Cameo Clips

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT/BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a finding of infringement constituted a “willful” nondischargeable debt under Sec. 523(a)(6) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In the Matter of Barboza, 06-56319. A federal jury had found Lucia Munguia Albarran and husband Antonio Barboza “willfully infringed” on several Spanish-language films. When Albarran and Barboza filed for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy judge and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ruled the couple couldn't discharge the infringement award assessed against them. The appeals court explained, however: “Appellants asserted in the District Court Action that they did not order the copies but that the infringing videos were ordered by Albarran's brother, Miguel, who made it appear that the videos were ordered by the Appellants. ' Given the possibility that the jury found Appellants liable for willful copyright infringement based on recklessness [in their supervisory role], there was no basis in the record for the Bankruptcy Court to conclude that the jury verdict in the District Court Action established that the Appellants willfully violated the Appellee's copyright for purposes of Sec. 523(a)(6).”

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that the reality TV show “Project Runway” wasn't substantially similar to the plaintiffs' TV show treatment “American Runway.” Rodriquez v. Heidi Klum Co. LLC, 05 Civ. 10218(LAP). Granting summary judgment for the defendants, the district court noted that: “[T]he concept, feel and theme of Project Runway are plainly distinguishable from those of American Runway. Project Runway does not ostensibly bend to its audience; the viewer is given a glimpse into the world of high fashion and is allowed to watch the fashion elite decide which of the contestants deserves admission into their exclusive enclave. American Runway is much more populist and inclusive; the viewer has a powerful voice in the outcome of the show, and the program caters to engaging the fashion sensibilities of its 'real American' audience.”

The court also found the defendants' work was independently created, noting that: “[U]ncontradicted evidence clearly substantiates that the central copyrightable elements of Project Runway evolved slowly over an extended period of time well before Plaintiffs' Treatment could have been available to Defendants through Plaintiffs' theory of access.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Wisconsin transferred a suit alleging copyright infringement of the songs for the rock opera “The Apple” to the Central District of California. Recht v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studio Inc., 08-cv-250-slc. Israeli songwriter Coby Recht filed suit after the Los Angeles-based MGM released “The Apple” on DVD. Recht noted it was less expensive to pursue his claim in the District of Wisconsin than in California. But the district court noted “plaintiff argues that international law entitles him to choose the Western District of Wisconsin as the forum for this litigation, citing the Berne Convention, the Trade Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and the U.S.-Israeli Agreement on Reciprocal Copyright Relations. However, the agreements that plaintiff cites guarantee only that a United States court will treat an international plaintiff's copyright claims the same way it treats copyright claims made by United States citizens. These agreements do not grant plaintiff an absolute entitlement to shop for a forum within the United States.”

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT/BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a finding of infringement constituted a “willful” nondischargeable debt under Sec. 523(a)(6) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In the Matter of Barboza, 06-56319. A federal jury had found Lucia Munguia Albarran and husband Antonio Barboza “willfully infringed” on several Spanish-language films. When Albarran and Barboza filed for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy judge and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ruled the couple couldn't discharge the infringement award assessed against them. The appeals court explained, however: “Appellants asserted in the District Court Action that they did not order the copies but that the infringing videos were ordered by Albarran's brother, Miguel, who made it appear that the videos were ordered by the Appellants. ' Given the possibility that the jury found Appellants liable for willful copyright infringement based on recklessness [in their supervisory role], there was no basis in the record for the Bankruptcy Court to conclude that the jury verdict in the District Court Action established that the Appellants willfully violated the Appellee's copyright for purposes of Sec. 523(a)(6).”

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that the reality TV show “Project Runway” wasn't substantially similar to the plaintiffs' TV show treatment “American Runway.” Rodriquez v. Heidi Klum Co. LLC, 05 Civ. 10218(LAP). Granting summary judgment for the defendants, the district court noted that: “[T]he concept, feel and theme of Project Runway are plainly distinguishable from those of American Runway. Project Runway does not ostensibly bend to its audience; the viewer is given a glimpse into the world of high fashion and is allowed to watch the fashion elite decide which of the contestants deserves admission into their exclusive enclave. American Runway is much more populist and inclusive; the viewer has a powerful voice in the outcome of the show, and the program caters to engaging the fashion sensibilities of its 'real American' audience.”

The court also found the defendants' work was independently created, noting that: “[U]ncontradicted evidence clearly substantiates that the central copyrightable elements of Project Runway evolved slowly over an extended period of time well before Plaintiffs' Treatment could have been available to Defendants through Plaintiffs' theory of access.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Wisconsin transferred a suit alleging copyright infringement of the songs for the rock opera “The Apple” to the Central District of California. Recht v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studio Inc., 08-cv-250-slc. Israeli songwriter Coby Recht filed suit after the Los Angeles-based MGM released “The Apple” on DVD. Recht noted it was less expensive to pursue his claim in the District of Wisconsin than in California. But the district court noted “plaintiff argues that international law entitles him to choose the Western District of Wisconsin as the forum for this litigation, citing the Berne Convention, the Trade Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and the U.S.-Israeli Agreement on Reciprocal Copyright Relations. However, the agreements that plaintiff cites guarantee only that a United States court will treat an international plaintiff's copyright claims the same way it treats copyright claims made by United States citizens. These agreements do not grant plaintiff an absolute entitlement to shop for a forum within the United States.”