group assignment legal issues in business a comprehensive report

TABLE OF CONTENTSDefinition of legal issue intellectual property violation 3That legal aspect is important and its impact on the business 4Emphasize the importance of preparing and resol

Subject: Business Law and Ethics FundamentalsSubject code: LAW102

Instructor: Nguyen Quoc Bao

Class: MKT1703Group members:

Lý Nguyễn Thái Anh - SE150284Phạm Minh Mẫn - SE140519Bùi Trần Thanh Thảo - SS170552

Bùi Lê Minh Thư - SS170067Huỳnh Tuấn Vũ - SS160041

Trịnh Gia Hân - SS160157

Group Assignment

LEGAL ISSUES IN BUSINESS: A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Definition of legal issue (intellectual property violation) 3That legal aspect is important and its impact on the business 4

Emphasize the importance of preparing and resolving legal issues 17Conclude with comments on the importance of maintaining legal compliance for

I Introduction

In the dynamic landscape of modern business, the intricate interplay between innovation,creativity, and legal frameworks has become increasingly pronounced Intellectual property lawstands as a cornerstone in this complex milieu, acting as the vanguard in safeguarding the rightsof creators and businesses alike This comprehensive report delves into the multifaceted legalissues within the realm of business, with a primary focus on Intellectual Property Law Theevaluation criteria encompass the depth of research, the lucidity and organization of thenarrative, the provision of a thorough overview of the legal issue, and a nuanced understandingof the complexities inherent in Intellectual Property Law.

As we embark on this exploration, it is imperative to recognize that intellectual property,ranging from trademarks and patents to copyrights, plays an instrumental role in shaping thecompetitive landscape Businesses today are propelled by innovation and the relentless pursuitof unique ideas, and the legal safeguards afforded by intellectual property frameworks areinstrumental in fostering a conducive environment for such endeavors This report aims tounravel the legal intricacies surrounding intellectual property, shedding light on the challengesfaced by businesses and the strategies employed to navigate this complex terrain.

The assessment of the report will be grounded in the depth of the research undertaken,emphasizing the importance of a nuanced understanding of legal precedents, contemporaryissues, and evolving trends within the realm of intellectual property Furthermore, the clarityand organization of the narrative will be scrutinized to ensure that the intricate legal conceptsare communicated effectively to a diverse audience The report's success will be measured byits ability to provide a comprehensive overview of the legal issues surrounding intellectualproperty, incorporating a judicious blend of theoretical underpinnings and practicalimplications.

As we unfold the pages of this report, we anticipate a journey through the legal nuances thatunderpin the intellectual property landscape in business The synthesis of extensive research,adept articulation, and a profound comprehension of intellectual property law will undoubtedlycontribute to the holistic evaluation of this report.

II Overview of legal issues

Definition of legal issue (intellectual property violation)

The preservation and advancement of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights,trademarks, brevets (patents), and technological know-how, are subject to legal concerns(intellectual property infringement) When a person or organization makes, uses, copies,manufactures, or distributes a good or service without the owner's consent, it is consideredintellectual property infringement.

Violations of intellectual property can take many different forms, such as:

● Violation of copyright: Reproducing, disseminating, or presenting works without the creator'sconsent.

● Infringement of industrial property rights: Unauthorized utilization of patents, innovations,trade secrets, and industrial designs.

● Producing and dealing with phony and counterfeit items is known as counterfeiting.● Unfair competition: harming rivals via the employment of anti-competitive laws.

That legal aspect is important and its impact on the business

Because it guarantees that the business has the legal authority to utilize, safeguard, and profitfrom its intellectual property, the legal problem of intellectual property is crucial This promotesinnovation, preserves R&D investments, and establishes equitable market conditions forcompetitors.

Businesses may suffer financial losses and reputational harm as a result of intellectual propertyinfractions It may result in the following harms:

● Profit loss: Companies may see a decline in sales as a result of copyright violations,counterfeit items, or counterfeit products.

● Reputational harm: Violating intellectual property rights can harm a company's brand andreputation, making clients less trusting.

