amanda steel erika lindauer : This Is An Un Official Fan Site Tribute
amanda steel erika lindauer
Porn Queen Actress Superstar


amanda steel erika lindauer

In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc[6] the U.S. Supreme Court recognized parody as a potential fair use, even when done for profit. Roy Orbison's publisher, Acuff-Rose Music, had sued 2 Live Crew in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than mere advertising, commercial nature did not bar the defense. The Campbell court also distinguished parodies from satire, which they described as a broader social critique not intrinsically tied to ridicule of a specific work and so not deserving of the same use exceptions as parody because the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work. A number of appellate decisions have recognized that a parody may be a protected fair use, including the Second (Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.); the Ninth (Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions); and the Eleventh Circuits (Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.). In the 2001 Suntrust Bank case, Suntrust Bank and the Margaret Mitchell estate unsuccessfully brought suit to halt the publication of The Wind Done Gone, which reused many of the characters and situations from Gone with the Wind but told the events from the point of view of the enslaved people rather than the slaveholders. The Eleventh Circuit, applying Campbell, found that The Wind Done Gone was fair use and vacated the district court's injunction against its publication. Cases in which a satirical use was found to be fair include Blanch v. Koons and Williams v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems.[7] Fair use on the Internet[edit] A U.S. court case from 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft's use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba Soft's image search engine was found not to be fair use. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it was fair use.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favour of the defendant, Arriba Soft. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the statutory four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution as the original artwork was. Second, the photographs had already been published, diminishing the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase the exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement. In August 2008, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern District of California ruled in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who made a home video of her thirteen-month-old son dancing to Prince's song Let's Go Crazy and posted the video on YouTube. Four months later, Universal Music, the owner of the copyright to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and she demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks, rather than the two weeks required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song.[28] Fair use and reverse engineering[edit] Main article: Reverse engineering § Legality There is a substantial body of fair use law regarding reverse engineering of computer software, hardware, network protocols, encryption and access control systems.[29][30] Fair use and file sharing[edit] In 2009, fair use appeared as a defense in lawsuits against filesharing. Charles Nesson argued that file-sharing qualifies as fair use in his defense of alleged filesharer Joel Tenenbaum.[31] Kiwi Camara, defending alleged filesharer Jammie Thomas, announced a similar defense.[32] Fair use and professional communities[edit] In addition to considering the four fair use factors, courts deciding fair use cases also look to the standards and practices of the professional community where the case comes from.[33] Among the communities are documentarians,[34] librarians,[35] makers of Open Courseware, visual art educators,[36] and communications professors.[37] Such codes of best practices have permitted communities of practice to make more informed risk assessments in employing fair use in their daily practice.[38] For instance, broadcasters, cablecasters, and distributors typically require filmmakers to obtain errors and omissions insurance before the distributor will take on the film. Such insurance protects against errors and omissions made during the copyright clearance of material in the film. Before the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use was created in 2005, it was nearly impossible to obtain errors and omissions insurance for copyright clearance work that relied in part on fair use. This meant documentarians had either to obtain a license for the material or to cut it from their films. In many cases, it was impossible to license the material because the filmmaker sought to use it in a critical way. Soon after the best practices statement was released, all errors and omissions insurers in the U.S. shifted to begin offering routine fair use coverage.[39] Fair use and music sampling[edit] Before 1991, sampling in certain genres of music was accepted practice and the copyright considerations were viewed as largely irrelevant. The strict decision against rapper Biz Markie's appropriation of a Gilbert O'Sullivan song in the case Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc.[21] changed practices and opinions overnight. Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."[40] This left the door open for the de minimis doctrine, for short or unrecognizable samples; such uses would not rise to the level of copyright infringement, because under the de minimis doctrine, "the law does not care about trifles." However, 3 years later, the Sixth Circuit effectively eliminated the de minimis doctrine in the Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films case, holding that artists must "get a license or do not sample".[41] The Court later clarified that its opinion did not apply to fair use, but between Grand Upright and Bridgeport, practice had effectively shifted to eliminate unlicensed sampling. Influence internationally[edit] While U.S. fair use law has been influential in some countries, some countries have drastically different fair use criteria to the U.S., and some countries do not use a fair use framework at all. Some countries have the concept of fair dealing instead of fair use, while others use different systems of limitations and exceptions to copyright. Many countries have some reference to an exemption for educational use, though the extent of this exemption varies widely.[42] Sources differ on whether fair use is fully recognized by countries other than the United States. American University's infojustice.org published a compilation of portions of over 40 nations' laws that explicitly mention fair use or fair dealing, and asserts that some of the fair dealing laws, such as Canada's, have evolved (such as through judicial precedents) to be quite close to those of the United States. This compilation includes fair use provisions from Bangladesh, Israel, South Korea, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Uganda, and the United States.[43] However, Paul Geller's 1999 International Copyright Law and Practice says that while some other countries recognize similar exceptions to copyright, only the United States and Israel fully recognize the concept of fair use.[44] Fair use[edit] Israel[edit] In November 2007, the Israeli Knesset passed a new Copyright Law that included a U.S.-style fair use exception. The law, which took effect in May 2008, permits the fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as private study, research, criticism, review, news reporting, quotation, or instruction or testing by an educational institution. The law sets up four factors, similar to the U.S. fair use factors (see above), for determining whether a use is fair.[45] On September 2, 2009, the Tel Aviv District court ruled in The Football Association Premier League Ltd. v. Ploni[46] that fair use is a user right. The court also ruled that streaming of live soccer games on the Internet is fair use. In doing so, the court analyzed the four fair use factors adopted in 2007 and cited U.S. case law, including Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. and Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc..[47] Poland[edit] This section does not cite any references (sources). Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2015) Fair use exists in the Polish law and is covered by the Polish copyright law articles 23 to 35. Compared to the United States, Polish fair use distinguishes between private and public use. In Poland, when the use is public, its use risks fines. The defendant must also prove that his use was private when accused that it was not, or that other mitigating circumstances apply. Finally, Polish law treats all cases in which private material was made public as a potential copyright infringement, where fair use cannot apply. South Korea[edit] The Korean Copyright Act was amended to include a fair use provision, Article 35-3, in 2012. The law now states that, "the copyrighted work may be used, among other things, for reporting, criticism, education, and research."[48] Then, the law outlines a four-factor test similar to that used under U.S. law: In determining whether art. 35-3(1) above applies to a use of copyrighted work, the following factors must be considered: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is of a non profit nature; the type or purpose of the copyrighted work; the amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; the effect of the use of the copyrighted work upon the current market or the current value of the copyrighted work or on the potential market or the potential value of the copyrighted work.[48] Fair dealing[edit] Main article: Fair dealing Fair dealing allows specific exceptions to copyright protections. The open-ended concept of fair use is generally not observed in jurisdictions where fair dealing is in place, although this does vary.[43] Fair dealing is established in legislation in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, India, South Africa and the United Kingdom, among others.[43] derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works. Most countries' legal systems seek to protect both original and derivative works.[1] They grant authors the right to impede or otherwise control their integrity and the author's commercial interests. Derivative works and their authors benefit in turn from the full protection of copyright without prejudicing the rights of the original work's author. Contents [hide] 1 Definition 1.1 Berne 1.2 United States of America 1.3 European Union 2 When does derivative-work copyright apply? 3 When does derivative-work liability apply? 3.1 Fixation requirement 4 The fair use defense in derivative work cases 4.1 Transformativeness 4.2 Examples of derivative works under U.S. law 5 Canadian law 6 See also 7 References 8 Bibliography 9 External links Definition[edit] Berne[edit] The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, an international copyright treaty, stipulates that derivative works shall be protected although it does not use the term, "Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work".[2] United States of America[edit] An extensive definition of the term is given by the United States Copyright Act in 17 U.S.C. § 101: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) provides: The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. 17 U.S.C. § 106 provides: Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.... US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that: A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable. The statutory definition is incomplete and the concept of derivative work must be understood with reference to explanatory case law. Three major copyright law issues arise concerning derivative works: (1) what acts are sufficient to cause a copyright-protected derivative work to come into existence; (2) what acts constitute copyright infringement of a copyright in a copyright-protected work; and (3) in what circumstances is a person otherwise liable for infringement of copyright in a copyright-protected derivative work excused from liability by an affirmative defense, such as first sale or fair use? European Union[edit] French law prefers the term "śuvre composite" ("composite work") although the term '"śuvre dériviée" is sometimes used. It is defined in article L 113-2, alinea 2 of the Intellectual Property Code as "the new work in which a pre-existing work without the collaboration of its author".[3] The Court of Cassation has interpreted this statue as requiring two distinct inputs at different points in time.[4] The Court of Justice of the European Union in 2010 decided on a matter of derivative works in Systran v. European Commission (Case T-19/07[5]). When does derivative-work copyright apply?[edit] For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality. Although serious emphasis on originality, at least so designated, began with the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Feist v. Rural, some pre-Feist lower court decisions addressed this requirement in relation to derivative works. In Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.[6] and earlier in L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder.[7] the Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not infringe any copyright of the derivative work itself (although copying it may infringe the copyright, if any, of the underlying work on which the derivative work was based). The Batlin case rested on the copyrightability of an "Uncle Sam" toy bank, first copyrighted in 1886. These toys have Uncle Sam's extended arm and outstretched hand adapted to receive a coin; when the user presses a lever, Uncle Sam appears to put the coin into a carpet bag. One maker of these banks, Jeffrey Snyder, had filed a copyright on such a bank in 1975, planning to import them for the American Bicentennial. Shortly thereafter, another company, L. Batlin & Sons, Inc., also began making a very similar toy bank which was based on Snyder's version (and not, incidentally, on the 19th century original). When the latter attempted to import the toy banks, the US Customs service notified them that they appeared to be infringing on Snyder's copyright, and would not allow the toy banks to be imported. Batlin then got an injunction against Snyder to deny the recording of his copyright and allowing them to import their banks. On appeal to the Second Circuit Court, Snyder took great pains to demonstrate how his banks varied in size and shape from the 19th century original, arguing that his banks, though similar to the older work, differed in a number of significant ways and warranted protection under a new copyright. However, his appeal was denied and the injunction against Snyder's copyright upheld (six members of the court voted to deny, the other three filing a dissenting opinion). Much of this decision focused on the fact that nearly all of the alterations in Snyder's version were made solely to allow the object to be more easily manufactured in plastic rather than metal, and therefore were functional, not artistic or creative.[8][9] "To extend copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and monopolizing public domain work." The issue was not whether or not Batlin's bank was a copy of Snyder's— it undoubtedly was— but whether or not Snyder could claim copyright protection, which the court decided he could not. In the subsequent Durham case, the court applied the same principle in a suit between two different Disney toy licensees in which one licensee claimed that the other had pirated his Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Pluto. Durham conceded that in making these toys it used Tomy's Disney figures as models. That was not determinative. The court said that "the only aspects of Tomy's Disney figures entitled to copyright protection are the non-trivial, original features, if any, contributed by the author or creator of these derivative works." But Tomy's toys reflected "no independent creation, no distinguishable variation from preexisting works, nothing recognizably the author's own contribution that sets Tomy's figures apart from the prototypical Mickey, Donald, and Pluto, authored by Disney and subsequently represented by Disney or its licensees in a seemingly limitless variety of forms and media." Because the court considered that "it is clear that the originality requirement imposed by the Constitution and the Copyright Act has particular significance in the case of derivative works based on copyrighted preexisting works," it denied relief and dismissed the claim. Thus the law is clear that a derivative work is protectable only to the extent that it embodies original expression. Its non-original aspects are not copyright-protectable (what is loosely called "uncopyrightable"). In both of these cases, the defendants were held not to be liable for copyright infringement, even though they presumably copied a considerable amount from the plaintiff's work. They were not liable because the plaintiff did not enjoy copyright protection. The plaintiffs' works lacked enough originality to acquire copyright protection of their own. They were too close to the original works on which they were based. Copyright ownership in a derivative work attaches only if the derivative work is lawful, because of a license or other "authorization." The U.S. Copyright Office says in its circular on derivative works: In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.[10][11] The courts have not yet addressed the issue of lawful (i.e., not unlawful) use without authorization, as in the Pretty Woman case. When does derivative-work liability apply?[edit] This issue sometimes arises in the context of the defendant purchasing a copy of a picture or some other work from the copyright owner or a licensee and then reselling it in different context. For example, pictures from greeting cards might be affixed to tiles or one kind of textile product might be turned into another that can be sold at a higher price. In Lee v. A.R.T. Co., (the Annie Lee case), the defendant affixed the copyright owner’s copyright-protected note cards and small lithographs to tiles and then resold them.[12] The original art was not changed or reproduced, only bonded to ceramic and sold. The court held that this act was not original and creative enough to rise to the level of creating a derivative work, but effectively similar to any other form of display or art frame.[13] Distribution rights differ from reproduction rights. While the first-sale doctrine entitles the copyright holder to begin the distribution chain of a copyrighted work - by selling note cards, for instance, or giving them away - it does not permit the copyright holder to control what is done with the item after it is distributed. Unless there is a separate contract between the parties, the person who owns the object has the right to give it away or resell it him or herself. In the case of Lee v. A.R.T., since bonding the cards to ceramic did not create a derivative work, A.R.T. Co. was legally within their rights to resell the cards in such a fashion. When the defendant's modification of the plaintiff's work is de minimis, too insubstantial to "count", there is no infringing preparation of a derivative work. So long as there is no derivative work, there is no infringement—since no conduct that the Copyright Act forbids has occurred. Fixation requirement[edit] In a House Report,[14] Congress said: The exclusive right to prepare derivative works, specified separately in clause (2) of section 106, overlaps the exclusive right of reproduction to some extent. It is broader than that right, however, in the sense that reproduction requires fixation in copies or phonorecords, whereas the preparation of a derivative work, such as a ballet, pantomime, or improvised performance, may be an infringement even though nothing is ever fixed in tangible form. The 9th Circuit, however, has resisted this expansive view of liability for derivative works by imposing its own quasi-fixation requirement. In Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.[15] Judge Kozinski wrote: To narrow the statute to a manageable level, we have developed certain criteria a work must satisfy in order to qualify as a derivative work. One of these is that a derivative work must exist in a "concrete or permanent form,"....The requirement that a derivative work must assume a concrete or permanent form was recognized without much discussion in Galoob. The fair use defense in derivative work cases[edit] Even if a work is found to be an unauthorized derivative work, an alleged infringer can escape liability via the defense of fair use. For example, in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., the Supreme Court found that although a parody of the song "Oh, Pretty Woman" by 2 Live Crew was an unauthorized derivative work, fair use was still available as a complete defense. This case marked the Supreme Court's pointing to transformativeness as a major clue to application of the fair use defense to derivative works. The defense of fair use has become very important in computer- and Internet-related works. Two 1992 Ninth Circuit decisions are illustrative. In Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.,[16] the appellate court held that it was a fair use for owners of copies of video games, such as Super Mario Bros., to use Galoob's product the Game Genie to customize the difficulty or other characteristics of the game by granting a character more strength, speed, or endurance. Nintendo strongly opposed Galoob's product, allegedly because it interfered with the maintenance of the "Nintendo Culture," which Nintendo claimed was important to its marketing program.[17] The court held, among other things, that the fair use defense shielded Galoob's conduct. The court said that "a party who distributes a copyrighted work cannot dictate how that work is to be enjoyed. Consumers may use ... a Game Genie to enhance a Nintendo Game cartridge’s audiovisual display in such a way as to make the experience more enjoyable." In Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,[18] the court excused Accolade from copyright infringement liability on fair use grounds. Nintendo and Sega produced video game consoles. Each stored the games in plastic cartridges that provided game data to the consoles. By way of analogy, the Sega hardware console's “platform” differed from Nintendo's, as a Macintosh platform differs from that of a PC. Hence, a video game cartridge that works on one system does not work on the other. Sega and Nintendo sought to “license” access to their hardware platforms, and each company developed software "locks" to keep out cartridges that did not have the proper "key." Accolade sought a license from Sega for its key, but negotiations broke down over price. Accolade then decided to reverse engineer Sega's lock and key system. To do so, it had to download (copy) all of the computer code from Sega's product and disassemble it (translate it from machine code into human-readable assembly). Accolade succeeded and began to market new video games that it independently wrote, which were capable of being operated in Sega consoles. This led to copyright infringement litigation, in which Sega alleged that the downloading was improper copying (reproduction) of Sega's code. The court held that Sega was trying to use the copyright in its computer code to maintain a monopoly over the sale of video games, to which it was not legally entitled. Accolade downloaded the computer code only to ascertain how the lock worked, so that it could make a key that would permit its games to work in Sega consoles. The court held that such a use was fair use: "We conclude that where disassembly is the only way to gain access to the ideas and functional elements embodied in a copyrighted computer program and where there is a legitimate reason for seeking such access, disassembly is a fair use of the copyrighted work, as a matter of law."[19] However, note that since the passage of the anti-circumvention statutes contained in the DMCA, further court cases involving the fair-use defense of such activities have yet[citation needed] to be actually litigated. Transformativeness[edit] Main article: Transformativeness A crucial factor in current legal analysis of derivative works is transformativeness, largely as a result of the Supreme Court's 1994 decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. The Court's opinion emphasized the importance of transformativeness in its fair use analysis of the parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" involved in the Campbell case. In parody, as the Court explained, the transformativeness is the new insight that readers, listeners, or viewers gain from the parodic treatment of the original work. As the Court pointed out, the words of the parody "derisively demonstrat[e] how bland and banal the Orbison [Pretty Woman] song" is. The modern emphasis of transformativeness in fair use analysis stems from a 1990 article by Judge Pierre N. Leval in the Harvard Law Review, "Toward a Fair Use Standard",[20] which the Court quoted and cited extensively in its Campbell opinion. In his article, Leval explained the social importance of transformative use of another's work and what justifies such a taking: I believe the answer to the question of justification turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society. Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses. The concept, as Leval and the Campbell Court described it, developed in relation to fair use of traditional works: literary works, musical works, and pictorial works. But recently courts have extended this rationale to Internet and computer-related works. In such cases, as illustrated by Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation[21] and Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,[22] the courts find a use (such as that of thumbnails in an image search engine, for indexing purposes) transformative because it provides an added benefit to the public, which was not previously available and might remain unavailable without the derivative or secondary use. The Ninth Circuit Court explained this in the Perfect 10 case: Google’s use of thumbnails is highly transformative. In Kelly we concluded that Arriba’s use of thumbnails was transformative because “Arriba’s use of the images served a different function than Kelly’s use — improving access to information on the Internet versus artistic expression." Although an image may have been created originally to serve an entertainment, aesthetic, or informative function, a search engine transforms the image into a pointer directing a user to a source of information. Just as a “parody has an obvious claim to transformative value” because “it can provide social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one,” a search engine provides social benefit by incorporating an original work into a new work, namely, an electronic reference tool. Indeed, a search engine may be more transformative than a parody because a search engine provides an entirely new use for the original work, while a parody typically has the same entertainment purpose as the original work. …In conducting our case-specific analysis of fair use in light of the purposes of copyright, we must weigh Google’s superseding and commercial uses of thumbnail images against Google’s significant transformative use, as well as the extent to which Google’s search engine promotes the purposes of copyright and serves the interests of the public. Although the district court acknowledged the “truism that search engines such as Google Image Search provide great value to the public,” the district court did not expressly consider whether this value outweighed the significance of Google’s superseding use or the commercial nature of Google’s use. The Supreme Court, however, has directed us to be mindful of the extent to which a use promotes the purposes of copyright and serves the interests of the public. …We conclude that the significantly transformative nature of Google’s search engine, particularly in light of its public benefit, outweighs Google’s superseding and commercial uses of the thumbnails in this case. … We are also mindful of the Supreme Court’s direction that “the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.” The Ninth Circuit's treatment of transformativeness and fair use in the Arriba Soft and Perfect 10 cases illustrates different data points on the copyright infringement spectrum, at least with respect to transformativeness and fair use. Arriba Soft was a relatively polar case. The harm to Kelly, the copyright owner, was negligible; it was hardly more than hurt feelings, because as the Ninth Circuit said in its opinion – "Arriba's creation and use of the thumbnails [the derivative work] does not harm the market for or value of Kelly' s images." On the other hand, the court found that Arriba's use benefited the public: "Arriba's use of the images serves a different function than Kelly's use — improving access to information on the internet versus artistic expression." The balance thus tilted strongly in Arriba's favor. The foregoing analysis in this case thus made the Ninth Circuit to be the first court to make the equation highly beneficial to public = transformative, and as the Supreme Court explained in Campbell, the more transformative a derivative use the more likely the use is to be a fair use. The Campbell Court recognized that the balance may not always be one-sided, as it was in Campbell itself and in Arriba Soft. In the Perfect 10 case the interests were more evenly balanced, for the first time in a derivative work case involving new information technology. Both Google and Perfect 10 had legitimate interests at stake and support for their respective positions. Thus, there was a finding that "Google’s wide-ranging use of thumbnails is highly transformative: their creation and display is designed to, and does, display visual search results quickly and efficiently to users of Google Image Search." But Google's use had some commercial aspects and was claimed to impair P10's commercial interests. Yet, on balance the Ninth Circuit found that the transformativeness outweighed the other fair use factors because "Google has provided a significant benefit to the public" in facilitating image searches by means of thumbnail images. This opinion provided a second instance of the "beneficial=transformative" equation described in the preceding paragraph (from the Arriba Soft case). Screenshot of Half.com pop-up ad over Amazon's Web page The use of pop-up advertising, in which third-party advertisements pop up on a competitor’s Web page and change its appearance to allegedly create a derivative work,[23] may present transformativeness issues. The proponents of such pop-ups (the defendants in infringement litigation) argue that they provide the public with additional information about making buying decisions (particularly in the form of price comparisons), but the opponents (the plaintiffs in these cases) argue that the defendants' conduct adversely affects the Web page proprietor's interest in the "integrity" of its Web page and its investment interest in creating and maintaining the page.[24] No court has yet addressed derivative work copyright considerations in terms of balancing the interests at stake,[25] although several courts have found no copyright infringement for one reason or another. An example of promotional advertising for a pop-up company, illustrating various pop-up techniques for changing the appearance of another firm's Web page is shown in this Flash.[26] The Copyright Act of Canada is the federal statute governing copyright law in Canada. It is jointly administered by the Department of Industry Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Copyright Act of Canada was first passed in 1921 and substantially amended in 1988 and 1997. Several attempts were made between 2005 and 2011 to amend the Copyright Act, but each of the bills (Bill C-60 in 2005, Bill C-61 in 2008, and Bill C-32 in 2010) failed to pass due to political opposition. In 2011, with a majority in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party introduced Bill C-11, titled the Copyright Modernization Act. Bill C-11 was passed and received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012. Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 1921 Canadian Copyright Act 1.2 Reform in 1988 and 1997 1.3 Bills to amend the Copyright Act 1.3.1 Bill C-60 1.3.2 Bill C-61 1.3.3 Bill C-32 1.3.4 Bill C-11 2 Provisions of the Copyright Act of Canada 2.1 Rights granted 2.2 Originality 2.3 Fixation 2.4 Exclusion 2.5 Ownership 2.6 Crown Copyright 2.7 Music recordings 2.8 Foreign works 2.9 Copyright terms 2.10 Unknown or anonymous authors 2.11 Orphaned works 2.12 Photographs 3 Penalties 4 See also 5 References 6 External links History[edit] 1921 Canadian Copyright Act[edit] The first Copyright Act of Canada was passed in 1921 and came into force in 1924. Though Canada was no longer subject to imperial copyright law, the 1921 Act was closely modelled on the UK Copyright Act 1911 to comply with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.[1] Until 1988 the Copyright Act of Canada saw only minor amendments while the Federal Government engaged in a number of studies on copyright reform. New technological developments and the emergence of computers, photocopiers and recording devices led to a recognition that copyright law needed to be updated. Between 1954 and 1960 the Royal Commission on Patents, Copyright, and Industrial Design, known as the Ilsley Commission, published a series of reports. Its brief was "to enquire as to whether federal legislation relating in any way to patents of invention, industrial designs, copyright and trademarks affords reasonable incentive to invention and research, to the development of literary and artistic talents, to creativeness, and to making available to the Canadian public scientific, technical, literary and artistic creations and other adaptations, applications and uses, in a manner and on terms adequately safeguarding the paramount public interest."[2][3] Reform in 1988 and 1997[edit] In 1977, the Canadian department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs published the Keyes-Brunet Report, a working paper with the full title "Copyright in Canada: Proposals for Revision of the Law". In 1984, the Federal Government published "From Gutenberg to Telidon: A White Paper on Copyright" and in 1985 the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Communications and Culture published "A Charter of Rights for Creators - Report of the Subcommittee on the Revision of Copyright". A copyright reform process was initiated in two phases: Phase one was started in 1988 and saw several amendments to the original Copyright Act of Canada of 1922. Computer programs were included as works protected under copyright, the extent of moral rights was clarified, the provision for a compulsory license for the reproduction of musical works was removed, new licensing arrangements were established for orphan works in cases where the copyright owner could not be identified, and rules were enacted on the formation of copyright collecting societies and their supervision by a reformed Copyright Board of Canada.[2] Phase two of the reform took place in 1997 and saw the Copyright Act of Canada amended with a new remuneration right for producers and performers of sound recordings when their work was broadcast or publicly performed by radio stations and public places such as bars. A private copying levy was introduced on blank audio tapes used for private copying and exclusive book distributors were granted protection in Canada. New copyright exceptions were introduced for non profit educational institutions, libraries, museums, broadcasters, and people with disability, allowing them to copy copyrighted works in specific circumstances without the permission of the copyright owner or the need to pay royalties. Damages payable for copyright infringement and the power to grant injunctions were increased, and the 1997 reforms introduced a mandatory review of the Copyright Act of Canada.[2] Bills to amend the Copyright Act[edit] Bill C-60[edit] Main article: Bill C-60 (38th Canadian Parliament, 1st Session) In June 2005, the government introduced Bill C-60 to amend the Copyright Act. Bill C-60 sought to extend moral rights to performers of other people's works and repeal the photographer exception allowing people to gain de facto authorship of anything they photograph. The bill also proposed to make circumventing rights management schemes an offence, but mostly when done for the purpose of violating another right. The bill was never passed into law as Parliament was dissolved after a motion of non-confidence was passed in November 2005. Bill C-61[edit] Main article: Bill C-61 (39th Canadian Parliament, 2nd Session) In Summer 2008, the government introduced Bill C-61 in their continuing effort to update the Copyright Act, with numerous similarities to the previous Bill C-60 and the American DMCA. Industry Minister Jim Prentice introduced the bill to improve compliance with WIPO treaties. It was heavily criticized and praised by conflicting sides, of being too harsh and setting up "police states", to being needed copyright reform.[4] The bill died on the table due to the September 7, 2008 election call.[5] Bill C-32[edit] Main article: Bill C-32 (40th Canadian Parliament, 3rd Session) On June 2, 2010, Bill C-32 was tabled by federal Industry Minister Tony Clement, full title An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. [6] While many aspects of the bill changed with respect to Bill C-61, those portions regarding legal protection of technological protection measures remained fundamentally unchanged. These measures were criticised by consumer groups, including the Consumers Council of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Option consommateurs and Union des consommateurs;[7] via the Canadian Consumer Initiative, they sent a letter to Heritage Minister James Moore, who had stated in the House of Commons that consumer interests were represented by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, noting that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce "is a business lobby group that in no way represents consumer interests, and in fact opposes the position of consumer groups on copyright policy".[7] On April 2011, before the bill could be passed, the government lost the confidence of the House of Commons and an election was called. Bill C-11[edit] Main article: An Act to amend the Copyright Act (41st Canadian Parliament, 1st Session) On September 29, 2011, Bill C-11 was introduced into Canadian 41st Parliament by the federal Industry Minister Christian Paradis with the short title Copyright Modernization Act [8] The bill is virtually identical to Bill C-32 from the previous Parliament which did not pass due to the dissolution of Parliament. Most of the opposition to the Bill from the opposition parties, in particular the NDP's opposition is about two aspects:[9]The fact that it is prohibited to circumvent digital locks even for lawful purposes and henceforth all the fair dealing[10] rights in the bill can easily be removed by the usage of such a digital lock, and the missing compensation of creators of works through a scheme similar to the one used in the past that puts a levy on recording media at the time of sale of such blank media. On June 18, 2012 the bill received its third and final reading; receiving unanimous Conservative support and unanimous opposition by Liberal and NDP members of parliament.[11] The bill received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012 with all amendments rejected. Provisions of the Copyright Act of Canada[edit] Rights granted[edit] Copyright grants the sole and exclusive right to create and recreate a work whether wholly or substantially. It also includes the sole rights to: publish the work if unpublished perform the work in public to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work, in the case of a dramatic work, to convert it into a novel or other non-dramatic work, in the case of a novel or other non-dramatic work, or of an artistic work, to convert it into a dramatic work, by way of performance in public or otherwise, in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to make any sound recording, cinematograph film or other contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically reproduced or performed, in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to reproduce, adapt and publicly present the work as a cinematographic work, in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication, to present at a public exhibition, for a purpose other than sale or hire, an artistic work created after June 7, 1988, other than a map, chart or plan, in the case of a computer program that can be reproduced in the ordinary course of its use, other than by a reproduction during its execution in conjunction with a machine, device or computer, to rent out the computer program, and in the case of a musical work, to rent out a sound recording in which the work is embodied, and to authorize any such acts.[12] Originality[edit] The Act provides protection for all "original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic" works. Close attention has been paid to the use of the word "original". It has been well established that the foremost requirement for the subsistence of copyright is that the work be original. The CCH Canadian case re-evaluated the meaning of "original" and found that for a work to be original it must be the result of the exercise of "skill and judgment". More specifically: skill, meaning the "use of one's knowledge, developed aptitude or practiced ability in producing work", and judgment, meaning the "use of one's capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work". Nevertheless, originality does not require any novelty or creativity. It does require intellectual effort beyond mere mechanical exercise. The determination of originality on the basis presented in CCH Canadian depends on the facts. For a large part, it depends on degree to which the work originated from the author. Many factors are considered, The medium or form used is significant. Whether it comprises elements that are in the public domain or not, whether it the ordering of data or facts, or whether the form is pedestrian or novel. Mere selection is generally not enough. As well, it is significant to consider whether there are any artistic elements to it. Fixation[edit] Copyright provides the protection of expression of ideas. This entails that there must be a form, or "fixation", to the expression. It is fixation that distinguishes an expression from an idea. In Canadian Admiral Corp. v. Rediffusion, the court considered fixation: "for copyright to exists in a 'work' it must be expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance." In this case, the court found that there was insufficient fixation in the live broadcast of a sports event. Any sort of broadcast, telecast, or display of a spectacle on its own is not sufficient to be fixed. At the least, it must be simultaneously recorded in some fashion to be fixed. To the possible exception of choreographed works, there is a requirement that the work be recorded in a relatively permanent form. Typing a note into a computer screen may be sufficiently permanent. Some cases have shown that unstructured speech or other spontaneous or improvised creations, such as a sports game, cannot contain copyright. Exclusion[edit] Both facts and ideas are by their very nature uncopyrightable. This will often create difficulties when it becomes necessary to separate the idea from the expression as well as in the separation of fact from the arranging and use of those facts. Where the distinction between idea and expression becomes obscured the Courts often take a precautionary view that it cannot be copyrighted so as to avoid preventing others from expressing the same idea. Minor designs that are largely ornamental or functional are excluded as well. For example, coloured blocks used as tools in an educational program are excluded. Ownership[edit] The copyright of an artist's work is owned directly by the artist in most cases with the exception of engravings, photographs, portraits, and works created in the course of employment. Furthermore, these rights can be alienated through assignment and licenses. An artist's moral rights, however, are inalienable and stay with the artist their entire lives. As with copyrights, moral rights are inheritable. May 1, 1998 Black Dog May 22, 1998 Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas co-production with Summit Entertainment and Rhino Films June 26, 1998 Out of Sight July 10, 1998 Small Soldiers co-production with DreamWorks and Amblin Entertainment July 31, 1998 BASEketball September 18, 1998 One True Thing October 16, 1998 Bride of Chucky November 13, 1998 Meet Joe Black November 25, 1998 Babe: Pig in the City sequel to Babe, distributor December 4, 1998 Psycho co-production with Imagine Entertainment December 25, 1998 Patch Adams Nominee of the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy. January 15, 1999 Virus co-production with The Mutal Film Company, Valhalla Motion Pictures and Dark Horse Entertainment February 19, 1999 October Sky March 26, 1999 EDtv co-production with Imagine Entertainment April 16, 1999 Life co-production with Imagine Entertainment May 7, 1999 The Mummy co-production with Alphaville May 28, 1999 Notting Hill released by PolyGram Filmed Entertainment July 9, 1999 American Pie August 6, 1999 Mystery Men August 13, 1999 Bowfinger co-production with Imagine Entertainment August 20, 1999 Mickey Blue Eyes U.K. distribution only; distributed in the U.S. by Warner Bros. Pictures; co-production with Castle Rock Entertainment August 27, 1999 Dudley Do-Right September 17, 1999 For Love of the Game October 15, 1999 The Story of Us U.S. distribution only; Warner Bros. held international rights, co-production with Castle Rock Entertainment October 22, 1999 The Best Man November 5, 1999 The Bone Collector U.S. distributor; co-production with Columbia Pictures November 24, 1999 End of Days November 24, 1999 Ride with the Devil December 22, 1999 Man on the Moon Nominee of the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy. December 22, 1999 Snow Falling on Cedars December 25, 1999 Angela's Ashes International distributor; co-production with Paramount Pictures December 29, 1999 The Hurricane Nominee of the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama. 2000s Title Release date Notes February 18, 2000 Pitch Black distribution only in some markets, co-production with USA Films, Interscope Communications, Gramercy Films, and Polygram Filmed Entertainment February 28, 2000 Isn't She Great March 17, 2000 Erin Brockovich USA distribution only, co-production with Columbia Pictures March 31, 2000 The Skulls co-production with Newmarket Films April 21, 2000 U-571 co-production with StudioCanal April 28, 2000 The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas co-production with Amblin Entertainment and Hanna-Barbera Productions May 5, 2000 Gladiator international distribution only, co-production with DreamWorks and Scott Free Productions May 12, 2000 Screwed June 30, 2000 The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle co-production with Capella International / KC Medien / TriBeca Productions July 28, 2000 Nutty Professor II: The Klumps co-production with Imagine Entertainment August 25, 2000 Bring It On co-production with Beacon Pictures September 8, 2000 The Watcher October 6, 2000 Meet the Parents USA distribution only, co-production with DreamWorks, plus its sequel in 2004 November 17, 2000 How the Grinch Stole Christmas co-production with Imagine Entertainment December 22, 2000 O Brother, Where Art Thou? international distribution only, co-production with Working Title Films, StudioCanal and Touchstone Pictures December 22, 2000 The Family Man February 2, 2001 Head Over Heels February 9, 2001 Hannibal international distribution only, co-production with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures and Dino De Laurentiis April 11, 2001 Josie and the Pussycats USA distribution only, co-production with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures April 13, 2001 Bridget Jones's Diary International distribution only, co-production with Miramax Films, Studio Canal and Working Title Films May 4, 2001 The Mummy Returns co-production with Alphaville June 22, 2001 The Fast and the Furious co-production with Original Film July 18, 2001 Jurassic Park III co-production with Amblin Entertainment August 10, 2001 American Pie 2 August 17, 2001 Captain Corelli's Mandolin North American distribution only, co-produced with Working Title Films, Studio Canal and Miramax Films September 7, 2001 The Musketeer USA distribution only, co-production with Miramax Films October 12, 2001 Mulholland Dr. distribution only in USA October 26, 2001 K-PAX USA distribution only, co-production with Intermedia Films and Lawrence Gordon Productions November 21, 2001 Spy Game distributor December 21, 2001 A Beautiful Mind USA distribution only, co-production with DreamWorks and Imagine Entertainment December 21, 2001 How High January 11, 2002 Brotherhood of the Wolf distribution only in USA and Australia February 8, 2002 Big Fat Liar co-production with Tollin/Robbins Productions February 22, 2002 Dragonfly USA distribution only, co-production with Spyglass Entertainment March 1, 2002 40 Days and 40 Nights International distribution only, co-production with Miramax Films and Working Title Films March 15, 2002 Harrison's Flowers March 22, 2002 e.t. 20th anniversary edition co-production with Amblin Entertainment April 19, 2002 The Scorpion King co-production with Alphaville May 17, 2002 About a Boy co-production with Working Title Films May 31, 2002 Undercover Brother co-production with Imagine Entertainment June 14, 2002 The Bourne Identity co-production with The Kennedy/Marshall Company August 16, 2002 Blue Crush co-production with Imagine Entertainment October 4, 2002 Red Dragon October 25, 2002 The Truth About Charlie November 8, 2002 8 Mile co-production with Imagine Entertainment November 22, 2002 The Emperor's Club December 6, 2002 Empire distribution only in most countries, including USA February 14, 2003 The Guru February 21, 2003 The Life of David Gale co-production with Intermedia Films May 23, 2003 Bruce Almighty North American distribution only, co-production with Spyglass Entertainment June 6, 2003 2 Fast 2 Furious co-production with Original Film June 20, 2003 Hulk co-production with Marvel Studios, Valhalla Motion Pictures and Good Machine Studios July 18, 2003 Johnny English co-production with Working Title Films and StudioCanal July 25, 2003 Seabiscuit USA distribution only, co-production with DreamWorks and Spyglass Entertainment August 1, 2003 American Wedding September 26, 2003 The Rundown North American and Japan distribution only, co-production with Columbia Pictures October 10, 2003 Intolerable Cruelty co-production with Imagine Entertainment and Alphaville November 14, 2003 Love Actually co-production with Studio Canal and Working Title Films November 14, 2003 Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World select international distribution, co-production with 20th Century Fox and Miramax Films November 21, 2003 Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat North American distribution only, co-production with DreamWorks and Imagine Entertainment December 5, 2003 Honey December 25, 2003 Peter Pan North American and Australian distribution only, co-production with Columbia Pictures and Revolution Studios January 16, 2004 Along Came Polly co-production with Jersey Films March 19, 2004 Dawn of the Dead co-production with Strike Entertainment April 16, 2004 Connie and Carla co-production with Spyglass Entertainment May 7, 2004 Van Helsing co-production with Alphaville June 11, 2004 The Chronicles of Riddick co-production with Radar Pictures & One Race Films June 25, 2004 Two Brothers co-production with Pathé July 23, 2004 The Bourne Supremacy co-production with The Kennedy/Marshall Company July 30, 2004 Thunderbirds international distribution only, co-production with Columbia Pictures, StudioCanal and Working Title Films September 17, 2004 Wimbledon September 24, 2004 Shaun of the Dead co-production with Rogue Pictures, StudioCanal, Film4 Productions, and Working Title Films; Rogue Pictures handled U.S. distribution while Universal distributed it in countries outside the USA October 8, 2004 Friday Night Lights co-production with Imagine Entertainment October 29, 2004 Ray co-production with Bristol Bay Productions November 19, 2004 Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason USA distribution only, co-production with Miramax Films December 22, 2004 Meet the Fockers USA distribution only, co-production with DreamWorks December 29, 2004 In Good Company January 7, 2005 White Noise co-production with Gold Circle Films February 4, 2005 The Wedding Date co-production with Gold Circle Films February 11, 2005 Inside Deep Throat distribution only in USA April 22, 2005 The Interpreter co-production with Working Title Films May 13, 2005 Kicking & Screaming June 3, 2005 Cinderella Man USA distribution only, co-production with Miramax Films and Imagine Entertainment June 17, 2005 The Perfect Man June 24, 2005 Land of the Dead co-production with Wild Bunch August 12, 2005 The Skeleton Key August 19, 2005 The 40-Year-Old Virgin co-production with Apatow Productions September 30, 2005 Serenity October 7, 2005 Two for the Money distribution only; with Morgan Creek Productions October 21, 2005 Doom co-production with DiBonaventura Productions October 28, 2005 Prime November 4, 2005 Jarhead November 23, 2005 Pride & Prejudice distributed in countries outside USA; co-production with StudioCanal and Working Title Films December 2, 2005 First Descent distribution only in USA December 14, 2005 King Kong co-production with WingNut Films December 23, 2005 Munich USA distribution only, co-production with DreamWorks, Amblin Entertainment and Alliance Atlantis Communications December 25, 2005 The Producers North American distribution only, co-production with Columbia Pictures January 27, 2006 Nanny McPhee USA distribution only, co-production with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures,[1] StudioCanal and Working Title Films February 10, 2006 Curious George co-production with Imagine Entertainment and Universal Animation Studios March 23, 2006 Inside Man co-production with Imagine Entertainment March 31, 2006 Slither co-production with Gold Circle Films April 21, 2006 American Dreamz April 28, 2006 United 93 co-production with StudioCanal and Working Title Films June 2, 2006 The Break-Up June 16, 2006 The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift co-production with Original Film and Relativity Media; first film teamed up with Relativity Media July 14, 2006 You, Me and Dupree July 28, 2006 Miami Vice August 18, 2006 Accepted co-production with Shady Acres Entertainment August 25, 2006 Idlewild September 15, 2006 The Black Dahlia October 13, 2006 Man of the Year co-production with Morgan Creek Productions November 17, 2006 Let's Go to Prison distribution only; produced by Carsey Werner Films); (co-production with Strike Entertainment) December 8, 2006 The Holiday international distribution only, co-production with Columbia Pictures, Relativity Media and Waverly Films December 22, 2006 The Good Shepherd co-production with Morgan Creek Productions and American Zoetrope December 25, 2006 Children of Men co-production with Strike Entertainment January 12, 2007 Alpha Dog USA distribution only January 26, 2007 Smokin' Aces co-production with StudioCanal, Relativity Media and Working Title Films February 2, 2007 Because I Said So February 16, 2007 Breach March 16, 2007 Dead Silence co-production with Twisted Pictures April 20, 2007 Hot Fuzz distribution in most countries outside of the USA May 11, 2007 Georgia Rule co-production with Morgan Creek Productions June 1, 2007 Knocked Up co-production with Apatow Productions June 22, 2007 Evan Almighty co-production with Spyglass Entertainment, Shady Acres Entertainment, Relativity Media and Original Film July 20, 2007 I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry co-production with Happy Madison Productions, Relativity Media and Shady Acres Entertainment August 3, 2007 The Bourne Ultimatum co-production with Kennedy/Marshall August 24, 2007 Illegal Tender August 24, 2007 Mr. Bean's Holiday co-production with StudioCanal and Working Title Films September 21, 2007 Sydney White co-production with Morgan Creek Productions September 28, 2007 The Kingdom co-production with Relativity Media October 12, 2007 Elizabeth: The Golden Age November 2, 2007 American Gangster co-production with Imagine Entertainment and Relativity Media December 21, 2007 Charlie Wilson's War co-production with Relativity Media and Morgan Creek Productions January 11, 2008 The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything: A VeggieTales Movie co-production with Big Idea Productions January 25, 2008 Untraceable international distribution only, co-production with Screen Gems and Lakeshore Entertainment February 8, 2008 Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins co-production with Spyglass Entertainment February 14, 2008 Definitely, Maybe co-production with StudioCanal and Working Title Films March 14, 2008 Doomsday distribution only in some countries; produced by Rogue Pictures April 5, 2008 Leatherheads April 18, 2008 Forgetting Sarah Marshall co-production with Apatow Productions April 15, 2008 Baby Mama co-production with Relativity Media June 13, 2008 The Incredible Hulk distribution only; co-produced by Marvel Studios and Valhalla Motion Pictures June 27, 2008 Wanted co-production with Relativity Media, DiBonaventura Productions and Spyglass Entertainment July 11, 2008 Hellboy II: The Golden Army distribution only in some countries; produced by Rogue Pictures, Dark Horse Entertainment and Relativity Media July 18, 2008 Mamma Mia!: The Movie co-production with Relativity Media, Littlestar and Playtone August 1, 2008 The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor co-production with Relativity Media, Alphaville and Sommers Company August 22, 2008 Death Race co-production with Relativity Media October 3, 2008 Flash of Genius USA, Japan and France distribution, co-production with Spyglass Entertainment and Strike Entertainment October 10, 2008 The Express co-production with Relativity Media October 31, 2008 Changeling co-production with Imagine Entertainment, Malpaso Productions and Relativity Media November 7, 2008 Role Models co-production with New Regency and Relativity Media December 5, 2008 Frost/Nixon co-production with Imagine Entertainment, Working Title Films, StudioCanal and Relativity Media December 19, 2008 The Tale of Despereaux co-production with Framestore CFC, Larger Than Life Productions, Relativity Media, and Universal Animation Studios January 9, 2009 The Unborn distribution only in some countries; co-production with Relativity Media, Rogue Pictures and Platinum Dunes February 6, 2009 Coraline International distribution, co-production with Focus Features, Laika, and Pandemonium March 20, 2009 Duplicity co-production with Relativity Media April 3, 2009 Fast & Furious co-produced with One Race Films, Original Film and Relativity Media April 17, 2009 State of Play co-production with Andell Entertainment, Working Title Films, Studio Canal and Relativity Media April 24, 2009 The Soloist international distribution, co-production with DreamWorks, StudioCanal, Participant Media and Working Title Films May 29, 2009 Drag Me to Hell co-produced with Ghost House Pictures June 5, 2009 Land of the Lost co-production with Relativity Media and Sid & Marty Krofft Pictures July 1, 2009 Public Enemies co-production with Relativity Media July 10, 2009 Brüno co-production with Media Rights Capital and Everyman Pictures July 31, 2009 Funny People USA distribution only; co-production with Columbia Pictures, Apatow Productions, Happy Madison and Relativity Media August 21, 2009 Inglourious Basterds International distribution only, co-production with A Band Apart and The Weinstein Company September 18, 2009 Love Happens co-production with Relativity Media October 9, 2009 Couples Retreat co-production with Relativity Media October 23, 2009 Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant co-production with Relativity Media November 6, 2009 The Fourth Kind co-production with Gold Circle Films and Dead Crow Productions November 13, 2009 Pirate Radio international distribution only, co-production with Focus Features, StudioCanal and Working Title Films December 25, 2009 It's Complicated co-production with Relativity Media 2010s Release date Title Notes January 8, 2010 Leap Year USA distribution only, co-production with Spyglass Entertainment February 12, 2010 The Wolfman co-production with Relativity Media and Stuber Pictures March 12, 2010 Green Zone co-production with StudioCanal, Relativity Media, and Working Title Films March 19, 2010 Repo Men co-production with Stuber Pictures and Relativity Media March 26, 2010 Kick-Ass international distribution only; co-production with Marv Films and Plan B Entertainment May 12, 2010 Robin Hood co-production with Imagine Entertainment, Relativity Media, and Scott Free Productions May 21, 2010 MacGruber distribution only; produced by Rogue Pictures and Relativity Media June 4, 2010 Get Him to the Greek co-production with Apatow Productions, Spyglass Entertainment, and Relativity Media July 9, 2010 Despicable Me co-production with Illumination Entertainment July 30, 2010 Charlie St. Cloud co-production with Relativity Media August 13, 2010 Scott Pilgrim vs. the World co-production with Big Talk Productions August 20, 2010 Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang released as Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang in the UK, co-production with StudioCanal, Relativity Media, and Working Title Films September 17, 2010 Devil distribution only; produced by Blinding Edge Pictures, The Night Chronicles and Media Rights Capital November 12, 2010 Skyline co-production with Rogue Pictures and Relativity Media December 22, 2010 Little Fockers USA distribution; co-production with Paramount Pictures and Relativity Media January 14, 2011 The Dilemma co-production with Imagine Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment February 4, 2011 Sanctum distribution in some countries outside USA, co-production with Wayfare Entertainment and Relativity Media March 4, 2011 The Adjustment Bureau co-production with Media Rights Capital March 18, 2011 Paul co-produced with Working Title Films, Relativity Media, and Big Talk Productions April 1, 2011 Hop co-production with Illumination Entertainment and Relativity Media April 8, 2011 Your Highness co-production with Stuber Productions April 29, 2011 Fast Five co-production with Original Film and Relativity Media May 13, 2011 Bridesmaids co-production with Apatow Productions and Relativity Media July 1, 2011 Larry Crowne USA distribution only; co-production with Vendôme Pictures and Playtone July 29, 2011 Cowboys & Aliens USA distribution; co-production with DreamWorks (international), Relativity Media, Imagine Entertainment, K/O Paper Products, and Platinum Studios August 5, 2011 The Change-Up co-production with Original Film and Relativity Media September 2, 2011 A Dangerous Method Germany and Austria distribution only, co-production with Téléfilm Canada, Recorded Picture Company, Corus Entertainment, and Astral Media September 30, 2011 Dream House distribution only in North America; co-production with Morgan Creek Productions October 14, 2011 The Thing co-production with Morgan Creek Productions and Strike Entertainment October 21, 2011 Johnny English Reborn co-production with Working Title Films, StudioCanal, and Relativity Media November 4, 2011 Tower Heist co-production with Imagine Entertainment and Relativity Media January 13, 2012 Contraband co-production with Working Title Films, Relativity Media, Blueeyes Productions, Closest to the Hole and Leverage Productions February 3, 2012 Big Miracle co-production with Working Title Films and Anonymous Content February 10, 2012 Safe House co-production with Relativity Media and Bluegrass Films February 24, 2012 Wanderlust co-production with Relativity Media and Apatow Productions March 2, 2012 Dr. Seuss' The Lorax co-production with Illumination Entertainment April 6, 2012 American Reunion co-production with Relativity Media and Zide/Perry Productions April 27, 2012 The Five-Year Engagement co-production with Apatow Productions May 18, 2012 Battleship co-production with Hasbro, Film 44, and Bluegrass Films June 1, 2012 Snow White & the Huntsman co-production with Roth Films June 29, 2012 Ted co-production with Media Rights Capital, Fuzzy Door Productions, Bluegrass Films, and Smart Entertainment July 6, 2012 Savages co-production with Relativity Media August 10, 2012 The Bourne Legacy co-production with The Kennedy/Marshall Company August 17, 2012 ParaNorman International distribution only, co-production with Focus Features and Laika October 5, 2012 Pitch Perfect co-production with Gold Circle Films November 2, 2012 The Man with the Iron Fists co-production with Strike Entertainment November 16, 2012 Anna Karenina co-production with Focus Features and Working Title Films December 19, 2012 Zero Dark Thirty international distribution only[2] December 21, 2012 This Is 40 co-production with Apatow Productions December 25, 2012 Les Misérables co-production with Working Title Films, Relativity Media, and Cameron Mackintosh Ltd. January 18, 2013 Mama coo-production with Toma 78 and De Milo Productions February 8, 2013 Identity Thief co-production with Relativity Media, DumbDumb, and Bluegrass Films April 5, 2013 Jurassic Park (3-D rerelease) co-production with Amblin Entertainment April 19, 2013 Oblivion co-production with Relativity Media and Chernin Entertainment May 24, 2013 Fast & Furious 6 co-production with Original Film and Relativity Media June 7, 2013 The Purge co-production with Platinum Dunes and Blumhouse Productions July 3, 2013 Despicable Me 2 co-production with Illumination Entertainment July 19, 2013 R.I.P.D. co-production with Original Film and Dark Horse Entertainment August 2, 2013 2 Guns USA distribution only; co-production with Emmett/Furla Films, Marc Platt Productions, Oasis Ventures Entertainment Ltd., Empyre Media Capital, Herrick Entertainment, Envision Entertainment, and Boom! Studios August 16, 2013 Kick-Ass 2 co-production with Marv Films and Plan B Entertainment August 23, 2013 The World's End co-production with Focus Features, Relativity Media, Big Talk Productions and Working Title Films, also distribution outside the USA, and Focus Features released in the USA. September 6, 2013 Riddick co-production with Radar Pictures and One Race Films erdose of substances believed to be pain medication and was taken to Encino-Tarzana Regional Medical Center in Encino, California, where he was listed in critical condition.[27] After initial reports, Drew Pinsky, who had treated Conaway for substance abuse, said the actor was suffering not from a drug overdose but rather from pneumonia with sepsis, for which he was placed into an induced coma.[28][29] Though his pneumonia was not directly a result of drug usage, drug usage hampered Conaway's ability to recognize how severely ill he was and to seek treatment for pneumonia until it was too late.[30] On May 26, 2011, Conaway's family took him off life support after doctors decided there was nothing they could do to revive him. Conaway died the following morning at the age of 60.[30] Conaway's doctor attributed his death to his addiction, stating, "What happens is, like with most opiate addicts, eventually they take a little too much ... and they aspirate, so what's in their mouth gets into their lungs ... That's what happened with Jeff."[31] An autopsy performed on Conaway revealed that the actor died of various causes including pneumonia and encephalopathy attributable to drug overdoses.[32] Awards[edit] Golden Globe Award 1978 nomination, Best Supporting Actor, Comedy or Musical Series (for Taxi)[33] 1979 nomination, Best Supporting Actor, Comedy or Musical Series (for Taxi)[33] Filmography[edit] 1971: Jennifer on My Mind — Hanki 1976: The Eagle Has Landed — Frazier 1977: I Never Promised You a Rose Garden — Lactamaeon 1977: Pete's Dragon — Willie 1978: Grease — Kenickie 1980: For The Love of It — Russ 1984: Covergirl — T.C. Sloane 1986: The Patriot — Mitchell 1988: Elvira, Mistress of the Dark — Travis 1989: Ghost Writer — Tom Farrell 1989: Tale of Two Sisters — Taxi driver 1989: The Banker — Cowboy 1990: The Sleeping Car — Bud Sorenson 1991: A Time to Die — Frank 1991: Total Exposure — Peter Keynes 1992: Almost Pregnant — Charlie Alderson 1992: Bikini Summer II — Stu Stocker (also director) 1992: Eye of the Storm — Tom Edwards 1992: Mirror Images — Jeffrey Blair 1993: Alien Intruder — Borman 1993: In a Moment of Passion — Werner Soehnen 1993: It's Showtime 1993: L.A. Goddess — Sean 1993: Sunset Strip — Tony 1994: 2002: The Rape of Eden — Reverend 1997: The Last Embrace — Jagger 1998: Shadow of Doubt — Bixby 1999: Jawbreaker — Marcie's Father 1999: Man on the Moon — Himself 2001: Dating Service 2001: Do You Wanna Know a Secret? — Agent Owen Sacker 2002: Curse of the Forty-Niner — Reverend Sutter 2002: The Biz — Gavin Elliot 2003: Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star — Himself[34] 2004: Pan Dulce — Gabriel Levine 2004: The Corner Office — Dick 2004: Y.M.I. — Digger's Dad 2005: From Behind the Sunflower — Leo 2006: Living the Dream — Dick 2006: The Pool 2 — Agent Frank Gun 2006: The Utah Murder Project — Sheriff Dan Patterson 2008: Wrestling — Franklin Conner 2010: Dante's Inferno: Abandon All Hope — Circles Introduction[35] 2010: Dark Games — Tom Doyle Television work[edit] 1975: Happy Days — Rocko (2 episodes, 1975–1976) 1975: Joe Forrester (1 episode, 1975) 1975: Movin' On - "The Long Way To Nowhere" (S02, Ep10)- as Mike Miller (1 episode, 1975) 1976: Barnaby Jones — Jeff Saunders (2 episodes, 1976–1977) 1976: Mary Tyler Moore — Kenny Stevens (1 episode, 1976) 1977: Delta County, USA — Terry Nicholas 1978: Kojak — Bert Gaines (1 episode, 1978) 1978: Taxi — Bobby Wheeler (50 episodes, 1978–1982) 1979: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do — Roy Fletcher 1980: For the Love of It — Russ RSO Records From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011) RSO Records RSO Records.jpg Parent company Universal Music Group Founded 1973 Paramount Pictures Corporation (commonly known as Paramount Studios or simply Paramount, and formerly known as Famous Players-Lasky Corporation) is a film studio, television production company and motion picture distributor, consistently ranked as one of the "Big Six" film studios of Hollywood. It is a subsidiary of U.S. media conglomerate Viacom. Paramount is a member of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).[1] In 2014, Paramount Pictures became the first major Hollywood studio to distribute all of its films in digital-form only.[2] Paramount is the fifth oldest surviving film studio in the world,[3] and America's oldest running studio, founded in 1912.[4] Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 1911–1920: Early history 1.2 1921–1930: The rise 1.2.1 Publix, Balaban and Katz, Loew's competition, and wonder theaters 1.3 1931–1940: Receivership 1.4 1941–1950: United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1.5 1951–1966: Split and after 1.5.1 The DuMont Network 1.6 1966–1970: Early Gulf+Western era 1.7 1971–1980: CIC formation and high-concept era 1.8 1980–1994: Continuous success 1.9 1994–2004: Dolgen/Lansing and "old" Viacom era 1.10 2005: Dissolution of the Viacom Entertainment Group and Paramount 1.11 2005–present: Paramount today 1.11.1 CBS Corporation/Viacom split 1.11.2 DreamWorks purchased 1.11.3 UIP, Famous Music, and Digital Entertainment 2 Investments 2.1 DreamWorks 2.2 The CBS library 3 Units 3.1 Subsidiaries 3.2 Divisions 3.3 Joint ventures 3.4 Former divisions, subsidiaries, and joint ventures Janis Pliekšans – – distinguished Latvian writer author of a number of poetry collections Juris Podnieks – – film director producer Nikolajs Polakovs – – Coco the Clown Janis Poruks writer Rosa von Praunheim born – film director author painter and gay rights activist Sandis Prusis born – athlete bobsleigh Uldis Pucitis actor director Janis Pujats born – Roman Catholic cardinal Andrejs Pumpurs – – poet author of Latvian national epic Lacplesis R edit Rainis pseudonym of Janis Pliekšans poet and playwright Dans Rapoports American financier and philanthropist Lauris Reiniks – singer songwriter actor and TV personality Einars Repše born – politician Lolita Ritmanis born – orchestrator composer Ilja Ripss born inventor of the Bible Code Fricis Rokpelnis – – author Marks Rotko – – abstract expressionist painter Elza Rozenberga – – poet playwright married to Janis Pliekšans Juris Rubenis born – famous Lutheran pastor Martinš Rubenis born – athlete bronze medalist at the Winter Olympics in Turin Brunis Rubess born – businessman Inta Ruka born – photographer Tana Rusova born – pornographic actress S edit Rudolfs Saule born ballet master performer with the Latvian National Ballet Uljana Semjonova born – basketball player Haralds Silovs – short track and long track speed skater Karlis Skalbe – – poet Karlis Skrastinš – – ice hockey player Baiba Skride born – violinist Konstantins Sokolskis – – romance and tango singer Ksenia Solo born Latvian Canadian actress Serge Sorokko born art dealer and publisher Raimonds Staprans born – Latvian American painter Janis Šteinhauers – – Latvian industrialist entrepreneur and civil rights activist Gotthard Friedrich Stender – the first Latvian grammarian Lina Šterna – – biologist and social activist Roze Stiebra born animator Henrijs Stolovs – – stamp dealer Janis Streics born – film director screenwriter actor Janis Strelnieks born – basketball player Peteris Stucka – – author translator editor jurist and educator Janis Sudrabkalns poet and journalist Jevgenijs Svešnikovs born – prominent chess player Stanislavs Svjanevics – – economist and historian Š edit Viktors Šcerbatihs born – athlete weightlifter Pauls Šimanis – – Baltic German journalist politician activist defending and preserving European minority cultures Vestards Šimkus born – pianist Aleksejs Širovs born – chess player Andris Škele born – politician Prime Minister of Latvia Armands Škele – basketball player Ksenia Solo born – actress Ernests Štalbergs – – architect ensemble of the Freedom Monument Izaks Nahmans Šteinbergs – – politician lawyer and author Maris Štrombergs – BMX cyclist gold medal winner at and Olympics T edit Esther Takeuchi born – materials scientist and chemical engineer Mihails Tals – – the th World Chess Champion Janis Roberts Tilbergs – – painter sculptor U edit Guntis Ulmanis born – president of Latvia Karlis Ulmanis – – prime minister and president of Latvia


abby-lane abby-rode abigail-clayton ada-tauler addie-juniper addison-cain adele-wiesenthal adeline-lange adeline-pollicina adriana-amante adrianna-laurenti adrianna-russo agnes agnes-ardant agnes-zalontai aimee-addison aisha-sun aja aleena-ferari alessandra-schiavo aletta-ocean alexandra-nice alexandria-cass alexa-parks alex-dane alex-foxe alexia-knight alexis-devell alexis-firestone alexis-greco alexis-payne alexis-x alex-storm alex-white aliana-love alice-springs alicia-alighatti alicia-monet alicia-rio alicyn-sterling alighiera-olena ali-moore aline-santos alissa-ashley allysin-chaynes alysin-embers alyssa-love alyssa-reece amanda-addams amanda-blake amanda-blue amanda-jane-adams amanda-rae amanda-stone amanda-tyler amber-hunt amberlina-lynn amber-lynn amber-michaels amber-peach amber-wild amber-woods ambrosia-fox amia-miley ami-rodgers amy-allison amy-brooke amy-rose amy-starz anastasia-christ anastasia-sands andrea-adams andrea-brittian andrea-lange andrea-true andy angel angela-baron angela-summers angel-barrett angel-cash angel-cruz angel-cummings angel-ducharme angelica-sin angelika-reschner angelina-brasini angelina-korrs angelina-valentine angel-kelly angel-long angel-west angie-knight anita-andic anita-blond anita-cannibal anita-dark anna-belle anna-malle anna-nikova anna-pierce anna-ventura anna-veruska anne-bie-warburg anne-libert anne-magle anne-sand annette-haven annie-sprinkle ann-kiray ann-marie-michelle antonia-dorian april-flowers april-may april-west arcadia-lake ariana-bali ariana-jollee arlana-blue ashley-anne ashley-brooks ashley-coda ashley-fires ashley-lauren ashley-long ashley-marie ashley-nicole ashley-perk ashley-renee ashley-robbins ashley-welles ashley-wells ashley-winger ashlyn-gere astrid-bone athena-star aubrey-nichols aurora aurora-snow autumn-bliss autumn-rayne ava-devine ava-lauren avalon ava-marteens avy-lee-roth bailey-monroe bambi-allen barbara-bourbon barbara-boutet barbara-dare barbara-doll barbara-moose barbarella barbie-angel barbie-doll barett-moore bea-fiedler beata beatrice-poggi beatrice-valle becky-savage becky-sunshine belinda-butterfield bella-donna bethany-sweet beverly-bliss beverly-glen biggi-stenzhorn bionca black-widow blond-cat blondi blue-angel bobbi-bliss bobbi-dean bobbie-burns bonnie-holiday brandee brandi-edwards brandy-alexandre brandy-dean brandy-lee brandy-smile brandy-wine bree-anthony breezy-lane brenda-basse briana-blair bridgette-belle bridgette-monet bridgette-monroe bridget-waters brigitte-lahaie brigitte-monnin brigitte-verbecq brittany brittany-stryker britt-corvin britt-morgan bronze brooke-bennett brooke-fields brooke-haven brooke-west brook-van-buuren buffy-davis bunnie-blake bunny-bleu bunny-hatton busty-belle cali-caramel calisyn-heart cameo cameron-love camila-sampaio camilla-rhodes camille-morgan camrie-foxxx candace-daley candi candida-royalle candie-evens candi-summers candy-apples candy-barr candy-hill candy-samples candy-stanton cara-lott caressa-savage carmel-nougat carmen-blonde carmen-de-la-torre carmen-moore carmen-rose carol-connors carol-cross carol-cummings carole-dubois carole-gire carole-pierac carol-titian carolyn-connoly carolyn-monroe carrie-cruise cassandra-leigh cassidy cassie-courtland cataline-bullock catherine-count catherine-crystal catherine-ringer catherine-tailleferre cathy-delorme cathy-menard cathy-stewart celeste-fox celine-gallone chanel-preston chanel-price chantal-virapin chanta-rose chantelle-stevens charisma charisma-cole charlie-latour charlie-waters charlotte-de-castille charmane-star chasey-lain chayse-manhattan chaz-vincent chelsea-sinclaire chennin-blanc cheri-janvier cheri-taylor cherry-hill chessie-moore cheyenne-hunter cheyenne-silver china-lee china-leigh china-moon chloe-cruize chloe-dior chloe-kez chloe-stevens chris-collins chris-jordan chris-petersen chrissie-beauchamp christa-abel christa-ludwig christie-ford christi-lake christina-berg christina-blond christina-evol christina-skye christine-black christine-chavert christine-neona christine-rigoler christy-canyon cicciolina cindi-stephens cindy-carver cindy-crawford cindy-more cindy-shepard cindy-wong cinthya-marinho clair-dia claire-robbins claude-janna claudia-jackson claudia-jamsson claudia-mehringer claudia-nero claudia-van-statt claudia-zante claudine-beccarie clea-carson cleo-nichole cleo-patra cody-lane cody-love cody-nicole coffee-brown colleen-brennan connie-bennett connie-peterson constance-money copper-penny coreena corey-everson corinne-lemoine corneliah cory-everson cory-wolf courtney courtney-cummz courtney-james cris-cassidy crissy-moran cris-taliana crystal-breeze crystal-dawn crystal-holland crystal-knight crystal-lake crystal-lovin crystal-sync csilla-kalnay cuban-bee cynara-fox cyndee-summers cynthia-black cynthia-brooks cynthia-hammers cynthia-lavigne dagmar-lost daisy-layne dallas-miko dana-dylan dana-lynn danica-rhea daniela-nanou daniela-schiffer daniele-troeger daniella daniella-schiffer danielle danielle-foxxx danielle-rodgers danny-ricci danyel-cheeks daphne daphne-rosen darby-lloyd-rains darla-crane darla-delovely davia-ardell dayton-rain debbie-northrup debbie-revenge debbie-van-gils debi-diamond debi-jointed debra-lynn deidra-hopkins deidre-holland delania-raffino delia-moore delphine-thail delta-force delta-white demi-moor denice-klarskov denise-derringer denise-dior denise-sloan desiree-cousteau desiree-foxx desiree-lane desiree-west deva-station devin-devasquez devinn-lane devon-shire dia diana-holt diana-kisabonyi diana-siefert diana-stevenson diane-dubois diane-richards diane-sloan diane-suresne dido-angel dillan-lauren dina-deville dina-jewel dina-pearl ditty-blue diva divinity-love djiana dolly-darkley dominique dominique-dewitt dominique-saint-claire donna-hart donna-marie dorle-buchner dorothy-lemay dorothy-onan drea drimla dru-berrymore dusty-rose dyanna-lauren ebony-ayes edina-blond edita-ungerova edwige-faillel eileen-wells elaine-southern elena-berkova elena-maria-ricci eleonore-melzer elisabeth-bure elis-black elise elise-di-medici elle-devyne elle-rio elodie-delage elsa-maroussia elza-brown emili-doll emily-evermoore emily-george emily-jewel emmanuelle-pareze envy-mi erica-boyer erica-eaton erica-havens erica-idol erica-lauren erika-bella erika-cool erika-heaven erika-lockett esme-monroe eva-allen eva-angel eva-dionisio eva-gross eva-kleber eva-lux eva-uettori eve-laurence evelyne-lang evie-delatosso fabiana-venturi faith-stevens fallon fanny-garreau fanny-steel faye-runaway flame flick-shagwell flore-soller flower france-lomay france-quenie francoise frankie-leigh gabriella gabriella-mirelba gabriella-vincze gail-force gail-palmer gail-sterling georgette-saunders georgia-peach georgina-spelvin gia-givanna gianna-lynn gili-sky gina-carrera gina-gianetti gina-janssen gina-lee gina-martell gina-valentino ginger-jay ginger-lee ginger-lynn ginny-noack giovanna gisela-schwarz giselle-monet gladys-laroche gloria-leonard gloria-todd golden-jade greta-carlson greta-milos guia-lauri-filzi gwenda-farnel hare-krane harley-raine hayley-jade hazel-young heather-deeley heather-ellis heather-hart heather-lere heather-lyn heather-manfield heather-thomas heather-torrance heather-wayne heather-young helen-madigan helen-thomas helga-sven helga-wild hillary-summers holly-hollywood holly-joy holly-page holly-ryder honey-winter hottie-hollie hyapatia-lee ida-fabry ildiko-smits illana-moor ines-ridere ingrid-choray isabella-dior isabella-soprano isabelle-allay isabelle-brell isabelle-marchall isobel-wren iveta ivette-blanche jackie-right jacqueline-lorians jacy-allen jada-stevens jade-east jade-hsu jade-marcela jade-summers jade-wong jahn-gold jamie-brooks jamie-james jamie-summers jana-irrova jana-mrazkova jane-baker jane-darling jane-iwanoff jane-lindsay jane-lixx janet-jacme janey-robbins jasmine-delatori jayden-simone jaylyn-rose jayna-woods jazella-moore jazmin-luna-gold jean-afrique jeanette-littledove jeanie-marie-sullivan jean-jennings jeanna-fine jeannie-pepper jenna-jameson jenna-jane jenna-presley jenna-wells jennifer-haussmann jennifer-janes jennifer-jordan jennifer-morante jennifer-noxt jennifer-stewart jennifer-welles jennifer-west jenny jenny-feeling jenny-fields jenny-wings jersey-jaxin jesie-st-james jesse-capelli jessica-bangkok jessica-bogart jessica-darlin jessica-fiorentino jessica-gabriel jessica-laine jessica-may jessica-road jessica-wylde jessi-foster jill-ferari jill-kelly joana-redgrave joan-devlon joanna-storm joanna-sweet jody-maxwell joelle-lequement joelle-petinot johnni-black jordana-james jordan-green jordan-nevaeh jordan-star josephine-carrington joslyn-james julia-chanel julia-dal-fuoco juliana-grandi julia-paes julia-parton julia-perrin julia-swen julia-thomas julie-meadows julie-rage julie-simone juliet-anderson juliet-graham juliette-carelton kacey-jordan kagney-linn-karter kaitlyn-ashley kalena-rios kami-andrews kamila-smith kandee-licks kandi-barbour kapri-styles kara-nox karen-summer kari-foxx karine-gambier karin-schubert karli-sweet karmen-kennedy karol-castro kascha kassi-nova kat kate-frost kate-jones kathia-nobili kathleen-gentry kathleen-white kathy-divan kathy-harcourt kathy-heart kathy-kash katie-cummings katja-love kat-langer katrina-isis katrina-kraven katy-borman katy-caro kaycee-dean kayla-kupcakes kay-parker k-c-valentine keama-kim keira-moon keisha keli-richards kelli-tyler kelly-adams kelly-blue kelly-broox kelly-hearn kelly-kay kelly-kline kelly-nichols kelly-royce kelly-skyline kendra-kay kenzi-marie keri-windsor ketthy-divan kianna-dior kiley-heart kim-alexis kimber-blake kimberly-carson kimberly-kane kimberly-kyle kim-de-place kim-holland kimi-gee kimkim-de kim-kitaine kimmie-lee kimmy-nipples kina-kara kira-eggers kira-red kirsty-waay kitty-langdon kitty-lynxxx kitty-marie kitty-shayne kitty-yung kora-cummings kris-lara krista-lane krista-maze kristara-barrington kristarah-knight kristi-klenot kristina-blonde kristina-king kristina-klevits kristina-soderszk kristine-heller kristin-steen krisztina-ventura krystal-de-boor krystal-steal kylee-karr kylee-nash kylie-brooks kylie-channel kylie-haze kylie-wylde kym-wilde kyoto-sun lachelle-marie lacy-rose lady-amanda-wyldefyre lady-stephanie laetitia-bisset lana-burner lana-cox lana-wood lara-amour lara-roxx lara-stevens lataya-roxx latoya laura-clair laura-lazare laura-lion laura-may laura-orsolya laura-paouck laura-zanzibar lauren-black laurence-boutin lauren-montgomery laurien-dominique laurien-wilde laurie-smith lauryl-canyon lauryn-may leah-wilde lea-magic lea-martini leanna-foxxx lee-caroll leigh-livingston leilani lenora-bruce leslie-winston lesllie-bovee letizia-bruni lexi-lane lexi-matthews lezley-zen lia-fire liliane-gray liliane-lemieuvre lili-marlene lily-gilder lily-labeau lily-rodgers lily-valentine linda-shaw linda-vale linda-wong linnea-quigley lisa-bright lisa-de-leeuw lisa-k-loring lisa-lake lisa-melendez lisa-sue-corey lise-pinson little-oral-annie liza-dwyer liza-harper lizzy-borden logan-labrent lois-ayres lola-cait long-jean-silver loni-bunny loni-sanders loona-luxx lorelei-lee lorelei-rand lorena-sanchez lori-alexia lori-blue lorrie-lovett luci-diamond lucie-doll lucie-theodorova lucy-van-dam lydia-baum lynn-franciss lynn-lemay lynn-ray lynn-stevens lynx-canon lysa-thatcher madelina-ray madison-parker magdalena-lynn maggie-randall mai-lin mandi-wine mandy-bright mandy-malone mandy-may mandy-mistery mandy-starr marcia-minor maren margit-ojetz margitta-hofer margo-stevens margot-mahler mariah-cherry marianne-aubert maria-tortuga marie-anne marie-christine-chireix marie-christine-veroda marie-claude-moreau marie-dominique-cabannes marie-france-morel marie-luise-lusewitz marie-sharp marilyn-chambers marilyne-leroy marilyn-gee marilyn-jess marilyn-martyn marilyn-star marina-hedman marion-webb marita-ekberg marita-kemper marlena marlene-willoughby marry-queen martine-grimaud martine-schultz maryanne-fisher mary-hubay mary-ramunno mary-stuart mascha-mouton maud-kennedy mauvais-denoir maxine-tyler maya-black maya-france megan-leigh megan-martinez megan-reece mei-ling melanie-hotlips melanie-scott melba-cruz melinda-russell melissa-bonsardo melissa-del-prado melissa-golden melissa-martinez melissa-melendez melissa-monet mercedes-dragon mercedes-lynn merle-michaels mesha-lynn mia-beck mia-lina mia-smiles michele-raven michelle-aston michelle-ferrari michelle-greco michelle-maren michelle-maylene michelle-monroe micki-lynn mika-barthel mika-tan mikki-taylor mimi-morgan mindy-rae ming-toy miranda-stevens miss-bunny miss-meadow miss-pomodoro missy missy-graham missy-stone missy-vega misti-jane mistress-candice misty-anderson misty-dawn misty-rain misty-regan mona-lisa mona-page moni monica-baal monica-swinn monika-peta monika-sandmayr monika-unco monique-bruno monique-cardin monique-charell monique-demoan monique-gabrielle monique-la-belle morgan-fairlane morrigan-hel moxxie-maddron mulani-rivera mysti-may nadege-arnaud nadia-styles nadine-bronx nadine-proutnal nadine-roussial nadi-phuket nanci-suiter nancy-hoffman nancy-vee natacha-delyro natalia-wood natalli-diangelo natascha-throat natasha-skyler naudia-nyce nessa-devil nessy-grant nesty nicki-hunter nicky-reed nicole-berg nicole-bernard nicole-black nicole-grey nicole-london nicole-parks nicole-scott nicole-taylor nicolette-fauludi nicole-west nika-blond nika-mamic niki-cole nikita-love nikita-rush nikki-charm nikki-grand nikki-king nikki-knight nikki-randall nikki-rhodes nikki-santana nikki-steele nikki-wilde niko nina-cherry nina-deponca nina-hartley nina-preta oana-efria obaya-roberts olesja-derevko olga-cabaeva olga-conti olga-pechova olga-petrova olivia-alize olivia-del-rio olivia-flores olivia-la-roche olivia-outre ophelia-tozzi orchidea-keresztes orsolya-blonde paige-turner paisley-hunter pamela-bocchi pamela-jennings pamela-mann pamela-stanford pamela-stealt pandora paola-albini pascale-vital pat-manning pat-rhea patricia-dale patricia-diamond patricia-kennedy patricia-rhomberg patrizia-predan patti-cakes patti-petite paula-brasile paula-harlow paula-morton paula-price paula-winters pauline-teutscher penelope-pumpkins penelope-valentin petra-hermanova petra-lamas peyton-lafferty phaedra-grant pia-snow piper-fawn pipi-anderson porsche-lynn porsha-carrera precious-silver priscillia-lenn purple-passion queeny-love rachel-ashley rachel-love rachel-luv rachel-roxxx rachel-ryan rachel-ryder racquel-darrian rane-revere raven reagan-maddux rebecca-bardoux regan-anthony regine-bardot regula-mertens reina-leone reka-gabor renae-cruz renee-foxx renee-lovins renee-morgan renee-perez renee-summers renee-tiffany rhonda-jo-petty rikki-blake riley-ray rio-mariah rita-ricardo roberta-gemma roberta-pedon robin-byrd robin-cannes robin-everett robin-sane rochell-starr rosa-lee-kimball rosemarie roxanne-blaze roxanne-hall roxanne-rollan ruby-richards sabina-k sabre sabrina-chimaera sabrina-dawn sabrina-jade sabrina-johnson sabrina-love-cox sabrina-mastrolorenzi sabrina-rose sabrina-scott sabrina-summers sacha-davril sahara sahara-sands sai-tai-tiger samantha-fox samantha-ryan samantha-sterlyng samantha-strong samueline-de-la-rosa sandra-cardinale sandra-de-marco sandra-kalermen sandra-russo sandy-lee sandy-pinney sandy-reed sandy-samuel sandy-style sandy-summers sara-brandy-canyon sara-faye sarah-bernard sarah-cabrera sarah-hevyn sarah-mills sarah-shine sara-sloane sasha sasha-hollander sasha-ligaya sasha-rose satine-phoenix satin-summer savannah-stern savanna-jane scarlet-scarleau scarlet-windsor seka selena serena serena-south severine-amoux shana-evans shanna-mccullough shannon-kelly shannon-rush shantell-day sharon-da-vale sharon-kane sharon-mitchell shaun-michelle shawna-sexton shawnee-cates shay-hendrix shayne-ryder sheena-horne sheer-delight shelby-star shelby-stevens shelly-berlin shelly-lyons sheri-st-clair sheyla-cats shonna-lynn shyla-foxxx shy-love sierra-sinn sierra-skye sigrun-theil silver-starr silvia-bella silvia-saint silvie-de-lux silvy-taylor simone-west sindee-coxx sindy-lange sindy-shy siobhan-hunter skylar-knight skylar-price skyler-dupree smokie-flame smoking-mary-jane solange-shannon sonya-summers sophia-santi sophie-call sophie-duflot sophie-evans sophie-guers stacey-donovan stacy-lords stacy-moran stacy-nichols stacy-silver stacy-thorn starla-fox starr-wood stefania-bruni stella-virgin stephanie-duvalle stephanie-rage stephanie-renee stevie-taylor summer-knight summer-rose sunny-day sunset-thomas sunshine-seiber susan-hart susanne-brend susan-nero susi-hotkiss suzanne-mcbain suzan-nielsen suzie-bartlett suzie-carina suzi-sparks sweet-nice sweety-pie sybille-rossani sylvia-benedict sylvia-bourdon sylvia-brand sylvia-engelmann syreeta-taylor syren-de-mer syvette szabina-black szilvia-lauren tai-ellis taija-rae taisa-banx talia-james tamara-lee tamara-longley tamara-n-joy tamara-west tami-white tammy tammy-lee tammy-reynolds tania-lorenzo tantala-ray tanya-danielle tanya-fox tanya-foxx tanya-lawson tanya-valis tara-aire tasha-voux tatjana-belousova tatjana-skomorokhova tawnee-lee tawny-pearl tayla-rox taylor-wane teddi-austin teddi-barrett tera-bond tera-heart tera-joy teresa-may teresa-orlowski teri-diver teri-weigel terri-dolan terri-hall tess-ferre tess-newheart thais-vieira tia-cherry tianna tiara tiffany-blake tiffany-clark tiffany-duponte tiffany-rayne tiffany-rousso tiffany-storm tiffany-towers tiffany-tyler tiger-lily tigr timea-vagvoelgyi tina-blair tina-burner tina-evil tina-gabriel tina-loren tina-marie tina-russell tish-ambrose tommi-rose tonisha-mills topsy-curvey tori-secrets tori-sinclair tori-welles tracey-adams traci-lords traci-topps traci-winn tracy-duzit tracy-love tracy-williams tricia-devereaux tricia-yen trinity-loren trisha-rey trista-post trixie-tyler ultramax ursula-gaussmann ursula-moore uschi-karnat valentina valerie-leveau valery-hilton vanessa-chase vanessa-del-rio vanessa-michaels vanessa-ozdanic vanilla-deville velvet-summers veri-knotty veronica-dol veronica-hart veronica-hill veronica-rayne veronica-sage veronika-vanoza via-paxton vicky-lindsay vicky-vicci victoria-evans victoria-gold victoria-knight victoria-luna victoria-paris victoria-slick victoria-zdrok viper virginie-caprice vivian-valentine vivien-martines wendi-white wendy-divine whitney-banks whitney-fears whitney-wonders wonder-tracey wow-nikki xanthia-berstein yasmine-fitzgerald yelena-shieffer yvonne-green zara-whites zsanett-egerhazi zuzie-boobies





Crown Copyright[edit] Section 12 of the Copyright Act reserves copyright for all works that are “prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department.”[13] Normally, such copyright lasts for a period of 50 years following the end of the calendar year when the work was performed or created.[13] However, Crown copyright applies "without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown".[13] In this way it is "said to be perpetual...and not to lapse through non-use or non-assertion", although the exact extent of what is or is not covered by this "perpetual copyright" is not entirely clear in practice.[14] As of November 18, 2013, Crown Copyright and Licensing is no longer centrally administered, and the department or agency that created the information must be contacted for specific Crown copyright information.[15] This has resulted in varied approaches by different organisations, where "the non-commercial licence has disappeared from the Public Works and Government Services site and it is unclear whether it remains active", and where "some departments have denied permission or asserted crown copyright to take down content".[16] One example of Crown copyright being applied beyond the 50 year expiration mark is the 1921 design of the Arms of Canada, and its 1957 revision,[17] which "may not be reproduced, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes".[18] Music recordings[edit] The music industry created a loophole in Canadian copyright laws when it asked for a levy on blank audio media. Since 1999, these private copying levies[dead link] on blank audio recording media (such as audio cassettes, CDs and CD-Rs) have raised millions of dollars for songwriters, recording artists, music publishers and record companies who partake in the industry system. In exchange, and subject to certain exceptions, the act of copying music onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute copyright infringement.[19] Also, the statutory private copying provision is silent as to whether the person doing the private copying must also be the owner of the music being copied. Some argue that the private copying levy legalized copying in the digital age, to the consternation of the music industry.[20] However, Canadian courts have not extended the definition of "audio recording medium" to exempt music copied onto computer hard drives, digital audio recorders (such as iPods or MP3 players), or other types of permanently embedded memory.[21] Foreign works[edit] Section 5 of the Copyright Act applies copyright protection to all citizens, residents, and corporations of Berne Convention, Universal Copyright Convention and World Trade Organization countries. The status is determined at the time the work is created or published. The section also permits the Minister of Industry to certify that these rights are extended to other countries. These are listed in the Regulations Copyright terms[edit] According to s. 6 of the Act the copyright of a work lasts the life of the author plus 50 years from the end of the calendar year of death.[22] The Canadian Copyright Act provides a monopoly right to the owners of the copyrighted work. This implies no person can use the work without authorization or consent from the copyright owner. But some provisions in the Act defend the uses of copyrighted work without the prior permission. These are certain exceptions in the Act which will not regard a work as infringed. Contents [hide] 1 Quasi-Defences 2 Other Defences 2.1 Public Interest 2.2 Copyright Misuse 2.3 Fair Dealing 2.4 Charter Defence: (Charter of Rights and Freedom) 2.5 Other Statutory Defences (Section 29.4-32.2) 3 References Quasi-Defences[edit] Quasi-defence is generally looked upon in an action for copyright infringement. Such a defence is raised by the defendants by making following arguments: 1. No copyright in the work created. 2. No copyright in the copied element. 