Revisão do DMCA traz novas exceções

Revisão do DMCA traz novas exceções

Boa notícia, nesse momento de discussão sobre a necessidade de revisarmos a  lei de direitos autorais no Brasil, acerca da inclusão de novas exceções ao copyright (ou fair uses, como são mais conhecidas) na legislação norte-americana. Veja o texto oficial aqui.

Algumas das novas exceçõe previstas, segundo o Washington Post:

  • é permitida a quebra dos controles de acesso de aparelhos celulares para permitir seu uso com outras operadoras de telefonia
  • é permitida a quebra das proteções em videogames para possibilitar a investigar ou corrigir de falhas de segurança
  • é permitida, para professores, estudantes de cinema, produtores de documentários e de vídeos não-comerciais, a quebra de proteções anti-cópia em DVD’s para que possam ser usar trechos dos vídeos para fins educacionais, crítica ou comentários
  • é permitida a quebra de dispositivos externos de proteção de softwares (hardlocks) se esses dispositivos não funcionam mais e nem podem ser substituídos
  • é permitida a quebra de bloqueios em livros eletrônicos para que pessoas cegas possam utilizar programas que façam a leitura em voz alta ou auxílios semelhantes

———-

Fonte: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/27/review-of-us-digital-millennium-copyright-act-brings-new-exemptions/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts

Review Of US Digital Millennium Copyright Act Brings New Exemptions

By Leslee Friedman for Intellectual Property Watch @ 7:06 pm

The United States Copyright Office this week completed its statutorily required review of the landmark Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Included in the ruling were three major exemptions: a renewal on the exemption for cell-phone unlocking, a new exemption for the jailbreaking of smart phones technology, and the use of visual media clips for transformative, non-commercial works. The ruling has resulted in a flood of optimism from a range of open-access advocates.

The Copyright Office ruling on the DMCA, held every third year, was released on 26 July and is available here.

The campaign for the first of these two exemptions was spearheaded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which hailed the ruling. “Unlocking” is when a cellphone owner reworks the phone so that it can run on alternative provider networks than the one through which it was activated. “Jailbreaking” is the modification of software on smart phones so as to be interoperable with other operating systems.

EFF and the Organization for Transformative Works (OTW) joined together to gain the final exemption, useful in the world of “vidding” or using short clips from films, television and other media sources in order to create a new work that comments upon, criticises or otherwise engages with the old one. As of now, so long as these works remain non-commercial, they are not breaking copyright law under the 1998 DMCA.

These exemptions will have to undergo new scrutiny in order to be renewed through the same process in three years, but for the moment, the vidding exemption opens up new ground for professionals working on presentations, artists, and educators to grapple with visual media while being certain they are covered by Fair Use Doctrine, according to sources.

“Vidding and other forms of video remix are a form of speech,” Francesca Coppa, OTW board member, director of film studies, and associate professor of English at Muhlenberg College (US), said in a press release. “If we want to promote multimedia literacy, we need to let people speak the language of mass media without criminalising them. This exemption is crucial for remix artists.”

Leslee Friedman is an intern at Intellectual Property Watch.

Para os criadores terem uma atitude ativa quanto aos seus direitos autorais

Para os criadores terem uma atitude ativa quanto aos seus direitos autorais

O site “Keep your copyrights” apresenta questões importantes para que os criadores de obras protegidas pelo Direito Autoral – na verdade, pelo copyright, modelo de proteção adotado pelos EUA – tenham uma proteção mais eficaz sobre seus trabalhos.

Ainda que feita para o modelo norte-americano de proteção, várias dicas servem também aos artistas nacionais. Veja abaixo o texto inicial ou , se preferir, veja o site.

——-

Keep Your Copyrights

A creator forewarned is a creator forearmed. This site is devoted to all authors and creators of works in the United States. It aims to make clear why you might want to keep your copyrights, and to provide information both to help you hold on to your rights and to grant on reasonable terms the rights you do license. More at About This Site.

Learn About Copyright: What is copyright? What rights do you have under U.S. law? And what can you do to hold on to them or to manage their licensing?

Learn About Contracts: Learn to decipher the language of contracts that exploit rights in your works, what to watch out for, and what are reasonable terms on which to grant rights. See examples of actual contracts.

Glossary: Definitions of the legal and business terms discussed on this site.

Direito Moral, copyright, Coca-cola e Copa do Mundo

Direito Moral, copyright, Coca-cola e Copa do Mundo

Caso bastante interessante, que trata de questões relacionadas a direito autoral moral – presente na Convenção de Berna – em um contrato firmado nos EUA, que adota o modelo do Copyright. Cabe lembrar o acordo TRIPS, que aproximou os modelos de proteção autoral em razão de interesses econômicos.

——————-

Original: http://madisonian.net/2010/06/04/moral-rights-and-the-world-cup/

Moral Rights and the World Cup

Posted by Mike Madison · June 4th, 2010 · 1 Comment

Today’s law-and-soccer post involves a quasi-moral rights problem.

