DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyright Law Halpern 3E 00 Fmt Toc Flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page Ii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Copyright Law Halpern 3E 00 Fmt Toc Flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page Ii halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page i Copyright Law halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page ii Carolina Academic Press Law Advisory Board k Gary J. Simson, Chairman Mercer University School of Law Raj Bhala University of Kansas School of Law Davison M. Douglas Dean, Marshall-Wythe School of Law College of William and Mary Paul Finkelman Albany Law School Robert M. Jarvis Shepard Broad College of Law Nova Southeastern University Linda Jellum Mercer University School of Law Vincent R. Johnson St. Mary’s University School of Law Peter Nicolas University of Washington School of Law Michael A. Olivas University of Houston Law Center Kenneth L. Port William Mitchell College of Law H. Jefferson Powell Duke University School of Law Suzanne Rowe University of Oregon School of Law Michael P. Scharf Case Western Reserve University School of Law Michael Hunter Schwartz Dean, William H. Bowen School of Law University of Arkansas at Little Rock Peter M. Shane Michael E. Moritz College of Law The Ohio State University halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page iii Copyright Law Protection of Original Expression Third Edition Sheldon W. Halpern C. William O’Neill Professor of Law and Judicial Administration, Emeritus The Michael E. Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page iv Copyright © 2016 Sheldon W. Halpern All Rights Reserved ISBN: 978-1-61163-465-5 LCCN: 2015939946 Carolina Academic Press, LLC 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page v For Dorit, Part — the best part — of all that I am and all that I do halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page vi halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page vii Summary of Contents Contents ix Table of Cases xix Chapter 1 · Introduction — Copyright: The Intangible Interest in Tangible Expression 3 1.1. Copyright and “Intellectual Property” 3 1.2. The Intangible Interest and Social Good 4 1.3. Constitutional Compromise: The Copyright Act 5 1.4. The Copyright Act and Technological Change 15 1.5. Globalization and Harmonization 17 Chapter 2 · Copyrightability: Fixation of Original Expression 31 2.1. The Subject Matter of Copyright — Originality 31 2.2. The Subject Matter of Copyright — Authorship 39 2.3. The Subject Matter of Copyright — Expression 68 2.4. The Subject Matter of Copyright: “Fixed” Works 209 Chapter 3 · Copyrights: The Divisible, Exclusive Rights of a Copyright Owner 233 3.1. The Bundle of Separate Rights 233 3.2. The “Quasi Copyrights” of the DMCA 391 3.3 Copyright Ownership and Transfer 426 3.4. Duration of Copyright 516 Chapter 4 · Infringement: Substantive Analysis 539 4.1. Actionable Copying: “Substantial Similarity” 539 4.2. Actionable Copying: Access 597 4.3. Non- Infringing Copying: Fair Use 613 Chapter 5 · Infringement: Procedural Analysis 751 5.1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 751 5.2. Sovereign Immunity 770 5.3. Federal Preemption of State Law Claims 775 5.4. Personal Jurisdiction, Venue, and Standing 813 5.5. The Defense of Copyright Misuse 818 Chapter 6 · Remedies and the Ambit of Liability 821 6.1. Vicarious and Contributory Infringement 821 6.2. Remedies 881 6.3. Criminal Liability 916 Index 925 vii halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page viii halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page ix Contents Table of Cases xix Chapter 1 · Introduction — Copyright: The Intangible Interest in Tangible Expression 3 1.1. Copyright and “Intellectual Property” 3 1.2. The Intangible Interest and Social Good 4 1.3. Constitutional Compromise: The Copyright Act 5 A. The Grant of Power 5 B. Congressional Implementation: The Copyright Act of 1976 6 1. A Unitary Federal Scheme 6 2. Protection of Fixed “Expression,” and Not “Ideas” 6 3. The Bundle of Discrete Rights of a Copyright Owner 7 4. The Limitations on the Copyright Interests 8 a. The Specifically Enumerated Limitations 8 b. The Broad Fair Use Limitation 9 Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Company 9 1.4. The Copyright Act and Technological Change 15 A. Contemplation of and