Copyright Law

Subscribe to Copyright Law via RSS

Recently, Wikimedia (the entity behind Wikipedia) has refused repeated requests from professional photographer David Slater to remove from one of his most famous photos from its royalty free photo collection website.  The photo at issue is a “monkey selfie.” Slater claims he owns the copyright to the photo and Wikimedia is using it without his permission.  Bananas! claimed Wikimedia;  a recent report reveals that Wikimedia editors decided that Mr Slater has no claim on the image as the monkey itself took the picture.

In what must be the wildest of luck, Slater was visiting a North Sulawesi national park in Indonesia when a black macaque grabbed an errant camera and took an amazing array of self-portraits.   These amazing pictures ran in an July 5 article about the incident in the UK’s Daily Mail.  Two of the four pictures featured in the article included a copyright notice indicating Caters News Agency (Slater’s photo agency) as the owner.

Can Canters News Agency or Mr. Slater own the copyright in the photos taken by this highly intelligent and obviously photogenic?   In order for this to be the case, the monkey would have to be an author under the Copyright Act.    And if a monkey can be considered an author, he or she would have to assign or transfer the copyright in the photos to Caters News Agency.
Continue Reading Copyright Ownership Claim Of Pictures Taken By Wild Ape is Monkey Business

transparentOn June 17, 2014, a federal judge in Illinois granted summary judgment to Stefani Joanne Germanotta against plaintiff, Rebecca Francescatti, in a copyright infringement matter because he found that no reasonable trier of fact could find that Ms. Germanotta’s song, “Judas,” is substantially similar to Ms. Francescatti’s song, “Juda.”  You may wonder, why you should care about these two unknown figures in the music industry, but the truth is, Ms. Germanotta is far from unknown.  In fact, she has been a staple in the pop music industry since she burst onto the scene in 2008 with the release of her album, “The Fame,” which had such hits as “Just Dance” and “Poker Face.”  By now you may have guessed—Ms. Germanotta is none other than Lady Gaga.

In her complaint, Ms. Francescatti alleged that Lady Gaga’s song, “Judas,” from the album “Born This Way,” infringed Francescatti’s copyright in her song, “Juda.”  According to Ms. Francescatti, she worked with co-defendant sound engineer, Brian Joseph Gaynor, to write “Juda” in 1999.  Ms. Francescatti alleged that Mr. Gaynor later collaborated with Lady Gaga in 2010 to create “Judas.”  According to Ms. Francescatti, the two songs have remarkably similar melodies, structure, bass lines, and further similar features.  This allegation was unsupported by expert testimony.
Continue Reading When is Enough Really Enough? The Importance of Experts in Music Copyright Infringement Actions

Litigants know that obtaining a judgment against an adversary is only half the battle.  Sometimes the efforts a litigant must expend to collect on that judgment are just as significant, if not more so, than obtaining the judgment.  In looking for assets to satisfy a judgment, litigants are reminded that a defendant’s intellectual property, including any copyrights, may be subject to execution to satisfy an unpaid judgment. This issue was recently explored in a Ninth Circuit case titled, Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. George Clinton (the funk music superstar).

Clinton was a pioneer in funk music starring in bands such as Funkadelic and Parliament.  During the last ten years, however, he racked up legal fees with Hendricks & Lewis in excess of $3 million.  Hendricks & Lewis obtained an arbitration award in excess of $1.6 million that was later confirmed as a judgment against Clinton.

After receiving only a portion of the outstanding judgment through various collection methods, Hendricks & Lewis asked a U.S. District Court to appoint a receiver who would then attempt to sell Clinton’s copyrights in his various music to help satisfy the judgment.  The District Court agreed and appointed a receiver to do so.  Clinton then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

One additional set of facts that is crucial to the outcome of this case was the history of Clinton’s copyrights in his music.  In July 1975, Clinton, through his production company, Thang, Inc., entered into a recording contract with Warner Bros. Records in which he agreed to make master recordings of his performances with Funkadelic.  The agreement made clear that Warner Bros. was to own in perpetuity all rights in the recordings and that neither Thang nor Clinton would have any rights.  This included an acknowledgment that Warner Bros. owned the copyrights in the recordings.  Clinton signed a similar agreement again with Warner Bros. in 1979.  Later, Clinton and Warner Bros. had various disputes and in 1982 entered into a settlement agreement under which Warner Bros. agreed to relinquish its ownership, including its copyrights, in the recordings to Clinton. In 2005, a U.S. District Court in California recognized that Clinton was the sole owner of the copyrights for the recordings.

