Cameo Clips

Without affirmative evidence of access, there was no reasonable possibility that the creators of the song 'What U See Is What U Get,' recorded by Britney Spears, copied the plaintiffs' song before the melody for the defendants' song was completed, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has decided. Cottrill v. Spears, 02-3464. The plaintiffs claimed that they had given their song, 'What You See Is What You Get,' to an a&r representative for Jive Records, to which Spears was signed, in December 1999. The defendant songwriters claimed that their composition was largely completed in October 1999. Spears' album, 'Oops I Did It Again' containing 'What U See Is What U Get,' was released in May 2000. The district court noted, among other things, that there was no evidence to support the plaintiffs' contention that they had given an earlier version of their song to the a&r representative prior to November 1999, when the Spears song was finished and she recorded her vocals. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish substantial similarity between the two songs at issue.

A series of TV specials about the secrets behind famous magic illusions wasn't substantially similar to plaintiff Robert Rice's video 'The Mystery Magician' so as to constitute infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held. Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 01-56582. Affirming a grant of summary judgment for the defendants on the infringement claim, the appeals court concluded that similarities between the plaintiff's and defendants' magicians were too generic to be protectible, and that the dialogue, settings, mood and plot were either too generic or too different to be substantially similar. Granting summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff's Lanham Act false advertising claim, the appeals court concluded that any false statements made by the Fox host during the TV specials didn't constitute advertising, and that any false statements made on the video cover for Fox's shows were immaterial because potential customers bought the video over the telephone or Internet without seeing a copy of the video jacket.

A film company's executive-safeguard insurance policy didn't require the insurer to indemnify the company's former president against cross-claims of conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and trade libel brought against him by the film company, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, has ruled in an unpublished opinion. Kronemeyer v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., B161586. When David Kronemeyer, former president of Gold Circle Films LLC, sued the company for compensation and return of personal property, Gold Circle filed cross-claims against Kronemeyer. Kronemeyer then filed a declaratory suit against Philadelphia Indemnity for indemnification. Though Kronemeyer qualified as an insured under Gold Circle's policy, the court of appeal noted, among other things, '[a]n officer does not act in his capacity as such when he engages in misconduct for his individual benefit to the injury of his employer. ' Thus, the alleged embezzlement, conversion, libel, and fraudulent expense claims cannot be 'Wrongful Acts' for which a 'Claim' for 'Loss' is payable under the policy. Further, since the alleged libel took place after appellant was terminated as Gold Circle Films, it was certainly not committed in appellant's capacity as an officer of that company.'

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) preempted a recording engineer's state law claims alleging misrepresentation of the terms of employment and failure to pay union wages, the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, has held. Levy v. Skywalker Sound, A097460. Robert Levy, who had been hired as a music audio engineer, claimed that Skywalker Sound had improperly told him that he could not be both a non-union music engineer and union film mixer. Affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Skywalker on preemption grounds, the court of appeal noted that Levy sought to bring himself within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement between Skywalker and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada.

An Illinois federal court has personal jurisdiction over a California-based record label that allegedly violated the Lanham Act by distributing recordings written by the plaintiff without crediting him as a performer and writer, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has decided. Davis v. Howse, 02-C-5549. Plaintiff Jerome Davis claimed that Layzie Bone Recordings and its California-based distributor, Comptown Records, failed to credit him for two songs on the album ”L-Burna: Thug By Nature.' Denying Comptown's motion to dismiss, the district court noted, '[b]ecause Davis's complaint alleges that Comptown marketed and sold the L-Burna album in Illinois (from which Davis's Lanham Act claim arises), he has alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that Comptown transacts business within the state of Illinois as defined by the Long-Arm statute.' Davis also sued Comptown for failing to provide proper security while he was performing on the 'L-Burna' tour in New Orleans, where he was allegedly assaulted by Layzie Bone's president. The district court concluded, however, 'Comptown's allegedly negligent acts bear no relation to the forum district [of Illinois]. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction over Comptown on Davis's negligence claim would offend due process notions of minimum contacts and fair play and substantial justice.'

A St. Louis County ordinance requiring parental consent for minors to rent, buy or play violent video games violated the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled. Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, Missouri, 02-3010. Finding that the ordinance failed to meet constitutional strict scrutiny, the appeals court noted that 'there is no justification for disqualifying video games as speech simply because they are constructed to be interactive '. Whether we believe the advent of violent video games adds anything of value to society is irrelevant; guided by the First Amendment, we are obliged to recognize that 'they are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.' ' The County's conclusion that there is a strong likelihood that minors who play violent video games will suffer a deleterious effect on their psychological health is simply unsupported in the record.'

Copyright Infringement/Access