Cameo Clips

Copyright/TV Show Ideas

Three seminal scripts used as the basis for a TV sitcom belonged to the company that produced the show, rather than a co-host of “De Noche con Iris y Sunshine” who had participated in a brainstorming session to develop a sitcom to air within the “Iris y Sunshine” program, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico ruled. TMTV Corp. v. Mass Productions Inc., 00-1338. The show-within-a-show sitcom “20 Pisos de Historia” was about life at a condominium. The show's producer filed a declaratory action against co-host Emmanuel Logrono and others after Logrono left the plaintiff's program and moved to a different channel to appear in the sitcom “El Condominio.”

Granting summary judgment for the plaintiff, the district court found that Logrono wasn't an author of “20 Pisos de Historia.” According to the court, “Logrono has alleged in a conclusory and unsupported manner that he wrote an outline or storyline of the first scripts at the brainstorming session. … Accepting his version would mean that Logrono wrote not one, but three outlines or storylines for the three scripts at the brainstorming session. … We find that Logrono has failed to adequately controvert the fact that these initial scripts were actually written after the introductory brainstorming session by the two scriptwriters on their own, without supervision. Further, the documentary evidence on the record shows that the scripts ' as written by [Miguel] Morales and [Roberto] Jimenez ' are virtually identical to the final [product as reformatted by Logrono] used for the broadcasted programs.

The district court then found that the scripts by Morales and Jimenez were works for hire owned by TMTV under written agreements with the script writers and that “the similarities between the [plaintiff's and the defendants'] two programs are so striking that there is no doubt that 'El Condominio' is a derivative work of '20 Pisos de Historia' and for that matter an unauthorized derivative work.”

There was no material issue of fact that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) acted in other than good faith in informing an Internet service provider (ISP) under the “notice and takedown” procedures of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512, that a website operator was allegedly infringing on film copyrights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held. Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America Inc, 03-16034. Michael Rossi, who operated internetmovies.com, had filed several state law claims in Hawaii federal district court based on an alleged lack of good faith by the MPAA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the MPAA. Section 512(c)(3)(A)(v) states that, to send a takedown notice to an ISP, the complaining party must have “a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Rossi ' who claimed that movies couldn't be downloaded from his website or related links ' argued that the MPAA had failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into whether his site was infringing.

But affirming the lower court, the Ninth Circuit decided that the “good faith belief” requirement of Sec. 512(c)(3)(A)(v) is based on a subjective, rather than objective, test. The appeal court then noted, “The website contained statements that included 'Join to download full length movies online now! new movies every month'; 'Full Length Downloadable Movies'; and 'NOW DOWNLOADABLE.' These representations on the website led the MPAA employee [who viewed the site] to conclude in good faith that motion pictures owned by MPAA members were available for immediate downloading from the website.”

The appeals court thus concluded about Rossi's state law claims, “Because the MPAA acted in compliance with the DMCA and was otherwise justified in its response to Rossi's website, Rossi's tortious interference claims must fail. Because the MPAA's communications were privileged and were well within the bounds of decency, his defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims must fail as well.”

Copyright/TV Show Ideas

Three seminal scripts used as the basis for a TV sitcom belonged to the company that produced the show, rather than a co-host of “De Noche con Iris y Sunshine” who had participated in a brainstorming session to develop a sitcom to air within the “Iris y Sunshine” program, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico ruled. TMTV Corp. v. Mass Productions Inc., 00-1338. The show-within-a-show sitcom “20 Pisos de Historia” was about life at a condominium. The show's producer filed a declaratory action against co-host Emmanuel Logrono and others after Logrono left the plaintiff's program and moved to a different channel to appear in the sitcom “El Condominio.”

Granting summary judgment for the plaintiff, the district court found that Logrono wasn't an author of “20 Pisos de Historia.” According to the court, “Logrono has alleged in a conclusory and unsupported manner that he wrote an outline or storyline of the first scripts at the brainstorming session. … Accepting his version would mean that Logrono wrote not one, but three outlines or storylines for the three scripts at the brainstorming session. … We find that Logrono has failed to adequately controvert the fact that these initial scripts were actually written after the introductory brainstorming session by the two scriptwriters on their own, without supervision. Further, the documentary evidence on the record shows that the scripts ' as written by [Miguel] Morales and [Roberto] Jimenez ' are virtually identical to the final [product as reformatted by Logrono] used for the broadcasted programs.

The district court then found that the scripts by Morales and Jimenez were works for hire owned by TMTV under written agreements with the script writers and that “the similarities between the [plaintiff's and the defendants'] two programs are so striking that there is no doubt that 'El Condominio' is a derivative work of '20 Pisos de Historia' and for that matter an unauthorized derivative work.”

There was no material issue of fact that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) acted in other than good faith in informing an Internet service provider (ISP) under the “notice and takedown” procedures of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512, that a website operator was allegedly infringing on film copyrights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held. Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America Inc, 03-16034. Michael Rossi, who operated internetmovies.com, had filed several state law claims in Hawaii federal district court based on an alleged lack of good faith by the MPAA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the MPAA. Section 512(c)(3)(A)(v) states that, to send a takedown notice to an ISP, the complaining party must have “a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Rossi ' who claimed that movies couldn't be downloaded from his website or related links ' argued that the MPAA had failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into whether his site was infringing.

But affirming the lower court, the Ninth Circuit decided that the “good faith belief” requirement of Sec. 512(c)(3)(A)(v) is based on a subjective, rather than objective, test. The appeal court then noted, “The website contained statements that included 'Join to download full length movies online now! new movies every month'; 'Full Length Downloadable Movies'; and 'NOW DOWNLOADABLE.' These representations on the website led the MPAA employee [who viewed the site] to conclude in good faith that motion pictures owned by MPAA members were available for immediate downloading from the website.”

The appeals court thus concluded about Rossi's state law claims, “Because the MPAA acted in compliance with the DMCA and was otherwise justified in its response to Rossi's website, Rossi's tortious interference claims must fail. Because the MPAA's communications were privileged and were well within the bounds of decency, his defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims must fail as well.”