On appeal, Clinton argued that: (1) his copyrights were not subject to execution to satisfy a judgment; and (2) even if they were, he was entitled to protection under section 201(e) of the Copyright Act which forbids the “involuntary transfer” of a copyright.

The Ninth Circuit began by recognizing that judgment collection proceedings are governed under state law.  Washington law provides that: “All property, real and personal, of the judgment debtor that is not exempted by law is liable to execution.”  Although the Ninth Circuit could not find any cases that held that a copyright was subject to execution, the U.S. Supreme Court had long ago held that a judgment debtor’s interest in a patent could be assigned to satisfy a judgment.  The Ninth Circuit reasoned “that where copyright case law is lacking, ‘it is appropriate to look for guidance to patent law ‘because of the historic kinship between patent law and copyright right law.’’”  The Court also found it relevant that it had previously held in a case arising out of California, in Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696, that a judgment debtor’s internet domain name could also be subject to execution.
Continue Reading Funk, Copyrights, and Collecting Judgments

transparentWith the prevalence of smartphones in today’s society, one cannot help but to have at least heard of Google’s Android operating system.  This operating system came about with the intent of competing with the superpower known as Apple’s iPhone.  Of course, when Google released this platform for the first time in 2007, the Android operating system was perceived to be the first generation.  Recently, however, an Illinois man asserted that perhaps Google’s Android was not the first generation.  Well, not quite, but he did assert that Google infringed his federally registered trademark, “Android Data.”

During the Dot.com Boom of the late 1990s Erich Specht decided he wanted to get into the lucrative software business.  As such, in 1998, he founded a suite of e-commerce software that became known as Android Data Corporation (“ADC”).  Through his entity, he intended to license software to his would-be clients, and provided website hosting and computer consulting services.   Two years after the company’s inception, Mr. Specht applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for federal registration of the “Android Data” mark.  The mark was registered in 2002.

Unfortunately for Mr. Specht, by the end of 2002, his company had hit the end of the road.  It ceased all major operations, lost the bulk of its clients, and moved its headquarters into Mr. Specht’s home.  Mr. Specht then caused ADC to transfer the Android Data mark to his wholly-owned company, The Android’s Dungeon Incorporated (“ADI”).  For the remainder of the year, Mr. Specht attempted to sell ADC’s assets, including the mark, but was unable to find a willing buyer.  He kept the ADC website running for a short period thereafter, but eventually allowed the registration for the company URL to lapse.
Continue Reading Google’s Android: Was It Truly The First Generation?

In one corner, Paula Petrella, the daughter of Frank Petrella, co-author of the 1963 Raging Bull screenplays and book.  In the other corner, MGM, the owner of the copyright in the critically acclaimed motion picture Raging Bull, based on the life of boxing champion Jake LaMotta.   At issue, a 2009 copyright infringement suit against MGM in which Petrella alleged that MGM violated and continued to violate her copyright in the 1963 screenplay by using, producing, and distributing the Raging Bull motion picture.  MGM, landed two very solid blows in both the District Court of the Central District of California and at the 9th Circuit;  MGM was able to have Petrella’s case dismissed on the equitable doctrine of laches.  However, the Supreme Court decided that Petrella could go another round.

After retiring from boxing, Jake LaMotta worked with Frank Petrella to tell his life story.  Their efforts resulted in two screenplays, one registered in 1963, the other in 1973, and a book, registered in 1970.  In 1976, Frank Petrella and LaMotta assigned their rights in the three works, including renewal rights, to Chartoff-Winkler Productions, Inc. Two years later, an MGM subsidiary, United Artists, acquired the motion picture rights to the book and both screenplays.  In 1980, MGM released the film Raging Bull.

A year after the release of the film, Frank Petrella died.  Works registered under the pre-1978 regime (such as the 1963 screenplay) enjoyed an initial 28-year period of protection followed by a renewal period of up to 67 years.  Congress provided that the author’s heirs inherit the renewal rights.  Since Frank’s death occurred during the initial terms of the copyrights in the screenplays and book, his renewal rights reverted to his daughter, who could renew the copyrights unburdened by Frank’s assignment of the renewal right to Chartoff-Winkler.  Paula Petrella renewed the copyright in the 1963 screenplay in 1991.  (The copyrights in the other screenplay and book were not timely renewed.)  In 1998, Petrella’s attorney informed MGM that Petrella was the owner of the copyright in the 1963 screenplay and that MGM’s exploitation of any derivative work, including the Raging Bull motion picture,  infringed her copyright.  For two years, Petrella and MGM took jabs at each other by exchanging letters in which MGM denied the validity of the infringement claims and Petrella repeatedly threatened to take legal action.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Says Raging Bull Copyright Case To Go Another Round