Bit Parts

Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that copyrightable elements of a defendant's work created before access to a plaintiff's work should be filtered of the substantial-similarity analysis. Murray Hill Publications Inc. v. Twentieth Cenury Fox Film Corp., 04-370.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that under Mexican law, the producer of a film is its “author.” Laparade v. Morenoivanova, 03-55238. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit embraced a similar ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Alameda Films SA de CV v. Authors Rights Restoration Corp., 331 F.3d 472, cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 814 (2003). The Ninth Circuit case grew out of differing claims to the copyright ownership of 34 Spanish-language films for the purpose of the restoration of U.S. copyrights under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 104A(b) to eligible foreign work in the U.S. public domain.

Film and TV/Piracy

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court issued sanctions against a retailer that allegedly distributed illegal copies of the plaintiff distributors' Asian films and TV programs. U2 Entertainment Inc. v. Rolling Rock Music Corp., 04 Civ. 1234 (DC). After the district court issued an ex parte order for seizure of 133 illicit film copies from the defendants' store, the defendants counterclaimed alleging blackmail and extortion by the plaintiff. In issuing the sanctions and dismissing the counterclaims, the district court noted, “Almost seven months have elapsed since U2 served its document requests and more than four months have passed since this Court issued its [order that the defendants produce all responsive documents within 10 days]. Yet, defendants still have not produced documents that surely exist and that are clearly relevant to their counterclaims. For example, although defendants allege that U2 and its affiliates extorted them into purchasing films, they have not produced any account ledgers reflecting the purchases and sale of inventory; they have not produced any canceled checks that would reflect payments for any 'forced' purchases; and they have not produced documents reflecting the purchase of copies of U2's films from other distributors.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc of its ruling last year that use of a brief, unlicensed sample of flutist James Newton's composition “Choir” in the Beastie Boys' recording “Pass the Mic” was a de minimis fair use. Newton v. Diamond, 02-55983.

Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that copyrightable elements of a defendant's work created before access to a plaintiff's work should be filtered of the substantial-similarity analysis. Murray Hill Publications Inc. v. Twentieth Cenury Fox Film Corp., 04-370.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that under Mexican law, the producer of a film is its “author.” Laparade v. Morenoivanova, 03-55238. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit embraced a similar ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Alameda Films SA de CV v. Authors Rights Restoration Corp. , 331 F.3d 472, cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 814 (2003). The Ninth Circuit case grew out of differing claims to the copyright ownership of 34 Spanish-language films for the purpose of the restoration of U.S. copyrights under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 104A(b) to eligible foreign work in the U.S. public domain.

Film and TV/Piracy

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court issued sanctions against a retailer that allegedly distributed illegal copies of the plaintiff distributors' Asian films and TV programs. U2 Entertainment Inc. v. Rolling Rock Music Corp., 04 Civ. 1234 (DC). After the district court issued an ex parte order for seizure of 133 illicit film copies from the defendants' store, the defendants counterclaimed alleging blackmail and extortion by the plaintiff. In issuing the sanctions and dismissing the counterclaims, the district court noted, “Almost seven months have elapsed since U2 served its document requests and more than four months have passed since this Court issued its [order that the defendants produce all responsive documents within 10 days]. Yet, defendants still have not produced documents that surely exist and that are clearly relevant to their counterclaims. For example, although defendants allege that U2 and its affiliates extorted them into purchasing films, they have not produced any account ledgers reflecting the purchases and sale of inventory; they have not produced any canceled checks that would reflect payments for any 'forced' purchases; and they have not produced documents reflecting the purchase of copies of U2's films from other distributors.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc of its ruling last year that use of a brief, unlicensed sample of flutist James Newton's composition “Choir” in the Beastie Boys' recording “Pass the Mic” was a de minimis fair use. Newton v. Diamond, 02-55983.