你好! Shipping to Taiwan with premium packaging for just NT$300 

Ship to
Taiwan
0
  • argentina
  • chile
  • colombia
  • españa
  • méxico
  • perú
  • estados unidos
  • internacional

Select your country

Americas

Europe

Rest of the world

portada Music Copyright
Type
Physical Book
Language
English
Pages
530
Format
Paperback
ISBN13
9781097613588

Music Copyright

Landmark Publications (Author) · Independently Published · Paperback

Music Copyright - Landmark Publications

New Book Imported to Taiwan
Delivery: 19 Nov - 02 Dec Shipping: 17 to 21 business days.
NT$ 1,596
NT$ 1,596

Synopsis "Music Copyright"

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues surrounding copyright in musical works. * * * In order to prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show "(1) that he owns a valid copyright in his [work], and (2) that [the defendants] copied protected aspects of the [work's] expression." See Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 345, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991)). * * * Whether [a d]efendant[] copied protected expression contains two separate and distinct components: "copying" and "unlawful appropriation." Rentmeester, 883 F.3d at 1117. A plaintiff must be able to demonstrate that a defendant copied his work, as independent creation is a complete defense to copyright infringement. See Feist Publ'ns, 499 U.S. at 345-46, 111 S.Ct. 1282; see also Rentmeester, 883 F.3d at 1117. In cases [ ] where there is no direct evidence of copying, the plaintiff "can attempt to prove it circumstantially by showing that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that the two works share similarities probative of copying." Rentmeester, 883 F.3d at 1117. "When a high degree of access is shown," a lower amount of similarity is needed to prove copying. Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). "To prove copying, the similarities between the two works need not be extensive, and they need not involve protected elements of the plaintiff's work. They just need to be similarities one would not expect to arise if the two works had been created independently." Rentmeester, 883 F.3d at 1117. * * * To prove "unlawful appropriation" a higher showing of substantial similarity is needed. Id. The works must share substantial similarities and those similarities must involve parts of the plaintiff's work that are original and therefore protected by copyright. Id. To determine whether an allegedly infringing work is substantially similar to the original work, we employ the extrinsic and intrinsic tests. The extrinsic test is an objective comparison of protected areas of a work. This is accomplished by "breaking the works down into their constituent elements, and comparing those elements" to determine whether they are substantially similar. Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2004). Only elements that are protected by copyright are compared under the extrinsic test. Id. The intrinsic test is concerned with a subjective comparison of the works, as it asks "whether the ordinary, reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar." Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Skidmore v. Zeppelin, 905 F. 3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2018)

Customers reviews

Frequently Asked Questions about the Book

All books in our catalog are Original.
The book is written in English.
The binding of this edition is Paperback.

Questions and Answers about the Book

Do you have a question about the book? Login to be able to add your own question.

Opinions about Bookdelivery

More customer reviews