3. No substantial part was taken. 4. Plaintiff is not the true owner of the copyrighted work. 5. Substantial similarity and access to the original work shown, that the work was not copied.[1] Other Defences[edit] Another set of defences are available for pleading to the defendants, in case where some features of copyrighted work exists, but does not constitute infringement for some other reason. These defences include the following: 1. Public interest 2. Copyright misuse 3. Fair dealing 4. Charter defence (Charter of rights and freedom) 5. Other statutory exceptions (section 29.4-32.2 of Copyright Act.)[2] Public Interest[edit] At common law, copyright may be overridden for public interest reasons.[3] There is no explicit provision in the copyright statute about “Public Interest” as a defence to copyright infringement. However it has been used as a defence in very rare circumstances. In the case of Lion Laboratories v. Evans [1984] W.L.R 539 (C.A.),[4] the copyrighted information about malfunctioning breathalyser machines was reproduced. Such reproduction was held to be justified, despite the nature of material, being confidential and protected by copyright. Court agreed to the defence of public interest, raised by defendants on ground of investigations made regarding the accuracy of the equipment to avoid incorrect readings when used by the police on motorist. In the other leading matter of Beloff v. Pressdram and another’s [5] [1973] 1 All ER 241, defence of public interest has been interwoven with fair dealing. Court observed fair dealing as a statutory defence limited to infringement of copyright. On the other hand, public interest acts as a defence outside, and independent of statutes, which is based on principles of common law. Lord Denning observed that, the defence of public interest is limited to disclosure of national security, breach of laws, or other such endangering matters. In other words public interest does not extend beyond misdeeds of a serious nature and importance of the country. Such a defence has been used in cases where exposing a gross misdeed was only possible through reproduction of a document which inculpated the wrongdoer.[6] In this case, Foot, the defendant contributed a number of articles in Private Eye magazine attacking a prominent member of government. Plaintiff wrote memorandum to the editor of Observer newspaper with copies to other members of the editorial staff. In the memorandum, she stated that she would write a report, investigating Private Eye’s allegations against the politician, and put it into the wider context of his political personality and morality. Subsequently the article was published and it accused Private Eye of smearing and fabrication. Private Eye published the article in reply, and it contained verbatim memorandum of plaintiff. The plaintiff brought an action against defendants for copyright infringement in the memorandum. The defendant pleaded for the defence of public interest. The issue raised in the case was whether the defendants established the defence of public interest in the publication or not? The court ruled that it is not enough that the public benefit from reading the memorandum. The publication did not disclose any iniquity or misdeed. Therefore, it follows that the defence of public interest is not recognizable here and hence fails.[7] Copyright Misuse[edit] It is an equitable defence against infringement of copyright. This defence can be pleaded in order to avoid infringement liability. Under this defence, defendant may claim that, the copyright holder was engaged in some abusive or unlawful activities, in exploiting or enforcing the copyright and thus does not come to the court with clean hands. Therefore in such cases, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. United States have drawn defence of copyright misuse from precedents, the older doctrine of “patent misuse”, and derives it from more general doctrine of unclean hands. The doctrine prevents copyright owner from engaging in any restrictive practices that may be contrary to public policy of copyright law.[8][better source needed] Further, this doctrine prohibits a party from claiming remedy (like injunction) against another, when party has itself performed some misdeeds or acted improperly, such as shown anti-competitive behaviour or overbroad infringement claims.[9] Defence of copyright misuse is not recognised as a statutory right in federal Copyright Act, but has been implemented in many federal cases laws. This can be exemplified by the case of Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds 911 F .2d 970 (4TH Cir. 1990).[10][better source needed] In this case, court observed copyright misuse, where the software copyright holder used license agreement which barred licensees from applying their ideas from their software to write its own software. However Canadian laws also did not explicitly recognise this defence in the statutes neither applied it in any case law, but have considered the defence. (See example of Euro excellence Inc. v. Kraft Canada Para: 97-98)[11] Fair Dealing[edit] See also: Fair dealing in Canadian copyright law In the common law countries, fair dealing is used as an exemption tool against the copyrighted work of the author. It is a catalogue of different defences, against an action for infringement of an exclusive right of copyright. The fair dealing clause[12] of Canadian Copyright Act, allows users to perform on the copyrighted work of the owner, in case of research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting. With respect to these exceptions, user must credit the name of author or performer. Fair dealing, as incorporated in section 29 of Canadian Copyright Act, is independent from other defences or specific exemptions. It is a general defence upon which a defendant can always rely, regardless of whether the infringing activity is or not covered by a specific exemption. It has not been defined in the Canadian copyright act, and thus does not provide a general, open-ended defence for any dealing of a copyrighted work, which can be regarded as fair. Further, court will not apply the fair dealing exemption, if the purpose of the dealing is not one that is expressly mentioned in the Act.[13] Provision of fair dealing does not call for consent or authorization from copyright owner of a work, but it requires passing three hurdles by defendant in order to claim his work under fair dealing. First is to list the purpose of the work as provided in the Act. Second, the dealing must be fair, and finally, sufficient acknowledgment must have been given to the work of the other person. Failure to follow these steps, cause the defence to fail.[14] In the matter of CCH Canadian Ltd. V. Law Society of Upper Canada, [15] Supreme Court of Canada explained the requirements to be followed by defendants in using a copyrighted work. Court held that the section 29 of Copyright Act which deals with fair dealing provision, as well as related exceptions, is a user’s right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of copyright owners and user’s interest, it must not be interpreted strictly.[16] As there is no definition for fair dealing, court enumerated six factors that provide a useful analytical framework to govern determination of fairness in future cases. (1), the purpose of the dealing, (2), the character of the dealing (3), the amount of the dealing, (4) alternatives to the dealing (5), nature of the work and (6) effect of the dealing on the work.[17] Fair dealing is distinguished from fair use. The latter expression is broader in scope, and is found under section 107 of United States Copyright Act, 1976. Under United States law, the purposes listed in the provisions are not exhaustive and failure to acknowledge source is not a bar to the defence. On the other hand, Canadian provision of fair dealing, differs in some aspect from United States, but shares its approach with the United Kingdom. Although the criteria of fairness are quite similar in nature with that of Canadian law, therefore should be use with caution.[18] Thus in comparison to the United States provision of fair use, fair dealing of Canadian Copyright Act, is construed very narrowly. CCH Canadian Limited v. The Law Society of Upper Canada has potentially changed the view of fair dealing dramatically. Although the post-CCH jurisprudence is not very promising, there is the potential for development in the law on fair dealing. After CCH, some elements of fair dealing are broader than are the elements of fair use in the United States.[19] In Hubbard v Vosper,[20] [1972] 2 Q.B. 84, Lord Denning M.R. made the following observations regarding the fair dealing defence: 1. “It is impossible to define what is “fair dealing.” It must be a question of degree. You must consider first the number and extent of the quotations and extracts. Are they altogether too many and too long to be fair? Then you must consider the use made of them. If they are used as a basis for comment, criticism or review, that may be fair dealing. If they are used to convey the same information as the author, for a rival purpose, that may be unfair. Next, you must consider the proportions. To take long extracts and attach short comments may be unfair. But, short extracts and long comments may be fair. Other considerations may come to mind also. But, after all is said and done, it must be a matter of impression.” 2. “A literary work consists, not only of the literary style, but also of the thoughts underlying it, as expressed in the words. Under the defence of “fair dealing” both can be criticized.” 3. “Although a literary work may not be published to the world at large, it may, however, be circulated to such a wide circle that it is “fair dealing” to criticize it publicly in a newspaper or elsewhere” The matter of Allen v. Toronto Star brought a new and more liberal approach to fair dealing. The Toronto Star newspaper published an article about Sheila Copps, a prominent MP, being a candidate for the national leadership of her political party. The Star article reproduced a copy of a cover of Saturday Night magazine which included a photograph of Sheila Copps on a motorcycle. Allen holds copyright in the photograph and alleges copyright infringement. The Toronto Star argues the reproduction constituted fair dealing as a “newspaper summary. It was held that “the defence of fair dealing applies in the circumstances of this case.” Segdwick J provided following reasons: The test for fair dealing is essentially purposive. It is not simply a mechanical test of measurement of the extent of copying involved. The following factors indicate that the purpose of the reproduction was to aid in the presentation of a news story and not to gain an unfair commercial or competitive advantage over Allen or Saturday Night: “The cover was related to the current news, the leadership aspiration of Ms. Copps. The change in her image was the thrust of the article... The cover was not reproduced in colour as was the original. The cover was reproduced in reduced form. The news story and accompanying photos received no special prominence in the newspaper. They appeared on an inside page of an inside section.” Thus, the reproduction was in aid of the presentation of a news story rather than to gain unfair commercial or comparative advantage over Allen or Saturday Night.[21] Bearing in mind the nature and purpose of the use of the photograph to illustrate a current news story, the defence of fair dealing applies.[22] Charter Defence: (Charter of Rights and Freedom)[edit] Freedom of expression is claimed as a right of an individual, and as a defence under section 2 (b) of the Charter, in cases, where defendant is engaged in infringing copyrighted activity. It is argued that limiting the use of copyrighted material is unconstitutional, not that the copyright scheme as a whole is unconstitutional. As the defence of copyright misuse has not been recognised by Canadian courts in cases, similarly they have not yet definitely rejected or accepted the charter defence. In the case of Queen v. Lorimer , Federal Court of Appeal rejected the charter defence, but left the possibility of it succeeding in future. Trial Division considered this defence in Cie Générale des Établissements Michelin-Michelin & Cie v. C.A.W.-Canada, but held that the Charter did not confer the right to use private property to express oneself. Thus, the defendants' freedom of expression had not been infringed.[23] Other Statutory Defences (Section 29.4-32.2)[edit] Canadian Copyright Act contains a specific exception for Educational Institutions under section 29.4. However, introduction of Bill C-32, will propose some changes to the current provision. Current provision of section 29.4 is as follows: monopoly (from Greek monos µ???? (alone or single) + polein p??e?? (to sell)) exists when one party controls the supply of a good or service. Though the word has many uses, it usually manifests itself in the form of a corporate monopoly. A corporate monopoly is an organization of suppliers who have come together to achieve common goals such as protecting the stability of its trade, improving profit margins, achieving higher revenue, decreasing the number of companies consumers assign to produce goods (streamlining production), and cheaper business conditions. The monopoly, through its leadership, bargains with the consumer on behalf of corporate members (rank and file members) and negotiates prices (collective bargaining) with consumers.[1] The most common purpose of these monopolies or trusts is "maintaining or improving the conditions of their production".[2] This may include the negotiation of prices, quality standards, complaint procedures, rules governing sales, collection of companies, monopolist benefits, higher bargaining leverage. An example of a non-corporate monopoly would be a labor union or a federal government.[2] [3] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service, a lack of viable substitute goods, and the existence of a high monopoly price well above the firm's marginal cost that leads to a high monopoly profit.[4] The verb "monopolise" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices.[5] Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market).[5] A monopoly is distinguished from a monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods. Monopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies are all situations such that one or a few of the entities have market power and therefore interact with their customers (monopoly), suppliers (monopsony) and the other companies (oligopoly) in ways that leave market interactions distorted.[citation needed] Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by integration. In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when business is dominant. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government granted monopolies. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.[citation needed] Contents [hide] 1 Market structures 2 Characteristics 3 Sources of monopoly power 4 Monopoly versus competitive markets 5 The inverse elasticity rule 5.1 Market power 6 Price discrimination 6.1 Example 6.2 Classifying customers 7 Monopoly and efficiency 7.1 Natural monopoly 7.2 Government-granted monopoly 8 Monopolist shutdown rule 9 Breaking up monopolies 10 Law 11 Historical monopolies 11.1 Origin 11.2 Monopolies of resources 11.2.1 Salt 11.2.2 Coal 11.2.3 Petroleum 11.2.4 Steel 11.2.5 Diamonds 11.3 Utilities 11.4 Transportation 11.5 Foreign trade 11.6 Professional sports 11.7 Other examples of monopolies 12 Countering monopolies 13 See also 14 Notes and references 15 Further reading 16 External links 16.1 Criticism Market structures[edit] In economics, the idea of monopoly will be important for the study of management structures, which directly concerns normative aspects of economic competition, and provides the basis for topics such as industrial organization and economics of regulation. There are four basic types of market structures by traditional economic analysis: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly and monopoly. A monopoly is a structure in which a single supplier produces and sells a given product. If there is a single seller in a certain industry and there are not any close substitutes for the product, then the market structure is that of a "pure monopoly". Sometimes, there are many sellers in an industry and/or there exist many close substitutes for the goods being produced, but nevertheless companies retain some market power. This is termed monopolistic competition, whereas in oligopoly the companies interact strategically. In general, the main results from this theory compare price-fixing methods across market structures, analyze the effect of a certain structure on welfare, and vary technological/demand assumptions in order to assess the consequences for an abstract model of society. Most economic textbooks follow the practice of carefully explaining the perfect competition model, mainly because of its usefulness to understand "departures" from it (the so-called imperfect competition models). The boundaries of what constitutes a market and what doesn't are relevant distinctions to make in economic analysis. In a general equilibrium context, a good is a specific concept entangling geographical and time-related characteristics (grapes sold during October 2009 in Moscow is a different good from grapes sold during October 2009 in New York). Most studies of market structure relax a little their definition of a good, allowing for more flexibility at the identification of substitute-goods. Therefore, one can find an economic analysis of the market of grapes in Russia, for example, which is not a market in the strict sense of general equilibrium theory monopoly.[citation needed] Characteristics[edit] Profit Maximizer: Maximizes profits. Price Maker: Decides the price of the good or product to be sold, but does so by determining the quantity in order to demand the price desired by the firm. High Barriers: Other sellers are unable to enter the market of the monopoly. Single seller: In a monopoly, there is one seller of the good that produces all the output.[6] Therefore, the whole market is being served by a single company, and for practical purposes, the company is the same as the industry. Price Discrimination: A monopolist can change the price and quality of the product. He or she sells higher quantities, charging a lower price for the product, in a very elastic market and sells lower quantities, charging a higher price, in a less elastic market. Sources of monopoly power[edit] Monopolies derive their market power from barriers to entry – circumstances that prevent or greatly impede a potential competitor's ability to compete in a market. There are three major types of barriers to entry: economic, legal and deliberate.[7] Economic barriers: Economic barriers include economies of scale, capital requirements, cost advantages and technological superiority.[8] Economies of scale: Monopolies are characterised by decreasing costs for a relatively large range of production.[9] Decreasing costs coupled with large initial costs give monopolies an advantage over would-be competitors. Monopolies are often in a position to reduce prices below a new entrant's operating costs and thereby prevent them from continuing to compete.[9] Furthermore, the size of the industry relative to the minimum efficient scale may limit the number of companies that can effectively compete within the industry. If for example the industry is large enough to support one company of minimum efficient scale then other companies entering the industry will operate at a size that is less than MES, meaning that these companies cannot produce at an average cost that is competitive with the dominant company. Finally, if long-term average cost is constantly decreasing, the least cost method to provide a good or service is by a single company.[10] Capital requirements: Production processes that require large investments of capital, or large research and development costs or substantial sunk costs limit the number of companies in an industry.[11] Large fixed costs also make it difficult for a small company to enter an industry and expand.[7] Technological superiority: A monopoly may be better able to acquire, integrate and use the best possible technology in producing its goods while entrants do not have the size or finances to use the best available technology.[9] One large company can sometimes produce goods cheaper than several small companies.[12] No substitute goods: A monopoly sells a good for which there is no close substitute. The absence of substitutes makes the demand for the good relatively inelastic enabling monopolies to extract positive profits. Control of natural resources: A prime source of monopoly power is the control of resources that are critical to the production of a final good.[citation needed] Network externalities: The use of a product by a person can affect the value of that product to other people. This is the network effect. There is a direct relationship between the proportion of people using a product and the demand for that product. In other words, the more people who are using a product the greater the probability of any individual starting to use the product. This effect accounts for fads, fashion trends,[13] social networks etc. It also can play a crucial role in the development or acquisition of market power. The most famous current example is the market dominance of the Microsoft office suite and operating system in personal computers.[citation needed] Legal barriers: Legal rights can provide opportunity to monopolise the market of a good. Intellectual property rights, including patents and copyrights, give a monopolist exclusive control of the production and selling of certain goods. Property rights may give a company exclusive control of the materials necessary to produce a good. Deliberate actions: A company wanting to monopolise a market may engage in various types of deliberate action to exclude competitors or eliminate competition. Such actions include collusion, lobbying governmental authorities, and force (see anti-competitive practices). In addition to barriers to entry and competition, barriers to exit may be a source of market power. Barriers to exit are market conditions that make it difficult or expensive for a company to end its involvement with a market. Great liquidation costs are a primary barrier for exiting.[14] Market exit and shutdown are separate events. The decision whether to shut down or operate is not affected by exit barriers. A company will shut down if price falls below minimum average variable costs. Monopoly versus competitive markets[edit] While monopoly and perfect competition mark the extremes of market structures[15] there is some similarity. The cost functions are the same.[16] Both monopolies and perfectly competitive (PC) companies minimize cost and maximize profit. The shutdown decisions are the same. Both are assumed to have perfectly competitive factors markets. There are distinctions, some of the more important of which are as follows: Marginal revenue and price: In a perfectly competitive market, price equals marginal cost. In a monopolistic market, however, price is set above marginal cost.[17] Product differentiation: There is zero product differentiation in a perfectly competitive market. Every product is perfectly homogeneous and a perfect substitute for any other. With a monopoly, there is great to absolute product differentiation in the sense that there is no available substitute for a monopolized good. The monopolist is the sole supplier of the good in question.[18] A customer either buys from the monopolizing entity on its terms or does without. Number of competitors: PC markets are populated by an infinite number of buyers and sellers. Monopoly involves a single seller.[18] Barriers to Entry: Barriers to entry are factors and circumstances that prevent entry into market by would-be competitors and limit new companies from operating and expanding within the market. PC markets have free entry and exit. There are no barriers to entry, or exit competition. Monopolies have relatively high barriers to entry. The barriers must be strong enough to prevent or discourage any potential competitor from entering the market.[citation needed] Elasticity of Demand: The price elasticity of demand is the percentage change of demand caused by a one percent change of relative price. A successful monopoly would have a relatively inelastic demand curve. A low coefficient of elasticity is indicative of effective barriers to entry. A PC company has a perfectly elastic demand curve. The coefficient of elasticity for a perfectly competitive demand curve is infinite.[citation needed] Excess Profits: Excess or positive profits are profit more than the normal expected return on investment. A PC company can make excess profits in the short term but excess profits attract competitors, which can enter the market freely and decrease prices, eventually reducing excess profits to zero.[19] A monopoly can preserve excess profits because barriers to entry prevent competitors from entering the market.[20] Profit Maximization: A PC company maximizes profits by producing such that price equals marginal costs. A monopoly maximises profits by producing where marginal revenue equals marginal costs.[21] The rules are not equivalent. The demand curve for a PC company is perfectly elastic – flat. The demand curve is identical to the average revenue curve and the price line. Since the average revenue curve is constant the marginal revenue curve is also constant and equals the demand curve, Average revenue is the same as price (AR = TR/Q = P x Q/Q = P). Thus the price line is also identical to the demand curve. In sum, D = AR = MR = P. P-Max quantity, price and profit: If a monopolist obtains control of a formerly perfectly competitive industry, the monopolist would increase prices, reduce production, and realise positive economic profits.[22] Supply Curve: in a perfectly competitive market there is a well defined supply function with a one to one relationship between price and quantity supplied.[23] In a monopolistic market no such supply relationship exists. A monopolist cannot trace a President Valdas Adamkus right chatting with Vice President Dick Cheney left See also List of Lithuanian rulers Mindaugas – the first and only King of Lithuania – Gediminas – the ruler of Lithuania – Algirdas – the ruler together with Kestutis of Lithuania – Kestutis – the ruler together with Algirdas of Lithuania – Vytautas – the ruler of Lithuania – together with Jogaila Jogaila – the ruler of Lithuania – from to together with Vytautas the king of Poland – Jonušas Radvila – the field hetman of Grand Duchy of Lithuania – Dalia Grybauskaite – current President of Lithuania since Valdas Adamkus – President of Lithuania till Jonas Basanavicius – "father" of the Act of Independence of Algirdas Brazauskas – the former First secretary of Central Committee of Communist Party of Lithuanian SSR the former president of Lithuania after and former Prime Minister of Lithuania Joe Fine – mayor of Marquette Michigan – Kazys Grinius – politician third President of Lithuania Mykolas Krupavicius – priest behind the land reform in interwar Lithuania Vytautas Landsbergis – politician professor leader of Sajudis the independence movement former speaker of Seimas member of European Parliament Stasys Lozoraitis – diplomat and leader of Lithuanian government in exile – Stasys Lozoraitis junior – politician diplomat succeeded his father as leader of Lithuanian government in exile – Antanas Merkys – the last Prime Minister of interwar Lithuania Rolandas Paksas – former President removed from the office after impeachment Justas Paleckis – journalist and politician puppet Prime Minister after Soviet occupation Kazimiera Prunskiene – the first female Prime Minister Mykolas Sleževicius – three times Prime Minister organized

