US Supreme Court declines to reconsider dancing baby case
The US Supreme Court has declined to review the infamous dancing baby case which asked to what extent 'fair use' must be considered when rights owners issue takedown notices against online content. Neither side in the case - plaintiff Stephanie Lenz and defendant Universal Music Publishing - was happy with the most recent ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals in 2015.

As previously reported, this dispute began way back in 2007 when Lenz posted a video onto YouTube of her child dancing to the Prince track 'Let's Go Crazy'. Universal Music Publishing, then repping the Prince songs repertoire, had Lenz's video removed using the takedown provisions in America's Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But Lenz argued that the short video was 'fair use' under US law and then - with support from the Electronic Frontier Foundation - sued Universal for abuse of the DMCA.

The lawsuit posed the question of whether or not a rights owner issuing a DMCA takedown was required to first consider whether any video using, without licence, music it controlled was, in fact, covered by the 'fair use' principle under US copyright law. If the video did constitute 'fair use', no licence would be required, so no takedown should be issued.

The litigation spent years going through the motions, before the Ninth Circuit court ruled in 2015. It said that yes, rights owners must indeed consider fair use rules before issuing a takedown notice. So, success for Lenz. Except the appeal judges then said that this consideration need not be too rigorous, and providing that the label genuinely didn't think fair use applied, well, that was alright then. So, success for Universal, sort of.

Though the major was less happy on the appeal court's judgement that if Lenz pushed for damages over this whole matter, she didn't first have to prove "actual monetary loss", something the music publisher wanted judges to insist on in order to reduce the chances of it ever having to pay the dancing baby's mother any money.

Both sides subsequently referred the matter to the Supreme Court. Judges there quickly knocked back Universal's appeal on the damages question, but said they were considering a review of the Ninth Circuit's judgement regarding the impact of fair use on the DMCA takedown procedure. To that end, last October the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General in the US Department Of Justice for his opinion on fair use and takedowns.

Yesterday, however, judges at the top court announced that they would not consider the case after all, meaning that the Ninth Circuit judgement stands. Which in turn means that American rights owners should consider fair use before issuing a takedown, though that consideration doesn't need to be especially rigorous, and providing the takedown is issued in 'good faith', all is fine. Which isn't necessarily much use to the fair user.

The EFF said yesterday that it was disappointed that the Supreme Court wouldn't consider strengthening the fair use obligation on takedown issuers, though that it was happy the basic principle set by the Ninth Circuit - that fair use must be considered as part of the takedown process - was upheld.

The organisation's Legal Director, Corynne McSherry, said: "Sadly, the Ninth Circuit's ruling in this case did not go far enough to ensure that copyright holders would be held accountable if they force content to be taken down based on unreasonable charges of infringement, and we had hoped the [Supreme Court] would remedy that. However, the strong precedent that a copyright holder must consider fair use before sending DMCA takedown notices stands".

It remains to be seen in Lenz now returns to court with the Ninth Circuit judgement in hand to try and prove wrong doing on Universal's part back in 2007.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

American band The Slants get trademark law rewritten
A rock-synth-pop outfit from Oregon called The Slants have set a significant precedent in American trademark law, after the US Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling to the effect that the country's First Amendment free speech rights mean trademark applications can't be rejected on the basis they are offensive.

Simon Tam, the Asian-American frontman of The Slants, went legal after the US Patent & Trademark Office rejected his attempt to register his band's name on the basis it contained an offensive word, 'slants' being a derogatory term used to refer to those of Asian descent.

Tam pointed out that his band's use of the word was, in part, an effort to 'reappropriate' the derogatory term, telling CBS News earlier this year: "I was ridiculed as a kid for having slanted eyes. Now I'm saying it's something that I can be proud of, not something to be ashamed of". And whatever the band's motives, he added, rejecting trademark applications on the basis of offence was unconstitutional.

America's trademark laws do actually allow for the registry to knock back marks that "disparage persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols". To that end, the question the court needed to consider after Tam decided to fight the Trademark Office was whether or not that bit of the country's Trademark Act (aka the Lanham Act) violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court reckons it does. Or in the words of one judge, Samuel Alito, this element of US trademark law "offends a bedrock First Amendment principle - speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend".

Welcoming the Supreme Court's ruling, Tam wrote on Facebook: "This journey has always been much bigger than our band: it's been about the rights of all marginalised communities to determine what's best for ourselves. During the fight, we found the Trademark Office justifying the denial of rights to people based on their race, religion, sexual orientation and political views, simply because they disagreed with the message of these groups".

He continued: "To that end, they knowingly used false and misleading information, supported by questionable sources such as UrbanDictionary.com, while placing undue burdens on vulnerable communities and small business owners by forcing them into a lengthy, expensive, and biased appeals process. The Supreme Court has vindicated First Amendment rights not only for our The Slants, but all Americans who are fighting against paternal government policies that ultimately lead to viewpoint discrimination".

It remains to be seen if the new precedent results in any new trademarks being registered that are arguably offensive, possibly from applicants with different motives to Tam. Many have noted that the ruling should aid the American football team the Washington Redskins, which has faced legal issues over its trademark. Others have pointed out that the Trademark Office has, in the past, been somewhat inconsistent in what it considers to be offensive, so if nothing else Tam's success should mean less unpredictability in the registration process.

--------------------------------------------------

Radiohead stage collapse trial to start over, Live Nation will likely seek dismissal
The long running court case in Canada considering the liabilities of companies involved in the 2012 Radiohead concert in Toronto, where British drum tech Scott Johnson was killed after staging collapsed, will have to start from scratch once again after the judge overseeing it was promoted to another court.

As previously reported, Johnson was killed and three others injured after a scaffolding structure collapsed onto the open-air stage on which Radiohead were due to perform. The show was promoted by Live Nation and the live music giant was subsequently charged under Ontario's Occupational Health And Safety Act. Optex Staging & Services Inc was also charged over four alleged breaches of health and safety laws, while an engineer working on the show, Dominic Cugliari, received one charge.

The criminal case arrived in court in 2015, but hopes of a speedy resolution were not met, and the proceedings dragged through 2016 too, with the hope that a judgement might be reached in early 2017. That didn't happen and now the judge who has been overseeing the proceedings, Shaun Nakatsuru, has been appointed to the Ontario Superior Court, meaning that he no longer has jurisdiction over the case. To that end a mistrial has now been declared, and a new trial will need to take place.

Nakatsuru confirmed this in a statement earlier this month stating that: "It is with great regret that I have come to this decision. A lot of effort and resources have gone into this trial. We had nearly completed it. My [new] appointment was unexpected and without notice. I know that the defendants have waited a long time for the final resolution of this case. So has the public. There are many compelling reasons why it would be in the best interests of justice for me to finish this. But I cannot".

The mistrial might not just result in another delay for Johnson's family, who are desperate for closure on this matter. According to CBC, one of the lawyers working for the defence has said his clients will now seek to have the whole case dismissed on the basis of unreasonable court delays.

Live Nation has already attempted to have the case dismissed on those grounds once before, citing a relatively new precedent in Canadian law over unreasonably long court battles. Nakatsuru knocked back that request, arguing that this was a complex criminal case, and therefore the fact the legal proceedings were slow-going was excusable.

As previously reported, Johnson's father Ken criticised those previous attempts to have the case dismissed, telling the Toronto Star that "without the trial being completed, nothing will have been learned". Adding that he thought the live music giant was damaging its reputation by trying to employ legal technicalities to circumvent the trial, he said that Live Nation should just "get on with it" and "present their defence".

Live Nation's latest request for dismissal should be considered in August. If unsuccessful, the new trial is scheduled to being in September.

--------------------------------------------------

Roger Waters album blocked in Italy over artwork plagiarism claim
A court in Milan has reportedly issued an injunction blocking the sale of Roger Waters' new album 'Is This The Life We Really Want?' based on the allegation its artwork infringes the copyright of Italian artist Emilio Isgrò.

The cover of the new LP, which was released by Sony Music label Columbia earlier this month, features a body of text that has been heavily redacted, so that the only words appearing are those of the record's title. Isgrò - famous in art circles for his use of the so called 'erasure technique' - reckons that the cover art constitutes copyright infringement.

The artist is quoted by local media as saying that, while he admires Waters as a musician, the artwork on his new record "is a blatant plagiarism of my works".

According to Italian newspaper La Repubblica, a tribunal in Milan has now blocked sales of 'Is This The Life We Really Want?' in Italy, in both physical and digital form, pending a hearing on 27 Jun.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Ina Wroldsen signs to Syco
Syco Music has signed songwriter Ina Wroldsen, who has penned hits for the likes of One Direction, Clean Bandit and Britney Spears. The new deal will see her record a debut album as a featured artist this summer.

"I am very excited to start this venture into a new chapter of my life", says Wroldsen. "And I am particularly happy I get to do this working with Tyler and the rest of the incredible team at Syco".

Syco MD Tyler Brown - the very Tyler referred to there by Wroldsen - adds: "Ina is undoubtedly a world-class songwriter who is just getting better and better. Ina's incredible success over the last nine months is testament to that. I've always felt she was an artist as well as a writer and the songs she has written for herself this year are exceptional. I can't wait for the world to hear them".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Royalty Exchange raises $6.4 million in new investment
US-based online royalty marketplace Royalty Exchange has announced new funding of $6.4 million, more than double the $3 million it originally set out to raise.

The platform allows songwriters, musicians and other music right owners to auction off portions of their future royalties. Rightsholders choose what type of rights they wish to sell (eg performing rights income from their songs), what percentage of their future royalties are up for grabs, and how long the royalties transfer will last for. The winning bidder is then added as a beneficiary of the copyright through the rightsholder's collecting society.

The rightsholders receive a lump sum from the transaction while still earning on the percentage of their royalties that they do not sell. And if they are working creators, the rights in future works are not affected. Royalty Exchange makes money by taking a fee from successful auctions. According to the company, over $3.8 million has been raised by rightsholders through these auctions this year.

"We've experienced significant growth over the last year, but we've only scratched the surface", says Royalty Exchange CEO Matthew Smith. "Imagine if you had only two options to grow your business - either sell out completely or grow from internal cash flows only. That's the choice many artists face today. Royalty Exchange adds a whole new option for rightsholders, and we do it by bringing competition and transparency".

The company says that the new investment will be used to further develop its technology, and to hire staff in business development, marketing and artist/label relations roles.

Royalty Exchange's Antony Bruno is among those due to speak at the next Music 4.5 event in London, which is called 'The Value Of Music - Exploring Music As An Asset'. It takes place on 6 Jul and - as usual - look out for a 'story so far' CMU Trends article informing the debate, plus CMU's Chris Cooke will moderate one of the discussion sessions. Info here.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Vice Media scores $450 million investment, takes valuation to $5.7 billion
Vice Media has secured $450 million of new finance from private equity firm TPG. This now puts the company's valuation at $5.7 billion.

The new money will allow the company to "build up the largest millennial video library in the world", says CEO Shane Smith, whatever that means. When your business is worth $5.7 billion you don't have to make sense. Topics and genres included in that 'millennial video library' will include "news, food, music, fashion, art, travel, gaming, lifestyle, scripted and feature films", he added.

A specific focus will be "scripted multi-screen programming", with the aim to become "the go-to home for the next generation of great storytellers in feature films and scripted episodic content across the world".

Noting the challenges facing advertising-funded media in the digital age, Smith said: "Media is probably at its most dynamic, most evolutionary time in its history. With Facebook and Google taking an ever-growing piece of the online advertising pie, looming 'skinny bundles' and OTT/DTC offerings exploding the media status quo - networks have to be nimble, smart and fast moving".

Remember, there's no obligation for Shane to make sense. The exact terms of Vice's deal with TPG, and what stake it will take in the company, have not been made clear. In recent years, Vice has secured investment from Disney and 21st Century Fox, among others.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

LCD Soundsystem announce new album and UK shows
LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will release their long-awaited reunion album, 'American Dream', on 1 Sep. Coinciding with the release, they'll play a handful of shows in the UK, including two nights at The Warehouse Project in Manchester.

Here's the album's title track, which was released back in May.

And here are those tour dates, tickets for which go on sale tomorrow:

16 Sep: Manchester, The Warehouse Project
17 Sep: Manchester, The Warehouse Project
19 Sep: Glasgow, Barrowland
22 Sep: London, Alexandra Palace

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

AIM, Gorillaz, Apple Music, more

Other notable announcements and developments today...

• The Association Of Independent Music has appointed Transgressive Records' Tim Dellow as the first independent Chair of its board. The role was separated from that of CEO after Alison Wenham departed last year. A new management group has also been established, comprising Because Music's Jane Third, Secretly Group's Hannah Overton, Beggars Group's Martin Mills and Ninja Tune boss Peter Quicke.

• Jaguar Land Rover now has its own section of the Gorillaz mixed reality app, through which the company is aiming to recruit more than 1000 electronic and software engineers. Here's a video to explain it all.

• Apple Music is now offering existing subscribers a new $99 annual subscription. So that's cheaper than its competitors, if you're willing to pay for twelve months up front.

• Seattle has finally opened a park named after Jimi Hendrix, more than a decade after announcing its plan to do so.

• New Haim.

• Super Furry Animals have released a cover of The Smiths' 'The Boy With The Thorn In His Side'. The track was originally recorded around 1997 for a covermount CD on a French magazine, but was rejected. It'll now be included on a reissue of their 'Radiator' album out on 28 Jul.

• Carla Bruni has released a cover of The Rolling Stones' 'Miss You', taken from her new album 'French Touch', out on 6 Oct.

• Anna Of The North has released the video for new single 'Lovers'.

• Pat Dam Smyth will be touring the UK next month, finishing up at Karamel in London on 19 Jul.

• Voting for the Best Live Act prize at this year's AIM Independent Music Awards is now open.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

Jay-Z finds misplaced hyphen
Hey, sub-editors. Jay-Z is fucking with you. Yeah, that's right, I said Jay-Z. The hyphen is back.

Actually, out of stubbornness, CMU never dropped the hyphen from his name in 2013, despite his label apparently deciding that it was of utmost importance that the Z should be allowed to roam free. Still, the rest of the world lost its mind and began militantly enforcing this new stylistic rule.

When the press release about Jay-Z's new album, '4:44', went out yesterday, it wasn't initially registered that it saw the re-introduction of the hyphen. But it did. Look.

Except now we're all apparently supposed to write his name in all-caps. No, chance Mr-Z. We'll never go down without a fight. Although we admire your incredibly successful attempt to generate publicity by slightly changing how you write your name with each new album release.

Actually, in the trailer for '4:44', his name is stylised 'JAY:Z'. What are we to make of that? Music writers of the world! Let us not be dictated to like this! Let's all just agree to call him J-Zee and be done with it.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN