hers but was given to her because she was mistaken because she bought it from somebody who didn't have it (deep breath)...and BAM!, by this judge's decision, it's their's again.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
She did again
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yes!
Maybe now we can get works back into the public domain where they should have been decades ago, after having been stolen by back-room deals to extend copyright out from under the original public agreements.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
First, there simply now way a protest could be copyrighted in such a way that someone else could not perform a similar protest. "I'm sorry, but you're going to have to stop this anti-war protest. I have copyright on that."
Second, I find it hard to believe that Yoko owns the exclusive right of all pictures of people laying in bed. That's simply fricken asinine.
My guess is that the judge was tired of bat-shit-crazy Yoko being in her courtroom so he ruled in her favor just to get rid of her.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Without knowing the fact of what happened one should question:
Who shot the video?
How did Anthony Cox get the video?
and
Did Anthony Cox claim the copyright on video that he did not shoot?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That only applies to trademark, not copyright. So lawyers don't say that about copyright.
if WWV knew in 2001 that Ono thought she bought the copyright, and they did nothing for 7 years, than too bad for them.
Um, no, that's not how the law works.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Um, no, that's not how the law works."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Okay, more importantly, how do you define the parameters around which a company "knew" that she "thought she bought" the copyright? Did the person selling the non-copyright copyright call up WWV and let them know what he was doing?
Did Ono at some point write WWV a letter that stated "Hey guys! Hope all is well. FYI, I bought the copyright on a specific 10 hours or whatever of some of John's footage. I just randomly thought you guys would like to know, since I have no other reason to tell you as I believe I now am the sole copyright holder. Anyway, I'm off to continue being an ugly shit stain in the annals of artistic music. Peace out!"?
The idea that is at any level the copyright holder's responsibility to know what other people might randomly believe is such an idiotic notion that I'm not sure where it came from.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Deal of a lifetime
Even though I don't own the bridge, I'll cc them on the sale
you do nothing for a few years, then show up and claim the bridge and all toll proceeds. By the logic laid out in the above case, this will ACTUALLY WORK!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Right of publicity?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If all the facts are straight as we are led to believe... this Judge was on something fierce and this will be appealed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Not really
Technically, no. A) The fact that they allowed the crew in to film is tacit agreement to using said footage. and B) you dont own rights to YOU. You cant copyright a person. While its a good idea to get a release when filming someone (and that may have happened here, dont see that in the article however), its not absolutely necessary to establish ownership rights of the footage shot.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Apparently not. You see, Ono had not taken action prior to this lawsuit to establish ownership either. In other words, neither party had sued the other for the same period of time. However, for unexplained reasons, that only works in favor of Ono and not WWV. It's one-way justice. Judge much biased?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Curious
That's a real stretch of the definiton of "work for hire."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Explanation
# Ono asked the judge to declare the copyright was hers... and the judge agreed.
It is the job of the Judge in the US legal system to ensure that a politically correct result is obtained. Now in this case we have a well known, wealthy, female, minority widow of a very famous entertainer versus some little relatively-unknown company. There was just no politically correct way the judge could have ruled against her. Case closed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Bridge
The previous owner's signature is on it and everything.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Explanation
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Explanation
What's your explanation then? (if you can give it without swearing)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
why doesn't that Bitch just die already
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Explanation
Perhaps you should tell that to the judge.
A judge can quite readily rule and has ruled against Yoko Ono's assertion of a copyright infringement claim: http://tiny.cc/ZaEjz
Some judges are more politically correct that others.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I heard from a friend who new someone...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment