Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Expanding Protections for Artistic Features of Utilitarian Objects
In April 2004, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's conclusion that the features of Mattel's “CEO Barbie” and “Neptune's Daughter Barbie” were not protected by copyright. With little discussion, the three judge panel unanimously held that while Mattel's “particularized expression” in a “doll visage with upturned nose, bow lips, and widely spaced eyes” does not prevent a competitor from creating dolls with upturned noses, bow lips and widely spaced eyes, it does bar a competitor from copying Mattel's “realization” of the particular Barbie's features. Mattel, Inc. v. Goldberger Doll Manufacturing Co., 365 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir. 2004).
Shortly after that decision was published, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Pivot Point International, Inc. v. Charlene Products, Inc. had a much more difficult time determining the copyright protection afforded to a very similar product. 372 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2004). In Pivot Point, the manufacturer of mannequin heads for use in makeup and hairstyling practice sued another manufacturer that had made a virtually exact copy of Pivot Point's “Mara” mannequin head, made to portray a model's “hungry look.” In a lengthy opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court decision (by Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the Court of Appeals, who had been sitting by designation) and ruled that the mannequin's facial features were copyrightable.
Why was the Pivot Point facial design a much more difficult case under copyright law? Because, unfortunately for Pivot Point, it was considered useful.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.