Rafael “Rafa” Vergara Hermosilla is a Mexican singer, songwriter, and music producer who was asked by Universal Music to produce a Spanish-language mix of an existing song — Wavin’ Flag by K’naan — for use by Coca-Cola as part of Coke’s World Cup marketing. (Coca-Cola calls the song — the version called Wavin’ Flag Coca-Cola Celebration Mix — its “campaign anthem.”) Coca-Cola cleared the rights to the musical composition. Vergara translated the lyrics into Spanish and mixed and produced a Spanish language vocal track by David Bisbal, to be combined with K’naan’s English language track.

Vergara did the work and produced the record, and Coca-Cola started using the result. Then things went awry; the smile-and-a-handshake nature of the relationship broke down. Before Universal would pay Vergara, Universal asked Vergara to confirm in writing that Universal owned all rights in his work, as a work made for hire. Vergara not only denied that he had ever been engaged in a work for hire relationship on this project, but he also demanded that he be credited by name each time the work was used.

Vergara sued Coca-Cola for copyright infringement, for its unauthorized distribution of his translated lyrics, and on Wednesday, a district court in Miami agreed with him, entering a preliminary injunction that recites:

Defendant Coca-Cola and any individuals or entities acting under its direction or control cease advertising, selling, distributing, or otherwise disseminating “Wavin’ Flag (Coca-Cola Spanish Celebration Mix)” unless adaptation credit is given to Vergara whenever his lyrics are used and either: (1) the original
English composer is credited or (2) a composer is often credited with such a use.

It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, by June 11, 20 10, Defendant Coca-Cola post on its website on the page offering “Wavin’ Flag; (Coca-Cola Spanish Celebration Mix)” for download, a conspicuous notice indicating Vergara’s contribution to the song.

The relief granted is less than the relief sought.  According to the court, Vergara asked for an order “requiring that Coca-Cola and its subsidiaries cease advertising with, selling, distributing or otherwise commercially exploiting the song containing Vergara’s lyrics.  Additionally, Vergara requests that the Order require Coca-Cola to immediately provide a public acknowledgment of Vergara’s contribution ‘by such media or other vectors as the Work has been previously disseminated.’”

Still, whether or not the court gave Vergara everything that Vergara asked for, Vergara asked for something — and the court gave him something — that the American copyright statute does not grant:  a kind of moral right.  In this case, that moral right is a species of attribution right.  The court agreed that Vergara was likely to succeed on the merits of his underlying infringement claim, that Coca-Cola was reproducing the copyrighted lyrics without permission.  But there was no agreement between Vergara and Coca-Cola (or between Vergara and Universal) regarding the work being attributed to him; this was not a request for specific performance of an underlying private obligation.  Vergara was claiming rights under American copyright law based on his having produced a work protected under Mexican copyright law; American copyright law includes no statutory attribution right that would apply to this case.  There was, in other words, no preexisting obligation on Coca-Cola’s part to attribute the work to Vergara.

Queries:  Did the judge exceed his authority?  Is the injunction within the court’s equitable powers?  Is the attribution obligation inconsistent with a broad reading of Dastar?

Had the judge granted a broad injunction prohibiting Coca-Cola from reproducing, distributing, or performing Vergara’s work, the judge would have been on safe ground under the statute, and the parties could have settled the case (just as they could have settled it earlier) by providing for various forms of attribution.  In one sense, then the judge simply cut to the chase.

You can download the Mexican version of the song here (mp3 link) from the Coca-Cola website, but as of this post there is no reference to Vergara.  Under the injunction, Coca-Cola has another week to comply.  Perhaps there is an appeal in the works?  Or a settlement?  Meanwhile, presumably Coca-Cola is less than thrilled with Universal.

Rafa Vergara’s press release about the litigation is here.

The district court’s order is here.

Warner Bros. quer atingir advogado que a processa pelos direitos do Super-homem

Warner Bros. quer atingir advogado que a processa pelos direitos do Super-homem

A Warner Bros. adota uma estratégia de desqualificar o advogado que a processou anteriormente em razão de direitos autorais sobre o personagem Super-homem, em favor dos herdeiros dos criadores do homem de aço, Jerome Siegel and Jospeh Shuster. A empresa alega que o advogado montou um “esquema” para enriquecer com ações de direito autoral sobre a franquia Super-homem.

Fonte: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/05/warner-bros-alleges-scheme-against-nemsis-lawyer-marc-toberoff.html

Veja em português (Google translate): http://translate.google.com.br/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Flatimesblogs.latimes.com%2Fentertainmentnewsbuzz%2F2010%2F05%2Fwarner-bros-alleges-scheme-against-nemsis-lawyer-marc-toberoff.html&sl=en&tl=pt&hl=&ie=UTF-8

———————

Warner Bros. alleges ‘scheme’ in suit against copyright litigator Marc Toberoff
May 14, 2010 |  7:35 pm

Warner Bros., in an action aimed at undermining one of its key legal foes, sued litigator Marc Toberoff in Los Angeles federal court on Friday, alleging the attorney engaged in a “scheme” to “enrich himself” by wrongfully seeking ownership rights to the studio’s Superman franchise.

