Copyright Renewal Rights/Unpublished Treatment
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the heirs of Maurice Richlin, the co-writer of the unpublished 1962 treatment that formed the basis for the 1963 'Pink Panther' movies, didn't own the copyright renewal rights to the treatment or to derivative works, including the motion picture. Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc., 06-55307. Richlin and treatment co-author Blake Edwards also wrote the screenplay for the 1963 movie as a work-for-hire. The appeals court found: 'Richlin failed to secure federal statutory copyright protection for the Treatment. Therefore, the Treatment as such was never invested with statutory copyright, and a right to renew the original term of statutory copyright neither vested in Richlin nor reverted to his heirs. Because Richlin neither co-owned nor coauthored the Motion Picture, neither he nor his heirs have any interest in its copyright.'
Right-of-Publicity/Newsworthiness and Incidental-Use Exceptions The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a right-of-publicity suit over the plaintiff's appearance in a four-second segment of the Academy Award nominated movie 'Super Size Me.' Candelaria v. Spurlock, 08 Civ. 1830(BMC)(RER). The plaintiff, who worked at the counter of a McDonald's restaurant, sued under N.Y. Civil Rights Law Sec. 41 for failure to obtain her consent. But the district court found that use of the film segment met both the newsworthiness and incidental-use exceptions to Sec. 41: 'The clip of plaintiff, together with others in the sequence, shows that it is difficult for McDonald's patrons to obtain nutritional information on the food served.' The court added: 'It would be impossible to reasonably characterize plaintiff's time on camera as anything more than 'fleeting.” Use of a hidden camera didn't affect the outcome of the case, the court noted.
Right-of-Publicity/Press Releases The Eastern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a right-of-publicity and Lanham Act suit by famed test pilot Chuck Yeager over mention of him in a press announcement for mobile phone service. Yeager v. Cingular Wireless LLC, S-07-2517 FCD GGH. The announcement stated: 'Nearly 60 years ago, the legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier and achieved Mach 1. Today, Cingular is breaking another kind of barrier with our MACH 1 and MACH 2 mobile command centers.' The district court noted in part: 'In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendant's publication was an 'advertising/promotional article styled as a 'Press Release' and was intended to highlight the reliability, durability, and security of defendant's cellular communications network. On a motion to dismiss, the court must take as true plaintiff's allegation that the article, although titled as a 'news release,' was really an advertisement. ' [T]he complaint sufficiently alleges that defendant used plaintiff's name and reputation for its own advantage to promote an unrelated product or theme.'
Copyright Renewal Rights/Unpublished Treatment
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the heirs of Maurice Richlin, the co-writer of the unpublished 1962 treatment that formed the basis for the 1963 'Pink Panther' movies, didn't own the copyright renewal rights to the treatment or to derivative works, including the motion picture. Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc., 06-55307. Richlin and treatment co-author Blake Edwards also wrote the screenplay for the 1963 movie as a work-for-hire. The appeals court found: 'Richlin failed to secure federal statutory copyright protection for the Treatment. Therefore, the Treatment as such was never invested with statutory copyright, and a right to renew the original term of statutory copyright neither vested in Richlin nor reverted to his heirs. Because Richlin neither co-owned nor coauthored the Motion Picture, neither he nor his heirs have any interest in its copyright.'
Right-of-Publicity/Newsworthiness and Incidental-Use Exceptions The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a right-of-publicity suit over the plaintiff's appearance in a four-second segment of the Academy Award nominated movie 'Super Size Me.' Candelaria v. Spurlock, 08 Civ. 1830(BMC)(RER). The plaintiff, who worked at the counter of a McDonald's restaurant, sued under N.Y. Civil Rights Law Sec. 41 for failure to obtain her consent. But the district court found that use of the film segment met both the newsworthiness and incidental-use exceptions to Sec. 41: 'The clip of plaintiff, together with others in the sequence, shows that it is difficult for McDonald's patrons to obtain nutritional information on the food served.' The court added: 'It would be impossible to reasonably characterize plaintiff's time on camera as anything more than 'fleeting.” Use of a hidden camera didn't affect the outcome of the case, the court noted.
Right-of-Publicity/Press Releases The Eastern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a right-of-publicity and Lanham Act suit by famed test pilot Chuck Yeager over mention of him in a press announcement for mobile phone service. Yeager v. Cingular Wireless LLC, S-07-2517 FCD GGH. The announcement stated: 'Nearly 60 years ago, the legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier and achieved Mach 1. Today, Cingular is breaking another kind of barrier with our MACH 1 and MACH 2 mobile command centers.' The district court noted in part: 'In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendant's publication was an 'advertising/promotional article styled as a 'Press Release' and was intended to highlight the reliability, durability, and security of defendant's cellular communications network. On a motion to dismiss, the court must take as true plaintiff's allegation that the article, although titled as a 'news release,' was really an advertisement. ' [T]he complaint sufficiently alleges that defendant used plaintiff's name and reputation for its own advantage to promote an unrelated product or theme.'
