Archive

Copyright

2008 in Review: Documentary Lawsuit Provides Reminder That Historical Facts Cannot be Copyrighted

February 16, 2009
Copyright, Documentaries, Movies
Leave a Comment
In Novak, et. al. v. Warner Bros. Pictures LLC, et. al., two documentarians who produced a film about the Marshall University football program claimed that Warner Brothers produced and released a motion picture, “We Are Marshall,” that infringed on their copyrights in the documentary.

On October 20, 2008, the court granted Warner Brother’s Motion for Summary Judgment. According to the Hon. Gary Allen Feess, who also presided over the Watchmen copyright lawsuit, the plaintiffs (the documentarians) had the burden to prove that the two films were “substantially similar” under current US copyright doctrine. Warner Brothers successfully argued that that the works are similar only in that they both deal with events surrounding a November 14, 1970 airplane crash, and that those events are historical facts in which no one can claim a copyright interest.

2008 in Review: Zombie Video Game Did Not Infringe on Dawn of the Dead Rights

February 13, 2009
Copyright, Intellectual Property, Trademark, Video Games
Leave a Comment

In February 2008, Capcom, the creator of the video game Dead Rising filed a complaint against MKR Group, who own the copyrights in George Romero’s film Dawn of the Dead. Capcom’s complaint sought a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe any copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights of MKR in creating the video game. MKR later filed a third party complaint against Capcom, along with numerous counterclaims, including copyright infringement and violations of the Lanham Act. The case was docketed as Capcom Co., Ltd. v. MKR Group, Inc.

In an October 10, 2008 opinion, the court dismissed MKR Group’s copyright counterclaim. Using the objective “extrinsic test,” the court found that, as a matter of law, there was no substantial similarity between the Dead Rising video game and the Dawn of the Dead film. The court also dismissed MKR’s Lanham Act counterclaim. Although MKR sufficiently pled “source identifying elements,” the court found that a matter of law, those elements did not violate the Lanham Act. MKR’s remaining counterclaims were dismissed as preempted by the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act.

2008 in Review: Presence of Pinball Machine in Mel Gibson Movie Was Not Infringement

February 12, 2009
Copyright, Intellectual Property
Leave a Comment

Gottlieb Development LLC distributes and sells the “Silver Slugger” pinball machine, which features copyrighted designs. The pinball machine appears in the background of a short scene in the 2000 Mel Gibson film What Women Want.

In response to portrayal of the machine in the film, Gottlieb filed various claims against the film’s distributor (Paramount), including copyright infringement. On Dec. 29, 2008, an opinion was issued in the case, which was docketed as Gottlieb Development LLC v. Paramount Pictures Corp. The court found that Paramount’s use of Gottlieb’s “Silver Slugger” pinball machine in the background of the scene in What Women Want was de minimis and that Gottlieb’s copyright claim was not actionable.

Stan Lee Media Versus Stan Lee and a Lot of Other People

January 31, 2009
Comic Books, Copyright, Marvel Comics, Stan Lee, Trademark
Leave a Comment

As previously noted, Stan Lee is the target of a new comic book related lawsuit filed in New York on January 20, 2009. Stan Lee, however, is just one of many names in the lawsuit, which is docketed with the Southern District of New York as Abadin et al v. Marvel Characters, Inc. et al.

As this is a “derivative” suit, the plaintiffs are shareholders in Stan Lee Media, Inc. (SLMI), a Colorado corporation that ultimately went into bankruptcy. Besides Stan Lee, the parties on the defendant’s side of the “v.” are Marvel Entertainment, Inc., Marvel Enterprises, Inc., Marvel Characters, Joan Lee (Stan Lee’s wife), Joan C. Lee (Stan Lee’s daughter), Isaac Perlmutter (Marvel executive), Avi Arad (Marvel executive) and Arthur M. Lieberman (Marvel executive).

The complaint presents a mix of 13 federal and state claims ranging from copyright and trademark infringement to right of publicity violations. The plaintiffs are seeking $750 million dollars or more in damages (!), based on a supposed ownership interest in numerous comic book characters. The factual basis for the complaint is summarized below.

The suit arises from Lee’s involvement in Stan Lee Entertainment (SLE). SLE was eventually dissolved in a convoluted series of transactions; and SLMI succeeded to all SLE interests. As part of an employment agreement with SLE, Lee transferred the rights to a number of characters, trademarks and domain names to the company. Numerous assets were explicitly transferred in the original assignment agreement, including rights to such undeveloped comic book characters as The Accuser, Stan’s Evil Clone (Evil Clone), and The Drifter. SLMI shareholders are claiming that by terms of an assignment clause in Lee’s employment agreement, rights in prime Marvel comic book characters such Spiderman and The Incredible Hulk were also transferred to the company.

