Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Decision of Note</b></i> No Credit Needed For Public Domain Materials
In a major narrowing of the Lanham Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the law allows the copying of public domain material without giving credit to its source. The 8-0 ruling in Dastar Corp. v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp., 02-428, removes Lanham Act liability from parties that repackage facts or information that originated elsewhere. It could sweep away lawsuits often filed against major studios and publishers by authors and others who claim they were given insufficient credit for their contributions.
In spite of the long-range benefit for studios, the ruling itself was a defeat for Fox, which sued Dastar over Dastar's 'Campaigns in Europe' videotapes marketed in 1998. The tapes made heavy use of footage from a Fox TV series called 'Crusade in Europe,' based on Dwight Eisenhower's book of the same name. The TV series originally aired in 1949 and the copyright expired in 1977. The Dastar package included a new opening sequence but did not use all of the footage from the TV series. In its marketing, Dastar made no mention of the series or the Eisenhower book.
Fox sued, claiming the Dastar product amounted to reverse passing off in violation of the Lanham Act. Fox won at both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (One member of the Ninth Circuit panel was U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, sitting by designation. His participation explains why his brother, Supreme Court Justice Breyer, did not participate in the Supreme Court decision. Breyer routinely recuses himself in cases ruled on earlier by his brother Charles.)
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?