Chuck D of Public Enemy Sues UMG for Underpayment of Royalties for Digital Downloads

January 17, 2012
Contract Law, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Music
Leave a Comment

This suit was filed a few months ago but it has just recently come under the Film. Esq. radar. On November 2, 2011, Carlton Douglas Ridenour (aka Chuck D of the musical group Public Enemy) filed a class action suit against UMG Recordings, Inc. (UMG) for various claims including breach of contract and violations of California and  New York’s unfair competition statutes. The factual basis for the claims arises from UMG’s alleged underpayment of artist royalties for digital downloads and ringtones under their standard master recording agreements. The complaint is available in PDF format at the bottom of the post.

  1. Ridenour v. Universal Music Group

 

 

Army Vet Claims James Cameron Turned His Ideas Into Avatar

December 24, 2011
Contract Law, Movies
Leave a Comment

In a lawsuit filed on December 13, 2011 in the United States District for the Central District of California, Army vet Gerald Morawski filed various contract and fraud claims against Lightstorm Entertainment and James Cameron for allegedly using his ideas to make the the film Avatar. In 1991, Morawski, who has worked in the visual effects industry, sold Lightstorm a set of images for James Cameron’s art gallery. He alleges that he entered discussions with the company to make a film called Guardians of the Eden. The detailed descriptions of the film contained in the complaint sounds strikingly similar to Avatar.  Of course, the validity of his claims is an entirely different matter. Although Morawski’s  illustrations were included as exhibits in the complaint (see below), they do not appear in the electronic document posted by the federal courts.

  1. Morawski v. Lightstorm Entertainment, et al

 

 

Copyright Suit Against Insane Clown Posse Filed on Halloween

November 27, 2011
Copyright, Intellectual Property, Music
Leave a Comment

Entity Productions, the company behind the music group Midnight Syndicate, is suing Psychopathic Records and the horror-rap group Insane Clown Posse (ICP) for copyright infringement. A copy of the full complaint can be downloaded from the link at the bottom of this post. The suit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of Ohio on October 31, 2011, claims that two separate Insane Clown Posse albums – Mirror Mirror and Tales From the Lotus Pod — contain excerpts from various Midnight Syndicate recordings and compositions. The alleged infringement goes back as far as 2009.

The complaint goes as far to say that some ICP tracks are simply Midnight Syndicate
recordings with overdubbed vocals. The complaint claims a total of 14 copyrights were infringed (7 compositions and 7 recordings). As such, the requested statutory relief is $2,100,000 ($150K per infringement) and a permanent injunction against further use of the recordings and compositions.

According to their website, Midnight Syndicate creates “Halloween music and gothic, horror, fantasy soundtracks for the imagination.” The group has created instrumental music for television, film, video games, haunted houses, and other musicians.

  1. Entity Productions v. Psychopathic Records

New Patent Harbor Suits Part of a Broader Assault on the Film Industry

October 15, 2011
Intellectual Property, Movies, Patents
Leave a Comment

Yesterday’s post about a wave of patent suits against film companies is actually part of a broader assault by Patent Harbor, LLC . Additional research shows that Patent Harbor, LLC filed a complaint entitled Patent Harbor, LLC v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc, et al on May 9, 2011. The complaint contains claims against 41 (!) film companies, including various CBS Films, After Dark Films, Focus Features, HBO, and Miramax. The source of the claims is the same: U.S. Patent No. 5,684,514 ( “Apparatus and Method for Assembling Content Addressable Video.”)

  1. Patent Harbor, LLC v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc, et al

Patent Wars Expand to DVDs and Blu-Rays

October 15, 2011
Intellectual Property, Movies, Patents
1 Comment

On October 13, 2011, a Fort Worth, Texas company called Patent Harbor, LLC filed patent suits against various DVD and Blu-Ray companies, including Lion’s Gate Films, Warner Brothers Pictures, and The Criterion Collection. PDF versions of the complaints can be downloaded from links at the bottom of this post.

Per the current trend in patent litigation by holding companies,  the suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division). Corporate disclosure statements included with each complaint indicate that a Delaware company named Brandel, LLC is the sole owner of Patent Harbor.

The suits allege  that the companies violate U.S. Patent No. 5,684,514. The 514 patent, which was issued on  November 4, 1997,  is entitled “Apparatus and Method for Assembling Content Addressable Video.” The essence of the claims is demonstrated in the following language from Patent Harbor, LLC v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.

