Bit Parts

Anti-Piracy Statutes/Constitutionality

The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the state's anti-piracy law, OCGA Sec. 16-8-60(b), is constitutional. Briggs v. The State, S06A1146. The statute prohibits sale or distribution 'unless such phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, videotape, film or other article bears the actual name and address of the transferor of the sounds or visual images in a prominent place on its outside face or package.' Though 'transferor' isn't defined in Sec. 16-8-60(b), the court noted: 'We are confident that, as used in the statute, the term is clear and straightforward.' The State Supreme Court also ruled that federal copyright law didn't preempt the state statute, by noting: 'The statute in question, OCGA Sec. 16-8-60(b) criminalizes the sale, or the possession for purposes of sale, of recordings which do not carry a label identifying the 'transferor' of the sounds, regardless of their copyright status. The statute does not criminalize unauthorized copyrighted works.'

Copyright Infringement/Probative and Substantial Similarity

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defense in a copyright-infringement suit brought over the song 'Young N' by Fabolous that used the phrase 'holla back.' Boone v. Jackson, 05-5558. In its unpublished opinion, the appeals court criticized the district court by noting the lower court's 'opinion is at times unclear as to which similarity analysis ' probative [used first to establish actual copying] or substantial [used next] ' it was undertaking.' But the appeals court added: 'Nevertheless, the district court appears to base its decision on the permissible ground that the plaintiff's expert conceded the alleged similarities at issue are different and dissimilar, thereby weakening plaintiff's argument that defendant copied her work.'

Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment for defendants Mary J. Blige and Universal Music in an infringement suit over the lyrics to Blige's recording 'Family Affair.' Jones v. Blige, 04-60184. Finding no substantial similiarity, the district court noted: 'Here, the lyrics [to the parties' songs] contain a few words in common, but they are scattered randomly throughout the works. Further, the themes underlying the lyrics are different. 'Family Affair' directs partygoers to leave their troubles at the door and dance. In contrast, [the plaintiffs'] 'Party Ain't Crunk' covers sexual exploits and acts of violence.'

Trademarks/Right to Sue

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ruled that the owner a federally registered 'Bob Marley' trademark could pursue trademark-infringement and related claims despite a previous ruling by the Supreme Court of Jamaica that the Robert Marley Foundation and Bob Marley Music Inc. held the late reggae star's intellectual-property rights. Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. v. Mayah Collections Inc., 2:05-CV-01059-KJD-GWF. The plaintiff had federally registered 'Bob Marley' for use with apparel, after the 1992 ruling by the Jamaican high court. The Nevada federal district court noted: 'It is undisputed that Plaintiff Fifty-Six Hope Road is the registered holder of [the] federal trademark listed ' with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the name of Bob Marley.'

Video-Game Laws/Constitutionality

Affirming a lower-court ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a permanent injunction against the Illinois Sexually Explicit Video Games Law (SEVGL), 720 ILCS 5/12B. Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich, 06-1012. The statute required video-game retailers to put four-inch square '18' warning labels on 'sexually explicit' video-game products and to place in their stores three signs of specified size that explained the industry rating system. The statute also included criminal penalties. The appeals court noted, in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, that the state law failed to include a prong that a video game be 'utterly without redeeming social importance for minors' or looked at as a 'whole' in determining whether it has 'serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.' The court added that 'the requirement that the '18' sticker be attached to all games meeting the State's definition [of 'sexually explicit'] forces the game-seller to include this non-factual information in its message that is the game's packaging. ' Applying strict scrutiny, we cannot say that the '18' sticker is narrowly tailored to the State's goal of ensuring that parents are informed of the sexually explicit content in games.' As for the store signs requirement, the appeals court explained: 'Many video game stores are as small as one room in an indoor mall. Little imagination is required to envision the spacing debacle that could accompany a small retailer's attempt to fit three signs, each roughly the size of a large street sign, into such a space.'

