Every year on January 1, works protected under copyright law enter into the public domain due to their copyright protection expiring. Thus, as a new year approaches, those in the field of copyright look to see which works will expire at the end of the year. As the world entered January 2023, many excitedly anticipated that Disney’s copyright protection of Mickey Mouse in the United States (US) would expire at the end of 2023, allowing Mickey Mouse to . This means that  reproduced, adapted, published, publicly performed, and publicly displayed by anyone in the United States without infringing upon Disney’s copyright.

As a general rule in the U.S., for works created after January 1, 1978,  for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, for works created before January 1, 1978, the duration of copyright protection depends on several factors as set out by  in the United States. Mickey Mouse  in the US in 1928 with the film “Steamboat Willie,” so its copyright protection term was dictated by several factors outlined in chapter 3.Additionally, the expiration of the copyright term only applies to the original version of Mickey Mouse displayed in Steamboat Willie; later versions of Mickey Mouse will still be protected by copyright. This original version of Mickey Mouse is a black and white rat-like depiction with a long snout and black eyes, whereas later versions of Mickey Mouse include the version of Mickey with his signature red shorts and white gloves.  

Copyright law in the US has evolved many times in part as a result of Disney lobbying for copyright term extension. Originally, the Mickey Mouse copyright was supposed to expire in 1983 because when Mickey Mouse was first debuted to the public in 1928, copyright law only protected works for 56 years. However, in 1976 Congress passed the  which extended the copyright term to 50 years after the death of the author or 75 years after the death of the author if the author was hired by an employer to create the work. As a result, the Mickey Mouse copyright was then set to expire at the end of 2003.

Starting in 1990, Disney pushed hard for an extension of copyright protections. This resulted in the  which extended copyright protection to 70 years after the death of the author. This extension is why Mickey Mouse’s copyright protection is set to expire at the end of 2023. The extreme lobbying from Disney to extend copyright protections earned the 1998 act the nickname of the “Mickey Mouse &�Բ�����;������.”

Although the original Mickey Mouse’s copyright protection will expire at the end of 2023, Disney will still be able to protect the Mickey Mouse brand through trademark law. Mickey Mouse is  as Disney’s property because . Trademark protection can theoretically last forever if Disney can continually show that Mickey Mouse is associated with its company.  Disney will likely be able to continually show an association with Mickey Mouse. In 2007, Walt Disney Animation Studios  to incorporate the original version of Mickey Mouse. Therefore, although someone may use the original version of Mickey Mouse in a work, they are not able to use this version of Mickey Mouse for any branding purposes or any purpose that would cause consumers to be confused about the source of the Mickey Mouse product. These intersections between trademark and copyright law may stop Mickey from strolling into public use for the coming years.

The post Mickey Mouse to Enter Public Domain in 2024 appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The Australian government announced that, , the Australia Council of the Arts is renamed “Creative Australia.” The Council of the Arts is the government’s primary arts investment and advisory body. As part of this rebranding, the Australian government also announced, on January 30, 2023, its new five-year cultural policy, Revive Strategy, which focuses on establishing four new federal bodies within Creative Australia. One of these bodies will be a First Nations-led body to support Indigenous Australians in their creative endeavours. The aim is for this board July 1, 2024, and the goal of this body is to “.”

Included in the Revive Strategy, the Australian government also announced additional measures targeted at Indigenous communities, including $13.4 million for legislation protecting indigenous intellectual property (IP). This legislation will focus on blocking the sale of fake indigenous art, including art typically sold as souvenirs. Additionally, the government announced measures targeted at protecting Indigenous IP and culture, including $11 million for a First Nations Languages Policy Partnership between governments and First Nations representatives, a First Nations creative workforce strategy, and a National Aboriginal Art Gallery in Alice Springs and an Aboriginal Cultural Centre in Perth.

Inauthentic Indigenous art is Harmful

First and foremost, selling inauthentic indigenous art and souvenirs disrespects the heritage and culture of indigenous communities. A in 2022 by the Productivity Commission on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander visual arts and crafts confirmed that fake indigenous art harms indigenous culture. However, this is not a newfound issue. Aboriginal Elder Gawirrin Gumana (Yolngu) in 1996: “When that [white] man does that it is like cutting off our skin”, where “it” refers to the practice of selling fake indigenous art. Other indigenous artists about instances where their culture and IP have been appropriated for profit. For example, many indigenous artists have been tricked into exploitive licensing agreements where non-indigenous companies make large profits by selling indigenous art commissioned by indigenous artists for a low price. This kind of uncertainty in the law has led to many indigenous artists asking for greater legal support for IP.

