CONTENT FROM THE EYE OF THE LAW.

A THREAD.

The term "content" has been used so loosely, most contracts fail to define it in clear terms and those who try to, miss the ball. This is an important exercise as we have won major contests in court from failure of parties to define what the content is.

This leaves a vast scope of interpretation which is vague.

Content simply put is any piece of information put out for publication. From a legal perspective, this is not a sufficient definition as it is not a 'one fit all size'. Identifying what "content" is from a legal angle...

...depends largely on the context within which it is being used.

In the context of musical works, content is usually used in relation to distribution and consumption. The music content in this context is the "recording". The other accompanying acts such as lyrics, melody....

... harmonies, musical arrangements e.t.c. for the purposes of this conversation are "contents of the content".

In like vein, the content in an audiovisual work is the film. Every other accompaniment like the script, soundtracks, dramatic performances e.t.c....

.... are mere contents of the content.

Establishing that what the content is dependent on the context within which it is used, we now know that while a recording may be the content in context of a Song, it may not be the content in an audiovisual work.

....

...
Conclusively, it is of utmost importance that in business dealings within the entertainment space, content is clearly defined.

DO YOU NOW KNOW WHAT THE CONTENT IS?