Bit Parts

Copyright Infringement/Expert Witnesses

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict that the TV show 'City of Angels' didn't infringe on the plaintiffs' three unpublished screenplays. Metcalf v. Bochco, 04-56097. Local Rule 16 of the Central District of California mandates that parties give the district court their witness lists 21 days before the final pretrial conference. The plaintiffs in this case had asked the court during that conference to allow them to designate an expert witness. In its unpublished opinion, the appeals court noted in part that the plaintiffs 'did not provide a good reason for why they could not have designated their expert earlier since they knew from the start of the case that substantial similarity, which they now assert the expert would have testified to, would be at issue.'

Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary-judgment ruling that the HBO TV-mini series 'Six Feet Under' wasn't substantially similar to the plaintiffs' screenplay 'The Funk Parlor.' Funky Films Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P., 04-55578. The appeals court explained: 'At a very high level of generality, both works share certain plot similarities: the family-run funeral home, the father's death, and the return of the 'prodigal son,' who assists his brother in maintaining the family business. ' [But t]he similarities recounted throughout appellants' brief rely heavily on scenes ' faire ' not concrete renderings specific to 'The Funk Parlor' ' and are, at best, coincidental.'

Copyright Infringement/Summary Judgment

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment dismissing a copyright-infringement suit over TLC's 1999 hit 'Unpretty.' Glover v. Austin, 02 CIV. 0812 LTS THK. According to the court: 'Plaintiffs' failure to controvert Defendants' overwhelming evidence that 'Unpretty' was created before Plaintiffs provided 'Make Up Your Mind' to LaFace [Records to which TLC was signed] precludes any triable issue of fact with respect to the access prong of the unauthorized copying inquiry. Plaintiffs have also failed to make the showing of striking similarity that is required in the absence of evidence of access.'

The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Three, ruled that the burden of proof should be shifted from the ex-wife of Jimi Hendrix associate Alan Douglas to Douglas himself to establish that Douglas had no community-property interest in Hendrix assets. Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, B182723. Arteena Rubenstein argued that Douglas hid assets from her in their marital-dissolution proceeding. The court of appeal noted: 'Alan already has been adjudicated to have obtained the 1992 dissolution judgment, with its finding of no community property, through perjury, and to have given false testimony regarding the existence of the disputed community assets which are the subject matter of this litigation.'

Royalty Suits/Motion to Dismiss

The New York Supreme Court, New York County, denied a motion by Capitol Records and EMI Records to dismiss a suit by Apple Corps Ltd. and the individual interests of the Beatles that alleges underpayment of record royalties. Apple Corps Ltd. v. Capitol Records Inc., 604385/2005. The suit grew out of agreements that settled royalty claims originally filed by the Beatles against the record companies in 1979. The recent complaint charges the record labels 'with breaching the parties' contracts, abusing plaintiffs' trust, and engaging in fraudulent schemes in order to pilfer millions of dollars of royalties due and owing to plaintiffs and to obtain collateral benefits at plaintiffs' expense.' The state court's ruling means the plaintiffs can continue with their claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, and their request that ownership of Beatles' group and solo recordings be turned over to the plaintiffs.

Video-Game Laws/Constitutionality

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana struck down that state's statute regulating video-game-content sales. The district court noted the purpose of La. R.S. 14:91.14 was 'prohibiting and criminalizing the sale, lease, or rental of video or computer games that appeal to a minor's morbid interest in violence.' But the court noted, among other things, 'it is unlikely that the State will be able to establish that any video games are directed towards inciting imminent lawless action or that they are likely to cause such action.'

Upcoming Events

American Bar Association Annual Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries, Los Angeles, Oct. 12-14. For further information: 312-988-5666; www.abanet.org/forums/entsports.

Texas Bar 16th Annual Entertainment Law Institute, Austin, Oct. 20-21. For further information: 800-204-2222 ext. 1574 or 512-427-1574; www.texasbarcle.com.