Regarding fake indigenous art sold as souvenirs in Australia, the report by the Productivity Commission showed international tourists on indigenous-style artwork in 2019-2020. However, approximately 75% of indigenous-style art sold is not made by Indigenous people from tourists who are unwilling to pay the price for authentic indigenous art. Thus, selling inauthentic indigenous art and souvenirs undercuts indigenous businesses and harms indigenous livelihood. ��

Protecting Indigenous IP Rights in Australia

In the past, any national licensing or production legislation to protect Indigenous IP and culture. In response to their 2022 report, the Productivity Commission that fake indigenous art should be labelled as “inauthentic” to protect true indigenous art. However, many believe that this type of labelling would be a start to the protection of Indigenous IP. Hopefully, the new measures instituted by the First Nations-led body and the legislation introduced by the Australian federal government will be a good first step in protecting Indigenous IP rights in Australia.

The post Australian Government to Introduce Protective Measures for Indigenous IP appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

In 2018, the Government of Canada to aid “Canadian businesses, creators, entrepreneurs and innovators” to “understand, protect and access IP”. The hope is to achieve this via IP awareness, education and advice, strategic IP tools for growth, and IP legislation.

ElevateIP

To further its IP strategy, the Government of Canada announced its intention in their 2022 budget to launch ElevateIP. consisted of the federal government pledging $90 million over 4 years starting in 2022-2023 to provide Canadian SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) with the tools needed to understand, manage, and leverage their IP and with access to professional IP services. Specifically, ElevateIP funding can support three different categories of activities including, and limited to, IP awareness, developing IP strategies, and implementing IP strategies. To be eligible for ElevateIP funding, applicants undertook a competitive application process where they were evaluated on their proposal’s capacity to achieve results and alignment with all three of ElevateIP’s program objectives. On December 19, 2022, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism, on behalf of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, announced of the ElevateIP funding.

Importance of ElevateIP

Many studies have shown how valuable intangible assets, including IP, are for a company. Along with more well-known advantages, such as the protection of creator ideas and brand reputation, intangible assets also have less-known benefits for companies. A Business Valuation Resources illustrated that having more intangible assets, such as IP, correlates with higher business valuations. Another EUIPO showed that companies with patents tend to grow more than companies without patents. However, studies have also shown that many Canadian start-ups are not capitalizing on their company’s potential due to a lack of IP. This is reflected in a study by the World Intellectual Property Organization that showed that in 2019, by the number of IP rights filed. Additionally, by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office from 2019 showed that only two percent of small and medium Canadian enterprises owned a patent. Thus, the overall goal of ElevateIP is to help Canadian SMEs overcome their lack of IP.

While some Intellectual Property experts hope that this program will increase the commercialization of IP for Canadian companies, others, including the president and chair of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, that ElevateIP’s goal of helping companies create an IP strategy will not necessarily result in more IP filings. This is mainly due to the federal government’s focus on educating companies about IP rights and not enough incentivization for companies to acquire IP rights. Perhaps ElevateIP is an important first, but not final, step in the federal government’s plan to increase IP among Canadian companies.

The post ElevateIP aims to aid SMEs with IP appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

One of the most popular shadow libraries, by US authorities now. On November 3, 2022, the United States Postal Inspection Service seized the Z-library site and all of its domains, and all of their DNS servers, effectively shutting down the site. Two Russian , Anton Napolsky and Valeriiaa Ermaova, were arrested and charged with several counts of criminal copyright, wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy for stealing and uploading millions of copyrighted material.

Z-Library

Shadow libraries are online databases of readily available content that is normally inaccessible due to paywalls or copyright controls. Typically, the content consists of textual information like books or journals. Z-library was a shadow library project that provided access to scholarly journal articles, academic texts, and general-interest books. It allowed unregistered users to download up to five books per day for free and registered users were allowed10 books per day. Its database over 11 million books and approximately 84 million articles. Additionally, it encouraged users to upload different titles to add to the database.

Throughout its operation, many different associations have attempted to have Z-library blocked in certain countries or shut down. For example, , The Publishers Association attempted to have Z-library blocked by certain internet service providers in the United Kingdom. In the United States, Z-library’s domains were after Harvard Business Publishing issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice. In , internet service providers were ordered by the Tis Hazari district court to block the site after a complaint of copyright infringement by Indian Publisher, Taxmann Publications Pvt Ltd.

