Posts Tagged: "Copyright Act"

A successful advertising campaign promotes goodwill and brand identity, spurring sales, revenue, and profit.  But success begets imitation.  All too often, imitators attempt to hijack a brand and, with it, all the blood, sweat, tears, and money invested in it. While there are some similarities, the unfortunate reality is trademark enforcement is more nuanced than a game of whack-a-mole.  Not every “mole” is worth whacking, some that are whacked may not respond favorably, and sometimes the mallet just is not strong enough to play. So, what should a trademark owner consider when determining whether to take enforcement action?  The first step is to identify the scope and strength of the trademark.  Next, it is important to determine whether enforcement will obtain the desired results.  Lastly, the impact of inaction should be examined.

U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla of the Western District of Tennessee recently issued an order denying motions made by interactive streaming music provider Spotify to dismiss a case including copyright infringement claims brought by independent music publisher and copyright administration company Bluewater Music Corporation. Judge McCalla’s order determined Bluewater has standing for all 2,142 music compositions it has asserted based on ownership or an exclusive license of the works. Given Bluewater is seeking the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work, Judge McCalla’s order allows Bluewater to continue pursuing a maximum damages award of $321.3 million.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit panel found that the district court had properly dismissed both the direct and the contributory infringement claims with prejudice. Although Cobbler Nevada had established a connection between Gonzales and the offending IP address, establishing a claim of copyright infringement required the plaintiff to show that the defendant himself violated the plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. Citing to the Supreme Court’s standards for pleading under Iqbal/Twombly, the Ninth Circuit determined that this claim involved a situation where the facts pled by the plaintiff stopped short of the line “between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to belief.”

Some circuit courts have held that a work is “registered” and the copyright owner can sue an infringer as soon as the applicant files the application, deposits a copy of the work and pays a fee.  This is known as the “application” approach.  Other circuit courts follow the “registration” approach which requires the Copyright Office to act on the application—by examining it and either approving or refusing it—before the copyright owner may file suit. So, which approach is correct? We should soon have an answer as the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v Wall-Street.com, LLC to resolve this issue and finally decide what it means to be “registered.”

On Thursday, June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that should resolve the long-standing question of whether a copyright plaintiff must have a registration in hand when filing suit or, instead, can merely have an application pending. The case is Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, 17-571… The Solicitor General filed a brief in favor of the court taking the case. That brief urges the high court to adopt the “registration” approach based on the plain language of the statute.

Of all of the things NFL quarterback Tom Brady has been accused of ruining over the years, the internet is not necessarily at the top of the list, and certainly not based on an alleged copyright infringement that he had no part in perpetuating. Yet, a photograph of him and Danny Ainge, the general manager of the Boston Celtics, could in fact forever change the internet and online publishing as we know it.

On February 15, 2018 a New York district court judge – in Goldman v. Breitbart News Network – challenged the reasoning of Perfect 10, and she concluded that one who embeds content may be engaged in a public display, thus making the practice far more risky… In Goldman v Breitbart News, Judge Katherine Forrest ruled that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to rely on the Server Test, and that a website thus can face direct liability, under particular circumstances, for making a display by embedding a copyrighted work in a website. The case involved a copyrighted image of Tom Brady, Danny Ainge and others that was first posted by the photographer as a Snapchat Story, but was soon copied by several individuals on Twitter with accompanying tweets.

Some IP commentators love to hate the Blurred Lines music copyright decision. A primary critique has stoked unnecessary fear in musicians that the decision blurs the line between protectable expression and unprotectable style or genre. Much of the animosity, however, is based on misunderstanding or misconstruing the law or facts. This post clarifies this aspect of the case to show why the district court decision was reasonable and should be affirmed in the current appeal at the Ninth Circuit.

A complaint was filed in the Northern District of California on behalf of Naruto, at the time a six-year-old crested macaque residing in the Tangkoko Reserve located on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi… The plaintiffs argued that Naruto is the author of the monkey selfie and has the right to own and benefit from the copyright to that photo. “Had the Monkey Selfies been made by a human using Slater’s unattended camera, that human would be declared the photographs’ author and copyright owner,” the complaint reads. Although the plaintiffs acknowledge that claims of authorship by members of species other than homo sapiens are novel, they argue that 17 U.S.C. § 101 defines authorship broadly enough that Naruto should be afforded a claim of copyright ownership.

An increasing trend in copyright infringement suits filed in the United States has tattoo artists bringing suit against entertainment entities, and in some cases against the tattoo bearer themselves, for the reproduction or recreation of tattoos they created. Most commentators would likely conclude that tattoos are eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act. However, it is important to note that a distinction can be made between the copyright in the design of the tattoo and the copyright in the tattoo as it is reproduced on the body of a person

When it comes to television shows, it not always clear what is “copyrightable.” Sometimes, filmmakers and screen writers can get into serious trouble if they don’t follow specific television copyright laws accordingly. Austin-based filmmaker Lex Lybrand watched the June 4th episode of the hit HBO series “Silicon Valley” to shockingly find strong similarities between the episode “The Patent Troll” and his own film “The Trolls.” Jed Wakefield of Fenwick & West recently sat down with IPWatchdog to discuss Lybrand’s case and the impact of copyright infringement when it comes to movie scripts.

Without laches, accused infringers might more frequently invoke declaratory judgment to clear their products and services upfront rather than tolerate a looming threat of suit for years…. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC (Mar. 21, 2017) eliminated the equitable defense of laches in patent cases.  While time will reveal the impact of the SCA decision, elimination of laches, an equitable defense against “unreasonable, prejudicial delay in commencing suit,” Id. at 3 (citing Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.(2014), provides greater security to patent owners who assert claims several years after discovering potential infringement.  Conversely, the decision removes one shield—albeit a relatively modest shield—from the accused infringer’s armament of potential defenses. 

The Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, which addressed whether copyright protection can extend to the graphic designs depicted on cheerleading uniforms. The sole inquiry in Star Athletica was the meaning of a provision in the Copyright Act which permits copyright protection for the design of a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work, but only to the extent that the design can be identified separately from, and is capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. Essentially, the question in Star Athletica was whether a copyright could extend to a graphical design that allegedly made a useful product more desirable because it satisfied the aesthetic demands of target purchasers. But will the Supreme Court’s decision in Star Athletica lead to more expansive protection for clothing designs? The result, I fear, is that the decision will serve to raise more questions than it resolved.

The ruling has wide implications for both the fashion apparel and home furnishings industry, both of which rely on distinctive, eye-catching designs to sell products. The upshot for clothing and furniture companies is that the Varsity Brands ruling gives product manufacturers an additional tool to combat knock-off designs. With that in mind, manufacturers should review their product line to ensure their copyright-eligible products are protected under this new standard.