You can always count on the Super Bowl to provide some type of after-game brouhaha to give us something to talk about. And, as we all know, it isn't always the game, itself, that causes the fuss. (Can you say "wardrobe malfunction" or "racy commercial"?)
The newest source of post Bowl unrest comes from the band known as the White Stripes, which claims that the Airforce Reserve made unauthorized use of its song, "Fell in Love with a Girl," as part of a Super Bowl TV commercial. Apparently, the White Stripes isn't keen on having its music used for the purpose of recruiting enlistees. But, even if it doesn't mind, the band still has exclusive rights to such uses of its music, unless of course it gives permission for it to be used by others...which the band claims it did not.
The Air Force Reserve, on the other hand, is reported as having said it did not use "Fell in Love with a Girl" but, rather, used original music created for it by a company hired by its ad agency, and any similarity is -- as the well-worn saying goes -- purely coincidental.
I haven't yet heard anyone mention the word "lawsuit."
Just in case you were wondering whether the days of bleeping certain words on TV were over, this past Sunday's Grammy Awards telecast answered that. Microphones were cut off during the singing of various lyrics that CBS chose not to broadcast.
Apparently, the network's decision to censor some words has drawn some criticism. Artistic liberty...First Amendment rights...yadda yadda yadda. Yes, it's a legal quagmire just fraught with debatable issues. Unfortunately, for the artists and their fans, the peril of running afoul of the Federal Communications Commission and its ability to levy big fines looms ominously over the heads of TV networks, and an abundance of caution usually wins out.
Now, as we all know, networks have incorporated certain formerly banned words in prime time programming over the last couple of decades -- including some from commedian George Carlin's list of the seven filthy words he thought we'd never hear on TV. But usually those programs contain a preceding disclaimer that parental guidance is suggested.
Hey, maybe the network execs figure, considering the music, parents won't be watching the Grammys to offer that parental guidance.
The reclusive author of The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger, has died at age 91. The literary world bids farewell to one of the 20th century's most notable and eccentric writers.
Now we wait for the other shoe to drop.
The "shoe" to which I'm referring is the question over what is now to become of Mr. Salinger's long-coveted intellectual property. For years there have been rumors that he has written various stories that he locked away and wouldn't permit anyone to see -- let alone publish -- while he was alive. And then there were those who longed to turn Catcher, his iconic novel of a forlorn youth, into a movie. This, too, Mr. Salinger refused to allow while he was alive.
Well, now Mr. Salinger is no longer living and no longer here to guard the proverbial castle. And so opens a new chapter regarding his intellectual property...and what is to become of it.
As is always the case, our creations can outlive us for years. (Just ask Homer or Aristophanes.) But so, too, can copyright protection survive the mortals who created the intellectual properties it protects. Under current American law, copyright lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years. So Mr. Salinger's copyrights are still very much intact.
Whether allegedly hidden stories are suddenly sprung from the vault, or Catcher becomes the next big Hollywood film project, is something that will depend entirely on whoever is now in control of Mr. Salinger's intellectual property. Sometimes it falls directly to heirs or will beneficiaries. Sometimes control is devised to a person designated as a literary representative of the estate. Either way, it's a whole new chapter for the works of Mr. Salinger.
I was watching a TV program the other day. Its topic was the legal issues surrounding unathorized digital downloading of music. Included in the show were various "people on the street" interviews, and one of the questions that was posed to the people was whether they believed it was okay to make copies of music recordings to share with friends. One interviewee acknowledged the rights of those who own the copyrights on the music, but then he also talked of what he saw as a competing interest -- the right to share.
The right to share? Did someone sneak in a new amendment to the Constitution when I wasn't looking? Where does it say "Congress shall make no law abridging the people's right to share copyright infringing duplicates of intellectual property"?
In all fairness, I can't fault too much the young man who gave that comment about his perception of a right to share. Lots of people who ought to know better labor under the same notion that there's absolutely nothing wrong with making a copy to share with a friend. It's the kind of activity that's been going on so long that people often don't even stop to think about whether or not it's legal.
But just for the record...There's no such thing as a right to share that which you don't own. I can't, for example, share my next door neighbor's car with some other person. I don't own my next door neighbor's car and, as such, don't have the right to give someone else permission to borrow it, even if my neighbor sometimes lets me borrow it. The same holds true for music or other forms of intellectual property. Only the copyright holder has the legal authority to say who does and doesn't get a copy.
So, while "share and share alike" is a noble and courteous custom, it's not the law of copyright.
The state of Colorado has snuffed out onstage smoking in its live theaters, even when cigarettes are called for as part of the performance. According to a decision from a state appeals court, Colorado's ban on smoking inside public buildings extends even to the actors in a show. And, apparently, the ban also includes herbal substitutes sometimes utilized as stand-ins for genuine tobacco cigarettes.
As you might imagine, this has riled play houses as well as the Dramatists Guild who see this as an infringement on First Amendment rights. The argument is that smoking "in character" is a form of creative expression. The appeals court's rebuttal is that, in its opinion, smoking by itself isn't sufficiently expressive enough to merit the free speech protections of the First Amendment.
So I guess you can burn a flag on stage in Colorado as a First Amendment right so long a you don't roll it up and put it between your lips.