● Market loss: Companies may experience a decline in market share as a result of unfaircompetition for their goods.

● Penalties: Businesses that break intellectual property rules may face administrative orcriminal penalties.

III.Real-life example of a business facing this problemCase Study 1

Judgment on intellectual property rights disputes: Copyright lawsuit "Thần Đồng Đất Việt"Related parties:

Plaintiff: Mr Le Phong Linh, born in 1974.Defendant: Ms Phan Thi My Hanh, born in 1965

a Event's happenings

In 2001, artist Le Linh worked at Phan Thi Company and was assigned to create the comicseries Thần Đồng Đất Việt The copyright dispute occurred when in episode 78, Le Linhstopped collaborating with Phan Thi, but Phan Thi later hired another artist to use the images ofthe characters from the previous Thần Đồng Đất Việt to continue working and published theseries from episode 79 onwards without Le Linh's consent.

Artist Le Linh found out that in the copyright registration file, Ms Phan Thi had confirmed thecopyright.

In April 2007, artist Le Linh officially sued Phan Thi Company at the Economic Court of HoChi Minh City, then it was transferred to the People's Court of District 1 to decide to accept andin the following period the case The matter was again transferred to the People's Court of HoChi Minh City.

Artist Le Linh believes that he is the only author, so he has the right to protect the integrity ofthe work, no one has the right to create subsequent episodes based on the characters in his storyand bring the case to court go to the law to resolve it.

On February 18, 2019, at the first instance trial, the Trial Council declared that Le Linh was thesole author of four images in Thần Đồng Đất Việt including Trạng Tí, Sửu Ẹo, Dần Béo, CảMẹo At the same time, it was confirmed that Ms Hanh was not the co-author, forcing Phan Thito stop creating and using these four character images in different variations Phan Thi had toapologize to Mr Le Linh in 3 consecutive installments in 2 newspapers, forcing Phan Thi topay 15 million VND in lawyer fees for Mr Le Linh.

More than 12 years of copyright disputes:

In 2001, artist Le Linh started working at Phan Thi Company and was assigned to create thecomic series TĐĐV The copyright conflict arose after Phan Thi and Le Linh stopped workingtogether in episode 78, but Phan Thi nonetheless paid the artist to continue and publish fromepisode.

In 2007, Le Linh started suing Phan Thi Company and Ms Phan Thi My Hanh; The People'sCourt of District 1 decided to accept the case, but then the case was transferred to the People'sCourt of Ho Chi Minh City.

In 2008, Le Linh repeatedly changed his lawsuit request, then finally withdrew the lawsuit atthe Ho Chi Minh City People's Court and then transferred the lawsuit back to the District 1People's Court.

In 2017, Le Linh asked the court to request an assessment from the Copyright ExaminationCenter.

From May 18 to October 11, 2018, the People's Court of District 1 convened 4 times but therewere not enough representatives for both sides.

On December 28, 2018, the People's Court of District 1 brought the case to trial but postponedit because the defendant was absent.

On January 24, 2019, the first instance trial took place; On February 18, the People's Court ofDistrict 1 announced the first instance verdict.

On July 16, 2019, the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City opened an appeal session accordingto the defendant's appeal; On the morning of September 3, the People's Court of Ho Chi MinhCity upheld the first instance verdict.

b Result

Accepting the Plaintiff's request against Defendant Phan Thi My Hanh:

Recognizing Mr Le Linh as the sole author of the expression of the characters Trang Ti, SuuEo, Dan Beo, Ca Meo in the comic book Than Dong Dat Viet from volume 01 to volume 78according to Copyright Certificates No 246/2002/QTG, 247/2002/QTG, 248/2002/QTG,249/2002/QTG approved by the Copyright Office of the Ministry of Copyright Culture -Information (now the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) issued on May 7, 2002 to theOwner of the work, Phan Thi Information Technology Development and Technical Services

Trading Company Limited (named Currently Phan Thi Educational Communication andEntertainment Company Limited)

Accepting part of the Plaintiff's requests against the Defendant Phan Thi InformationTechnology Development and Technical Services Trading Company Limited:

● Force Phan Thi Educational Media and Entertainment Company Limited to stop creating andusing variations of the expressions of the characters Trạng Tí, Sửu Ẹo, Dần Béo, Cả Mẹo inthe next episodes from episode 79 of the comic Than Dong Dat Viet as well as in otherpublications such as Science and Fine Arts.

● Forced Phan Thi Education and Entertainment Media Company Limited to apologize to Mr.Le Phong Linh in Thanh Nien and Bao Tuoi Tre Newspapers for 03 consecutive issues● Force Phan Thi Media Education and Entertainment Co., Ltd to pay Mr Le Phong Linh the

lawyer's fee of 15,000,000 VND.

● Regarding the series "Vietnamese Prodigy": due to copyright issues of the series, fromepisode 79 onwards and adapted publications not recognized as official series were forced tostop composing and publishing after the trial on September 3, 2019 That's why the seriesonly has 78 official episodes by artist Le Linh, which are confirmed to not violate copyright.

Do not accept the Plaintiff's request to require Phan Thi Educational Media andEntertainment Co., Ltd to pay Mr Le Phong Linh the cost of hiring a lawyer:

● The plaintiff did not withdraw the lawsuit request, and the defendant did not withdraw theappeal request The litigants could not agree on the settlement of the case.

● The litigant's appeal was made within the legal time limit, so it is valid and the Court isrequested to accept it The trial panel and trial participants strictly complied with the lawduring the process of resolving the case at the appeal stage.

● Regarding the content, the First Instance Judgment accepted the Plaintiff's request forcopyright and partially accepted the Plaintiff's request to force the Defendant to stop creatingand using variations of the expression The disputing characters as well as forcing Phan ThiCompany to apologize and compensate for the cost of hiring a lawyer are well-founded inaccordance with the provisions of law.

c Related laws

According to Article 18 of the Intellectual Property Law 2005, amended and supplemented in2009: "Copyright rights to works specified in this Law include personal rights and propertyrights." Except for property rights and moral rights in the form of publication of works, moralrights do not arise in civil transactions but arise in the process of creating works Therefore,even if the plaintiff has a written agreement with the defendant identifying the defendant as a

co-author, this agreement is invalid because the law stipulates that an author cannot transferpersonal rights to others except public rights published works.

Clause 4, Article 19 of the Intellectual Property Law 2005, amended and supplemented in 2009:"Protect the integrity of the work, do not allow others to edit, mutilate or distort the work in anyform that causes harm." to the honor and reputation of the author" Falsifying the image of theoriginal character when Phan Thi made derivative works violated the moral rights of the author.According to Article 20 of the Intellectual Property Law 2005, amended and supplemented in2009: In property rights, there is the right to create derivative works However, when artist LeLinh stopped cooperating with Phan Thi Company, Phan Thi Company continued to producethe next episodes such as Prodigy Dat Viet Science, Fine Arts, But without Mr Le Linh'spermission there were changes in the way the characters were portrayed Through this we cansee that Phan Thi Company and Ms Phan Thi My Hanh have violated the copyright of artist LeLinh.

Case Study 2a Context

A master is the first recording of a recording, from which copies will be made for sale anddistribution Therefore, the owner of the master owns all formats of the recording, such asdigital versions for download and posting on streaming platforms, or physical versionsavailable for download Available on CD and vinyl Anyone wishing to copy a recording mustobtain permission from the owner Before the emergence of digital music platforms, musicartists had to rely on record labels to promote their music products through means such asairplay or physical distribution to retailers These labels often require artists to sign recordingcontracts that give them "perpetual" ownership of the master recording.

In early April 2020, Taylor Swift fans all over the world are excited to be able to re-perform thesongs that made the singer's name right from the beginning of her career However, in order tosuccessfully release this album, the female singer had to face a controversy with her formermanagement company regarding the ownership of the original recordings.

