Copyright Law

Subscribe to Copyright Law via RSS

 By: Scott Hervey

From all appearances, it would have been a fight worth watching. In one corner was the Beastie Boys, the Brooklyn bread, 80s powerhouse rap group; they aggressively enforce their intellectual property rights and have never allowed their music to be used in advertisements.  (This commitment was so important to the group that in his will, Adam “MCA” Yauch stated that "in no event may my image or name or any music or any artistic property created by me be used for advertising purposes.") In the other corner was GoldieBlox, an upstart toy company, founded by a Stanford-educated product designer, with a goal to disrupt the current vision of “toys for girls” and inspire the next generation of female engineers.
Continue Reading GoldieBlox v. Beastie Boys – “Girls To Bring A Lawsuit”

 By: Audrey A. Millemann     

 

      In Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment, Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC, 2013 US App. LEXIS 22517 (9th Cir., November 6, 2013), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an issue of first impression in this circuit: whether a claim of copyright infringement based on disputed ownership would be time-barred if a free standing ownership claim was also time-barred. The court held that it would. 

            This dispute has a lengthy and complicated procedural history. It was litigated for over ten years in several different cases in two countries. The copyrights in issue are for three films: “Rules of Engagement,” “An American Rhapsody,” and “Who is Cletis Tout?.” The plaintiff is Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment, a British production company, who acquired the rights in the films from its predecessor.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Watch Out for Statute of Limitations for Copyright Infringement

 By: Lisa Y. Wang

This month, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board ruled that Bottega Veneta, a luxury Italian fashion brand, well known for its "weave design" handbags and accessories, could register a trademark for that specific design. Bottega Veneta handbags and accessories do not have obvious logos on the outside, signifying its origin. Instead, the weave patterns, multiple thin strips of leather forming a weave pattern (much like a basket weave) at a 45 degree angle, serves as its "trademark" and source of origin. Bottega Veneta claims that it created this very specific leather weaving technique and pattern, known as intrecciato, in the 1960’s.   Since there is no logo, this easily made weave pattern is constantly copied by fast fashion retailers and other brands, hence Bottega Veneta’s attempt to register a trademark for that specific pattern.

Continue Reading Weaving a Trademark

By James Kachmar

The great reggae musician Bob Marley passed away more than 30 years ago. Nevertheless, litigation surrounding his music legacy continues on. The Ninth Circuit recently issued an opinion in Rock River Communications, Inc. v. Universal Music Group, Inc. that dealt again with the issue of who owns the rights to Mr. Marley’s music. 

Rock River is a producer and distributor of music records. In 2006, it entered into a licensing agreement with San Juan Music Group that granted it a non-exclusive license to “sample” 16 musical recordings performed by Bob Marley and the Wailers. San Juan has been licensing Mr. Marley’s music since 1980 through an agreement with a producer of Mr. Marley’s early recordings, Lee Perry. 

Rock River made a series of remixes based on the recordings it had licensed from San Juan and created an album titled, “Roots, Rock, Remixed.” Rock River intended to sell the album on iTunes, distribute it in record stores, and also had plans to allow the use of one of its recordings in the film “Dear John”.   Rock River was unaware that any entity had disputed San Juan’s right to license Mr. Marley’s early recordings.Continue Reading Roots, Reggae, Remixes – and Litigation

By Lisa Y. Wang

As New York Fashion Week carries on, so does fashion litigation. One brand that is constantly “copied” is Herve Leger, famous for their bandage dress. While a Herve Leger bandage dress can cost you thousands, stores and brands all over have copied the style and sold their own versions of the bandage dress for much less. However, fashion protection for clothing is limited, which is why fast fashion stores are able to copy your favorite runway designs, most of the time without getting sued.

Fast Fashion retailers, Forever 21 in particular, are often successful at trial partly due to the higher standard of creativity required to qualify for copyright protection for fashion items, which courts consider “useful articles,” which is “an object that has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information.” Courts use a higher standard to prevent stifling innovation in the industry – after all, there’s only so many ways you can vary a plaid pattern and a shirt still has to have holes for your arms and head. For example, Express lost a case against Forever 21 – and had to pay Forever 21’s $700,000 in legal fees – because it couldn’t prove that its plaid designs were original enough to be protected.  If Express had won, where would courts draw the line? Next could be polka dots, stripes, etc.  Fashion could come to a screeching halt if one brand had copyright protection over every incarnation of polka dots. Continue Reading A Dress’ Trade Dress