The lawsuit amounts to a gambit to discredit Toberoff, an aggressive attorney who has earned the enmity of two of the biggest studios in Hollywood for going after them on behalf of clients who claim they are the rightful heirs of the copyrights behind such valuable characters as the Man of Steel and several of those under the Marvel banner, now owned by Disney.

In a 56-page complaint, Warner Bros.’ DC Comics alleges that Toberoff entered into a “web of collusive” deals with the heirs of Superman’s co-creators, Jerome Siegel and Jospeh Shuster, that caused the families to repudiate their agreements with DC Comics in a bid to recapture the copyight to the character. The suit further alleges that Toberoff maneuvered to secure “control of the largest financial stake” in the Superman rights through his own companies.

Warner Bros. believes that if Toberoff’s efforts succeed, it could put the entire Superman franchise –including future movies, TV shows and comics — at risk. With its suit, the studio is hoping the court will confirm DC’s ownership of Superman and end what it sees as any interference with those rights.

The salvo is the latest exchange of fire between Warner Bros./DC Comics and Toberoff, who previously won rulings returning a share of the profits to the Siegel and Shuster heirs relating to certain Superman rights.

Warner is basing its case in part on a seven-page cover letter that was sent to the studio anonymously in December 2008 that implicates Toberoff, along with confidential documents that Torberoff claims were stolen from his office. A court ruled that the documents were privileged, and within 24 hours Warner turned them over to a court officer. The cover letter, however, was not and was attached as an exhibit to Friday’s lawsuit.

Toberoff described the anonymous letter as defamatory, adding “this is going to come back to bite Warner Bros.”

As for the lawsuit, Toberoff blasted it as “entirely frivolous … rather than Warner Bros. litigating the remainder of this case on the merits, they have brought this vicious lawsuit aimed at me as a way of pressuring my clients to license back the [Superman] rights to them. This is an obvious pressure tactic … we’re not a bit deterred from the merits of this case by these thug tactics.”

Toberoff said Warner Bros. and DC are erroneously claiming that he has a financial interest in the pending Superman lawsuits, when the only interest he has is a “contingent legal fee … since when is that against the law? They’re just trying to get rid of the lawyer who has been so successful against them.”

For its part, Warner issued a statement saying, “DC has spent decades working constructively with our talent and creators and we look foward to a speedy resolution of these matters so we can continue to share Superman with all his many fans for generations to come.”

Friday’s suit comes shortly after Warner Bros. hired high-powered legal gun Daniel Petrocelli of O’Melveny & Myers to fight the copyright terminations from the Siegel and Shuster heirs.

Petrocelli has prevailed in Hollywood before. The defense attorney helped Disney win a long and costly lawsuit against the heirs to Winnie the Pooh merchandising rights. The case was thrown out in 2004 after Petrocelli introduced evidence that the Stephen Slesinger family had hired private investigators to dig through Disney’s trash for company documents relating to Pooh’s revenue. The judge determined the documents had been stolen and gave the Slesingers an unfair legal advantage.

The attorney’s first major claim to fame was representing Fred Goldman, the father of murder victim Ron Goldman, in the 1997 wrongful death civil suit against O.J. Simpson, who was ordered to pay the family $8.5 million in damages. Another high-profile Petrocelli client was former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, who is serving a 24-year sentence in federal prison in Colorado for securities fraud, insider trading and other counts.
— Claudia Eller

Empresa adquire direitos sobre Snoopy

Empresa adquire direitos sobre Snoopy

Notícia da compra dos direitos autorais sobre os personagens Snoopy e demais da turma do Charlie Brown pela empresa Iconix Brand Group.

———–

Fonte: http://sobreisso.com/2010/05/12/iconix-brand-group-compra-direito-autoral-de-snoopy/

Na véspera de completar 60 anos, Charlie Brown, Snoopy e sua turma estão de casa nova.  A Iconix Brand Group comprou a United Media Licensing por US$175 milhões (aproximadamente R$ 312 milhões).

O negócio é rentável para Iconix, já que a marca Peanuts, como é conhecida a turma do Charlie Brown nos Estados Unidos, fatura anualmente US$ 75 milhões em licenciamentos somente no país norte-americano, e US$ 2 bilhões em escala global.

Além de Snoopy e companhia, a Iconix passou a controlar astiras Nancy, Dilbert, e os programas televisivos TV Caminhoneiros do Gelo e Pesca Mortal, que também pertenciamUnited Media Licensing.

Charlie Brown foi criado por Charles Schulz e suas tiras estrearam nos jornais dos Estados Unidos no dia 2 de outubro de 1950.