SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow8093
The Michael Jackson Estate is suing the Walt Disney Company and ABC for using dozens of its copyrighted works without permission. According to Disney, no harm has been done, since including these works in "The Last Days of Michael Jackson" documentary is "fair use." The Estate clearly disagrees and notes that Disney's argument would make even the founders of Napster pause.
According to the claim, Disney and ABC’s broadcast used at least thirty different copyrighted works owned by the Estate, without permission. In fact, Michael Jackson’s heirs specifically urged the media titans not to use its intellectual property without a license.
Since Disney is known to be an avid protector of its own rights, the Estate calls out the company’s double standard. “Apparently, Disney’s passion for the copyright laws disappears when it doesn’t involve its own intellectual property and it sees an opportunity to profit off of someone else’s intellectual property without permission or payment,” the complaint reads.
The complaint stresses that Disney is known for its strict copyright enforcement actions and a narrow view of copyright law’s “fair use” doctrine. “For example, just a few years ago, [Disney] sent DMCA takedown notices to Twitter, Facebook, and other websites and webhosts, when consumers posted pictures of new Star Wars toys that the consumers had legally purchased.
“Apparently, Disney claimed that simple amateur photographs of Star Wars characters in toy form infringed Disney’s copyrights in the characters and were not a fair use,” the state writes.
However, when the Estate urged Disney not to use any of its copyrighted works without permission, Disney’s attorney used fair use as a defense. The company argued that it could legally use Jackson’s copyrighted material since the broadcast was labeled as a documentary. This is “absurd” and “dead wrong” according to Jackson’s heirs, who see it as a blatant form of infringement which even the founders of Napster would recognize.
[...] A copy of the Michael Jackson Estate’s complaint against The Walt Disney Company and ABC is available here (PDF).
Source: https://torrentfreak.com/michael-jackson-estate-turns-the-fair-use-table-on-disney-180531/
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jimtheowl on Monday June 04 2018, @04:53AM (7 children)
At the very least, "We The People" are unlikely to loose on this one, which is why it is somewhat entertaining to watch unfold.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 04 2018, @11:14AM (6 children)
I don't see how "We the People" win... And they likely lose something. As others have already pointed out, if it's another bad precedent against fair use, that's bad. And for any member of the public who still uses Disney products, it's likely Disney will pass any significant losses onto the consumer (rather than reduce executive salaries or anything like that). So, higher admission to Disney World, a few less Disney movies produced... Whatever. Disney won't suffer in the least.
Andrewd what good does it do the public for a huge chunk of money to flow into the Michael Jackson estate? It's fun to see Disney attacked, but it's not going to have any positive effect.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @12:16PM (1 child)
If the precedent set is pro-Disney, then Disney loses because it will set a precedent that their own property can be fairly used under similar circumstances, as MJ's Estate itself said 'Star Wars movies could be chopped up into a series of 'documentaries' with the music overlaid, then made available in such a way as to qualify as fair use and avoid disney having licensing/creative control over them. If the precedent is anti-Disney, then Disney will also lose, because the precedent will mean that fair use no longer applies to any major publishing entity in the US, consumer with either be in an uproar for the laws to be changed, or not care (more likely), and the only damage it will really place for mainstream society is against the publishers who were abusing their size to steal little guy's works and claim it was fair use, while smacking down little guy's actual fair use by claiming intellectual property protection against things that should have definitely qualified under fair use.
Basically, whichever way this case pans out it fucks the publishers, and as an added bonus it is being funded by MJ's estate, so anyone who felt like some of his actions were just as bad as Disney, can take solace in the fact that it is media mogul pitted against media mogul. I just hope this case goes through a full court battle and doesn't get settled. Too many cases that would set a precedent worthy of either changing the law, or overturning abuses of the court system, neither of which we have gotten a lot of the past 20-30 years or so thanks to people settling before the precedent was set.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Spamalope on Monday June 04 2018, @03:13PM
You haven't mentioned the most likely outcome. It's fair use for Disney but nobody else. Disney has wielded the political power to change the copyright law itself, something like this would be trivial.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday June 04 2018, @03:48PM (3 children)
First, it's a peaceful process which is not an automatic win for Disney.
Second, this is an opportunity to limit Disney's power. So these two points mean even if the case doesn't go well, there is still is an ongoing opposing force to Disney's machinations.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 04 2018, @04:33PM (2 children)
I don't understand this reply. The enemy isn't Disney per se: it's massive copyright extensions and overbearing restrictions. Even if Disney were severely punished or limited in its power, there are dozens of other companies that will likely gladly take up the torch for restrictive copyright in its place. And a victory here is actually a victory in favor of restrictive copyright...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 04 2018, @05:09PM
What makes those things "enemies"?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 04 2018, @05:46PM
Well, that's part of the point. Dozens is weaker than one very powerful one since their interests don't coincide.