Search

The article focuses on the pervasive nature of recording in daily life, with individuals capturing various activities using their smartphones, including healthcare visits. It review highlights the challenges the legal system faces in keeping pace with technological advancements, particularly regarding patients recording sensitive information during medical consultations, with different countries having varied laws and perspectives on this practice.

Background: Clinicians and their employers, concerned with privacy and liability, are often hesitant to support the recording of clinical encounters. However, many people wish to record encounters with healthcare professionals. It is therefore important to understand how existing law applies to situations where an individual requests to record a clinical encounter. Methods: We searched for and reviewed relevant legal documents that could apply to recording clinical encounters. We limited the scope by purposefully examining relevant law in nine countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. We analyzed legal texts for consents needed to record a conversation, whether laws applied to remote or face-to-face conversations and penalties for violations. Findings: Most jurisdictions have case law or statutes, derived from a constitutional right to privacy, or a wiretapping or eavesdropping statute, governing the recording of private conversations. However, little to no guidance exists on how to translate constitutional principles and case law into advice for people seeking to record their medical encounters. Interpretation: The law has not kept pace with people's wish to record clinical interactions, which has been enabled by the arrival of mobile technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the increasing trend of individuals recording various aspects of their lives, including conferences, meetings, and social occasions, using mobile devices. It authors discuss the legal aspects of patients recording medical consultations in Norway, emphasizing the lack of specific legislation and the potential impact on the doctor-patient relationship.

The article discusses innovations in U.S. copyright law related to digital technologies as of December 2018. Topics include the implications of the U.S. Music Modernization Act, the relation of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to safe harbors, and the use of copyright misuse as an affirmative defense. Court cases addressed include Mavrix Photographs LLC v. LiveJournal Inc, Fox News Network LLC v. TVEyes Inc., and Oracle America Inc. v. Google LLC.

Many U.S. laws protect privacy by governing recording. Recently, however, courts have recognized a First Amendment "right to record." This Article addresses how courts should handle privacy laws in light of the developing First Amendment right to record. The privacy harms addressed by recording laws are situated harms. Recording changes the way people behave in physical spaces by altering the nature of those spaces. Thus, recording laws can be placed within a long line of First Amendment case law that recognizes a valid government interest in managing the qualities of rivalrous physical space, so as not to allow one person's behavior to disrupt the behavior of others. That interest, importantly, will not always justify suppressing recording, but it can be distinguished from an impermissible government interest in suppressing speech. Moreover, the government's interest in managing the qualities of a particular environment can itself be speech-protective--and has been recognized as such. As technological development brings more recording devices into the physical world, courts will need to determine how to balance speech interests and privacy. First Amendment doctrine, often blunt in nature, is in fact, and perhaps surprisingly, equipped to address the nuances of this challenge. Regulating recording governs a moment of interaction in physical space, not a downstream editorial decision that may cause dignitary harms. Regulation, thus, does not break with the U.S. free speech tradition of protecting the publication and distribution of information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Australian court case Phonographic Performance Co. of Australia Ltd. v. Commercial Radio Australia Ltd., which dealt with broadcast rights of sound recordings. Topics include the Australian Broadcasting Services Act of 1992, if broadcasting rights include streaming Internet rights as well, and non-exclusive broadcasting licenses.

The article focuses on the copyright protection of sound recordings in the European Union (EU) in 2014. Topics include the rights of performers upon the release of recorded performances, the extension of copyright law to cover sound recordings, and EU Directive 2011/77/EU governing the extension of copyright law.

US copyright law provides for a digital performance right in sound recordings but does not provide for a performance right in sound recordings when broadcast over terrestrial radio. Proponents of this asymmetry posit that the difference relates to the promotional value of terrestrial radio to record labels, but this rationale has eroded in recent years. The recording industry experienced a drastic decline at the turn of the millennium, and record labels have attempted many creative approaches to bridging the profit gap. Major labels and radio conglomerates of late have begun negotiating private contracts that effectively extend the benefits of a performance right to sound recordings broadcast over terrestrial radio. This Note argues that Congress should allow these private parties to continue experimenting with these agreements. As it stands, the government's regulation of digital performance of sound recordings is creating negative consequences, and Congress should only intervene in the terrestrial radio arena if a holdout problem arises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the relationship between popular music and politics in America as of 2013, focusing on an analysis of whether a political campaign's unauthorized use of a song infringes upon the rights of the musical performer in question. American trademark laws and the legal rights associated with songs and sound recordings are mentioned, along with trademark infringement claims. The U.S. Lanham Act, American copyright laws, and songs such as "Wavin' Flag" by K'naan are examined.

