Apple Sued by Estate of 'Over the Rainbow' Composer for Alleged Piracy

[charlituna]

The usual way would be to send a DMCA takedown request to Apple, then if Apple doesn't remove the music you can sue Apple and the publisher of the music, or if the publisher of the music sends a DMCA counter notice and Apple puts the music back into the store, you can then sue the publisher.

Without a DMCA notice sent, they will have a hard time suing Apple successfully. If a DMCA notice was sent and Apple ignored it, then Apple is on the hook for damages. We'll see which one it is.

That would be a good start but in the end it might be messier than that. We would have to look at exactly where these recordings are being listed, the age and relevant copyright laws, the paperwork with the record labels etc. if Apple get a take down notice they go back to all of that and their lawyers decide if they are in the clear or not. So they could leave it up believing they have a good faith agreement with a label based on their paperwork and various laws when the label didn’t have a good faith agreement to enter into such agreements with the copyright holders.

 

[Mac 128]

I was not aware of this fact, thought that labels submit their artist catalog into Apple Music, Spotify, ... and that the unsigned artists must have the music verified first (for example, using a code). Always something new to learn

The definition of a "label" is pretty broad. As far as iTunes and Spotify are concerned, you are a "label" should you want to post your own recordings. Other "labels" don't create any original material at all, they merely repackage licensed recordings into compilations, or re-issue them. There's a whole new kind of pirating that's going on now for out-of-print recordings, where a recording gets re-mastered by a "label" other than the original, and claims a copyright on the re-mastered recording. This usually happens in territories outside that in which the original master was created.

I couldn't legally sing happy birthday at a party because of copyright. Sounds like some kind've monopoly.

There was never anything illegal about singing Happy Birthday at a party.

 

[theluggage]

The U.S. Constitution clearly states in Article 1, Section 8 that Congress has the power "to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to the Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". The key phrase being "limited times"

The other key part is "promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts" - as opposed to "support the interests of large corporations and a small elite of unusually successful artists".

 

[curtvaughan]

An example of copyright law gone amuck - in 1985, Michael Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for rights to Lennon/McCartney songs by the Beatles. As a consequence, McCartney for years had to pay royalties to perform his own songs on stage. Just last year, in 2018, McCartney regained rights to Lennon/McCartney songs, as a 1976 Copyright Act decreed that ownership of all songs written prior to 1978 reverts back to the original songwriter after 56 years. So after losing ownership of rights to his own songs at the age of 43, he finally owns them again at age 76. Wacko.

 

[Fukui]

Indefinitely? Why should a work of art stop belonging to the creator?

because they’re dead, that’s why...

 

[bollman]

So, an inventor creates an invention, patents it and starts a business making money of that patent. When the inventor dies, the patent should invalidated?

 

[cfurlin]

Who writes these headlines.
1. Multiple major tech firms, including Apple, singling one out is misleading.
2. The composer of the song did not sue any of them, he’s dead. His ESTATE is suing. Rather different no?

Clickbait works.
[doublepost=1558474805][/doublepost]

because they’re dead, that’s why...

Cool. Let me know when your parents pass away. I'd love to start taking advantage of everything they worked so hard for in their lifetime. It's not going to be a problem, right? After all, they'll be dead.

 

[rjohnstone]

An example of copyright law gone amuck - in 1985, Michael Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for rights to Lennon/McCartney songs by the Beatles. As a consequence, McCartney for years had to pay royalties to perform his own songs on stage. Just last year, in 2018, McCartney regained rights to Lennon/McCartney songs, as a 1976 Copyright Act decreed that ownership of all songs written prior to 1978 reverts back to the original songwriter after 56 years. So after losing ownership of rights to his own songs at the age of 43, he finally owns them again at age 76. Wacko.

Not exactly how it went down, but close.
McCartney and Lennon SOLD their PUBLISHING rights to ATV music. They still retained individual songwriting shares.
Later Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights from ATV and eventually sold 50% to Sony.
Sony later ended up owning all the rights after they bought out Michael Jackson's 50% stake from his estate after he died.
McCartney sued to get all pre-1976 full ownership rights restored. That suit was settled in a confidential agreement with Sony. The terms are sealed.

McCartney never had to pay anyone to perform his own music.

