Podcast appearances and mentions of Campbell V Acuff

Audio of the 1994 opinion of the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Nearly sixty years later after it was first released, the opening bass riff in Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" is recognizable to even the youngest generation of Americans, otherwise the rap group 2 Live Crew would have never created a parody of it in 1989 - that parody was 2 Live Crew's song Pretty Woman. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., copyright holders of the original song, sued 2 Live Crew and their record company claiming "Pretty Woman" by 2 Live Crew infringed upon Acuff-Rose's copyright. While the District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair. The question before the Supreme Court was whether 2 Live Crew's commercial parody of the original song by Roy Orbison could be a fair use within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976. In a unanimous opinion, the Court said yes.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.   Music by Epidemic Sound.

When leaks of major plot points, screenshots, and cinematic cut-scenes from the much anticipated Sony/Naughty Dog exclusive "Last of Us Part II" started being disseminated early there could be little doubt that Sony would take some kind of drastic legal action, but... Wait...that's not right. I meant when early, legitimate, copies of Cyberpunk 2077, pressed by CDPR and sold to retailers were distributed to consumers early... My bad. But what's old is new again, as CD Projekt Red appears to be taking the Sony path of scorching the intellectual property earth, whether or not they have the law behind them. Time to talk about copyright law, fair use, the unprotectability of ideas and concepts, and the DMCA...again. Let's dive in. CDPR may well be the new Sony...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/e809pzNpkr4 #Cyberpunk #CDPR #DMCA *** Discussed in this episode: "Cyberpunk v Early Streamers: A Legal (Cyborg) Leg to Stand On? (VL364)" YouTube Video - December 3, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://youtu.be/DAzNMFfUb4w "Here's what you need to know..." Tweet - December 2, 2020 - Cyberpunk 2077 (@CyberpunkGame) https://twitter.com/CyberpunkGame/status/1334199901593464832 CDPR Video Policy https://cdprojektred.com/en/videopolicy "CD PROJEKT RED User Agreement" Updated April 25, 2018 https://regulations.cdprojektred.com/en/user_agreement/ "CD Projekt Red has asked me to tweet that they did not give me my copy of Cyberpunk 2077" Tweet - December 5, 2020 - @DreamcastGuy https://twitter.com/DreamcastGuy/status/1335323777677348866 "CD Projekt Red just removed my Cyberpunk 2077 video" Tweet - December 6, 2020 - @DreamcastGuy https://twitter.com/DreamcastGuy/status/1335629923101315074 "Legally I have been told I cannot speak about Cyberpunk 2077 until Wednesday" Tweet - December 6, 2020 - @DreamcastGuy https://twitter.com/DreamcastGuy/status/1335642785060417540 "If this is in fact an accurate description of the video..." Tweet - December 6, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://twitter.com/HoegLaw/status/1335643643009445889 "Last of Us Leak Legalities" YouTube Playlist - Hoeg Law https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-ULKii2yP9AY-Emo1_G8xN International Copyright Relations Copyright Office Circular https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf "Subject matter of copyright: In general" 17 USC 102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 "Exclusive rights in copyrighted works" 17 USC 106 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use" 17 USC 107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 569 (1994) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/510/569/ "What Does Copyright Protect?" Copyright Office FAQ https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html "Limitations on liability relating to material online" 17 USC 512 (DMCA) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com STORE: https://teespring.com/stores/hoeg-law-store

2 Live Crew was a successful rap group, hitting its stride in the 80s and 90s. On their 1989 album, As Clean as They Wanna Be, 2 Live Crew parodied Roy Orbison's famous song, "Oh Pretty Woman." Besides skewering its lyrics, 2 Live Crew appropriated large swaths of "Oh Pretty Woman"'s musical composition. Was that allowed under Copyright Law? The Supreme Court said "yes" in a 1994 case, concretizing the Fair Use Defense for copyright infringement and holding that certain transformative applications of copyrighted material were allowed under the law. We spoke to Mr. Bruce Rogow who litigated the case for Luther Campbell, 2 Live Crew's lead singer. Mr. Rogow has more than 55 years' experience in litigation and has taught courses at the University of Miami and Nova Southeastern University Law Schools. Mr. Rogow shared with us his passion for copyright law, the story behind this fascinating case, and his indispensable advice for young law students. Here's a link to the case: https://casetext.com/case/campbell-v-acuff-rose-music-inc Correction: The podcast lists the album with the "Oh Pretty Woman" parody as As Nasty as They Wanna Be. In truth, the album with "Oh Pretty Woman" was 2 Live Crew's next album, As Clean as They Wanna Be Thank you for listening!

