Pages

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Expert Advice for Industry Liabilities


Gordon Firemark is the producer of various podcasts entitled Entertainment Law Update available on iTunes for free. During each of his podcasts, he discusses various legal cases with other attorneys. While discussing different forms of copyright, he talked about the case of Faulkner Literary Rights v. Sony Pictures Classic. In this particular case, there was a debate over the phrase “The Past is Never Dead… It’s Not Even Past.” Faulkner is suing Sony for using it in a movie. Federal Judge agreed that it’s not Copyright Infringement; referring to it as a small portion from the book (9-word quote).

Looking at the use of video games, EA Sports was in court (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) because they were being used for using collegiate athlete’s likeness. This isn’t protected under the Fist Amendment. According to the research, student athletes cannot be compensated for use of their likeness. EA Sport’s defense is that he students’ names are not being used on the jerseys in the video games. The court’s ruling found that elements of the athlete’s likeness were found in the game but it did not go far enough to be considered infringement.

In 2011, musical group No Doubt sued ActiVision over the video game Band Hero’s unauthorized use of their image. The court’s ruling decided that creative elements of their likeness in the game were used for commercial exploitation of the band’s image and that it wasn’t fair use.

(Firemark, Episode 43 - No Copyright, Sherlock)

 --------------------------------------------------------------

 In November 2011, Julie Tamor (author and director) sued the producers of Spiderman “Turn of the Dark” for firing her. She was claiming royalties were not properly paid out to her. The producers filed a counterclaim stating that it took them a lot of efforts to save the show after she was fired. In August 2012, there was a preliminary settlement of the case being dismissed. As of May 2013, both parties are still pushing for the case to go to trial.

Photographer David Harney took a picture of a father and his daughter. It turns out that the father had kidnapped his own child from a different country and brought her to the US. Later on there were actors portrayed of the father-daughter in a movie so Harney sued Sony Pictures for copyright infringement. The jury awarded the photographer monies; after appeal, courts ruled that there was no way that the jury could determine that there was any copyright infringement because the photographer has nothing to do with the creative elements of the photo (photos were notably different in composition and color making them different). Attorneys are questioning what copyright protected elements does the photographers hold in the photo as well as what was the purpose for the photo being included in the movie. The court is not giving credit to the photographer even though he actually stopped the father in the street to take the photo of them.

Subway is trying to sue another restaurant that is claiming that their sandwiches are 12 inch. Others are claiming that subway’s sandwiches are only 11 inches long. Looking from a trademark standpoint, there are no registrations occurring because other restaurants have been blocking them. The “foot long” claims are descriptive but not actually the size of the food. The question of puffery comes up when people are starting to ask, “Does the consumer have a reasonable expectation of the sandwich really being 12 inches long?”

Copyright for Students and Teachers: What right does the school have to the work of students to display throughout the school when they want? Students should be able to own their works that they create while in school. Copyrights are being conveyed to the school board and districts. School districts want to be given recognition for the works. Students are being asked to sign over rights of research when grants are being provided to allow them to do the works.

(Firemark, Episode 38 - When a Foot is Only 11 Inches, and a Batmobile is a Character)

_____________________________________________ 

Questions of misrepresentation come up in the case of William Eggleston. An art collector purchased 8 photographic works from Eggleston claiming that they were a part of a limited edition collection (16x20 in size individually numbered). Eggleston reprinted more of the images in different sizes, mediums and production dates and sold them. This caused the originals to decrease in value. Lower courts dismissed all claims of infringement; stating that they are all different from each other.

(Firemark, Episode 40 - Areo, ReDigi, Veoh & IMDB)



----- Jackee Walker

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Sources:
Firemark, G. (n.d.). Episode 38 - When a Foot is Only 11 Inches, and a Batmobile is a Character. Entertainment Law Update Podcast .
Firemark, G. (n.d.). Episode 40 - Areo, ReDigi, Veoh & IMDB. Entertainment Law Update Podcast .
Firemark, G. (n.d.). Episode 43 - No Copyright, Sherlock. Entertainment Law Update Podcast .

No comments:

Post a Comment