How Will the Copyright Claims Board Work?

The creation of the Copyright Claims Board (the “Board”) under the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019 (the “CASE Act” or “Act”)) is one of the unexpected byproducts of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. What follows is a brief summary of the major points of the Act. 

There were advocates on both sides of this legislation. Supporting the legislation was Copyright Alliance. Opposing the legislation was the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

As of right now, until the Board is firing on all cylinders, the only way to prosecute a copyright infringement claim is to file a lawsuit in the US District Court. A claimant should be represented by legal counsel who can navigate the federal rules of civil procedure and move the matter forward. 

It would seem logical to think that a purpose behind the CASE Act is to create an alternative dispute resolution system for copyright claims to be resolved outside of the federal court system. On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable idea. So far, so good. However, like everything else, the devil is in the details.

You can read my detailed analysis over at Tuk’s Copyright Law Reporter.

For the relevant statutory language, please see below:

Likeness Rights and Digital Resurrection

People in the entertainment business (and everyone else) have been reading the news that the late actor James Dean was cast in an upcoming film project. Dean, who died in 1955, will be digitally resurrected through CGI technology. Dean - well, not exactly James Dean, but the likeness of James Dean - will “act” in an upcoming film that I’m not even going to name because of my personal aversion to this.

Many people, not just film industry people, are expressing their displeasure with this. I am one of them. We have seen this before, with Disney’s use of the likenesses of the late Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher in the film Rogue One. I wrote about that extensively here.

From a legal standpoint, there are two important questions: 1) How did this happen? and 2) How can people control their likenesses after death?

Read more

Tuk's Rules, Ep.20: Legislative Update on PA House Bill 561

PA House Bill 561 is a tremendously dangerous piece of legislation that has passed the PA House 115-12. This Bill - if passed in its current form - will prohibit liquor licensees (hotels, bars, restaurants) from paying young musicians who are performing there. Watch the video below for more detail. This Bill is moving VERY quickly through the legislative process.

CALL TO ACTION:

  1. Find your PA Legislator by clicking here.

  2. Call and email your PA Senator to object to the nonpayment of performers.

IN THE NEWS: Bryan Tuk's Editorial in The Pittsburgh Current on PA HB561

You can click here to read Bryan’s editorial in The Pittsburgh Current. Below is an excerpt:

While performing for an audience can be a thrill, it is also a job that requires professional musicians to work very hard in order to make a living.  

The economics of the local music business aren’t pretty either.  The money that is offered most local musicians for your average gig at a bar or hotel would shock people if they knew.

With all of these pressures in mind, seemingly out of left field, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a Bill recently that will make the economic life of the professional musician much, much more difficult.

This odious piece of legislation is House Bill 561.   

HB561 allows liquor licensees (hotels, bars, restaurants) to hire minors to perform as musicians, but the same bill expressly prohibits any payment to those performers for their services.  Yes, you read that correctly.  The language of the Bill actually forbids payment to minors even though they are working at the establishment.