More Copyright Oddities: Why Does Yoko Ono Get To Hold Copyright On Lennon Videos Others Purchased

from the something's-missing dept

Wed, Jul 8th 2009 10:44am — Mike Masnick

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:

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.

Assuming all of this is true, it's hard to see how Ono has a valid claim to the copyright, but the courts have ruled in her favor. The Boston Globe article has a bit more info, though it's still troubling. Apparently, the judge's reasoning was that WWV failed to take action to "reclaim the copyright" in the intervening years, even though it had "plenty of warnings" that Ono believed she had purchased the rights.

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, john lennon, yoko ono
Companies: world wide video

28 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Lucretious, 8 Jul 2009 @ 10:53am

seems like Yoko Ono outspent WWV in terms of quality of legal services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:13am

This seems...awful. WWV had its tapes stolen and resold to Ono, who believed she was receiving the copyright but did not. WWV sues the employee, who settles. Seven years later, Ono attempts to enforce the copyright she believes she has on WWV and WWV strikes back. The judge gives the copyright to Ono because WWV never asserted to Ono that she didn't have the copyright...even though she never actually had it!

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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:18am
  
  Re:
  "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?"
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2009 @ 2:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    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.
    
    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?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:28am

She did again
Ono stikes again and ruins everything that she touches. The footage will surely be lost forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:30am

Yes!
Fan-fucking-tastic!! We now have an iron-clad, judical-approved method of reassigning copyright! Simply claim copyright on something someone else owns, wait a few years and when they dont "reclaim" their copyright, YOU OWN IT!!

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:35am

so does that mean we can sue the RIAA for copyright ownership we thought we had when we purchased the CDs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:37am

This is precisely what attorneys are worried about when they say you must sue or you risk losing your rights. Having not read the actual opinion, it's safe to say that if WWV knew in 2001 that Ono thought she bought the copyright, and they did nothing for 7 years, than too bad for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:57am
  
  Re:
  The "protect (not necessarily sue) or lose the right" applies to trademark, not to copyright. Assuming Mike's summary of the facts are correct, I agree that if appears the judge made an erroneous decision.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - LostSailor (profile), 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    comment 10 was me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Jul 2009 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re:
  This is precisely what attorneys are worried about when they say you must sue or you risk losing your rights.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Jul 2009 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "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."
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:51am

Yoko Ono is a copyright troll. The wonderful Japanese pop band Puffy AmiYumi had to get permission from Yoko when they used a picture of themselves laying in bed on a cover of their CD because it was similar to Yoko and Lennon's "sleep-in" protest.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:53am

"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"

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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Shawn, 8 Jul 2009 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re:
  "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"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bridges R Us, 8 Jul 2009 @ 12:47pm

Deal of a lifetime
Give me $300 000 and I'll give you the brooklyn bridge. You get all the tool money - i mean toll money.

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!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comboman, 8 Jul 2009 @ 1:02pm

Right of publicity?
The copyright on a film may belong to the person who shot it, but the subject of the film also has rights (right of publicity), unless they waived those rights to the film-maker. Perhaps that is Ono's angle (since she would own Lenon's rights of publicity)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2009 @ 1:05pm

There has to be SOMETHING more cause yea... the precedent set here is rather insane.

If all the facts are straight as we are led to believe... this Judge was on something fierce and this will be appealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 8 Jul 2009 @ 1:36pm

Not really
"The copyright on a film may belong to the person who shot it, but the subject of the film also has rights (right of publicity), unless they waived those rights to the film-maker. Perhaps that is Ono's angle (since she would own Lenon's rights of publicity)?"

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seven, 8 Jul 2009 @ 2:52pm

Curious
Curious. Apparently the court based its decision on Ono's statement that Cox make the video and "not offer it for commercial sale, ever," made the video a 'work for hire,' which put the ball into her court.

That's a real stretch of the definiton of "work for hire."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2009 @ 3:01pm

Explanation
# WWV countersued, claiming that Ono was violating its copyright
# 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- peter (profile), 8 Jul 2009 @ 8:19pm
  
  Re: Explanation
  Get off the politically correct b.s. A judge can quite readily rule and has ruled against Yoko Ono's assertion of a copyright infringement claim: http://tiny.cc/ZaEjz
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2009 @ 9:27pm
    
    Re: Re: Explanation
    Get off the politically correct b.s.
    
    What's your explanation then? (if you can give it without swearing)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2009 @ 4:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Explanation
    Get off the politically correct b.s.
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wes, 8 Jul 2009 @ 3:30pm

Bridge
I happen to own a bridge connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan Island that I'd like to sell to Yoko. I swear the deed is real.

The previous owner's signature is on it and everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2009 @ 11:48pm

why doesn't that Bitch just die already
Fuck off Yoko Bitch o!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2009 @ 1:31pm

oh no is a lying b..ch ! she said she never herad of the beatles in 1968/1968 when she hooked John. LIAR! you'd have to have lived in a cave. she nas no talent at all, none whatsoever- in fact, she is painfully lousy. anyone who says she is a good "artist" is just up her ass for John's money. i only hope she rots in h--ll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not saying, 14 Jul 2009 @ 12:54am

I heard from a friend who new someone...
I heard from a friend who new someone...that said that his girlfriend slept with a guy who told her that one guy took and made a copy off some film and with out telling them [those who owned it]and sold it to YoYo...then he got caught and was going to do Fed time with no tennis court. So he lied for Yoyo to keep down his 3 squares and a cot...Sooooo fans of this artist don't die yet and it will come...just build a theater or have a computer and they will come...or you can read the hard back with a dvd included!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]