What Businesses Can Learn from Taylor Swift’s “Father Figure” Decision

 

One track immediately sparked conversation when Taylor Swift released her new album, The Life of a Showgirl. The song “Father Figure” borrows from George Michael’s 1987 classic with the same name. Swift’s team showcased its knowledge of intellectual property laws through interpolation. Rather than sampling the original recording, Swift’s team chose to interpolate it by re-creating elements of Michael’s melody and lyrics within a new composition. Interpolations only require clearance from the owners of the underlying composition, not those who control the original sound recording. 

Swift received permission from Michael’s estate to interpolate “Father Figure,” and credits the estate as co-writers. By crediting the estate, Swift ensures both legal compliance and artistic respect. This is a textbook example of how strategic rights management protects creators from potential copyright disputes while preserving goodwill among stakeholders. 

The same principles apply beyond the music industry. Whether you’re developing products, designing marketing materials, or producing digital content, understanding how to properly license, credit, and protect creative assets is essential. Missteps in copyright or intellectual property can lead to costly disputes and loss of profits, but proactive planning can turn those risks into opportunities for collaboration and brand integrity.

Our firm assists clients with all intellectual property and copyright law aspects, from licensing and ownership to enforcement and protection strategies. Swift’s approach to “Father Figure” shows that creativity and compliance can go hand in hand, and that the most innovative businesses protect what they create.

Kelsey Greene, Law Clerk

New Copyright Laws Thanks to Spotify?

The music industry has always been on the frontline of change within the copyright realm. The fast-developing and ever-changing landscape has always been an issue to try and pinpoint the specific mechanism that should exist within the United States to protect this type of art. When trying to determine the protection a song receives, two different copyright points need to be included:

1.    As per section 102(a)(2) of the Copyright Act, musical works, including any accompanying words that include the lyrics, melodies, and harmonies are protected by themselves. This means that anything that can be fixed in writing (notes, lyrics, etc.) is protected by this section.

2.    As per section 102(a)(7) of the Copyright Act, sound recordings by themselves are protected. This means that the actual song that any person can listen to is protected in this regard. Generally speaking, the sound recordings are considered the “masters” of the songs.

To understand this more specifically, here are two examples:

1.    Dolly Parton in 1973 wrote and recorded the song “I Will Always Love You”. She, here, thus has the copyright over the song composition and the song recording that she produced. In 1992, with the film The Bodyguard, Whitney Houston released a cover version of the song. The song recording of Whitney, thus, is separate from the song composition and the original recording and is protected separately.

2.    Taylor Swift became the face of this separation when she started to re-record her original albums to get ownership of her recordings as she was only the owner of the songwriting portion of the songs as per the contract she signed when she was just starting. The “Taylor’s Version” albums have become massive hits for the singer and are solely owned by her.

With the development of different technologies, it has become more complicated to try and get the protection the copyright allows for these creations. Most recently, Spotify – the streaming giant – was sent a cease-and-desist letter from the National Music Publishers Association (hereinafter “NMPA”) and other songwriters’ groups over the newest video function and podcasts use of lyrics and the remix feature that enables subscribers to edit songs they like and, as a result, create a derivative work. The NMPA is accusing Spotify of copyright violations and should be paid for this type of use because they are using the lyrics – a separate copyrightable work – when using the recordings. Spotify has denied wrongdoing and has mentioned that they are a platform for licensed content and that they have a process for anyone to contact them if there is a belief that there is an unlicensed song.

This has gone a step even further as the NMPA has sent a letter to the leaders of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate and House of Representatives requesting a complete update on the Copyright Act on the topic of statutory license because according to them it “prevents private negotiations in a free market”. They mention that although the Music Modernization Act (MMA) has been very beneficial in certain updates based on the new landscape of the music business there are still changes that need to be done to protect songwriters.

It will certainly be interesting to see the position the House of Representatives and the Senate will take on this and whether there will be a new addendum to the Copyright Act in the near future.

Sources:

·     https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/spotify-copyright-violation-claims-lyrics-remixes-1236003575/

·     https://variety.com/2024/music/news/music-publishers-congress-overhaul-copyright-act-1236012128/

·     https://www.billboard.com/business/publishing/nmpa-copyright-act-overhaul-spotify-bundling-full-letter-congress-1235687539/

·     https://www.smoothradio.com/features/the-story-of/i-will-always-love-you-whitney-houston-facts-video/

·     https://www.today.com/popculture/music/taylors-version-meaning-swift-rerecording-albums-rcna98513

José Portabella Villela, Abogado, BridgehouseLaw LLP, Charlotte 

ChatGPT

As I mentioned in my previous article, the different cases and repercussions of ChatGPT have been updated. There are both positive and negative updates for OpenAI in the different cases they are involved with this year.

