Category Archives: Advocacy

DMLA Joins Opposition to NY State Right of Publicity Bill

DMLA recently joined many stakeholders in an urgent last minute push to oppose an amendment to New York State’s right of privacy statute, converting it to a right of publicity (Assembly Bill A08155 and Senate 5857-A) that would have granted a broad and ambiguous descendible right of publicity to anyone for 40 years after death, regardless of whether the person was domiciled in New York.

The media was particularly concerned as it looked like this bill had potential to pass before the end of the legislative session last week and the language would have had a severe impact on many forms of expressive speech, including the display and sale of prints and the licensing of photographs, video and other forms of visual art. DMLA prepared a memorandum in opposition and together with many law professors, media associations and individual companies (such as Getty Images and Shutterstock) signed on to full page advertisement published in the Albany newspaper urging the legislature to reject the bill as an attack on the First Amendment DMLA, and member Getty Images joined the lobbying efforts of the New York New Publishers Association and hired their lobbyist to work on this slowing down this bill. Last Tuesday Nancy Wolff, joined by Terry Byford and Eric Rachlis of Getty Images, joined other stakeholders at the State House in Albany New York to ask the legislature to slow the bill down right and get it right so it won’t hurt photographers, image library, and the media companies, many of whom are in New York, who use their services.

In the end the legislature in both houses did not bring the bill to the floor to vote before the end of session last week but its sponsors made it clear that they want to work with stakeholders to create an acceptable descendible right of publicity bill to be voted on in the near future.

Our thanks to Getty Images for hiring a lobbyist to work on this legislation in New York which permitted DMLA to be represented by a lobbyist as well. If any other members would be able to contribute to this lobbying effort and share the costs, please contact Nancy Wolff for further information.

DMLA plans to continue to be involved in any legislation that deprives a photographers or film owner’s right to display their property and copyright interest in their still and motion images.

You can see the other papers submitted here and here.

Prof. Jennifer E. Rothman

June 8, 2017

Memorandum Opposing Assembly Bill A08155 

Dear Members of the New York State Assembly and Senate:

I am writing in response to Assembly Bill A08155, a right of publicity bill, which was introduced last week and seems poised to be rushed through the legislature before the session ends for the year. This letter offers my initial comments and provides reasons why rushing this bill through would be a big mistake. I would be happy to submit a more detailed analysis of the issues and to meet with any of you and to testify before the legislature with regard to any possible right of publicity of bill in the great state of New York.

New York’s Right of Privacy, currently contained in Sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Laws, was passed in 1903 and has been in place and working for more than 100 years. It is unwise to upset this longstanding legislation and case law in such a significant way without giving the legislation the hearings and consideration that such a dramatic change deserves. New York, along with California, is a particularly important state on such issues, not only because of its size, but also because of the large number of organizations, companies, and individuals likely to be affected by the adoption of such a law. A change in New York’s law is not only likely to impact its own citizens, but also to have reverberations around the country. Commensurate with such stature, the state of New York owes itself, its citizens, and those of the rest of the country due care in considering, developing, debating and adopting such a new and wide-reaching right of publicity.

I am a Professor of Law and the Joseph Scott Fellow at Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California. I have also been a faculty member at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Missouri. I am an elected member of the American Law Institute and an affiliated fellow at the Yale Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

I am nationally recognized for my work in the intellectual property field, and am the leading voice on issues involving the right of publicity. My blog and website, Rothman’s Roadmap to the Right of Publicity, www.rightofpublicityroadmap.com, is the go-to source for content creators, lawyers, and business people who need to sort through the complex issues involved in this area of law. I have published numerous articles on the topic, and have a forthcoming book on the topic, tentatively titled, The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reclaimed for a Public World, to be published in the Spring of 2018 by Harvard University Press.

The proposed bill that I reviewed is posted on my website, although I have recently been sent a proposed amendment offered by SAG-AFTRA that would undermine the speech-protective exemptions of the proposed bill entirely and set up a conflict with both the First Amendment and federal copyright law. Page 2 of

As time is apparently of the essence, I want to briefly highlight several of my concerns with the current draft and urge you to delay moving forward with any bill on the subject until you can fully consider all of the issues and draft a more carefully considered piece of legislation.

