Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Two recent court rulings ' one involving the movie The Hangover: Part II and the other the TV series South Park ' considered unusual issues in challenged uses of content in entertainment productions. In Louis Vuitton Mallatier S.A. v. Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc., 11 Civ. 9436, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that Warner Brothers' inclusion of a knock-off copy of a Louis Vuitton bag in a scene in The Hangover: Part II didn't create a false designation of origin that would violate '43(a) of the federal Lanham Act. In a brief scene in the movie, Alan, one of the characters, refers to the knockoff by Diophy by saying, “Careful that is ' that is a Lewis Vuitton.”
Noting the film character's comment met the “low threshold” for an artistic relevance defense, District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. ruled that the remark “comes across as funny because [Alan] mispronounces the French 'Louis' like the English Lewis,' and ironic because he cannot correctly pronounce the brand name of one of his expensive possessions, adding to the image of Alan as a socially inept and comically misinformed character.”
In the other case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that a parody in an episode of South Park of the plaintiff's video “What What (In The Butt)” was an “obvious” copyright fair use. Brownmark Films LLC v. Comedy Partners, 11-2620. The defendants had moved for dismissal for failure of Brownmark to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Brownmark then argued that an affirmative defense like fair use couldn't be decided on such a motion.
However, converting the motion to one for summary judgment, the Seventh Circuit ruled that “the South Park episode is clearly a parody of the original WWITB video, providing commentary on the ridiculousness of the original video and the viral nature of certain YouTube videos.”
Two recent court rulings ' one involving the movie The Hangover: Part II and the other the TV series South Park ' considered unusual issues in challenged uses of content in entertainment productions. In Louis Vuitton Mallatier S.A. v. Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc., 11 Civ. 9436, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Noting the film character's comment met the “low threshold” for an artistic relevance defense, District Judge
In the other case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that a parody in an episode of South Park of the plaintiff's video “What What (In The Butt)” was an “obvious” copyright fair use. Brownmark Films LLC v. Comedy Partners, 11-2620. The defendants had moved for dismissal for failure of Brownmark to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Brownmark then argued that an affirmative defense like fair use couldn't be decided on such a motion.
However, converting the motion to one for summary judgment, the Seventh Circuit ruled that “the South Park episode is clearly a parody of the original WWITB video, providing commentary on the ridiculousness of the original video and the viral nature of certain YouTube videos.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.