Accommodation to Technological Change 15 B. The Practical and Ethical Impact of Digital Technology 15 1.5. Globalization and Harmonization 17 A. Treaties and Other International Agreements 18 1. National Treatment 18 2. Harmonization: Minimal Substantive Standards 18 B. Copyright Law and Culture 19 C. Constitutional Constraints on Harmonization 19 Golan v. Holder 20 Chapter 2 · Copyrightability: Fixation of Original Expression 31 2.1. The Subject Matter of Copyright — Originality 31 A. The Originality/Creativity Threshold 31 1. Originality as a Constitutional Requirement 31 2. The Low Creativity Threshold 33 Atari Games Corporation v. Oman 33 B. The “NonDiscrimination” Principle 35 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. 35 Notes 37 2.2. The Subject Matter of Copyright — Authorship 39 A. “Authors” and “Writings” 39 Burrow- Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony 39 1. Authorship 42 ix halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page x x CONTENTS 2. “Writings” 43 3. Photographs and Audiovisual Works as Copyrightable Writings 45 Ets- Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. 46 Mendler v. Winterland Productions, Ltd. 50 B. “Copying a Copy”: Authorship of Derivative Works 54 1. Re-Creation of the “Original” 55 Gross v. Seligman 55 Notes 56 2. Originality and Derivative Works: Trivial — and Other — Variations 57 L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder 58 Notes 59 3. The Impact of Technology on Derivative Works: “Slavish” Copying 61 The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corporation 61 Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. 63 2.3. The Subject Matter of Copyright — Expression 68 A. Generally, the Idea/Expression Continuum 68 Baker v. Selden 68 Mattel, Inc. v. Goldberger Doll Manufacturing Co. 70 Blehm v. Jacobs 75 Note: The Need to Separate “Idea” from “Expression” 83 B. Unprotectable “Facts” and Protectable Original Compilations 85 1. Generally 85 Assessment Technologies of Wisconsin, Llc. v. Wiredata, Inc. 85 2. Compilations 89 Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc. 89 Notes 93 3. “Originality” in Compilations 95 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. 96 Notes: The Impact of Feist on Compilations 102 Kregos v. Associated Press 103 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. v. West Publishing Co. 106 Notes 113 BUC International Corp. v. International Yacht Council Ltd. 114 4. “Original Selection and Arrangement”: “Selection” and Data Protection 120 CCC Information Services, Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports, Inc. 120 Notes 124 C. Factual and Functional Works 124 1. Generally 124 2. Factual and Historical Works 127 Nash v. CBS, Inc. 127 Notes 130 3. Computer Software 131 a. A Computer Program as a “Literary Work” 131 b. Protection of the “Code” Itself 131 Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components 132 c. Protectability of the Nonliteral, Structural Elements of a Program 141 d. “Look and Feel” 145 D. Merger and Scènes à Faire: “Expression” as “Idea” 148 halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page xi CONTENTS xi 1. Merger of Idea and Expression 148 Kregos v. Associated Press 149 BUC International Corp. v. International Yacht Council Ltd . 152 Notes 153 2. Merger: The “Copyrightability” and “Infringement” Models 154 3. Scènes à Faire 156 Reyher v. Children’s Television Workshop 157 Notes 159 E. Utilitarian Works 160 1. Limitations on “Useful Articles” 160 Mazer v. Stein 160 Note: “Useful Articles” v. Pictorial, Graphic, or Sculptural Works 164 Masquerade Novelty, Inc., v. Unique Industries, Inc. 165 Superior Form Builders, Inc. v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Co., Inc. 169 Notes 172 2. Physical and Conceptual Separability 173 Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Economy Cover Corporation 174 Note 177 Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co. 178 Notes 182 Galiano v. Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. 183 3. The Special Case of Architectural Works 188 The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 189 F. Literary and Other Characters as Protected Expression 190 1. Generally 190 2. The Second Circuit and Character Copyrightability 191 Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. 191 Silverman v. CBS Inc. 194 Notes 197 3. The Ninth Circuit and the Character as the “Story” 197 Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates 198 Anderson v. Stallone 200 Gaiman v. McFarlane 203 G. Sound Recordings 208 2.4. The Subject Matter of Copyright: “Fixed” Works 209 A. Attachment of Copyright by Fixation 209 1. Fixation v. Publication 209 2. “Fixation” Defined 210 National Football League v. McBee & Bruno’s, Inc. 211 B. Unfixed Works 213 U.S. v. Moghadam 214 United States v. Martignon 221 Chapter 3 · Copyrights: The Divisible, Exclusive Rights of a Copyright Owner 233 3.1. The Bundle of Separate Rights 233 A. The Right to Make Copies and Phonorecords 234 1. “Copying” 234 Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc . 234 Note: “Synchronization Right”: Industry Terms of Art 243 halpern 3e 00 fmt toc flip 2 1/27/16 9:10 AM Page xii xii CONTENTS Agee v. Paramount Communications, Inc. 243 2. Permitted Copying: Exemptions and Compulsory Licensing 248 a. The Compulsory “Mechanical” License 248 Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publishing 249 Note: Compulsory Licenses 252 b. Copying and the Audio Home Recording Act 253 Recording Industry Association of America v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report on Designation Lpb 559/08
    REPORT ON DESIGNATION LPB 559/08 Name and Address of Property: MGM Building 2331 Second Avenue Legal Description: Lot 7 of Supplemental Plat to Block 27 to Bell and Denny’s First Addition to the City of Seattle, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, Page 83, in King County, Washington; Except the northeasterly 12 feet thereof condemned for widening 2nd Avenue. At the public meeting held on October 1, 2008, the City of Seattle's Landmarks Preservation Board voted to approve designation of the MGM Building at 2331 Second Avenue, as a Seattle Landmark based upon satisfaction of the following standard for designation of SMC 25.12.350: C. It is associated in a significant way with a significant aspect of the cultural, political, or economic heritage of the community, City, state or nation; and D. It embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style, period, or of a method of construction. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE This building is notable both for its high degree of integrity and for its Art Deco style combining dramatic black terra cotta and yellowish brick. It is also one of the very few intact elements remaining on Seattle’s Film Row, a significant part of the Northwest’s economic and recreational life for nearly forty years. Neighborhood Context: The Development of Belltown Belltown may have seen more extensive changes than any other Seattle neighborhood, as most of its first incarnation was washed away in the early 20th century. The area now known as Belltown lies on the donation claim of William and Sarah Bell, who arrived with the Denny party at Alki Beach on November 13, 1851.
    [Show full text]
  • View Show Notes
    https://archive.org/details/bigpicturemoneyp00epst/page/14 So there’s not a whole lot on the notes front for this episode because I didn’t have a ton of time to write anything out but I have been reading through Wikipedia pages for a couple days and wrote a little bit. This one is going to be about the history of Hollywood or, more specifically, the history of major motion picture production companies. Also just for the record, or more just to tell you, for the vinyl episode and my future episode about the music industry Ehtisham and I alluded to I kind of set up the background information and then I’m going to bring it forward into today, but with this episode and its future companion episode I intend to do the opposite. In the film industry there is what are known as ‘The Big 5’ companies, (for the record depending on who you ask and what time period you are working in this could be the Big 4-6 so it gets tricky) these are the ones that produce an absolutely massive amount of the media we consume. According to Wikipedia this means companies that make 80-85% of the box office revenue made in the country. This concept is not too recent however, as the Big 5 as we know them today are the second iteration of the group. The original Big 5 were: MGM, Paramount, Fox, Warner Bros., and RKO. The current Big 5 are: Universal, Paramount, Warner Bros., Disney, and Columbia. I plan on just kinda going through the old Big 5 and then the new Big 5 one by one, following their beginning and rise and/or demise.
    [Show full text]
  • El Cine De Animación Estadounidense
    El cine de animación estadounidense Jaume Duran Director de la colección: Lluís Pastor Diseño de la colección: Editorial UOC Diseño del libro y de la cubierta: Natàlia Serrano Primera edición en lengua castellana: marzo 2016 Primera edición en formato digital: marzo 2016 © Jaume Duran, del texto © Editorial UOC (Oberta UOC Publishing, SL) de esta edición, 2016 Rambla del Poblenou, 156, 08018 Barcelona http://www.editorialuoc.com Realización editorial: Oberta UOC Publishing, SL ISBN: 978-84-9116-131-8 Ninguna parte de esta publicación, incluido el diseño general y la cubierta, puede ser copiada, reproducida, almacenada o transmitida de ninguna forma, ni por ningún medio, sea éste eléctrico, químico, mecánico, óptico, grabación, fotocopia, o cualquier otro, sin la previa autorización escrita de los titulares del copyright. Autor Jaume Duran Profesor de Análisis y Crítica de Films y de Narrativa Audiovi- sual en la Universitat de Barcelona y profesor de Historia del cine de Animación en la Escuela Superior de Cine y Audiovi- suales de Cataluña. QUÉ QUIERO SABER Lectora, lector, este libro le interesará si usted quiere saber: • Cómo fueron los orígenes del cine de animación en los Estados Unidos. • Cuáles fueron los principales pioneros. • Cómo se desarrollaron los dibujos animados. • Cuáles han sido los principales estudios, autores y obras de este tipo de cine. • Qué otras propuestas de animación se han llevado a cabo en los Estados Unidos. • Qué relación ha habido entre el cine de animación y la tira cómica o los cuentos populares. Índice
    [Show full text]
  • The Ben-Hur Franchise and the Rise of Blockbuster Hollywood
    Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons Film Studies (MA) Theses Dissertations and Theses Spring 5-2021 The Ben-Hur Franchise and the Rise of Blockbuster Hollywood Michael Chian Chapman University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/film_studies_theses Part of the Film and Media Studies Commons Recommended Citation Chian, Michael. "The Ben-Hur Franchise and the Rise of Blockbuster Hollywood." Master's thesis, Chapman University, 2021. https://doi.org/10.36837/chapman.000269 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Film Studies (MA) Theses by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Ben-Hur Franchise and the Rise of Blockbuster Hollywood A Thesis by Michael Chian Chapman University Orange, CA Dodge College of Film and Media Arts Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Film Studies May, 2021 Committee in charge: Emily Carman, Ph.D., Chair Nam Lee, Ph.D. Federico Paccihoni, Ph.D. The Ben-Hur Franchise and the Rise of Blockbuster Hollywood Copyright © 2021 by Michael Chian III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my advisor and thesis chair, Dr. Emily Carman, for both overseeing and advising me throughout the development of my thesis. Her guidance helped me to both formulate better arguments and hone my skills as a writer and academic. I would next like to thank my first reader, Dr. Nam Lee, who helped teach me the proper steps in conducting research and recognize areas of my thesis to improve or emphasize.
