A TALE OF TWO TIKTOK TITANS: EQUITABLE COPYRIGHT IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS

Since the nation's founding, copyright law has worked to strike a balance between incentivizing artistic creation and allowing such creations to circulate among the public. The Copyright Act of 1976 codified the prevalent common law doctrine aimed at this balance: fair use. Yet, fair use often...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Boston College law review 2024-01, Vol.65 (6), p.2045-2083
1. Verfasser: Macdonald, Taylor E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2083
container_issue 6
container_start_page 2045
container_title Boston College law review
container_volume 65
creator Macdonald, Taylor E
description Since the nation's founding, copyright law has worked to strike a balance between incentivizing artistic creation and allowing such creations to circulate among the public. The Copyright Act of 1976 codified the prevalent common law doctrine aimed at this balance: fair use. Yet, fair use often fails to create clear expectations for how courts would likely find in specific cases. This doctrinal uncertainty is exacerbated when paired with the realities of online fan communities. The current interaction of copyright law with online communities sees copyright holders attempting negotiations themselves to define a satisfactory relationship with creators of fan adaptations of their work. There are few clear guidelines on how to accomplish such a feat clearly and fairly, however. In recent years, two notable copyright holders have attempted such extrajudicial agreements. First, Disney successfully facilitated the transition of a musical based on its 2007 film Ratatouille from a TikTok trend to multiple authorized performances that generated millions of dollars for charity. Second, Netflix struggled to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal with two TikTok creators who had composed a musical based on its hit television show Bridgerton, and eventually, the conflict drove the streaming giant to litigate the issue. This Note argues that given the uncertainty these two examples represent, particularly in the face of Netflix's failed attempts at private ordering, it is time for copyright law to adapt to the modern age and expand the scope of implied licenses to allow consideration of partial acquiescence and laches in cases filed against online fan creators.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3110032004</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3110032004</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_31100320043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNi80KgkAURocoyH7e4UJr4Y7W9LObbMxBa0xvVCtpYQuJLM33T6IHaHU-OOfrMIsvXbSF4Ocus5ALbovZYt5ng7ouEFGIpWOxowSSkQLjA50MkA7JhC1I7tMVqMOxXevWeya-JHobEOg9UKBAbr-n1HhaRrBTGy0hjiT5JtmlI9a7Xe91Pv5xyCa-Ii-wn1X5avL6nRVlUz1albmcI7oO4tT9r_oAIyM4_A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3110032004</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A TALE OF TWO TIKTOK TITANS: EQUITABLE COPYRIGHT IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Macdonald, Taylor E</creator><creatorcontrib>Macdonald, Taylor E</creatorcontrib><description>Since the nation's founding, copyright law has worked to strike a balance between incentivizing artistic creation and allowing such creations to circulate among the public. The Copyright Act of 1976 codified the prevalent common law doctrine aimed at this balance: fair use. Yet, fair use often fails to create clear expectations for how courts would likely find in specific cases. This doctrinal uncertainty is exacerbated when paired with the realities of online fan communities. The current interaction of copyright law with online communities sees copyright holders attempting negotiations themselves to define a satisfactory relationship with creators of fan adaptations of their work. There are few clear guidelines on how to accomplish such a feat clearly and fairly, however. In recent years, two notable copyright holders have attempted such extrajudicial agreements. First, Disney successfully facilitated the transition of a musical based on its 2007 film Ratatouille from a TikTok trend to multiple authorized performances that generated millions of dollars for charity. Second, Netflix struggled to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal with two TikTok creators who had composed a musical based on its hit television show Bridgerton, and eventually, the conflict drove the streaming giant to litigate the issue. This Note argues that given the uncertainty these two examples represent, particularly in the face of Netflix's failed attempts at private ordering, it is time for copyright law to adapt to the modern age and expand the scope of implied licenses to allow consideration of partial acquiescence and laches in cases filed against online fan creators.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-6587</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1930-661X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Newton Centre: Boston College School of Law</publisher><subject>Common law ; Contract negotiations ; Cooperation ; Copyright ; Fair use ; Intellectual property ; Internet ; Licenses ; Litigation ; Public good ; Public interest ; Social media ; Social networks ; Success ; Television ; User generated content</subject><ispartof>Boston College law review, 2024-01, Vol.65 (6), p.2045-2083</ispartof><rights>Copyright Boston College School of Law 2024</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27866</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Macdonald, Taylor E</creatorcontrib><title>A TALE OF TWO TIKTOK TITANS: EQUITABLE COPYRIGHT IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS</title><title>Boston College law review</title><description>Since the nation's founding, copyright law has worked to strike a balance between incentivizing artistic creation and allowing such creations to circulate among the public. The Copyright Act of 1976 codified the prevalent common law doctrine aimed at this balance: fair use. Yet, fair use often fails to create clear expectations for how courts would likely find in specific cases. This doctrinal uncertainty is exacerbated when paired with the realities of online fan communities. The current interaction of copyright law with online communities sees copyright holders