short term supply curve because for a given price there is not a unique quantity supplied. As Pindyck and Rubenfeld note, a change in demand "can lead to changes in prices with no change in output, changes in output with no change in price or both".[24] Monopolies produce where marginal revenue equals marginal costs. For a specific demand curve the supply "curve" would be the price/quantity combination at the point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. If the demand curve shifted the marginal revenue curve would shift as well and a new equilibrium and supply "point" would be established. The locus of these points would not be a supply curve in any conventional sense.[25][26] The most significant distinction between a PC company and a monopoly is that the monopoly has a downward-sloping demand curve rather than the "perceived" perfectly elastic curve of the PC company.[27] Practically all the variations mentioned above relate to this fact. If there is a downward-sloping demand curve then by necessity there is a distinct marginal revenue curve. The implications of this fact are best made manifest with a linear demand curve. Assume that the inverse demand curve is of the form x = a - by. Then the total revenue curve is TR = ay - by2 and the marginal revenue curve is thus MR = a - 2by. From this several things are evident. First the marginal revenue curve has the same y intercept as the inverse demand curve. Second the slope of the marginal revenue curve is twice that of the inverse demand curve. Third the x intercept of the marginal revenue curve is half that of the inverse demand curve. What is not quite so evident is that the marginal revenue curve is below the inverse demand curve at all points.[27] Since all companies maximise profits by equating MR and MC it must be the case that at the profit-maximizing quantity MR and MC are less than price, which further implies that a monopoly produces less quantity at a higher price than if the market were perfectly competitive. The fact that a monopoly has a downward-sloping demand curve means that the relationship between total revenue and output for a monopoly is much different than that of competitive companies.[28] Total revenue equals price times quantity. A competitive company has a perfectly elastic demand curve meaning that total revenue is proportional to output.[28] Thus the total revenue curve for a competitive company is a ray with a slope equal to the market price.[28] A competitive company can sell all the output it desires at the market price. For a monopoly to increase sales it must reduce price. Thus the total revenue curve for a monopoly is a parabola that begins at the origin and reaches a maximum value then continuously decreases until total revenue is again zero.[29] Total revenue has its maximum value when the slope of the total revenue function is zero. The slope of the total revenue function is marginal revenue. So the revenue maximizing quantity and price occur when MR = 0. For example, assume that the monopoly’s demand function is P = 50 - 2Q. The total revenue function would be TR = 50Q - 2Q2 and marginal revenue would be 50 - 4Q. Setting marginal revenue equal to zero we have 50-4Q=0 -4Q=-50 Q = 12.5 So the revenue maximizing quantity for the monopoly is 12.5 units and the revenue maximizing price is 25. A company with a monopoly does not experience price pressure from competitors, although it may experience pricing pressure from potential competition. If a company increases prices too much, then others may enter the market if they are able to provide the same good, or a substitute, at a lesser price.[30] The idea that monopolies in markets with easy entry need not be regulated against is known as the "revolution in monopoly theory".[31] A monopolist can extract only one premium,[clarification needed] and getting into complementary markets does not pay. That is, the total profits a monopolist could earn if it sought to leverage its monopoly in one market by monopolizing a complementary market are equal to the extra profits it could earn anyway by charging more for the monopoly product itself. However, the one monopoly profit theorem is not true if customers in the monopoly good are stranded or poorly informed, or if the tied good has high fixed costs. A pure monopoly has the same economic rationality of perfectly competitive companies, i.e. to optimise a profit function given some constraints. By the assumptions of increasing marginal costs, exogenous inputs' prices, and control concentrated on a single agent or entrepreneur, the optimal decision is to equate the marginal cost and marginal revenue of production. Nonetheless, a pure monopoly can – unlike a competitive company – alter the market price for its own convenience: a decrease of production results in a higher price. In the economics' jargon, it is said that pure monopolies have "a downward-sloping demand". An important consequence of such behaviour is worth noticing: typically a monopoly selects a higher price and lesser quantity of output than a price-taking company; again, less is available at a higher price.[32] The inverse elasticity rule[edit] A monopoly chooses that price that maximizes the difference between total revenue and total cost. The basic markup rule can be expressed as (P - MC)/P = 1/PED.[33] The markup rules indicate that the ratio between profit margin and the price is inversely proportional to the price elasticity of demand.[33] The implication of the rule is that the more elastic the demand for the product the less pricing power the monopoly has. Market power[edit] Market power is the ability to increase the product's price above marginal cost without losing all customers.[34] Perfectly competitive (PC) companies have zero market power when it comes to setting prices. All companies of a PC market are price takers. The price is set by the interaction of demand and supply at the market or aggregate level. Individual companies simply take the price determined by the market and produce that quantity of output that maximizes the company's profits. If a PC company attempted to increase prices above the market level all its customers would abandon the company and purchase at the market price from other companies. A monopoly has considerable although not unlimited market power. A monopoly has the power to set prices or quantities although not both.[35] A monopoly is a price maker.[36] The monopoly is the market[37] and prices are set by the monopolist based on his circumstances and not the interaction of demand and supply. The two primary factors determining monopoly market power are the company's demand curve and its cost structure.[38] Market power is the ability to affect the terms and conditions of exchange so that the price of a product is set by a single company (price is not imposed by the market as in perfect competition).[39][40] Although a monopoly's market power is great it is still limited by the demand side of the market. A monopoly has a negatively sloped demand curve, not a perfectly inelastic curve. Consequently, any price increase will result in the loss of some customers. Price discrimination[edit] Price discrimination allows a monopolist to increase its profit by charging higher prices for identical goods to those who are willing or able to pay more.[41][42] For example, most economic textbooks cost more in the United States than in developing countries like Ethiopia. In this case, the publisher is using its government-granted copyright monopoly to price discriminate between the generally wealthier American economics students and the generally poorer Ethiopian economics students. Similarly, most patented medications cost more in the U.S. than in other countries with a (presumed) poorer customer base. Typically, a high general price is listed, and various market segments get varying discounts. This is an example of framing to make the process of charging some people higher prices more socially acceptable.[citation needed] Perfect price discrimination would allow the monopolist to charge each customer the exact maximum amount he would be willing to pay. This would allow the monopolist to extract all the consumer surplus of the market. While such perfect price discrimination is a theoretical construct, advances in information technology and micromarketing may bring it closer to the realm of possibility It is important to realize that partial price discrimination can cause some customers who are inappropriately pooled with high price customers to be excluded from the market. For example, a poor student in the U.S. might be excluded from purchasing an economics textbook at the U.S. price, which the student may have been able to purchase at the Ethiopian price'. Similarly, a wealthy student in Ethiopia may be able to or willing to buy at the U.S. price, though naturally would hide such a fact from the monopolist so as to pay the reduced third world price. These are deadweight losses and decrease a monopolist's profits. As such, monopolists have substantial economic interest in improving their market information and market segmenting.[citation needed] There is important information for one to remember when considering the monopoly model diagram (and its associated conclusions) displayed here. The result that monopoly prices are higher, and production output lesser, than a competitive company follow from a requirement that the monopoly not charge different prices for different customers. That is, the monopoly is restricted from engaging in price discrimination (this is termed first degree price discrimination, such that all customers are charged the same amount). If the monopoly were permitted to charge individualised prices (this is termed third degree price discrimination), the quantity produced, and the price charged to the marginal customer, would be identical to that of a competitive company, thus eliminating the deadweight loss; however, all gains from trade (social welfare) would accrue to the monopolist and none to the consumer. In essence, every consumer would be indifferent between (1) going completely without the product or service and (2) being able to purchase it from the monopolist.[citation needed] As long as the price elasticity of demand for most customers is less than one in absolute value, it is advantageous for a company to increase its prices: it receives more money for fewer goods. With a price increase, price elasticity tends to increase, and in the optimum case above it will be greater than one for most customers.[citation needed] A company maximizes profit by selling where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. A company that does not engage in price discrimination will charge the profit maximizing price, P*, to all its customers. In such circumstances there are customers who would be willing to pay a higher price than P* and those who will not pay P* but would buy at a lower price. A price discrimination strategy is to charge less price sensitive buyers a higher price and the more price sensitive buyers a lower price.[43] Thus additional revenue is generated from two sources. The basic problem is to identify customers by their willingness to pay. The purpose of price discrimination is to transfer consumer surplus to the producer.[44] Consumer surplus is the difference between the value of a good to a consumer and the price the consumer must pay in the market to purchase it.[45] Price discrimination is not limited to monopolies. Market power is a company’s ability to increase prices without losing all its customers. Any company that has market power can engage in price discrimination. Perfect competition is the only market form in which price discrimination would be impossible (a perfectly competitive company has a perfectly elastic demand curve and has zero market power).[44][46][47][48] There are three forms of price discrimination. First degree price discrimination charges each consumer the maximum price the consumer is willing to pay. Second degree price discrimination involves quantity discounts. Third degree price discrimination involves grouping consumers according to willingness to pay as measured by their price elasticities of demand and charging each group a different price. Third degree price discrimination is the most prevalent type.[citation needed] There are three conditions that must be present for a company to engage in successful price discrimination. First, the company must have market power.[49] Second, the company must be able to sort customers according to their willingness to pay for the good.[50] Third, the firm must be able to prevent resell. A company must have some degree of market power to practice price discrimination. Without market power a company cannot charge more than the market price.[51] Any market structure characterized by a downward sloping demand curve has market power – monopoly, monopolistic competition and oligopoly.[49] The only market structure that has no market power is perfect competition.[51] A company wishing to practice price discrimination must be able to prevent middlemen or brokers from acquiring the consumer surplus for themselves. The company accomplishes this by preventing or limiting resale. Many methods are used to prevent resale. For example, persons are required to show photographic identification and a boarding pass before boarding an airplane. Most travelers assume that this practice is strictly a matter of security. However, a primary purpose in requesting photographic identification is to confirm that the ticket purchaser is the person about to board the airplane and not someone who has repurchased the ticket from a discount buyer.[citation needed] The inability to prevent resale is the largest obstacle to successful price discrimination.[46] Companies have however developed numerous methods to prevent resale. For example, universities require that students show identification before entering sporting events. Governments may make it illegal to resale tickets or products. In Boston, Red Sox baseball tickets can only be resold legally to the team. The three basic forms of price discrimination are first, second and third degree price discrimination. In first degree price discrimination the company charges the maximum price each customer is willing to pay. The maximum price a consumer is willing to pay for a unit of the good is the reservation price. Thus for each unit the seller tries to set the price equal to the consumer’s reservation price.[52] Direct information about a consumer’s willingness to pay is rarely available. Sellers tend to rely on secondary information such as where a person lives (postal codes); for example, catalog retailers can use mail high-priced catalogs to high-income postal codes.[53][54] First degree price discrimination most frequently occurs in regard to professional services or in transactions involving direct buyer/seller negotiations. For example, an accountant who has prepared a consumer's tax return has information that can be used to charge customers based on an estimate of their ability to pay.[55] In second degree price discrimination or quantity discrimination customers are charged different prices based on how much they buy. There is a single price schedule for all consumers but the prices vary depending on the quantity of the good bought.[56] The theory of second degree price discrimination is a consumer is willing to buy only a certain quantity of a good at a given price. Companies know that consumer’s willingness to buy decreases as more units are purchased. The task for the seller is to identify these price points and to reduce the price once one is reached in the hope that a reduced price will trigger additional purchases from the consumer. For example, sell in unit blocks rather than individual units. In third degree price discrimination or multi-market price discrimination[57] the seller divides the consumers into different groups according to their willingness to pay as measured by their price elasticity of demand. Each group of consumers effectively becomes a separate market with its own demand curve and marginal revenue curve.[47] The firm then attempts to maximize profits in each segment by equating MR and MC,[49][58][59] Generally the company charges a higher price to the group with a more price inelastic demand and a relatively lesser price to the group with a more elastic demand.[60] Examples of third degree price discrimination abound. Airlines charge higher prices to business travelers than to vacation travelers. The reasoning is that the demand curve for a vacation traveler is relatively elastic while the demand curve for a business traveler is relatively inelastic. Any determinant of price elasticity of demand can be used to segment markets. For example, seniors have a more elastic demand for movies than do young adults because they generally have more free time. Thus theaters will offer discount tickets to seniors.[61] Example[edit] Assume that by a uniform pricing system the monopolist would sell five units at a price of $10 per unit. Assume that his marginal cost is $5 per unit. Total revenue would be $50, total costs would be $25 and profits would be $25. If the monopolist practiced price discrimination he would sell the first unit for $50 the second unit for $40 and so on. Total revenue would be $150, his total cost would be $25 and his profit would be $125.00.[62] Several things are worth noting. The monopolist acquires all the consumer surplus and eliminates practically all the deadweight loss because he is willing to sell to anyone who is willing to pay at least the marginal cost.[62] Thus the price discrimination promotes efficiency. Secondly, by the pricing scheme price = average revenue and equals marginal revenue. That is the monopolist behaving like a perfectly competitive company.[63] Thirdly, the discriminating monopolist produces a larger quantity than the monopolist operating by a uniform pricing scheme.[64] Qd Price 1 50 2 40 3 30 4 20 5 10 Classifying customers[edit] Successful price discrimination requires that companies separate consumers according to their willingness to buy. Determining a customer's willingness to buy a good is difficult. Asking consumers directly is fruitless: consumers don't know, and to the extent they do they are reluctant to share that information with marketers. The two main methods for determining willingness to buy are observation of personal characteristics and consumer actions. As noted information about where a person lives (postal codes), how the person dresses, what kind of car he or she drives, occupation, and income and spending patterns can be helpful in classifying.[citation needed] Monopoly and efficiency[edit] This section does not cite any references (sources). Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2009) Surpluses and deadweight loss created by monopoly price setting The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion indeed, but for any considerable time together. The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which it is supposed they will consent to give; the other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business.[65]:56 ...Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management.[65]:127 – Adam Smith (1776), The Wealth of Nations According to the standard model, in which a monopolist sets a single price for all consumers, the monopolist will sell a lesser quantity of goods at a higher price than would companies by perfect competition. Because the monopolist ultimately forgoes transactions with consumers who value the product or service more than its cost, monopoly pricing creates a deadweight loss referring to potential gains that went neither to the monopolist nor to consumers. Given the presence of this deadweight loss, the combined surplus (or wealth) for the monopolist and consumers is necessarily less than the total surplus obtained by consumers by perfect competition. Where efficiency is defined by the total gains from trade, the monopoly setting is less efficient than perfect competition.[citation needed] It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and less innovative over time, becoming "complacent", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace. Sometimes this very loss of psychological efficiency can increase a potential competitor's value enough to overcome market entry barriers, or provide incentive for research and investment into new alternatives. The theory of contestable markets argues that in some circumstances (private) monopolies are forced to behave as if there were competition because of the risk of losing their monopoly to new entrants. This is likely to happen when a market's barriers to entry are low. It might also be because of the availability in the longer term of substitutes in other markets. For example, a canal monopoly, while worth a great deal during the late 18th century United Kingdom, was worth much less during the late 19th century because of the introduction of railways as a substitute.