A bit part of that celebration comes from the music we listen to. From timeless Christmas classics to the more modern adaptations, music has always been a big part of the holidays and will be for a long time to come.

But how much of that near-ubiquitous Christmas music is in the public domain and how much is still earning their authors (or their estates) money? It’s a surprisingly tough question as much of the Christmas music we listen to is actually not anywhere near as old as we think.

To illustrate that point, here are five tracks that are currently in the public domain and five songs that, as of right now, are not. Please bear in mind that this only pertains to the composition of the work and that various performances of it may still be protected.

So, without any further ado, here’s the list of some of the surprises when it comes to Christmas copyright.

Public Domain – Deck the Halls

“Deck the Halls” is a secular holiday song that originates from the 1800s. The meolody belongs Welsch composer Nos Galan. The lyrics, as they are sung today, are actually American in origin and date back to the 19th century.

All in all, this song has been in the public domain for hundreds of years.

NOT Public Domain – Frosty the Snowman

“Frosty the Snowman” dates back to only 1950 and was the creation of songwriters Jack Nelson and Steve Rollins who, seeing the success of Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer a year earlier (spoiler alert, Rudolf isn’t public domain either) and decided to take a stab at creating their own Christmas Carol.

They succeeded and “Frosty the Snowman” remains one of the most popular and most-licensed holiday songs year after year.

Public Domain – Jingle Bells

“Jingle Bells”, which was originally titled “One Horse Open Sleigh” was the work of author James Lord Pierpont in 1857. It was originally intended to be for a Thanksgiving event at a church in Savannah, GA but was so popular it was played at Christmas and grew to become one of the most popular Christmas carols of all time.

However, it’s long-since fallen out of copyright and is available to be freely copied and performed.

NOT Public Domain – Santa Claus is Coming to Town

On the other hand, you better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout I’m telling you why: “Santa Claus is Coming to Town” is under copyright and you might get sued!

Kidding aside, the song was written in 1932 by John Frederick Coots and Haven Gillespies. The song was first performed by Eddie Cantor on his radio show, instantly making the song a huge success. However, even though it’s nearing the end of its copyright term, it hasn’t lapsed yet and is still vigorously protected.

Public Domain – Silent Night

There seems to be a lot of debate about just how “Silent Night” was first written, however, most seem to agree that it was penned on or around 1818 in Austria. The original (German) lyrics were penned by Reverend Joseph Mohr and Franz Gruber penned the music.

The song and it’s later English translations have long since lapsed into the public domain.

NOT Public Domain – Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas

“Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” was written in 1944 by composer Hugh Martin for the MGM movie “Meet me in St. Louis”. First sung by Judy Garland, the song became a hit. However, the original tone of the song was meant to be somber, sung by a destitute family as they’re being thrown out of their St. Louis home.

Frank Sinatra further popularized the song in the 1950s, with some lyrical tweaks, further catapulting it in the limelight.

Public Domain – Toyland

Though “Toyland” is best known today for being in the 1961 Disney Musical “Babes in Toyland”, the song actually written for the original Operetta of the same name, which was written in 1903 by composer Victor Herbert. The lyrics were written by Glen MacDonough.

Though many versions of the song are actually re-writes of the original, the one they date back to has long since lapsed into the public domain.

NOT Public Domain – Little Drummer Boy

“Little Drummer Boy” was written by Katherine K. Davis in 1941 though Henry Onorati and Harry Simeone are also often listed on the credits, though with some controversy in Simeone’s case. The song was based on an old Czech carol and was originally entitled “The Carol of the Drum”.

The first people to perform the song were the Trapp Family Singers, who became famous as the subjects of “The Sound of Music”, even though their version of the song wasn’t very popular. However, Simone rearranged the song in 1958 and changed its title to the modern version, shooting it to success.

Public Domain – O Little Town of Bethlehem

Written as a poem by Episcopal clergyman Phillips Brooks in 1867, two years after he visited Bethlehem. The music was by Lewis Henry Redner from a song named “St. Louis”.

Both the song and the music have long since lapsed into the public domain.

NOT Public Domain – White Christmas

“White Christmas” was originally written by composer Irving Berlin sometime between 1940 and 1942. Berlin, who was working on the movie “Holiday Inn”, had been tasked to write a song for every major U.S. holiday but Berlin, who was Jewish, struggled to write the one for Christmas.

He eventually came up with White Christmas but almost didn’t present it. It was Bing Crosby who convinced him it was a “winner” and the song has gone on to be the biggest-selling single in history, with over 50 million copies sold.

