Introduction

-

Related 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




References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXxPXiwVa1c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uiq42O6rhW4

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cases study 7 : Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury (1991)

-
Image
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...
Read more

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...
Read more

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 ...
Read more