Photo of Scott Hervey

Scott Hervey

Subscribe to Scott Hervey's Posts

Scott Hervey is a corporate and intellectual property attorney at Weintraub Tobin who works with companies in a variety of different industries. His clients include wineries, restaurants, technology companies, and entertainment/new media ventures. Scott has led his clients through hundreds of matters involving complex acquisitions, licensing, financings, and other transactions. He also assists clients in protecting their valuable brands through trademark infringement litigation, domain name infringement arbitration, and proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Trademark Trial and Appeals Board. He discusses IP Law topics on the weekly video series The Briefing.

Follow:Read more about Scott HerveyScott's Linkedin ProfileScott's Twitter Profile

Under the WIPO Internet Treaties, member states are required to recognize in their national laws  the exclusive right of  authors of works to ‘‘make [the works] available’’ and ‘‘communicate [the works] to the public’’, including through interactive platforms, such as the Internet. The United States implemented the WIPO Internet Treaties through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’) in 1998.  Based on advice received from the Copyright Office and others, Congress did not amend U.S. law to include explicit references to ‘‘making available’’ and ‘‘communication to the public,’’ concluding that the distribution right under the Copyright Act already covers those rights.  However, because of  the absence of express “making available” language in the Copyright Act, courts in file-sharing litigation have reached somewhat different conclusions as to whether the distribution right requires proof of actual dissemination.

Commentators on the subject have opined that the “making available” right is subsumed within the distribution rights set forth in Section 106 of the Copyright Act and that most courts have correctly interpreted the Act as such.  These courts have found that a defendant infringes the distribution right by making the work available without having proof that the work was actually accessed by others.  For example, in  A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, the 9th Circuit held that “Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs’ distribution rights”.  Also in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Alburger, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that “There is no requirement that plaintiffs show that the files were actually downloaded by other users from Defendant, only that files were available for downloading.”

However, it appears that some courts have concluded that an infringement of the distribution right under the Act does not occur in the absence of actual dissemination. For example, in Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Howell, the District Court of Arizona  held that “[the distribution right] is not violated unless the defendant has actually distributed an unauthorized copy of the work to a member of the public.” 
Continue Reading Will The Copyright Act be Amended to Include a “Making Available” Right

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California handed a big victory to Warner Bros. when it ruled that Gotham Garage violated Warner Bros.’ intellectual property rights in the iconic Batmobile.  There was a question whether Warner Bros.’ rights in the Batman franchise would prohibit the production of an automobile designed like the Batmobile since the Copyright Act does not protect automobile designs.  The Court found that the Batmobile was a protectable character of the Batman franchise and the replicas manufactured by defendant were infringing derivative works.

Gotham Garage manufactured and produced custom cars modeled after vehicles found in various television shows and movies. It had been producing and selling replica vehicles based on the 1966 and 1989 Batmobiles. Gotham Garage also manufactured automobile parts featuring the Batman trademarks and did business in a manner utilizing various Batman trademarks. Warner Bros. filed a lawsuit In May 2011 alleging that Gotham Garage infringed the copyrighted versions of the 1966 and 1989 Batmobile and infringed various Batman trademarks in the marketing and selling of its custom vehicles.

The court made easy work of the trademark claims. The Court noted that Gotham Garage did not contest Warner Bros.’ trademark claims, and did not dispute that it manufactured and distributed parts and accessories featuring the Batman trademarks and used the Batman trademarks in connection with the operation of its business.  The Court found that Gotham Garage’s use of the Batman trademarks caused a likelihood of confusion; that consumers were likely to be confused as to the source of the products.  The defendant admitted that “most of his potential customers ask if he had a relationship with Warner Bros. or was licensed by Warner Bros.”   The Court found that this initial interest and confusion impermissively capitalizes on the goodwill associated with the Batman trademarks.
Continue Reading Holy Lawsuit Batman