Bottom Line

On that note, I want to wish everyone a happy holidays. Plagiarism Today is going to be taking some time off for the next week or so. However, I will be around many of those days handling consulting work and last minute details. I’ll also return next week to do my usual year-end wrap ups and other articles.

In the meantime though, have a great, happy and safe holidays and I will see you guys shortly!

Special Thanks: A special thanks to Rightsworkshop and Public Domain Info for their lists that help me get started on this post. Check them out for even more public domain/non-public domain Christmas songs.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: RIAA Wants ReDigi Out of the Business of Selling “Used” iTunes Tracks

First off today, music retailer ReDigi has received a cease and desist notice from the RIAA claiming that the company is infringing on the rights of musicians by reselling “used” iTunes tracks. ReDigi’s process verifies that the tracks are legally bought and then removes all copies of it from the original computer and then puts it up for resale on their site at a drastically reduced price. According to the RIAA, this remains an infringement as copyright law does not allow an owner to make a copy of a file, resell the copy and then destroy the original. ReDigi, however, had an analysis of their own done and found that their service is legit. The RIAA also takes issue with ReDigi’s music sampling service, which allows potential buyers to listen to 30-second clips of the songs.

2: Copyright Group Tries to Collect Cash From Open Source Event

Next up today, in German, a rights group named GEMA has demanded that the organizers of two dance parties, held simultaneously in Weimar and Leipzig, pay 200 Euros ($270) for using music GEMA holds licensing rights to. However, the two parties were open source-themed and DJs were instructed to only play Creative Commons-Licensed music. Even stranger, a quirk in German law makes it so that GEMA doesn’t have to prove that any artists they represent were played and, instead, the organizers must prove that they weren’t. The German Pirate Party, however, wishes to challenge the case.

3: Apple launches iTunes Match in the U.S.

Finally today, those who have been waiting for iTunes Music Match will now have their chance to sign up. The service works by enabling iTunes users to sync their music with the cloud. This includes both tracks bought through iTunes and those acquired elsewhere. Those tracks, if they are part of iTunes’ database, are replaced with high-quality version from iTunes and synced that way. If the tracks are unavailable, the originals are synced.The service costs $25 per year and covers 25,000 songs.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Facebook Employee Reveals Killer Facebook Music Feature In Deleted Tweet

First off today, Facebook is expected to announce Facebook music within the next hour but already some details seem to be leaking out as one employee, Ji Lee, Facebook’s creative directory, tweeted that “The ‘Listen with your friend’ feature in ticker is blowing my mind. Listen to what your friends are listening. LIVE” The service, supposedly a partnership with Spotify, is due to be formally announced today at Facebook’s F8 developer’s conference and is expected to provide all Facebook users with free access to millions of tracks they can listen to and share.

2: Vimeo Launches Music Store to Help you License Music for Videos

Next up today, not to be outdone by Facebook’s music announcement, Vimeo has made one of their own. However, this one is geared toward using music in videos, not toward listening. Vimeo has launched a music store where users can license musics from a variety of sources, including fee Creative Commons tracks and paid tracks. The bulk of the tracks, some 33,000, come from Audiosocket while another 11,000 come from Creative Commons sources. The cost is free for Creative Commons tracks, $2 for paid tracks for personal use and $98 per paid track for professional use. Vimeo makes it easy to find the track you need by search for mood, tempo or genre of the song you want.

3: Movie Institute Feels Pain Of IP Address-Only Piracy ‘Evidence’

Finally today, the Swedish Film Institute (SFI) has been deflecting accusations that it uploaded several movies to The Pirate Bay after an anti-piracy firm traced the films back to IP addresses owned by the organization. However, SFI has responded to the accusations saying that the addresses in question are shared not just by every employee of the organization but by other tenants in the building and even an open wifi in the lobby. Despite this, the SFI audited its firewalls and logs and said that no wrongdoing could be found. The antipiracy firm involved, DoubleTrace, has refused to turn over its evidence to the SFI, which SFI says bars it from doing a more complete investigation.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Copyright Troll’s Assets Targeted for Seizure

First off today, news appears to be getting worse for Righthaven, the company that formerly filed lawsuits over content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post, the latter of which has since dropped the service. A former Righthaven defendant, which won on the grounds of fair use, is petitioning the court to have U.S. Marshalls seize the company’s assets in order to pay a $34,000 judgment that he won against Righthaven. Righthaven has ceased filing lawsuits pending the resolution of many of the ongoing cases, this one included, but has said that paying $34,000 judgment could result in a bankruptcy filing and has asked the court to stay the order.

