Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law

2007

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law

Issues Facing Legal Practitioners In Measuring Substantiality Of Contemporary Musical Expression, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 489 (2007), Alan Korn Jan 2007

Issues Facing Legal Practitioners In Measuring Substantiality Of Contemporary Musical Expression, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 489 (2007), Alan Korn

The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law

Modern composers of jazz, avant-garde, hip-hop and world music increasingly rely upon unconventional sounds and advances in recording technology to create new and innovative musical works. As one might expect, courts now face the difficult challenge of applying traditional copyright analysis to these contemporary works to determine whether they embody protectable expression. This article highlights some of the issues specific to innovative musical works and the split among the U.S. Circuit Courts in how to measure the substantiality of these works. Copyright practitioners and composers alike should be aware of these challenges in evaluating the extent of copyright protection ...


Will Youtube Sail Into The Dmca's Safe Harbor Or Sink For Internet Piracy?, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 550 (2007), Michael Driscoll Jan 2007

Will Youtube Sail Into The Dmca's Safe Harbor Or Sink For Internet Piracy?, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 550 (2007), Michael Driscoll

The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law

Is YouTube, the popular video sharing website, a new revolution in information sharing or a profitable clearing-house for unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material? YouTube’s critics claim that it falls within the latter category, in line with Napster and Grokster. This comment, however, determines that YouTube is fundamentally different from past infringers in that it complies with statutory provisions concerning the removal of copyrighted materials. Furthermore, YouTube’s central server architecture distinguishes it from peer-to-peer file sharing websites. This comment concludes that any comparison to Napster or Grokster issuperficial, and overlooks the potential benefits of YouTube to copyright