Shameless Promotion: IP Law Blogger and WGC partner, Scott Hervey, served as production counsel for Hulk Hogan’s Celebrity Championship Wrestling. Be sure to tune in October 18th.
Go to www.hulkhogan.com to view the show’s trailer.
Football’s Voice of God Sues NFL Films for False Endorsement
By Scott Hervey
John Facenda is a football legend. His deep, baritone voice is “distinctive,” some say “legendary.” Without question, for most football fans, John Facenda was the voice of NFL Films.
For decades Facenda worked for NFL Films as an off camera commentator. He worked on a session by session basis under an oral agreement, receiving a per performance fee. Shortly before he died in 1984, Facenda signed a “standard release” contract with NFL Films which stated that NFL Films enjoys “the unequivocal right to use the audio and visual film sequences recorded of me, or any part of them… in perpetuity and by whatever media or manner NFL Films…sees fit, provided, however, such use does not constitute an endorsement of any product or service.” (Emphasis added.)
In 2005, NFL Films produced a 22 minute long television program entitled “The Making of Madden NFL 2006.” The program was about the soon to be released version of the highly popular video game, Madden NFL. The program featured interviews with NFL players and game producers; it contained several sequences comparing the games virtual environment with the actual NFL playing environment, and commented on the realism of the graphic quality of the video game. The program also featured audio and video clips from pervious NFL Films productions, including three sentences, lasting a total of 13 seconds, that were read by Facenda. The producers of the program modified Facenda’s audio clips to make his voice sound more like a computer.
Facenda’s estate sued NFL Films and others claiming that the use of Facenda’s voice in the program falsely implied that Facenda or his estate had agreed to endorse the video game.
Continue Reading Football’s Voice of God Sues NFL Films for False Endorsement
https://www.theiplawblog.com/2008/09/articles/copyright-law/2842/
By Sarra Ziari
On August 20, 2008, in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., Judge Fogel of the United States District Court, N.D. California ruled that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), and issued a warning against the misuse of takedown notices by overreaching copyright owners. Continue Reading https://www.theiplawblog.com/2008/09/articles/copyright-law/2842/
Viacom V. Youtube: Are Our Internet Privacy Rights Really In Danger?
By: Dale C. Campbell and Serena Crouch, Third Year Law Student at McGeorge School of Law
Internet users and privacy advocates across the nation fear they are losing the continuing battle to protect internet privacy rights. A court decision in a lawsuit between Viacom and YouTube.com is the most recent battlefield regarding data likely to provide the video viewing habits of millions around the world.
In March 2007, Viacom sued YouTube and Google, Inc. in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, seeking at least $1 billion in damages for alleged copyright infringement. Viacom claims that YouTube built its business by willfully offering Viacom’s copyright protected material such as episodes of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and the cartoon “SpongeBob SquarePants.” Viacom claims that neither YouTube nor its users are licensed to upload its material in the manner it is being used.Continue Reading Viacom V. Youtube: Are Our Internet Privacy Rights Really In Danger?
The Ninth Circuit Just Doesn’t Like Karaoke
The Ninth Circuit just doesn’t like karaoke. At least, that’s what plaintiffs, manufacturers of karaoke machines, in two recent opinions involving copyright law would likely say. In both decisions, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ dismissal of the complaints without leave to amend. Both of these decisions discussed the various copyrights that are implicated in a karaoke device, including the copyright of the performance of the song itself, the song lyrics, and the synchronization of the two. Both decisions also involved the licenses required by karaoke device manufacturers.Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Just Doesn’t Like Karaoke