Brian Buss to speak at IMCX 2019 – Influencer Marketing Conference & Expo – Los Angles, CA – July 9-11

Brian Buss to speak at IMCX 2019 – Influencer Marketing Conference & Expo – Los Angles, CA – July 9-11

Brian Buss to speak at IMCX 2019 – Influencer Marketing Conference & Expo – Los Angles, CA – July 9-11

Influencer Marketing Conference & Expo is a 3 day networking and educational event for social media influencersbrandsdigital marketers dedicated to influencer marketing.
The Los Angeles Convention Center, CA, USA

Influencer Marketing is a growing trend as Instagram stars and YouTube personalities have given rise to a new type of insta-celebrity but how much is their reach really worth?

Brian Buss IMCX 2019

Read our article “Calculating the Value of Influencer Marketing and Impact of Infringement” published in Attorney at Law Magazine.

Are disparaging statements harming the economic interests in your business?

Are disparaging statements harming the economic interests in your business?

Defamation implies some willful action against the company and its brand. Disparagement can result from the spread of popular stories and myths and may or may not be the result of actions taken by the company. Either way, the financial and economic impact can be substantial.

‘Defamation’ is defined as “the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander” (www.dictionary.law.com). ‘Disparage’ is defined as “to speak of or treat slightingly; to bring reproach or discredit upon, lower the estimation of” (www.dictionary.reference.com).

Read our article “Estimating and managing the economic impact of brand disparagement” published in World Trademark Review.

Nevium Written Up in Attorney at Law Magazine

Nevium Written Up in Attorney at Law Magazine

Calculating the Value of Influencer Marketing and Impact of Infringement

Nevium has been featured in Attorney Law Magazine. The article explores the topic of influencer marketing and the various internet analytic and intangible asset valuation tools used to quantify the value.

The article dives into the four factors that Nevium uses to evaluate the benefits of an endorsement. The four factors include:

  1. Level of Celebrity
  2. Level of Endorsement
  3. Level of Use
  4. Level of Connection

Using the factors, Nevium is able to determine if the celebrity is a strong fit with the endorsed product. These factors can be leveraged when companies are trying to figure out what personality to use with a product or for false endorsement lawsuits when a celebrity’s name and likeness has been used without permission.

You can read the Attorney at Law Magazine’s article Calculating the Value of Influencer Marketing and Impact of Infringement on their website.

Nevium written up in Forbes

Nevium written up in Forbes

Influencer Marketing & IP

Nevium has been featured in Forbes by Mary Juetten. Mary has written an article that explores Nevium’s expertise in using internet analytic tools to determine IP value and damages related to infringement of influencer marketing.

Mary’s article also includes a Q & A with Nevium’s principals, Doug Bania and Brian Buss. The topics are focused on being an entrepreneur and include discussions on how Nevium was formed and what problems Nevium are solving.

Take a moment and read the article entitled Nevium: Influencer Marketing Meets Intellectual Property.

Copyright Apportionment In The Blurred Lines Trial

Doug Bania from the San Diego consulting firm, Nevium Intellectual Property Solutions, testified as the Plaintiffs’ and Counter-Defendants’ Copyright Apportionment Expert testifying in the area of Damages and Apportionment.  Mr. Bania was engaged by King, Holmes, Paterno & Berliner to consult on behalf of their clients; Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke and Clifford Harris, Jr. for the litigation matter in the USDC, Central District of California case captioned Pharrell Williams, et al. v. Bridgeport Music, Inc.; The “Blurred Lines” case.

Mr. Bania has over 13 years of experience analyzing, valuing and apportioning intellectual properties and intangible assets including song royalties for tax and estate purposes.  He has analyzed a wide range of intellectual properties, including trademarks, Internet assets, rights of publicity and copyrights in a variety of contexts.  Mr. Bania is a a Certified Licensing Professional (CLP) and holds a MA from San Diego State University in Television, Film and New Media Production; and a Bachelor’s Degree in Cinema from San Francisco State University.

Mr. Bania reviewed the history of the song “Blurred Lines” including the marketing, social media activity, videos and sales numbers and performed an analysis on the copyrights and the other elements related to the song and video to determine what portion of the song’s success was attributable to the alleged infringement at issue in the case.  Specifically, Mr. Bania described the typical structure of a composition and a sound recording of that composition and explained how rights are divided amongst the various copyrights. Mr. Bania identified the factors that contributed to the success of the composition and sound recording titled “Blurred Lines” and determined what portion of success of the song was due specifically to the use of certain musical elements found in Marvin Gaye, Jr.’s composition of the song “Got To Give It Up” that are claimed by the Defendants in this case.

A copyright protects the expression of an idea but not the actual product or process that is provided to customers.  Therefore, the copyrights that protect a song require additional resources such as recording facilities, human capital, marketing and distribution assets, and other tangible and intangible assets in order to generate revenues, profits and economic benefits from the song.  “Copyright protection alone does not create economic benefit, and the owner of a copyright must use additional assets and resources to generate economic benefits”, states Bania.

Mr. Bania explained to the Jury that copyrights depend on other assets and resources to generate revenue.  For example, in the music industry a songwriter who writes a song does not make money simply from the act of writing or committing the music and lyrics to paper.  The songwriter typically records the song and works with a record label to promote the resulting sound recording or works with a publisher to promote their song.  Similar to publishers, recording artists generally rely on the record label’s financial resources, relationships with radio, television and other media, and marketing and promotional skills in order generate economic benefit from the exploitation of their songs and the recordings thereof.

As the copyrights related to a song rely on other assets and resources to become successful and generate revenue, the copyrights do not provide 100% of the revenue, profits or success achieved from the sale of a song.  Bania said,  “A claim by a copyright holder based on 100% of achieved profits would overestimate the contribution of IP to the product allegedly using that IP”.

As a result of Mr. Bania’s analysis described, the success of “Blurred Lines” was due to a combination of factors beyond the Song itself, including substantial contributions from the videos, extensive marketing and promotional efforts; and social media discussions and promotions.  The success of “Blurred Lines” appears to have been the result of several factors not related to the claimed musical elements.

The claimed musical elements have made a minimal contribution to the success of the song.  The Videos, marketing and social media related to “Blurred Lines” each made substantial contributions to the success of the song, as measured using data from SoundScan.  If the Defendants are able to establish liability, the Defendants would only be entitled to a fraction of any economic benefits derived from the success of “Blurred Lines.”