Watch Oz (or Ozzy)

Ozzy Osbourne is worth watching.

Legal blogger David H. Evans  for Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (USA) explains with highly readable dry wit that "Ozzy Osbourne is an Antitrust Plaintiff."

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f540eeef-f909-4006-935f-c696c4a0fdc3&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2018-03-28&utm_term=

IMHO, if Ozzy Osbourne proves that it is anti-trust for a creator to be obliged to play in (what that creator feels is) an undesirable venue in order to be allowed to play in (what that creator feels is) a desirable venue...would this have implications for creators in other categories of the Arts who wish to "play" in one arena, but not in another?

For instance, in an Amazon book store, but not in KU?

And from Down Under, Oz legal bloggers John Hannebery  and  Lachlan Sadler   for Davies Collison Cave explore the possibility that "You won't own copyright in photos taken with Google's new camera."

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f7dd0d4-f44d-4d38-a0d4-04712e978956&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2018-03-28&utm_term=

Although the article is written for an Australian audience, the bloggers suggest that the "Clip" might have the most interesting consequences for American photographers.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry