For the purpose of this blog, I will be reviewing a few podcasts I had the opportunity to listen to in regards to entertainment law. Gordon P Firemark, Esq.’s monthly podcasts provide brief summaries and discussions of current entertainment law issues. You can subscribe to his podcasts and view recent cases discussed here: http://www.entertainmentlawupdate.com/
Episode 10 begins with a discussion about copyright law and movie memorabilia. Andrew Ainsworth, one of the sculptors from the original “Star Wars” films still has several molds and decided to create products to sell online. LucasFilms certainly was not happy with these findings, and filed a suit against Ainsworth. The case originally awarded LucasFilms a $20 million judgment in the U.S., but the case was moved to the UK where Ainsworth countersued, stating that he owns the copyright and is entitled to part of the over $20 billion in merchandise revenue. The UK court dismissed the claims because the helmets were not seen as sculptures under the UK Copyright Act. Currently, LucasFilms is still trying to enforce the U.S. judgment in the UK.
This discussion alone is a great reference in understanding the importance of how international copyright laws differ. When you are doing business in multiple countries, or your employees span across the globe, much like LucasFilms, it is important to understand the possible consequences of varying laws and court opinions.
Episode 10 continued with discussions about a lawsuit regarding a “Bob’s Big Boy” statue and a former franchisee, the controversial storyline of Avatar and several similar films, a lawsuit regarding the “Hurt Locker” portraying a specific man’s life, as well as issues surrounding the First Amendment and the Press.
Episode 22 discusses the issues surrounding Warner Bros. use of Mike Tyson’s tattoo in Hangover II. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount and Warner Bros. agreed to digitally alter the tattoo for home distribution if needed as part of Whitmill’s settlement. The episode also discussed the copyright issues surrounding 13 year old, Rebecca Black’s music video “Friday.” They also detailed the Motorola phone plan to get sports scores sent to your phone. NBA claimed copyright infringement and won because you must pay to attend games or watch on an authorized channel.
The case discussion that appealed to me the most from this podcast was about the influence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis of the First amendment as it applies to video games in California. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the governor of California filed a “preenforcement challenge” to a California law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors. The court found that the act was unconstitutional, not complying with the First amendment and that they cannot create a new means of protected speech for software/video games. Though this ruling is great for California, it means that for my specific business plan, any mature/violent rated video games would have to have some sort of consent or password to make them available to stream through game consoles across the country. California, any another other states not enforcing these "video game laws" would not need this function.
Finally, Episode 23 discusses Copyright issues with bloggers publishing entire news articles from newspapers, Disney’s appeal over “Millionaire” as they note that they were doing business with Celador Productions, as opposed to Celador International, which Celador argues is one in the same. They also discussed the copyright issues surrounding the characters of “Wizard of Oz,” noting the difference between film characters and what is portrayed in a book. In addition, they discussed issues around Shaq and the “Family of Marks” doctrine, idea theft with Kung Fu Panda, and photography copyright surrounding Project Runway and a photographer’s work.
Finally, Episode 23 discusses Copyright issues with bloggers publishing entire news articles from newspapers, Disney’s appeal over “Millionaire” as they note that they were doing business with Celador Productions, as opposed to Celador International, which Celador argues is one in the same. They also discussed the copyright issues surrounding the characters of “Wizard of Oz,” noting the difference between film characters and what is portrayed in a book. In addition, they discussed issues around Shaq and the “Family of Marks” doctrine, idea theft with Kung Fu Panda, and photography copyright surrounding Project Runway and a photographer’s work.
From this podcast, I took the most from the discussion about the issues surrounding the Jack Kirby appeals to Marvel in regards to the rightful copyright owner. The Kirby heirs have appealed the District Court in a case regarding copyright and determination of work for hire. Kirby’s work for Marvel was performed from 1958-1963 with an agreement from 1972. These dates mean the work would be under Copyright Law from 1909, which did not detail a work for hire. Kirby was not necessarily considered an employee, but was paid by page, which in turn would seem like a work for hire.
Applying this case to my current business plan, the programming and upkeep associated with a video game console streaming service would need to be clearly defined as a work for hire. This would mean that the copyright would belong to the company, while the employees responsible for programming would not retain the rights to this source code. This is important to maintain the company’s branding and service provided, which is why employees would also be required to sign a non-compete and nondisclosure agreement.
Firemark’s podcasts are a great resource for staying current with entertainment law. The discussions ask thought provoking questions while also encouraging listeners to call in or email questions or comments. Their website provides a brief synopsis of each podcast with corresponding links to case updates and news articles. If you get a chance, please feel free to have a listen.
No comments:
Post a Comment