SLMI’s argument is interesting because as readers of this site may know, these suits are all about contracts and copyrights. SLMI claims that Lee created characters such as Spiderman outside of his scope of employment with Marvel (i.e., not as a work for hire). It is claimed that Lee had an interest as co-creator in these comic book characters at the time of contract formation with SLME, which was subsequently transferred to SLMI.

Certainly, if Lee retained an interest in the Marvel comic book characters as claimed (plaintiffs have to prove it), the assignment clause in the employment agreement cited in their complaint could be interpreted as giving them some rights in those characters (plaintiffs have to prove it). It is also interesting to note that in the related California case of QED LLC v. Nesfield, et. al, which involves a similar fight over SLMI assets, plaintiffs made no claims to Marvel assets. They only claimed an interest in materials explicitly outlined in their asset purchase agreement with Stan Lee; no claim was made to rights obtained via the employment agreement.

  1. Stan Lee Media, Inc. complaint

Stan Lee Ridiculed From the Sidelines

January 30, 2009
Comic Books, Copyright, Stan Lee, Trademark
Leave a Comment

Rarely does a plaintiff issue a press release that comments on a defendant’s lack of success in a case to which they are not a party. This is exactly what happened on January 27, 2009 when a press release noting an unfavorable ruling in a lawsuit involving Marvel Comics founder Stan Lee hit the wires. The ruling in question, which was actually filed on January 20, 2009, is from the case of QED Production, LLC v. Nesfield, et al. The order can be accessed at the link provided at the bottom of this post. The press release, however, was not sent out by anyone involved in that case; it was sent out on behalf of plaintiffs in an entirely different case that was filed this week. This is revealed in the following excerpt:

Stan Lee, Arthur Lieberman and Marvel enterprises are being sued for looting the Estate of Stan Lee Media, Inc. in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection from 2001-2006. Martin Garbus, Esq., on behalf of shareholders of SLMI filed a Shareholder Derivative action on January 26, 2009 in Manhattan federal court claiming 50% percent ownership in such mega-popular Super Hero entertainment franchises as Spider Man, Iron Man and the X-Men.

An upcoming post will dig deeper into the case of QED Production, LLC v. Nesfield. Readers can expect posts about this new shareholder derivative suit as well.

  1. QED v. Nesfield Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Standing


Superman Copyright Trial Raises Corporate Alter-Ego Questions

January 22, 2009
Comic Books, Copyright, DC Comics, Marvel Comics, Superman
1 Comment
As exemplified by movies like The Dark Knight and Iron Man, having a comic book publisher and a film distribution company under a single corporate umbrella creates some powerful synergies. Marvel Comics has film licensing deals with Fox (X-Men) and Sony (Spiderman) but they began producing movies in 2006. In the process, Marvel subsidiaries like Marvel Characters, Inc. became content farms for Marvel Studios by supplying film rights for various characters. A slightly different example is provided by Warner Brothers, who bought DC Comics in 1969. Since the original Superman films, DC Comics has almost exclusively sold film rights to its titles to Warner Brothers. In fact, the Watchmen movie represents one of the rare instances where DC sold film rights to a company besides Warner Brothers. As Warner Brothers is now learning in Siegel v. Time Warner, vertical integration may lead to some problems in copyright litigation.

Among the remaining claims to be resolved in Siegel v. Time Warner is an accounting for profits derived from Superman copyrights. Specifically, both sides are battling over whether profits obtained from a Superman license that DC Comics sold to Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc (WBEI). In 1992, DC Comics sold an exclusive license in the Superman copyright to WBEI to for the remainder of its extended renewal term in movies, television, and home video. One year later, DC entered a separate exclusive license with WBEI’s television division.

Time Warner claims that the Siegels are entitled to an accounting of the profits made by DC Comics (in the form of the licensing fees it has collected), but are not entitled to an accounting of the profits WBEI made as a licensee. This is because licensees owe no duty of accounting to the non-licensor co-owner of a copyright.

