Cameo Clips

Copyright Infringement/Television Series

The defendant's TV series about the experiences of young actors didn't infringe on the plaintiff's film about actor auditions, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled. Quaglia v. Bravo Networks, 04-10460-RWZ. Plaintiff Frank Quaglia had pitched his film 'The Ultimate Audition' to the Bravo Network, which rejected the project. Quaglia later filed suit over the Bravo series 'The It Factor,' about young actors in New York City. The district court noted: '[P]laintiff had difficulty identifying precisely what copyrightable material ' other than his idea ' had allegedly been stolen from him. ' Indeed, although plaintiff recognized that ideas are not copyrightable, he nevertheless found himself asserting that defendants had stolen his 'ideas.' ' Given plaintiffs own, repeated characterization of the allegedly stolen material as an idea, it is doubtful that he could prevail on [ownership of a valid copyright].'

The district court also found that the evidence didn't establish that the defendants had copied Quaglia's idea. The court set out the relevant fact pattern as follows: 'No reasonable jury could infer that defendants, and more specifically, those Bravo employees who developed 'The It Factor' into a television series, had access to 'The Ultimate Audition.' [Laura Pierce, Bravo's Director of Programming] received a copy of 'The Ultimate Audition' in March 2000; she watched portions of the videotape 4 to 6 weeks later and sent a letter to plaintiff on April 11, 2000, rejecting his submission and returning the sole copy of the videotape Bravo ever possessed. ' There is no evidence that Pierce showed or discussed 'The Ultimate Audition' with anyone else at Bravo, and in fact she avers the opposite. ' When Zanzibar [Productions] sent materials for 'The It Factor' to Bravo, it was received first by Charles Derbyshire, who then forwarded the proposal to [Debbie DeMontreux, Bravo's Director of Development and Production of Original Series]. ' It was DeMontreux who followed up with Zanzibar and who ultimately worked with them to develop 'The It Factor' into a television series. There is no evidence that Pierce ever met with or discussed either work with DeMontreux or the principals of Zanzibar. Indeed, none of the principals of Zanzibar have ever spoken with Pierce, and the record is devoid of any evidence that DeMontreux and Pierce ever spoke about television programming generally, let alone 'The It Factor' or 'The Ultimate Audition' specifically.'

A video distributor was a 'film distributor' and thus not required to include the royalty payments it made to film producers in its tax base under Michigan law, the Court of Appeals of Michigan decided. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment Inc. v. Department of Treasury, 258664. Outstanding taxes of $500,000 were assessed against Fox Home Entertain-ment under the Michigan Single Business Tax Act (SBTA), MCL 208.1, et seq. But a tax tribunal ruled in favor of Fox. Affirming, the appeals court explained that the state legislature had amended the SBTA to add ”royalties, fees, charges, or other payments or consideration paid by a film distributor for copyrighted motion picture films, program matter, or signals to a film producer' to the list of types of royalties that did not have to be added or deducted, respectively, from the payer's business income in determining its tax base. MCL 208.9(4)(g)(vii); MCL 208.9(7)(c)(vi). Thus, it permitted a film distributor to deduct from its tax base the royalty payments it made to film producers, MCL 208.9(4)(g)(vii), but prohibited film producers from deducting royalty payments they received, MCL 208.9(7)(c)(vi).'

The legislature didn't define 'film distributor.' The appeals court explained: 'In seeking to determine legislative intent based on the plain language of the statute, we note that a 'film distributor' could only be expected to pay royalties to a 'film producer' for 'copyrighted motion picture films' if a motion picture had already been recorded onto the relevant 'film.' MCL 208.9(4)(g)(vii). This suggests that it is the distribution of the motion picture and not the medium that the Legislature is concerned with. ' [W]hen read in context, it appears that the Legislature's use of the phrase 'copyrighted motion picture films' was only setting forth one type of 'film' a 'film distributor' might pay a film producer for the use of. In fact, the Legislature indicates that a 'film distributor' might also pay a film producer for other 'program matter' and 'signals' as well. MCL 208.9(4)(g)(vii). Taken together, this language indicates that the Legislature did not intend to limit the term 'film distributors' to those who only distribute motion pictures on strips of emulsion-coated cellulose. ' Nor does the plain language of the statute indicate that a 'film distributor' has to distribute films to theaters in order to be considered a 'film distributor.”

