Law Commons^™

Cash From Chaos: Sound Recording Authorship, Section 203 Recapture Rights And A New Wave Of Termination, Hector Martinez

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

The thesis of this Article is that under an exclusive recording agreement entered into in the United States between a record label and recording artist on or after January 1, 1978, any key member of recording artist that signed the recording contract is a bona fide author of a sound recording for purposes of claiming standing in order to effectuate a termination of transfer of grant under Section 203 of the 1976 Copyright Act.

Part I will summarize the history of sound recordings as copyrightable subject matter. Part II will examine record industry custom and practice as it relates to …

Banksy Got Back? Problems With Chains Of Unauthorized Derivative Works And Arrangements In Cover Songs Under A Compulsory License, Matthew A. Eller

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

This Article will analyze the scope of copyright ownership in relation to chains of unauthorized derivative works and chains of arrangement rights in cover versions of musical recordings. In particular, the analysis will focus on the gray area in the law where an unauthorized derivative work (“D1”) is created by an author and another author creates a second derivative work (“D2”) based off of D1. In situations such as these, does the creator of the original derivative work have any rights in their creation if their derivative work was unauthorized?

Further, depending on what rights do exist for D1, can …

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum, Volume 4, Issue 2, Spring 2014

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

This issue of Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum includes articles on the modern legal issues & developments affecting fashion, the Internet, music, film, international sports, constitutional law & the lives of celebrities.

Slaves To Copyright: Branding Human Flesh As A Tangible Medium Of Expression, Arrielle Sophia Millstein

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

This Article argues why human flesh, because of its inherent properties and its necessity for human survival, should not qualify as a tangible medium of expression under the Copyright Act of 1976. Through policy concerns and property law this Article demonstrates why the fixation requirement, necessary to obtain copyright protection of a “work,” must be flexible and eliminate human flesh as an acceptable, tangible medium of expression, to avoid the disastrous risk of the court falling into the role of “21st Century judicial slave masters.”