If you followed the story and machinations behind the Sony Bono Act you'll see it was all about protecting the Micky Mouse franchise. Micky was deamed a "national treasure" and too important a part of our "national culture" to allow the sneaky Chinese to start re-purposing or profiting off it. Anything else that followed was entirely secondary for the legislators that put it through.
The only reason Disney is arguing for Public Domain is because they routinely harvest it for their own creations. So while they're all for PD when it comes to their taking something, they're adamantly against it whenever it applies to them.
That's called "enlightened self-interest" in some circles.
Sometimes you just have to stand back in amazement over the sheer balls of a whole-hearted thief.
No. Everybody needs to get royally pissed and vocal about this - and stay royally pissed and vocal about it until it is overturned on appeal. And do it again every time another BS lawsuit like this one comes up.
Especially now that misguided emotions and public opinion plays such a huge role in the outcome of so many of these so-called copyright cases.
Now is not the time for silence just because you're personally tired of hearing about it. Go watch The Simpsons or something if you're bored. Maybe even order in a pizza while you're at it.
Those of us with a stake in this game have too much to lose sitting quietly and hoping for the best.
They must think the way they operate their campus kangaroo courts and disciplinary "hearing" are the way things work everywher.
Hey university staff & faculty! A suggestion? Get a clue!
1. A hostilely worded statement doesn't constitute a credible threat just because you say it does. That would be for a real court to decide.
2. Just because you don't like something somebody said doesn't make it illegal.
3. Students don't waive their constitutional rights just because they're attending your school. While this may come as a surprise, constitutional rights and legal protections are also fully in effect on your precious campuses. And all your PC mumbo-jumbo, mission statements, and unilaterally instituted codes of conduct don't change that.
It always amazes me to see how often some indignant and petulant university administrator or faculty member seems to think their agendas and niggling institutional authority extends into the real world.
I guess that's why colleges are so often referred to as ivory towers.
For the record, it wasn't the library board that ordered the removal. It was ordered by Tim Herbst, the town's First Selectman exercising some questionable judgement and even more questionable authority in the matter.
The motivation however seems to be more because area Catholics objected to the subject matter and threw the IP argument in in order to allow the town's first selectman to "do the right thing" - without acknowledging the incident was motivated solely by religious considerations.
Fr. Brian Gannon, pastor of one of the town's Catholic churches - and the one who started the controversy - was quoted as saying:
"She (Mother Theresa) would have never picked up a banner and walked with these women at all."
Odd his knowing that considering the only person who could confirm that is deceased.
The comes the usual I'm not advocating for censorship...but argument.
Again from Fr. Gannon:
"I really feel very strongly that out of respect for who Mother Theresa is, the painting should not go back up. This has nothing to do with censorship, but with using someone's image in a true depiction of who they are."
Of interest, it was Fr. Gannon who contacted the Order of the Missionaries of Charity regarding the painting - and it was allegedly they who informed the Town of Trumbull that the use of Mother Theresa's image represented a copyright violation. Unfortunately, the local press has been unable to get a confirmation from the Order that such a notice was ever given - by them - to the town.
Sorry. But this is total bullshit. Especially in a state that has been relatively free of this 'religious' nonsense so far.
Fraud in the purely legal sense has nothing to do with your intentions. Many people are surprised to discover just how specific and precise the laws that deal with fraud are.
If you make a promise, accept money, and fail to deliver that's a breach of contract. And that alone can be grounds for being charged with fraud. Even failing to deliver within the timeframe promised can sometimes do it. Which is why online businesses seldom hit your charge card until they actually ship your order. There are rules for how long you can hold money and not deliver.
And all your good intentions and/or lack of experience won't count for much by way of a defence if you end up in court.
That's bullshit. Kickstarter gets their fee for listing a campaign regardless of whether the project delivers as promised or not. Since they act as the medium through which the funds are collected there is some responsibility beyond their making excuses, suggesting we all be understanding and patient, and turning a blind eye as much as they do.
Sooner or later they're going to get caught up in the loop and get hit with some serious legal action no matter how many disclaimers they issue. And that will be unfortunate. Because it risks poisoning the well for crowdfunding in general. And that's too valuable a source of funding to lose because of their "three monkeys" attitude.
Kickstarter doesn't get to have the final word on what the limits of their liability may or may not be. When you act as the middleman that collects and distributes funds, it's questionable whether or not some extrapolation of the "safe harbor" rule applies. Whenever money changes hands, it tends to change everything.
I'll bet Ms. Perry's lawyer is frantically searching for some venue that they hope will be sympathetic, and where a judge will try to legislate from the bench on their behalf rather than just back down right away.
If not, they'll probably do some more sturm & drang before they let it go.
It's not so much that you be proven right as it is you not be proven conclusively wrong when it comes to attorneys.
I can't help agreeing with the other posters that suggest broadcasters and streaming services just remove pre-1972 music from their playlists if copyright fee hunters start making good in their threats to file claims and reverse how the pre-72 rule has been interpreted for decades.
Musicians depend on distribution more than anything else. That's what put the recording industry's attorneys and businessmen at the top of the food chain in music. Even though they didn't create the music themselves.
Today's musician depends on search engines and streaming. If some misguided individuals become too intent on reversing the clock, let them do without. After a (small) initial outcry from the listening public, their songs will rapidly fade into a well-deserved oblivion.
Being a child of that era, and therefore a fan of that sort of music, I'll miss it. But not too much or for too long. Because any time somebody tells me "Take it or leave it - and we need you answer now!" my first, last, and final answer will always be: "No."