2: BMI’s 2011 Revenues at All-Time High

Next up today, even as CD and other music sales decline overall, royalty collection is continuing to increase. Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI), which collects royalties for music publishers and songwriters, reported a 1.5% increase in overall collections this year, $931 million this years versus $917 million last. Payouts to their clients also increased, up to $796 million this year from $789 million last. BMI services over 650,000 licensed businesses and more than 500,000 music publishing members.

3: Girls Are Not Into The Pirate Bay, Or BitTorrent

Finally today, as the first numbers are released from the largest file-sharing survey in history, which was held on The Pirate Bay back in April, it appears that, while file sharing sites may be a great place to get the latest movies (albeit illegally), they aren’t such a great place to meet women. According to the survey’s findings, women accounted for only 5% of the 75,000+ respondents. That number is still low compared to others statistics, which show women making up some 20% of other file sharing sites, but no site boasted more than 26% female representation. The statistics also show that the respondents were primarily young, between 18 and 24, that downloading habits were unchanged over different cultures (as well as across genders) and that users are very worried about remaining anonymous during their activities.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Expendables Producers Drop Lawsuit Against 23K BitTorrent File-sharers

First off today, the U.S. Copryight Group, representing the producers behind the movie “The Expendables” have dropped their suit against 23,000 alleged Bittorrent file sharers. The movie comes after the Washington DC Federal Judge said the group would not be able to pursue infringers with that lawsuit if they are not in the court’s jurisdiction, theoretically eliminating all but 84 of the cases. However, the suit was dropped without prejudice leaving the U.S. Copyright Group open to refile.

2: Lakewood Church, Osteens Sued For $3M

Next up today, Houston-based Lakewood Church is being sued by two musicians, Richard Cupolo and John Emanuelle claiming that the church used a song created by the pair was used in commercials for the church after their license expired in February 2011. The church has said that the music, which was one minute of background music for the commercial, was licensed and that the musicians are “confused”.

3: Copyright Piracy Increasing in Asian Countries

Finally today, despite all the talk about Web-based piracy, printed book piracy is a growing problem in Asia where illegal copies of many bestsellers are printed in India and shipped throughout the continent. The illegal operations are controlled by highly organized gangs, often working alongside legitimate printing companies and are able to print and distribute between 75-80 western bestsellers a year.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

It is Friday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

The summer heat isn’t slowing down copyright news as the courts keep on churning out the rulings and new laws keep coming online. However, this week we also have a couple of interesting opinion pieces that ask how the war against piracy is really going and where it may be heading.

All in all, this is not a show you want to miss.

This week’s stories include:

• Zediva Shuts Down, Lays Off DVD Monkeys
• BBC Says Stupid Things About Copyright
• First Sale? Not if It’s Made Abroad.
• New Zealand “3 Strikes” Kicks In
• Beating Piracy or is a Comeback Due?
• Mattel and Jack Kirby Heirs Appeal

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Music Publishing Group Drops Appeal of YouTube Copyright Infringement Case

First off today, the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) has settled its long-running suit with Google over its YouTube property. In 2007, the NMPA was a plaintiff in a companion suit to Viacom’s now-famous lawsuit against YouTube. They have agreed to waive their right to join the appeal that’s ongoing in the Viacom case and voluntarily dismissed their claims. This, in turn, paves the way for publishers to start signing royalty deals with YouTube and begin earning revenue from YouTube plays.

2: Court Rejects Freelancer Settlement: Still No Payment From Tasini Court Win

Next up today, even as one settlement is going through, another is getting shot down. A proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit that pits freelance authors against newspapers and magazines they’ve worked for has been rejected by the Court of Appeals. The lawsuit stems from newspapers and magazines including freelance works in various databases, including Lexis Nexis, even though such inclusion was not part of the original contracts. The settlement was rejected because, according to the court, the majority of the plaintiffs were not represented adequately in it. Those who failed to register copyrights in their works would only receive a small fraction of what those who had would, something the courts found unacceptable. The case is now headed back to the district court where it will likely be re-framed to better represent such plaintiffs.

