Does Intellectual Property Law Protect the Rights of Entertainment Business Personalities - Assignment Example

Swarna 1 Evaluate to what extent intellectual property law adequately protects the rights of entertainment business personalities The term intellectual property denotes the idea that this subject matter is the interaction of the mind or the intellect, and that intellectual property rights may be protected at law just like the property. As intellectual ideas form the base of the entertainment industry. Intellectual property law refers to the specific legal rights which actors and directors possess. It balances the right of privacy of actors with the right of freedom of expression of press persons. If one sees the success examples, intellectual property law aided in winning the case for JK Rowling regarding her privacy against Daily mirror news paper in 2005. Intellectual property law mainly covers copy right law. Copyright is a measure of protection that deals with published and unpublished literary, scientific and artistic works, whatever the form of expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material form 1. Copyright laws provide the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly. Hence the violation of copy right becomes severe challenge for persons of entertainment industry. The main challenges are in the form of theft of ideas, violation of intellectual property law i.e. infringement of trade mark and copy right leading to the injustice to the genuine artists (Maskus, 2000 and Peter Drahos, 2006). Fortunately there have been some legal instruments in the world which provide optimum justice to the genuine artists. Intellectual property law is one of the most crucial instrument which certainly protects the rights of the artists in the entertainment industry (Robert M. Sherwood, 1990 and Brainbridge David,2006). The introduction of intellectual property law has been done 1 : What is copy right protection? http://www.whatiscopyright.org/. keeping these things in to consideration. However one must question oneself regarding the efficacy of this intellectual property law in the context of protection of the interests of the artists in entertainment industry. Taking these above points in view, the present study has been conducted with the following objectives: 1. To determine the nature and components of intellectual property law and how it relates to the interests of entertainment industry personnel. 2. To examine the positive roles and limitations of the intellectual property law while protecting the interests of the artists in the entertainment industry. The different aspects of the copy right law and trade mark have to be analyzed relating to their role in balancing mechanism between the right of privacy of artists and the right of freedom of information of media. There is a lot of probability of having conflict with implementation of intellectual property law in case of licencing and sponsiorship which is quire common in both sports and entertainment industry. The regulation of intellectual property in cases of sponsorship and licencing during 2006 Common walth games was analyzed by Tim Golder and Wendy Burnett (2006). Similar utilization of intellectual property law can also be applied to the issues relating to the entertainment industry. The freedom of press should not affect the privacy of the artists and there should be proper mechanism to decide the genuineness of the matter. The press complains commission mainly regulates the use of freedom of press and in that process it may deal with the IPR issues. For example, in several cases, the press crosses the limits in the name of freedom of expression which affects the privacy of public and entertainment persons. The press complains commission mainly deals with these cases and decides the justice. In case of Ms Dynamite V Islington Gazette, the public won the case. The press complains commission ruled that the news paper exceeded the limits by publishing the photographs of the house of artist and hence it should not repeat it again, other wise it will be severely punished (Ms Dynamite V Islington, 2003). Similarly Peter Foster, a businessman complained that private conversations between him and his mother had been published by The Sun, Britain's news paper and the press complains commission has declard that listening to such a private telephonic conversation is nothing but affecting the privacy of persons and hence gave judgment in favor of Peter (Peter Foster V The Sun). These cases reveal that the interests of the public are proteted by some means which interpret the intellectual property law. However it also balances the right of freedom of expression of press. For example in case of Kate Beckinsale V The Daily mail, the news paper published the photgraphs of actress and interpreted regarding her daughter’s elfare and she complained. The press complains commission