Archive

Intellectual Property

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

 

 

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

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.

Winnie the Pooh Copyrights Remain With Disney

October 18, 2009
Copyright, Disney
Leave a Comment
Disney was recently successful in fending off litigation surrounding rights in one of its most popular characters: Winnie the Pooh. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) acquired copyrights in the Winnie the Pooh in 1930. In 1961 and 1983, SSI licensed its exclusive rights in the character to the Walt Disney Company. Later, Disney was named a counter-defendant in a thirteen-year rights dispute involving SSI and the estate of Winnie the Pooh creator A. A. Milne. After unsuccessfully suing Disney for royalties in California state court, SSI brought a federal action for various claims, including copyright and trademark infringement. In a September 25, 2009 opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, it washeld that SSI assigned all of its rights in Winnie the Pooh to Disney and, as a result, there as no basis for any of its intellectual property claims.

(Some of) Superman Returns

August 20, 2009
Comic Books, Copyright, DC Comics, Superman
Leave a Comment

There was a real drought in the Siegel v. Warner Brothers Entertainment (aka the Superman case), which was previously covered in posts about the general Superman copyright issues and the Superman alter-ego theory. Now, a recent ruling held in the case that the Siegel family recaptured certain rights to the Superman character. Specifically, although ownership in Superman material published from 1938 to 1943 remains with Warner Brothers, the Siegels have retained copyrights to the following material:

  1. Action Comics No. 1;
  2. Action Comics No. 4;
  3. Superman No. 1, pages three through six, and
  4. the initial two weeks’ worth of Superman daily newspaper strips.

The four sets of material mentioned above includes Superman’s origin story, his parents Jor-El and Lora, infant Superman, and other story elements. The materials from 1938 to 1943 includes “kryptonite,” Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, and Superman’s ability to fly.
Note that this dispute originated when the Siegels sought to terminate a grant to Warner of Superman copyrights. What this decision ultimately means is that the termination requests are valid, and all interests that Warner (and by default, DC) has in these materials will expired at the end of the original grant (i.e., 2013). Thus, Warner will have to negotiate and pay to use any of the copyrighted material after that.

  1. Siegel v. Warner Bros Entertainment 8/12/09 Opinion

Famous Monsters of Fair Use

August 19, 2009
Comic Books, Copyright, Fair Use
Leave a Comment

Warren Publishing is the company behind such classic horror magazines like Creepy, Eerie, and Famous Monsters of Filmland. In the recent case of Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock, Warren Publishing was on the losing end of a copyright dispute involving covers from some of its magazines.

The artwork of Basil Gogos appeared on the cover of at least 50 issues of Famous Monsters of Filmland as well as covers of a few issues of Eerie and Creepy. David Spurlock and Vanguard Productions published a book entitled Famous Monster Movie Art of Basil Gogos that reproduced 24 of these covers, 10 of which were portrayed as covers, and 14 of which appeared without any Warren magazine text.

In response to the book’s publication, Warren brought an action for copyright and trademark infringement. Spurlock successfully presented a fair use defense to the Warren’s copyright. Of great significance was the court’s reasoning as to the first factor in the four-part fair use analysis under 17 U.S.C. § 107: the purpose and character of the work. Here, the judge found that Spurlock’s uses of the covers was transformative since the the Gogos book presented the images for an entirely different purpose than the Warren magazines (i.e., using the covers to sell magazines versus using the illustrations for a biography or career retrospective).

  1. Warren v. Spurlock opinion

Why the FBI is Investigating the Wolverine Leak

April 3, 2009
Copyright, Criminal Law, Movies, Piracy
Leave a Comment
Litigation copyright infringement is generally handled as a civil matter (e.g., RIAA music downloading cases) but occassionally, the Department of Justice (DOJ) pursues criminal charges against copyright infringers under 17 U.S.C. § 506 and 18 U.S.C. § 2319. Such prosecutions are rare. So, the announcement that the FBI is assisting Fox in tracking who leaked the X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie, is a big red flag that a criminal charges will be filed. In this regard, one suspects that the DOJ will attempt to make an example of out of the person(s) responsible for this leak by pursuing the heaviest possible penalties under the federal sentencing guidelines. This should be a very interesting case to watch.

Stan Lee East Coast Update: There Isn’t One

April 3, 2009
Comic Books, Copyright, Stan Lee
Leave a Comment
The case of Abadin et al v. Marvel Characters, Inc. et al. was filed almost two months ago. After the initial flurry of filings and press releases, there have been very few developments in this case, which pits Marvel Comics creator Stan Lee against shareholders in Stan Lee Media, Inc. (SLMI). The last filing of any consequence was a consent order for substitution of counsel (Martin Garbus, who is the lawyer for the plaintiffs, joined the Eaton and Van Winkle as a partner) on March 31, 2009. At this pace, this litigation will drag on for a very long time.