After an ongoing investigation the New-91��ɫ based Authors Guild and the London-based Publishers Association, the FBI was able to arrest Napolsky and Valeriia and shut down Z-library’s network of 249 online domains.

Copyright Considerations

Most of the uploaded material in a shadow library is as typically authors of the works hold copyright and publishers hold exclusive distribution rights of the works. Thus, it is illegal for this content to be uploaded and distributed on shadow library websites. However, in some countries, including, copyright law allows for downloading of copyright protected material for personal, non-commercial use.

Copyright protection ensures that those who have created works are adequately compensated for their efforts, a reason that historically has driven the courts to affirm copyright over works in . ��However, copyright protection also creates access to information issues due to rising costs of buying and licensing works. One of the main motivations behind creating shadow libraries is to more readily disseminate content, especially academic content and papers from academic journals. With the loss of Z-library, many students and teachers have experienced issues with accessing texts for school and working in academia and are now at a loss of how to access them. Additionally, the states that “everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”, which suggests that access to information is a universal human right. So how can this balance between private right and public interest be achieved?

The Future

Even if Z-library is unable to make a comeback, other shadow libraries will undoubtedly take its place. People from around the world have shared knowledge of other shadow libraries. For example, a group of anonymous archivists have started a free non-profit online shadow library metasearch engine called . Based on the online public response, it seems that as long as accessibility remains an issue, shadow libraries will continue to be launched.

The post The End of an Era for Shadow Libraries…Or Is It? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Recently, a controversial trade deal between India and the United Kingdom (UK) was leaked. ��The leaked portion pertains to the trade of intellectual property between the two countries.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

In , India and the UK began negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA), aiming to double bilateral trade to $100 billion by 2030 via reduction or elimination of import-export tariffs between the two countries. Despite several setbacks, including but not limited to the high turnover of UK Prime Ministers, the deal seems to still be in the works.

The impugned IP portion of the proposal outlines demands by the UK to harmonize India’s patent and drug regulatory laws with those of the UK. These demands are what is mandated by ��international trade rules.. seem to be aimed at tightening regulations on producing, supplying, and exporting generic medications from India. Article E.10 of the IP chapter of the leaked proposal effectively prohibits pre-grant oppositions. This means that India would not be able to stop challenges to weak or invalid patents until after the granting of the patent. Article J.11 gives power to Customs officials to block generic drugs from leaving India for developing countries if a pharmaceutical corporation was to claim that their patent infringement by India-made generic drugs. Lastly, both Articles J.5 and J.7 seek to modify how courts adjudicate IP disputes, which are likely to “.”

Implications of a Reduction in Generic Drugs

Due to these proposed modifications, many are concerned about the global supply of generic medicines because India is a dominating force for generic drug manufacturing. A decrease in the supply of generic medicines could have devastating impacts on global health, especially countries where medicine has historically been less accessible due to high costs — generic drugs are than their brand-name counterparts, while having . In fact, many studies suggest that brand name medications are not superior to generic medications. ��With these potential impacts being so devastating, the medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières both the UK and India to remove these provisions from their FTA.

At the time of writing this article, FTA negotiations continue. Hopefully, criticism of these provisions will lead to their modification or, if still found to be more harmful than helpful, their removal.

The post Generic Drug Production to be Impacted by UK-India FTA?�� appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Controversy and uncertainty in the field of patent eligibility have resulted in decade-long fights over what can be patented and what cannot be, especially regarding diagnostic tests. There is currently a congressional push to let drug companies patent diagnostic tests in the United States. This push comes from Senator Thom Tills. On August 2, 2022, Senator Tills introduced Bill , titled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022, which, in part, aims to change currently existing US federal patent law regarding patent eligibility for different classes of inventions. ��

History of Patenting Diagnostic Methods

The bill was largely motivated by several Supreme Court rulings over the past decade, which have created exceptions to patent eligibility in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Traditionally, an inventor can gain patent protection for their invention if it is novel, non-obvious, and has utility. However, in 2012, the court in ruled that diagnostic tests that reflect naturally occurring biological phenomena cannot be patented because one cannot have a monopoly on a relationship based on natural principles. This ruling was then reaffirmed later in . This exception in the eligibility of diagnostic tests led to widespread confusion regarding patent eligibility. In particular, the chief judge of the US’s top patent court, Kimberly A. Moore, saying that Federal Circuit judges are now unsure of how to apply the patent eligibility provision. Additionally, these exceptions have led to patents being rejected in the United States but approved in other jurisdictions with similar patent laws, such as Europe, thus discouraging biotech companies from investing in diagnostic methods. In response, Bill S.4734 is being presented to address this confusion and increase innovation in the United States via more specific patent eligibility standards that are likely to expand the ability to patent modified genes and pharmaceutical processes, including diagnostic methods.