    [Show full text]
  • The Survival of American Silent Feature Films: 1912–1929 by David Pierce September 2013
    The Survival of American Silent Feature Films: 1912–1929 by David Pierce September 2013 COUNCIL ON LIBRARY AND INFORMATION RESOURCES AND THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS The Survival of American Silent Feature Films: 1912–1929 by David Pierce September 2013 Mr. Pierce has also created a da tabase of location information on the archival film holdings identified in the course of his research. See www.loc.gov/film. Commissioned for and sponsored by the National Film Preservation Board Council on Library and Information Resources and The Library of Congress Washington, D.C. The National Film Preservation Board The National Film Preservation Board was established at the Library of Congress by the National Film Preservation Act of 1988, and most recently reauthorized by the U.S. Congress in 2008. Among the provisions of the law is a mandate to “undertake studies and investigations of film preservation activities as needed, including the efficacy of new technologies, and recommend solutions to- im prove these practices.” More information about the National Film Preservation Board can be found at http://www.loc.gov/film/. ISBN 978-1-932326-39-0 CLIR Publication No. 158 Copublished by: Council on Library and Information Resources The Library of Congress 1707 L Street NW, Suite 650 and 101 Independence Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20540 Web site at http://www.clir.org Web site at http://www.loc.gov Additional copies are available for $30 each. Orders may be placed through CLIR’s Web site. This publication is also available online at no charge at http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub158.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decline and Fall of the European Film Industry: Sunk Costs, Market Size and Market Structure, 1890-1927
    Working Paper No. 70/03 The Decline and Fall of the European Film Industry: Sunk Costs, Market Size and Market Structure, 1890-1927 Gerben Bakker © Gerben Bakker Department of Economic History London School of Economics February 2003 Department of Economic History London School of Economics Houghton Street London, WC2A 2AE Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 6482 Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7730 Working Paper No. 70/03 The Decline and Fall of the European Film Industry: Sunk Costs, Market Size and Market Structure, 1890-1927 Gerben Bakker © Gerben Bakker Department of Economic History London School of Economics February 2003 Department of Economic History London School of Economics Houghton Street London, WC2A 2AE Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 6482 Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7730 Table of Contents Acknowledgements_______________________________________________2 Abstract________________________________________________________3 1. Introduction___________________________________________________4 2. The puzzle____________________________________________________7 3. Theory______________________________________________________16 4. The mechanics of the escalation phase _____________________________21 4.1 The increase in sunk costs______________________________________21 4.2 The process of discovering the escalation parameter _________________29 4.3 Firm strategies_______________________________________________35 5. Market structure ______________________________________________47 6. The failure to catch up _________________________________________54 7. Conclusion __________________________________________________63
    [Show full text]
  • Aron Siegel, C.A.S. Production Sound Mixer
    ARON SIEGEL, C.A.S. PRODUCTION SOUND MIXER FEATURES Senior Year w/ Rebel Wilson – Paramount Worldwide Productions Director – Alex Hardcastle; Producers – Todd Garner, Tim Bourne, Rebel Wilson Thor: Ragnarok – MARVEL STUDIOS (Principal unit - Atlanta) Director – Taika Waititi; Producers – David Grant, Kevin Feige The Founder w/ Michael Keaton, Filmnation, WEINSTEIN COMPANY Director – John Lee Hancock; Producers - Don Handfield, Jeremy Renner, Michael Sledd, Aaron Ryder All Eyez On Me – The Tupac Shakur Story, Morgan Creek / LIONSGATE Director – Benny Boom; Producers - James Robinson, David Robinson, Wayne Morris, LT Hutton, Paddy Cullen Last Looks w/ Charlie Hunnam, Mel Gibson – Romulus Entertainment Director – Tim Kirkby; Producers – Brad Feinstein, Brian Pitt, Andrew Lazar Cosmic Sin w/ Bruce Willis, Luke Wilson - Saban Pictures/Paramount Pictures Director - Edward Drake; Producers – Joe DiMaio, Dan Katzman Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising w/ Seth Rogen & Zac Efron, UNIVERSAL PICTURES Director – Nicholas Stoller; Producers - Ted Gidlow, Robert Mazaraki, Seth Rogen St Agatha – St Agatha Productions / Octane Entertainment Director – Darren Lynn Bousman; Producers - Srdjan Stakic, Sara Sometti Stephen King's 'Cell' w/ John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, Stacey Keach – Saban Films Director - Kip Williams; Producers - Richard Saperstein, Shara Kay, Paddy Cullen Creed w/ Michael B Jordan, Sylvester Stallone – MGM/NEW LINE/WARNER BROTHERS (Atlanta Unit) Director – Ryan Coogler; Producers Nicolas Stern, Irwin Winkler Kill the Messenger w/Jeremy Renner,
    [Show full text]
  • Paramount Pictures
    Before we start with the individual studios, let’s cover one additional situation. It didn’t really belong in the last chapter because it is more of a research problem. But it is one that should be addressed. Many of the major studios submitted their primary production code numbers to the Library of Congress. These records are a tremendous help with one caveat. Almost all of the production codes submitted DID NOT INCLUDE THE LETTER PREFIX THAT WAS ASSIGNED BY SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL STUDIOS. So, while the production code number would be the same, only some have letter prefixes. In several instances, there are different letter prefixes. The bottom line is that numbers recorded at the Library of Congress may require additional research. Columbia Pictures Columbia’s production codes are by far the most confusing and most difficult to use for identification. This may be an indication that Columbia was not quite certain how to effectively number and utilize production codes. - - Columbia started production codes for their 1926- 1927 season. The first film to have codes was False Alarm, which was issued a “C-1” production code. They produced 24 films that season, marking them “C -1” through “C-24.” The Library of Congress records show only the numbers 1-24, but the stills reflect the letter “C,” a dash (-) and the number. The next season (1927-1928), they produced 30 films, with the first one being The Blood Ship. Instead of issuing new production codes, they simply started over with their numbering, marking them “C-1” through “C-30.” The next season (1928-1929), they produced 31 films, starting with Court Martial.
    [Show full text]
  • SAMUEL GOLDWYN (NOT) BORN 8/27/1882 Most of the Pioneers Who Started the Film Business About 120 Years Ago Are Unfamiliar Names Today
    Monday, August 23, 2021 | No. 182 Film Flashback… SAMUEL GOLDWYN (NOT) BORN 8/27/1882 Most of the pioneers who started the film business about 120 years ago are unfamiliar names today. Samuel Goldwyn is an exception – but for the wrong reason. People recognize Goldwyn as Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's middle name, but don't realize he was never part of MGM. Actually, Goldwyn wasn't even the legendary producer's birth name and August 27, 1882 wasn't really his birthday – although he always said it was. No one knows the real date, but it's agreed he was born in Warsaw and anglicized his name to Samuel Goldfish. In 1913, as a successful New York glove salesman, he became interested in making movies. With difficulty, Sam convinced his then brother-in-law, Jesse Lasky, that there was big money in films. They began by producing the first feature film ever made in Hollywood, The Squaw Man. Sam stayed in New York to sell the distribution rights. From the start, Sam was a difficult partner no matter whom he partnered with. He enjoyed fighting just for the sake of fighting – even with people who agreed with him. This led to big problems when Lasky merged with Adolph Zukor's Famous Players. Zukor was president of both Click to Play FP-L and its distribution arm. Goldfish was chairman of FP-L, which later adopted its distributor's name – Paramount Pictures. By August 1916, Zukor and Goldwyn's relationship had deteriorated so badly that Zukor gave Lasky an ultimatum – either Goldfish goes or Zukor goes.
    [Show full text]
  • Disaster Recovery for Media & Entertainment with Spectra
    Disaster Recovery for Media & Entertainment with Spectra BlackPearl Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3 Incidents, Accidents & Disasters ................................................................... 3 The Value of Content ....................................................................................... 4 What is Disaster Recovery? ........................................................................... 5 Protecting Assets with a Disaster Recovery Strategy ................................ 6 BlackPearl Methods of Protection ................................................................. 7 What About the Database? ............................................................................. 8 The Cost of Offsite Media Storage ................................................................. 9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 9 Copyright ©2017 Spectra Logic Corporation. All rights reserved worldwide. Spectra and Spectra Logic are registered trademarks of Spectra Logic. All other trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All features and specifications listed in this white paper are subject to change at any time without notice. Disaster Recovery for Media & Entertainment with Spectra BlackPearl 2 Introduction It’s not about if. It’s about when. Without a solid disaster recovery plan in place, media and entertainment
    [Show full text]
  • Early Classical Hollywood Cinema 1900'S-In The
    Early Classical Hollywood Cinema 1900’s-In the early 1900s, motion pictures ("flickers") were no longer innovative experiments/scapist entertainment medium for the working-class masses/ Kinetoscope parlors, lecture halls, and storefronts turned into nickelodeon. Admission 5 cents (sometimes a dime) - open from early morning to midnight. 1905-First Nickelodean -Pittsburgh by Harry Davis in June of 1905/few theatre shows in US- shows GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY Urban, foreign-born, working-class, immigrant audiences loved the cheap form of entertainment and were the predominent cinema-goers Some of the biggest names in the film business got their start as proprietors, investors, exhibitors, or distributors in nickelodeons.:Adolph Zukor ,Marcus Loew, Jesse Lasky, Sam Goldwyn (Goldfish), the Warner brothers, Carl Laemmle, William Fox, Louis B. Mayer 1906-According to most sources, the first continuous, full-length narrative feature film (defined as a commercially-made film at least an hour in length) was Charles Tait's biopic of a notorious outback bushranger, The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906, Australia)- Australia was the only country set up to regularly produce feature-length films prior to 1911.- 1907-Griffith begins working for Edision- Edwin S. Porter's and Thomas Edison's Rescued From the Eagle's Nest (1907)/ Griffith- Contributing to the modern language of cinema, he used the camera and film in new, more functional, mobile ways with composed shots, traveling shots and camera movement, split-screens, flashbacks, cross-cutting (showing two simultaneous actions that build toward a tense climax), frequent closeups to observe details, fades, irises, intercutting, parallel editing, dissolves, changing camera angles, soft-focus, lens filters, and experimental/artificial lighting and shading/tinting.
    [Show full text]
  • 1076 (1909), Codified at 17 U.S.C
    CHAPTER 5 What Is Copyrighted? Chapter Contents § 5.01 Subject Matter of Copyright [1] General Scope of Subject Matter [2] The Idea/Expression Dichotomy [a] The Basic Doctrine [b] Underlying Policies [c] The "Levels of Abstraction" Test [d] Merger of Idea and Expression [3] Assessing Infringement: Access and Substantial Similarity § 5.02 Special Categories of Copyrighted Subject Matter [1] Computer Programs [a] The 1980 Software Amendments [b] Case Law [c] Computer-Generated Works [2] Compilations and Databases [a] Compilations of Data as Copyrighted Works [b] The Theoretical Basis of Compilation Copyrights: "Sweat of the Brow" Doctrine Rejected [c] Copyright Protection for Random-Access Databases [i] Copying the Arrangement [ii] Copying the Selection [d] Toward a Theory of Database Protection [i] The Numbers Approach [ii] The Categories Approach [iii] Congruency of Markets [iv] An Economic Approach [v] Conclusion: The Statutory Approach [3] Useful Articles [a] Ornamental Aspects of Useful Articles [b] Pictures of Useful Articles [c] Plans, Drawings, and Models for Useful Articles [i] Eligibility of Plans, Drawings, and Models for Copyright Protection [ii] Limits on Protection [4] Architecture [a] The Separate Legal Regime for Building De- signs [b] Subject Matter Covered: Building Designs [c] Limitations on Copyright Protection for Building Designs [d] Prospectivity of Protection § 5.03 Prerequisites for Copyright Protection: Fixation, Originality, and Creativity [1] Fixation [a] New Technology [b] Communicative Function [c] What "Fixation" Means [i] Author's Authorization [ii] Tangible Medium and Permanence [d] Fixation and Interactive Systems [e] Fixation and Copyright Preemption [2] Originality [3] Creativity [4] What Copyright Does Not Require [a] The Difference Between Copyright and Patent Standards [b] Content and Copyright Protection § 5.01 Subject Matter of Copyright Patents and trade secrets may protect concepts in the broad sense.
    [Show full text]