The Siegels (through their lawyer Marc Toberoff), on the other hand, argue that WBEI took over DC Comics position as copyright holder when it bought the licenses. If this is the case, WBEI will be viewed as a co-owner of the Superman copyrights who owes an accounting to the Siegels. The argument does not work under general legal principles but it might apply in one situation: where the subsidiary is serving as “alter ego” of the parent corporation in order to avoid having to share fees with lawful co-owners. This issue will be addressed at the February 3, 2009 trial and the outcome might have interesting effects on the way some entertainment companies do business (with themselves).

Foreseeable Problems in Superman’s Future

January 12, 2009
Comic Books, Copyright, DC Comics, Marvel Comics, Superman
Leave a Comment

The conclusion of the Siegel’s Superman lawsuit in the next few months is unlikely to signal the end of Superman copyright disputes. Jerome Siegel’s decedents own a one-half interest in the copyrights but the other half rests in the estate of Superman illustrator Joseph Shuster. On November 10, 1993, Mark Warren Peary (Shuster’s nephew and the court-appointed representative of his estate) filed notice with the US Copyright Office of intent to terminate the 1938 grant of the Superman copyright to Detective Comics and its successors (i.e., Time Warner) effective on October 26, 2013. As the date of termination approaches, this issue will undoubtedly heat up.

Superman Copyright Trial is Looming Overhead

January 11, 2009
Comic Books, Copyright, DC Comics, Marvel Comics, Superman
Leave a Comment

While the Watchmen movie legal dispute barrels forward, the trial date in a different comic book related case is approaching. A bench trial for “alter ego” claims in Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, which involves copyrights to Superman story materials, on February 3, 2009. A separate bench trial related to a claim for an accounting of profits is set for March 24, 2009. Coverage of this case on this site begins with the following summary. Those with an immediate interest in more detail should jump to the final paragraph for reading recommendations.

Siegel v. Warner Brothers Entertainment pits Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson (widow and daughter of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel, respectively) against Warner Brothers in a complex, highly technical suit over termination of copyright transfers in the Superman stories. The February 2009 trial will address issues that were not resolved in a March 26, 2008 order for partial summary judgment. In March 2008, the judge in the case found that, among other things, notices of copyright termination sent to DC Comics by the Siegels were valid. In an amazing opinion tracing the history of the Superman character, the judge found that the Siegels recaptured, as of April 16, 1999, their one-half interest (Joseph Shuster’s estate holds the other half) in the Superman story material as first published. The judge also ruled that the subsequent accounting for Superman profits would not include those monies derived from foreign exploitation, republication of pre-termination works and trademark exploitation.

The best background information about the Superman copyright case is: 1) William Patry’s commentary on the Superman summary judgment decision; and 2) Jeff Trexler’s detailed up-to-date analysis at Newsarama.

The Asylum and The Art of The Movie Knock-Off

December 26, 2008
Copyright, Movie Remakes, Movies, Trademark
Leave a Comment

Sometime in November 2008, The Hollywood Reporter noted that Fox was in the process of taking action against The Asylum (aka The Global Asylum, Inc.) over their film The Day the Earth Stopped. Apparently, this dispute has not progressed any further than a cease-and-desist letter. There are no related federal or state filings on record and the film is still being marketed and sold by The Asylum.

What is Fox upset about? Remakes, knockoffs and recycled concepts are an integral part of the film industry. The Asylum, however, has turned the knock-off into a science. The company deals in what it calls mockbusters (actually registered as a trademark) or films that bear a resemblance, however large or small, to bigger studio productions. First, the similarity is manifested in stories and titles. For example, the plot for The Day the Earth Stopped is described as follows:

Hundreds of massive intergalactic robots appear in all of the major world capitals with an ultimatum: Prove the value of human civilization or be destroyed.

This is very similar to the plot of The Day the Earth Stood Still. Second, the similarities occur in the marketing materials. Compare the poster for Fox’s remake and The Asylum’s mockbuster film:

Finally, the release dates of films from The Asylum are even tightly coupled to those of the studio titles, thus allowing the company to ride the publicity wave created by the millions of dollars in studio marketing. For example, The Day the Earth Stopped was released on December 9, 2008 while The Day the Earth Stood Still was December, 12 2008. Coincidence? The following chart compares titles and release dates of other films from The Asylum (left) with those from major studios (right).


As an aside, Sunday School Musical really stuck out when compiling the list.

In any case, one might think this will be smooth sailing for Fox but as is often the case in these matters, intuition is a faulty guide. Some elements of a film are protected by copyright (script or characters but neither character names nor titles) while others may fall under trademark (titles might be protected) or right of publicity laws (individuals may have these claims, depending on state law). If this dispute evolves into actual litigation, it will be interesting to see how Fox frames the case.