[citation needed] Natural monopoly[edit] Main article: Natural monopoly A natural monopoly is an organization that experiences increasing returns to scale over the relevant range of output and relatively high fixed costs.[66] A natural monopoly occurs where the average cost of production "declines throughout the relevant range of product demand". The relevant range of product demand is where the average cost curve is below the demand curve.[67] When this situation occurs, it is always cheaper for one large company to supply the market than multiple smaller companies; in fact, absent government intervention in such markets, will naturally evolve into a monopoly. An early market entrant that takes advantage of the cost structure and can expand rapidly can exclude smaller companies from entering and can drive or buy out other companies. A natural monopoly suffers from the same inefficiencies as any other monopoly. Left to its own devices, a profit-seeking natural monopoly will produce where marginal revenue equals marginal costs. Regulation of natural monopolies is problematic.[citation needed] Fragmenting such monopolies is by definition inefficient. The most frequently used methods dealing with natural monopolies are government regulations and public ownership. Government regulation generally consists of regulatory commissions charged with the principal duty of setting prices.[68] To reduce prices and increase output, regulators often use average cost pricing. By average cost pricing, the price and quantity are determined by the intersection of the average cost curve and the demand curve.[69] This pricing scheme eliminates any positive economic profits since price equals average cost. Average-cost pricing is not perfect. Regulators must estimate average costs. Companies have a reduced incentive to lower costs. Regulation of this type has not been limited to natural monopolies.[69] Average-cost pricing does also have some disadvantages. By setting price equal to the intersection of the demand curve and the average total cost curve, the firm's output is allocatively inefficient as the price exceeds the marginal cost (which is the output quantity for a perfectly competitive and allocatively efficient market). Government-granted monopoly[edit] Main article: Government-granted monopoly A government-granted monopoly (also called a "de jure monopoly") is a form of coercive monopoly by which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or company to be the sole provider of a commodity; potential competitors are excluded from the market by law, regulation, or other mechanisms of government enforcement.[citation needed] Monopolist shutdown rule[edit] A monopolist should shut down when price is less than average variable cost for every output level[70] – in other words where the demand curve is entirely below the average variable cost curve.[70] Under these circumstances at the profit maximum level of output (MR = MC) average revenue would be less than average variable costs and the monopolists would be better off shutting down in the short term.[70] Breaking up monopolies[edit] In a free market, monopolies can be ended at anytime by new competition, breakaway businesses, or consumers seeking alternatives.[citation needed] In a highly regulated market environment a government will often either regulate the monopoly, convert it into a publicly owned monopoly environment, or forcibly fragment it (see Antitrust law and trust busting). Public utilities, often being naturally efficient with only one operator and therefore less susceptible to efficient breakup, are often strongly regulated or publicly owned. American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T) and Standard Oil are debatable examples of the breakup of a private monopoly by government: When AT&T, a monopoly previously protected by force of law, was broken up into various components in 1984, MCI, Sprint, and other companies were able to compete effectively in the long distance phone market.[citation needed] Law[edit] Main article: Competition law The existence of a very high market share does not always mean consumers are paying excessive prices since the threat of new entrants to the market can restrain a high-market-share company's price increases. Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices (i.e. pricing high just because you are the only one around.) It may also be noted that it is illegal to try to obtain a monopoly, by practices of buying out the competition, or equal practices. If one occurs naturally, such as a competitor going out of business, or lack of competition, it is not illegal until such time as the monopoly holder abuses the power. First it is necessary to determine whether a company is dominant, or whether it behaves "to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumer".[71] As with collusive conduct, market shares are determined with reference to the particular market in which the company and product in question is sold. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is sometimes used to assess how competitive an industry is.[72] In the US, the merger guidelines state that a post-merger HHI below 1000 is viewed as unconcentrated while HHIs above that will provoke further review.[73] By European Union law, very large market shares raise a presumption that a company is dominant,[74] which may be rebuttable.[75] If a company has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market".[76] The lowest yet market share of a company considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%.[77] Certain categories of abusive conduct are usually prohibited by a country's legislation.[78] The main recognised categories are: Limiting supply Predatory pricing Price discrimination Refusal to deal and exclusive dealing Tying (commerce) and product bundling Despite wide agreement that the above constitute abusive practices, there is some debate about whether there needs to be a causal connection between the dominant position of a company and its actual abusive conduct. Furthermore, there has been some consideration of what happens when a company merely attempts to abuse its dominant position. Historical monopolies[edit] Origin[edit] The term "monopoly" first appears in Aristotle's Politics. Aristotle describes Thales of Miletus's cornering of the market in olive presses as a monopoly (µ???p???a?).[79][80] The meaning and understanding of the English word 'monopoly' has changed over the years.[81] Monopolies of resources[edit] Salt[edit] See also: Salt March Vending of common salt (sodium chloride) was historically a natural monopoly. Until recently, a combination of strong sunshine and low humidity or an extension of peat marshes was necessary for producing salt from the sea, the most plentiful source. Changing sea levels periodically caused salt "famines" and communities were forced to depend upon those who controlled the scarce inland mines and salt springs, which were often in hostile areas (e.g. the Sahara desert) requiring well-organised security for transport, storage, and distribution. The Salt Commission was a legal monopoly in China. Formed in 758, the Commission controlled salt production and sales in order to raise tax revenue for the Tang Dynasty. The "Gabelle" was a notoriously high tax levied upon salt in the Kingdom of France. The much-hated levy had a role in the beginning of the French Revolution, when strict legal controls specified who was allowed to sell and distribute salt. First instituted in 1286, the Gabelle was not permanently abolished until 1945.[82] Coal[edit] Robin Gollan argues in The Coalminers of New South Wales that anti-competitive practices developed in the coal industry of Australia's Newcastle as a result of the business cycle. The monopoly was generated by formal meetings of the local management of coal companies agreeing to fix a minimum price for sale at dock. This collusion was known as "The Vend". The Vend ended and was reformed repeatedly during the late 19th century, ending by recession in the business cycle. "The Vend" was able to maintain its monopoly due to trade union assistance, and material advantages (primarily coal geography). During the early 20th century, as a result of comparable monopolistic practices in the Australian coastal shipping business, the Vend developed as an informal and illegal collusion between the steamship owners and the coal industry, eventually resulting in the High Court case Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd v. R. & AG.[83] Petroleum[edit] Standard Oil was an American oil producing, transporting, refining, and marketing company. Established in 1870, it became the largest oil refiner in the world.[84] John D. Rockefeller was a founder, chairman and major shareholder. The company was an innovator in the development of the business trust. The Standard Oil trust streamlined production and logistics, lowered costs, and undercut competitors. "Trust-busting" critics accused Standard Oil of using aggressive pricing to destroy competitors and form a monopoly that threatened consumers. Its controversial history as one of the world's first and largest multinational corporations ended in 1911, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that Standard was an illegal monopoly. The Standard Oil trust was dissolved into 33 smaller companies; two of its surviving "child" companies are ExxonMobil and the Chevron Corporation. Steel[edit] U.S. Steel has been accused of being a monopoly. J. P. Morgan and Elbert H. Gary founded U.S. Steel in 1901 by combining Andrew Carnegie's Carnegie Steel Company with Gary's Federal Steel Company and William Henry "Judge" Moore's National Steel Company.[85][86] At one time, U.S. Steel was the largest steel producer and largest corporation in the world. In its first full year of operation, U.S. Steel made 67 percent of all the steel produced in the United States. However, U.S. Steel's share of the expanding market slipped to 50 percent by 1911,[87] and anti-trust prosecution that year failed. Diamonds[edit] De Beers settled charges of price fixing in the diamond trade in the 2000s. De Beers is well known for its monopoloid practices throughout the 20th century, whereby it used its dominant position to manipulate the international diamond market. The company used several methods to exercise this control over the market. Firstly, it convinced independent producers to join its single channel monopoly, it flooded the market with diamonds similar to those of producers who refused to join the cartel, and lastly, it purchased and stockpiled diamonds produced by other manufacturers in order to control prices through limiting supply. In 2000, the De Beers business model changed due to factors such as the decision by producers in Russia, Canada and Australia to distribute diamonds outside the De Beers channel, as well as rising awareness of blood diamonds that forced De Beers to "avoid the risk of bad publicity" by limiting sales to its own mined products. De Beers' market share by value fell from as high as 90% in the 1980s to less than 40% in 2012, having resulted in a more fragmented diamond market with more transparency and greater liquidity. In November 2011 the Oppenheimer family announced its intention to sell the entirety of its 40% stake in De Beers to Anglo American plc thereby increasing Anglo American's ownership of the company to 85%.[30] The transaction was worth Ł3.2 billion ($5.1 billion) in cash and ended the Oppenheimer dynasty's 80-year ownership of De Beers. Utilities[edit] A public utility (or simply "utility") is an organization or company that maintains the infrastructure for a public service or provides a set of services for public consumption. Common examples of utilities are electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, cable television, and telephone. In the United States, public utilities are often natural monopolies because the infrastructure required to produce and deliver a product such as electricity or water is very expensive to build and maintain.[88] Western Union was criticized as a "price gouging" monopoly in the late 19th century.[89] American Telephone & Telegraph was a telecommunications giant. AT&T was broken up in 1984. In the case of Telecom New Zealand, local loop unbundling was enforced by central government. Telkom is a semi-privatised, part state-owned South African telecommunications company. Deutsche Telekom is a former state monopoly, still partially state owned. Deutsche Telekom currently monopolizes high-speed VDSL broadband network.[90] The Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) provided electric service to over 1.1 million customers in Nassau and Suffolk counties of New York, and the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens. The Comcast Corporation is the largest mass media and communications company in the world by revenue.[91] It is the largest cable company and home Internet service provider in the United States, and the nation's third largest home telephone service provider. Comcast has a monopoly in Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and many other small towns across the US.[citation needed] Transportation[edit] The United Aircraft and Transport Corporation was an aircraft manufacturer holding company that was forced to divest itself of airlines in 1934. Free to Choose (1980) is a book and a ten-part television series broadcast on public television by economists Milton and Rose D. Friedman that advocates free market principles. It was primarily a response to an earlier landmark book and television series: The Age of Uncertainty, by the noted economist John Kenneth Galbraith. Milton Friedman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1976. Contents [hide] 1 Overview 1.1 Guest debaters 2 Positions advocated 3 Video chapters (1980 version) 4 Video chapters (1990 version) 5 External links Overview[edit] Free to Choose: A Personal Statement maintains that the free market works best for all members of a society, provides examples of how the free market engenders prosperity, and maintains that it can solve problems where other approaches have failed. Published in January 1980, the 297 page book contains 10 chapters. The book was on the United States best sellers list for 5 weeks. PBS telecast the series, beginning in January 1980. The general format was that of Dr. Friedman visiting and narrating a number of success and failure stories in history, which Dr. Friedman attributes to capitalism or the lack thereof (e.g. Hong Kong is commended for its free markets, while India is excoriated for relying on centralized planning especially for its protection of its traditional textile industry). Following the primary show, Dr. Friedman would engage in discussion with a number of selected debaters drawn from trade unions, academy and the business community, such as Donald Rumsfeld (then of G.D. Searle & Company) and Frances Fox Piven of City University of New York. The interlocutors would offer objections to or support for the proposals put forward by Friedman, who would in turn respond. After the final episode, Friedman sat down for an interview with Lawrence Spivak. The series was rebroadcast in 1990 with Linda Chavez moderating the episodes. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Steve Allen and others give personal introductions for each episode in the series. This time, after the documentary part, Friedman sits down with a single opponent to debate the issues raised in the episode. Guest debaters[edit] Guest debaters included: Gregory Anrig (Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Education) Jagdish Bhagwati (economist) William H. Brady (Founder and President of W.H. Brady Co.) Clarence J. Brown (politician) Joan Claybrook (Administrator of the NHTSA) Barber Conable (politician, President of the World Bank) John Coons (law professor, school choice activist) Robert Crandall (Brookings Institution economist) Richard Deason (IBEW union leader) James R. Dumpson (bureaucrat, social worker, academic) Otmar Emminger (President of Deutsche Bundesbank) Bob Galvin (CEO of Motorola, Inc.) Ernest Green (U.S. Assistant Secretary of Labor) Michael Harrington (author, academic, activist) Nicholas von Hoffman (journalist, political commentator/columnist) Helen Hughes (economist) Peter Jay (economist, journalist, diplomat) Robert Lampman (economist) Richard Landau (medical professor) Robert Lekachman (economist) William McChesney Martin (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve) 20th Century Fox Animation 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment 20th Century Fox Television Fox 21 Fox Atomic Fox Broadcasting Company Fox Entertainment Group Fox Interactive Fox Star Studios Fox Searchlight Pictures Related products: 20th Century Fox Studio Classics – A premium DVD collection Fox Family Fun – A family DVD collection Other: Backlot Blu-ray Disc Association CinemaScope Blue Sky Studios DreamWorks Animation Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer In June 2008, Variety reported that DreamWorks was looking for financing that would allow it to continue operations, but as a production company, once its deal with Paramount ended later that year.[22] Several public equity funds were approached for financing including Blackstone Group, Fuse Global, TPG Capital, and several others, but all passed on the deal given their understanding of the Hollywood markets. Then most of the backing would come from an Indian investment firm called Reliance ADA Group. In January 2009, Spielberg entered a licensing agreement with DreamWorks Animation to use the DreamWorks trademarks, logo, and name for film productions and releases.[23] In September 2008, Variety reported that DreamWorks closed a deal with Reliance to create a stand-alone production company called DreamWorks Studios and end its ties with Paramount.[24][25] On February 9, 2009, DreamWorks Studios entered into a long-term, 30-picture distribution deal with Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures by which the films will be released through the Touchstone Pictures banner.[3] The deal also includes co-funding via a loan by Disney to DreamWorks Studios for production and access to slots in Disney's pay television agreement then with Starz.[3] This agreement is reported to have come after negotiations broke off with Universal Pictures just days earlier.[26] DreamWorks raised $325 million from Reliance Entertainment and an additional $325 million in debt in 2009.[1] DreamWorks Studios' initial movies, I Am Number Four, Cowboys & Aliens and Fright Night failed while The Help was a hit and Real Steel and Spielberg's own War Horse had some success at the box office. This left DreamWorks Studios so financially drained that by 2011, the company was seeking additional funding from Reliance. Reliance gave a $200 million investment in April 2012. Under the deal, DreamWorks Studios scaled back production to three films per year and sought co-financiers on big budget films with 20th Century Fox co-financing Lincoln and Robopocalypse. The company continues to utilize The Walt Disney Studios' marketing unit.[1] In August, after renegotiating their agreement with Disney, DreamWorks Studios formed a deal with Mister Smith Entertainment to distribute DreamWorks films in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, while Disney will continue to distribute in North America, Latin America, Australia, Russia, and some territories in Asia.[27] In September 2015, it was reported that DreamWorks and Disney would not renew their distribution deal, set to expire in August 2016, with The BFG being the last film to be released under the original agreement,[4][5] though Deadline Hollywood reported that Disney has set an October 2016 release date for The Girl on the Train.[28] In October 2015, DreamWorks is in negotiations with NBCUniversal to replace Disney with Universal Pictures as the domestic distributor.[29] The contract allowing Spielberg to license the DreamWorks name and logo from Jeffrey Katzenberg is set to expire on 1 January 2016, leading to speculation that Spielberg will not renew the pact and begin producing films under the Amblin name or a completely different brand altogether. However, a source close to both Spielberg and Katzenberg claims that they might consider continuing to operate two separate DreamWorks companies for the time being.[23] Logo[edit] The DreamWorks logo features a boy sitting on a crescent moon while fishing. The general idea for the logo was the idea of company co-founder Steven Spielberg, who wanted a computer generated image. The logo was then made at Industrial Light and Magic, in collaboration with Kaleidoscope Films, Dave Carson and Clint Goldman.[30] The music accompanying the logo to start live-action DreamWorks movies was specially composed by John Williams; the DreamWorks Animation logo has music from the Harry Gregson-Williams/John Powell score for Shrek. Distribution[edit] DreamWorks used to distribute its own films, with Universal handling video distribution rights. When Viacom bought DreamWorks in 2006, this meant most DreamWorks films were to be distributed by Paramount Pictures. This partnership ended in 2008. On February 9, 2009, DreamWorks entered into a long-term, 30-picture distribution deal with Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures by which the films will be released through the Touchstone Pictures banner. The deal also includes co-funding by Disney to DreamWorks for production.[3] Originally, the deal included access to slots in Disney's pay television agreement with Starz, but went to Showtime instead.[31] This agreement was reported to have come after negotiations broke off with Universal Pictures just days earlier.[26] However, this deal does not include Indian distribution rights, which is handled by Reliance.[3] Also not included are sequels to live-action films released before the Paramount merger, or those released by Paramount themselves – Paramount retains the rights to these franchises, and many sequels that were made by Paramount included, Little Fockers, which was released by Paramount internationally in December 2010 (Universal owns domestic rights), Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, Road Trip: Beer Pong and Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The broadcast and basic subscription cable television distribution rights to many DreamWorks films are owned by either Trifecta Entertainment & Media and Disney-ABC Domestic Television (formerly known as Buena Vista Television), depending on both content and region of license. In South Korea, CJ Entertainment has the rights to release all DreamWorks' films, except some co-productions (for example, Minority Report and Road to Perdition were distributed by Fox, Small Soldiers, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind and Seabiscuit by Universal Studios, Almost Famous and Evolution by Columbia Pictures, Saving Private Ryan by Paramount Pictures, and The Island and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street by Warner Bros., due to these studios having owned the international rights to these films). Over the years, many DreamWorks films have aired on the ABC TV network through a deal. Formerly, United International Pictures, a joint venture of Paramount and Universal, released DreamWorks' films internationally (except South Korea). In August 2012, DreamWorks formed a deal with Mister Smith Entertainment, a joint venture of Constantin Film and Summit Entertainment co-founder David Garrett. Mister Smith will sell the distribution of DreamWorks films in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, while Disney will continue to distribute in North and South America, Kazakhstan, Australia, Russia,Southeast Asia and Eastern Asia.[27] Reliance will still distribute for India.[32] Mister Smith made a four-year deal with Entertainment One for distribution in the United Kingdom and the Benelux countries.[33] Other deals were made with Constantin Film for Germany/Austria/Switzerland, Nordisk Film for Scandinavia, and Italia Film for the Middle East.