Hangover Copyright Infringement of Tyson Tattoo?

The Hangover: Part II, set to hit theaters this Thursday, will not be hampered by a copyright infringement lawsuit, at least for now. The tattoo on Mike Tyson’s face was done by tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill, and Whitmill’s work is distinct enough that he doesn’t want anyone copying it. That includes Ed Helms’ character, in the second installment of the Hangover saga. The problem is that Helms’ tattoo wasn’t done by Whitmill, and he claims Warner Bros. took unlawful liberty in reproducing his distinct style on someone else’s face. Someone else’s high-profile face, that is. The tattoo factors highly in the marketing campaign for the film.

According to the lawsuit: “Warner Bros. copied Mr. Whitmill's Original Tattoo and placed it on the face of another actor ... This unauthorized exploitation of the Original Tattoo constitutes copyright infringement.”

Whitman sued Warner Bros. for copyright infringement (Case No. 4:11-cv-00752-CDP, Missouri Eastern District Court), and wanted an injunction to stop the release of the movie. Fortunately for fans, a judge denied the injunction today in federal court. However, the suit was not thrown out, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Bratz's Copyright Infringement Trial Comes to an End...For Now

After more than seven years, 70 witnesses, and thousands of exhibits, a verdict has been reached in the roller-coaster “Bratz” dolls trial. The trial (Bryant v. Mattel, 04-09049, U.S. District Court, Central District of California) pitted toy making giants Mattell, Inc. against Van Nuys based MGA Entertainment, Inc. over the rights to the wildly popular line of Bratz dolls. Mattell originally filed its lawsuit accusing MGA of stealing trade secrets and copyright infringement seeking. MGA began manufacturing the dolls after toy designer and former Mattell employee Carter Bryant sold them the idea in 2000. Mattell claimed that Bryant thought of the idea for Bratz during his employment with Mattell, therefore claiming that Mattell owned the intellectual property rights to the doll.

The verdict has gone back and forth – a 2008 Jury awarded Mattell $100 million. But that verdict was overturned later in a federal appeals court. The current decision, reached in Santa Ana Thursday, instead awarded MGA $88.4 million dollars, and found Mattell guilty of stealing MGA’s trade secrets. According to the verdict, Mattell employees used fake IDs to gain entrance to MGA showrooms. Although this verdict is taken as a victory for MGA, it is likely that Mattell will appeal the court’s decision. Issac Larian, MGA's CEO estimates they spent nearly $170 million on legal fees, while Mattel's legal expenses where closer to $400 million.

Playboy Sues Drake for Copyright Infringement

Hip hop artist Aubrey Drake Graham, aka “Drake” had a hit last year with the song “Best I Ever Had.” But, like many other commercially-successful songs these days, “Best I Ever Had” sampled a previous song. The original song, called “Fallin in Love,” is by 1970’s soft rockers Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds. And interestingly, it’s Playboy Enterprises, Inc. that owns the copyright to “Fallin In Love.” Apparently Drake didn’t get permission to use the song, which for samplers isn’t always necessary. But Playboy just filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Drake.

The case is 2:2010-cv-04750

A major question is going to be whether the song is a copy for commercial gain, or an artistic interpretation with a different and new meaning.

Foo Fighters Copyright Infringement In Australia

The Foo Fighters recently sued an Australian advertising company for Copyright Infringement for using a re-recorded version of “Learn To Fly” in one of their TV commercials. The lawsuit was filed in Australian federal court last week, and alleges that the RE/MAX company made commercials that "incorporate a musical composition... that reproduces a substantial part" of the Foo Fighters' hit.

Nicholas Thiele, regional director of RE/MAX, told TheAge.com.au, ''It's certainly not the position of this company to intentionally infringe on anyone's copyright. We've got very strong trademark and copyright issues regarding our own brand that we feel are very important.''

The band became aware of the commercials from a message posted on their internet fan bulletin board last week.

