• IP BLAWG

    Purple, I Mean, Orange Rain

    Beverly A. Berneman
    8/6/19

    In 1981 the well-known photographer, Lynn Goldsmith, took a series of photographs of the pop star, Prince. Goldsmith interpreted the photographs as describing a vulnerable and uncomfortable person. In 1987, Vanity Fair magazine commissioned Andy Warhol to create illustrations from the Goldsmith photos for their article titled “Purple Fame”. Warhol created “The Prince Series” consisting of 19 paintings of Prince, some of which used an orange wash of color.

    After Prince died, Vanity Fair again published copies of the Warhol works. Goldsmith says that that’s when she learned about the "Prince Series" for the first time. Goldsmith sued the Warhol Foundation, the owner of the works, for copyright infringement. A New York District court entered summary judgment for the Foundation on the basis of fair use. The court described the Warhol paintings as having removed the protectable elements of the photographs to turn Prince into an iconic, larger than life figure.

    WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The court used the transformative nature of Warhol’s orange take on the Purple One to find fair use. Although, in this case it might take an art critic’s eye to see the court’s argument.

  • IP BLAWG

    Spring/Summer 2018 Update

    Beverly A. Berneman
    6/13/18

    The last word sometimes isn’t really the last word. Here’s what happened after some previous posts:

    3/21/17 – The Intrepid Heroes of Copyright, Photographers. VHT, Inc.’s obtained an $8.3 million judgment against Zillow Group, Inc. for using photos without a license. On appeal the judgment was cut almost in half. The court determined that there was insufficient evidence that anyone actually saw the vast majority of the photos. Still, $4.3 million is a lot of money.

    6/27/17 – Horton Hears a Vulcan. The lower court’s decision that fair use permitted a comic mash up between Dr. Seuss like drawings and Star Trek in “Oh the Places You’ll Boldly Go” was reversed on appeal. The appellate court determined that at least three of the four factors of fair use weighed in favor of the Dr. Seuss estate and against the creators of the parody comic book. In other words, parody is not a golden ticket for fair use.

    10/31/17 – Spooky Banana Halloween. After settling with Kmart for allegedly infringing on its banana costume, Rasta Imposta sued Kangaroo Mfg. Inc. for copyright infringement involving the same banana costume. The court granted a preliminary injunction holding that although the costume is a useful article, it does have some elements that give rise to minimal copyright protection. It appears that Rasta Imposta has peeled off another competitor.

  • IP BLAWG

    You're a Mean One, Dr. Seuss

    Beverly A. Berneman
    12/19/17

    Dr. Seuss’ Estate doesn’t have the Christmas spirit. Matthew Lombardo wrote a play called “Who’s Holiday”. It’s a sort of sequel to Dr. Seuss’ “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” in which Cindy-Lou Who is all grown up and has issues. Dr. Seuss’ estate is aggressive about protecting the original works (See more below). So, of course, the Estate sued for copyright infringement to block Who’s Holiday. The Estate lost. The court held that “Who’s Holiday” falls squarely within the defense of fair use. Using the four prong fair use test, the court found that the nature of the use was obviously parody and weighs in favor of fair use. “The play subverts the expectations of the Seussian genre, and lampoons the Grinch by making Cindy-Lou's naiveté, Who-Ville's endlessly-smiling, problem-free citizens and Dr. Seuss' rhyming innocence all appear ridiculous. . .” The court found the second prong, the nature of the original work, didn’t play a big role in the analysis. For the third prong, the court held that parody gives a long leash to quote and refer to the original. Even though Who’s Holiday used a substantial amount of the original work, it was not excessive in relation to the purpose of parody. The fourth prong determines whether the alleged infringing work supplants the market for the original. The court found that there was virtually no possibility that someone looking to buy a children’s book would buy tickets to an adult themed play about one of the characters instead.

    WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. As you may remember, Dr. Seuss’ Estate sued ComicMix for copyright infringement. ComicMix had started a Kickstarter campaign to fund the development of a comic mashup between Dr. Seuss’ “Oh, the Places You’ll Go” and Star Trek titled “Oh the Places You’ll Boldly Go.” The Estate’s first complaint was dismissed. (June 27, 2017, “Horton Hears a Vulcan”). The Estate amended its complaint and just defeated a motion to dismiss by ComicMix. So ComicMix’s mission to boldly go to fair use places continues.

    Happy Holidays and see you next year with more IP News for Business.

  • IP BLAWG

    Viral Birth Video Gives Life to Fair Use

    Beverly A. Berneman
    8/15/17

    News and commentary about a dad’s big oops is fair use. Proud dad, Kali Kanongataa, accidently live streamed a video of his partner giving birth to their son. The video went viral. As often happens in the world of viral videos, Kanongataa’s video gave rise to a commentary by the media. Much of the commentary involved showing short clips from the 45 minute video. Kanongataa sued ABC, NBC, Yahoo and COED Media for copyright infringement. The judge dismissed the case on the basis of fair use. But, it didn’t stop there. The judge ordered Kanongataa to pay the defendants’ attorney’s fees. The judge said, "no reasonable lawyer with any familiarity with the law of copyright" would have filed the cases.

    WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of the works of another. Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement. Fair use is a necessary component of copyright law because it protects uses that are essential to open dialog and creativity. A fair use analysis isn’t always simple or straightforward. But using small clips of a video for news or commentary falls squarely within the parameters of fair use. This case points out that no matter how aggrieved one may feel about the use of their content, rushing into court without an objective fair use analysis can cost a plaintiff far more than the embarrassment of a viral video.

  • IP BLAWG

    Horton Hears a Vulcan

    Beverly A. Berneman
    6/27/17

    A Star Trek and Dr. Seuss mashup will Live Long and Prosper. Comics legend, Ty Templeton, and Star Trek’s “Trouble with Tribbles Episode” writer, David Gerrold, collaborated on a comic called “Oh, The Places You'll Boldly Go.” The comic mashed Dr. Seuss-like drawings and dialogue with Star Trek characters. The Dr. Seuss Estate sent Templeton and Gerrold a cease and desist letter citing trademark and copyright infringement. This resulted in Kickstarter shutting down the campaign to fund the development of the comic. Litigation ensued. Victory goes to Templeton and Gerrold. A California court ruled against Dr. Seuss on the trademark claim. The court held that Templeton and Gerrold’s use of the Dr. Seuss trademarks was ‘nominative fair use’. Although the court didn’t rule yet on the copyright claims, the court indicated that the use of Dr. Seuss’ copyrighted works was sufficiently transformative to be fair use.

    WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Fair use can be a defense to both trademark and copyright infringement. For trademarks, ‘nominative fair use’ means using the trademark of another in a non-commercial manner. In creative works, such as this one, the comic uses the trademark only to reference Dr. Seuss’ goods and services and not to sell a competing product or confuse the public as to the source of the products. For copyrights, fair use in a creative work is an important element in parody. A proper parody uses a source work in a completely new or unexpected way. This is referred to as “transformative use”. Caution. There’s always a fine line between fair use and infringing use. When in doubt, get an attorney’s opinion.

  • IP BLAWG

    Judge’s Campaign Wasn’t Very Judge-Like

    Beverly A. Berneman
    2/21/17

    False advertising in a judge’s election has consequences. West Virginia judge, Stephen Callaghan, thought it would be a great idea to literally paint a picture of his opponent partying while their county lost jobs. Callaghan Photoshopped a picture of his rival next to President Obama, gave the President a glass of beer and strewed party confetti in the background. Callaghan knew that nothing of the sort had ever happened. Turns out; using a false ad to keep your seat as a judge isn’t such a good idea. After winning the election by 220 votes, Callaghan had to face the wrath of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Upon hearing about Callaghan’s campaign ad, the Court suspended Callaghan without pay for 2 years and fined him $15,000. In a written opinion, the Court stated that the ad was “in every sense, materially false.” Callaghan argued that the ad was “substantially true”, hyperbole or parody. The Court didn’t accept any of his arguments. Callaghan has now filed suit contending that the disciplinary action violated his First Amendment rights.

    WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Callaghan’s Intellectual Property defense of fair use - - parody is thin at best. Parody can be a basis for copyright fair use. But when intersected with advertising, parody has its limits. For parody to work, it has to be clear that parody was intended. Callaghan’s ad painted his opponent in a false light in order to gain an advantage in the election. That is not fair use. Callaghan now has two years without pay to contemplate the consequences for creating a false ad in a glaring breach of ethics.

  • IP BLAWG

    Hot Topic: Fake News

    Beverly A. Berneman
    12/20/16

    Extra. Extra. Popular art posting website steals an artist’s works and sells it to Hot Topic. Actually that didn’t happen. DeviantArt (“DA”) operates a website that features the works of visual artists. The artist submits a picture or photograph and DA posts it for the entire world to see. Under DA’s terms and conditions, the artist agrees to give DA a world-wide, non-exclusive license to publish, resize, make collages and use the work for DA marketing and promotion. The terms and conditions specifically state that the artist retains the copyright in the work and no one can use it without the artist’s permission. What could go wrong? A DA user discovered that his Adventure Time fan art (see the picture) appeared on a t-shirt sold by Hot Topic. A flurry of anguished and angry social media postings accused DA of selling the art to Hot Topic. DA denied selling the art to Hot Topic. DA pointed to its terms and conditions where it said that no one can download and use the art for commercial purposes without permission from the copyright owner. So the artist will have to follow up directly with Hot Topic.

    WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The first lesson is to always read terms and conditions before posting something on or downloading from a website. It may seem like boring reading but it’s never a waste of time to know your rights and liabilities. The second lesson is, even in the world of copyright, you can’t believe everything you see and hear. For instance, a few commentators on the DA/Hot Topic issue asserted that Hot Topic’s use of the fan art was “fair use” because it could be found on the Internet. This is a popular misconception about fair use. If Hot Topic used the fan art without the artist’s permission and for commercial purposes, it was not fair use. Thanks to art student, Tory Lieberman, for the heads up on this topic.

  • IP BLAWG

    All's Fair When It Comes to Briefs

    Beverly A. Berneman
    12/6/16

    A legal brief can be protected by copyright. Ezra Sutton represented Sakar International in a patent infringement case in Texas. Sakar and its co-defendant, Newegg, Inc. won at the trial level. They brought a motion for attorney’s fees which was denied. They separately appealed the denial to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. As time approached for filing their opening appellate briefs, Newegg agreed to provide Sutton a draft of its brief only if Sutton agreed in writing that he would only use it for reference purposes and not copy any excerpts. On the day before Newegg filed its brief, Sutton filed a brief on behalf of Sakar that was virtually identical to Newegg’s draft brief. Newegg sued Sutton for copyright infringement. Newegg brought a motion for partial summary judgment that Sutton couldn’t use fair use as a defense. The court granting summary judgment by analyzing the four fair use factors. (1) The purpose and character of the use weighed in favor of Newegg because Sutton’s brief was identical to Newegg’s brief. (2) The nature of the copyrighted work weighed in favor of Sutton because the briefs were functional presentations of law and fact. (3) The amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work used weighed in favor of Newegg because Sutton used the entire work and not just what was needed for a specific purpose. (4) The degree of harm to the potential market, weighed in favor of Sutton because Newegg couldn’t identify a market for its brief. The court tipped the balance with its own factor. Sutton could have used federal appellate rules that allow a party to either join in or adopt by reference a part of a co-party’s brief.

    WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Generally attorneys don’t sue other attorneys for adopting their brilliant arguments. I’m sure Newegg was not pleased when Sutton took advantage of the time and attorneys’ fees involved in drafting its brief on appeal. It appears that the court was reacting to two things. First, there was a written agreement between the parties and Sutton had agreed not to copy Newegg’s brief. Second, Sutton didn’t adopt Newegg’s arguments in a way that is specifically provided in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Courts can get testy when litigants don’t follow rules; especially rules that save the court time in analyzing the arguments of the parties.