Yeah, I agree that the contracts involved with a Superbowl Halftime show probably killed more than a few trees.
That fact makes Sprigman's request to show ownership even more compelling, though.
As for the copyrightablility of the costume, that's a pretty grey area legally and courts have gone either way on it, so who knows.
The one thing that I wonder about though, is that previous cases seemed to involve costumes of things that were already under copyright, like characters from a movie or a book that were previously affixed to a tangible medium. If this a new costume design for a live show, is it copyrightable?
Your efforts to explain the law here are admirable, but it's a waste of time.
No, not really. I've had plenty of discussions with AJ/antidirt where I've learned quite a bit. Not a waste of time at all.
There is a POV here that must be maintained and no amount of logic or reasoned application of the law will make it through the filter.
Now you are just being rude. Well, thought out arguments are always welcome here, even if it opposes the majority view.
Hey, it gets them their clicks, but that dripping sound they don't want to hear about is the loss of credibility. Ah well.
Not even sure what that means. You realize that for the most part the Techdirt blog is a loss-leader for the rest of Mike's business, don't' you. From what I've gleaned over the years, the ads here barely pay for all the bandwidth used. Page clicks are not what Techdirt coverts and Techdirt's reputation is worth more then pageviews could ever provide.
There's other cases that cut this same way, and there’s cases that cut the other way. But my point is that it’s not as simple as costume = not copyrightable, as Mike claimed.
First off, I have to say that your attack on Mike is a bit unjustified. All Mike said was "Yes, there is doubt concerning this, because in most cases costumes are not copyrightable." He never said it was simple or resolved, you did.
Secondly, I have to agree that certain design features of costumes (which are not utilitarian) can be copyrightable.
Also, courts have stated that if the whole purpose of the costume is to portray a protected character then they are not "useful articles":
What should really be determined is if Left Shark was a work-for-hire and if it was, Perry very well could own the rights.
Based on her own statements about how little artistic control she had concerning the halftime show, I'm thinking that Perry's whole performance was a work-for-hire and the rights (if any) would belong to the NFL.
That is, of course, assuming that the artist intends to use only Spotify as a revenue stream...
According to this Future of Music Coalition survey only 6% of the money earned by the surveyed musicians comes from recorded music. That number, in my opinion, is actually bit low when talking about streaming considering the survey also included music teachers, orchestra members & session musicians.
But, if you look further down at some of the breakdowns by genre, about 95% of Rock, Pop, etc musicians rely on copyright for only about 25% of their income.
A blog whose readers steal music writes an article complaining about record labels making too much money on streaming.
So much wrong in a single sentence.
First, the whole sentence is an ad hominem. You don't like the message, so you attack the messenger. That only indicates that you really have no argument.
Second, no one is "complaining about record labels making too much money on streaming", the gist of the article is to simply point out that the artist's who are complaining that streaming services screwing them over are actually bitching about the wrong entities.
Third, the phrase "A blog whose readers steal music" is not only an inept over-generalization, it is, in my opinion, incorrect. Take a gander at Techdirt's demographics. They show that 56% of Techdirt readers make over 50k/yr and 68% are college graduates. Those aren't pirates, those are people who have expendable income to spend on things like music and movies. Or in other words: YOUR CUSTOMERS.
You allege that Ms Tillotson invited the officer to handcuff her so that she would have opportunity to complain about his battery against her person.
Nope. I surmised that Ms. Tillotson invited the officer to arrest her so she could dispel, in a court of law, his incorrect notion that an attorney interceding between their client and the police is obstruction. I really have no idea if that was her intention or not, I'm just basing it upon her tone and attitude at the time.
If she thought the officer was on the verge of a mistake, then perhaps she had no positive duty to stop him by vocalizing the unspeakable. But she did have a duty to refrain from requesting the officer commit error.
I really haven't clue as to what you are getting at there. My point was that once the detective decided to arrest her, any further objections were pointless and would be better served when brought up in front of a judge.
I'm having a really hard time wrapping my mind around this one.
Wouldn't this cop's reasoning apply anytime a person chooses to be represented by a lawyer when being questioned by police?
Also, what would the cop have done if the man in the video simply turned to the wall or hid his face. They didn't look like they were in custody at the time. Would he have charged them for resisting too, just because they didn't want to be photographed?
TD does not subscribe to that philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, or so it appears, that cuts against the grain of what it openly advocates in so many of its stories that it tries to pass off as news versus what they actually comprise, editorial opinion.
Techdirt has ALWAYS maintained that it is an opinion blog. Not sure why you think otherwise.
The author of the article would have you accept as fact that a gag order was sought solely because the agency did not like what allegedly happened in a prior case involving another website.
Not really. Did you even read the last paragraph? Mike's opinion was prefaced with: "If it's true that this was truly the reason for the gag order...".