Entertainment Law Update Podcast #63 – Princetagrams, Google takin’ it to the banc, and more.

podcast-logo

The Latest episode of my Entertainment Law podcast, Entertainment Law Update, is now available for your enjoyment. Listen here, or subscribe and download in your favorite podcast listening app.

Show notes are located at http://entertainmentlawupdate.com/63

Here's what we talked about…

2 Responses to Entertainment Law Update Podcast #63 – Princetagrams, Google takin’ it to the banc, and more.

  1. The “Innocent of Muslims” film producer/s did not secure releases. Does the 9th Circuit’s en banc decision suggest that as long as producers are the ones affixing the work, actors’ releases are not required (but recommended)?! 🙂

    On a different point, this court of appeals relied, in good part, on the Copyright Office’s long-standing position of not registering an actor’s film performance, as a motion picture constitutes a single integrated work of authorship. Though not part of this case, I’m bothered when district courts try and second guess the Copyright Office’s expertise (e.g., Alaska Stock v. Houghton Mifflin).

    • The court’s position sounds similar to a lot of the law regarding copyright in photos. The author of a photo is likely the photographer, not the subject, because the photographer is usually in charge of all the creative decisions. To the court, Garcia was just the subject, the producers were the creative decision makers. That’s why they make the slippery slope argument that Lord of the Rings, Ben-Hur, etc. with thousands of extras would be vulnerable.

      But it’s still troubling. Release forms for extras aren’t foreign to production. And just when does an actor go from being a mere subject of the producer’s creativity to an actual creative contributor to the work?

There is no custom code to display.

Find us on Google+