 

[Brandhouse]

So how long of a monopoly do you think is fair for original works?

Monopoly!? You're kidding surely.

Content or anything else created by a person, company etc. is their product and livelihood and have every right to hold continuous copyright until the cows come home, whether or not that may copyright may be owned by an estate etc. In Australia, to anything I've created, even for a client, I automatically own copyright unless explicitly stated in a contract that I assign copyright over to them. It's a mechanism to protect my rights to earn a livelihood and to continue to do so, even if I may no longer work for myself.

 

[curtvaughan]

Not exactly how it went down, but close.
McCartney and Lennon SOLD their PUBLISHING rights to ATV music. They still retained individual songwriting shares.
Later Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights from ATV and eventually sold 50% to Sony.
Sony later ended up owning all the rights after they bought out Michael Jackson's 50% stake from his estate after he died.
McCartney sued to get all pre-1976 full ownership rights restored. That suit was settled in a confidential agreement with Sony. The terms are sealed.

McCartney never had to pay anyone to perform his own music.

Hmm. Perhaps I stand corrected. I'll look into researching it. I just remember, I think, that McCartney somehow had to pay royalties whenever he performed live doing his own songs. I need to find some links to substantiate.

 

[4jasontv]

Sure... Do you write music? Most likely not. Otherwise, you would not write something like this. This comment shows your complete misunderstanding of private property, disrespect of composers' work, support of piracy and explains why music quality has decreased so much nowadays. Only people writing songs with three chords make it. It's because true composers keep their music for themselves.

LOL.

So how long of a monopoly do you think is fair for original works?

14 years.

Indefinitely? Why should a work of art stop belonging to the creator?

Because art belongs to society. Revenue belongs to individuals.

Harry Potter would be in public domain then, just as an example.

Yes. That is true.

Oh for the love of god. Is this an argument for public domaining all forms of art?

I think we can all safely say that creativity hasn’t died in today’s world.

No, only art that is 14 years or older. Creativity hasn't died, but it has been substantially slowed down.

It's not the case here, where someone just reissued previous recordings without owning the rights to said recording. These are not new works that may or may not resemble previous work. These are the exact works, with credit and all, but with no money to the owners.

Exact works of music that should be public domain. Ehhh, fine. Unless it's a cover. In which case it's new art.

Maybe people could stop steeling the intellectual property of others and solve lots of these problems.

Art doesn't belong to the artist.

Nobody's saying that a work of art "stops belonging to its creator", just because you put a time limitation on copyright restrictions. If you composed the music, painted the artwork, or sculpted the sculpture -- that's just a fact that can't be taken away from you.

I am. I have no problem giving someone credit for writing a song, but I don't agree that they own it. They get a set period of time to profit from it but it is owned by society.

This is asinine. Death of the author, MAXIMUM. I say back to 14 years, 14 years non-automatic renewal.

Death of the author. Key point.

So an author, musician, whatever, creates a piece, they die the next day. Tough **** for the family?

I am confused. Are you arguing that it is ok to profit from someone else's work?

So, an inventor creates an invention, patents it and starts a business making money of that patent. When the inventor dies, the patent should invalidated?

Patents are not the same thing that we are talking about here, but yes. In a perfect world. Think about it from a health care perspective. If you invent/create something and your company wants to have exclusive rights to use it for the limited time they have than they have great incentive to provide the best healthcare.

Monopoly!? You're kidding surely.

Content or anything else created by a person, company etc. is their product and livelihood and have every right to hold continuous copyright until the cows come home, whether or not that may copyright may be owned by an estate etc. In Australia, to anything I've created, even for a client, I automatically own copyright unless explicitly stated in a contract that I assign copyright over to them. It's a mechanism to protect my rights to earn a livelihood and to continue to do so, even if I may no longer work for myself.

And if you rely on that protection than you need to be prepared that eventually that content should become available to the population. That way others who live during your lifetime can improve on your work and so you can't rely on one single idea or success.

 

[rjohnstone]

Hmm. Perhaps I stand corrected. I'll look into researching it. I just remember, I think, that McCartney somehow had to pay royalties whenever he performed live doing his own songs. I need to find some links to substantiate.