On the positive side, (https://www.wmar2news.com/judge-sides-partially-with-openai-over-chatgpt-copyright-claims) U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, a California federal judge, dismissed the majority of copyright claims that a group of authors had. The plaintiffs, which included authors like comedienne Sarah Silverman and novelist Paul Tremblay, are said to have not included enough evidence to prove that ChatGPT had been trained with their writings to formulate its responses. According to different reports, this has been deemed as very similar to decisions by other federal judges. Despite this, Judge Martínez-Olguín allowed the authors to amend their complaint by March 13 establishing that ChatGPT violated their copyright by copying their books without permission. We are still waiting for many other cases in this saga, so it is important to stay alert to them.

Despite this, OpenAI was dealt a blow in their trademark case with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) by not allowing them to use the term “GPT” as a trademark (https://www.analyticsinsight.net/openai-loses-the-battle-for-gpt-trademark/). For a trademark to be registered, it needs to be unique enough that, in the mind of the consumers, there is a link between the product and its provider. The USPTO ruled against their application, emitting their Final Office Action on February 9. In it, they establish that the trademark “ChatGPT” is not distinctive enough to be a trademark because the main components of the mark, that is “Chat” and “GPT” are both descriptive of what the service given is. For context, “GPT” is an acronym that refers to “generative pre-trained transformer”. With the Final Office Action, OpenAI as an entity, has its options limited for protecting its branding on the ever-so-popular program, although the overall effects of this on its business model are still to be determined.

As I mentioned before, Artificial Intelligence is one of the most contentious points for the legal world and OpenAI’s efforts will, without a doubt, carve out the path by which we will move in the future.

José Portabella, Abogado, BridgehouseLaw Charlotte

image: adobe

Lidl – Tesco Trademark Battle

Who is allowed to use a yellow circle in the square blue background?

Discounter Lidl has won a trademark battle against the UK's biggest supermarket chain Tesco.The High Court ruled that Tesco's Clubcard logo copied Lidl's logo, which both use a yellow circle on a square blue background. Lidl said Tesco had infringed its copyright, letting Tesco "take unfair advantage" of Lidl's "reputation for great value". Tesco said it was "disappointed" by the ruling and that it intended to appeal.

What is this all about? Lidl started its lawsuit in 2020, shortly after Tesco started using the logo to promote its Clubcard discount scheme.

It argued that Tesco deliberately copied its trademark to deceive customers into thinking its prices were comparable.  Judge Joanna Smith said in a written ruling on Wednesday that Tesco had "taken unfair advantage of the distinctive reputation" for low prices held by Lidl's trademarks. However, she said that Tesco had not been seeking "deliberately to ride on the coat tails of Lidl's reputation", as Lidl had argued.

Thank you, Colin Verba and Judgement War Productions LLC for producing this video.

Banksy Lost a Trademark Battle in the E.U.

 

Banksy Lost a Trademark Battle in the E.U.

After Quotes From His Past Come Back to Haunt Him

The famous and mysterious street artist Banksy lost a trademark battle with Full Color Black's greeting card company. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) ruled that the trademark of one of Banksy’s paintings is invalid. What makes things worse is that Banksy and his lawyer could be the ones to blame for their loss.

The trademark in question is of one of Banksy’s most famous pieces of art: Laugh Now. The artwork depicts a monkey with a sign which states Laugh now, but one day we’ll be in charge.

The greeting card company Full Colour Black specializes in street art greeting cards. Full Colour Black uses the same image as Laugh Now but changes the wording on the sign to quotes such as Bald Is Best and I Bought It on Expenses.

How Banky’s Own Words Were Used Against Him

Pest Control, the company in charge of certifying the authenticity of Banksy’s art, filed for a trademark claim with the EUIPO. Full Colour Black then fought back on this claim, calling for a cancellation of the trademark. They argued that the trademark was non-distinctive and filed in bad faith.

Additionally, Full Colour Black argued that the artwork was spray-painted in a public place where it was free to be photographed and spread by the public. The ruling states that “Banksy permitted parties to disseminate his work and even provided high-resolution versions of his work on his website and invited the public to download them and produce their own items.”

In his own book Wall and Piece, Banksy says that “copyright is for losers”.

Banksy is also an anonymous artist. The ruling states that “It is also noted that as Banksy has chosen to be anonymous and cannot be identified this would hinder him from being able to protect this piece of art under copyright laws without identifying himself while identifying himself would take away from the secretive persona which propels his fame and success”.

Pest Control has presented other trademark applications to the EUIPO, but most, if not all, will likely get denied.

Follow our blog for more!

If you would like to speak to one of our trademark attorneys, contact us!

