Eight Mile Style v New Zealand National Party

Last updated

Eight Mile Style v New Zealand National Party
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court High Court of New Zealand at Wellington
Decided25 October 2017 (2017-10-25)
Citation(s) [2017] NZHC 2603
Court membership
Judge sittingHelen Cull
Keywords

Eight Mile Style v New Zealand National Party [2017] NZHC 2603 is a decision of the High Court of New Zealand which ruled that the New Zealand National Party's use of sound-alike music to the song "Lose Yourself" by American rapper Eminem in a campaign advertisement for the 2014 general election infringed on their copyright. The National Party was ordered to pay $600,000 in damages, which were reduced to $225,000 on appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Contents

Lawsuit

On 16 September 2016, Eminem's publishers filed a lawsuit with the High Court in Wellington, claiming that the National Party, its advertising agency and others involved in creating and licensing the track had made a copyright infringement from using an instrumental version of the song "Lose Yourself" in television advertisements without their consent. Their campaign manager Steven Joyce stated their using of the song was "pretty legal", claiming it had been purchased from an Australian music library. [1] [2] The publishers counter-claimed that they never allowed the song to be used in a political advert. The trial began at the Wellington High Court on 1 May 2017. [3] The case concluded on 12 May 2017; Justice Helen Cull reserved her decision. [4] On 25 October, the High Court ruled that the National Party and its co-defendants had breached copyright and ordered them to pay $600,000 plus interest. [5]

Appeals

Court of Appeal

The National Party appealed the ruling on grounds that copyright wasn't breached and if it was, the damages should have been lower. There was a cross-appeal from US companies Eight Mile Style and Martin Affiliated sought to have the damages to be increased. [6] The Court of Appeal of New Zealand upheld the National Party's appeal on damages only and reduced the amount of the damages to $225,000. [7]

Supreme Court

Subsequently, Eight Mile Style sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision in the Supreme Court in May 2019. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed and Eight Mile Style was ordered to pay $4500 in costs. [8]

Reactions

Eight Mile Style spokesman Joel Martin said the company was happy with the result following a "distasteful" trial for them, while National Party president Peter Goodfellow said the party was disappointed with the final verdict and would proceed themselves to pursue legal action against Labrador and Beatbox, who supplied them the music. [9] Eminem told Variety that he was not consulted about the case, but should he receive any money from it he would donate it to charity for the Hurricane Harvey relief efforts. [10] Musician and former APRA director Mike Chunn said that sound-alike recordings are routinely used in advertising and that the ruling was unfair. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair use</span> Concept in copyright law

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. The U.S. "fair use doctrine" is generally broader than the "fair dealing" rights known in most countries that inherited English Common Law. The fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works. In the U.S., fair use right/exception is based on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

Kazaa Media Desktop. was a peer-to-peer file sharing application using the FastTrack protocol licensed by Joltid Ltd. and operated as Kazaa by Sharman Networks. Kazaa was subsequently under license as a legal music subscription service by Atrinsic, Inc., which lasted until August 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kim Dotcom</span> German-Finnish Internet entrepreneur

Kim Dotcom, also known as Kimble and Kim Tim Jim Vestor, is a German-Finnish Internet entrepreneur and political activist who lives in Glenorchy, New Zealand.

A copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner of the rights in an original work. Original work refers to every production in the literary, scientific, and artistic domains. The Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) is the leading agency responsible for handling the registration and conflict resolution of intellectual property rights and to enforce the copyright laws. IPOPHL was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which took effect on January 1, 1998, under the presidency of Fidel V. Ramos.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Megaupload Ltd was a Hong Kong–based online company established in 2005 that operated from 2005 to 2012 providing online services related to file storage and viewing.

<i>BMG Music v. Gonzalez</i> U.S. court case

BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, was a court decision in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a record company could sue a person who engaged in online sharing of music files for copyright infringement. The decision is noteworthy for rejecting the defendant's fair use defense, which had rested upon her contention that she was merely "sampling" songs with the intention of possibly purchasing the downloaded songs in the future, a practice known informally as "try before you buy".