Copyright Litigation May Commence Without First Obtaining Registration

In order to commence a copyright infringement action in federal court, under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), makes registration of a copyright a prerequisite prior to bringing an infringement suit. But in a May 2010, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case, Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactive Corp., has held otherwise. The case was an appeal from a U.S. District Court, California Central District case in which Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. sued the Home Shopping Network for copyright infringement involving a necklace. Cosmetic Ideas submitted a copyright application for a necklace, and then sued HSN before getting an official registration from the U.S. Copyright Office.

Initially the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because of the lack of a registered copyright. The Ninth Circuit court then later overturned that decision. The 9th Circuit court found that a copyright is actually considered registered once the application has been submitted and stated "that receipt by the Copyright Office of a complete application satisfies the registration requirement of § 411(a)."

Their reasoning was that Congress’s purpose for copyrights was to protect intellectual property in exactly this scenario. Cosmetic Ideas may have had to wait several months before their copyright was officially registered. And theoretically, during that time, nothing could be done to stop copyright infringers. The issue of speed of information in the post-internet world is likely to affect similar statutes. And this is probably not the last time we’ll hear about this specific case.

Jessica Seinfeld Copyright Infringement Battle Over Cookbook

Last week, a federal appeals court upheld the previous decision of a lower court in the Jessica Seinfeld cookbook case. Jessica (Jerry Seinfeld’s wife) was sued for both trademark and copyright infringement by Missy Chase Lapine, author of “The Sneaky Chef: Simple Strategies for Hiding Healthy Foods in Kids’ Favorite Meals.” Jessica’s book is titled “Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Get Your Kids Eating Good Food.” See the original lower district's complaint here. It does seem a bit close for comfort, but two judges have now ruled that Jessica’s book is not a copycat.

According to Judges Reena Raggi and Peter W. Hall of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, “stockpiling vegetable purees for covert use in children’s food is an idea that cannot be copyrighted.” Conceptual ideas like that cannot be protected by copyright law. Seinfeld's intellectual property attorney's stated "countless prior works utilized this very same unprotectable idea," including a 1971 book."

Lapine’s book was published four months previous to Seinfeld’s, and apparently, some publishers were looking at the books around the same time. It seems pretty unlikely that Jessica Seinfeld would have had enough time to plagiarize, since both books were published around the same time.

On a side note – a slander case is still pending for Jerry Seinfeld’s jokes (when he said his wife is accused of "vegetable plagiarism") about the suit and Missy Lapine on The Tonight Show.

Craigslist awarded $1.3 million judgment in copyright infringement case

Last week, Craigslist sent a clear message to sites offering third-party posting software. Powerpostings.com, owned by one Igor Gasov, had been offering customers the ability to post (including multiple postings) and manage ads on Craigslist. Craigslist sued them for copyright infringement, referencing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and trademark law. The defendants didn’t contest, and Craigslist was awarded a $1.3 million judgment.

In the past, other companies have offered Craigslist posting software, but Powerpostings took it too far. They also offered listing agents, who would post ads for customers, and they used false email addresses on Craigslist. No doubt there were several violations of Craigslist’s terms of use, in addition to the alleged trademark and copyright violations. Because Powerpostings didn’t appear in court, Craigslist didn’t have to prove anything. Craislist would have had to prove they registered parts of their Web site, and that Powerpostings copied those parts, for copyright infringement to have taken place. But considering all the allegations against them, it was probably a smart move for Powerpostings to accept a lesson learned the hard way.

Green Day Copyright Infringement of Scream Art

Immediately following a Green Day concert in LA last August, local artist Dereck Seltzer began receiving calls and emails, alerting him that his ‘Scream Icon’ art was being used as the backdrop to the show. Seltzer was surprised, since he had no previous contact with the band. Scream Icon was copyrighted by Seltzer in 2003. When he approached the band, complaining that they had used the art without regard for the registered copyright, they offered him concert tickets in settlement. Green Day continues to use artwork in promotional materials and backdrops.