The Debate over S. 4734

This proposed bill has drawn much debate. On the one hand, , such as the American Civil Liberties Union, have expressed concern that this bill will allow pharmaceutical companies to take advantage of this expanded patent eligibility by creating monopolies over essential diagnostic methods resulting in decreased access to these methods and overall harm to the health of Americans. However, , such as the Council of Innovation Promotion, argue that the bill will increase investment into diagnostic research, which decreased significantly after the Mayo decision. These groups point to the pharmaceutical industry’s response to COVID-19, arguing that patents were the basis for creating the vaccines.

If the bill can clarify patent eligibility in the US, it may be worth pursuing further. However, I also question the idea that patent eligibility is the driving force behind biotech innovation.�� The Invention-Induced Theory, argued by proponents for S.4734, posits that patents are an incentive for inventors and that absent patents, there will be no inventions. However, this theory fails to account for inventions induced by the market, scientific curiosity, accident, or ego. Additionally, have shown that patents are not a significant driver of most innovations. Thus, there may be a better way to both reward biotech companies for their creation of diagnostic methods and prevent harmful monopolies over essential lifesaving inventions.

Regardless of which side of this debate you fall on, it is still being determined if S. 4734 will be further explored. When this bill was introduced in August 2022, the Tillis planned to hold hearings focused on this legislation if the Republicans took the senate in the November midterm elections. However, with the , the future of this matter remains uncertain.

The post United States Bill S. 4734: Should Diagnostic Tests be Eligible for Patent Protection appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

According to a published in UNSW Law Journal, feminized names are less likely to be granted a patent in Australia. The study investigated female patenting rates in Australia over a period of 15 years. Although similar studies ��have been conducted in Europe and the United States, such a study had not been done in Australia. However, recent advances in computing technology and open data polices allowed the study to be done. Furthermore, studies performed by the US Patent and Trademarks Office typically analyzed patents from a majority of US residents. However, this Australian study better reflects worldwide applications because most Australian patent applications are from international inventors who have filed patents in several jurisdictions.

In order to investigate gender bias, analyzed 309,544 patent applications from 2001-2015 and then categorized approximately one million inventor names based on whether they sounded female or male. The study revealed that male sounding names were much more likely to have their patents granted. Additionally, having an number of male sounding names listed on the team inventors correlated with an increased likelihood of having the patent granted. Patent applications with an increased number of female-sounding names listed on the team of inventors did not significantly correlate with a change in success of patents granted.

The study postulated as to why this gender bias may exist. Researchers considered that women were working in technical fields that typically have a lower patent success rate, such as life sciences. Their investigation found that a majority (greater than 60%) of female inventors were working in life sciences. In particular, women were concentrated in four technical fields: chemistry, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical technology. However, once the data was statistically controlled to account for the effect of the patents being in a less patentable field, it was determined that inventors with male-sounding names were still more successful in obtaining patents than those with female sounding names.

This study demonstrated that despite the advances women have made in obtaining positions and credit in STEM fields, there is still a gender bias against women in obtaining patents. have hypothesized that a major reason for this disparity lies with the patent examiners and that they are biased against women, and thus suggest that the patent prosecution process should name-blind applications to hide the gender identity of the inventors. ��However, some feminist legal scholars believe that the reasons for this disparity go deeper. argue that certain intellectual property agreements, such as TRIPS, exclude domains of female inventorship by focusing on “mechanical, technical, and industrial aspects” of “products and processes.” Other scholars that female patentees have less funds, stamina and mentoring to deal with objections from the patent office, which may result in abandonment of a patent application and thus less accepted applications overall.

Several studies and real life experiences attest to the fact that the gender bias still exists in academia and life science disciplines. Overall, ��gender bias observed in the patent landscape appears to be at least partially a downstream effect of the institutional bias in STEM.

