At a recent meeting of the Seattle Intellectual Property Chapter of the American Inns of Court, I had the chance to lead a discussion on the boundaries of copyright law and rights of publicity when using music in connection with political campaigns. As sure as candidates for office will flip pancakes, shake hands and kiss babies during campaign stops – they’ll also play music at their political rallies. And the cease and desists roll in. Typically, candidates wrap themselves in the Fair Use Doctrine (and the flag) to defend any infringement claims.
During our discussion, we tested the boundaries of fair use, derivative works, and personality rights in a series of hypotheticals and debates. Teams got points for legal argument, but more points for humor, so we had a great time!
Something Wicked this way came
One of the issues that emerged regards derivative works. At our meeting I emphasized that the right to make derivative works is a distinct right in copyright law. So, the right to make a derivative work must be distinctly and separately licensed or assigned.
OK, but what does that have to do with Wicked?
Follow the Yellow Brick Road here for a second. You might think you have permission to make a film adaptation of the Broadway musical Wicked if you get permission from the owner. But not necessarily! One could argue that Wicked, the movie, is a derivative of the book on which the musical was based, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire. Therefore, you might need to get permission from the original rights-holder of the core source material. Are people born infringing or is infringement thrust upon them? That’s a question for another meeting.