3: U.S. Judge Slaps Around Brazilian Court In Zynga v. Vostu

Finally today, the case between Zynga and Vostu has taken a strange twist as a U.S. judge has issued an order against Zynga instructing them not to enforce a Brazillian court’s injunction ordering Vostu to shutter some of its games. The lawsuit, which saw U.S. game maker Zynga, best known for its Facebook games, sue its Brazillian rival Vostu claiming that the company has too closely mirrored several of Zynga’s games. Zynga, which filed both in the U.S. and Brazil, got an injunction against Vostu in Brazil but the U.S. court, at Vostu’s request, has ruled that Zynga can’t enforce that ruling until they’ve had a chance to weigh in on the same issue.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 6 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

The first came from Netflix, which announced it reconfiguring its account structure in such a way that many customers would be seeing a 60% increase in their monthly bill if they wanted the same service. The second came from Spotify, the music streaming service long popular in Europe as it opened its doors to U.S. customers.

Though the two stories could not be farther apart, especially in how the news was received, they’re painting a very clear picture of how the streaming media marketplace is shaping up and what that means for copyright, licensing and piracy.

To see how, we have to take a deeper look at the announcements, the public’s reaction to them and what they mean.

Netflix’s Price Hike

The first announcement centered around Netflix’s shift in the way it was pricing its various services. The company, which previously had offered one DVD rental per month and unlimited streaming for $9.99, was breaking apart the two components and charging $7.99 for each. The result would be that, for the same service, one would now have to pay just shy of $16 per month.

However, the “rate hike” isn’t a hike at all for those who just used the streaming service as it remains at the same price. Likewise, those who are on the plan but only want one service or the other can scale back and save $2 per month.

That being said, users were still extremely upset with some polls showing over 50% of users plan on unsubscribing from Netflix if the pricing isn’t changed. When it came time to cast blame, many put it squarely on the film studios and there is indeed some reason to believe that rising licensing costs played a role in the rate shift.

However, given that the “hike” doesn’t raise the price for the streaming service alone, it seems more likely that Netflix is simply trying to remove “dead weight” customers from its streaming service. Since many of Netflix’s content licenses hinge in the number of users it has, giving customers access to streaming content when they have no interest or ability to view it is wasting money.

In short, while content licensing rates increasing, by slowing growth and limiting usage of the service, Netflix feels it can keep the prices where they are, at least for the time being.

Spotify’s Big Play

Where Netflix’s announcement was met with near-universal anger, Spotify’s announcement was met with a great deal of excitement. Spotify, which for years has provided free and low-cost streaming music in Europe, has finally been able to secure deals with the record labels to launch in the U.S.

However, where Spotify was a pioneer across the Atlantic, it comes after services such as Amazon Cloud Player, Google Music and even after the announcement of iCloud Music Match. This says nothing of directly competing services such as Rhapsody and Napster that have been in operation for years.

While Spotify does offer a free service, it is limited to 10 hours of music per month, only offers certain features and has ads. Also, the free version is invite-only at this time and invites are scarce. However, users of one of the two paid tiers bypass the limitations of the free account and do not need an invite.

Paid accounts on Spotify begin at $5 per month for a basic unlimited package and $10 per month for an account with more advanced features.

Though no numbers are available the early indications are that Spotify’s launch in the U.S. has been a success, with rave reviews and many willing to spend the money to skip the queue and get into Spotify now.

The Future of Streaming Media

All of this asks a difficult question: Why are users eager to spend $5 or even $10 on unlimited streaming music with Spotify but are upset about spending $8 for unlimited streaming movies on Netflix?

Part of the reason, almost certainly, has to do with Netflix’s announcement and previous pricing model. Not only did Netflix’s controversial blog post try to make it seem like the move was better for the customers (which it may be in some cases) but Netflix had already once raised prices in the past year.

However, a lot of it seems to hinge on Netflix’s library itself, which many view as being lacking and that causes Netflix’s users to use the DVD queue to supplement the holes in the streaming library.

Spotify, however, has a reputation for having a very robust collection of music, with an estimated 15 million songs in its library. Likewise, its software and features generally receive high praise, compared to Netflix, which often takes knocks for its interface and tools.

This is a big part of why Spotify and other free offerings (including YouTube) have had an impact on piracy though it doesn’t appear the same can be said for Netflix, at least not yet.

So what does this mean for copyright holders and streaming services? The answer is quite simple and something many in the industry have said for a very long time.

Building a Better Stream

What Spotify, in particular the divide between it and Netflix, shows is that copyright holders can compete with pirated copies of their content. However, doing that does require a great deal of work.

As such, the following variables are crucial for such a service to work.