The post Gender Bias Persists in the Global Patent Landscape appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Known for its cheap and trendy clothes, Chinese fast-fashion retailer Shein has seen great success over the past several years. Its low prices are typically attributed to its frequent and large-scale productions, but another reason for such low pricess may be intellectual property theft. Recently, . Artist Magdalena Mollman, also known professionally as Maggie Stephenson, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, on June 15 suing Shein for over $100 million in damages for unauthorized reproductions of her artwork “One is good, more is better.”

Mollman versus Shein

In 2019, with the U.S. Copyright Office and included Copyright Management Information (CMI) on her artwork. To obtain intellectual property protection, is common, as it allows for one to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work, while also allowing for one to have their copyright on the public record and a certificate of registration. However, by also including on her work, Mollman acquired further IP protection for her artwork, as CMI is information about a copyrighted work, such as the terms and conditions for use of the work, the owner’s name, and the name of the work.

With copyright protections in place for Mollman’s art, she was able to control who produced replicates and sold her work. This including , such as Sephora, Urban Outfitters, and Elle Magazine to sell prints of art at differing prices, with the lowest price being $19. However, Mollman had not authorized Shein to sell prints of her artwork. Despite the lack of authorization, from 2019 to 2021, for as low as $4 per print, and with intentional removal of Mollman’s CMI, including her name and signature. Additionally, Shein reportedly added false CMI by featuring their own brand and logo in their reproduction of Mollman’s artwork which implied that Shein is the rightful author and copyright owner. As a result, for copyright infringement, vicarious and/or contributory copyright infringement, removal of copyright management information, and false copyright management information.

Intellectual Property Theft is Common for Shein

This lawsuit is simply the latest that Shein has faced since rising to popularity. Shein has a long history of being sued for IP infringement — a source even claimed that Shein’s parent company, Zoetop Business Co., has been named a defendant in at least 50 federal lawsuits in the U.S. for IP infringement. to steal their designs, and in doing so, was able to keep product prices low by spending very little on designing their products. Additionally, these smaller businesses would be less likely to bring an action due to a lack of financial resources. when Tiina Menzel, a German-based artist, discovered that Shein had been selling products with her art, she was unable to bring a lawsuit due to costs.

Interestingly, Shein has also been known to steal IP from larger businesses too, such as Dr. Marten, Levi Strauss, and Ralph Lauren. , streetwear brand Stussy Inc. sued Shein for copyright infringement, claiming that Shein was selling products using Stussy’s logo without authorization.

Fast-Fashion Drives Intellectual Property Theft

Shein’s latest lawsuit highlights the ongoing issue of IP theft in the fashion industry. IP from smaller companies/artists is frequently exploited by large fast-fashion companies, allowing them to mass-produce trendy products at a low cost, without consequence, for smaller artists typically lack the resources to legally battle large fast-fashion companies. ��T . There must, then, be alternative legal solutions to protect small businesses from intellectual property theft, such as a sort of government-funded civil legal system. Without an adequate solution, Shein and other fast-fashion companies can continue to exploit small businesses with few consequences.

The post Fast-Fashion Continues to Harm Small Businesses and Artists appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

After a lengthy 22-year trademark battle with Chinese businessman Fang Yuzhou, London-born shoe company to use their name in China. Manolos have never been sold in mainland China because Yuzhou registered the trademark “Manolo & Blahnik” in 1999 in China. ��If Manolo Blahnik had attempted to sell their shoes in China, they would likely face legal consequences from Yuzhou and be unable to fight counterfeit products sold ��there. In the subsequent two decades, Manolo Blahnik repeatedly appealed the decision. However, these appeals were dismissed as the courts ruled that Manolo did not present sufficient evidence of adequate sales in mainland China prior to 2000. Resultantly, Manolo Blahnik has lost significant sales, as China is the fastest growing luxury market.

China’s Trademark System

Historically, China’s trademark system was based on a , meaning that the exclusive right of a trademark is awarded to the registrant who first applies. As such, no prior use, good faith, or intention for real use of the trademark is required to acquire the exclusive rights over a trademark. Here, although Yuzhou had no intention to use the registered trademark, because he had applied before Manolo Blahnik, and was hence awarded exclusive rights to use the trademark “Manolo & Blahnik.” This is in to other jurisdictions, such as Canada, where the exclusive right to a trademark is not necessarily awarded to the first registrant, and prior use or intention to use is considered. However, in 2019 amendments to China’s trademark legislation resulted in drastic changes for trademark disputes.��

The 2019 amendments focused on “bad-faith” trademark filings, specifically that “[a]pplications made in bad faith for trademark registrations that are not intended for use shall be rejected.” Additionally, trademark agencies are prohibited from representing clients if the agency is aware that it is a “bad-faith” filing, and the penalty for filing a “bad-faith” trademark is either warning or fine. Based on these amendments, then, the Supreme People’s Court of China finally ruled in Manolo Blahnik’s favour.

