Cameo Clips

FILM PRODUCTION/MISAPPROPRIATION

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi decided that a woman seen for three seconds at a religious meeting in the movie 'Borat' could proceed with her claim of misappropriation of likeness for commercial gain. Johnston v. One America Productions Inc., 2:07CV042-P-B. 'Borat' is a pretend documentary about a fictional foreign character who films real people on the premise that he is making a movie about U.S. culture. One scene shows a Pentecostal camp in Mississippi at which Borat acts as if he has been converted. In the scene, plaintiff Ellen Johnston lifts her hands in a religious gesture. The district court noted: 'It is undisputed that the movie Borat was a commercial enterprise, shown in theaters across the United States and Europe, and is now widely distributed in DVD format. It is also undisputed that the defendants did not obtain the plaintiff's explicit permission to be featured in any other film except a 'religious documentary' that would be shown in a foreign country ' not a major motion picture shown across the nation and Europe.'

The district court also allowed Johnston to proceed with a false-light claim, explaining: '[I]t is beyond mere speculation that there are jury questions of (1) whether the Pentecostal scene portraying the plaintiff waiving her arms in religious praise in response to Borat's apparent conversion would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position ' such that a person in the plaintiff's position would believe others would believe she willingly participated in a mocking of her religion; and (2) whether 'the defendant [knew] that the plaintiff, as a reasonable [person], would be justified in the eyes of the community in feeling seriously offended and aggrieved by the publicity.”

The court dismissed Johnston's additional claims because '(1) with regard to intrusion on seclusion it is undisputed that the plaintiff was attending a public religious meeting and did not expect seclusion; and (2) with regard to the public disclosure of private facts, it is undisputed that it was not a private fact that the plaintiff attended the public meeting.'

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that middle episodes of 'The Andy Griffith Show' from the 1960s not properly renewed for copyright nevertheless were derivative works of earlier episodes and thus subject to copyright protection from unauthorized distribution. CBS Operations Inc. v. Reel Funds International Inc., 3-06-CV-0588-L. The Copyright Office had found applications for copyright renewals of episodes 80 through 95 to be untimely. Still, CBS later filed a copyright-infringement suit seeking to permanently enjoin Reel Funds from licensing those episodes for TV broadcast. Reel Funds argued that episodes 80 to 95 had fallen into the public domain.

Granting injunctive relief, the district court explained: 'Plaintiff's ownership of the copyright in the first 79 episodes gives it the exclusive rights to reproduce copyrighted work, prepare derivative works, and distribute copies. [See, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106.] A person who violates this exclusive right is a copyright infringer. ' [T]he court has little trouble determining that the 16 Middle Episodes are 'derivative' of the first seventy-nine episodes.'

The district court specifically noted: 'The 16 Middle Episodes concern the same characters as the pre-existing copyrighted first 79 episodes, namely, Sheriff Andy Taylor, Deputy Barney Fife, Aunt Bee and Opie Taylor. Reel Media has stipulated that the characters, such as Andy Taylor and Barney Fife, are sufficiently distinctive and delineated to be independently copyrightable. Further, the 16 Middle Episodes contain the same film footage and soundtrack for the opening sequence (showing Andy and Opie walking to the fishing hole while a tune is whistled in the background). The 16 Middle Episodes contain many of the same recurring themes from the initial 79 episodes ' Finally, the primary settings and sets are the same, namely, the Sheriff's office, the jail and Andy's living room.'

FILM PRODUCTION/MISAPPROPRIATION

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi decided that a woman seen for three seconds at a religious meeting in the movie 'Borat' could proceed with her claim of misappropriation of likeness for commercial gain. Johnston v. One America Productions Inc., 2:07CV042-P-B. 'Borat' is a pretend documentary about a fictional foreign character who films real people on the premise that he is making a movie about U.S. culture. One scene shows a Pentecostal camp in Mississippi at which Borat acts as if he has been converted. In the scene, plaintiff Ellen Johnston lifts her hands in a religious gesture. The district court noted: 'It is undisputed that the movie Borat was a commercial enterprise, shown in theaters across the United States and Europe, and is now widely distributed in DVD format. It is also undisputed that the defendants did not obtain the plaintiff's explicit permission to be featured in any other film except a 'religious documentary' that would be shown in a foreign country ' not a major motion picture shown across the nation and Europe.'

The district court also allowed Johnston to proceed with a false-light claim, explaining: '[I]t is beyond mere speculation that there are jury questions of (1) whether the Pentecostal scene portraying the plaintiff waiving her arms in religious praise in response to Borat's apparent conversion would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position ' such that a person in the plaintiff's position would believe others would believe she willingly participated in a mocking of her religion; and (2) whether 'the defendant [knew] that the plaintiff, as a reasonable [person], would be justified in the eyes of the community in feeling seriously offended and aggrieved by the publicity.”

The court dismissed Johnston's additional claims because '(1) with regard to intrusion on seclusion it is undisputed that the plaintiff was attending a public religious meeting and did not expect seclusion; and (2) with regard to the public disclosure of private facts, it is undisputed that it was not a private fact that the plaintiff attended the public meeting.'

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that middle episodes of 'The Andy Griffith Show' from the 1960s not properly renewed for copyright nevertheless were derivative works of earlier episodes and thus subject to copyright protection from unauthorized distribution. CBS Operations Inc. v. Reel Funds International Inc., 3-06-CV-0588-L. The Copyright Office had found applications for copyright renewals of episodes 80 through 95 to be untimely. Still, CBS later filed a copyright-infringement suit seeking to permanently enjoin Reel Funds from licensing those episodes for TV broadcast. Reel Funds argued that episodes 80 to 95 had fallen into the public domain.

Granting injunctive relief, the district court explained: 'Plaintiff's ownership of the copyright in the first 79 episodes gives it the exclusive rights to reproduce copyrighted work, prepare derivative works, and distribute copies. [See, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106.] A person who violates this exclusive right is a copyright infringer. ' [T]he court has little trouble determining that the 16 Middle Episodes are 'derivative' of the first seventy-nine episodes.'

The district court specifically noted: 'The 16 Middle Episodes concern the same characters as the pre-existing copyrighted first 79 episodes, namely, Sheriff Andy Taylor, Deputy Barney Fife, Aunt Bee and Opie Taylor. Reel Media has stipulated that the characters, such as Andy Taylor and Barney Fife, are sufficiently distinctive and delineated to be independently copyrightable. Further, the 16 Middle Episodes contain the same film footage and soundtrack for the opening sequence (showing Andy and Opie walking to the fishing hole while a tune is whistled in the background). The 16 Middle Episodes contain many of the same recurring themes from the initial 79 episodes ' Finally, the primary settings and sets are the same, namely, the Sheriff's office, the jail and Andy's living room.'