Bit Parts

Copyright Infringement/Motion to Intervene. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that singer Barbara Mason could intervene in a copyright-infringement action filed over her 1960s hit 'Yes, I'm Ready.' Jamie Music Publishing Co. v. Roc-A-Fella Records LLC, 05 Civ. 9922 BSJ JCF. Jamie Music sued Roc-A-Fella and Universal Music Group, among others. After the parties agreed to settle, Mason moved to intervene. Granting permissive intervention, the district court noted: 'Ms. Mason has a direct interest in the purported copyright infringement because she claims to be the sole author of the Composition and the owner of its copyright ' Second, there is no reason to believe that Ms. Mason's
concerns are coextensive with those of the plaintiffs such that her interests would be adequately represented by plaintiffs' counsel ' [T]he plaintiffs claim that Ms. Mason expressly assigned the copyright to them, while Ms. Mason claims that no such assignment exists.' ' Copyright Infringement/Striking Similarity. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that no reasonable juror could find the plaintiffs' screenplay and the defendant's movie, both about dodgeball, were so strikingly similar as to infer copying by the defendant and preclude the possibility of independent creation. Price v. Fox Entertainment Group Inc., 05 Civ. 5259(SAS). For example, the court noted: 'In the Screenplay, dodgeball is the major sport in the town, and the main characters grew up aspiring to be good dodgeball players ' In the Movie, by contrast, the characters stumble upon adult dodgeball through a sports magazine that highlights obscure sports ' Moreover, the main character's love interest in the Screenplay shifts from one person, the cheerleader, to another, the coach's sister Sam, whereas in the Movie, the main character's love interest remains constant ' The common error [in both works] that is highlighted by plaintiffs to demonstrate striking similarity, namely the reference to dodgeball's ancient roots in China, is not sufficiently distinctive to overcome these differences. Indeed, this 'common error' has also appeared in another work, an episode of the comedy show South Park.' The case will proceed under access and probative similarities. But the court found expert testimony on probative similarities would be unnecessary, explaining: 'These are not highly technical works. The jury is capable of recognizing and understanding the similarities between the works without the help of an expert. The jury can review the two works and decide for itself whether there are similarities that are probative of copying and how probative of copying those similarities are in light of plaintiffs' proof of access.' ' Right of Publicity/Attorney Fees. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied a motion for attorney fees by former Harlem Globetrotters basketball player Meadowlark Lemon after he won a right-of-publicity suit over the use of his name and player number on retail clothing. Lemon v. Harlem Globetrotters International Inc., CV-04-299-PHX-DGC. Arizona Rev. Stat. Sec. 12-341.01(A) provides for attorney fees 'in any contested action arising out of a contract.' Lemon claimed his action was based on his player contracts, which covered licensing rights. But the district court found: 'In this case, Plaintiff's right of publicity claim did not depend on the existence of a contract. To prevail on a right of publicity claim, a plaintiff must show (1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's name or likeness, (2) the appropriation of the plaintiff's name or likeness to the defendant's advantage, (3) lack of consent, and (4) resulting injury ' A plaintiff can assert this tort claim against anyone who has invaded his publicity rights. The lack of a contractual relationship between the parties, such as Plaintiff and Defendant [apparel company] GTFM in this case, does not preclude the claim.'

Copyright Infringement/Motion to Intervene. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that singer Barbara Mason could intervene in a copyright-infringement action filed over her 1960s hit 'Yes, I'm Ready.' Jamie Music Publishing Co. v. Roc-A-Fella Records LLC, 05 Civ. 9922 BSJ JCF. Jamie Music sued Roc-A-Fella and Universal Music Group, among others. After the parties agreed to settle, Mason moved to intervene. Granting permissive intervention, the district court noted: 'Ms. Mason has a direct interest in the purported copyright infringement because she claims to be the sole author of the Composition and the owner of its copyright ' Second, there is no reason to believe that Ms. Mason's
concerns are coextensive with those of the plaintiffs such that her interests would be adequately represented by plaintiffs' counsel ' [T]he plaintiffs claim that Ms. Mason expressly assigned the copyright to them, while Ms. Mason claims that no such assignment exists.' ' Copyright Infringement/Striking Similarity. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that no reasonable juror could find the plaintiffs' screenplay and the defendant's movie, both about dodgeball, were so strikingly similar as to infer copying by the defendant and preclude the possibility of independent creation. Price v. Fox Entertainment Group Inc., 05 Civ. 5259(SAS). For example, the court noted: 'In the Screenplay, dodgeball is the major sport in the town, and the main characters grew up aspiring to be good dodgeball players ' In the Movie, by contrast, the characters stumble upon adult dodgeball through a sports magazine that highlights obscure sports ' Moreover, the main character's love interest in the Screenplay shifts from one person, the cheerleader, to another, the coach's sister Sam, whereas in the Movie, the main character's love interest remains constant ' The common error [in both works] that is highlighted by plaintiffs to demonstrate striking similarity, namely the reference to dodgeball's ancient roots in China, is not sufficiently distinctive to overcome these differences. Indeed, this 'common error' has also appeared in another work, an episode of the comedy show South Park.' The case will proceed under access and probative similarities. But the court found expert testimony on probative similarities would be unnecessary, explaining: 'These are not highly technical works. The jury is capable of recognizing and understanding the similarities between the works without the help of an expert. The jury can review the two works and decide for itself whether there are similarities that are probative of copying and how probative of copying those similarities are in light of plaintiffs' proof of access.' ' Right of Publicity/Attorney Fees. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied a motion for attorney fees by former Harlem Globetrotters basketball player Meadowlark Lemon after he won a right-of-publicity suit over the use of his name and player number on retail clothing. Lemon v. Harlem Globetrotters International Inc., CV-04-299-PHX-DGC. Arizona Rev. Stat. Sec. 12-341.01(A) provides for attorney fees 'in any contested action arising out of a contract.' Lemon claimed his action was based on his player contracts, which covered licensing rights. But the district court found: 'In this case, Plaintiff's right of publicity claim did not depend on the existence of a contract. To prevail on a right of publicity claim, a plaintiff must show (1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's name or likeness, (2) the appropriation of the plaintiff's name or likeness to the defendant's advantage, (3) lack of consent, and (4) resulting injury ' A plaintiff can assert this tort claim against anyone who has invaded his publicity rights. The lack of a contractual relationship between the parties, such as Plaintiff and Defendant [apparel company] GTFM in this case, does not preclude the claim.'