Seltzer filed a complaint in the Central District of Los Angeles and is suing Green Day for Copyright Infringement, and unfair competition and false designation under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. However, Green Day’s attorney, Don Passman claims that "Green Day received Mr. Seltzer's image from a responsible company and was unaware that there could be any copyright or other issues."

It’s hard to be too careful about usage of graphics and artwork, and it’s important to know the actual source. Although it may seem harmless, much of it is legitimately copyrighted material. Even more important to be careful when dozens of sold out stadiums will be viewing the art in question.

Copyright Infringement Harry Potter Style

A 36 page children’s book from a now-deceased and totally obscure British author may have lead to Harry Potter. Last week, the Associated Press reported that J.K. Rowling and her publisher are being sued for copyright infringement.

The estate of Adrian Jacobs, who died penniless in 1997, alleges that Rowling’s fourth book, “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,” was lifted from “The Adventures of Willy the Wizard,” written by Jacobs in 1987. The trustee of Jacobs’ estate, Paul Allen, is suing for over $500 million pounds.

According to Rowling: “The claims that are made are not only unfounded but absurd, and I am disappointed that I, and my UK publisher Bloomsbury, are put in a position to have to defend ourselves.” Unfortunately for Jacobs’ estate, it will be hard to prove that Rowling did in fact plagiarize. Mere ideas are hard to copyright, and from the sound of it, that’s all Jacobs had. Wizard and magic lore is hardly unique intellectual property. Copyrights are given for the execution of a work.
Apparently, Allen’s attorney, Max Markson, has a different view. He was quoted saying he thinks it’s a billion-dollar case

LOS ANGELES COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY FILED LAWSUIT AGAINST CHRIS ROCK

A complaint and later filed Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was filed against Chris Rock and HBO to prevent the release of Rock’s film, Good Hair, in the Central District of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Regina Kimbell, has already written and produced a documentary entitled My Nappy Roots, which explores the social and cultural issues surround black hair care.

Kimbell claims that Rock invited her to the Paramount lot and asked her to bring a copy of her film with the intention helping her with it. But rather, Rock was really looking for research and help himself with his own film. Kimbell’s copyright lawyers claim copyright infringement of the work. The TRO describes a side by side analysis of the similarities of the two works, namely, the similarity of the people interviewed, and the places visited in both movies.

On October 8, 2009, the Judge denied the TRO on the basis that Kimbell’s motion was untimely and in any event lacks merit. It seem that the deciding factor was that Rock’s version was comedic and not a serious documentary. The Judge’s order states “My Nappy Roots, in contrast, takes a serious and holistic view of Black hair care throughout its history…This is nothing in the record to suggest the world of academia has accorded Rock similar status.” The Judge did however, allow Kimbell’s request for expedited discovery. So it appears for now, that Kimbell will not get her preliminary injunction, but the case will proceed on, so she is not out of the game yet. Rock’s Good Hair is slated to be released nationwide on October 23, 2009.

Annie Leibovitz Is Having Copyright Issues

Celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz nearly lost the copyrights to her famous photography as a result of her default on a $24 million loan. Art Capital Group (“ACG”), the lender, sued Leibovitz back in July due to breach of contract of their agreement. As collateral, Leibovitz used her real estate assets and the copyright to every photograph she has ever taken.

ACG estimated that the value of her intellectual property is approximately at $40 million in addition to $40 million in her real estate.

Luckily for her, she was granted an extension to repay the $24 million and ACG seems to be in agreement and is cooperating with Ms. Leibovitz.

However, her intellectual property issues don’t stop there, earlier this month she was sued in the US Southern District of New York for copyright infringement. An Italian photographer named Paolo Pizzetti, claims that Leibovitz took the same or similar photographs as he. As the complaint states “…the water falling from the rocks is falling in exactly the same place and in the same manner in both. It is clear that the Leibovitz Defendants copies the Trevi work authored by Pizzetti and edited it by superimposing models in post production, creating an infringing derivative work.”

Hopefully she will get herself out this one so we can see more of her great work.