Yale Law announced earlier this week that is was going to launch a Ph.D. in Law. The announcement has picked up buzz in the legal community because this would be the first legal program in the United States to offer a doctorate program in Law. The program endeavors to appeal to students who seek to stay in academia often building careers as Law Professors.
This is a smart move for Yale. Believe it or not, there are many law students who don't want to be big law attorneys after earning their legal degrees. Moreover, law school has traditionally been used by some students as a stepping stone to other fields, attending law school with no intention of staying the legal field after graduating. There is a small group of law students, however, who enter law school with the specific goal of becoming a law professor.
Yale's program recognizes that it is difficult to transition from legal practice to teaching. The program will focus "in-depth scholarly training." I personally know one of these students whose goal is to become a law professor. He has expressed frustration in the lack of resources available to him at the law school level with most of the attention going to students who are planning on entering firm life upon receiving a J.D.
Yale has developed a program to serve and unmet need. There is no question that with this program, Yale's great reputation and prestige will accompany its graduates as they enter the world of legal academia after completing this program. As the school itself recognizes, “Yale Law School’s Ph.D. in Law will offer a new, alternative route into a career in law teaching and legal scholarship,” said Dean Post. “Some students will no doubt seek advanced degrees in cognate disciplines, but for those who wish to concentrate on law, we expect that the Ph.D. in Law will provide an attractive option.”
Only time will tell how many more programs will develop a doctoral degree, admittedly some will wait to see how Yale's new program is received.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Coachella 2012: Right of Publicity
Rapper Tupac was back from the dead and back on stage at Cochella 2012 with the help of some new technology. The technology surprised many and had concertgoers thinking they were seeing a ghost. Holographic technology made the performance possible and quickly gained a lot of buzz at and after Cochella.
The technology allowed a hologram of the deceased rapper which was projected on stage to preform with Snoop Dogg, who later talked about the experience. While some celebrities reacted with enthusiasm, while others didn't care much for the hologram. The hologram has caught the attention of other deceased celebrity estates who will be looking into this new ability with a strong interest. Can you imagine Michael Jackson or Bob Marley back on stage? Or Dick Clark ringing in the New Year with us one last time? Various legal considerations play a role in the possibilities of deceased legends going on tour as holograms.
Intellectual Property Attorney's will be looking at the Right of Publicity when considering this technology in licensing deals. Some commentators discuss the copyrights and trademarks also associated with the hologram, while other look at the creation of an independent public performance copyright. Whatever the future, the performance at Cochella has been the buzz of Tinseltown, and many are talking about the impact the technology can have on the entertainment industry.
The technology allowed a hologram of the deceased rapper which was projected on stage to preform with Snoop Dogg, who later talked about the experience. While some celebrities reacted with enthusiasm, while others didn't care much for the hologram. The hologram has caught the attention of other deceased celebrity estates who will be looking into this new ability with a strong interest. Can you imagine Michael Jackson or Bob Marley back on stage? Or Dick Clark ringing in the New Year with us one last time? Various legal considerations play a role in the possibilities of deceased legends going on tour as holograms.
Intellectual Property Attorney's will be looking at the Right of Publicity when considering this technology in licensing deals. Some commentators discuss the copyrights and trademarks also associated with the hologram, while other look at the creation of an independent public performance copyright. Whatever the future, the performance at Cochella has been the buzz of Tinseltown, and many are talking about the impact the technology can have on the entertainment industry.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
YouTube v Viacom: Round 2
YouTube and Viacom are in for a legal battle. I haven't read much yet but below I've listed the conclusions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which sent the case back to disctrict court. The district court was instructed to re-consider issues surrounding whether YouTube was liable for infringement when its users uploaded copyrighted video's and songs online. Google's, who owns YouTube, saw a slight fall in stock prices after the news spread. For those legal nerds out there here's the Second Circuit Courts decision.
Here are some other articles covering the reversal:
Reuters: Viacom wins reversal in landmark YouTube case
The Wall Street Journal: Viacom Advances in YouTube Suit
The New York Times: Judge Sides With Google in Viacom Video Suit
If you need to catch up on whats been going on here is a PBS story from 2010 which covered the original decisions and the implication: What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law
In an interesting side note, YouTube and Paramount did come to an agreement recently where YouTube will provide movies for rent online for $5. Maybe its the fact that I can get a movie at Redbox for $1 and pay a bit more for Netflix which gives me unlimited movies but, $5 seems a bit steep to me. Then again, if the content is more along the lines of the recent blockbusters, the price may fit the bill.
I look forward to the day where we can see movies on opening weekend from the comfort of our own homes, though its not likely to happen since that would effectively cut a studios profits down dramatically.
