Cameo Clips

CHARACTER RIGHTS/COPYRIGHT TERMINATION

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the widow and daughter of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel are entitled ' under the complex termination provisions of Sec. 304 of the Copyright Act ' to recapture Siegel's half of the copyright in the comic-book character. Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., CV-04-8400-SGL (RZX). But in the lengthy ruling, the district court also decided that 'the termination notice affects only the domestic portion of Siegel's and [co-creator Joseph] Shuster's 1938 worldwide grant ('all rights') to Detective Comics of the copyright in the Superman material contained in Action Comics, Vol. 1. The termination notice is not effective as to the remainder of the grant, that is, defendants exploitation of the work abroad under the aegis of foreign copyright laws.' The court also found that the 'contentions by plaintiffs ' the recapture or accounting from the mixed use of trademark and copyright and what to do with any alteration in pretermination derivative works ' are not the subject of the present motion. ' Even though it is clear that these issues will impact the accounting of profits in some manner, they cannot be fully adjudicated based on the narrow record currently before the [c]ourt and absent a full briefing of the particular mixed uses or altered pre-termination derivative works that are specifically at issue.' The court sent to trial the issue in accounting apportionment of 'whether to include the profits generated by DC
Comics' corporate sibling's [i.e., Warner Bros./Time Warner] exploitation of the Superman copyright,' including from TV, movies and video.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment against the author of a novel who sued for copyright infringement the film studio that produced, and the short story and screenplay authors that wrote, the movie 'Brokeback Mountain.' Scott-Blanton v. Universal City Studios Productions, 07-0098 (RMU). In 1997, The New Yorker magazine published the short story 'Brokeback Mountain' by Annie Proulx. In 1998, Diana Ossana and Larry McMurtry turned the story into a screenplay. The final print of the motion picture was completed in March 2005 and released to theaters in December 2005. Pro se plaintiff Janice Scott-Blanton self-published 'My Husband Is On the Down Low and I Know About It' in March 2005.

The district court noted: 'Despite 'Down Low's' relatively late arrival on the publication scene, the plaintiff alleges that after she published the novel, the defendants incorporated protectible elements of 'Down Low' into the 'Brokeback Mountain' screenplay and motion picture and then revised and backdated the short story.' But the court emphasized that Scott-Blanton failed to present 'even a scintilla of evidence' of her allegation of 'apparent contradictions between copies of the short story in the record and other statements made by individual defendants in a series of interviews.'

The court went on to find of elements from her novel that Scott-Blanton claimed were substantially similar to the movie and screenplay, 'several are commonplace incidents and settings, which are not protected under copyright law.' And even for elements that might be protectible: 'An ordinary observer charged with viewing the works in question here may find a few oblique similarities in the plot, characters and sequence of events, but any similarities are merely coincidence,' the court concluded.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a right-of-publicity suit over a brief appearance of the plaintiff in the fictional documentary movie 'Borat.' Lemerond v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 07 Civ. 4635(LAP). Plaintiff Jeffrey Lemerond appeared in a 13-second scene in which Borat, the fictional TV personality from Kazakhstan, approached to shake Lemerond's hand on a Manhattan street corner; Lemerond ran away screaming. He signed no release for use of his image, which appeared two times in the movie and blurred in an advertisement. The district court found 'it is beyond doubt that Borat fits squarely within the newsworthiness exception to NYCRL Sec. 51 [a state right-of-publicity statute]. Of course, the movie employs as its chief medium a brand of humor that appeals to the most childish and vulgar in its viewers. At its core, however, Borat attempts an ironic commentary of 'modern' American culture, contrasting the backwardness of its protagonist with the social ills afflicting supposedly sophisticated society. The movie challenges its viewers to confront, not only the bizarre and offensive Borat character himself, but the equally bizarre and offensive reactions he elicits from 'average' Americans. Indeed, its message lies in that juxtaposition and the implicit accusation that 'the time will come when it will disgust you to look in a mirror.' Such clearly falls within the wide scope of what New York courts have held to be a matter of public interest.'

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for Niles Rodgers, co-founder in 1977 of the music group Chic, in a trademark-infringement action brought under the federal Lanham Act against two vocalists who recorded with Chic. Rodgers v. Wright, 04 Civ. 1149(RJH). Since 2003, Norma Jean Wright and Luci Martin have given concerts as 'Chic,' 'Ladies of Chic' and 'First Ladies of Chic.' Rodgers owns a federally registered service mark for 'Chic.' The district court previously entered a preliminary injunction against Wright and Martin.

The district court noted in its summary judgment ruling that 'it is beyond dispute that the release of several popular albums under the Chic mark along with consistent touring since 1977 has created a tendency in the minds of consumers to associate the Chic mark in the context of performing music groups with Rodgers and [his co-founder Bernard] Edwards' band. ' Here, defendants sometimes used the identical mark but other times performed as the 'First Ladies of Chic' or the like. The [c]ourt finds that the latter formulation and those like it are sufficiently similar to Chic so as to cause confusion. ' [I]t is beyond dispute that defendants attempted to take advantage of the name recognition and goodwill associated with the Chic mark.'

Wright and Martin argued that the Lanham Act didn't extend injunctive relief for Rodgers outside the U.S., to their concerts in Europe. But the district court found: 'Whether the eventual performance was in the U.S. or abroad, it is undisputed that defendants directed, coordinated, and operated their 'First Ladies of Chic' enterprise from the U.S. ' Moreover, defendants materially advanced their foreign infringement with their domestic infringement: as part of their effort to attract bookings and concertgoers, defendants advertised their availability to perform anywhere as 'First Ladies of Chic' on their own Web site, http://www.ladiesofchic.com/, and on the Web sites of American promoters and talent agencies, thus using plaintiff's mark in American commerce in a way that was likely to confuse domestic as well as foreign consumers.'

CHARACTER RIGHTS/COPYRIGHT TERMINATION

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the widow and daughter of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel are entitled ' under the complex termination provisions of Sec. 304 of the Copyright Act ' to recapture Siegel's half of the copyright in the comic-book character. Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., CV-04-8400-SGL (RZX). But in the lengthy ruling, the district court also decided that 'the termination notice affects only the domestic portion of Siegel's and [co-creator Joseph] Shuster's 1938 worldwide grant ('all rights') to Detective Comics of the copyright in the Superman material contained in Action Comics, Vol. 1. The termination notice is not effective as to the remainder of the grant, that is, defendants exploitation of the work abroad under the aegis of foreign copyright laws.' The court also found that the 'contentions by plaintiffs ' the recapture or accounting from the mixed use of trademark and copyright and what to do with any alteration in pretermination derivative works ' are not the subject of the present motion. ' Even though it is clear that these issues will impact the accounting of profits in some manner, they cannot be fully adjudicated based on the narrow record currently before the [c]ourt and absent a full briefing of the particular mixed uses or altered pre-termination derivative works that are specifically at issue.' The court sent to trial the issue in accounting apportionment of 'whether to include the profits generated by DC
Comics' corporate sibling's [i.e., Warner Bros./Time Warner] exploitation of the Superman copyright,' including from TV, movies and video.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment against the author of a novel who sued for copyright infringement the film studio that produced, and the short story and screenplay authors that wrote, the movie 'Brokeback Mountain.' Scott-Blanton v. Universal City Studios Productions, 07-0098 (RMU). In 1997, The New Yorker magazine published the short story 'Brokeback Mountain' by Annie Proulx. In 1998, Diana Ossana and Larry McMurtry turned the story into a screenplay. The final print of the motion picture was completed in March 2005 and released to theaters in December 2005. Pro se plaintiff Janice Scott-Blanton self-published 'My Husband Is On the Down Low and I Know About It' in March 2005.

