Entertainment Law blog V2

Copyright or Censorship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sieMkGRcxuU
This first video I choose to watch dealt with Youtubes very strict Copyright infringement laws. The narrator Anthony Lawson had a tiff with Youtube stating that one of his videos was in violation of copyright infringement. Youtube did not give him any other detail about his violation. Youtube had taken his video down and then threatened to take down his account and all of his videos if it ever happens again. Anthony compares Youtube to the Soviet Union stating that according to Youtube you are Guilty until proven innocent. Youtube penalizes you and then threatens you before they even tell you exactly the crime you committed. Anthony’s video is somewhat comedic and witty and it lightens the situation a bit. His case stands that his videos are all spoken on topics that are very opinionated and controversial. He believes that someone made a claim, which only inconvenienced him.

Charlie Crist Official Apology to David Byrne for Copyright Infringement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4k13LmlcUE
This video was an Apology video sent to David Byrnes. Charlie who was running for a government position had an ad campaign that utilized David’s song with out his permission. Charlie got into a bit of trouble for this legally. This is a common law suit when it comes to film. People think that even if they purchase a song that they have licensing to it. I have already told myself that I will not be producing any promotional content with any songs that I do not have the rights to use. If I don’t have rights and the video doesn’t count as fair use, then the music should and will be left out.

Going out of business sales are a rip off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYcXa2rvHSo

This was a news bit from ABC news in 2008 that focused on liquidation sales from two closing companies Linen n things and Circuit city. There was a secret camera that they brought into the store that they used to uncover this conspiracy known as liquidation sales. This brings up lawsuits of misrepresentation, which can get their liquidators in a bit of trouble. The secret cameras revealed that the underneath the stickers that marked the new price, there were stickers that marked the old price. In most cases the old prices were 20-30 dollars cheaper on select items in the store. What the store did was boot all the prices up to the original retail price and then knocked them down 10-20%. The stores originally known for their deals would sell these same items on clearance for 30 to 50% cheaper. Misrepresentation can be a big factor in the advertising world that can potentially get you sued. As the filmmaker I would like to find out if misrepresentation would be targeted at the goods or services company or the filmmakers that create the advertisement.