I did do some digging and yes, McCartney did have to pay performance royalties, although it was indirect.
Every venue he played had to have an ASCAP or BMI license and pay standard performance rates for all music played.
ASCAP and BMI sorted out who got what later on.
Pretty much every musician playing in a live venue is paying ASCAP or BMI, although it's the venue that pays the fee, not the artist.

So technically yes, he paid, but not any different from what any other performer has to do.

 

[HylianKnight]

Indefinitely? Why should a work of art stop belonging to the creator?

Because ideas and knowledge are something that benefit all of society. Putting such thing behind an indefinite paywall is detrimental to the advancement of human kind. Ideas and knowledge are vastly different than tangible property. In short, it’s complicated.
[doublepost=1558497846][/doublepost]

LOL.



14 years.



Because art belongs to society. Revenue belongs to individuals.



Yes. That is true.



No, only art that is 14 years or older. Creativity hasn't died, but it has been substantially slowed down.



Exact works of music that should be public domain. Ehhh, fine. Unless it's a cover. In which case it's new art.



Art doesn't belong to the artist.



I am. I have no problem giving someone credit for writing a song, but I don't agree that they own it. They get a set period of time to profit from it but it is owned by society.



Death of the author. Key point.



I am confused. Are you arguing that it is ok to profit from someone else's work?



Patents are not the same thing that we are talking about here, but yes. In a perfect world. Think about it from a health care perspective. If you invent/create something and your company wants to have exclusive rights to use it for the limited time they have than they have great incentive to provide the best healthcare.



And if you rely on that protection than you need to be prepared that eventually that content should become available to the population. That way others who live during your lifetime can improve on your work and so you can't rely on one single idea or success.

I’m so glad someone else shares my views on this and was willing to take the time to answer some of the questions people have. I wanted to, but I’m on a cruise right now and didn’t feel like putting in that much effort.

 

[Zoboomafoo]

No, only art that is 14 years or older. Creativity hasn't died, but it has been substantially slowed down

I’m really just going to step out here because you just have a different set of beliefs. But this statement above is pretty subjective. Or absurd. Really both. We’re in a world where content of all sorts is more abundant, more accessible than ever. And it’s pretty exceptional quality to boot. So. Idk. Go rain on some other parade

 

[Tech198]

70 years is too long.. particularly if no one is alive anymore to defend it. The license should expire when they do, instead of staying active with the labels regardless.

It's probably about time you hear Apple and "piracy" here.... We never hear that.. Good to see its not just Google caught in this

 

[Brandhouse]

And if you rely on that protection than you need to be prepared that eventually that content should become available to the population. That way others who live during your lifetime can improve on your work and so you can't rely on one single idea or success.

So you believe that no-one has ownership of their work and a right to, be it a single piece of work or multiple? You're so deluded.

 

[Fukui]

Clickbait works.
[doublepost=1558474805][/doublepost]

Cool. Let me know when your parents pass away. I'd love to start taking advantage of everything they worked so hard for in their lifetime. It's not going to be a problem, right? After all, they'll be dead.

lol i have no special rights to my parents things, i am responsible for myself

the point is, when someone passes away, their work shouldn’t belong to anyone one (in particular) anymore imo.

anything else is economic rent (e.g leaching) and just because one just so happened to be at the right place at the right time doesn’t give one the right to continue to extract profits out of a dead person

i’m not trying to convince of course, just stating my opinion

 

[PlainviewX]

I am confused. Are you arguing that it is ok to profit from someone else's work?

I'm confused, when someone dies, should all of their savings, wealth, belongings be taken from their family?

 

[4jasontv]

I’m really just going to step out here because you just have a different set of beliefs. But this statement above is pretty subjective. Or absurd. Really both. We’re in a world where content of all sorts is more abundant, more accessible than ever. And it’s pretty exceptional quality to boot. So. Idk. Go rain on some other parade

The issue isn't about having access to content. The issue is using the content without restrictions.

So you believe that no-one has ownership of their work and a right to, be it a single piece of work or multiple? You're so deluded.

I am saying your ability to restrict others from using an idea should expire well within the artists lifetime. Nothing deluded about that.

I'm confused, when someone dies, should all of their savings, wealth, belongings be taken from their family?

Maybe, but no one is talking about that are they? It comes down to understanding that ideas are not property. Restricting to the life of the artist allows for shorter than 14 year periods.