Some of these concerns are as follows:

The Bill Eliminates Current Privacy Laws in New York 

Assembly Bill A08155 turns what used to be a “right of privacy” into a “right of publicity” that is a freely transferable property right in a person’s “name, voice, signature, or likeness.” The bill appears to eliminate the right of privacy in New York and replace it with a right of publicity. This sea-change is troubling and calls into question the more than 100 years of case law all decided under the privacy statute. The status of privacy itself in New York would be jeopardized if the bill passes.

Such a change is likely to undermine privacy protection in the state, while at the same time creating great uncertainty (and lots of litigation) about what sorts of uses of people’s identities are allowed, and what are not allowed.

The Bill Dangerously Expands Liability 

The bill greatly expands liability for uses of people’s identities. The proposal would expand liability from being limited solely to uses of a person’s “name, portrait, picture or voice” to cover uses of a person’s “likeness,” including uses of any “characteristic” that is “recognizable” of the person, including “gestures” and “mannerisms.”

This would be a big change in New York law, which has largely avoided the expansive readings of “persona,” and liability for the mere evocation of a person. The proposed legislation might allow White v. Samsung-like holdings in New York. In White, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed liability merely for conjuring up in the minds of viewers Vanna White’s identity by showing a robot on the Wheel of Fortune set wearing a blonde wig and turning letters. This holding has been roundly criticized and has opened the door to actors preventing copyright holders from recasting roles, and making derivative works of their original shows. These are concerns that should be of particular interest to a state that is home to Broadway.

The proposed bill also expands liability beyond uses solely for purposes of “advertising” or “trade,” to include uses that are “not-for-profit,” putting a much greater swath of creative works and speech at risk.

The Bill Provides Post-Mortem Rights without Sufficient Limits or Justifications 

New York has survived for more than 100 years without a post-mortem right of publicity. Performers, actors, models, and citizens of the state have thrived in its absence. Yet, this bill would provide a right that would last for 40 years after death.

It is true that approximately 25 states currently offer post-mortem rights in some form (some only to deceased soldiers), and that California, another home of a large number of celebrities with commercially valuable personalities that might generate post-death income, provides a 70 year post-death period of protection. Page 3 of

But just because some heirs and potential heirs, and SAG-AFTRA want such a right does not mean New York should offer one up. What justifies such a right? One need not reward the dead for their lifetime of achievements for which they were already compensated. The possibility of such post-mortem rights does not incentivize the living in any significant (or positive) way. Nor can the dead be offended by uses of their identities after they are gone.

It may be appropriate to provide a limited time post-death bar on commercialization that heirs could use narrowly to prevent crass uses of their loved ones. But why should heirs receive a 40-year windfall? As the battles over recently deceased musician Prince’s estate demonstrate, the winners of the rights over the deceased’s right of publicity may have little connection to the deceased, or at least none that merits their getting a monopoly in using his identity and reaping hundreds of millions of dollars that could instead be spread more equitably in this instance across Prince’s fans and the public.

I note that Minnesota does not currently have a post-mortem right of publicity and when Prince’s estate lawyers and others tried to push through a rushed bill to the Minnesota legislature, that legislature had the good sense to put the brakes on, slow things down and give themselves more time to consider the issues involved. If they determine that something needs to be done, they will be able to draft something that is more carefully thought-through and publicly debated.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the proposed post-mortem provision is that it applies to anyone whose identity is used in New York state―most post-mortem rights are limited to those who died domiciled in a particular state. (California’s right is so limited.) Recently, Washington state and Hawaii have both added post-mortem provisions that apply to those who were not domiciled in the state at the time of death. Such a change in the massive market of New York state will open the floodgates to the heirs of the dead to sue in New York, including those who died in states and even countries, like England, that do not offer such rights to their deceased.

The provision also does not address the effect on previously-produced works that include deceased individuals, raising a host of unanswered concerns.

The provision also potentially leaves heirs with a massive estate tax bill that could force them to commercialize the deceased, even if that is not what the grieving surviving family members wish to do, nor what the dead person would have wanted.

