Bit Parts

Copyright Infringement Suit over Dreamgirls Is Dismissed

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, dismissed with prejudice a copyright infringement suit filed over the movie Dreamgirls. Bailey v. Black Entertainment Television (BET), 3:09CV787. The pro se suit by plaintiff Samuel Bailey alleged BET, Paramount Pictures and Viacom infringed on Bailey's screenplay Poison Passion. U.S. District Chief Judge James R. Spencer acknowledged: “Mr. Bailey presents evidence of a valid copyright for his 'Poison Passion' screenplay from 1992. He also presents evidence, based on his other attachments, suggesting that he has been in contact with Defendant BET since 2000, incorporated as integral to his Complaint.” But the defendants had put forth a copy of a 1981 New York Times article on the Broadway production of Dreamgirls. Chief Judge Spencer went on to explain: “Defendants note in their Response memorandum that the 2006 motion picture 'Dreamgirls' was based on this Broadway production, and more importantly, the characters briefly described in Plaintiff's Complaint appear to be those described in the newspaper article. ' Bailey has not presented any evidence to rebut Defendants' assertion that the characters and storyline of the 2006 film 'Dreamgirls' that he accuses of infringement were the same characters created for the Broadway musical 'Dreamgirls' in 1981, [11] years before Mr. Bailey copyrighted his screenplay.”

Louisiana Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction over French Studio

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that a cease-and-desist letter sent by French-based StudioCanal S.A. to a Louisiana resident over use of the “TERMINATOR” name did not give the court personal jurisdiction over the film studio. Sinclair v. StudioCanal S.A., 09-7240. StudioCanal owns a series of U.S. and foreign registered trademarks related to its “TERMINATOR” film franchise. In 2009, Louisiana-based David Sinclair obtained a federal “TERMINATOR” trademark for use with cosmetic and medicated wipes and condom products. After he received a cease-and-desist letter from StudioCanal, Sinclair filed suit for a declaration of the right to use his “TERMINATOR” trademark. But District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman found no general personal jurisdiction over the film studio, noting “the fact that [movie-related] merchandise bearing the trademark TERMINATOR is available at retailers in Louisiana, or that StudioCanal financed a film (which involved no activities by StudioCanal in the forum state) and three other films were distributed through third parties in Louisiana hardly rise to the level of systematic and continuous contacts with Louisiana.” As for specific jurisdiction (i.e., StudioCanal's in-state activities related to the dispute with Sinclair), Judge Feldman found: “The sending of a cease and desist letter, without more, is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.”

Affirming a lower court ruling in favor of defendant-appellee Jessica Seinfeld, wife of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, in a copyright infringement dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted: “Our independent comparison of the two cookbooks confirms that the 'total concept and feel' of [Seinfeld's] Deceptively Delicious is very different from that of The Sneaky Chef.” Both books proffered ways to add vegetables to children's diets. Lapine v. Seinfeld, 09-4423-cv. The U.S. District the Court for the Southern District of New York had granted summary judgment for Seinfeld on plaintiff Missy Lapine's copyright and trademark infringement claims. In its unpublished opinion, the appeals court observed of Lapine's trademark claim over the book covers: “Defendants' depictions of a winking woman holding brownies near carrots or simply 'shushing' are very different from plaintiffs' considerably less detailed and less colorful image of a female chef winking and 'shushing' while holding carrots behind her back. Further, defendants' use of the famous 'Seinfeld' name reduces any likelihood of confusion regarding the marks.”

Unauthorized Use of Photo on Fiction Book Violates NY Publicity Right

The New York Supreme Court, New York County, decided that the unauthorized use of a photograph of singer/songwriter Tasleema Yasin on the cover of the defendants' fictional book Baby Doll violated New York's right-of-publicity statute, N.Y. Civil Rights Law '51. Yasin v. Q-Boro Holdings LLC, 13259/09. Yasin had earlier hired Frank Antonio to take promotional photos of her. Though Yasin didn't sign a release, Antonio later gave the defendants by written agreement the Yasin photo that appeared on the Baby Doll cover. Granting Yasin's motion for a permanent injunction, Justice Karen B. Rothenberg noted: “When a person's image is used to illustrate an article on a matter of public interest it is not considered used for the purpose of trade or advertising in violation of the statute unless the image has no real relationship to the article. ' In the instant matter, the use of Yasin's picture on the front cover of the book Baby Doll does not fall within the newsworthy or public interest exception. It is undisputed that there is no relationship between Yasin's picture and the subject matter contained in the book; which is admittedly a pure work of fiction that neither references Yasin by name or otherwise identifies her as a character in the book.”

