Non-Fiction Books:

Music Copyright

Click to share your rating 0 ratings (0.0/5.0 average) Thanks for your vote!

Format:

Paperback / softback
$88.99 was $105.99
Available from supplier

The item is brand new and in-stock with one of our preferred suppliers. The item will ship from a Mighty Ape warehouse within the timeframe shown.

Usually ships in 3-4 weeks

Buy Now, Pay Later with:

Afterpay is available on orders $100 to $2000 Learn more

Availability

Delivering to:

Estimated arrival:

  • Around 28 Jun - 10 Jul using International Courier

Description

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues surrounding copyright in musical works. * * * In order to prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show "(1) that he owns a valid copyright in his [work], and (2) that [the defendants] copied protected aspects of the [work's] expression." See Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 345, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991)). * * * Whether [a d]efendant[] copied protected expression contains two separate and distinct components: "copying" and "unlawful appropriation." Rentmeester, 883 F.3d at 1117. A plaintiff must be able to demonstrate that a defendant copied his work, as independent creation is a complete defense to copyright infringement. See Feist Publ'ns, 499 U.S. at 345-46, 111 S.Ct. 1282; see also Rentmeester, 883 F.3d at 1117. In cases [ ] where there is no direct evidence of copying, the plaintiff "can attempt to prove it circumstantially by showing that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that the two works share similarities probative of copying." Rentmeester, 883 F.3d at 1117. "When a high degree of access is shown," a lower amount of similarity is needed to prove copying. Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). "To prove copying, the similarities between the two works need not be extensive, and they need not involve protected elements of the plaintiff's work. They just need to be similarities one would not expect to arise if the two works had been created independently." Rentmeester, 883 F.3d at 1117. * * * To prove "unlawful appropriation" a higher showing of substantial similarity is needed. Id. The works must share substantial similarities and those similarities must involve parts of the plaintiff's work that are original and therefore protected by copyright. Id. To determine whether an allegedly infringing work is substantially similar to the original work, we employ the extrinsic and intrinsic tests. The extrinsic test is an objective comparison of protected areas of a work. This is accomplished by "breaking the works down into their constituent elements, and comparing those elements" to determine whether they are substantially similar. Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2004). Only elements that are protected by copyright are compared under the extrinsic test. Id. The intrinsic test is concerned with a subjective comparison of the works, as it asks "whether the ordinary, reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar." Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Skidmore v. Zeppelin, 905 F. 3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2018)
Release date Australia
May 13th, 2019
Pages
532
Audience
  • General (US: Trade)
Dimensions
152x229x27
ISBN-13
9781097613588
Product ID
30612293

Customer reviews

Nobody has reviewed this product yet. You could be the first!

Write a Review

Marketplace listings

There are no Marketplace listings available for this product currently.
Already own it? Create a free listing and pay just 9% commission when it sells!

Sell Yours Here

Help & options

Filed under...