ruled that the daily mail has not done any wrongful act and hence it is not punishable. Copyright is applicable in creative and artistic works like movies, music, paintings and photographs and provides a copyright holder the exclusive right to control reproduction or adaptation of such works for a defined period of time and it plays major role in protecting the interests of the artists in the entertainment industry. For example, recently, the screen writers Aaron and Matthew Benay filed a law suit against Warner Brothers for copying their screen play for the movie “Last Samurai” (The New York Times, 2006). Hence any person or company violating the rights of the personnel in the entertainment industry can be punished under court of law. There were also some cases reported in which music copy right was violated but has clash with the right of privacy (The New York Times, 2003). The copy right law helps a lot in protecting the interests of the singers in a remarkable way. If any body violates these regulations, he will be punished severely. The IPR laws in England should take the example of Family entertainment and copy right act of 2005 of U.S.A (Family entertainment and copyright act of 2005). Section 101 of this act declares it as artists rights and thefts prevention act and hence provides tem with intellectual property rights. It even punishes those people who indulge in unauthorized recording of motion pictures (Section 102) and may be imprisoned up to six years. This will put tremendous check on those intellectual thefts of entertainment industry in England too if implemented properly. In case of JK Rowling V Daily --------------------------------------------------------- 2 : J.K.Rowling V Daily Mirror. 2005. JK Rowling wins privacy complains against Daily Mirror. Out law news dated 22nd December 2005. http://www.out-law.com/page-6490. Mirror (2005) 2, the privacy of Harry Potter’s author was affected by the publication of details of address of residence. The court ruled that the publication has clearly revealed the identity of the writer and might affect her security and it also violated the code of practice of Press commission and hence the ruled judgement in favor of the wirter. Trademark. Protection covers words, names, symbols, or devices that are capable of distinguishing the owner's goods or services from the goods or services of others. Similarly, a trade secret is a secret, non-public information concerning the commercial practices of an entertainment business whose public disclosure may be considered as illegal and hence the law punishes those people indulging in its violation. If any person violates this law, strong punishment will be applied and hence results in protection of rights of entertainment personnel. For example, the Director of The Lord of the Rings complained against the New Line Cinema (Ross Jhonson, 2005) for under payment which also speaks about the violation of agreements in entertainment industry. At this moment one should try to increase the level of awareness among the people regarding the provisions of the intellectual property law and then they can analyze the same for specific situations in the entertainment industry. In this context, the ideas provided by “Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property law” would be of immense use as it throws light on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) and ways to protect the interests of the genuine people (Susan K. Sell, 2003). Similarly the thoughts relating to intellectual property law developed by Chrisopher May and Susan K. Sell (2005) and Vandana Shiva (2002) enlighten the general public on various useful provisions of intellectual property law that can be constructively used for protecting the interests of the personnel in entertainment industry. The study and interpretation of cases of great British actors like Elton John and Robby Williams in relation to the copy right law would be of immense help in developing knowledge about all major aspects including types of record deal, management deals, publishing deals, manufacture, distribution, marketing, merchandising, touring, royalties, copyright, sample clearance, piracy and licensing in music industry in United Kingdom and it certainly aids in this direction (Ann Harrison, 2003) 3. Robby Williams, a great British singer cum song writer won legal cases against the news papers like MGN & Northern and Shell for affecting his right of privacy. However in case of Elton John, he lost the court case as there was no strong ground to prove that his right of privacy is affected (Electronic Musician, 2002). He rather complained that his finance was improperly managed which was not accepted by the court of law. This only indicates that the court of law balances the proper use of intellectual property law and decides the genuine cases. People should be made aware about the principles of “Privacy, property and personality” and detailed comparative analysis of the laws relating to commercial exploitation of personality in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. The difficulties in reconciling privacy and personality with intellectual property rights in an individual's identity and in balancing 3 : Ann Harrison. (2003), Musc : the business – The essential guide to the law and deals. Virgin books publication, P: 290, ISBN: 1852270136. such rights with the competing interests of freedom of expression and freedom of competition has to be understood which plays a vital role in defending the genuine interests of artists in the entertainment industry. (Beverley –Smith, Ohly and Schloetter, 2006) 4. the knowledge about commercial appropriation of personality which provides a framework for analyzing the disparate aspects of the problem of commercial appropriation of personality and traces and the discrete patterns of development in the major common law systems is of immense use for protecting the rights of entertainment personnel (Beverley -Smith, 2002) 5. 4 : Beverley –Smith, Ohly and Schloetter, (2006), Privacy, property and personality, Oxford University Press. P:284. 5 : Beverely Smith, Huw. (2002), The commercial appropriation of personality (Cambridge studies in intellectual property rights), Oxford University Press publication. P: 402. ISBN: 0521800145. One has to analyze the cases where intellectual property law protected the interests of the actors or directors of entertainment industry. For example, in case of Douglas V Hello Ltd (2003), illegal and wrongful disclosure of information in the form of their wedding photographs affected the privacy which also violated trade mark act as the exclusive jurisdiction of publishing photographs was given to another company i.e. O.K. Ltd. The judgment ruled that Douglas and O.K. Ltd. must be paid compensation by the Hello Ltd. In this way the intellectual property law protects the rights of entertainment personnel. The violation of data protection act (1998) and wrongful recording of events and violation of copyrights in video recording is also severely punishable (Elvis Presley Enterprises V Passport videos, 2004). Now a days the copy right infringement has become very common with the MP3 websites and it is heartening to note that the intellectual property law has been successful in protecting the interests of the entertainment companies. It was found true with the ruling of Chinese Court in compensating the Hongkong based entertainment companies by the domestic MP3 website for infringement of copy right. Finally, it is timely to remember the positive role played by the intellectual property law in protecting the interests of Eddie Irvene (Irvene V Talksport, 2003). Eddie Irvine, a well-known Formula One racing driver sued Talksport Radio for passing off especially for using his image in an advert advertisement without obtaining his consent. Irvene was compensated by the Radio station as ruled by the court of law by interpreting the intellectual property law. While playing the positive roles, the intellectual property law also exposes some draw backs which have been analyzed here. The main problem lies in the fact that the right of intellectual property gets in conflict with the right of freedom of expression when the information about the personal and professional news of actors get published in news papers. For example if one analyzes the case of Campbell V MGN Ltd (2004), the court adjudicated that right of freedom is as important as the right of privacy of persons and hence did n’t find any major mistake with the Mirror news paper of MGN Ltd. In other words, one should not try to misutilize the intellectual property law in the name of protecting their privacy in entertainment world. Some people tried to misutilize this law in the name of duplication of trade marks. However it is fortunate to find the intellectual property law interpreted by judiciary accurately to protect the interests of the artists in the entertainment industry. For example, the mere usage of registered mark will not be considered as wrongful act in cases of discontinuing the old jobs (Emanuel V Continental Shelf, 2006). Similarly the usage of closely similar type of trade marks or registered marks will not always be considered as violation of copy right and trade right laws as in the case of PICARO and PICASSO (Ruiz Picasso V OHIM, 2006). Hence where ever necessary the courts have been giving accurate interpretation and in that way they have been helping in avoiding misutilization of intellectual property law in entertainment industry. Conclusion: The chance of violation of copy right and trade right is maximum in entertainment sector due to its higher commercial value of assets. The right of privacy of artists is mainly affected by the press in the name of right of freedom of expression. Intellectual property