An Associated Press story suggests that the days of free broadcast television may be numbered. According to the AP, revenues for broadcast TV have been dropping while cable TV revenues remain strong. The result is that the American broadcast networks — ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC — could simply find it much more profitable to go pay-TV cable and abandon the old system of providing free programming on stations that draw their revenue from selling commercial time.
The story acknowledges that such a move would take years because of the need to phase out all the affiliate contracts. But, besides, that there's another legal issue that would come to the forefront should the networks go cable and cease broadcasting over the public airwaves. Such a move would take them out from under the control of the Federal Communication Commission's regulations regarding what can and can't be shown on their networks.
The FCC has long been the guardian of the airwaves, which have been deemed to be a public resource that gives the federal government the right to step in and restrict certain content determined to be unfit for certain members of society. Take away the public airwaves and you take away the rationale for allowing the government to do that kind of policing.
Considering the plethora of commercials hyping it, you’ve probably heard that there’s a new Sherlock Holmes movie (appropriately titled Sherlock Holmes) coming out on Christmas day. Toss this one into the huge collection of film versions of the noted fictional detective. Was there ever a franchise more lucrative than Arthur Conan Doyle’s iconic sleuth? Just check out this web site if you’re curious how many different actors have played the role over the years.
But here’s a legal question concerning the famous Mr. Holmes. Was the character of Holmes copyrighted? The stories most definitely were, and my understanding is that, although the copyright has expired on most of Sir Arthur’s works (he died in 1930), at least one of his books is still protected under American copyright law. Still, that doesn’t answer the question of whether his most famous character was copyrighted.
Traditionally, you can’t copyright a character. You can only copyright the specific expression of that character’s participation in a creative work. But the courts have found some occasions where a character, itself, is so unique in appearance and traits as to be copyrightable in and of itself. Most often, those copyrightable characters tend to be cartoons and/or superheroes. Sherlock Holmes had extraordinary abilities, but he wasn’t Superman.
Still, as I perused the web in search of an answer, I found more than a couple of references to the ownership of the copyright to the character of, rather than the stories about, Sherlock Holmes. I don’t know if they’re accurate accounts. But I’d be curious to know if someone’s collecting a royalty check on just the title character in the new movie.
More than 120 years after first making his appearance, the master sleuth of Baker Street still provides a good mystery.
Apparently, there's talk around Broadway about taking the current Brooklyn Academy of Music production of Tennessee Williams' classic, A Streetcar Named Desire, featuring Cate Blanchett in the role of Blanche DuBois, and moving it across the East River to a Broadway theater.
Why should that raise a legal issue? Well, Actor's Equity (the actor union) has rules about the percentage of non-American actors it allows to traipse about the boards on a Broadway stage in any given show, and Ms. Blanchett's production features a cast of Australian actors from her Sydney Theater Company.
Yes, there are legal agreements about such things. And they're not just in the United States. Ask any professional actor how difficult it is for an American actor who's not an international household name to get permission to perform in London's West End.
Still, with these sort of things, money usually talks loudest. The show has reportedly been a big hit. So, if Ms. Blanchett's willing to do it again on Broadway, my guess is the legalities will someone get worked out.
With all the ruckus that's been made over the years about the so-called impossible-to-duplicate-in-real-life images of women that grace the magazines and billboards, I'm surprised this proposal didn't originate on this side of "the Pond."
There are legislators in the United Kingdom and France who have proposed that retouched ad photos be required by law to carry warning labels specifically spelling out that the image has been retouched. The rationale behind the proposals has nothing to do with truth in advertising. Rather, it's suggested that young girls should be told that the images featuring those gorgeous feminine creatures they envy, and that make them self conscious, wouldn't be quite so gorgeous if it weren't for the post-production magic that alters the photos.
Now the question is this...What if the photoshopping is used not to enhance the image of the women in the photos but, rather, to enhance the product? Does that still count?
A friend brought up a topic the other day. She said she heard about some law where an artist who sells a work for a relatively small amount of money early in her career can be entitled to a small percentage of the profits if that work is later sold again for a larger sum of money (presumably when the artist has garnered some fame and her work has increased in value). Did my friend hear right?
Yes, she did. It's a legal doctrine known as droit de suite. As you can probably guess from the name, it was originated in France some years ago, and it has been embraced by other European countries.
Here in the United States, though, only California has some form of droit de suite, and it applies only to art that's either sold in California or where the art seller lives there.