Copyright Infringement Suit over Dreamgirls Is Dismissed

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, dismissed with prejudice a copyright infringement suit filed over the movie Dreamgirls. Bailey v. Black Entertainment Television (BET), 3:09CV787. The pro se suit by plaintiff Samuel Bailey alleged BET, Paramount Pictures and Viacom infringed on Bailey's screenplay Poison Passion. U.S. District Chief Judge James R. Spencer acknowledged: “Mr. Bailey presents evidence of a valid copyright for his 'Poison Passion' screenplay from 1992. He also presents evidence, based on his other attachments, suggesting that he has been in contact with Defendant BET since 2000, incorporated as integral to his Complaint.” But the defendants had put forth a copy of a 1981 New York Times article on the Broadway production of Dreamgirls. Chief Judge Spencer went on to explain: “Defendants note in their Response memorandum that the 2006 motion picture 'Dreamgirls' was based on this Broadway production, and more importantly, the characters briefly described in Plaintiff's Complaint appear to be those described in the newspaper article. ' Bailey has not presented any evidence to rebut Defendants' assertion that the characters and storyline of the 2006 film 'Dreamgirls' that he accuses of infringement were the same characters created for the Broadway musical 'Dreamgirls' in 1981, [11] years before Mr. Bailey copyrighted his screenplay.”

Louisiana Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction over French Studio

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that a cease-and-desist letter sent by French-based StudioCanal S.A. to a Louisiana resident over use of the “TERMINATOR” name did not give the court personal jurisdiction over the film studio. Sinclair v. StudioCanal S.A., 09-7240. StudioCanal owns a series of U.S. and foreign registered trademarks related to its “TERMINATOR” film franchise. In 2009, Louisiana-based David Sinclair obtained a federal “TERMINATOR” trademark for use with cosmetic and medicated wipes and condom products. After he received a cease-and-desist letter from StudioCanal, Sinclair filed suit for a declaration of the right to use his “TERMINATOR” trademark. But District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman found no general personal jurisdiction over the film studio, noting “the fact that [movie-related] merchandise bearing the trademark TERMINATOR is available at retailers in Louisiana, or that StudioCanal financed a film (which involved no activities by StudioCanal in the forum state) and three other films were distributed through third parties in Louisiana hardly rise to the level of systematic and continuous contacts with Louisiana.” As for specific jurisdiction (i.e., StudioCanal's in-state activities related to the dispute with Sinclair), Judge Feldman found: “The sending of a cease and desist letter, without more, is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.”

Affirming a lower court ruling in favor of defendant-appellee Jessica Seinfeld, wife of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, in a copyright infringement dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted: “Our independent comparison of the two cookbooks confirms that the 'total concept and feel' of [Seinfeld's] Deceptively Delicious is very different from that of The Sneaky Chef.” Both books proffered ways to add vegetables to children's diets. Lapine v. Seinfeld, 09-4423-cv. The U.S. District the Court for the Southern District of New York had granted summary judgment for Seinfeld on plaintiff Missy Lapine's copyright and trademark infringement claims. In its unpublished opinion, the appeals court observed of Lapine's trademark claim over the book covers: “Defendants' depictions of a winking woman holding brownies near carrots or simply 'shushing' are very different from plaintiffs' considerably less detailed and less colorful image of a female chef winking and 'shushing' while holding carrots behind her back. Further, defendants' use of the famous 'Seinfeld' name reduces any likelihood of confusion regarding the marks.”

Unauthorized Use of Photo on Fiction Book Violates NY Publicity Right

The New York Supreme Court, New York County, decided that the unauthorized use of a photograph of singer/songwriter Tasleema Yasin on the cover of the defendants' fictional book Baby Doll violated New York's right-of-publicity statute, N.Y. Civil Rights Law '51. Yasin v. Q-Boro Holdings LLC, 13259/09. Yasin had earlier hired Frank Antonio to take promotional photos of her. Though Yasin didn't sign a release, Antonio later gave the defendants by written agreement the Yasin photo that appeared on the Baby Doll cover. Granting Yasin's motion for a permanent injunction, Justice Karen B. Rothenberg noted: “When a person's image is used to illustrate an article on a matter of public interest it is not considered used for the purpose of trade or advertising in violation of the statute unless the image has no real relationship to the article. ' In the instant matter, the use of Yasin's picture on the front cover of the book Baby Doll does not fall within the newsworthy or public interest exception. It is undisputed that there is no relationship between Yasin's picture and the subject matter contained in the book; which is admittedly a pure work of fiction that neither references Yasin by name or otherwise identifies her as a character in the book.”