•The Bill Jeopardizes the Very People it Seeks to Protect 

The new transferability of a person’s right to her “name, voice, signature and likeness,” is highly problematic. New York’s current law likely does not allow transfers of a person’s identity to a third-party. As I have written in The Inalienable Right of Publicity, 101 Georgetown Law Journal 185 (2012), allowing such transferability does not help identity-holders, but instead risks their losing control over their own names, likenesses, and voices to creditors, ex-spouses, record producers, managers and even Facebook.Page 4 of

• The Proposed Exemptions are Insufficient, Muddled and the Proposed SAG-AFTRA Amendment Unacceptably Restricts Free Speech, and Newsworthy Uses in the Public Interest that Have Long Been Protected under New York Law 

Although the enumerated exemptions soften the blow of the otherwise broad reach of the proposed new right, at least in the context of news and expressive works, the bill does not define what it means by a “transformative creation.” Perhaps the bill seeks to import California’s First-Amendment based, transformativeness test. But this is a confused test that has generated conflicting interpretations and decisions across the country and much criticism. It should not be imported into New York law, and certainly not without a definition.

The proposed SAG-AFTRA amendment would undermine all of the speech-protective exemptions by making them inapplicable if the use infringes “upon traditionally licensed commercial uses” or replaces “professional performance or modeling services rendered in the entertainment or sports industries” or replicates “the same activity by which the individual achieved their fame or derives their income.” This appears to apply to almost all uses in which a professional performer could have been hired or paid, which could include virtually all uses in expressive works.

This proposed amendment would likely run afoul of the First Amendment and copyright law. It would unduly chill speech and generate massive litigation and uncertainty about the scope of the law. It also would likely lead to the federal courts deciding the scope of New York’s right of publicity law, rather than state courts.

In sum, a lot more thought and work needs to go into any proposed right of publicity in New York. I respectfully request that you do not rush A08155 through at the end of your legislative session and give it the robust, public, open debate that it deserves. It has taken more than one hundred years to develop the right of privacy in New York; it should not be unraveled in a single week. I am happy to be of service to you in the process and to address any questions you have about these comments.

Sincerely,

Jennifer E. Rothman                                                                                                                              Professor of Law and Joseph Scott Fellow                                                                                              Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University

NPPA’s Memorandum of Opposition

 

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

A. 08155

by the

NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION

The National Press Photographers Association (“NPPA”) strongly opposes A.08155, amending New York State’s civil practice law and rules and civil rights laws, by among other things, establishing the right of publicity for both living and deceased individuals. If enacted, such legislation will cause serious economic harm to our New York State members who photograph people as part of their jobs, whether doing so as employees of news organizations or as freelancers. These “publicity rights” will unconstitutionally deprive photographers and others of the right to exercise property and copyright interests in their still, filmed and recorded images.

The NPPA is a 501(c)(6) non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of visual journalism in its creation, editing and distribution. NPPA’s approximately 7,000 members include television and still photographers, editors, students and representatives of businesses that serve the visual journalism industry. A significant portion of published and broadcast newsworthy images in New York are created and licensed by NPPA members. Since its founding in 1946, the NPPA has been the Voice of Visual Journalists – vigorously promoting and defending the rights of photographers and journalists, including intellectual property rights, as well as freedom of speech and of the press in all its forms, especially as it relates to visual journalism.

As the heart of the media industry, New York State, has always been at the forefront in upholding the First Amendment and its concomitant rights. Substantially expanding the breadth of a statutory right of publicity, creates a burdensome statute that will have a crippling and chilling effect on expressive speech. Such legislation will create a requirement that photographers, their representatives and copyright holders of images or photographs depicting any individual (not just celebrities) living or deceased, “regardless of their place of domicile, residence or citizenship” to obtain “the written consent” of that individual, his or her successors or assigns, or, in the case of a minor, of his or her parent or guardian before such use within this state for advertising purposes, for the purposes of trade or for purposes of fundraising or solicitation of donations, may occur.

No such right of publicity has previously existed. Instead of heirs inheriting these rights, it is more likely that a corporation, with no interest in New York State, and whose only interest is in exploiting publicity rights and restricting the use and licensing of such images, will benefit from this newly created ex post facto right. Photographers, licensing representatives and copyright holders will suddenly lose a right they have had for more than 100 years, with this unconstitutional taking.

We are also extremely concerned about the proposed language explicitly addressing “Photographers” which states, “nothing contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any person practicing the profession of photography, from exhibiting specimens of the work of such photographer, unless the same is continued by such person after written notice objecting thereto has been given by the individual portrayed.” Unclear is what happens after the “individual portrayed” sends “written notice objecting” to the exhibition of “specimens of the work of such photographer” and the photographer continues to do so? What about displaying online as most photographers do these days? Wefear that this bill raises more questions and creates more problems than it constructively addresses.