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1929, are in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Pirate Bay trial</span> Copyright infringement trial of torrent tracker

The Pirate Bay trial was a joint criminal and civil prosecution in Sweden of four individuals charged for promoting the copyright infringement of others with the torrent tracking website The Pirate Bay. The criminal charges were supported by a consortium of intellectual rights holders led by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), who filed individual civil compensation claims against the owners of The Pirate Bay.

In the case of Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum, record label Sony BMG, along with Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Records, Arista Records, and UMG Recordings, accused Joel Tenenbaum of illegally downloading and sharing files in violation of U.S. copyright law. It was only the second file-sharing case to go to verdict in the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) anti-downloading litigation campaign. After the judge entered a finding of liability, a jury assessed damages of $675,000, which the judge reduced to $67,500 on constitutional grounds, rather than through remittitur.

<i>Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.</i> U.S. District Court copyright case

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.

Righthaven LLC was a copyright enforcement company founded in early 2010. Based in Las Vegas, Nevada, it entered agreements from its partner newspapers after finding that their content had been copied to online sites without permission, in order to engage in litigation against the site owners for copyright infringement. The lawsuits were much criticized by commentators, who describe the activity as copyright trolling and the company as a "lawsuit factory". Righthaven LLC's CEO, Steven Gibson, who is currently a partner at Las Vegas law firm Gibson & True LLP, regularly spoke to the media about Righthaven.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<i>Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG</i> US copyright infringement lawsuit (decided 2011)

Oracle Corp v. SAP AG, No. 4:07-cv-01658, was a United States District Court for the Northern District of California case in which Oracle sued SAP, alleging that SAP had engaged in copyright infringement by downloading thousands of copyrighted documents and programs from Oracle's Customer Connection website. SAP admitted that its subsidiary TomorrowNow had infringed Oracle's copyrights and a jury awarded Oracle record-high damages in the amount of $1.3 billion. Judge Phyllis Hamilton later vacated the jury's verdict, which was based on the calculation of a hypothetical license, and granted SAP's motion for a new trial dependent on Oracle rejecting a remittitur of $272 million. In November 2014, an appeals court ruled for $356.7 million in damages, a decision which was accepted by both parties.

<i>Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</i> U.S. court case

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum is the appeals lawsuit which followed the U.S. District Court case Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum, No. 07cv11446-NG.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code, and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Music Modernization Act</span> United States copyright law

The Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, or Music Modernization Act or MMA is United States legislation signed into law on October 11, 2018 aimed to modernize copyright-related issues for music and audio recordings due to new forms of technology such as digital streaming. It is a consolidation of three separate bills introduced during the 115th United States Congress.

References

  1. "Eminem suing New Zealand's National party for allegedly using his song". The Guardian. 16 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
  2. Papatsoumas, Nikki (16 September 2014). "National Party sued over Eminem copyright infringment". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
  3. "Court date set for Eminem vs New Zealand National Party". Yahoo News. 8 September 2016. Retrieved 8 September 2016.
  4. "It's a rap: Eminem lawsuit against New Zealand party ends". New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 10 July 2017.
  5. "National Party loses copyright case over use of Eminem-esque, ordered to pay $600k". Stuff.co.nz. 25 October 2017.
  6. "Appeal grounds revealed in Eminem copyright case against National Party". Stuff.co.nz. 21 December 2017. Retrieved 23 December 2017.
  7. National Party v Eight Mile Style - damages reduced, Scoop, 18 December 2018
  8. Eight Mile Style, LLC v The New Zealand National Party 2019 NZSC 48 (14 May 2019)
  9. "National Party 'insulting' in action over Eminem copyright". The New Zealand Herald. 26 October 2017. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
  10. "Eminem to donate legal win money to charity". Radio New Zealand. 27 October 2017. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
  11. "Music rights specialist backs National over 'Eminem Esque'". Radio New Zealand. 27 October 2017. Retrieved 26 October 2017.