mharr wrote:Wait, people actually use "to own the libs" as a straightforward, non satirical, zero self awareness statement of intent?
Based on the students I had that consider people like Ben Shapiro their heroes -- yes, they do use it non-ironically.
Short video specifically on the copyright aspects of Milly's case
It sounds like the court basically says "is this copyrighted Y/B?" and throws out the case if not. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of simple dance moves being for the public to enjoy freely, as opposed to a choreographed dance that a professional might be paid to perform, so the denial of copyright in that sense holds. Still, this isn't defending people freely using it, it is being monetized, not through performance, but... allowance of use? So while I don't think they should have complete ownership of these moves, there should definitely be something in there to account for this use.
Does anyone know the specifics of copyright protection on animation? Is it held to a similar standards of extended choreography as opposed to short but distinct movements?
I think I'll try and get a blog post out of this next week, but in brief:
The creators and stars of Bones sued Fox for underpaying them.
A private arbitration judge just ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. (Details are in the article and I'll go into them a bit more in the blog post, but tl;dr what Fox did was shady as fuck; big surprise.)
Because it's private arbitration, it doesn't set any legal precedent, but it's still a case of talent suing a studio for Hollywood accounting and winning, and that's certainly going to give some people some ideas.
But it probably won't really change much. As the judge cynically notes, the award is a drop in the bucket for Fox; it's not a "we'd better stop ripping off the talent" number, it's a "we'd better start accounting for the risk that we'll occasionally be successfully sued by talent we've ripped off" number.