Information Law: Music Copyright, Legal Regulations and Infringement

This report provides a detailed overview of music copyright law, addressing key legal regulations and the implications of infringement. It begins by defining copyright and moral rights, emphasizing their importance for musicians. The report then explores the Copyright Act 1968, outlining the rights of copyright owners, including reproduction, distribution, and public performance. It examines copyright infringement, including using others' work without permission, and provides examples like the Led Zeppelin v. Willie Dixon and Robin Thicke vs. Marvin Gaye cases. The report also discusses proof of ownership, licensing, and remedies for infringement, such as injunctions and financial damages. Furthermore, it covers posting copyrighted work online, the importance of the copyright symbol, and defenses against infringement, such as consent and fair use. The report offers practical advice for musicians to protect their work and navigate the complexities of music copyright law, referencing specific cases and legal provisions. It highlights the significance of understanding these regulations for both creators and users of music.

Running Head: INFORMATION LAW 1
Information Law
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:

INFORMATION LAW 2
Information Law
Date:
Name:
Address:
Dear Lei Lan,
Whether one is making music for fun or making a career out of it, he or she needs to
know some vital legal regulations associated with music. The major legal regulations in the area
of music include the copyright and moral rights. Copyright is a package of rights that musicians,
visual artist, film makers, and video and writers makers own in connection to their work.
Copyright can be in form of a symbol and it enables the creator to control and get money for his
or her work. Copyright can be owned by anybody who has created a work. It gives the creator
ownership rights, automatic and free law protection once the work has been created. Other than
that, it does not protect styles and ideas. Moreover, for a copyright legal protection to exist there
must be a tangible or digital form. Copyright means that only the creator has rights to do some
things with his work. Therefore, I intend to give some legal advice as music copyright is
concerned infringement is concerned.
Using other People’s Work
Copyright is a form of intellectual property that is found in the provisions of the
Copyright Act 1968. It provides right to produce or copy the work, make a copy of the work,
publish it, perform in public, and broadcast it in public. It is a violation of copyright to perform
the above rights without the permission of the owner of the copyright. Violation of copyright
does not involved the work in its entirety, but to take a significant part of the work. A copyright

INFORMATION LAW 3
in every type of work has its existence independence. For example, a compact disc may have
separate in the composition, arrangement, sound recording, and lyrics. Therefore, any business
concerning such materials must recognize all applicable layers of copyright. On the other hand,
copyright protects the labour and the skill involved in a specific expression of ideas in a tangible
medium, but not just the ideas or information.
Moreover, the owner of the copyright is the creator of the work. However, any work
created by a contractor belongs to the contractor, and that created in the context of employment
belongs to the employer. The Copyright Act 1968 does not involve the completion of rules like
publication, payment fees, or registration for the protection to be obtained (Gilchrist, 2014). Just
like in any other form of property, copyright can get assigned to another owner. On the other
hand, using a copyright material can be exclusively or non-exclusively licensed to a new owner.
Moreover, a copyright only protects works that may include music and song lyrics. Music
may comprise of rap, traditional instrument, and orchestra among others. Other works protected
by copyright may include sound recordings of one made in recording studio or live performance.
The law protects music and lyrics only if they have been recorded or written down. It does not
protect another person or band from copying ones ideas or styles such as sound provided that
they do not copy another person’s music or lyrics. For example, in case Led Zeppelin v. Willie
Dixon (1972), was about copying of somebody’s music lyrics (Newman, 2017). The suit was
settled out of court for undisclosed large sum of money. With regard to your case, it is evident
that you used other people’s lyrics in your songs without their permission. This means that you
copied other people’s work, which is protected by the Act.
Copyright and Proof of Ownership

INFORMATION LAW 4
For one to prove that he or she is the owner of the work, she needs to keep a
record to show that she made it. A musician can only give or sell their copyright under a contract
where he or she signs. When a musician wants to make a sound recording of her work that was
made by another person, and she did not pay them for making the recording, she need make them
sign a contract to enable her copyright (Urgess, 2013). Consequently, it is simple for a copyright
owner to allow another person to use his or her copyright. It may happen in a conversation or in
an email, therefore. Therefore, one needs to be very cautious when explaining to another person
how she is going to use her work. Any authority given to someone else by the copyright owner
should always be in a written contract that she understands and on conditions she accepts to be
fair even if it is money. Furthermore, the new rules under the sound recordings provides that the
original owner of the work before 1st January 2005 retains half of the copyright, which is now
owned by the new performer who recorded the new track. It also provides that the new owner
does not have the right to demand a bigger share of the royalties (Brito, 2012). Therefore, based
on the claim that Kanye West, you may be forced by the court to give out half of your earnings if
you started using his sound recordings before 1st January 2005.
Moreover, the remedies for the new owner of the copyright are very limited for breach.
Account of profits and damages are not available for new owner. Additionally, there is also a
new introduced scheme that is intended to compensate the original copyright owners in case the
court has realized that the new owner has unjust terms in his or her acquisition. Additionally,
there are also performer’s rights under the Implementation Act (Postigo, 2012). The Act gave
performers rights to share the copyright in sound recordings they performed. The
Implementation Act illegalized communicating illegal recording of a performance. Further, the
implementation Act has also put some restrictions on the new copyright given to new rights

INFORMATION LAW 5
awarded to performance. For example, where an individual has allowed the making of the sound
by someone else, unless accepted, such a person who authorized the recordings is the single
copyright’s owner of the in sound recording as stated in the agreement.
Copyright Infringement
Additionally, if somebody makes a sound recording or copies music of a song without the
permission of the copyright owner, this may be a breach of copyright. The owner of the
copyright can legally sue such a person. This is evident in Robin Thicke vs. Marvin Gaye (2014)
in which the family of the late Marvin Gaye sued Robin Thicke in 2013 claiming infringement
Gaye’s song. The court found Robin guilty and ordered them to pay the family $7.3 million
(Newman, 2017). On the other hand, when a copyright owner thinks that someone has used her
sound recordings or copied her music without her permission, she should seek for legal advice
about the possibilities of success. The law allows the universities and schools to copy other
people’s work without the permission of the owner if it is to be used for education’s purposes,
but a fee must be paid. The fee paid are collected and given to the copyright owners by the
collecting societies as provided under the Arts Laws.
Posting of a Copyright Work on the Internet
Copyright Act requires the copyright owners to communicate their works to the public.
The communication right is broad enough to cover the use of internet, radio, cable, free-to-air
television, and mobile phones. It replaced the previous cable rights and broadcasting and
expanded the protection of the copyright of the sound recordings. In connection to the Internet,
the communication right comprises of the right to electronically transmit, for example, streaming
or emailing a music track and posting the music online (Newman & Oliver, 2014). Such rights
are not limited to Australia alone but to the entire world. The copyright owners have the right to

INFORMATION LAW 6
safeguard the work from the unauthorized communication. For example, communication right
could be used to prevent website in Australia from making song or film available to people in
Australia and to the entire world. Due to the nature of the global internet, these remedies are vital
if the copyright owner safeguards their works.
Consequently, the right to communicate broadly benefits the public. It simplifies and
strengthens the exclusive and basic rights of the copyright owner to restrict the use of their work
in the internet. The arrival of the digital distribution of the content means that it is the most
frequently infringed right. For example, when a copyright video is uploaded on video serving
sites such as YouTube, the communication right is applicable. Such posts results to infringement
of communication rights in the music or recording as well as breaching other copyright laws
(Newman & Oliver, 2014). Such infringement of communication rights is evident in the claim
made by Araminta through what she posted on your Facebook page.
How to Get Protection Right
For one to benefit from copyright protection globally based on the Universal Copyright
Convention (UCC), all of his or her recording or published copy of the work must have a
copyright symbol, the owner, when it was first published, or else it does not qualify (Van
Hoorebeek, 2004). However, in these are not necessary in Australia, though it may be vital
simply to remind users whose work is to make copyright. The amount of time through which the
copyright protection lasts varies from one nation to the other, for example, in Australia it is 70
years while under the Rome Convention is only 14 years (Goldstein & Hugenholtz, 2010).
Remedies for Copyright Infringement
If the moral rights of a copyright owner have been infringed, he or she may seek various
remedies from the court. Such remedies may include:

INFORMATION LAW 7
 Injunction to stop further breach
 An order for payment for financial damages suffered due to the infringement
 Pronouncement that your moral rights have been breached
 Order that the accused make a public apology
After the court has decided on the appropriate remedies, it considers all the circumstances. These
circumstances might include whether the accused knew of the copyright owner moral rights, the
possibility of any harm to the work, reputation, recording, owner and the number of people who
have seen the infringement (Newman, 2017). These remedies may be adverse. For example, if
the defendant has infringed the moral rights of lyrics by placing out a record with the lyrics of
the author in a derogatory manner, the global circulation of that record may be stopped
(Goldstein & Hugenholtz, 2010). However, before the plaintiff seeks lawyer’s advice with
numerous moral rights abuses, he or she must know the availability of such remedies may get
tampered with by different defenses.
Defenses to the Infringements
To start with, if the copyright owner consent to what would turn out to be an
infringement of the moral rights, the court would find no infringement. However, the consent
must be in written form. Numerous artistic, musical works and literature consents must be for
particular events. For example, the owner might consent by using his or her music advertisement
that takes few seconds. Any type of consent for music use in any manner would be too broad to
be binding. The consent to a performer may relate to every acts or omissions that occurs prior or
after the awarding of the consent (Van Hoorebeek, 2004). The consent may also be awarded
according to a particular performance of a specific description.

INFORMATION LAW 8
Though waivers are acknowledged in other nations, under the Australian Copy Right Act
waiving moral rights fails to provide a defense. However, in might be applied in films because of
the wide scope of the language used. On the other hand, if the consent was obtained through a
deceitful statement or duress, it would be declared ineffective by the court. Lastly, it would not
be an infringement if the act was reasonable in every circumstance. The Copyright Act provides
a broad list of things for the judges to take into account when determining whether something
was reasonable (Van Hoorebeek, 2004). For example if the work had more than one author, what
did other authors thought concerning the infringement, or were there any company standards or
agreement and many more.
Conclusion
The copyright rights provide for the basic needs of both the recording musician and
composer. They also provide income for the publishing and recording companies to promote and
invest in musicians and their works. Such rights are complex and valuable. It also right to know
that it is illegal to copy, communicate, or sell somebody’s work without their permission or their
involvements, and that doing so may legal implications. Lastly, I believe that my advice shall
help you to know cause of action to take concerning the cases you are facing.
Sincerely,
Name
Title

INFORMATION LAW 9
References
Brito, J. (2012). Copyright Unbalanced : From Incentive to Excess. Arlington, Virginia:
Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Gilchrist, J. (2014). Rights Vesting under Part Vii of the Copyright Act 1968 and Their
Interrelationship with the Prerogative Right of the Crown in the Nature of Copyright.
Canberra Law Review, 12(1), 4–28.
Goldstein, P., & Hugenholtz, P. B. (2010). International Copyright (Vol. Second edition).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newman, M. (2017). Top Music Lawyers 2017: These 61 keen legal minds are on the front lines
of copyright fights and superstar deals, led by the Bronx-born, Atlanta-based attorney
who circles the world for his A-list clients. Billboard, 129(17), 57–74.
Newman, M., & Oliver, N. (2014). Copyright and Creativity in the Digital Economy : Balancing
Policy, Protection, and Innovation. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Postigo, H. (2012). The Digital Rights Movement : The Role of Technology in Subverting Digital
Copyright. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Urgess, R. J. (2013). The Art of Music Production : The Theory and Practice (Vol. Fourth
edition).
Van Hoorebeek, M. (2004). Copyright infringement and potential technological prevention
measures in UK universities. Education & the Law, 16(4), 217–248.