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's ruling in the 2012 case American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois v. Alvarez which deals with American constitutional law, the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution, and eavesdropping laws. The right to communicate in the U.S. is addressed, along with conversational privacy and the ACLU of Illinois' plan to monitor police misconduct by openly recording the actions of police officers.

The article focuses on the evolution of copyright protection legislations and sound recording transfers' termination for artists under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. It highlights equitable issues raised by termination of sound recording transfers including transfers of copyright ownership. It depicts that the U.S. Congress created a dual-term structure in copyright act 1909, wherein the copyright owner is entitled to initial 28 years term and can renew the term for another 28 years.

The article focuses on a study conducted by the U.S. Copyright Office on the federalization of pre-1972 sound recordings. According to the study, if sound recordings were incorporated into Federal copyright law then all works fixed prior to 1923 would immediately go into the public domain. It further states that the U.S. Copyright Office came to a conclusion that rights holders should be given six to ten years of time to publish or make available the works in exchange for an additional term of protection. It also mentions that the office has sought for public comments on the impact of bringing pre-1972 sound recordings under federal protection on public access to these records.

The article discusses the European Union (EU) Council of Ministers' approval of a Sound Recordings Extension Directive (SRED) on September 12, 2011, as well as information on the protection of copyrights held by musicians. The impact of the SRED on performing artists is also addressed, along with an analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court case Eldred v. Ashcroft. The author argues that there is a monopoly right over sound recordings in the EU.

The article discusses the policies of the U.S. federal courts in relation to the public's access to oral-argument recordings which have taken place in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit as of April 2012. It states that eight of the thirteen federal courts of appeal in the U.S. make their oral-argument recordings available to the public. The Tenth Circuit is reportedly the only U.S. federal appellate court which requires the filing of a motion to access recordings.

The article discusses the legal aspects associated with the electronic recording of custodial interrogations as of March 2012, focusing on the protection of the constitutional rights of individuals and law enforcement workers. Voluntariness is addressed in relation to criminal confessions, along with an examination of a nine-year study of custodial recording law and practices in America. Miranda rights warnings and the use of electronic recording devices by law enforcement officials during interviews are also mentioned.

When Congress overhauled the Copyright Act in 1976, it created the device of termination of transfers to protect authors of copyrighted works from unremunerative transfers. The scheme seemed straightforward, but technology has created problems the Act's drafters never could have anticipated. In particular, the application of termination of transfers to sound recordings in 1976 was little more than a shadow of uncertainty not worth dealing with at the time. But that shadow has become a creeping darkness, and no one seems sure how to clear it. Now the darkness is here. Next year, artists like Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan will attempt for the first time to recover the rights in their recordings, and record labels will not give up without a fight. Who will win is unclear under the statute, and Congress seems unlikely to clarify the matter-but the darkness need not remain. The question whether musical artists can terminate their transfers is really a question about who, between the artists and labels, the law should vest with an entitlement in the future interest in the copyright. Accordingly, this Note turns to entitlements theory to examine how termination alters the parties~ bargaining positions in ways that implicate efficiency and copyright's normative goals. In so doing, it shines new light on the problem and shows courts and legislators a path through the darkness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the authorization of piracy in the music industry through the Internet with reference to the compensation for the rights holder of the music recordings in the U.S. The concept of free downloading of copyrighted music files that falls under the issue of copyright infringement started by company Napster Inc. was responded by a legal action by the Record Industry of America. Information on the impact of the judgment by the judges regarding the court case Record Industry of America v. Napster on the issue digital music piracy is also presented.

The article discusses the role of technology on pre-digital recording agreements with a focus on the court case F.B.T. Productions, LLC v. Aftermath Records. Topics include the changes in the music recording industry, contract interpretation in relation to technology, and the effect of the court case on the music industry.

The article reports on sound recording transmissions which involve webcast, interactivity and statutory royalties in the U.S. It mentions that courts apply statutes drafted to deal with records, audiotapes and digital downloads. It offers an overview on statutes that affect webcasting royalties and analyzes the quick effects of the case between Arista Records and Launch Media on webcasters.

This article examines the challenges that will accompany the expansion of the public performance right in sound recordings. One of the benefits of expanding the public performance right is the approval for U.S. record companies and recording artists to collect royalties that are currently being withheld by foreign collecting societies. An overview of the current law on sound recording performance right is provided.

The article discusses the contemporary copyright law of mix tape. It talks about the history and progression of copyright law in conjunction with the development of audio home-recording technologies and the sharing of music. It explores the breadth and depth of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), including its application and inapplication to modern technologies. Also discussed is the need for copyright law to address modern music sharing in practical ways.

The article examines the work for hire doctrine and the potential impact of the termination of sound recording copyrights on the artist in the U.S. It provides an overview of the pertinent history of copyright law in the nation. It describes the Sections 203 and 304(c) of the Copyright Act and the problems that such termination rights bring forth. Also explored are the legislative changes to right of termination and the factors of the work for hire doctrine as applied to artist contracts.

Constantly expanding copyright laws in the U.S. have made it increasingly difficult for archives to preserve our past effectively, and for the public to legally access it. This is especially true in the field of historical sound recordings. Most people are surprised to learn that for recordings made prior to 1972 there is no public domain, no fair use, and very few exceptions for preservation. This article looks at current guidelines for the use of copyrighted historical recordings; some important recent developments in the effort to change this situation; and what scholars and institutions can do now to help lessen the restrictions. Particular attention is given to the efforts of the Association for Recorded Sound Col - lections (ARSC), which is seeking five specific changes in U.S. copyright law to benefit preservation and public access to historical recordings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Magnitizdat" was the slyly humorous nickname for the unofficial practice of dubbing and distributing reel-to-reel audio tapes in the post-Stalinist Soviet Union. In this article I reflect on magnitizdat's cultural significance through an examination of several amateur reel-to-reel recordings of avtorskaia pesnia, the musical genre most closely associated with the first generation of magnitizdat dubbers in the 1960s. After drawing parallels between the rhizomic, uncensored distribution of reel-to-reel tapes and samizdat's dissemination of uncensored texts, I move on to consider the differences—in scale, ideological charge, and ontological status—between the two practices. After outlining the similarities that link magnitizdat (and, by implication, samizdat) to contemporary practices of Internet file-sharing, I conclude by suggesting that we might profitably reimagine the relationship between the Soviet underground and the post-Soviet grassroots as one where continuities overwhelm disjunctures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a paradox that escapes most of the public and many law practitioners, pre- 1972 sound recordings are not eligible for federal copyright protection; rather, these sound recordings are protected by state law. While the protection afforded by federal copyright law is relatively clear, determining the scope of protection afforded by state law is a difficult, uncertain, and frequently fruitless endeavor. The legal distinction between pre-1972 and post-1972 sound recordings results in a patchwork scheme wherein the availability and strength of protection varies significantly from state to state. The inherent complications are magnified and exponentially compounded when sound recordings are digitally reproduced, distributed and used. This Note reviews the history of protection afforded to pre-1972 sound recordings, and advocates for the adoption of a uniform national protection scheme and an amendment to the Federal Copyright Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the law relating to version recording rights in the light of the contemporary trends in the music industry in India. A brief overview of the concept of copyright is provided. It also discusses the concept of adaptation in musical work which forms the basis for the concept of version recording. The article also deals with the origin of version recording rights in Indian law, under the Copyright Act.

Discusses the United States Constitution, article 1, section 8,"The Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries," in connection with Brian Burton's case on his sound recording "The Grey Album." Violation of the copyright law during the distribution of the album; Increase of revenues from royalty payments; Assessment of the exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording.