British Singer-Songwriter Accused of Adding Copied Elements of Another Artist's Song

After dealing with two previous legal disputes on using parts of other's songs, the Grammy-winning Sheeran is now defending himself against charges that he included "melody, rhythms, harmonies, drums, bass line, backing chorus, tempo, syncopation and looping” from a Marvin Gaye 1970's tune in his song, "Thinking Out Loud" ("Ed Sheeran Sued Again Over ‘Thinking Out Loud’ — This Time for $100 Million," Variety, June 28, 2018). The other two copyright infringement incidents involved the songs "Photograph" and "The Rest of Our Life."

Discussion Questions:

1. Since there are only so many notes in the musical scale, do you think it's easy to copy someone else's work? Why or why not?
2. Do you think Sheeran's reputation with his fans will suffer from this negative publicity? Do you think fans will stop listening to his music if it seems he's not creating new music on his own? Why or why not?
3. Do you think other singers and songwriters will not want to work with him for fear he will use their work in his "compositions?" Why or why not?

Google Books Can Keep Scanning Copyrighted Titles

Google get to continue digitizing books, making sections of them available online for free ("Supreme Court Declines to Hear Google Books Case," PC Magazine, April 18, 2016). Lower court opinion stands that even though Google did not ask for authors' permission, it is not acting against copyright laws by scanning and uploading newer books, since it only provides a look at them instead of full access as it does for older titles in the public domain. Google called its service a "card catalog for the digital age," an valid application of fair use. The Authors Guild argued for creators' rights in this litigation.

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you use Google Books to find answers to research questions? Do you think your free use of copyrighted and public domain titles in Google Books is fair to the writers and publishers of that information? Why or why not?
2. Do you use Google Books to decide whether you want to purchase a book? Do you think Google Books promotes the interests of authors by making portions of their books available online for free? Why or why not?

Freely Available Art Work for Educational Use Encouraged by Artist's Foundation

Another sign of the power of the digital age is that free, non-commercial use of an artist's images is being promoted by his foundation to further understanding of his work ("Rauschenberg Foundation Eases Copyright Restrictions on Art," The New York Times, February 26, 2016). The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation wants a prospective user to request high-resolution images from them, so the best depiction of the artist's work is "on display" with correct attribution. This new practice of the allowing free use of the artist's images will cost the foundation "nearly half its image-rights income which has been slightly more than $100,000 a year." But foundation executives believe that the deceased artist himself would want to foster scholarship with this new policy.

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you applaud this foundation's new practice of promoting free use of Robert Rauschenberg's images for nonprofit use? Why or why not?
2. Do you think if other artists followed the Rauschenberg Foundation in making images available for free nonprofit/educational use, that they would lament the fact that they are losing income? Why or why not?
3. Do you think this action will make Rauschenberg's works more popular and in turn, encourage more for-profit use of his art?

50 Cent Not Guilty of Copyright Infringement

Although both works shared a Newark, NJ setting and some phrases, a federal court judge determined that 50 Cent did not plagiarize author Shadrach Winstead's book, The Preacher’s Son – But the Streets Have Turned Me Into a Gangster in the rapper's 2009 movie and album, Before I Self Destruct ("Judge Dismisses Copyright Case Against 50 Cent," Rolling Stone, 23 September 2011). In a related case, 50 Cent decided to revise the title of his new movie to avoid litigation from Nigerian author, Chinua Achebe who wrote a 1958 novel with a similar title. Interestingly, Achebe refused a significant offer to allow the rapper to use the same title as his novel, Things Fall Apart.

Discussion Questions:

1. The U.S. Copyright Office notes that you cannot copyright titles of works, but some may fall under trademark law. Do you think that the Nigerian author of novel, Things Fall Apart could argue that if the rapper used the same title for his movie, people would be confused and not buy the author's book? Why or why not?
2. Are you surprised that 50 Cent decided to change the name of his movie even though the author refused the sizable settlement to allow the rapper to use the same title? Why or why not?
3. Do you think famous performers usually win lawsuits on plagiarism against lesser-known authors? Why or why not?

