I don't know if they have a LEGAL case, but the Grateful Dead, Led Zeppelin, and Carlos all provide this promotion material to the fans free of charge with the understanding that no one will profit from it. It is all done on the honor system and self-policed. So whether of not the LAW sees it as stealing - it is still the moral equivalent of stealing.
Posted by: at December 19, 2006 08:08 AM Drive your Chevy to the levee. The music has died.
Posted by: at December 19, 2006 08:50 AM I don't know about Carlos or The Doors, but the members of Zeppelin (not their management) seem to implicitly approve of bootlegging concerts, while the Dead definitely encourage bootlegging and even have soundboard recordings streamed via archive.
org.
I think that the bands involved are probably more perturbed about the concert memorabilia that is being sold for ridiculously high prices (take a look at the site) than the free streaming of concerts.
Posted by: at December 19, 2006 09:10 AM I seriously doubt that there would be any traction to a claim regarding the memorabilia.
When you give an item away, it is presumed that one of the rights given is the right to further convey the item. In the absence of some pretty clear evidence to the contrary (like a written agreement), the memorabilia claim looks like a non-starter.
I would expect the streaming video claims to go the way of the artists (again, in teh absence of some pretty convincing evidence to the contrary turning up).
Posted by: at December 19, 2006 09:20 AM KRM is correct. If, on the other hand, these memorabilia were duplicated and sold, then you'd likely have a case. For example, I can sell my LED ZEPPELIN I album in a garage sale for $2, but I can't burn a CD and sell it for $2.
Posted by: at December 19, 2006 09:32 AM Any actual reproduction would be a violation. The purchase of an item bearing a copyrighted image does not extend to the purchaser a license to reproduce the image.
As far as the other material goes, it probably depends on the terms under which Graham acquired the items.
Since he was a concert promoter, the situation is different. A person on the street who received such promotional material would likely be deemed to have received an implied license to resell the material (i.e.
title to the copyright passed to the recipient). Graham's unique means of acquiring the goods makes it unclear whether the law should imply transfer of the copyright to him.
I'd also imagine that the plaintiffs are asserting a "personality rights" claim under California law.
The statute gives them the exclusive right to benefit from the value of their personality.
Both types of claims (copyright and personality) provide safe harbors that would serve as affirmative defenses for the defendants' conduct. The defendants' clear profit motive likely disqualifies them for these defenses, however.
The reality, though, is that these are all highly fact-based inquiries that would cost lots of time and legal fees to resolve. The case will likely settle, as do almost all copyright disputes. Of course, we have Congress (and Disney) to thank for the fact that our copyright law is so ambiguous that the costs of resolving a dispute outstrip the value of the intellectual property rights at issue in the dispute.
Posted by: at December 19, 2006 10:26 AM I don't see how selling something that you bought even falls under copyright laws at all--unless it were an illegal copy.
News RSS