The language of this bill is overbroad, ambiguous and vague. It invites unnecessary and burdensome litigation. The proposed legislation will most certainly increase the costs and burdens of licensing images, requiring increased fees and burdensome approvals for previously permitted uses. Photographers and their representatives will likely bear the undue burden of researching and locating the owner(s) of such rights and securing approvals, which may never be possible. Most individuals and companies can ill afford these costs with the result being fewer images licensed, and fewer jobs in New York State.

The consequences of departing from clearly established legislation and jurisprudence is too important to be set aside in order to satisfy the desire of a few celebrities’ agents seeking to unreasonably exploit this issue. The constitutional concerns, undue burdens and litigation risks such a law would impose on our members are far too high to justify any benefits that may result.

For the above stated reasons, the NPPA strongly opposes A.08155 and requests that this legislation be held.

Respectfully submitted,

Mickey H. Osterreicher                                                                                                                                    General Counsel                                                                                                                                   National Press Photographers Association (NPPA)

June 5, 2017

DMLA MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

 

June 6, 2017

DMLA MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION, 

Assembly Bill No. A08155 

The Digital Media Licensing Association (“DMLA”), strongly opposes A.08155, amending New York State’s civil rights law Section 50/51, which for 110 years has protected the first amendment rights of creators and the press to use visual imagery except for the limited purposes of advertising and trade. This amendment grants a broad and ambiguous descendible right of publicity to anyone for 40 years after death, regardless of whether the person was domiciled in New York.

About DMLA 

DMLA is a trade association representing the interests of entities who license still and motion images to the media, among many other users. Its members represent the interests of thousands of photographers/videographers and the copyrights in millions of images by aggregating images on line and making them searchable and available for licensing. New York is home to many of DMLA’s members, including leading visual image providers such as Getty Images and Shutterstock, and all members, regardless of location or size, serve a crucial role in supplying publishers, media companies and advertisers located within New York with imagery that reflects our world, art and culture.

Harm to Image Licensing Industry, Media and Public 

This proposed amendment will cause real economic and social harm to the image licensing industry (a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide) and the industries it serves and result in meritless litigation.

  •  . Amendment unconstitutionally deprives photographers and film owners the right to display and exploit their property and copyright interests in their still and motion images. Bill does not unambiguously protect the ability to display and offer images for licensing using standard industry licensing terms that requires user to determine if permission is needed. 

Example: Corbis Corporation, an image library was sued two times under the California right of publicity law, for merely displaying images for potential licensing and sale in accordance with industry standard online licensing agreements.. See Jones v. Corbis Corp.https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2176763/jones-v-corbis-corp/ and Alberghetti v Corbis Corp https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2542614/alberghetti-v-corbis-corp/.

  •  Amendment does not ambiguously permit photographers and their representatives to distribute and sell prints in violation of federal copyright law. Current NY law has been interpreted by NY Courts to permit the sale of prints as expressive works with full first amendment protection without consent of the subject. 

Example Lawsuit filed in California against print on demand company for providing sports images to consumers alleging violation of CA ROP law. Maloney v. T3Media, Inc., 94 COWAN, DEBAETS, ABRAHAMS & SHEPPARD LLP PAGE 2

F.Supp.3d 1128 (2015). The 9th Circuit ultimately found CA ROP law was preempted by federal copyright act where the photograph is the product itself , http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1855434.html). Note NY does not have an anti-SLAPP statute to prevent such frivolous suits.

In contrast New York privacy law has been interpreted to permit the sale of prints. (Foster v Svenson) http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03068.htm

  •  Amendment limits the types of exempt uses to the same outdated 20th Century uses listed in the 1980s California right of publicity statute. The exempt uses exclude all the innovative apps, podcasts and interactive virtual reality platforms which use visual images to educate and inform the public and there is no broad language that protects yet unknown expressive uses.

Concern: New York, as the center of the media industry, has always erred in favor of protecting the First Amendment rights of those who own, license and publish images. To substantially expand the breadth of New York’s statutory right of publicity without clear exemptions for all expressive uses will have a crippling and chilling effect on expressive speech.

For the above stated reasons, the members of DMLA strongly oppose 08155 in its current form.