1. Convinience: The service has to be accessible in as many places and on as many platforms as possible. It also has to be reliable and constantly available.
2. Completeness: Having 15 million tracks is useless if the one track the listener wants isn’t available.
3. Features: Any paid service must offer features that can’t be obtained for free with pirated copies, at least not easily. This can include recommendations, social networking, etc.

The one thing that is not on that list is price. While it is important that the price be able to be justified, Spotify has shown that people are willing to pay more than even what Netflix is charging for a streaming service if it is worthwhile.

In short, the price can’t compete with free pirated copies nor should it try, but it shouldn’t be a reason to turn away either.

Streaming services that can do this will, for the most part, be successful while those who don’t will generally fail. It’s really that simple.

Bottom Line

In the end, this is where the marriage of content creators and technology firms has to happen. Content creators have to make things people want to see or listen to and tech companies need to get it into the user’s hands with enough features and convenience to make it worth paying for.

For this to work, both sides need to hold up their end of the bargain. With Netflix, content creators need to make sure their work is accessible at a reasonable price and Netflix needs to take ownership over its PR and interface issues.

If the two sides worth together, some amazing things can happen and piracy can become, at most, a back burner issue.

If they don’t, then piracy isn’t going anywhere and neither side will reap any benefit from the works that have been created.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Here’s Spotify! The Music Streaming Service Officially Lands In The US

First off today, the Europe’s popular music streaming service Spotify has arrived in the United States and is currently accepting registrations. Spotify, best known for providing free, legal streaming of almost any music track, has struggled to sign the needed licenses in the U.S., causing the launch here to come years after its launch in Europe. In the U.S., Spotify is offering a free account, though it will be limited to 10 hours of music per month and will display ads. However, getting such an account may be tricky as it is invite-only and those invites seem to be scarce. However, those who want to to use paid accounts, which add additional features and unlimited listening, can sign up now.

2: Lady Gaga’s YouTube page suspended: Who’s to blame?

Next up today, Lady Gaga’s official YouTube account has been shut down due to alleged copyright violations. According to reports, the closure actually stems from a recent complaint by a Japanese television network, which recently had the artist perform on one of their shows. Gaga, or someone who works for her, posted a video of that performance drawing a takedown and eventually the closure. There is no word if Lady Gaga plans to petition to have her account restored.

3: Righthaven Learning it Can’t Change the Facts After it Sues

Finally today, Righthaven, the company that has filed suits against those it accuses of reusing content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post, had one of its cases tossed. At issue was its agreement with the Review-Journal, which gave the group only the right to sue, not an exclusive license to the work, which is needed to sue. Righthaven amended its deal with the paper in an attempt to fix the problem and tried in various lawsuits, including with Dean Mostofi, to amend its complaint to use the new agreement. However, the judge has disallowed that and has tossed the case against Mostofi’s. Unfortunately for Mostofi, Righthaven waited just a few hours before filing a new lawsuit on the same charge, one that is using the new agreement from the beginning.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 6 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: A Trove of Historic Jazz Recordings has Found a Home in Harlem, But You Can’t Hear Them

First off today, the National Jazz Museum in Harlem has acquired a large number of swing era jazz recordings that don’t exist anywhere else. However, due to copyright restrictions, the museum can not make them available to the public. The recordings, which were taken by William Savory, who sat in on may of the great jazz musicians as they practiced and performed in the city, number in the thousands and are all, to the best of the museum’s knowledge, unknown recordings. The museum has said it will attempt to resolve the copyright issues, but currently the only way to listen to the discs, which the museum is attempting to digitize, is to make an appointment.

2: Copyright Law: No One Understands it

Next up today, former Engadget managing editor and copyright attorney Nilay Patel claims that Apple, in its rush to sue Samsung for patent violations over its iPad-like tablet, may have infringed copyright. Specifically, Apple lifted photographs of Samsung’s tablet from the site AndroidCommunity and used them in their legal filings. Apple even cropped out the watermark the site had placed on its photos. There’s been no threat of legal action against Apple over this and it seems unlikely there will be, but the case raises interesting questions about how copyright impacts legal documents, especially when outside works are used with them.

3: ‘Rent’s’ Script Edits Violate Copyright

Finally today, a performance of “Rent” at Towson University may have run afoul of copyright law. Though the performance of the play had a contract and permission to operate, the producer of the play, Diane Smith-Sadak, modified five lines in the performance to make the fate of Mimi, one of the play’s characters, more open to interpretation. However, the contract the college had forbidden the modifying of the script and, after an audience member noticed the change, the copyright holders called the school and asked them to change the script back to its original form, which it has, heading off any legal dispute.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 6 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.