Future Implications of Trademark Legislation Amendments

The 2019 amendments will likely aid in fighting against “bad-faith” filings. However, as observed with the Manolo Blahnik case, the amendments are also likely to ensure increased brand protection for foreign entities who otherwise are not able to register trademarks due to the “first to file” rule. of the amendments resulting in victories for foreign companies include a lawsuit won by athletic apparel and footwear manufacturer New Balance, and another won by former NBA star Michael Jordan, where Chinese companies imitated and used these entities’ logos. Despite recent victories, some foreign companies still face an uphill battle. In 2021, Japanese retailer Muji against a “copycat” Chinese company. It is clear that further amendments are still necessary to overcome the “first to file” rule.

The post Manolo Blahnik Shoes Can Finally be Sold in China appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

In a recent installment in the series of intellectual property disputes in the music industry, electronic artist Four Tet, also known as Kieran Hebden, has against his independent British record label, Domino Record Label, over how much he is paid every time one of his songs is downloaded or streamed. Four Tet had ; a time where CDs were still popular and long before the invention and popularization of music streaming. In this contract, it was stipulated that for licences, he would be paid a royalty rate of but for a sale, such as the sale of a CD, he would be paid a royalty

Sales vs Licences

When Four Tet’s contract was signed in 2001, these standard licensing terms were for the music industry. For music sales, such as selling music via CDs, vinyl, and cassettes, overhead costs for record labels were much higher due to manufacturing and distribution expenses. Thus, in order to cover the overhead costs, record labels would pay their artists a lower royalty rate compared to the royalty rate for licences. For licences, it was understood that the third party licensing the music, such as for a movie, television show, or advertisement, would take on the extra costs, allowing for an artist to receive a higher royalty rate from the record label.

However, with advancements in technology for music consumption, the landscape of the music industry changed. Record labels no longer had high overhead expenses due to no longer having to manufacture and distribute CDs, vinyl or cassettes. Yet record labels continue to ��argue that music downloads and streams should be considered as sales as this is a new technology format. Artists have typically disagreed with this and insist that this type of royalty model is unfair. For example, in 2011, against Eminem’s record company, Universal Music Group for unpaid royalties, due to the producers arguing that streamed and downloaded music should be considered akin to licencing of music and not sales.

The Case at Hand

In 2020, Four Tet against Domino for unpaid royalties. Similar to the Eminem case, Four Tet argued that he should be paid a royalty rate of 50% for streams and downloads of his music, not the 18% that the record label had been paying him. Four Tet reasoned that streams and downloads of music are like licences; not sales. In response to the lawsuit, Domino removed three of Four Tet’s four albums produced with the record label, without Four Tet’s consent, from all streaming services and online stores in November, 2021, which ” Four Tet. Four Tet responded by adding a claim for breach of contract, resulting in Domino threatening to take the case to the High Court.

The case, which took place in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, ultimately and Domino agreed to pay the requested royalty rate of 50% on streams and downloads as they are now considered to be licences. Domino also paid Four Tet £56,921.08 to account for the difference in income owed as a result of the difference between the royalty rates of 18% and 50% and simple interest calculated at a rate of 5% per year during the accounting period commencing July 1, 2017.

Future Impacts

The settlement may significantly impact the way the music industry values streaming and downloading and thus may impact royalty rates. This is particularly important as the music industry seems to be undergoing a reform regarding royalty payments. , a committee of UK MPs published a report advocating for a 50/50 royalty split between the record label and the artist. Similarly, the US Copyright Royalty Board has to increase streaming royalty rates to 15.1% for songwriters/publishers. ��These decisions, including Four Tet’s successful settlement, indicate that the music industry is changing and artists will start gaining fairer deals when it comes to royalties from streaming and downloading.

The post Four Tet’s Successful Royalty Battle: Are Changes Coming in the Music Industry for Royalty Payment? appeared first on IPOsgoode.