Respectfully,

Nancy E Wolff

Counsel to DMLA, Digital Media Licensing Association

The Register of Copyrights Selection & Accountability Act, H.R. 1695 Passed by the House of Representatives

The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act, H.R. 1695, was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 378-48 on April 26th, which would now make the Head of the Copyright Office a Presidential appointee.   This bill will also give the Copyright Office more autonomy over its budget and its technology as well as its operational procedures (staffing, fees, structure, etc.).  DMLA, as a member of the Coalition of Visual Artists, has been supporting this measure as part of our legislative priorities.  Read here.   The bill now moves onto the Senate for a vote.

“The passage of H.R. bill shows that the House of Representatives sees the importance of moving the Copyright Office into the 21st century” says Cathy Aron, Executive Director of DMLA. “It’s time to give the Copyright Office what it needs to serve the creative industries of our nation effectively.  This is a great first step.  We look to the Senate to support the bill in an equally bipartisan way”

The importance of Copyright Office reform has been a major focus of our DMLA’s legal outreach over the last few years through our written comments to the Copyright Office and our lobbying efforts through the Coalition.

CDAS brings in partner Carole E. Handler and associate Brianna Dahlberg to expand its West Coast Litigation, Entertainment, and IP practice

Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP is expanding its West Coast litigation, entertainment, and intellectual property practice with the strategic hire of a two-person litigation team, led by Carole E. Handler, who joins the firm as a partner in CDAS’s Beverly Hills office as of April 1, 2017.

Ms. Handler is a nationally recognized litigator on copyright, trademark, entertainment, and antitrust cases. She has handled numerous groundbreaking cases throughout her career, representing clients in the motion picture, telecom, fashion, sports, and other industries on matters involving entertainment, copyright, competition, and new media.

Her work includes representing clients in the motion picture industry in complex copyright and antitrust litigation. Widely known as “the lawyer who saved Spider-Man,” Carole represented Marvel Entertainment Company for over a decade in copyright and other litigation, and was responsible for the trial strategy that allowed Marvel to recover the motion picture rights to its iconic Spider-Man property. In representing Pfizer, she was one of the lead attorneys who succeeded in having the then-largest trademark verdict in history reversed. But perhaps one of the cases of which she is most proud involves her work on a nine-week pro bono jury trial for a Holocaust survivor to recover the rights to her life story, which is now being developed into a motion picture.

Carole has successfully represented major motion picture producers and distributors in litigation involving antitrust and copyright issues and continues to support her clients’ efforts as new media revolutionizes traditional ways of reaching consumers. Carole also handles infringement claims for a number of fashion clients, for which copyright is an increasingly crucial issue. Carole regularly submits amicus briefs on copyright and antitrust issues in the Second, Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, as well as the Supreme Court, and California courts.

She has also been an adjunct professor at USC law school for over 13 years, where she has taught both antitrust and IP courses.

“Carole’s practice is perfectly synergetic with CDAS’s litigation practice in New York, which also centers on IP, media, and entertainment disputes,” explains Eleanor M. Lackman, co-chair of CDAS’s Litigation Group. “She helps us take the strong practice that we have built on the East Coast and replicate that type of focus and service on the West Coast, which provides a major benefit for our clients across the country.”

Carole was immediately drawn to CDAS by the firm’s commitment to strategic growth in key industry sectors, which allows it to serve a wide variety of clients, its openness to new approaches, and its focus on important media issues, which are central to her practice. “In addition to the superior quality of CDAS’s nationally recognized attorneys, its dedication to innovative legal thinking, the depth of its IP practice and its focus on copyright and media – it is also the unusual firm that has a real commitment to internal development and gender diversity equality and practices it.” Carole notes that the majority of CDAS’s equity partners are women.

Joining Carole is Brianna Dahlberg, an associate who has worked with Carole since 2011 and has extensive trial and pretrial experience in entertainment, IP, and contractual matters. Both Carole and Brianna join from Eisner Jaffe, which they joined from Lathrop & Gage.

