Let there be dancing in the streets...just not at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial.
A group of people were arrested last weekend for dancing in the famed Washington, D.C., landmark. Officially, they were hauled in for conducting a public demonstration at the Jefferson Memorial without a permit. It didn't take long after the dancing began for the Park Police to "cut in," so to speak.
Check out the video at YouTube, and you be the judge.
If you're planning on seeing the new movie, The Hangover 2 -- which I must admit I'm not -- there's apparently a scene in which a character wakes up from a drunken stupor to discover he has a tattoo on his face. If the tattoo looks familiar, it might be because it resembles the one prize fighter Mike Tyson has on his own face in real life. And guess what? The tattoo artist who created Mr. Tyson's tattoo is suing the movie's producers for copyright infringement on the design.
According to a story in the Wrap, the artist, S. Victor Whitmill, has scored at least a partial victory because, while the judge refused his motion for an injunction to prevent the film's distribution, the judge also suggested that Mr. Whitmill's claims seem strong.
And why shouldn't a tattoo have the same copyright protections as any other graphic creation? You can argue the artistic merits of certain visual works -- whether they be applied to canvas, paper, or even skin. But that doesn't mean they don't fall under the protective realm of copyright laws.
Yes, copyright law is supposed to benefit society by encouraging people to create works of artistic merit that then enrich the world through their distribution. But sometimes the results of copyright can be the exact opposite of that intended goal. Case in point, there's a newly discovered collection of recordings made of live performances of the swing era that includes many jazz greats performing the longer works that wouldn't have fit on the 78 RPM record discs of the time. Following the owner's death, the collection came into the hands of the National Jazz Museum of Harlem.
"Hooray!" you jazz fans exclaim. "Now we'll get to hear these recordings once they're released to the public."
But not so fast. Apparently, the museum isn't planning on releasing them. That's not because it wouldn't like to do that. It's because tracking down the music's copyright owners and securing all the necessary permissions to release these decades-old recordings could prove a colossal task for the museum, and one it's not prepared to undertake.
You can learn more by reading the article in the American Bar Association's ABA Journal. And, just as intriguing to me... If you want a good example of just how complicated copyright law can get, check out the legal debate in the comments at the end of the article.
Sometimes a song just says it all...whether you're in love, feeling blue, or filing a legal brief.
Yes, quoting song lyrics has long been a practice in the legal profession, where sometimes lawyers or judges just feel the need to spice up otherwise dry filings or opinions with a familiar refrain from popular music. And, as it turns out, Bob Dylan is the music writer of choice much of the time.
According to a Los Angeles Times story, a University of Texas professor did a content analysis in legal databases in 2007 and found that the music of Mr. Dylan, the author of such tunes as "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are A-Changin'," was quoted 186 times, far outpacing the second place finishers, the Beatles.
Okay, ya gotta love this one...
You know that tune they play at sports events when they want the crowd to chear on the home team by yelling "CHARGE!"? It kind of goes: "Da-da-da-DUT, da-daaaaaah." (And this is where everyone's suppose to yell "charge.") Well there's a man in Florida who claims he wrote that melody about 30 years ago and owns the copyright on it. What's more, he's suing for what he says are the monetary compensations he never received.
Bobby Kent filed the suit in Florida, claiming that he wrote the well-known ditty as part of a larger piece of music he titled Stadium Doodads. According to news reports, it first got played at San Diego Chargers games while Mr. Kent was in charge of the music there. He says other teams picked it up, but no one ever asked his permission or paid him for the use. So now he's suing ASCAP, and he's demanding of every professional sports team that they pay him $3,000 per year for the tune's use at their games. According to reports, so far only the Los Angeles Lakers have paid up.
One notable wrinkle in Mr. Kent's claim of authorship is that there seems to be some evidence that the same combination of six notes was penned some years earlier by Tommy Walker, a student at the University of Southern California, where they claim to have been playing the "charge" theme since the 1950s.
Mr. Kent lays claim to a registered copyright on his song. So perhaps the real legal issue is: Are the sports teams playing Mr. Kent's "da-da-das" or Mr. Walker's "da-da-das"?