Bit Parts

Film-Script Submissions/Implied-in-Fact Contracts

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed that there was no implied-in-fact contract for Miramax Film to use writer Jeff Grosso's script, 'The Shell Game,' when making the movie 'Rounders.' Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., B193872. The appeals court noted in its unpublished opinion: 'Plaintiff simply mailed his script to Gotham [Entertainment Group] after reading in a writer's market guide that Gotham accepted unsolicited material. There was no response from Gotham at all. There were no communications between plaintiff and Gotham. Nor was there any communication between plaintiff and defendants, including Miramax. There was no evidence of any communication between Gotham and defendants with respect to plaintiff's ideas. There was no opinion testimony presented as to the custom in the industry. There is no evidence defendants did or said anything prior to disclosure to indicate a willingness to pay for the disclosure.' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously ruled that Gross sufficiently alleged a state law claim to allow him to proceed. Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965 (9^th Cir. 2004).

Record-Label Trademarks/Laches

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that laches barred a Lanham Act claim against Sony-BMG Music Entertainment and its affiliated Red Distribution over use of the label name Artemis Records. (Laches is an equitable defense that may apply if a plaintiff inexcusably delays in filing suit, to the prejudice of the defendants.) Fitzpatrick v. Sony-BMG Music Entertainment, 07 Civ. 2933(SAS). Basil Fitzpatrick had begun using the name Artemis Records in 1996 and sued over industry executive Danny Goldberg's later use of the name. The parties settled that action in 2000, with payment promised to Fitzpatrick for allowing Goldberg to use the Artemis name. But Fitzpatrick soon resumed use of the Artemis name ' after Goldberg's alleged failure to make the settlement payment ' and sued again in 2007. In New York, a defendant may raise a laches defense if a plaintiff waits six years to file a Lanham Act claim. The district court found:
'The earliest date on which Fitzpatrick could have known of the [Sony Music and] Red Defendants' infringement was July 6, 2000 ' the deadline for Fitzpatrick to receive the $125,000 compensation that Goldberg never paid. The latest the realization could have occurred is Sept. 15, 2000, the date Fitzpatrick resumed using the ARTEMIS RECORDS name. Under either set of facts, however, more than six years passed between the date Fitzpatrick knew, or should have known, of the infringement and the filing of his Complaint on April 12, 2007.'

Uruguay Round Agreements Act/First Amendment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided that Sec. 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (codified at 17 U.S.C. Sec. 104(A)) ' which restored copyright protection to works in the U.S. public domain that are protected by copyright in their country of origin ' is subject to First Amendment review. Golan v. Gonzales, 05-1259. The appeals court noted that 'by extending a limited monopoly to expressions historically beyond the pale of such privileges, the URAA transformed the ordinary process of copyright protection and contravened a bedrock principle of copyright law that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Therefore, under both the functional and historical components of our inquiry, Sec. 514 has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection ' [O]nce the works at issue became free for anyone to copy, plaintiffs in this case [including orchestra conductors, performers, publishers and motion-picture archivists and distributors] had vested First Amendment interests in the expressions ' In conducting its First Amendment analysis on remand, the district court should assess whether Sec. 514 is content-based or content-neutral.'

Film-Script Submissions/Implied-in-Fact Contracts

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed that there was no implied-in-fact contract for Miramax Film to use writer Jeff Grosso's script, 'The Shell Game,' when making the movie 'Rounders.' Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., B193872. The appeals court noted in its unpublished opinion: 'Plaintiff simply mailed his script to Gotham [Entertainment Group] after reading in a writer's market guide that Gotham accepted unsolicited material. There was no response from Gotham at all. There were no communications between plaintiff and Gotham. Nor was there any communication between plaintiff and defendants, including Miramax. There was no evidence of any communication between Gotham and defendants with respect to plaintiff's ideas. There was no opinion testimony presented as to the custom in the industry. There is no evidence defendants did or said anything prior to disclosure to indicate a willingness to pay for the disclosure.' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously ruled that Gross sufficiently alleged a state law claim to allow him to proceed. Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp. , 383 F.3d 965 (9 th Cir. 2004).

Record-Label Trademarks/Laches

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that laches barred a Lanham Act claim against Sony-BMG Music Entertainment and its affiliated Red Distribution over use of the label name Artemis Records. (Laches is an equitable defense that may apply if a plaintiff inexcusably delays in filing suit, to the prejudice of the defendants.) Fitzpatrick v. Sony-BMG Music Entertainment, 07 Civ. 2933(SAS). Basil Fitzpatrick had begun using the name Artemis Records in 1996 and sued over industry executive Danny Goldberg's later use of the name. The parties settled that action in 2000, with payment promised to Fitzpatrick for allowing Goldberg to use the Artemis name. But Fitzpatrick soon resumed use of the Artemis name ' after Goldberg's alleged failure to make the settlement payment ' and sued again in 2007. In New York, a defendant may raise a laches defense if a plaintiff waits six years to file a Lanham Act claim. The district court found:
'The earliest date on which Fitzpatrick could have known of the [Sony Music and] Red Defendants' infringement was July 6, 2000 ' the deadline for Fitzpatrick to receive the $125,000 compensation that Goldberg never paid. The latest the realization could have occurred is Sept. 15, 2000, the date Fitzpatrick resumed using the ARTEMIS RECORDS name. Under either set of facts, however, more than six years passed between the date Fitzpatrick knew, or should have known, of the infringement and the filing of his Complaint on April 12, 2007.'

Uruguay Round Agreements Act/First Amendment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided that Sec. 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (codified at 17 U.S.C. Sec. 104(A)) ' which restored copyright protection to works in the U.S. public domain that are protected by copyright in their country of origin ' is subject to First Amendment review. Golan v. Gonzales, 05-1259. The appeals court noted that 'by extending a limited monopoly to expressions historically beyond the pale of such privileges, the URAA transformed the ordinary process of copyright protection and contravened a bedrock principle of copyright law that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Therefore, under both the functional and historical components of our inquiry, Sec. 514 has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection ' [O]nce the works at issue became free for anyone to copy, plaintiffs in this case [including orchestra conductors, performers, publishers and motion-picture archivists and distributors] had vested First Amendment interests in the expressions ' In conducting its First Amendment analysis on remand, the district court should assess whether Sec. 514 is content-based or content-neutral.'