Copyright Infringement/Expert Witnesses

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict that the TV show 'City of Angels' didn't infringe on the plaintiffs' three unpublished screenplays. Metcalf v. Bochco, 04-56097. Local Rule 16 of the Central District of California mandates that parties give the district court their witness lists 21 days before the final pretrial conference. The plaintiffs in this case had asked the court during that conference to allow them to designate an expert witness. In its unpublished opinion, the appeals court noted in part that the plaintiffs 'did not provide a good reason for why they could not have designated their expert earlier since they knew from the start of the case that substantial similarity, which they now assert the expert would have testified to, would be at issue.'

Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary-judgment ruling that the HBO TV-mini series 'Six Feet Under' wasn't substantially similar to the plaintiffs' screenplay 'The Funk Parlor.' Funky Films Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P., 04-55578. The appeals court explained: 'At a very high level of generality, both works share certain plot similarities: the family-run funeral home, the father's death, and the return of the 'prodigal son,' who assists his brother in maintaining the family business. ' [But t]he similarities recounted throughout appellants' brief rely heavily on scenes ' faire ' not concrete renderings specific to 'The Funk Parlor' ' and are, at best, coincidental.'

Copyright Infringement/Summary Judgment

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment dismissing a copyright-infringement suit over TLC's 1999 hit 'Unpretty.' Glover v. Austin, 02 CIV. 0812 LTS THK. According to the court: 'Plaintiffs' failure to controvert Defendants' overwhelming evidence that 'Unpretty' was created before Plaintiffs provided 'Make Up Your Mind' to LaFace [Records to which TLC was signed] precludes any triable issue of fact with respect to the access prong of the unauthorized copying inquiry. Plaintiffs have also failed to make the showing of striking similarity that is required in the absence of evidence of access.'

The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Three, ruled that the burden of proof should be shifted from the ex-wife of Jimi Hendrix associate Alan Douglas to Douglas himself to establish that Douglas had no community-property interest in Hendrix assets. Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, B182723. Arteena Rubenstein argued that Douglas hid assets from her in their marital-dissolution proceeding. The court of appeal noted: 'Alan already has been adjudicated to have obtained the 1992 dissolution judgment, with its finding of no community property, through perjury, and to have given false testimony regarding the existence of the disputed community assets which are the subject matter of this litigation.'

Royalty Suits/Motion to Dismiss

The New York Supreme Court, New York County, denied a motion by Capitol Records and EMI Records to dismiss a suit by Apple Corps Ltd. and the individual interests of the Beatles that alleges underpayment of record royalties. Apple Corps Ltd. v. Capitol Records Inc., 604385/2005. The suit grew out of agreements that settled royalty claims originally filed by the Beatles against the record companies in 1979. The recent complaint charges the record labels 'with breaching the parties' contracts, abusing plaintiffs' trust, and engaging in fraudulent schemes in order to pilfer millions of dollars of royalties due and owing to plaintiffs and to obtain collateral benefits at plaintiffs' expense.' The state court's ruling means the plaintiffs can continue with their claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, and their request that ownership of Beatles' group and solo recordings be turned over to the plaintiffs.

Video-Game Laws/Constitutionality

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana struck down that state's statute regulating video-game-content sales. The district court noted the purpose of La. R.S. 14:91.14 was 'prohibiting and criminalizing the sale, lease, or rental of video or computer games that appeal to a minor's morbid interest in violence.' But the court noted, among other things, 'it is unlikely that the State will be able to establish that any video games are directed towards inciting imminent lawless action or that they are likely to cause such action.'

Upcoming Events

American Bar Association Annual Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries, Los Angeles, Oct. 12-14. For further information: 312-988-5666; www.abanet.org/forums/entsports.

Texas Bar 16th Annual Entertainment Law Institute, Austin, Oct. 20-21. For further information: 800-204-2222 ext. 1574 or 512-427-1574; www.texasbarcle.com.