Opyright Laws - Assignment Example

In accordance with the 17 of the US copyright laws and regulations are meant to protect the original creators of any artistic work form illegal and unfair usage. Such protections extend to the usage of the images of celebrities and any other person and or people responsible for the creation of such works. Celebrities therefore have the right to exercise some control on how their images and work are used. In this case, it is advisable that Artist seeks the permission to use photographs of famous musician such as like B.B. King, Muddy Waters, and Robert Johnson in the production of his documentary. The law is very clear; you must never purport to use the image of any celebrity in preparing another artistic work unless a permission is total granted. However, the US Copyright law does not specify on the legality of the use of names of celebrities. In this case, Artist can just flash the names of the names of famous musicians. In this scenario, Artist and Chet verbally agree on conditions they considered favourable to both of them. Artist agrees to pay Chet $150 per day plus gas, breakfast, lunch and cat food. On the other hand Chet is willing to drive Artist anywhere within a radius of 200 miles for duration of 10 days. Definitely this is an oral agreement. Oral contracts are valid and are enforceable by a court of law as long as there is sufficient evidence to justify one`s claim (Oversight 1-10). By the fact that Chet and Artist shook hands on their agreement it remains a valid contract. After 3 days something happens and Chet has to stop offering his services to Artist. It is notable that Chet, the driver has partially fulfilled his promise in the terms of verbal agreement. It is therefore unlawful for Artist to fail to pay Chet for the three days of the service. Since Artist knew very well that he had no money and went ahead to give Chet a false promise, that forms a crime under Statute of Frauds if he fails to honour the promise. It is notable that during the agreement, Artist agreed to be driven together with two pet cats; Detour and Frolic owned by the taxi driver. Arguably, this can be justified by the fact that Artist consciously agrees to pay $150 per day plus fuel, breakfast, lunch and cat food. In the last part of the previous statement basically Artist agrees to pay for the food of the two cats. Naturally that would mean that he is willing to travel with them in the same car. However, it should be noted that Artist is allergic to pest such as cats. Contrary, there is no legal backing for Artist to initiate a legal proceeding against Chet for any havoc caused by both Detour and Frolic in car. Likewise, Chet the driver cannot be successfully prosecuted before a court of law for causing accident. The accident is treated as very unfortunate. Later in the day after his recovery, Artist committed an offense while performing at a local public park in Memphis. He insulted Chet by composing and subsequently singing a song entitled `Chet the Cheat’s Cats Must Die `. This statement can be considered as issuing death threat which is a criminal offence covered by coercion statutes and it is punishable by law. If convicted, Chet risks up to 5 years imprisonment according to the US criminal penalties on issuing of death threats. Additionally, Artist goes ahead to utter very nasty and harsh phrases against Chet and his cats. This is an insult and before Chet knew it he was already committing another crime that is also punishable by the United States of Americas defamation law (Makeen, 120). It is wise of Chet to call his lawyer when the police threatened to arrest had he continued with his insults against Chet and his cats; Detour and Frolic. The lawyer dedicated his 5 minutes time to listen to the grievances of his client. It should be noted that at that time Artist`s New York lawyer was attending a court session. Later in the evening, the lawyer sent an $850 bill to Artist. This action angered Artist and he quickly took to his Facebook account and said some nasty things about his lawyer. However much it may have been improper for the lawyer to bill Artist that amount of money, Artist also risk another possible prosecution for allegedly posting on his Facebook account that his lawyer was an “incompetent moron” who was “incapable of representing a bug.” Legally and procedurally, Artist would have sought some clarification from his lawyer on why requested such a huge sum of money instead of responding to him with severe insults on Facebook which is a public domain. In one way or the other, Artist painted an image of incompetency on his lawyer and therefore compromised his professionalism. This is a grave offense he committed. The right to own images and other artistic works remain with the original producer of that work according to Copyright laws of the United States. Since Artist is not going to pay for the poster created by his friend Graphina, it is no crime if Graphina intends to use the image after Artist has become famous. If only Artist paid for the production of the image, then he would own the right to distribute it and any need by Graphina to use the image must first seek permission from Artist. Graphina is also committing a crime by using the services of 14 year old child without the permission of his or her parents. Artist wants to start his own restaurant business using the recipes he obtained from a chef in T-Bone’s BBQ. He intends to use the name of the successful T-Bone’s BBQ to run his business. This would be a crime against U.S. Patent and Trademark Office laws unless he seeks permission from the owner of T-Bone’s BBQ restaurants. It is against the laws to use the name of any business without acquiring permission from the owner of that business. Work Cited Makeen, Makeen Fouad. Copyright in a global information society: the scope of copyright protection under international, US, UK, and French law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000. Print. Oversight of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and international harmonization efforts: hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, second ses. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 2012. Print. Read More