Here are the courts CONCLUSIONS:
To summarize, we hold that:
(1) The District Court correctly held that 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A) requires knowledge or
awareness of facts or circumstances that indicate specific and identifiable instances of
infringement;
(2) However, the June 23, 2010 order granting summary judgment to YouTube is VACATED because a reasonable jury could conclude that YouTube had knowledge or awareness under § 512(c)(1)(A) at least with respect to a handful of specific clips; the cause is REMANDED for the District Court to determine whether YouTube had knowledge or awareness of any specific instances of infringement corresponding to the clips-in-suit;
(3) The willful blindness doctrine may be applied, in appropriate circumstances, to demonstrate knowledge or awareness of specific instances of infringement under § 512(c)(1)(A); the cause is REMANDED for the District Court to consider the application of the willful blindness doctrine in the first instance;
(4) The District Court erred by requiring “item-specific” knowledge of infringement in its interpretation of the “right and ability to control” infringing activity under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B), and the judgment is REVERSED insofar as it rests on that erroneous construction of the statute; the cause is REMANDED for further fact-finding by the District Court on the issues of control and financial benefit;
(5) The District Court correctly held that three of the challenged YouTube software functions—replication, playback, and the related videos feature—occur “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1), and 35 the judgment is AFFIRMED insofar as it so held; the cause is REMANDED for further fact-finding regarding a fourth software function, involving the syndication of
YouTube videos to third parties.
On remand, the District Court shall allow the parties to brief the following issues, with a view to permitting renewed motions for summary judgment as soon as practicable:
(A) Whether, on the current record, YouTube had knowledge or awareness of any specific infringements (including any clips-in-suit not expressly noted in this opinion);
(B) Whether, on the current record, YouTube willfully blinded itself to specific infringements;
(C) Whether YouTube had the “right and ability to control” infringing activity within the meaning of § 512(c)(1)(B); and
(D) Whether any clips-in-suit were syndicated to a third party and, if so, whether such syndication occurred “by reason of the storage at the direction of the user” within the meaning of § 512(c)(1), so that YouTube may claim the protection of the § 512(c) safe harbor.
Here are some other articles covering the reversal:
Reuters: Viacom wins reversal in landmark YouTube case
The Wall Street Journal: Viacom Advances in YouTube Suit
The New York Times: Judge Sides With Google in Viacom Video Suit
If you need to catch up on whats been going on here is a PBS story from 2010 which covered the original decisions and the implication: What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law
In an interesting side note, YouTube and Paramount did come to an agreement recently where YouTube will provide movies for rent online for $5. Maybe its the fact that I can get a movie at Redbox for $1 and pay a bit more for Netflix which gives me unlimited movies but, $5 seems a bit steep to me. Then again, if the content is more along the lines of the recent blockbusters, the price may fit the bill.
I look forward to the day where we can see movies on opening weekend from the comfort of our own homes, though its not likely to happen since that would effectively cut a studios profits down dramatically.
Here are the courts CONCLUSIONS:
To summarize, we hold that:
(1) The District Court correctly held that 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A) requires knowledge or
awareness of facts or circumstances that indicate specific and identifiable instances of
infringement;
(2) However, the June 23, 2010 order granting summary judgment to YouTube is VACATED because a reasonable jury could conclude that YouTube had knowledge or awareness under § 512(c)(1)(A) at least with respect to a handful of specific clips; the cause is REMANDED for the District Court to determine whether YouTube had knowledge or awareness of any specific instances of infringement corresponding to the clips-in-suit;
(3) The willful blindness doctrine may be applied, in appropriate circumstances, to demonstrate knowledge or awareness of specific instances of infringement under § 512(c)(1)(A); the cause is REMANDED for the District Court to consider the application of the willful blindness doctrine in the first instance;
(4) The District Court erred by requiring “item-specific” knowledge of infringement in its interpretation of the “right and ability to control” infringing activity under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B), and the judgment is REVERSED insofar as it rests on that erroneous construction of the statute; the cause is REMANDED for further fact-finding by the District Court on the issues of control and financial benefit;
(5) The District Court correctly held that three of the challenged YouTube software functions—replication, playback, and the related videos feature—occur “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1), and 35 the judgment is AFFIRMED insofar as it so held; the cause is REMANDED for further fact-finding regarding a fourth software function, involving the syndication of
YouTube videos to third parties.
On remand, the District Court shall allow the parties to brief the following issues, with a view to permitting renewed motions for summary judgment as soon as practicable:
(A) Whether, on the current record, YouTube had knowledge or awareness of any specific infringements (including any clips-in-suit not expressly noted in this opinion);
(B) Whether, on the current record, YouTube willfully blinded itself to specific infringements;
(C) Whether YouTube had the “right and ability to control” infringing activity within the meaning of § 512(c)(1)(B); and
(D) Whether any clips-in-suit were syndicated to a third party and, if so, whether such syndication occurred “by reason of the storage at the direction of the user” within the meaning of § 512(c)(1), so that YouTube may claim the protection of the § 512(c) safe harbor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)