Posts

Showing posts from April, 2018

Cases Study 3: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music ( 1994 )

Image
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

Cases study 2 : Jeff Koons vs. Andrea Blanch ( 2006 )

Image
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

Case Study 1 : Rogers v. Koons

Image
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

Introduction

Image
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