 

[Mac 128]

Art doesn't belong to the artist.

Tell that to the French. They don’t even recognize the artists ability to give ownership of the art to someone else. It’s called droit morale. Interesting concept.

I am confused. Are you arguing that it is ok to profit from someone else's work?

Happens all the time. Are you saying you don’t?

That’s what the entire entertainment business is predicated upon — profiting from someone else’s work. And it’s exactly the “work-for-hire” model that allows expensive projects like movies and TV shows to be made. So forget the individual for a moment, but what incentive does a business have to continue produce expensive productions, some of which take a lifetime to recoup their costs if they can only profit from them for a few years?

Also, you hinted at it in an earlier reply, that once the art has fallen into the public domain, it’s capable of gaining copyright protection again in the form of adaptation. What is that if not profiting from someone else’s work?

 

[PlainviewX]

Maybe, but no one is talking about that are they? It comes down to understanding that ideas are not property. Restricting to the life of the artist allows for shorter than 14 year periods.

Of course they are. That's why we have patents. You don't have to have anything physically made, but have an idea, and you're protected.

 

[Zoboomafoo]

The issue isn't about having access to content. The issue is using the content without restrictions.



I am saying your ability to restrict others from using an idea should expire well within the artists lifetime. Nothing deluded about that.



Maybe, but no one is talking about that are they? It comes down to understanding that ideas are not property. Restricting to the life of the artist allows for shorter than 14 year periods.

Just explain your logic here. Works of art ... music, tv, etc represent the culmination of a profound amount of work from a number of people with no real guarantees that all of their studying, practice, determination will amount to anything more than a wedding singer position or a sweet resume of restaurant service. So explain to me why you feel entitled to use their hard work at all without their permission, let alone within some random period of time.

 

[trrosen]

On to the issue: From what I'm seeing this is specifically about the release of the original recordings by persons/entities unauthorized to do so? Am I reading that correctly?

Nope this is not the owner of that copyright. This is the composer. You do not need the composers authorization. you can get a compulsory license and pay 9 cents per copy. Likely there is a few hundred bucks in royalties sitting in an account for them somewhere.
[doublepost=1558567227][/doublepost]

Of course they are. That's why we have patents. You don't have to have anything physically made, but have an idea, and you're protected.

No Ideas can not be owned. Music can not be owned. Art can not be owned. Copies can. Rights can. The copyright is intellectual property not the song.
[doublepost=1558567850][/doublepost]

Indefinitely? Why should a work of art stop belonging to the creator?

Works of art never belong to their creator. They belong to no one and everyone, period. Copyrights are owned not works of art.

 

[PlainviewX]

Nope this is not the owner of that copyright. This is the composer. You do not need the composers authorization. you can get a compulsory license and pay 9 cents per copy. Likely there is a few hundred bucks in royalties sitting in an account for them somewhere.
[doublepost=1558567227][/doublepost]

No Ideas can not be owned. Music can not be owned. Art can not be owned. Copies can. Rights can. The copyright is intellectual property not the song.
[doublepost=1558567850][/doublepost]
Works of art never belong to their creator. They belong to no one and everyone, period. Copyrights are owned not works of art.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. I mean, you couldn’t be more wrong and it’s doesn't warrant any further discussion.

 

[alecgold]

Indefinitely? Why should a work of art stop belonging to the creator?

So until the creator dies? Because that is when he stops to have any gain/profit from his work.
Why would somebody pay my son, grandson or great-grandson for the work I did? In that case I’m going to make super-nice furniture and when the first buyer is going to sell, he has to pay me or my estate royalties...

Copyright laws have not been made to protect indefinitely, but to protect a fair income for authors and creators.
Same with patents. Take a look at what is happening in what is patent fraud IMHO in medication. Instead of a pill you make a nose-spray and 30 sprays will cost €250.. (fentanil). And in this day and age of digital next-to-nothing-cheap digital copies of music and books copyrights are more relevant then ever.
But only for a reasonable limited amount of time (e.g. the moment of death for an author or 35 years after creation for a company) would be fair to be give a creator the chance to make a profit. But after that it is either not valuable if it hasn’t made money yet, or it should have been profitable enough.