law plays vital role in protecting the sense of innovation in any sector (Robert P. Merges et al., 2006). If one compares the magnitude of advantage provided by the intellectual property law in terms of protection of the interests of entertainment personnel its limitations are very minor and can also be modified according to the changing needs. Over all, all the personnel involved in the entertainment industry must try to develop basic knowledge regarding the important provisions of intellectual property rights which in turn would educate them and motivate them to solve their problems relating to the violation of copy right law and trade mark law. Bibliography: Bainbridge, David,I. (2006), Intellectual property 6/E, Longman publication, P:896, ISBN-10: 140580159X. Bently Lionel and Brad Sherman. (2004), Intellectual Property Law, 2nd ed. Oxford 2004, Oxford University Press. P:1234. ISBN: 0199264309. Biederman, Donald E., Silfen, Martin E., Berry, Robert C., Pierson, Edward P. and Glasser Jeanne A. (2001), Law and Business of the Entertainment Industries: Fourth Edition. P : 864, Praeger publishers. ISBN: 0275969835. Catherine Colston and Kirsty Middleton(2005), Modern Intellectual Property Law, 2nd ed. London 2005, Cavendish Publishing. Christopher May and Susan K. Sell. (2005), Intellectual property rights : A critical history (ipolitics), Lynne Rienner Publication, P:253. ISBN-10: 1588263630. Claude Ruiz-Picasso and ors v OHIM (2006); DaimlerChrysler AG (ECJ; C-361/04 P; 12.01.06). Cornish William and David Llewellyn (2003), Intellectual Property – Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 5th ed. London 2003, Thomson: Sweet & Maxwell. David Worrell. (2004), "License to profit: could licensing your intellectual property provide the extra capital you've been looking for?". Entrepreneur. Jan 2004.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DTI/is_1_32/ai_n6026337. Douglas V Hello Ltd. 2005. EWCA CIV 595. Douglas Clement. (2003), "Creation myths: does innovation require intellectual property rights?". Reason. March2003.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_10_34/ai_98125298. Electronic Musician. 2002. Elton John loses multi million dollar court battle. Dated 25th June 2002. http://emusician.com/news/emusic_elton_john_loses. Elizabeth Emanuel v Continental Shelf (2006), 128 Ltd (AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; C-259/04; 19.01.06). Elvis Presley Enterprises V Passport Videos. (2004), 357, F 3.d, 896, 9th Cir.(Cal), Feb 06, 2004 (Amended dissent). Irvene V Talksport Ltd. 2003, EWCA Civ 423. Kate Beckinsale V The Daily mail. http://www.channel4.com/learning/microsites/C/citizenpower/cptextonly/media_badpress_t.html. Liu Li. (2004), Website loses cases over MP3 downloads. China Daily dated 26th April, 2004. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/26/content_326244.htm. Maskus, K.E. (2000), Intellectual property rights in the global economy, Institute of International Economics publication, P: 270. ISBN-10: 0881322822. Mena Lo and Florence Lam. (2006), Trade mark invalidated on ground of copy right infringement.Journal of intellectual property law & practice. Oxford University press,http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jpl203v1. MsDynamiteVIslingtonGazatte.(2003),http://www.channel4.com/learning/microsites/C/citizenpower/cptextonly/media_badpress_t.html Peter Foster V The Sun. http://www.channel4.com/learning/microsites/C/citizenpower/cptextonly/media_badpress_t.html. Peter Drahos and Ruth Mayne. (2006), Global intellectual property rights : Knowldege, Access and Development, Plagrave McMilan publication, P:288. ISBN-10: 0333990285. Robert P.Merges, Peter S.Menell and Mark A.Lemley. (2006), Intellectual property in the technological age, P: 1221. Robert M. Sherwood. (1990), Intellectual property and economic development, Westview Pr publication, P:250. ISBN-10: 0813380197. Ross Johnson, (2005). The New York Times, The law suit of the rings; A director says studio self dealing cuts his pay. Section C, Page 1, Column 5 dated 27th Julne 2005. Susan, K. Sell. (2003), Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights, Cambridge University press, P: 240. ISBN-10: 052152539X. The New York Times. (2006), The lawyer battles idea theft in Hollywood. Section E, Page 1, Column 3 dated 27th July 2006. The New York Times. (2003), New economy; Guarding privacy Vs Enforcing copyrights, Section C, Page 1, Column 4 dated 29th September 2003. Tim Golder and Wendy Burnett. (2006), Intellectual property protection and enforcement at major events: Practical lessons learnt from Melbourne 2006 Common wealth games. Journal of intellectual property law & practice. Oxford University press, http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jpl201v1. Vandana Shiva. (2002), Protect or plunder?: Understanding intellectual property rights, Zed books publication, P: 144. Read More