dajhilton’s Comments

• Feb 27th, 2014 @ 4:17pm

  Re: Mostly a good, tightly reasoned opinion

  on Horrific Appeals Court Ruling Says Actress Has Copyright Interest In 'Innocence Of Muslims,' Orders YouTube To Delete Every Copy
  You miss the point. It doesn't matter whether she has a copyrightable interest in only her small performance or a copyrightable interest in the whole film. She has succeeded in having the whole film taken down fro the internet. Not just her performance. Judge Kozinski has given her exactly the same remedy that a copyright owner in the whole film would have. So it is a distinction without a difference. Since Ms Garcia gets to take down the whole film she is in effect given the authors' rights to the whole film.
• Feb 27th, 2014 @ 4:14pm

  Re:

  on Horrific Appeals Court Ruling Says Actress Has Copyright Interest In 'Innocence Of Muslims,' Orders YouTube To Delete Every Copy
  She can receive mercy without being converted by tortuous logic into an author and copyright owner. There are plenty of other tort remedies that are available to her -- especially in California -- apart from copyright. Actually, Bette Midler who is mentions in the opion proved that. After losing her copyright battle, she SUCCESSFULLY sued soundalike performers and producers under that unfair competition law in Michigan and California and got the remedy she was seeking.
• Feb 27th, 2014 @ 4:07pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  on Horrific Appeals Court Ruling Says Actress Has Copyright Interest In 'Innocence Of Muslims,' Orders YouTube To Delete Every Copy
  Good point. You could go on to add that the person posing for the photograph isn't the author of the resulting photograph, even though it couldn't happen without them. The photographer is the author.
• Feb 27th, 2014 @ 4:05pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  on Horrific Appeals Court Ruling Says Actress Has Copyright Interest In 'Innocence Of Muslims,' Orders YouTube To Delete Every Copy
  It is not true to say that "US law has no performer's rights." It certainly does; and those are because of international treaties that we have ratified and implemented (especially the treaties that we drafted and basically forced upon the rest of the world). Both the WTO Treaty (TRIPS agreement) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty provide clear performance rights and rights of fixation to recording artists. These rights were implemented without any objection or debate by Congress in the late 1990's. So every performer in an audio-only work owns a copyrightable interest which must be transferred to the producer of the recording or else that performer is a joint author. There is, of course, no similar right for performers in audio-visual productions. And that is why Judge Kozinski is so far off the mark. But the fact that the US had to go through the steps of proposing -- both to the WTO and the WIPO -- new treaties that would create for the first time in history performers' right (but only for sound recording performers) shows more clearly than anything else that actors do not enjoy similar rights. Unless and until, Congress acts to do for them what Congress has already done for sound recording artists.