Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
December 21, 2007

Copyright/Joint-Authorship Test

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that evidence supported a jury finding that movie producer Maura Flynn was co-author of the documentary, 'Your Mother Kills Animals' (YMKA). Berman v. Johnson, 1:07cv39. The jury decided that Flynn and director Curt Johnson intended to be joint authors of the documentary, and that Flynn made independently copyrightable contributions. After a dispute arose over the angle of the movie's content, Johnson had stopped communicating with Flynn and began marketing the documentary on his own. Flynn's attorney, Michael D. Steger of New York, noted that the 'trial testimony revealed that Johnson and Flynn agreed to co-produce the film, to exercise joint control over its making and to divide profits evenly, but they never put their agreement in writing.' He also said that the district court's ruling 'appears to be a case of first impression in the Eastern District of Virginia.' In its decision, the district court rejected a Ninth Circuit joint-authorship test that requires a joint author to show control over creation of the work. See, Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000). Instead, adopting the approach of the Second and Seventh Circuits,
the district court emphasized: 'the Ninth Circuit's rule is susceptible to inequitable manipulation. ' The record reflects that Flynn was contractually entitled to exercise control over YMKA and was only prevented from doing so by Johnson's wrongful conduct. It follows that to apply the Ninth Circuit's rule on these facts would violate the sensibly settled maxim that 'no one should profit by his own conscious wrong.”


DMCA Safe-Harbor Bid/Declaratory Suit

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted a defense motion to dismiss or transfer a suit that sought a declaration that the plaintiff's Internet video-hosting service was entitled to safe-harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Veoh Networks Inc. v. UMG Recordings Inc., 07-CV-1568 W(BLM). Veoh Networks claimed that all the content on its Internet service was consumer-created. 'Plaintiff seeks a far-reaching declaratory judgment that it is not liable for infringing any of Defendant's rights and is entitled to the Section 512(c) safe harbor [of the DMCA],' the district court noted. 'However, because Plaintiff does not reference any specific copyright, even by way of example, the relief requested would necessarily take the form of an advisory opinion. Succinctly, the Court cannot determine whether a safe harbor for copyright infringement exists without knowing which rights are at stake.' The court also emphasized that 'using Section 512 as a sword, rather than a shield, presents particular problems. ' In short, the safe harbor presupposes that a specific allegation of infringement has already been levied. ' Because Defendant filed suit against Plaintiff [in the Central District of California] less than a month after Plaintiff filed the instant action, the Court suspects Plaintiff is really asserting their defense in a forum of their choice.'


File-Sharing Suit/Anti-Trust Counterclaims

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.