Boop Boop Be Doo!
Call us with your feedback:
In this Episode:
- Follow Ups
- Penguin Group
- Golan v. Holder
- Documentary/Reality and privacy rights
- Cariou v. Prince
- Betty Boop
- and more…
GET CLE CREDIT for this episode.
Posting of Entire News Article is Fair Use, Says Judge in Righthaven Copyright Litigation :
Supreme Court denies Eminem royalties hearing
Detroit Free Press: http://tinyurl.com/67xgoe9
In the wake of the FBT case…
Rick James Estate Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Universal Music Over Digital Revenue http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/rick-james-estate-files-class-174323
WGA, AMPTP agree on new contract
Jonathan Handel’s article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/25/industry-us-wga-idUSTRE72O76320110325
Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha
Golan v. Holder (questioning constitutionality of recapture of copyrights in foreign PD works)
Supreme Court To Hear Challenge To Copyright Term Extension Act With Regard To Foreign Works (Golan v. Holder)
Copyright Take-Backs? Supreme Court Grants Cert in Golan v. Holder
Restoring Copyright to Public Domain Works – Adam Liptak – NYTimes.com
Lexology: http://miniurl.org/7Mk, http://tinyurl.com/49tzkdf
The big question: Is Congress free to restore copyright protection to works that had entered the public domain and become public property?
Obama Administration – tough new laws for IP proposed
Hollywood Docket: Obama Administration Proposes Tough New IP Laws
Obama “IP czar” wants felony charges for illegal Web streaming
The White House IP Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, has published 20 legislative recommendations to Congress. Some of the relevant recommendations include:
1. Making infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, a felony. Currently, “reproducing” and “distributing” copyrighted works are felony charges but streaming, which seems more like a “public performance” is not a felony. This legislative change would impose felony charges on streaming pirated works.
2. Giving wiretap authority to the FBI and other federal agencies for intellectual property crimes, particularly criminal copyright and trademark cases.
3. Creating a public performance right for sound recordings transmitted by over-the-air broadcast stations. Currently, radio stations pay songwriters for the music they play but don’t have to pay the bands who recorded the material.
Rights of privacy and publicity
Mich. high court sides with Dr. Dre in spat over concert footage
Bowens v. Ary, Inc. Mi. Supreme Court
SC: 140296 COA: 282711 Wayne CC: 02-233251-CZ
No expectation of privacy when public official is executing the duties of his office.
Reality Show did not violate right of publicity of arrestee.
Best v. Berard http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e28f0e79-6c37-4d0d-b9ce-d3d908b5586a
A state agency’s decision to award $1500 each to 23 black moviegoers at “Tyler Perry’s Why Did I Get Married?” is reversed.
Copyright and other cases
Cariou v. Prince (Art Litigation)
In this case, photographer Patrick Cariou claimed that “appropriation” artist Richard Prince infringed Cariou’s copyrighted photographs of Rastafarians in a series of collages and paintings created by Prince and sold by his art dealer (and co-defendant) the Gagosian Gallery. Court finds AGAINST fair use.
Betty Boop (*Fleischer v. A.V.E.L.A.)
Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc.
Fleischer Studios v. A.V.E.L.A. (Betty Boop case) (A.V.E.L.A = Art & Vintage En tertainment Licensing Agency)
Fleischer studios (merchandise licensor of Boop for use in toys, dolls, etc.) brought action against A.V.E.L.A. (competitor, licenses and uses Boop image on dolls, t-shirts and handbags) alleging copyright and TM infringement in the “Betty Boop” character. A.V.E.L.A. moved for summary judgment (granted). Fleischer appealed district court’s ruling that Fleischer held neither a valid copyright nor a valid TM in the Betty Boop character. Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Can Warner Bros. Stop Others From Using ‘Wizard of Oz’ Characters?
Bath & Body Works v. Summit – dispute over “Twilight” line of toiletries
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.
This case involves trademark ownership of the stitch design on the back pocket of blue jeans. Specifically, Levi believes that the stitch used on the back pocket for Abercrombie &Fitch blue jeans is too close in design to the stitch used on Levi’s blue jeans.
Damages order: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/limewiredamagesorder.pdf
If you like what we do here each time, please do us two favors. Give us a review in the iTunes store, and tell your friends and colleagues about the show.
DON’T FORGET YOUR CLE CREDIT.
- Jonathan Handel: WGA Ballots on the Way (huffingtonpost.com)
- Will Golan v. Holder affect the Google Books settlement? (radar.oreilly.com)
- Copyright 2.0 Show – Episode 189 (plagiarismtoday.com)
- Copyright Take-Backs? Supreme Court Grants Cert in Golan v. Holder (ericgoldman.org)