Media Law

The Red Bus case about images of a London bus crossing Westminster Bridge in front of the iconic Houses of Parliament. Temple Island Collections used one image on souvenirs of London, while New English Teas ( a brand of tea ), used the other image on tea packaging. image1 Temple Island Collections which produces souvenirs of London, claimed to be the owner of copyright which subsisted in a black and white photograph of a red bus travelling across Westminster Bridge . ( up)  The image as 'largely in black and white, with the Houses of Parliament and the bridge shown in grey. The sky is white, with nothing else can see.  A bright red London Routemaster bus stands out on the bridge'. Image 1 was created by Mr Fielder after manipulating a photo he took with Photoshop software and was first published in February 2006.  Image2  New English Teas (NET), as its name suggests, produces tea. It wished to use an image which Judge described as containing 'thes

Case  The plaintiffs Hoepker, a German photographer.  Barbara Kruger, a well-known artist specializing in composite works combining photographs and texts.  Hoepker and his model sued Barbara Kruger for copyright infringement and invasion of privacy due to Barbara Kruger take Hoepker’s photograph of the model holding a magnifying glass over her eye, and superimposed the words “It’s a small world but not if you have to clean it” on top of it.  Kruger gave the Museum of Contemporary Art L.A. and the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York permission to publish his work in newsletters and brochures as well as featuring it on postcards, note cubes, magnets and t-shirts as well as in exhibit catalogues.  Held  The Court found that the model’s right to privacy was not violated.  To succeed on a right to privacy claim in New York, one must prove the use of one’s name, portrait, picture, or voice.  The Court found that Kruger had used Hoepker’s picture without con

Case  Back in 2011, a nature photographer David Slater left his camera in the Indonesian rainforest. Meanwhile ,Two Old World monkeys took David Slater's camera and reportedly snapped some pictures of themselves.  Slater found out that the photos are unique. “Every photographer dreams of a photograph like this.” said by Slater.  The photo went viral and was eventually uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons as a public domain image. Mr. Slater has objected to publication of the selfie on Wikipedia.He claims that the publication is infringement of his copyright but Wikipedia claims that monkey created images are not protectable under copyright because only humans can create copyrighted works.  Held  Copyright law stated that the work must have an "author." In U.S. , the term "authorship" implies that the work must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable. Similarly, in t

Case  In 1981, Queen and David Bowie released the song “Under Pressure”. The song reached number one on UK music charts.  In 1990, Vanilla Ice released his hit single “Ice Ice Baby” the beat the song was the same as “Under Pressure”. But Ice famously insisted that the two melodies are distinct because he added a beat between notes. A live version appears on the album Extremely Live, while a rap rock version appears on the album Hard to Swallow, under the title "Too Cold"  Queen and David Bowie sued the signer for sampling the beat to the song without permission or a license. Ice later claimed that this rationale was merely a joke. Representatives for Queen and Bowie weren't laughing and threatened a copyright infringement suit.  Interesting Facts ：Both songs, "Ice, Ice, Baby" and "Under Pressure" were number one hits. The song boosted the sales of the album which went to sell over 7 million copies. These songs were also

Case  Richard Prince is an artist who has recently generated turmoil within the art world. The one who transforms the work of others to create new meaning in his own work. Some people think that his work is not original given its use of photographic material produced by other artists.  This case is about Prince used the artists Patrick Cariou photographs in a series and painting and other works. An exhibition in the Gagosian Gallery, Prince appropriated 41 images from a photography book by French photographer Patrick Cariou, claiming fair use that he created new meaning out of the photographs. Prince had never requested permission by Cariou to use his photographs in his artworks which sold for approximately 10 million. Cariou argued that it was not a fair use, but copyright infringement.  Held  The court ruled in favor for Cariou in 2011, claiming the changes made to Cariou’s photographs were not significant enough to constitute a change in meaning — fair use.  A

