Cameo Clips

Copyright Infringement/Corporate Access

Pitching a character to Fox Family Worldwide (FFW) didn't create an inference of corporate access for purposes of establishing infringement of the character by Fox Family Films, a Manhattan federal district court decided. Silberstein v. Fox Entertainment Group Inc., 02 Civ. 1131 (RJH). Plaintiff Ivy Silberstein claimed infringement of her “Sqrat” character, a squirrel-rat hybrid, by the animated film “Ice Age.” Granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court noted, among other things, that “defendants have submitted uncontroverted evidence that, the similarity between the corporate names notwithstanding, FFW does not control or own Fox Family Films, the two corporations do not have any employees in common, their offices have never been located in the same building, and neither FFW nor any of its subsidiaries 'had any involvement whatsoever in the creation, development or production of 'Ice Age' or any of the characters in 'Ice Age.' ' … Defendants have submitted testimony stating that 'the only corporate relationship between [Fox Family Films and FFW] was that Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (of which Fox Family Films was a division from 1996 to 1998 [at which point its name became Twentieth Century Fox Animation]) was a corporate affiliate of the subsidiary of Fox Broadcasting Company which was one of the joint venture partners in [FFW],' … and that 'neither Fox Broadcasting Company nor any [of] its subsidiaries had any involvement in the creation, development or production of 'Ice Age'.' ”

An expert witness primarily experienced in valuing photographs for acquiring rights in them was qualified to render an opinion on the apportioning of profits between photographs and text in books, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, decided. Ty Inc. v. Publications International Ltd. (PIL), 99 C 5565. PIL had retained attorney E. Gabriel Perle, who had more than 50 years experience in magazine publishing, to render the expert opinion. The plaintiff then moved to exclude Perle's expert opinion and testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Denying the motion, the district court stated that Perle “has at least once negotiated a settlement of a case in which a major component was the apportioned value to the book of the allegedly unauthorized publication of certain photographs. Nonetheless, the bulk of Perle's experience which allegedly qualifies him to be an expert does deal with the valuation of photographs for purposes of acquiring rights to them. Regardless, this limitation does not preclude him as an expert because there is a strong tie between the valuation of photographs for purposes of acquiring rights to them and determining what profits are driven by their use.”

A state statute that penalized the distribution, sale and rental of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division, decided. Video Software Dealers Association v. Maleng, C03-1245L. Entering a permanent injunction against RCW 9.91.180, the district court found that video games were protected speech noting, “The games at issue in this litigation … frequently involve intricate, if obnoxious, story lines, detailed artwork, original scores, and a complex narrative which evolves as the player makes choices and gains experience. … Defendants have not identified, and the Court has not found, any case in which a category of otherwise protected expression is kept from children because it might do them harm.” Then using strict scrutiny, the district court found that “the current state of the research cannot support the legislative determinations that underlie the Act because there has been no showing that exposure to video games that 'trivialize violence against law enforcement officers' is likely to lead to actual violence against such officers.”

Copyright Infringement/Corporate Access

Pitching a character to Fox Family Worldwide (FFW) didn't create an inference of corporate access for purposes of establishing infringement of the character by Fox Family Films, a Manhattan federal district court decided. Silberstein v. Fox Entertainment Group Inc., 02 Civ. 1131 (RJH). Plaintiff Ivy Silberstein claimed infringement of her “Sqrat” character, a squirrel-rat hybrid, by the animated film “Ice Age.” Granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court noted, among other things, that “defendants have submitted uncontroverted evidence that, the similarity between the corporate names notwithstanding, FFW does not control or own Fox Family Films, the two corporations do not have any employees in common, their offices have never been located in the same building, and neither FFW nor any of its subsidiaries 'had any involvement whatsoever in the creation, development or production of 'Ice Age' or any of the characters in 'Ice Age.' ' … Defendants have submitted testimony stating that 'the only corporate relationship between [Fox Family Films and FFW] was that Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (of which Fox Family Films was a division from 1996 to 1998 [at which point its name became Twentieth Century Fox Animation]) was a corporate affiliate of the subsidiary of Fox Broadcasting Company which was one of the joint venture partners in [FFW],' … and that 'neither Fox Broadcasting Company nor any [of] its subsidiaries had any involvement in the creation, development or production of 'Ice Age'.' ”

An expert witness primarily experienced in valuing photographs for acquiring rights in them was qualified to render an opinion on the apportioning of profits between photographs and text in books, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, decided. Ty Inc. v. Publications International Ltd. (PIL) , 99 C 5565. PIL had retained attorney E. Gabriel Perle, who had more than 50 years experience in magazine publishing, to render the expert opinion. The plaintiff then moved to exclude Perle's expert opinion and testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Denying the motion, the district court stated that Perle “has at least once negotiated a settlement of a case in which a major component was the apportioned value to the book of the allegedly unauthorized publication of certain photographs. Nonetheless, the bulk of Perle's experience which allegedly qualifies him to be an expert does deal with the valuation of photographs for purposes of acquiring rights to them. Regardless, this limitation does not preclude him as an expert because there is a strong tie between the valuation of photographs for purposes of acquiring rights to them and determining what profits are driven by their use.”

A state statute that penalized the distribution, sale and rental of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division, decided. Video Software Dealers Association v. Maleng, C03-1245L. Entering a permanent injunction against RCW 9.91.180, the district court found that video games were protected speech noting, “The games at issue in this litigation … frequently involve intricate, if obnoxious, story lines, detailed artwork, original scores, and a complex narrative which evolves as the player makes choices and gains experience. … Defendants have not identified, and the Court has not found, any case in which a category of otherwise protected expression is kept from children because it might do them harm.” Then using strict scrutiny, the district court found that “the current state of the research cannot support the legislative determinations that underlie the Act because there has been no showing that exposure to video games that 'trivialize violence against law enforcement officers' is likely to lead to actual violence against such officers.”