Cameo Clips

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT/ CLAIM DISMISSAL

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a suit alleging copyright infringement by the movie 'The Polar Express' and by an episode of the Discovery Channel's 'Extreme Engineering' television series. Adams v. Warner Brothers Pictures Network, 05 CV 5211(SLT)(LB). Pro se plaintiff Colonel A. Adams claimed he filed a copyright registration, for a drawing of an upright space ship, which the defendants infringed. 'The Polar Express' is a movie based on a children's book of the same title. The 'Extreme Engineering' episode examined the possibility of a New-York-to-London tunnel for a levitated train.

The district court first noted: 'Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains no allegations that Defendants had access to Adams' copyrighted Design. Defendants argue that there is not even a possibility that any of the Defendants saw or had a reasonable opportunity to see Adams' Design because Defendants created each of their respective works prior to Adams' copyright registration ' [And Adams] does not allege ever having published, displayed, or distributed his Design prior to his registration. Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that on this ground alone, this action should be dismissed.'

But the district court went on to consider the issue of substantial similarity between Adams' design and the defendants' works. Finding none, the court explained: 'The only similarities that the respective works share is the generalized idea of a transportation tunnel or tube and the basic cylindrical shape. Adams cannot assert ownership over either the idea or the shape. In addition, the 'total concept and feel' of the respective works is vastly different. While the Design is crudely drawn by hand and devoid of any color or discernible detail, the 'Tube Car' in the Motion Picture is meticulously detailed, vivid, and has been digitally enhanced to mimic a realistic portrayal of an entire futuristic transportation system that consists of tubal tunnels.'

And the tunnel in the 'Extreme Engineering' TV episode 'is equally as different from the Design as the tunnel system in the Motion Picture,' the court concluded.

DECRYPTION-SOFTWARE SALES/ILLEGALITY DEFENSE

The Court of Appeals of Georgia upheld a ruling that commissions should be paid to an individual hired to promote the defendants' DVD copying software, even though the defendants stopped making their product for fear of copyright-infringement liability. Smith v. Saulsbury, A07A0524. Plaintiff Richard Saulsbury was hired by More2Save LLC in March 2003 to send mass e-mails advertising CloneMyDVD, which decrypted DVD anti-copying protection. Saulsbury was to be paid $25 for each sale his efforts brought the defendants. But after finding out in May 2003 that the film industry was suing distributors of products like CloneMyDVD, More2Save ceased selling its product as well as paying the commissions to Saulsbury. He responded with a suit alleging breach of contract, fraud and promissory estoppel. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the agreement with Saulsbury was void because sales of CloneMyDVD violated copyright law. The trial court denied the defendants' motion and a jury found in favor of Saulsbury.

Affirming, the court of appeals noted: 'In Georgia, '[a] contract to do an ' illegal thing is void.' But a contract does not fall within this principle unless its object or purpose is illegal. The prohibition does not apply 'where the object of the contract is not illegal or against public policy, but where the illegality is only collateral or remotely connected to the contract.”

Based on this, the court went on to explain: 'Here, the Defendants have not shown that the purpose of their agreement with Saulsbury was illegal. Pursuant to the parties' contract, Saulsbury sent e-mails to potential customers whose e-mail addresses he obtained by purchasing distribution lists. The e-mails contained a link to the More2Save web site. There is nothing inherently illegal about the services provided by Saulsbury. Although the ultimate sale or use of CloneMyDVD ' if used to copy commercial DVDs that contained encryption to preclude copying ' might have violated federal copyright law, such alleged illegality 'was not required by the [parties'] contract and was incidental to contract performance.'

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT/ CLAIM DISMISSAL

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a suit alleging copyright infringement by the movie 'The Polar Express' and by an episode of the Discovery Channel's 'Extreme Engineering' television series. Adams v. Warner Brothers Pictures Network, 05 CV 5211(SLT)(LB). Pro se plaintiff Colonel A. Adams claimed he filed a copyright registration, for a drawing of an upright space ship, which the defendants infringed. 'The Polar Express' is a movie based on a children's book of the same title. The 'Extreme Engineering' episode examined the possibility of a New-York-to-London tunnel for a levitated train.

The district court first noted: 'Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains no allegations that Defendants had access to Adams' copyrighted Design. Defendants argue that there is not even a possibility that any of the Defendants saw or had a reasonable opportunity to see Adams' Design because Defendants created each of their respective works prior to Adams' copyright registration ' [And Adams] does not allege ever having published, displayed, or distributed his Design prior to his registration. Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that on this ground alone, this action should be dismissed.'

But the district court went on to consider the issue of substantial similarity between Adams' design and the defendants' works. Finding none, the court explained: 'The only similarities that the respective works share is the generalized idea of a transportation tunnel or tube and the basic cylindrical shape. Adams cannot assert ownership over either the idea or the shape. In addition, the 'total concept and feel' of the respective works is vastly different. While the Design is crudely drawn by hand and devoid of any color or discernible detail, the 'Tube Car' in the Motion Picture is meticulously detailed, vivid, and has been digitally enhanced to mimic a realistic portrayal of an entire futuristic transportation system that consists of tubal tunnels.'

And the tunnel in the 'Extreme Engineering' TV episode 'is equally as different from the Design as the tunnel system in the Motion Picture,' the court concluded.

DECRYPTION-SOFTWARE SALES/ILLEGALITY DEFENSE

The Court of Appeals of Georgia upheld a ruling that commissions should be paid to an individual hired to promote the defendants' DVD copying software, even though the defendants stopped making their product for fear of copyright-infringement liability. Smith v. Saulsbury, A07A0524. Plaintiff Richard Saulsbury was hired by More2Save LLC in March 2003 to send mass e-mails advertising CloneMyDVD, which decrypted DVD anti-copying protection. Saulsbury was to be paid $25 for each sale his efforts brought the defendants. But after finding out in May 2003 that the film industry was suing distributors of products like CloneMyDVD, More2Save ceased selling its product as well as paying the commissions to Saulsbury. He responded with a suit alleging breach of contract, fraud and promissory estoppel. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the agreement with Saulsbury was void because sales of CloneMyDVD violated copyright law. The trial court denied the defendants' motion and a jury found in favor of Saulsbury.

Affirming, the court of appeals noted: 'In Georgia, '[a] contract to do an ' illegal thing is void.' But a contract does not fall within this principle unless its object or purpose is illegal. The prohibition does not apply 'where the object of the contract is not illegal or against public policy, but where the illegality is only collateral or remotely connected to the contract.”

Based on this, the court went on to explain: 'Here, the Defendants have not shown that the purpose of their agreement with Saulsbury was illegal. Pursuant to the parties' contract, Saulsbury sent e-mails to potential customers whose e-mail addresses he obtained by purchasing distribution lists. The e-mails contained a link to the More2Save web site. There is nothing inherently illegal about the services provided by Saulsbury. Although the ultimate sale or use of CloneMyDVD ' if used to copy commercial DVDs that contained encryption to preclude copying ' might have violated federal copyright law, such alleged illegality 'was not required by the [parties'] contract and was incidental to contract performance.'