Comments on: Ephemeral Recordings and Fairness http://substantialsimilarity.org/?p=18 A Collection of Incremental Contributions Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:37:53 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Perzanowski http://substantialsimilarity.org/?p=18&cpage=1#comment-952 Perzanowski Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:45:28 +0000 http://substantialsimilarity.org/?p=18#comment-952 Don't assume I have readers; I certainly don't operate under that assumption. Don’t assume I have readers; I certainly don’t operate under that assumption.

]]> By: joe http://substantialsimilarity.org/?p=18&cpage=1#comment-951 joe Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:24:43 +0000 http://substantialsimilarity.org/?p=18#comment-951 Joes reprazent! Srsly, Aaron. Your readers would have to be pretty sick puppies to get that Cousin Oliver BS. Joes reprazent!

Srsly, Aaron. Your readers would have to be pretty sick puppies to get that Cousin Oliver BS.

]]> By: Perzanowski http://substantialsimilarity.org/?p=18&cpage=1#comment-949 Perzanowski Wed, 06 Feb 2008 06:37:01 +0000 http://substantialsimilarity.org/?p=18#comment-949 Good question. The Second Circuit rejected the sync-as-derivative argument in Agee, and I think for good reason. 114(b) says that the derivative work right in a sound recording is violated only if "the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality." So since Fox didn't alter or remix the sound recording through the synchronization, it looks like that use best considered from the reproduction angle rather than as a derivative work issue. Whether the asymmetry of that limitation on the derivative right in sound recordings makes sense is another question. Good question. The Second Circuit rejected the sync-as-derivative argument in Agee, and I think for good reason. 114(b) says that the derivative work right in a sound recording is violated only if “the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality.” So since Fox didn’t alter or remix the sound recording through the synchronization, it looks like that use best considered from the reproduction angle rather than as a derivative work issue. Whether the asymmetry of that limitation on the derivative right in sound recordings makes sense is another question.

]]> By: Joe Gratz http://substantialsimilarity.org/?p=18&cpage=1#comment-948 Joe Gratz Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:42:25 +0000 http://substantialsimilarity.org/?p=18#comment-948 Do you think Butler & Co. would have a claim instead based on synchronization with a moving image as creation of a derivative work? Do you think Butler & Co. would have a claim instead based on synchronization with a moving image as creation of a derivative work?

]]>