Copyright Infringement/Television Series

The defendant's TV series about the experiences of young actors didn't infringe on the plaintiff's film about actor auditions, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled. Quaglia v. Bravo Networks, 04-10460-RWZ. Plaintiff Frank Quaglia had pitched his film 'The Ultimate Audition' to the Bravo Network, which rejected the project. Quaglia later filed suit over the Bravo series 'The It Factor,' about young actors in New York City. The district court noted: '[P]laintiff had difficulty identifying precisely what copyrightable material ' other than his idea ' had allegedly been stolen from him. ' Indeed, although plaintiff recognized that ideas are not copyrightable, he nevertheless found himself asserting that defendants had stolen his 'ideas.' ' Given plaintiffs own, repeated characterization of the allegedly stolen material as an idea, it is doubtful that he could prevail on [ownership of a valid copyright].'

The district court also found that the evidence didn't establish that the defendants had copied Quaglia's idea. The court set out the relevant fact pattern as follows: 'No reasonable jury could infer that defendants, and more specifically, those Bravo employees who developed 'The It Factor' into a television series, had access to 'The Ultimate Audition.' [Laura Pierce, Bravo's Director of Programming] received a copy of 'The Ultimate Audition' in March 2000; she watched portions of the videotape 4 to 6 weeks later and sent a letter to plaintiff on April 11, 2000, rejecting his submission and returning the sole copy of the videotape Bravo ever possessed. ' There is no evidence that Pierce showed or discussed 'The Ultimate Audition' with anyone else at Bravo, and in fact she avers the opposite. ' When Zanzibar [Productions] sent materials for 'The It Factor' to Bravo, it was received first by Charles Derbyshire, who then forwarded the proposal to [Debbie DeMontreux, Bravo's Director of Development and Production of Original Series]. ' It was DeMontreux who followed up with Zanzibar and who ultimately worked with them to develop 'The It Factor' into a television series. There is no evidence that Pierce ever met with or discussed either work with DeMontreux or the principals of Zanzibar. Indeed, none of the principals of Zanzibar have ever spoken with Pierce, and the record is devoid of any evidence that DeMontreux and Pierce ever spoke about television programming generally, let alone 'The It Factor' or 'The Ultimate Audition' specifically.'

A video distributor was a 'film distributor' and thus not required to include the royalty payments it made to film producers in its tax base under Michigan law, the Court of Appeals of Michigan decided. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment Inc. v. Department of Treasury, 258664. Outstanding taxes of $500,000 were assessed against Fox Home Entertain-ment under the Michigan Single Business Tax Act (SBTA), MCL 208.1, et seq. But a tax tribunal ruled in favor of Fox. Affirming, the appeals court explained that the state legislature had amended the SBTA to add ”royalties, fees, charges, or other payments or consideration paid by a film distributor for copyrighted motion picture films, program matter, or signals to a film producer' to the list of types of royalties that did not have to be added or deducted, respectively, from the payer's business income in determining its tax base. MCL 208.9(4)(g)(vii); MCL 208.9(7)(c)(vi). Thus, it permitted a film distributor to deduct from its tax base the royalty payments it made to film producers, MCL 208.9(4)(g)(vii), but prohibited film producers from deducting royalty payments they received, MCL 208.9(7)(c)(vi).'

The legislature didn't define 'film distributor.' The appeals court explained: 'In seeking to determine legislative intent based on the plain language of the statute, we note that a 'film distributor' could only be expected to pay royalties to a 'film producer' for 'copyrighted motion picture films' if a motion picture had already been recorded onto the relevant 'film.' MCL 208.9(4)(g)(vii). This suggests that it is the distribution of the motion picture and not the medium that the Legislature is concerned with. ' [W]hen read in context, it appears that the Legislature's use of the phrase 'copyrighted motion picture films' was only setting forth one type of 'film' a 'film distributor' might pay a film producer for the use of. In fact, the Legislature indicates that a 'film distributor' might also pay a film producer for other 'program matter' and 'signals' as well. MCL 208.9(4)(g)(vii). Taken together, this language indicates that the Legislature did not intend to limit the term 'film distributors' to those who only distribute motion pictures on strips of emulsion-coated cellulose. ' Nor does the plain language of the statute indicate that a 'film distributor' has to distribute films to theaters in order to be considered a 'film distributor.”