When she began her career in 2005, Taylor Swift signed a recording contract with Big MachineRecords And within the terms of that contract was a clause specifying that Big Machine wouldown the rights to recordings made by Taylor Swift.

When the agreement ended in 2018, the female singer signed a contract with anothermanagement company and was not allowed to own her recordings.

In June 2019, Braun Scooter acquired Big Machine Records for more than 300 million USDand officially became the "new owner" of her records, specifically Taylor's first 6 studioalbums, including Taylor's first 6 studio albums including the album Fearless in 2008.Braun Scooter is free to continue to profit from those recordings and the exploitation iscompletely beyond Taylor Swift's control.In November 2019, Taylor Swift made allegationsagainst Braun and Borchetta, accusing them of barring her from performing her earlier songs atthe 2019 American Music Awards and using them for the 2020 documentary, Miss Americana.Initially, Big Machine Records dismissed Swift’s claims, but later issued a statement sayingthey had “consented to grant all licenses for their artists’ performances for streaming andrebroadcast on mutually agreed platforms” in relation to the American Music Awards; however,the statement did not specifically mention Swift The statement also mentioned that BigMachine was in discussions with the awards show’s producer, Dick Clark Productions;however, Dick Clark Productions refuted this, stating they had never agreed to issue anystatement with Big Machine Braun claimed that he had received death threats from Swift’s fansand expressed a desire to discuss the issue with Swift In April 2020, Big Machine releasedLive from Clear Channel Stripped 2008, a live album featuring Swift’s performances at a 2008radio show for Clear Channel Swift stated that she had not given her authorization for itsrelease, denouncing it as “blatant avarice.” Or to put it another way, Taylor Swift does notreceive any royalties from Braun Scooter's exploitation of her records.

b Event's happenings

When an original piece of music is released, the creator of the music automatically owns thecopyright to the piece of music And in the case of Taylor Swift, based on the UK Copyright,Style and Patents Act 1988, there are a number of factors related to copyright that need to bekept in mind as follows:

● Copyright in the melody, including the notes and instrumental elements that make up the song(This content is protected under Section 3).

● Copyright of song lyrics (this content is protected as a literary work under Section 3)● Copyright of sound recording of song (This content is protected under section 5A)● Under UK copyright law, a song consists of two works: a written work for the lyrics and a

musical work for the music (Section 3 of the Authors, Designs and Patents Act 1988).Therefore, song licensing will have to be done for both works and musical works.

So, Taylor Swift as the song's creator will continue to retain ownership of the melody andlyrics, and the recording was voluntarily transferred in her contract with Big Machine, so ofcourse she no longer has the right to exploit them This means that Big Machine has completerights to exploit these records and transfer them to another third party, Braun Scooter.

IV The importance of the issue to the businessCase Study 1

Determining authorship: The judgment of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City finallyclearly determined that Le Linh is the sole author of the comic book "Vietnamese God",protecting his copyright and fairness This not only strengthens Le Linh's credibility andreputation in the cultural community but also protects his rights and intellectual property Ending the exclusive dispute process: The copyright dispute process lasting more than 12 yearshas brought a lot of pressure and stress to Le Linh This verdict not only ended the disputeprocess but also freed him from psychological and mental pressure related to the lawsuit Protecting copyright in the future: Through this lawsuit, many people can realize theimportance of protecting copyright and intellectual property Le Linh's perseverance anddetermination in protecting her rights can be a valuable lesson for the entire cultural communityand a warning to future copyright violators.

Psychological Impact: The lengthy litigation process may have created significantpsychological pressure on Le Linh He had to face the defendant's non-cooperation andcomplicated legal proceedings However, he never gave up and persistently pursued his rights Encouragement for other authors: This judgment can be a great source of encouragement forother authors, encouraging them to stand up and protect their rights and intellectual property Itshows that justice can be served and their rights can be protected if they are patient anddecisive.

Case Study 2

a Ownership of sound recordings

Contracts: The Taylor Swift case highlights the importance of drafting clear contracts,

especially when it comes to intellectual property rights Businesses need to carefully consider