Comments on: Mike Relm http://copyrightlaw.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/mike-relm/ Law 6102 - Professor Randazza’s Copyright Law Course - Barry University School of Law - Fall 2007 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:09:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: jasonweb http://copyrightlaw.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/mike-relm/#comment-1095 jasonweb Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:27:16 +0000 http://copyrightlaw.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/mike-relm/#comment-1095 Yea that Mike Relm -ish is hott. 5 stars! I went into Sam Ash the other day and got a chance to use the technology that he was using for his performance. Its' a turntable that plays songs in a DVD like format. So when u scratch a song the DVD itself (playing the song) will scratch simultaneously with the scratching on the "audio" track. If I were to advise Relm I would say if any litigation were to arise out of his performance I would say we would have to argue fair use. Analyzing the four factors first looking at the purpose and nature category, I think we will win that factor, due to the purpose and nature of the whole performance. It appears to be transformative, especially as a whole. Taking in all the different areas, and genres mixed into one compilation, I thinking it has a transformative nature in that it is used to entertain in a totally different medium and has a whole different look and feel to it. Who would go to a concert to here and see Charlie Brown?? It appears to cross a threshold of some sort to make it transformative.. Being that his performance derives a profit for him, I don’t think he will lose in a infringement case, solely because of that factor, nor do I think it is done solely for a "commercial purpose". He is an artist, and their .o. is to creative express themselves not for a fact of being monetarily compensated. Case law says under Campbell case, just because he is profiting from it, will not make him liable for infringement. There is creativity that has more than a deminimus effect and Relm did more than breathe life into the finished product.. The substantiality of the copying I think is far too small for a court to find this factor in the copyright holder's favor. The effect on the market of the copyright holder, may not be significantly affected by Relm's work due to the audience that Relm apparently pays for. The works that he remixed musically, were not made initially for music (dj mixing fans) fans to appreciate. (looking at the different pieces.) It just had "music" in the piece upon which Relm extracted to make a compilation remix video. Its whole new work in my eyes.. In conclusion I think Mike shouldn’t have to worry too much about being sued for infringement in this case. JASON RICHARDS Yea that Mike Relm -ish is hott. 5 stars! I went into Sam Ash the other day and got a chance to use the technology that he was using for his performance. Its’ a turntable that plays songs in a DVD like format. So when u scratch a song the DVD itself (playing the song) will scratch simultaneously with the scratching on the “audio” track. If I were to advise Relm I would say if any litigation were to arise out of his performance I would say we would have to argue fair use. Analyzing the four factors first looking at the purpose and nature category, I think we will win that factor, due to the purpose and nature of the whole performance. It appears to be transformative, especially as a whole. Taking in all the different areas, and genres mixed into one compilation, I thinking it has a transformative nature in that it is used to entertain in a totally different medium and has a whole different look and feel to it. Who would go to a concert to here and see Charlie Brown?? It appears to cross a threshold of some sort to make it transformative.. Being that his performance derives a profit for him, I don’t think he will lose in a infringement case, solely because of that factor, nor do I think it is done solely for a “commercial purpose”. He is an artist, and their .o. is to creative express themselves not for a fact of being monetarily compensated. Case law says under Campbell case, just because he is profiting from it, will not make him liable for infringement. There is creativity that has more than a deminimus effect and Relm did more than breathe life into the finished product.. The substantiality of the copying I think is far too small for a court to find this factor in the copyright holder’s favor. The effect on the market of the copyright holder, may not be significantly affected by Relm’s work due to the audience that Relm apparently pays for. The works that he remixed musically, were not made initially for music (dj mixing fans) fans to appreciate. (looking at the different pieces.) It just had “music” in the piece upon which Relm extracted to make a compilation remix video. Its whole new work in my eyes.. In conclusion I think Mike shouldn’t have to worry too much about being sued for infringement in this case.
JASON RICHARDS

]]>