Comments on: Um, No, It Doesn’t http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/12/um-no-it-doesnt/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:34:24 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Tim Armstrong http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/12/um-no-it-doesnt/comment-page-1/#comment-192 Tim Armstrong Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:53:12 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/12/um-no-it-doesnt/#comment-192 Thanks, Bill; that certainly sounds more plausible. I wish it was only news reporting on copyright-related stories that often gets the basics of the law wrong, but of course we've both read any number of fuzzy-headed news reports in other areas that don't jibe with what we know to be the case. (Makes me wonder how much erroneous information I'm absorbing in areas about which I don't know enough to read with a truly critical eye...). Thanks, Bill; that certainly sounds more plausible. I wish it was only news reporting on copyright-related stories that often gets the basics of the law wrong, but of course we’ve both read any number of fuzzy-headed news reports in other areas that don’t jibe with what we know to be the case. (Makes me wonder how much erroneous information I’m absorbing in areas about which I don’t know enough to read with a truly critical eye…).

]]> By: William McGeveran http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/12/um-no-it-doesnt/comment-page-1/#comment-191 William McGeveran Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:12:41 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/06/12/um-no-it-doesnt/#comment-191 I agree that it's at best a fuzzy statement of the law -- unfortunately, not uncommon in reporting on copyright. And the AP story that CNN ran and that you linked to is everywhere. The <em>Lowell Sun</em> ran its <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lowellsun.com/front/ci_3918685">own story</a> on the same issue. This is what the <em>Sun </em>said: <blockquote>According to the complaint, the Standells were subject to a collective bargaining agreement between the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and advertisers. Under that agreement, advertisers are prohibited from using any portion of any sound recording subject to the AFTRA agreement "without separately bargaining with the principal performer and reaching an agreement regarding such use prior to any utilization of such sound track." The agreement also allows artists to sue in court if they don't receive advance consent from an advertiser that uses their copyrighted material. The advertiser also must pay fees to the record label and music publisher.</blockquote> So it looks like it's contract, not copyright, that allegedly prevents the use. <blockquote cite="According to the complaint, the Standells were subject to a collective bargaining agreement between the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and advertisers. Under that agreement, advertisers are prohibited from using any portion of any sound recording subject to the AFTRA agreement 'without separately bargaining with the principal performer and reaching an agreement regarding such use prior to any utilization of such sound track.' The agreement also allows artists to sue in court if they don't receive advance consent from an advertiser that uses their copyrighted material. The advertiser also must pay fees to the record label and music publisher."></blockquote> I agree that it’s at best a fuzzy statement of the law — unfortunately, not uncommon in reporting on copyright. And the AP story that CNN ran and that you linked to is everywhere.

The Lowell Sun ran its own story on the same issue. This is what the Sun said:

According to the complaint, the Standells were subject to a collective bargaining agreement between the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and advertisers.

Under that agreement, advertisers are prohibited from using any portion of any sound recording subject to the AFTRA agreement “without separately bargaining with the principal performer and reaching an agreement regarding such use prior to any utilization of such sound track.”

The agreement also allows artists to sue in court if they don’t receive advance consent from an advertiser that uses their copyrighted material. The advertiser also must pay fees to the record label and music publisher.

So it looks like it’s contract, not copyright, that allegedly prevents the use.

]]>