The district court noted: 'Despite 'Down Low's' relatively late arrival on the publication scene, the plaintiff alleges that after she published the novel, the defendants incorporated protectible elements of 'Down Low' into the 'Brokeback Mountain' screenplay and motion picture and then revised and backdated the short story.' But the court emphasized that Scott-Blanton failed to present 'even a scintilla of evidence' of her allegation of 'apparent contradictions between copies of the short story in the record and other statements made by individual defendants in a series of interviews.'

The court went on to find of elements from her novel that Scott-Blanton claimed were substantially similar to the movie and screenplay, 'several are commonplace incidents and settings, which are not protected under copyright law.' And even for elements that might be protectible: 'An ordinary observer charged with viewing the works in question here may find a few oblique similarities in the plot, characters and sequence of events, but any similarities are merely coincidence,' the court concluded.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a right-of-publicity suit over a brief appearance of the plaintiff in the fictional documentary movie 'Borat.' Lemerond v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 07 Civ. 4635(LAP). Plaintiff Jeffrey Lemerond appeared in a 13-second scene in which Borat, the fictional TV personality from Kazakhstan, approached to shake Lemerond's hand on a Manhattan street corner; Lemerond ran away screaming. He signed no release for use of his image, which appeared two times in the movie and blurred in an advertisement. The district court found 'it is beyond doubt that Borat fits squarely within the newsworthiness exception to NYCRL Sec. 51 [a state right-of-publicity statute]. Of course, the movie employs as its chief medium a brand of humor that appeals to the most childish and vulgar in its viewers. At its core, however, Borat attempts an ironic commentary of 'modern' American culture, contrasting the backwardness of its protagonist with the social ills afflicting supposedly sophisticated society. The movie challenges its viewers to confront, not only the bizarre and offensive Borat character himself, but the equally bizarre and offensive reactions he elicits from 'average' Americans. Indeed, its message lies in that juxtaposition and the implicit accusation that 'the time will come when it will disgust you to look in a mirror.' Such clearly falls within the wide scope of what New York courts have held to be a matter of public interest.'

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for Niles Rodgers, co-founder in 1977 of the music group Chic, in a trademark-infringement action brought under the federal Lanham Act against two vocalists who recorded with Chic. Rodgers v. Wright, 04 Civ. 1149(RJH). Since 2003, Norma Jean Wright and Luci Martin have given concerts as 'Chic,' 'Ladies of Chic' and 'First Ladies of Chic.' Rodgers owns a federally registered service mark for 'Chic.' The district court previously entered a preliminary injunction against Wright and Martin.

The district court noted in its summary judgment ruling that 'it is beyond dispute that the release of several popular albums under the Chic mark along with consistent touring since 1977 has created a tendency in the minds of consumers to associate the Chic mark in the context of performing music groups with Rodgers and [his co-founder Bernard] Edwards' band. ' Here, defendants sometimes used the identical mark but other times performed as the 'First Ladies of Chic' or the like. The [c]ourt finds that the latter formulation and those like it are sufficiently similar to Chic so as to cause confusion. ' [I]t is beyond dispute that defendants attempted to take advantage of the name recognition and goodwill associated with the Chic mark.'

Wright and Martin argued that the Lanham Act didn't extend injunctive relief for Rodgers outside the U.S., to their concerts in Europe. But the district court found: 'Whether the eventual performance was in the U.S. or abroad, it is undisputed that defendants directed, coordinated, and operated their 'First Ladies of Chic' enterprise from the U.S. ' Moreover, defendants materially advanced their foreign infringement with their domestic infringement: as part of their effort to attract bookings and concertgoers, defendants advertised their availability to perform anywhere as 'First Ladies of Chic' on their own Web site, http://www.ladiesofchic.com/, and on the Web sites of American promoters and talent agencies, thus using plaintiff's mark in American commerce in a way that was likely to confuse domestic as well as foreign consumers.'