They are executing a separate assignment for each work that gets transferred. This assignment occurs after the infringement has started (at least for some of the defendants). I don't think this has been a problem for Righthaven though as I believe that statutory damages are still available to them.
I agree that the whole assignment of rights could be more clearly worded, but I think at the end of the day they are clear enough: Righthaven owns the rights, and Stephens Media is granted an exclusive license.
The implication from the critics is that such an agreement is not proper. Is there any reason to think so, in your opinion?
The SAA is the overarching contractual agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media. They then do a particularized assignment for each work that gets assigned to Righthaven. These assignments are governed by the SAA, and at the very moment ownership of the rights gets transferred to Righthaven, Stephens Media obtains via license the exclusive rights to "exploit" the work.
It's a bit too clever because they are essentially contracting around the holding in Silvers. Can they do this? I don't see why not. I could be persuaded by a good argument, though. This is pretty fish- smelling stuff.
I have to admit I'm curious to find out how the main Righthaven defender in our comments -- who argued that this whole line of legal attack was "intellectually dishonest" -- has to say about this now...
The only thing I had to go on at the time was one of the copyright assignments we were looking at, and that document clearly states that "all copyrights" are assigned to Righthaven. I stand by what I said in that thread. Looking only at that assignment, I think it's "intellectually dishonest" to suggest that not all of the rights are transferred.
Under Section 7.1, Stephens Media agrees to assign all of the rights to Righthaven in a particularized assignment, the form of which is found Exhibit 1 at the end of the Agreement. This matches the assignment that we were talking about in the other thread. This assignment assigns "all copyrights" to Righthaven.
Under Section 7.2, Righthaven then agrees to grant Stephens Media an exclusive license to exploit the assigned work.
This is quite clever. Perhaps a bit too clever. But by my read, Righthaven is still technically the owner of all of the copyrights. I don't see how this new evidence changes that fact.
Of course, that's only half of this story. What was then unsealed in the document is even more damaging and may undermine most, if not all, of Righthaven's cases. However, this post is long enough, and that's a separate part of the story, so stay tuned for the very next post, in which we cover what's in the now unsealed document...
If the person who gave it to her really is the composer, then maybe it wasn't infringement after all. Without more information, we don't really know. It's just speculation. I'd like to see a more complete explanation from her.
Maybe her friend made her a playlist using her own music files. Probably not though. That certainly looks really bad. Wonder if she'll remove the tweet once she catches wind of this "bad press"?
You're absolutely right that recompense for authors is not the primary purpose of copyright. It's secondary. But it's a purpose nonetheless. Copyright is, of course, "granted because the artists work hard and therefore deserve to get paid." That's exactly it's secondary purpose. Just because that purpose is secondary doesn't mean that it's not its purpose. It's just not the only purpose.
Effort is not sufficient, as there must be also originality. That's what Feist says. It does not stand for the proposition that effort should not be rewarded. As long as the effort has originality, then it is rewarded, and deservedly so.
Feist clears up the issue of whether "sweat of the brow" alone warrants copyright protection. It doesn't. That doesn't mean that the labor behind original works shouldn't be rewarded. It should.
Right. But the issue there was whether the directories were copyrightable to begin with. The Court did not say that if someone creates something copyrightable, then they shouldn't be entitled to the fruits of their labor. The Court's position has always been that authors of copyrightable works have a right to the rewards that go with it. This right is based on the moral principle that you may reap what you sow.
I think the law of copyright simply embodies the moral underpinnings. Those who put in the effort deserve to gather the fruits of their labor.
According to the Supreme Court:
"The economic philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in "Science and useful Arts." Sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities deserve rewards commensurate with the services rendered." Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).
"That every man is entitled to the fruits of his own labour must be admitted . . . ." Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834).
You are of course correct. I read some caselaw as well as the relevant section in Nimmer on the subject this morning. The consensus is that what's stated in the CFR is the general rule, but there are some exceptions in the caselaw.
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Who has all the rights of an owner?
The key here is whether ownership transferred to Righthaven. I think between the SAA and the individual assignments, it's clear that it did.
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Who has all the rights of an owner?
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Righthaven's Copyright Assignents Were Fishy From the Start
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Who has all the rights of an owner?
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re:
The implication from the critics is that such an agreement is not proper. Is there any reason to think so, in your opinion?
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
Re: Re:
It's a bit too clever because they are essentially contracting around the holding in Silvers. Can they do this? I don't see why not. I could be persuaded by a good argument, though. This is pretty fish- smelling stuff.
On the post: Unsealed Document Reveals 'Sham' Copyright Assignments To Righthaven
The only thing I had to go on at the time was one of the copyright assignments we were looking at, and that document clearly states that "all copyrights" are assigned to Righthaven. I stand by what I said in that thread. Looking only at that assignment, I think it's "intellectually dishonest" to suggest that not all of the rights are transferred.
But what to make of this "Strategic Alliance Agreement"? http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/righthaven-strategic-agreement.pdf
Under Section 7.1, Stephens Media agrees to assign all of the rights to Righthaven in a particularized assignment, the form of which is found Exhibit 1 at the end of the Agreement. This matches the assignment that we were talking about in the other thread. This assignment assigns "all copyrights" to Righthaven.
Under Section 7.2, Righthaven then agrees to grant Stephens Media an exclusive license to exploit the assigned work.
This is quite clever. Perhaps a bit too clever. But by my read, Righthaven is still technically the owner of all of the copyrights. I don't see how this new evidence changes that fact.
On the post: Judge Slams Righthaven's Legal Tactics, Unseals Document That May Undermine All Righthaven Cases
You're a tease... that's the best part.
On the post: New Zealand Politican Tweets How She's Violating Copyright Law Night Before Supporting Three Strikes Copyright Law
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Zealand Politican Tweets How She's Violating Copyright Law Night Before Supporting Three Strikes Copyright Law
Re: Re:
On the post: New Zealand Politican Tweets How She's Violating Copyright Law Night Before Supporting Three Strikes Copyright Law
Re: Re:
On the post: New Zealand Politican Tweets How She's Violating Copyright Law Night Before Supporting Three Strikes Copyright Law
On the post: Perfect 10's Latest Bizarre Arguments Against Google Heard By Skeptical Appeals Court
Re: Re:
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're absolutely right that recompense for authors is not the primary purpose of copyright. It's secondary. But it's a purpose nonetheless. Copyright is, of course, "granted because the artists work hard and therefore deserve to get paid." That's exactly it's secondary purpose. Just because that purpose is secondary doesn't mean that it's not its purpose. It's just not the only purpose.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Feist clears up the issue of whether "sweat of the brow" alone warrants copyright protection. It doesn't. That doesn't mean that the labor behind original works shouldn't be rewarded. It should.
I think you're reading too much into Feist.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re:
According to the Supreme Court:
"The economic philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in "Science and useful Arts." Sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities deserve rewards commensurate with the services rendered." Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).
"That every man is entitled to the fruits of his own labour must be admitted . . . ." Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834).
On the post: Can You Copyright A Single Word?
Re: Re:
Next >>