Illustrations: Modern Dog – 2008; T-shirt: Target (both via Business Insider ) Case  There is an ongoing case regarding how the Disney/Target corporation allegedly infringed on Modern Dog Corporation, a small Seattle based company that produced a book of dog sketches and graphic illustrations.  Seattle design firm Modern Dog utilized a series of sketches of dogs in their compendium put out by Chronicle Books in 2008. Disney/Target corporation later created a kids shirt with a similar dog-drawing collage on the front. Some of the dog sketches are flipped, but the majority of them are very similar to the sketches in the Modern Dog book. The illustrations from that design have been used in a T-shirt produced by Disney/Target for sale.  In the end, Modern Dog Company got their justice, because Modern Dog was the 1st ones to create the pictures. Disney and Target used the pictures for sale, without giving any credit to Modern Dog.  Held  This is a pending case, so

Photograph: Mannie Garcia – 2006 (via The New York Times ); Poster: Shephard Fairey – 2008 (via Wikipedia ) Case The famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the "Hope" poster during President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. The design rapidly became a symbol for Obama’s campaign, technically independent of the campaign but with its approval. In January 2009, the photograph that Fairey originally used was proved to be taken by Associated Press (An international news agency based in New York Cit) employee Mannie Garcia. The associated press then demanded compensation for the use of Garcia's photo because it is copyrighted. Associated Press claimed it owned the copyright and demands compensation from Fairy who has been selling multiple copies of posters and stickers fro thousands of dollars. Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didn’t reduce the value of the original photograph,as we know fair use is a legal co

Case 2 Live Crew (Defendant) recorded a rap parody of the hit by Roy Orbison, “Oh, Pretty Woman.” Acuff-Rose (Plaintiff), the copyright holder of the original song, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song "Pretty Woman" infringed Acuff-Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman."  Held The Supreme Court agreed with Campbellís argument and held that parody, like other comment or criticism, may claim fair use under the Federal Copyright Act. The Court recognized that "parody has an obvious claim to transformative value and the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works." Copyright Act 1987 Section 36(1) The Copyright Act 1987 states that an infringement occurs when a person does something without the licence or permission or consent of the copyright owner. The copyright in a work is infringed when a person who: (i)not being the owner of the copyri

Case  A famous visual artist, Jeff Koons, made a collage using various photographs for an exhibit commissioned by the Guggenheim.  Koons is being accused for copying part of a photograph taken by Andrea Blanch, a fashion photographer.Blanch's photograph appeared in the fashion magazine Allure, and depicts a woman's legs reclining on a man's lap in an airplane cabin. Koons cropped and re-oriented the photo, before including it in a painted collage among other pairs of women's legs. Blanch bring the case to the court.  Held  The judge found Blanch did not have the copyright over the Gucci sandal therefore the only thing that could be copied was the females leg which could not be deemed original in order to be protected by copyright. The district court granted Koons holding that the use of Blanch's photograph in his collage constituted fair use, and not copyright infringement. Copyright Act 1987 Section 36(1) The Copyright Act 1987 states that

Photograph: Art Rogers – 1985; Polychrome: Jeff Koons – 1988 (both via The Design Observer Group ) About the Case  This case is about Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple (Jim Scanlon and his wife ) holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, the famous artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rodgers’ photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image. Jeff Koons asked his assistants to copy as much detail as possible from the photographs. The only changes made during the transition were larger noses on the puppies, blue fur, and the man and woman had flowers in their hair. The sculpture was named "String of Puppies" and became a success. Reportedly, Koons sold three of the sculptures for $367,000.  Jeff Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy

Picture from Freepik Hello Everyone , my name is Tan Wei Ting from MMU Cyberjaya. Im currently having my degree in creative multimedia major in advertising design. This sem i will be taking Media Law subject , in this blog i will talk about Copyright Act 1987 in Malaysia. There will be some related case that i will be given some examples and explanation , so you guys can understand what is copyright act 1987 in malaysia . Why do we need to know more about copyright ? Copyright laws protect certain kinds of original works. Any creation that is fixed in a recording medium, paper, compact disc, film or digital is subject to copyright. Copyright laws let creators control their works.There are laws and regulations in place to assure that only the creators and the individuals who managed to obtain the originators’ consent can duplicate, execute or modify the works, by granting exclusive rights to copyrights holders. ABOUT COPYRIGHT BASICS WHY IS COPYRIGHT IMPORTANT