Anti-Piracy Statutes/Constitutionality

The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the state's anti-piracy law, OCGA Sec. 16-8-60(b), is constitutional. Briggs v. The State, S06A1146. The statute prohibits sale or distribution 'unless such phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, videotape, film or other article bears the actual name and address of the transferor of the sounds or visual images in a prominent place on its outside face or package.' Though 'transferor' isn't defined in Sec. 16-8-60(b), the court noted: 'We are confident that, as used in the statute, the term is clear and straightforward.' The State Supreme Court also ruled that federal copyright law didn't preempt the state statute, by noting: 'The statute in question, OCGA Sec. 16-8-60(b) criminalizes the sale, or the possession for purposes of sale, of recordings which do not carry a label identifying the 'transferor' of the sounds, regardless of their copyright status. The statute does not criminalize unauthorized copyrighted works.'

Copyright Infringement/Probative and Substantial Similarity

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defense in a copyright-infringement suit brought over the song 'Young N' by Fabolous that used the phrase 'holla back.' Boone v. Jackson, 05-5558. In its unpublished opinion, the appeals court criticized the district court by noting the lower court's 'opinion is at times unclear as to which similarity analysis ' probative [used first to establish actual copying] or substantial [used next] ' it was undertaking.' But the appeals court added: 'Nevertheless, the district court appears to base its decision on the permissible ground that the plaintiff's expert conceded the alleged similarities at issue are different and dissimilar, thereby weakening plaintiff's argument that defendant copied her work.'

Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment for defendants Mary J. Blige and Universal Music in an infringement suit over the lyrics to Blige's recording 'Family Affair.' Jones v. Blige, 04-60184. Finding no substantial similiarity, the district court noted: 'Here, the lyrics [to the parties' songs] contain a few words in common, but they are scattered randomly throughout the works. Further, the themes underlying the lyrics are different. 'Family Affair' directs partygoers to leave their troubles at the door and dance. In contrast, [the plaintiffs'] 'Party Ain't Crunk' covers sexual exploits and acts of violence.'

Trademarks/Right to Sue

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ruled that the owner a federally registered 'Bob Marley' trademark could pursue trademark-infringement and related claims despite a previous ruling by the Supreme Court of Jamaica that the Robert Marley Foundation and Bob Marley Music Inc. held the late reggae star's intellectual-property rights. Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. v. Mayah Collections Inc., 2:05-CV-01059-KJD-GWF. The plaintiff had federally registered 'Bob Marley' for use with apparel, after the 1992 ruling by the Jamaican high court. The Nevada federal district court noted: 'It is undisputed that Plaintiff Fifty-Six Hope Road is the registered holder of [the] federal trademark listed ' with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the name of Bob Marley.'

Video-Game Laws/Constitutionality

Affirming a lower-court ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a permanent injunction against the Illinois Sexually Explicit Video Games Law (SEVGL), 720 ILCS 5/12B. Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich, 06-1012. The statute required video-game retailers to put four-inch square '18' warning labels on 'sexually explicit' video-game products and to place in their stores three signs of specified size that explained the industry rating system. The statute also included criminal penalties. The appeals court noted, in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, that the state law failed to include a prong that a video game be 'utterly without redeeming social importance for minors' or looked at as a 'whole' in determining whether it has 'serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.' The court added that 'the requirement that the '18' sticker be attached to all games meeting the State's definition [of 'sexually explicit'] forces the game-seller to include this non-factual information in its message that is the game's packaging. ' Applying strict scrutiny, we cannot say that the '18' sticker is narrowly tailored to the State's goal of ensuring that parents are informed of the sexually explicit content in games.' As for the store signs requirement, the appeals court explained: 'Many video game stores are as small as one room in an indoor mall. Little imagination is required to envision the spacing debacle that could accompany a small retailer's attempt to fit three signs, each roughly the size of a large street sign, into such a space.'