[32] In February 2013, DreamWorks announced distribution deals with Acme (the Baltic regions), United King (Israel), Metropolitan Filmexport (France),[34] Andrea Leone (Italy), Monolith (Poland), Blitz (Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia),SinemArt and Rapi Films (Indonesia), Fida Film (Turkey), Lusomundo (Portugal), Odeon (Greece), Interfilm (Ukraine), and TriPictures/DeaPlaneta (Spain).[35] Highest-grossing films Rank Title Year Domestic gross Notes 1 Titanic* 1997 $658,672,302 Distributed internationally by 20th Century Fox. 2 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen 2009 $402,111,870 Distributed internationally by DreamWorks Pictures. 3 Transformers: Dark of the Moon 2011 $352,390,543 4 Forrest Gump* 1994 $330,252,182 5 Shrek the Third 2007 $322,719,944 Distribution only. Owned and produced by DreamWorks Animation. 6 Transformers 2007 $319,246,193 Distributed internationally by DreamWorks Pictures. 7 Iron Man 2008 $318,412,101 Distribution only; produced by Marvel Studios. Distribution rights were transferred to the Walt Disney Studios in 2013.[85] 8 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 2008 $317,101,119 9 Iron Man 2 2010 $312,433,331 Distribution only; produced by Marvel Studios. Distribution rights were transferred to the Walt Disney Studios in 2013.[85] 10 Star Trek 2009 $257,730,019 11 Raiders of the Lost Ark* 1981 $248,159,971 Later retitled Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. 12 Transformers: Age of Extinction 2014 $245,439,076 13 Shrek Forever After 2010 $238,736,787 Distribution only. Owned and produced by DreamWorks Animation. 14 Beverly Hills Cop 1984 $234,760,478 15 War of the Worlds 2005 $234,280,354 Distributed internationally by DreamWorks Pictures. 16 Star Trek Into Darkness 2013 $228,778,661 17 Ghost 1990 $217,631,306 18 How to Train Your Dragon 2010 $217,581,231 Distribution only. Owned and produced by DreamWorks Animation. 19 Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted 2012 $216,391,482 Distribution only. Owned and produced by DreamWorks Animation. 20 Kung Fu Panda 2008 $215,434,591 Distribution only. Owned and produced by DreamWorks Animation. 21 Mission: Impossible II 2000 $215,409,889 22 Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol 2011 $209,397,903 23 World War Z 2013 $202,359,711 24 Monsters vs. Aliens 2009 $198,351,526 Distribution only. Owned and produced by DreamWorks Animation. 25 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 1989 $197,171,806 Defunct 1983 Status Catalogue and artist roster now controlled by Polydor Records while the Bee Gees catalogue is now controlled by Reprise/Rhino Records and the Star Wars soundtracks by Sony Classical Genre Various Country of origin United States RSO Records was a record label formed by rock and roll and musical theatre impresario Robert Stigwood in 1973.[1] The "RSO" stands for the Robert Stigwood Organisation. The company's main headquarters were at 67 Brook Street, in London's Mayfair. It underwent four distribution stages: by Atlantic Records from March 1973 to December 1975, by Polydor Records from January 1976 to December 1977, as an independent label from January 1978 to around October 1981, and finally by PolyGram Records from around November 1981 until the label's end in 1983.[2] RSO managed the careers of several superstars (Bee Gees, Yvonne Elliman, Eric Clapton, Andy Gibb), and, as a record label, released the soundtracks to Fame, Sparkle, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Times Square, Grease (over 30 million copies sold worldwide), and Saturday Night Fever (over 35 million copies sold worldwide). The release of the latter two albums made RSO one of the most financially successful labels of the 1970s. As successful as the label was financially, the independent label produced successes on the pop charts never before seen by the recording industry. By one point in 1978, the label boasted an unprecedented sixth consecutive number-one single on the Billboard (US) pop charts, holding the top spot for 21 consecutive weeks. With singles releases from the Grease album ("You're the One That I Want", and the title track) and another huge Andy Gibb smash ("Shadow Dancing"), RSO would log a further 10 weeks at the number 1 position, giving the label a record nine in one calendar year. This feat remains unduplicated by any record label to date.[citation needed] It also released a one-off single that summer by Paul Jones, featuring orchestrated ballad-style versions of two punk classics, Pretty Vacant, and Sheena is a Punk Rocker. As well as the label was operating in 1978, the disastrous commercial and critical failure of RSO's movie version of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band crippled the company. The woes of this failure were only somewhat offset by the middle of 1979, as the Bee Gees album Spirits Having Flown went on to eventually sell nearly 20 million copies (with the album producing three further number 1 singles that each sold more than one million copies in their own right). In 1980, the label's most famous act, the Bee Gees, filed a $200 million lawsuit against both RSO and Stigwood, claiming mismanagement. The lawsuit was subsequently settled for an undisclosed amount, and after a public reconciliation, the band remained with the label until its dissolution. By 1981, Stigwood had ended his involvement with the label, which was absorbed into PolyGram a few years later. All previous RSO releases were later re-released under Polydor's label. The Star Wars soundtracks would pass through several hands before ultimately ending up with Sony Classical in the 90s, and the Bee Gees catalog reverted to the Gibb family, who set up a new distribution arrangement with Warner Music's Rhino Records division, who has reissued their albums and the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack on the Reprise label. Contents [hide] 1 The logo 2 Label variations 3 See also 4 References The logo[edit] Stigwood explained the inspiration for RSO Records' akabeko logo in a 2001 interview for Billboard: “ I was in Japan with the Who and decided to set up RSO as an independent label. I has designers working on a logo, but I didn’t like any of them. Some Japanese friends gave me a papier-mâché cow, which is a symbol of good health and good fortune. It was on the mantelpiece in my office, and I thought, “Good health and good fortune”, that’s appropriate. Just write RSO on it."'[3] ” Label variations[edit] Atlantic-owned label: Peach label with small logo Polydor-owned label: Tan label with large logo, Polydor logo at bottom perimeter of label Independently owned label: Tan label with larger logo Polygram-owned label: Silver label with large logo RSO Top Line reissue label: White label with gold or silver star, very small logo at top of label between TOP and LINE 1981: The Nashville Grab — Buddy Walker 1983: Making of a Male Model — Chuck Lanyard 1983: Wizards and Warriors — Prince Erik Greystone (10 episodes, 1983) 1984: Murder, She Wrote — Howard Griffin (4 episodes, 1984–1994) 1985: Berrenger's — John Higgins (11 episodes, 1985) 1985: The Love Boat — Andy Jackson (1 episode, 1985) 1985: Who's the Boss? — Jeff (1 episode, 1985) 1986: Matlock (NBC) — "The Affair" (S01, E05) as Daniel Ward 1987: Bay Coven — Josh McGwin 1987: Hotel — Eric Madison (1 episode, 1987) 1987: Mike Hammer — Harry Farris (2 episodes, in 1984 and 1987) 1987: Stingray — Ty Gardner (1 episode, 1987) 1987: Tales from the Darkside — Peter (1 episode, 1987) 1987: The Bold and the Beautiful — Mick Savage (unknown episodes, 1989–1990) 1988: The Dirty Dozen: The Fatal Mission — Sgt. Holt 1989: Freddy's Nightmares — Buddy Powers (1 episode, 1989) 1989: Monsters — Phil (1 episode, 1989) 1990: Good Grief — Winston Payne (1 episode, 1990) 1990: Shades of L.A. — Richard (1 episode, 1990) 1993: Matlock (ABC) — "Matlock's Bad, Bad, Bad Dream" (S08, E11) as Slick/Waiter 1994: Babylon 5 — Zack Allan (74 episodes, 1994–1998) 1995: Burke's Law — Dr. Alex Kenyon (1 episode, 1995) 1995: Hope and Gloria — Bud Green (1 episode, 1995) 1996: Mr. & Mrs. Smith — Rich Edwards (1 episode, 1996) 1997: George & Leo (1 episode, 1997) 1998: Babylon 5: The River of Souls — Zack Allan 1998: Babylon 5: Thirdspace — Zack Allan 1999: Babylon 5: A Call to Arms — Zack Allan 2000: L.A. 7 — Manager of Radio Station (1 episode, 2000) 2004: She Spies — Zachary Mason (1 episode, 2004) 2006: The John Kerwin Show — Guest (1 episode, 2006) Awards[edit] Year Recipient/Nominated work Award Result 1978 Grease Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy Nominated John Travolta Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Nominated Olivia Newton-John Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Nominated "Grease" Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song Nominated "You're the One That I Want" Nominated "Hopelessly Devoted to You" Academy Award for Best Original Song Nominated 1979 CIC Golden Screen Award Won Stockard Channing People's Choice Award for Favorite Motion Picture Supporting Actress Won Olivia Newton-John People's Choice Award for Favorite Motion Picture Actress Won Grease People's Choice Award for Favorite Musical Motion Picture Won Grease People's Choice Award for Favorite Overall Motion Picture Won 2006 Grease Satellite Award for Best Classic DVD Nominated 2008 "You're the One That I Want" TV Land Award for Movie Dance Sequence You Reenacted in Your Living Room Nominated American Film Institute Recognition[edit] American Film Institute Lists AFI's 100 Years...100 Passions: No. 97 AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs: No. 70 for "Summer Nights" AFI's Greatest Movie Musicals: No. 20 Sequel[edit] Grease 2 (1982) was a sequel to Grease starring Maxwell Caulfield and Michelle Pfeiffer. As mentioned, only a few cast members from the original movie such as Dody Goodman, Sid Caesar, Eddie Deezen, Didi Conn, Dennis Stewart and Eve Arden reprise their respective roles. Dick Patterson returned, playing a different character. It was not nearly as successful, grossing just $15 million on its $13 million budget. Patricia Birch, the original movie's choreographer, directed the ill-fated sequel. It would be the only movie that she would direct. After the success of the original, Paramount intended to turn Grease into a multi-picture franchise with three sequels planned and a TV series down the road. However, the disappointing box office performance of Grease 2 prompted the producers to scrap all the plans.[35] On July 8, 2010, a sing-along version of Grease had a limited released to theaters around the U.S.[36] A trailer was released in May 2010 with cigarettes digitally removed from certain scenes, implying heavy editing; however, Paramount confirmed these changes were done only for the film's advertising,[37] and the rating for the film itself changed from its original PG to that of PG-13 for "sexual content including references, teen smoking and drinking, and language."[38] The movie was shown for two weekends only; additional cities lobbied by fans from the Paramount official website started a week later and screened for one weekend.[39] On March 12, 2013, Grease and Grease 2 were packaged together in a Double Feature DVD set from Warner Home Video. Independent publishing alternatives[edit] See also: Alternative media Writers in a specialized field or with a narrower appeal have found smaller alternatives to the mass market in the form of small presses and self-publishing. More recently, these options include print on demand and ebook format. These publishing alternatives provide an avenue for authors who believe that mainstream publishing will not meet their needs or who are in a position to make more money from direct sales than they could from bookstore sales, such as popular speakers who sell books after speeches. Authors are more readily published by this means due to the much lower costs involved. Recent developments[edit] The 21st century has brought some new technological changes to the publishing industry. These changes include e-books, print on demand and accessible publishing. E-books have been quickly growing in availability in major publishing markets such as the USA and the UK since 2005. Google, Amazon.com and Sony have been leaders in working with publishers and libraries to digitize books. As of early 2011 Amazon's Kindle reading device is a significant force in the market, along with the Apple iPad and the Nook from Barnes & Noble.[citation needed] Along with the growing popularity of e-books, some companies like Oyster and Scribd have pursued the subscription model, providing members unlimited access to a content library on a variety of digital reading devices. The ability to quickly and cost-effectively print on demand has meant that publishers no longer have to store books at warehouses, if the book is in low or unknown demand. This is a huge advantage to small publishers who can now operate without large overheads and large publishers who can now cost-effectively sell their backlisted items. Accessible publishing uses the digitization of books to mark up books into XML and then produces multiple formats from this to sell to consumers, often targeting those with difficulty reading. Formats include a variety larger print sizes, specialized print formats for dyslexia,[12] eye tracking problems and macular degeneration, as well as Braille, DAISY, audiobooks and e-books.[13] Green publishing means adapting the publishing process to minimise environmental impact. One example of this is the concept of on-demand printing, using digital or print-on-demand technology. This cuts down the need to ship books since they are manufactured close to the customer on a just-in-time basis.[14] A further development is the growth of on-line publishing where no physical books are produced. The ebook is created by the author and uploaded to a website from where it can be downloaded and read by anyone. An increasing number of small authors are using niche marketing online to sell more books by engaging with their readers online.[15] These authors can use free services such as Smashwords or Amazon's CreateSpace to have their book available for worldwide sale. There is an obvious attraction for first time authors who have been repeatedly rejected by the existing agent/publisher model to explore this opportunity. However, a consequence of this change in the mechanics of book distribution is that there is now no mandatory check on author skill or even their ability to spell, and any person with an internet connection can publish whatever they choose, regardless of the literary merit or even basic readability of their writing. Standardization[edit] Refer to the ISO divisions of ICS 01.140.40 and 35.240.30 for further information.[16][17] Legal issues[edit] World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva Main article: Publication Publication is the distribution of copies or content to the public.[18][19] The Berne Convention requires that this can only be done with the consent of the copyright holder, which is initially always the author.[18] In the Universal Copyright Convention, "publication" is defined in article VI as "the reproduction in tangible form and the Boris Trajanov ????? ???????? Popular and folk music edit Composers edit Darko Dimitrov ????? ???????? Slave Dimitrov ????? ???????? Jovan Jovanov ????? ??????? Ilija Pejovski ????? ???????? Musicians edit Bodan Arsovski ????? ???????? Goran Trajkoski ????? ????????? Ratko Dautovski ????? ????????? Kiril Džajkovski ????? ????????? Tale Ognenovski ???? ?????????? Vlatko Stefanovski ?????? ??????????? Stevo Teodosievski ????? ???????????? Aleksandra Popovska ?????????? ???????? Singers and Bands edit Lambe Alabakoski ????? ?????????? Anastasia ????????? Arhangel ???????? Kristina Arnaudova ???????? ????????? Kaliopi Bukle ??????? Dani Dimitrovska ???? ??????????? Riste Tevdoski ????? ???????? Karolina Goceva ???????? ?????? Vaska Ilieva ????? ?????? Andrijana Janevska ????????? ???????? Vlado Janevski ????? ???????? Jovan Jovanov ????? ??????? Leb i sol ??? ? ??? Aleksandar Makedonski ?????????? ?????????? Elvir Mekic ????? ????? Mizar ????? Jasmina Mukaetova ??????? ????e???? The Malagasy French Malgache are the ethnic group that forms nearly the entire population of Madagascar They are divided into two subgroups the "Highlander" Merina Sihanaka and Betsileo of the central plateau around Antananarivo Alaotra Ambatondrazaka and Fianarantsoa and the "coastal dwellers" elsewhere in the country This division has its roots in historical patterns of settlement The original Austronesian settlers from Borneo arrived between the third and tenth centuries and established a network of principalities in the Central Highlands region conducive to growing the rice they had carried with them on their outrigger canoes Sometime later a large number of settlers arrived from East Africa and established kingdoms along the relatively unpopulated coastlines The difference in ethnic origins remains somewhat evident between the highland and coastal regions In addition to the ethnic distinction between highland and coastal Malagasy one may speak of a political distinction as well Merina monarchs in the late th and early th century united the Merina principalities and brought the neighboring Betsileo people under their administration first They later extended Merina control over the majority of the coastal areas as well The military resistance and eventual defeat of most of the coastal communities assured their subordinate position vis ŕ vis the Merina Betsileo alliance During the th and th centuries the French colonial administration capitalized on and further exacerbated these political inequities by appropriating existing Merina governmental infrastructure to run their colony This legacy of political inequity dogged the people of Madagascar after gaining independence in candidates ethnic and regional identities have often served to help or hinder their success in democratic elections Within these two broad ethnic and political groupings the Malagasy were historically subdivided into specifically named ethnic groups who were primarily distinguished from one another on the basis of cultural practices These were namely agricultural hunting or fishing practices construction style of dwellings music hair and clothing styles and local customs or taboos the latter known in the Malagasy language as fady citation needed The number of such ethnic groups in Madagascar has been debated The practices that distinguished many of these groups are less prevalent in the st century than they were in the past But many Malagasy are proud to proclaim their association with one or several of these groups as part of their own cultural identity "Highlander" ethnic groups Merina Sihanaka Betsileo Zafimaniry Coastal ethnic groups Antaifasy or Antefasy Antaimoro or Temoro or Antemoro Antaisaka or Antesaka Antambahoaka Antandroy or Tandroy Antankarana Antanosy or Tanosy Academia edit Afifi al Akiti Khasnor Johan historian Khoo Kay Kim Jomo Kwame Sundaram Danny Quah Harith Ahmad Architects edit Main article List of Malaysian architects Artists edit Main article List of Malaysian artists Business edit Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhary born Tan Sri Dato Loh Boon Siew – Tan Sri Jeffrey Cheah Tan Sri William Cheng Dato Choong Chin Liang born Tan Sri Dato Tony Fernandes born Lim Goh Tong – Tan Sri Tiong Hiew King Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow born Chung Keng Quee – Tan Sri Ananda Krishnan born Robert Kuok born Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan born Shoba Purushothaman Shah Hakim Zain Halim Saad Tan Sri Mohd Saleh Sulong Tan Sri Vincent Tan born Lillian Too born Tan Sri Dr Francis Yeoh Tun Daim Zainuddin born Tan Sri Kong Hon Kong Designers edit Bernard Chandran fashion designer Jimmy Choo born shoe designer Poesy Liang born artist writer philanthropist jewellery designer industrial designer interior architect music composer Inventors edit Yi Ren Ng inventor of the Lytro Entertainers edit Yasmin Ahmad – film director Stacy Angie Francissca Peter born Jamal Abdillah born Sudirman Arshad – Loganathan Arumugam died Datuk David Arumugam Alleycats Awal Ashaari Alvin Anthons born Asmawi bin Ani born Ahmad Azhar born Ning Baizura born Kasma Booty died Marion Caunter host of One In A Million and the TV Quickie Ella born Erra Fazira born Sean Ghazi born Fauziah Latiff born Angelica Lee born Daniel Lee Chee Hun born Fish Leong born Sheila Majid born Amy Mastura born Mohamad Nasir Mohamad born Shathiyah Kristian born Meor Aziddin Yusof born Ah Niu born Dayang Nurfaizah born Shanon Shah born Siti Nurhaliza born Misha Omar born Hani Mohsin – Aziz M Osman born Azmyl Yunor born P Ramlee born Aziz Sattar born Fasha Sandha born Ku Nazhatul Shima Ku Kamarazzaman born Nicholas Teo born Pete Teo Penny Tai born Hannah Tan born Jaclyn Victor born Chef Wan Adira Suhaimi Michael Wong born Victor Wong born Dato Michelle Yeoh Hollywood actress born James Wan director of Hollywood films like several Saw films Insidious The Conjuring Fast and Furious born Ziana Zain born Zee Avi Shila Amzah Yunalis Zarai Zamil Idris born Military edit Leftenan Adnan – Warrior from mainland Malaya Antanum Warrior from Sabah Borneo Rentap Warrior from Sarawak Syarif Masahor Warrior from Sarawak Monsopiad Warrior from Sabah Borneo Haji Abdul Rahman Limbong Warrior from Telemong Terengganu Mat Salleh Warrior from Sabah Borneo Rosli Dhobi Warrior from Sarawak Politicians edit Parameswara founder of Sultanate of Malacca Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al Haj st Prime Minister of independent Malaya Tun Abdul Razak nd Prime Minister V T Sambanthan Founding Fathers of Malaysia along with Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tan Cheng Lock Tun Dato Sir Tan Cheng Lock Founder of MCA Tun Hussein Onn rd Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad th Prime Minister Father of Modernisation Abdullah Ahmad Badawi th Prime Minister since Najib Tun Razak Current Prime Minister since Dato Seri Ong Ka Ting Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim Dato Wan Hisham Wan Salleh Nik Aziz Nik Mat Raja Nong Chik Zainal Abidin Federal Territory and Urban Wellbeing Minister Wan Azizah Wan Ismail Karpal Singh Lim Kit Siang Lim Guan Eng Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah Religious edit Antony Selvanayagam Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Penang Anthony Soter Fernandez Archbishop Emeritus of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur and Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Penang Gregory Yong – Second Roman Catholic Archbishop of Singapore Tan Sri Datuk Murphy Nicholas Xavier Pakiam Metropolitan archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia Singapore and Brunei and publisher of the Catholic weekly newspaper The Herald Datuk Ng Moon Hing the fourth and current Anglican Bishop of West Malaysia Sportspeople edit Squash edit Datuk Nicol Ann David Ong Beng Hee Azlan Iskandar Low Wee Wern Badminton edit Chan Chong Ming men s doubles Dato Lee Chong Wei Chew Choon Eng men s doubles Wong Choong Hann Chin Eei Hui women s doubles Hafiz Hashim Roslin Hashim Wong Pei Tty women s doubles Choong Tan Fook men s doubles Lee Wan Wah men s doubles Koo Kien Keat men s doubles Tan Boon Heong men s doubles Retired edit Tan Aik Huang Eddy Choong Punch Gunalan Yap Kim Hock Foo Kok Keong Jalani Sidek Misbun Sidek Rashid Sidek Razif Sidek Cheah Soon Kit Lee Wan Wah Football soccer edit Brendan Gan Sydney FC Shaun Maloney Wigan Athletic Akmal Rizal Perak FA Kedah FA RC Strasbourg FCSR Haguenau Norshahrul Idlan Talaha Kelantan FA Khairul Fahmi Che Mat Kelantan FA Mohd Safiq Rahim Selangor FA Mohd Fadzli Saari Selangor FA PBDKT T Team FC SV Wehen Rudie Ramli Selangor FA PKNS F C SV Wehen Mohd Safee Mohd Sali Selangor FA Pelita Jaya Baddrol Bakhtiar Kedah FA Mohd Khyril Muhymeen Zambri Kedah FA Mohd Azmi Muslim Kedah FA Mohd Fadhli Mohd Shas Harimau Muda A FC ViOn Zlaté Moravce Mohd Irfan Fazail Harimau Muda A FC ViOn Zlaté Moravce Wan Zack Haikal Wan Noor Harimau Muda A FC ViOn Zlaté Moravce F C Ryukyu Nazirul Naim Che Hashim Harimau Muda A F C Ryukyu Khairul Izuan Abdullah Sarawak FA Persibo Bojonegoro PDRM FA Stanley Bernard Stephen Samuel Sabah FA Sporting Clube de Goa Nazmi Faiz Harimau Muda A SC Beira Mar Ahmad Fakri Saarani Perlis FA Atlético S C Chun Keng Hong Penang FA Chanthaburi F C Retired edit Serbegeth Singh owner founder of MyTeam Blackburn Rovers F C Global dvisor Mokhtar Dahari former Selangor FA and Malaysian player Lim Teong Kim former Hertha BSC player