LimeWire Slapped with $105 Billion Filesharing Fine

Thirteen music companies agreed to LimeWire's payment of $105 billion for "massive scale infringement" marking what seems to be the final chapter of the illegal filesharing service that closed in October 2010 (LimeWire Settles Filesharing Legal Battle for $105m, Guardian Newspaper (UK), 13 May 2011). In a field of peer-to-peer filesharing companies such as Grokster, Kazaa, and Napster, LimeWire was the last to fall for copyright infringement. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) claims that "U.S. recorded music sales fell to $7.7 billion in 2009 from $14.5 billion in 1999," due in large part to filesharing services like LimeWire.

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you think peer-to-peer filesharing services like LimeWire actually harmed music sales as the RIAA states? Or did filesharing actually serve to promote bands and singers, by getting their music to a large audience very easily?
2. Do you think other forms of entertainment like movies and video games actually cut into the profits of record companies? Where do you spend most of your entertainment dollars these days? Do you buy more video games than download music?
3. Do you think record companies give artists a fair share of revenues from music sales?
   

Orwell Titles Erased from Kindle Book Collections

When Amazon discovered that it was selling unlawful copies of George Orwell's electronic books, the company decided to remove the titles from its Kindle electronic readers even though users purchased what they thought were legitimate copies ("Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle," New York Times, July 17, 2009). Kindle users voiced their astonishment and anger at the removal of Orwell's 1984 (ironically a book about government control of information) and Animal Farm but noted that Amazon erased other purchased books in its Kindle collection before this occurrence. The article also states that Amazon doesn't seem to mention that they reserve the right to remove purchased titles from individual devices in its "terms of service agreement."

Discussion Questions:

1. The article notes that 1984 is out of copyright in countries such as Canada and Australia and electronic copies of the book are free. Does the global electronic marketplace make it difficult for authors and publishers to control access to their works? Since many people still like to read hard copy books, do you think freely available electronic book copies prevent an author from earning a great deal of money for their works?
   
2. Amazon did credit user accounts for the Orwell purchases, but the article mentions that other retailers cannot seize purchased items from consumers. How would you feel about a company seizing electronic materials from your home computer if there was a legal challenge to your right to own it? What long-term effects will this Orwell episode have on sales of Kindle readers?

Plagiarism Charge Hits Television Personality

An author of a celiac disease book accused television talk show co-host, Elisabeth Hasselbeck of plagiarism in a lawsuit filed June 22 ("'View' Co-Host Hasselbeck Accused of Plagiarism," New York Times report from an Associated Press story, June 23, 2009). Susan Hassett, author of Living with Celiac Disease sent Hasselbeck a copy of the book after the co-host of "The View" mentioned that she had the disease last year. Hasselbeck's book, The G-Free Diet: A Gluten-Free Survival Guide was published this year and Hassett cites "lists and passages" from her earlier book that have been found in the 2009 book. Also, incorrect information about celiac disease was included in Hasselbeck's book. Hassett's lawsuit aims to stop the sale of the latest book.

Discussion Questions:

1. Are celebrity authors unfairly targeted in plagiarism claims? Or do celebrity authors not possess sufficient expertise on a subject in many cases, so they feel the need to borrow freely from other authors without attribution?
2. Hassett mentions that Hasselbeck included "lists and passages" from the earlier book by Hassett. The United States Copyright Office at the Library of Congress notes what is not covered by copyright on page 3 of their Copyright Basics web page (PDF format). Unless the "lists" she mentions include added descriptions or explanations, they may not be protected under copyright. Do you think all information (including lists) in an author's work should be protected under copyright law? Why or why not?
3. Many popular books (in contrast to scholarly research studies) don't include lists of sources in the text of the book or in a bibliography at the end of the book. Should all books list sources used in preparation of that published work? Why or why not?
   