More information about Carole E. Handler is available at http://cdas.com/carole_handler

More information about Brianna Dahlberg is available at http://cdas.com/brianna_dahlberg

ABOUT COWAN, DEBAETS, ABRAHAMS & SHEPPARD LLP

CDAS is a New York and Los Angeles entertainment, media and IP law firm that has served clients for over 25 years in the traditional content and media businesses as well as in emerging technologies. Practices in our majority-women owned firm include: film, television, visual arts, music, digital media, publishing, fashion, theatre, advertising and marketing, copyright, corporate formation, finance and M&A, employment, litigation, technology, trademarks, brands and venture. Our strong commitment to understanding our clients’ businesses and budgets allow us to offer individualized attention that includes in-depth industry knowledge as well as focused legal advice in litigation and transactional matters that only a niche boutique law firm like CDAS can provide.

Media Contact: Jennifer Besada, jbesada@cdas.com, (212)-974-7474

 

 

A Victory for Creators and Licensors in Maloney vs T3 Ninth Circuit Decision

Maloney v. T3Media 

By Brianna Dahlberg of Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard LLP

On April 5, 2017, in a victory for visual content creators and licensors, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by former college athletes alleging that T3Media had misappropriated their names and likenesses by selling licenses to photographs from the NCAA Photo Library. The Ninth Circuit held that the athletes’ claims for right of publicity and unfair competition under California law were preempted by the federal Copyright Act.

Read the entire article here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Right To Display, License And Sell Photographic Prints Without Violating Subject’s Publicity Rights.

Maloney v. T3Media 

By Brianna Dahlberg of Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard LLP

On April 5, 2017, in a victory for visual content creators and licensors, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by former college athletes alleging that T3Media had misappropriated their names and likenesses by selling licenses to photographs from the NCAA Photo Library. The Ninth Circuit held that the athletes’ claims for right of publicity and unfair competition under California law were preempted by the federal Copyright Act.

In their putative class action lawsuit, the athletes had sought to hold T3Media liable for displaying the photographs online and for offering non-exclusive licenses to consumers permitting them to download a single copy of a chosen image for non-commercial art use. The athletes did not own copyright to the photographs at issue—the copyrights were owned by the NCAA, who had contracted with T3Media to store, host, and license the images. T3Media responded to the athletes’ lawsuit by filing a special motion to strike under California law, which was granted by the district court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision throwing out the athletes’ lawsuit and awarded attorneys’ fees to T3Media.

In its opinion, the Court clarified the test for determining whether a right of publicity claim is preempted by the Copyright Act. Section 301 of the Copyright Act provides a two-part test for determining whether a state law claim is preempted: first, the court asks whether the subject matter of the state law claim fell within the subject matter of copyright; and second, the court asks whether the state law rights asserted were equivalent to rights within the scope of copyright. Applying this test to the athlete’s right of publicity claims, the Court drew a distinction between claims based on the unauthorized use of a person’s likeness in advertising, and claims based on the mere display or distribution of an artistic work:

[A] publicity-right claim may proceed when a likeness is used non-consensually on merchandise or in advertising; but where a likeness has been captured in a copyrighted artistic visual work and the work itself is being distributed for personal use, a publicity-right claim is little more than a thinly-disguised copyright claim because it seeks to hold a copyright holder liable for exercising his exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in T3Media’s favor is consistent with longstanding practices in the visual content industry. It affirms that visual content creators and providers, by merely displaying and offering for license images that depict people, do not make any use that implicates the right of publicity. The decision provides clear guidance that will allow visual content creators and licensors to continue to offer creative, newsworthy, and culturally important images to the public.

Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP submitted an amicus brief in support of T3Media on behalf of the Associated Press, the Digital Media Licensing Association, Getty Images (US), Inc., the Graphic Artists Guild, the National Press Photographers Association, Inc., PhotoShelter, Inc., the Professional Photographers of America, Shutterstock, Inc., and ZUMA Press, Inc. [A copy of the amicus brief is here). We thank everyone who participated and joined the brief. The attorneys representing T3 Media were extremely grateful for our industry support to counter all the amicus briefs submitted by the various sports’ leagues.

 

DMLA Empirical Research Study for Section 512 Study

 On March 21, 2017 DMLA filed additional comments to our original comments filed with the  Copyright Office for the Section 512 Study.  These comments included the results of an empirical research study that we conducted of our members and their contributors.

The Survey asked whether respondents monitor the Internet for copyright infringements of their or their contributors’ work, and examines their reasons for deciding whether or not to monitor and their experiences if they do monitor, specifically with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (“DMCA”) notice-and-takedown procedure.  We received over 1200 responses.

You can see the comments sent to the Copyright Office and the results to the survey here.