Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday June 04 2018, @03:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the boot-on-the-other-foot dept.

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/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @05:03AM (8 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04 2018, @05:03AM (#688230) Journal

    Amazing how few people understand that. The enemy of mine enemy is the enemy of my enemy - and I need to keep an eye on BOTH of them, because either will slip a knife into my back if I allow them.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday June 04 2018, @10:45AM (1 child)

    by Bot (3902) on Monday June 04 2018, @10:45AM (#688307) Journal

    In a fight among enemies and not-friends, you should hope that the mightiest one loses, though.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday June 04 2018, @08:21PM

      by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04 2018, @08:21PM (#688548)

      I've always liked the adage: "Let's you and him fight."

      --
      The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04 2018, @03:49PM (5 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Monday June 04 2018, @03:49PM (#688413)

    Allies are the enemy of my enemy. While that may not necessarily mean they won't stab me in the back, it tends to reduce the chances of it.

    e.g. you're saying Britain and Germany were equally likely to stab the U.S. in the back during WWII?

    Amazing how few people understand that.

    Maybe because what you're saying is poorly worded, or just outright wrong.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @04:17PM (4 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04 2018, @04:17PM (#688422) Journal

      I'm afraid that you don't have it right. "Enemy of mine enemy" may well have described the US/UK/British Commonwealth, and the Soviet, during World War Two. We had a mutual enemy, and the Soviet was having it's ass handed to it - so they found cause to fight beside us, more or less. The block I have already described, US/UK/British Commonwealth, were indeed "allies". Near the end of the war, there was no competition seen between the allies, as there was between the Soviet and the rest of the allies. The Soviet raced as far and wide and deep into German held lands, as possible, to prevent the allies gaining control of any of that land. There was also a race for Japan, but we cut that race short with the atomic bombs, and a peace treaty, signed before the Soviet could get a fleet into Japanese waters.

      After the war, the Soviet stirred the pot as much as possible in Asia, aiding Red China when they saw fit, then North Korea, then Vietnam. Anyplace the Soviet could turn people toward Communism, and against the West, they did so.

      Describing the Soviet as our "ally" is a poor, sloppy, and lazy way of defining our relationship. "Enemy of mine enemy" fits that relationship, perfectly. The Soviet was never our friends. Russia may or may not be a friend, one day - but for some reason the Democrats seem determined to ensure that never happens.

      I have worded things poorly, a few times - but not this time. I have said precisely what I meant.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04 2018, @04:32PM (3 children)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Monday June 04 2018, @04:32PM (#688428)

        Yes, but "ally" is a subset of "enemy of my enemy." That was my point.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04 2018, @04:36PM (2 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Monday June 04 2018, @04:36PM (#688430)

          Additionally, "ally" according to Dictionary.com:

          verb (used with object), al·lied, al·ly·ing.
          1. to unite formally, as by treaty, league, marriage, or the like (usually followed by with or to):
          Russia allied itself to France.
          2. to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.

          Which the relationship of the Soviet Union and the United States in WWII would fulfill the first definition.

          Declaration by United Nations

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04 2018, @04:39PM (1 child)

            by tangomargarine (667) on Monday June 04 2018, @04:39PM (#688432)

            Blarg, bungled the URL.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations [wikipedia.org]

            A Joint Declaration By The United States Of America, The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland, The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia

            The Governments signatory hereto,

            Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain dated August 14, 1941, known as the Atlantic Charter,

            Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world,

            Declare:

            (1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government is at war.

            (2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.

            The foregoing declaration may be adhered to by other nations which are, or which may be, rendering material assistance and contributions in the struggle for victory over Hitlerism.[15]

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @05:39PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04 2018, @05:39PM (#688457) Journal

              While that is all correct, in legal terms, it still fails to define the precise relationship between the USSR and the rest of the allies. Almost immediately upon cessation of histilities with Germany, the USSR partitioned an entire continent, threatening by force of arms any who would cross that partition. The "allies", as the law refers to them, were ready to kill each other, just as soon as their mutual enemy was deceased.

              Again, I say, sloppy, lazy, and inaccurate definitions.

              The Soviet was an enemy of our enemy, nothing more, and nothing less. I can understand that subtlty is lost on politicians, but some of us can understand the differences.