All about art law! I begin the episode by discussing some intellectual property issues that artists may encounter and I analyze the famous copyright lawsuit involving the song "Oh, Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison and the 2 Live Crew parody song "Pretty Woman" (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). Then I conduct my legal analysis of the various lawsuits that artist Jeff Koons faced. I end the episode by updating some outstanding lawsuits that I had discussed in previous episodes of this podcast series. This is the last episode of Season 1- stay tuned for Season 2 after Labor Day 2020- Thank you so much for listening! Episode Notes: 1. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) 2. Rogers v. Koons,. 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992) 3. United Feature Syndicate v. Koons,. 817 F. Supp. 370 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)

Today's episode features hip-hop icon and long-time family friend, Luther Campbell aka Uncle Luke. Luke is a successful entrepreneur, record executive, producer, football coach, and Miami-based community and political activist. He put our hometown on the musical map by pioneering “Miami bass” rap in late ’80s. Incredibly intelligent, well-read, and unassumingly politically connected, his raw, refreshingly authentic, and hilarious personality and commentary keeps your jaw dropped while forcing you to challenge popular opinion and the status quo. Luke, best known for being the former leader of rap group 2 Live Crew, was party to Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., which was argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, he has been described as "the man whose booty-shaking madness once made the U.S. Supreme Court stand up for free speech". Next year, 2020, will make 30 years since 2 Live Crew made history by birthing the black and white "Parental Advisory" warning label. Tune in as we discuss 2020 and why it's so crucial to actively involve yourself in our political process, his take on the evolution of music and hip hop, efforts to avoid tainting young kids' minds with today's polluted environment, whether he'll run for political office again, what's next for the show Warriors of Liberty City on Starz, and much much more!