Obama's Transition Web Site Licensed to Creative Commons

The Obama Change.gov web site now permits viewers "to copy, distribute, display, and perform material from the site, as well as to remix it, as long as the work is attributed to its source" as reported in CNET News for December 1, 2008 ("Obama Team Changes Change.gov Copyright Policy"). The article notes that federal government sites are in most cases free of copyright use restrictions, so Change.gov is a bit different in that it requires attribution.

Discussion Questions:

1. Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig is quoted in the article saying, in effect, that crediting an information source is good practice. Why do you think he made that comment? Do you agree or disagree with his statement?
2. Did you know that material produced by the United States government can be freely used without copyright restrictions? In this age of budget deficits and economic woes, do you think it would be a good idea for the federal government to charge use fees on goverment information? Why or why not?

Rowling Victory in Copyright Case

Author J.K. Rowling prevailed in her case against a Harry Potter fan who wanted to publish a lexicon that added no original content to large portions of Ms. Rowling's work according to a BBC News story published September 8, 2008 ("Rowling Wins Book Copyright Claim"). Steven Vander Ark compiled his reference book primarily with Rowling's text from the Potter series. Rowling said this ruling champions the right of authors to control their creative material. Rowling herself planned to write a Potter encyclopedia with profits going to charity. Fair use allows for limited reuse of a creator's work providing that there is "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" added to the original content, based on the U.S Copyright Office's explanation of the practice. After the judge's decision, Rowling made a statement that seemingly supports the right of others to develop works "which offer original insights into the world of Harry Potter." However, she agreed that the lexicon did not include such unique material and that it should be considered "wholesale theft."

Discussion Questions:

1. If someone can rework pieces of her writing into another type of work, why shouldn't they be allowed to make a fraction of what Rowling earns?
2. Does "fair use" encourage a free flow of ideas based on another creator's work? Why or why not? NOTE: Review fair use details at the U.S. Copyright Office link above.
   

Prince's Music in YouTube Video Ruled as Fair Use

The San Francisco Chronicle's August 21, 2008 issue reports that "small and innocuous" use of music clips doesn't warrant a demand by copyright owners to remove a video from the Internet (Woman Can Sue over YouTube Clip De-Posting). U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, CA made this ruling, seen as a major victory for what is considered fair use (see explanation of fair use at the U.S. Copyright Office) of copyrighted material. Federal law from 1998 allows copyright holders to order a "takedown" of unauthorized Internet material without substantiating infringement or filing suit. However, this latest ruling comes after a woman posted a 29-second video of her son dancing to Prince's song, "Let's Go Crazy" and Universal Music Corp. required that YouTube delete it and others using Prince's works.

Discussion Questions:

1. In your opinion, does the use of a particular piece of music in YouTube videos hurt or help the artist that created that music?
2. If a YouTube video gives credit to the original performer like Prince, should it be okay to use his music? Why or why not?
3. If a YouTube video is made "just for fun" and not for commercial purposes, is it okay to use copyrighted music in the video? Why or why not?

Website Encourages Donation of Old Exams

On June 10, Inside Higher Ed reported that representatives of PostYourTest.com, encouraged University of California at San Diego (UCSD) students to donate "used" exams in return for a Starbucks $5 gift card. The website creator aims to make tests available to "level the playing field" according to the article, so everyone and not the privileged few, has access to the information. Professors can add their name to a "ban list" if they prefer not to give universal rights to student donations of their tests. The issues of unauthorized access to testing material and not securing professors' permission to their intellectual property (i.e., test questions) angers faculty members at UCSD. But professors beyond UCSD may feel the same way if the web site creator follows through with his intention to add other schools to his site.

Discussion Questions:

1. Does a student have the right to give a test to a website so others can use it?
2. Is it fair to students and professors to post tests online so they can be viewed by anyone?
3. Should professors rewrite tests every semester so studying old tests online doesn't give an unfair advantage to students who know about the website?