German Bundestag Approves Downgraded Version of a New Copyright Bill

(c) photo: freedigitalphotos.net

Online aggregators like Google News are usually listing various links to articles of different online newspapers and combine them with short excerpts of these articles. On Friday, March 1, 2013, the German “Bundestag” approved a copyright bill concerning these reproductions of excerpts of online newspaper articles. If the new law passes the German “Bundesrat” successfully it will shortly come into effect.

In its original version, the bill provided compulsory licensing for the reproduction of the smallest excerpt of an online newspaper article on an online aggregator's website. But a few days before this bill was to be debated in the German “Bundestag”, it was changed profoundly. Under the current version of the new copyright law the reproduction of single words or of smallest excerpts of text shall be allowed without any licensing agreement. Therefore, the new copyright law largely lost its original purpose to let the online newspaper publishers participate on the profits generated by using excerpts of their online articles on online aggregator's websites.

As a result, both, lawmakers and the concerned online companies are strenuously discussing the value of the new law. It passed the German “Bundestag” by only 293 to 243 votes.

Most of those affected by the new copyright law don't estimate it being a thorough success. Though the enlargement of the online publishers' rights isn't as considerable as in the original version of the bill, the Federation of German Newspapers Publishers hopes that online publishers will now be enabled to better determine the conditions under which their online articles are provided by other websites.

Online aggregators, however, feel uncertain about the interpretation of “a smallest excerpt of text”. As a result, it is very likely that legal disputes between online newspaper publishers and online aggregators will occur.

Author: Cornelia Heim / Rechtsreferendarin, Charlotte Office

“Mein Kopf gehört mir" mit Dr. Christoph Rückel

Die deutsche Zeitung “Handelsblatt” hatte im April diesen Jahres eine Aktion unter dem Motto, “mein Kopf gehört mir” ins Leben gerufen. Hintergrund der Aktion war es, Künstlern, Unternehmern, Politikern, Wissenschaftlern und anderen führenden Persönlichkeiten aus der Kulturlandschaft Deutschlands, ein Forum für ihre Meinung zur aktuellen Debatte um die Abschaffung des Urheberrechts zu bieten.

Dr. Christoph Rückel, Seniorpartner und Mitbegründer von BridgehouseLaw, war eingeladen, neben Köpfen wie Maria Furtwängler, Renate Künast, Thomas Middlehoff und Bert Rürup, Stellung zu nehmen.

Die Meinung von Dr. Rückel zum Urheberrecht finden Sie hier.

(c) Picture:  freedigitalphotos.net

Dispute over Bratz Dolls Ownership Settled in Favor of MGA

In 2008, El-Segundo-based Mattel Inc., the world’s No. 1 toy maker and owner of the Barbie empire, sued Van-Nuys-based MGA Entertainment Inc., which became well-known when introducing big-headed, pouty dolls named Bratz in 2001, for copyright infringement.

The concept of Bratz was invented by Carter Bryant, a former employee at Mattel. Mattel argued that Bryant came up with the idea for the dolls during his second stint with the company in 1999, but violated his contract by sharing the idea with MGA. Bryant himself assures that he got the idea in 1998 while being on break from Mattel and staying with his parents in Missouri.

Back in 2008, a jury in Riverside, CA decided that Mattel was right in claiming copyright infringement and awarded the toy maker $100 million in damages. This decision was overturned in 2010 by a California appeals court. According to the appellate court, the lower-court judge had erred in ruling that Mattel was entitled to Bryant’s drawings as a matter of law due to the employment agreement it had with him.

The re-trial took place on April 21, 2011 in Santa Ana, CA. It involved the copyright claims as well as accusations from each company that the other one stole trade secrets.

The eight-person jury unanimously rejected Mattel’s claims regarding copyright infringement and ownership rights concerning the Bratz dolls early models or sketches. The jury found that MGA did not steal from Mattel but that Mattel had stolen 26 out of 114 proposed trade secrets from MGA and therefore awarded MGA $88.5 million in damages.

Both sides are set to be back in court at the end of next month. MGA’s lawyers will seek punitive damages of up to two times the amount of the $88.5-million award as well as attorney’s fees. Mattel lawyers, declaring that “this was not the last word in this case,” are expected to appeal the verdict.

Toy analysts, however, warn that both companies already suffered enough damages, in particular Mattel. Mattel spent about $400 million in legal fees on the case in the past seven years and is now sentenced to pay $88,5-million to its rival.

(c) Picture: www.bratz.com

Google verliert in Frankreich

Ein Urteil in Frankreich verbietet google books, Buecher von einem Verlagshaus im Internet einzustellen. Gut im Sinne von Copyright, schlecht, wer mal eben in Deutschland oder den USA mal schnell ein Franzoesischbuch sucht.