Today we tackle the subject of fan art. We discuss what it is, what it isn't, whether or not you should do it, and the legality of it. We definitely are of three minds on this one so get ready for some arguing! Legal statement: Will, Jake, and Lee are not lawyers and this is not legal advice. However, they have experience, thoughts and options on the topic of fan art. If you are looking for real legal counsel, speak to a lawyer that specializes with Intellectual Property (IP). What is fan art? [3:00] Jake’s definition: Any drawing or illustration by a fan of a character or IP that is owned by another company or person. What if someone did fan art and it become successful and gets traction on a social media platform i.e. Reddit? Give credit where credit towards that artist or to whoever owns the IP. In reality the fan art topic is more directed towards taking IPs that have great popularity already. There are these massive IPs like Marvel, DC Comics, Doctor Who, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc. There are lots of people at conventions and online who are selling prints and merchandise using these IPs. So the question is, “should you do fan art of these IPs?” and “should you sell it?” Fan art comes in 4 Categories: [10:50] Derivative Work: something that you draw which is pretty much based on the character, your version of the character. The character in your style. Parody: focused on the humor aspect, doing something funny with the character, needs Plagiarism: creating a copy, or using actual artwork and reprinting it (reprint on paper or a t-shirt) Transformative Work: take something that was created and transforming it into something new. i.e. A book review, a drawing of something that hasn't been visualized What is the actual legality of it? Where is the line? [13:28] Hard Line: if you don’t own the character, you need to be careful with the IP. It is illegal. Grey Line: If the company or person who owns the character will care, prosecute, or send a cease and desist. Jake’s thoughts [14:00] If you have a piece of original art, that you created, on a physical piece of paper, you can sell it. That piece is a one-off the original. However, prints and t-shirts become more grey area. You have created a derivative that the company hasn’t created. Ultimately, using another IP but if it became a parody in some way than it is in a “safer” zone i.e. SNL, parody, t-shirt or print. If it has a strong point of view or a strong stylistic design, that couldn’t be mistaken for a licensed work then it’s a better situation to be in BUT best practice is to contact the copyright owner and ask for permission or to buy a license for the IP you want to use. Sometimes larger companies are hard to get ahold of and request legal use of the IP. It is not in the companies economic interest to pursue legal action such as Jake Parker’s Iron Giant prints. Jake Parker Iron Giant Print It is hard to say what is going to happen if you do fan art. There are instances that artist received cease and desist and there are also instances where the owner of the IP likes the fan art and wants to purchase the IP for it. Lee’s thoughts: [18:03] It is very clear who owns the IP of certain art. The grey line starts to work against you once dollars start to get involved- if you start to actually make money off of the art that could go against you. If you just gave away your art it wouldn't be an issue. Lee clarifies Transformative art- There was a case where a photograph was used to created a sculpture (that was very close) and this case was not deemed illegal for the photography. Fan art opens up problems and developing the mindset “I can grab what I want to”. Limits the artist and builds false notoriety and is illegal. The question is whether you will be prosecuted or not. And ultimately, if it’s not a parody it is illegal. Another point to look at is: how much of the project or work is under a copyright? If you take out the copyright work, how much of your project is left over? Does the art still stand if the copied images are taken out. Example: Jake's sketchbooks. Jake Parker’s art books WIll’s thoughts: [22:58] There are forms of fan art that art legal and it depends on the degree in which you recreate the IP. Some fan art is definitely not original and  pure plagiarism but there are IPs that have been exaggerated and are protected under law. Dominic Glover (started illegitimate and became legitimate) Totally Legal Fanart video Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.- Parody in a court of law recreating “Pretty woman walking down the street”. Campbell won because they were appealing to different audiences. Wills 5 degrees of fanart [32:00] (From bad to good) A pure copy Copy reference but they change the style i.e. watercolor- Rendering has changed Come up with New original pose, and in your own Your own pose, style, and add a concept or something completely different i.e. Will creates known characters into children Completely original pose, style, environment, and genre. Every single thing has changed. Why not create you own thing? [36:00] Will- It’s rewarding aspect to recreated two ideas but there are pitfalls if not careful. Sometimes artist become reliant on fan art. Do it for the right reasons. You can ask- Do i do it for the love or doing it for financial gain? Jed Henry is an example of creating “level 5” fanart. It is original and merges the IP and Henry’s style and vision. Jed Henry’s Ukiyo-e Heroes Could someone young make fanart and avoid these pitfalls? [45:30] Often times fan art is done for economical reasons and to gain tractions. However, young artists need to be mindful. Don’t lean on fanart. Doing fanart allows for great exposure but shouldn’t be that bulk of your work. Fanart can also be an interesting exercise as an artist to grow and learn. Consider WIll’s 5 step evaluations. How much did you change it? Are you selling it? How close to the line are you? The closer you get to the line, the more you are going across the ethical and legal boundary. Do the fanart to learn, get exposure and sometimes to get work but don’t let it be you main thing. Maybe for every fanart piece you do, do 5 original personal pieces. Don’t sell you soul to fan art. Jake found another artist’s list that puts your fanart at risk [51:00] Kirawara Fan Art Risk List: Used original logo Makes it tasteless, sexual, or slanderous Little or no difference Does not have a parody or influence of parody If you sell a high number of prints or commission If it caters to the same market as the copyright owner i.e. Marvel prints don’t exist As an official (career) Marvel artist, you can sell prints and consider them official Marvel art prints. It helps to supplement those artists income. Other artist eat into this market- a thing to consider. Another “pro” fan art point [55:00] In the end, it’s still illegal, but it help keeps the popularity of the IP alive. Whether or not you get in trouble for it is entirely up to the IP owner. LINKS svslearn.com Jake Parker, http://mrjakeparker.com. Instagram: @jakeparker, Youtube: JakeParker44 Will Terry, http://willterry.com. Instagram: @willterryart, Youtube: WillTerryArt Lee White, http://leewhiteillustration.com. Instagram: @leewhiteillo forum.svslearn.com Podcast production and editing by Aaron Dowd. Show notes by Tanner Garlick.

With Charles Barzun, we discuss Justice Souter and the nature of legal justification. But we take the long way around to get there, starting with some of Souter’s opinions, moving on to philosophy – the nature of moral reasoning and its relation to fact and intuition – and then back to legal theory and Charles’s insight concerning Justice Souter’s jurisprudence. This show’s links: Charles Barzun’s faculty profile (https://content.law.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/clb6x/1144315) and writing (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=546584) Charles Barzun, Justice Souter’s Common Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3035402) Justice Souter’s discussion of Plessy and the role of history in judging (http://www.c-span.org/video/?284498-2/america-courts) (watch from minute one until about minute fourteen) and his Harvard Commencement speech (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/) on Plessy Some Souter opinions Joe loves: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16686162998040575773), Markman v. Westview Instruments (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5582995013670943601), and California Dental Assoc. v. Federal Trade Commission (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8595505836313744277) Old Chief v. United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2711105174348004240); Oyez’s Old Chief page, including links to the oral argument and hand-down (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-6556) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994); Oyez’s Casey page, including links to the oral argument and hand-down (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744) John Burnett, Border Patrol Arrests Parents While Infant Awaits Serious Operation (http://www.npr.org/2017/09/20/552339976/border-patrol-arrests-parents-while-infant-awaits-serious-operation) Noah Feldman’s Constitution Day interview of Justice Souter (https://www.c-span.org/video/?288993-2/former-justice-souter-constitution) Special Guest: Charles Barzun.