“Upon information and belief, Warner Bros.’s authoring or manufacture of the DVD and Blu-Ray discs, including, but not limited to, exemplary movie  License to Wed, with their content-addressing  features (e.g. illustrated chapter/scene selection) along with the authoring equipment, and/or sale  of the authored discs, on behalf of others and/or itself, infringe one or more claims of the ‘514 Patent.  Upon information and belief, Warner Bros. either performs the authoring,  manufacturing, and/or distribution or directs and controls the  authoring, manufacturing, and/or  distribution through contract. (emphasis added)

Note that the boilerplate complaints contain virtually the same language, including  a version of the paragraph presented above. I intentionally highlighted the language about “illustrated chapter/scene selection” to point out how potentially broad these claims are. Film Esq. will be closely following these cases so look for updates in the near future.

  1. Patent Harbor, LLC v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
  2. Patent Harbor, LLC v. The Criterion Collection, LLC
  3. Patent Harbor, LLC v.  Disney Enterprises, Inc.
  4. Patent Harbor, LLC v.  Lions Gate FIlms, Inc.
  5. Patent Harbor, LLC v. Shout Factory!, LLC
  6. Patent Harbor, LLC v. Platinum Disc, LLC

Film Esq. Returns

October 5, 2011
Comic Books, Movies, Video Games
Leave a Comment

This site has been dormant for much longer than I anticipated. However, I intend to make up for lost time. The site has been moved from Blogger to WordPress, which will provide a better user experience. It will also help content management tremendously. As to the content, I will continue tackle the same topics, but there will probably be a greater focus on video games. However, movies and comics will definitely receive ample attention.

FTC Disclosure Rules for Bloggers Part 3: Rules In Effect

January 4, 2010
Advertising, Blogs, Disclosure, FTC, Marketing
Leave a Comment
On October 5, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued rules regarding disclosure of blogger’s connections with products they discuss under 16 CFR § 255. These rules were discussed in two posts regarding when a blog post constitutes a product endorsement and when an endorsement on a blog requires disclosure of the source of the product. Now that the rules are actually in effect (December 1st), this blog will continue to follow the issue. Hopefully, a clearer path will emerge as review sites begin to disclose connections with product manufacturers, and the FTC begins to actually enforce the rules. Readers of Film Esq. should feel free to send in disclosure statements found on various blogs. This will help build a sense of how sites are tackling the issue.

Wolverine "Leaker" is a Weak Link in the Chain

January 3, 2010
Copyright, Criminal Law, Movies, Piracy
Leave a Comment

A FBI arrest was recently made in the leak of the Wolverine film, but it is very obvious that the suspect is only a weak link in the chain. The indictment of alleged Wolverine leaker Gilberto Sanchez, who is a Bronx resident, states that he uploaded a copy of the film to Megaupload, which is a popular file sharing site. This is it. There is still no information about where the file actually came from. In fact, Gilberto Sanchez told the New York Daily News that he bought the file from some “guy on the street for five bucks.” Was his lawyer around? Anyway, it took almost a year for the FBI to arrest Sanchez. If what he says is actually true, it is highly unlikely that the actual source of the file will ever be found.

FTC Disclosure Rules for Bloggers Part 2: Disclosure

December 28, 2009
Advertising, Blogs, Disclosure, FTC, Marketing
Leave a Comment
Part 1 of this discussion of the Federal Trade Commission’s new blogger disclosure rules under Part 16, Section 255 of the Code of Federal Regulations (16 CFR § 255) focused on the definition of an “endorsement.” Its useful to remember that if a review on a blog is an endorsement, the author or site must disclose the source of the product reviewed. This post, which has admittedly been delayed longer than originally intended, talks specifically about what kind of disclosure is required.Disclosure is simple. If review or statement is an “endorsement,” The Guidelines place an emphasis on disclosure being triggered by the existence of a “material connections.” A connection between the endorser and the seller is material if “might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience).” Materiality seems to focus on whether the reviewer received the product for free, regardless of its monetary value.

No "Free Speech" in Sony’s Playstation Network

October 24, 2009
First Amendment, Video Games
Leave a Comment

The right to free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is a legal limitation on the federal or state government’s ability to prevent citizens from speaking. It does not apply to private actors who attempt to prevent others from speaking. There are, however, interesting and narrow exceptions that may cause the First Amendment to apply to a private actors. One of those exceptions is where a private company behaves or operates in a manner similar to a municipality (“company town” doctrine). Another exception occurs where a private company has a structural or functional relationship to the government. 
In the case of Estavillo v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, these two First Amendment exceptions came up within a unique context: an online gaming network. Plaintiff was allegedly banned from Sony’s Playstation 3 network for violating network use terms. In response, he sued Sony, claiming that the company violated his First Amendment rights. In a September 22, 2009 opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Sony’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted. The court found that the neither of the exceptions mentioned above applied to the facts of the case.
  1.  Estavillo v. Sony Opinion