attempting negotiations themselves to define a satisfactory relationship with creators of fan adaptations of their work. There are few clear guidelines on how to accomplish such a feat clearly and fairly, however. In recent years, two notable copyright holders have attempted such extrajudicial agreements. First, Disney successfully facilitated the transition of a musical based on its 2007 film Ratatouille from a TikTok trend to multiple authorized performances that generated millions of dollars for charity. Second, Netflix struggled to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal with two TikTok creators who had composed a musical based on its hit television show Bridgerton, and eventually, the conflict drove the streaming giant to litigate the issue. This Note argues that given the uncertainty these two examples represent, particularly in the face of Netflix's failed attempts at private ordering, it is time for copyright law to adapt to the modern age and expand the scope of implied licenses to allow consideration of partial acquiescence and laches in cases filed against online fan creators.</description><subject>Common law</subject><subject>Contract negotiations</subject><subject>Cooperation</subject><subject>Copyright</subject><subject>Fair use</subject><subject>Intellectual property</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Licenses</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Public good</subject><subject>Public interest</subject><subject>Social media</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Television</subject><subject>User generated content</subject><issn>0161-6587</issn><issn>1930-661X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNi80KgkAURocoyH7e4UJr4Y7W9LObbMxBa0xvVCtpYQuJLM33T6IHaHU-OOfrMIsvXbSF4Ocus5ALbovZYt5ng7ouEFGIpWOxowSSkQLjA50MkA7JhC1I7tMVqMOxXevWeya-JHobEOg9UKBAbr-n1HhaRrBTGy0hjiT5JtmlI9a7Xe91Pv5xyCa-Ii-wn1X5avL6nRVlUz1albmcI7oO4tT9r_oAIyM4_A</recordid><startdate>20240101</startdate><enddate>20240101</enddate><creator>Macdonald, Taylor E</creator><general>Boston College School of Law</general><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240101</creationdate><title>A TALE OF TWO TIKTOK TITANS: EQUITABLE COPYRIGHT IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS</title><author>Macdonald, Taylor E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_31100320043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Common law</topic><topic>Contract negotiations</topic><topic>Cooperation</topic><topic>Copyright</topic><topic>Fair use</topic><topic>Intellectual property</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Licenses</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Public good</topic><topic>Public interest</topic><topic>Social media</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Television</topic><topic>User generated content</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Macdonald, Taylor E</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Boston College law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Macdonald, Taylor E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A TALE OF TWO TIKTOK TITANS: EQUITABLE COPYRIGHT IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS</atitle><jtitle>Boston College law review</jtitle><date>2024-01-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2045</spage><epage>2083</epage><pages>2045-2083</pages><issn>0161-6587</issn><eissn>1930-661X</eissn><abstract>Since the nation's founding, copyright law has worked to strike a balance between incentivizing artistic creation and allowing such creations to circulate among the public. The Copyright Act of 1976 codified the prevalent common law doctrine aimed at this balance: fair use. Yet, fair use often fails to create clear expectations for how courts would likely find in specific cases. This doctrinal uncertainty is exacerbated when paired with the realities of online fan communities. The current interaction of copyright law with online communities sees copyright holders attempting negotiations themselves to define a satisfactory relationship with creators of fan adaptations of their work. There are few clear guidelines on how to accomplish such a feat clearly and fairly, however. In recent years, two notable copyright holders have attempted such extrajudicial agreements. First, Disney successfully facilitated the transition of a musical based on its 2007 film Ratatouille from a TikTok trend to multiple authorized performances that generated millions of dollars for charity. Second, Netflix struggled to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal with two TikTok creators who had composed a musical based on its hit television show Bridgerton, and eventually, the conflict drove the streaming giant to litigate the issue. This Note argues that given the uncertainty these two examples represent, particularly in the face of Netflix's failed attempts at private ordering, it is time for copyright law to adapt to the modern age and expand the scope of implied licenses to allow consideration of partial acquiescence and laches in cases filed against online fan creators.</abstract><cop>Newton Centre</cop><pub>Boston College School of Law</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0161-6587
ispartof Boston College law review, 2024-01, Vol.65 (6), p.2045-2083
issn 0161-6587
1930-661X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_3110032004
source PAIS Index; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Common law
Contract negotiations
Cooperation
Copyright
Fair use
Intellectual property
Internet
Licenses
Litigation
Public good
Public interest
Social media
Social networks
Success
Television
User generated content
title A TALE OF TWO TIKTOK TITANS: EQUITABLE COPYRIGHT IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T12%3A41%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20TALE%20OF%20TWO%20TIKTOK%20TITANS:%20EQUITABLE%20COPYRIGHT%20IN%20THE%20AGE%20OF%20SOCIAL%20MEDIA%20PLATFORMS&rft.jtitle=Boston%20College%20law%20review&rft.au=Macdonald,%20Taylor%20E&rft.date=2024-01-01&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2045&rft.epage=2083&rft.pages=2045-2083&rft.issn=0161-6587&rft.eissn=1930-661X&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E3110032004%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3110032004&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true